Agenda item

Erection of a detached dwelling. [Strensall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr and Mrs B Robson for the erection of a detached dwelling.

Officers gave an update to Members which included the following;

·        Revised plans had been received which deleted the dormer window above the garage and which amended the boundary treatment from walling to hedging. If the approved, a plans condition be amended to included reference to these revised plans.

·        Comments from the Drainage Engineer had been received which requested that a soakaways assessment be carried out to prove that the ground had sufficient capacity to accept surface water discharge, and to prevent flooding of the surrounding land and the site itself.

·        A detailed letter of objection had been received from the owners of Stockton Grange which stated that;

Heritage Asset-        There are a small number of dwellings in York designed by the renowned architect Walter H Brierley; the significance of this heritage asset should not be underestimated.

Planning History-     The Council has been positively, and until now, consistently resistant to more than one dwelling on this plot.

Current Application- The Council’s fundamental reasons for refusing the previous application have not been overcome, in fact the proposed development will cause even more harm to the significance of the heritage asset due to the following reasons;

·        Siting-  the consent for the Methodist Chapel has necessitated siting the proposed development away from the boundary with the Methodist Chapel, closer to Stockton Grange and its outbuildings.

·        Design- it cannot be said that it would preserve elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to, or better reveal Stockton Grange.

·        Scale- the benefit of reduced height is negated by its new position closer to Stockton Grange.

·        Mass- by comparison the proposed development is considerably larger than the previous one, the footprint reveals an increase of 25% causing a greater cumulative change to the setting of Stockton Grange.

·        Loss of open character- greater with this proposal which is larger and closer to the heritage asset.

·        Case Law- attention is drawn to several landmark decisions including Barnwell Manor (2014) and Pond Farm (2014), in which the Court of Appeal upheld High Court Decisions to refuse permission, on the grounds that the decision maker failed in his statutory duty to give sufficient consideration, importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings.

Additional/Revised Conditions

To amend Condition 4(ii) to delete the following wording; “Barge” boards should finish straight i.e. omit the boxing. The tile/brick corbelling or kneeler detail should be revealed in the gable ends.

A drainage condition is recommended to require full details of surface water drainage works.  If soakaways prove to be unsuitable, the condition would require that in accordance with City of York Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, peak run-off must be attenuated to that of the existing rate (based on a Greenfield run off rate of 1.40l/sec/ha).

In response to a Member’s question, Officers reported that there had not been any comments in the Officer’s report for the application for the current Laurel House relating to the acceptability or otherwise of a further house in the garden only that if such an application were to be submitted it would be assessed against the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area. In relation to the history of applications on the site, it was reported that the most recent application for a house in the garden of Laurel House had been refused. This was because the design was seen as inappropriate within the setting of the listed building, the application under consideration was lower in height than both Stockton Grange and Laurel House and corresponded with the linear pattern of the site.

Representations in objection were received from a neighbour. She told Members that she lived in Stockton Grange. She felt that the proposed dwelling was closer to and bigger in scale than Stockton Grange. As Stockton Grange was a Heritage Asset, the development had not taken into consideration the public benefit that this gave members of the public. She also felt that considerable weight had not been attached to legal precedent by the applicants.

In response to questions from Members, the neighbour elaborated that the development would not only harm views from Stockton Grange but also towards it.

Some Members asked Officers how much weight they would attach to Case Law in determining the application.

Officers responded that they felt the significance of the cases was not about the type of development that they related to but about what they said about the assessment of the application in respect of heritage assets.  The decisions were quashed because the decision maker had not shown that they had applied the requirements of the Planning Acts when determining the applications. They added that the setting of the Heritage Asset, the surroundings in which it is experienced, was not classified as an Asset in itself but consideration must be given to the harm that development within the setting could cause on the Heritage Asset (i.e. Stockton Grange).

Representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent. He informed Members how several changes had been made to the application following its refusal in 2012. This included the scale and the siting. The scale of the dwelling was now subservient to Stockton Grange and he felt that the dwelling’s setting would not impact on the prominence of Stockton Grange.

In response to Members’ questions Officers replied that drawings did not indicate that ground levels would be increased but a condition could be added to planning permission to prevent this if Members were minded to approve the application.

Officers suggested that a condition to protect trees on the North East boundary be added to permission.

Discussion between Members took place. Some Members felt that the extent to which the development would affect the setting of Stockton Grange was subjective. Others pointed out that the main view of Stockton Grange was from the public footpath not from the north. Others felt that as the public footpath was not on a direct route that the view of the church would be obscured by the dwelling. Some felt that the application should be refused as it was unacceptable to subdivide the land. Councillor Warters moved refusal on the grounds of harm to the setting of the Grade 2 listed building. Councillor Cuthbertson seconded this motion. Others felt that the reason given for refusal was not strong enough.

On being put to the vote this motion fell.

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the following amended conditions;

Reason:     As the proposed dwelling is located in a sustainable location and would contribute to meeting the housing needs of the City. The location of the proposed dwelling and its massing would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the revised scale, massing and design of the dwelling is considered to overcome the previous reason for refusal in terms of the impact on the setting of the listed Stockton Grange. It is not considered that the proposed dwelling would give rise to a significant loss of amenity to residents of neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, a sense of overbearing or loss of light.