Agenda item

Erection of one detached dwelling.

[Skelton, Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Miss Emma Brownbridge for the erection of a detached dwelling.

Officers advised that in response to the comments of the Council’s Landscape Architect, the agent had stated that the proposed house would enjoy an un-shaded garden from morning through until late afternoon in the summer months. The agent had also requested that the application be determined on the basis of the submitted plans disregarding the boundary fence line on site.

Officers stated that if Members were minded to approve the application, it was requested that delegated authority be given to Officers to approve the application with any additional conditions following the receipt of comments from Yorkshire Water. They requested that an additional condition was included to require a tree protection method statement to be submitted for approval in line with the comments of the Landscape Architect.  

A registration to speak had been received from Mr Kevin Stones but he was not in attendance at the meeting.

Some Members raised concerns with regard to the amenity of the future residents of the proposed house due to its small size. They questioned whether it was overdevelopment of the plot advising of the need to consider the size of the remaining garden at no 11 for future residents of this property. It was suggested that the development could lead to a loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties at numbers 11, 15 and 17 Halifax Court and that the trees on western boundary could cause problems in future years.

With regard to concerns raised in relation to the development of gardens, Officers confirmed that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that local authorities may wish to put in place a policy restricting the development of residential gardens, and policy GP10 of the Draft Local Plan was in accordance with the NPPF.  This allows for sub division of plots where it was not detrimental to the amenity and character of the local environment and was of an appropriate scale and density and would not impact on existing landscape features.  

Members noted they were constrained by what the applicant had delineated as the site boundary on the application. Whilst the fence line on the site did not reflect the drawing they acknowledged that they were unable to control this. With regard to access onto Water Lane, they noted that highways did not object to the application subject to conditions and an informative. They acknowledged that the proposals complied with planning policy.

Resolved: That delegated authority be given to officers to approvethe application with any additional conditions following the receipt of comments from Yorkshire Water, and with the addition of a condition to require a tree protection method statement to be submitted for approval in line with the comments of the landscape architect.¹

Reason:     The proposal represents the efficient use of land in a sustainable location at low risk of flooding and for a use that is compatible with the surrounding area.  The proposed house would be of traditional design and comparable in its scale to surrounding buildings.  Its access and parking arrangements are acceptable in terms of highway safety. Drainage from the site could be satisfactorily addressed. The building would not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area due to the differing housing styles and informal layout of the street.  The site could accommodate the dwelling proposed without causing substantial harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents.  The property would be in close proximity to mature trees within a neighbouring property and, whilst the dwelling could be built without harm to the trees, it would have a smaller useable garden and experience significant shade form the trees in the summer months. However, on balance, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in planning terms, subject to conditions.