Agenda item

Erection of two storey dwelling [Acomb Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered an outline application for the erection of a two storey dwelling.

Officers advised that Flood Risk Management had not submitted any objections subject to the attachment of the two conditions as detailed below:

1.      The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water.

Reason: In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.

2.      No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off site works, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Soakaway and infiltration methods of dealing with surface water should be considered before discharging to the existing public sewer network. If SuDs systems are unsuitable, developments must be attenuated to 70% of the existing rate and accommodate a 1:30 year storm with no surface flooding and a 1:100 year storm with no surface flood or internal flooding of buildings. A topographical survey should be undertaken showing existing and proposed ground and finished floors. Development should not be raised above the level of adjacent land.

Reason:  So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with these details for the proper and sustainable drainage of the site.

Officers also advised that since the report had been written, two further objections had been received. Those issues raised which had not already been identified in the committee report related to:

·        A request that the application is a full planning application rather than outline so full details of the scheme are known;

·        Concerns over the proximity of the dwelling to its neighbours and safety concerns over spread of fire between properties; and

·        Concerns that the proposed retention of the trees cannot be enforced.

Members noted that the pattern of development in the area was quite distinctive and felt that that the proposals would impact negatively on the character of the area. The commented that even if there was technically enough space for the building to fit on the site, it would feel as if it was shoehorrned onto the site.

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reason:     The erection of the proposed dwelling would result in the loss of an important gap in the street scene, resulting in a loss of openness and a form of development that is uncharacteristic of the established layout and pattern of development in the locality. The proposed dwelling would have no rear garden, a small side garden and front garden half given over to the parking of vehicle(s). The host dwelling would be left with a side/front wrap-around garden only which would be uncharacteristic of the local area, some of which would be for parking of vehicle(s). The incongruous nature of the development would be further emphasised by the tall boundary treatment to the front and sides which is out-of-character in the neighbourhood. Together, these elements would be in stark contrast with the established character and pattern of development.

The proposals therefore conflict with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012), particularly paragraphs 9, 17, 53 and 58 and the objectives of Policies GP1, GP10 and H4a of the City of York Draft Local Plan adopted for development control purposes (2005). These policies seek to protect spaces between and around buildings that contribute significantly to the character of an area and for residential amenity. For housing windfalls development should be of an appropriate scale and density to the surrounding area and it is found that the proposed dwelling and its host would appear uncharacteristically cramped within the neighbourhood with small garden space.

The introduction of a two-storey property situated just 1.1m from the property boundary and rear garden at No.231 Beckfield Lane would appear unduly dominating, oppressive and overbearing and would create an unwelcome sense of enclosure to the garden/amenity space of the property. This would be contrary to the NPPF which seeks to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings (paragraph 17) and that development proposals should

positively improve the quality of the built environment and people's quality of life (paragraph 9). The proposals are also contrary to Policy GP1of the Draft Local Plan (2005) which explains that development proposals should ensure residents living nearby are not dominated by overbearing structures.