Agenda item

Erection of 1no. three storey dwelling with storage building to rear following demolition of existing dwelling [Micklegate] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr and Mrs M Nicholas for the erection of a 1no. three storey dwelling with a storage building to the rear following the demolition of an existing dwelling.

An update to the Committee report was circulated, full details of which are attached to the online agenda for this meeting. The main points were as follows:

·        The Tadcaster Road Conservation Area was designated in 1975. The area excludes the application site. It extends north from the site to include the semi detached properties opposite the site and a further semi detached pair fronting Mount Vale.

·        To the original submission there were 17 objection responses and 1 letter of support from local residents, and 1 letter of objection from an interested party.

·        To a revised proposal there had been 4 letters of objection and 1 letter of support from local residents at the time the Officer’s report was written and 15 responses in objection and comments from 10 neighbouring properties since the report was finalised.

·        The 15 responses reiterated previous concerns about the design of the building, impact on the local environment amenity and public safety during construction.

·        Councillor Hayes wished for Members to made aware of the views of the 17 local residents on Trentholme Drive who had objected to the scheme.

·        Two of the responses from R and C Lee and D and S Finch were circulated at the meeting (they were subsequently attached to the online agenda following the meeting).

·        The Conservation Architect did not consider that there were grounds to refuse the application and it would be unlikely that the dwelling would warrant inclusion on the Local Heritage List.

·        The Council’s Landscape Architect requested widening of the vehicle access be omitted from the scheme to avoid damage to the Cherry tree and requested a condition to be added to permission if granted.

·        Two additional drawings had been submitted to support the application- a shadow analysis and an overlooking analysis.

·        Late revisions had been made to the drawing numbers following the site visit and comments from the Landscape Architect:

·        1197_AR50_01_F-Proposals

·        1197_AR50_01_C-Roof Plan

Questions from Members related to the air source heat pump and the enforcement of informatives. In response Officers stated that the Environmental Protection Unit requested a condition be added to permission to mitigate any noise from the air source heat pump. In relation to those informatives that could be enforced, it was reported that the hours of construction and demolition could be enforced.

Representations in objection were received from a local resident, Ross Lee. He made reference to several sections of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and how he felt that the application did not meet the necessary requirements as the application did not include a heritage assessment that considered the impact the property would have on the Conservation Area.

Further representations in objections were received from Daryl Goddard who lived next door to the property. He raised concerns about significant overlooking and felt that a three storey building would be overbearing. He also had concerns about noise that would be emitted from the terrace and wished for the air source heat pump to be relocated away the side of the house facing his garden. Finally he felt that the design of the building did not improve the quality of the area and was inappropriate for the site.

Representations were received from the applicants Barbara and Mike Nicholas. They attended along with their architect to answer any questions that Members might have had. They explained that they had looked at extending the existing property with dormer windows but this had not been possible. The plans under consideration were developed in consultation with Planning Officers and had been amended recently following the site visit to take away the rear terrace in order that the concern of overlooking would be negated.

Members asked the applicant why they decided to demolish the building and why they built the dwelling to that height. The applicant responded that this was due to in part to it being a four bedroomed house. A single storey section had been retained next to 2 Trentholme Drive. In response to a further question, the applicant confirmed that the heat pump could be relocated and that noise could be mitigated . If it caused a nuisance the applicants would be willing move it  to an alternative location.

Further representations were received from Councillor Kramm, the Ward Member. He stated that objections had been received regarding the preservation of the cottage and that some had suggested nominating the Gamekeeper’s Cottage in the grounds of Trentholme Drive for listing. He felt that this should be taken into consideration when Members made their decision. He added that the design of the building would be out of character with the estate as the existing buildings were two storeys with pitched roofs.

Following reference to the application site’s location and heritage assets, Officers stated that the Planning (Listed Building Conservation Areas) Act 1990 established a duty for Local Authorities to pay special attention to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) gave additional advice in Paragraph 128 saying that the level of detail required to support an application should be proportionate to the assets’ importance . The Officers reminded Members that the application site was not in the Conservation Area and that the building was not listed. Further to this, in discussion with the Conservation Architect, it was considered that the proposal did not conflict with the duty set out in the 1990 Act nor conflicted with guidance in the NPPF. Members were reminded that as the property was not located in the Conservation Area, the main issue was the impact on the setting of the Conservation Area itself.

Some Members expressed concern at the applicants referring to gaining consent on appeal if planning permission was refused. They also considered that the scale and massing of the property would be incongruous, that the design was not  exceptional or innovative, and that anything that went on the site would impact the Conservation Area.

Other Members felt that although the design might not be in character with the surrounding buildings, that it would mellow down in time. They felt that some neighbouring properties such as at 145 were more overbearing than the proposal.

Councillor Derbyshire moved refusal. Councillor Shepherd seconded refusal.

On being put to the vote this was declared LOST.

Councillor Carr moved approval. Councillor Gillies seconded approval.

Resolved:  That the application be approved with the following amended conditions;

2. Drawing no. 1197_AR50_01_F 'Proposals', dated 5/11/15;

    Drawing no. 1197_AR20_01_C 'Roof Plan', dated 5/11/15.

11. A suitable and sufficient noise barrier shall be designed by a qualified acoustician. Prior to the construction of this noise barrier a report shall be submitted to the Local Authority for approval. Once approved, the noise barrier shall be fully erected and implemented before the proposed use of the condenser units and shall be appropriately maintained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjacent residential gardens

Reason: It is considered that the dwelling would be compatible with the surrounding residential land use, would not result in demonstrable harm to surrounding properties. As such the proposal accords with Central Government advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and with Development Control Local Plan policies outlined in section 2.2 in particular GP1 (Design), GP4a (Sustainability), HE2, (Development in Historic Locations), HE10 (Archaeology) and H4a (Housing Windfalls).