Agenda item

A full application for the erection of 4 dwellings with access from Caedmon Close together with reconfiguration of existing dwelling at 8 Caedmon Close (resubmission). [Heworth Without Ward]

Members considered a full application from Mr David Todd for the erection of 4 no. dwellings with access from Caedmon Close together with the reconfiguration of existing dwelling at 8 Caedmon Close (resubmission).

Officers gave an update to the Committee, full details of which were published online with the agenda, which was republished following the meeting. Some of the details included;

·        A revised water drainage scheme that had been received

·        The outline in terms of acceptable rates of surface water run off in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

·        An amendment to Condition 16 (Foul and Surface Water Drainage Scheme)

Representations were received from Mr David Stinson, a local resident in objection. He spoke mainly about the effect that the development would have on the surface water drainage in the area. He informed the Committee that the development was at a higher elevation and so would flood the properties at a lower elevation. He added that the gully drains could not accommodate rainwater and also that the development would affect Tang Hall Beck, which if this overflowed was one of two great risks for the River Foss flooding.

Further representations in objection were received from another local resident Mr Martin Biggs. He talked about the removal of a rowan tree, the cramped access roadway, the destruction of a grass verge which provided a children’s play area, and that external visual impact of the streetscene would be degraded by the alterations to the bungalow with wooden cladding. There would therefore be a loss of visual amenity to the occupants. He felt that the application contravened section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework on visual architecture grounds and that permission should be refused because the development was of poor quality design.

Representations in objection were received from another local resident, Ann Rylatt. She spoke about the access to the development, stating that it was smaller than the minimum for fire regulations and that due to its narrowness it meant that large vehicles would have to stand at the turning point for a long time. This would lead to obstruction and a loss of residential amenity for all residents of Caedmon Close, particularly those at number 6 who overlooked the turning point, contravening the NPPF for existing residents. The development would not give priority to pedestrians or cyclists as it did not have any pavements. 

Further representations in objection were received from a local resident, Mr Hopkinson, who felt that the development would increase congestion. He added that density figures did not take into account infrastructure and that three homes should be the maximum and scale and height should also be considered.

Representations were received from Bill Symons from the Foss Internal Drainage Board. He informed the Committee that the green field run off rate proposed was a discharge of 3 litres per second. This was in relation to a 2.14 hectare field. He confirmed to the Committee that the  development was upstream from the Foss Barrier Pumps, and the water run off would go into Tang Hall Beck which the Drainage Board maintained.

In response to a question from a Member, Bill Symons confirmed  he did not feel the revised drainage scheme surface water run off rate was sufficient.

Representations in support were received from Eamonn Keogh, the applicant’s agent. He stated the privacy and amenity for existing residents of Caedmon Close would be maintained by the distance and placing of the windows in the dwellings. He stated that the Highways Officers had visited the site three times and were happy with the access, and that the Fire Officer was now satisfied. He confirmed that the density of the site would be 26 dwellings per hectare, which was below the Council’s suggested 40 dwellings per hectare in suburban areas. In reference to comments from the Drainage Board, he added that their figures were generic and difficult to achieve on small sites. He added that the diameter of pipe to achieve the discharge rate requested by the Drainage Board would be so small it would lead to flooding rather than lessening it.

In response to a Member’s question about the written comments received from the Fire Officer, the agent confirmed that the applicant would be willing to install sprinkler systems inside the houses.

Further representations were received from Mr Ron Clayton on behalf of Heworth Without Parish Council. He had concerns over density and access, as he felt there were too many houses on the site and they were too large. He told the Committee that there would be 28.7 dwellings per hectare and this would include the gardens. The Parish Council felt that there should be three houses not four on the site. He added that no turning area was detailed on the site plans and Highways Officers had requested that there be a passing place at the start, it was now half way down.

Officers were asked whether their discussions with the Fire Officer had been recorded. They confirmed that they had two telephone calls, information from which was publicly available on the Planning Portal.

Councillor Orrell moved refusal on the grounds of flooding risk, water dispersal and access arrangements. Councillor Craghill seconded this and added that she felt that fire safety should be added.

Some Members felt that as there had been no objections raised from Flood Risk Management, Highways, Yorkshire Water or the Fire Officer and that the density fell within conditions that he had no objections. They added that given a cumulative effective on drainage, perhaps it would be best to look at watercourse maintenance.

Members were advised that if they wished to refuse the application on grounds of cumulative impact on drainage that they need to have evidence on capacity and one Flood Event further upstream from the site may not be sufficient to defend the refusal.

The Council’s Flood Risk Engineer advised the Committee that there was not enough evidence about water capacity to defend a refusal. He also felt that in defence of the Drainage Board, that they had not had access to the same figures that Council Officers had. In relation to additional drainage information, he informed the Committee that they had carried out onsite infiltration testing by way of trial pits which had identified poor ground conditions to support the use of soakaways and a high water table. Discharge to watercourse was discounted due to its location some 560m away across third party land therefore an attenuated system was designed to store up to the 1 in 100 year storm + 20% climate change allowance above what was required by our SFRA. The Council’s Flood Risk Engineer advised the Committee that the applicant had produced a reliable system in line with both National and Local Design Guidance.

Councillor Orrell moved refusal of the application then Councillor Craghill seconded refusal.

On being put to the vote this was lost.

Councillor Gillies then moved and Councillor Mercer seconded approval

Following discussion it was;

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report and the update.

Reason: The proposal whilst dense in terms of its layout is felt to be acceptable within the context of the surrounding area and the pattern of scale and massing is similarly reflective of the locality. Whilst the proposed access has given rise to some concern it is felt to be adequate to serve four properties without due harm to other road users in the locality. The proposed means of foul and surface water drainage is felt to be acceptable and the application is considered to comply with the NPPF and policies GP1, GP10, H4A, NE1 and GP15A.