Agenda item

Erection of bungalow to rear of 5 Cherry Grove (resubmission) [Rural West York Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mrs R Wardle for the erection of a bungalow to the rear of 5 Cherry Grove (resubmission).

Mr Neil Iacopi, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application on the grounds of flooding and drainage. He stated that the current flood alleviation scheme did not work and that the drainage systems proposed by the engineers were flawed and not fit for purpose. Mr Iacopi went on to state that approval of these plans would only exacerbate the issue of flooding on and around Cherry Grove.

Jane Parker, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. She stated that the application went against national planning guidelines, the neighbourhood plan and would adversely affect the character of Cherry Grove. Ms Parker claimed that the already cramped street scene would be worsened and the proposed fence would create a ‘blind’ corner for motorists and pedestrians, increasing road safety concerns on what is already a narrow street.

Mr Thompson, another local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He claimed the application was flawed and that due process had not been followed. He claimed that the official deadlines for submitting this application had expired in 2017. Mr Thompson was unhappy that the willow tree, that was supposed to remain on site, would now be removed as part of the development. He explained how important the tree was in relation to the water table and asked why it had to be removed.

Roger Brown advised Committee Members that he was speaking on behalf of the former resident of the property for whom he held power of attorney. He advised that due to high costs of care, she wished to retain the property while realising the property’s financial benefits.

Gerry Taylor, the applicant’s architect, spoke in support of the application. He informed Members that the applicants had decided to put in a full application after a pre-application enquiry with officers. Mr Taylor highlighted that whilst there was evidence of flooding at neighbouring properties, this application would not make the issue worse. This is because the current neighbourhood relied on ‘soak away’ drainage, where as the new scheme would tap into the existing combined drainage system. He confirmed that all drainage plans had been approved by CYC Drainage Engineers, the Internal Drainage Board and Yorkshire Water.

Members requested some clarification from speakers/officers regarding the shared water storage facility and whether the tree in the garden of 5 Cherry Grove would remain as planned. It was confirmed that the water storage facility would be shared between the owners of 5 and 5a Cherry Grove and officers confirmed that there was a condition in the application to protect the tree and hedge from removal.

The Council’s Flood Risk Engineer then spoke about the testing that he had carried out on site. He stated that the current soak away drainage system was not effective. He explained that the water storage facility would be an acceptable drainage solution for the property as long as the minimum discharge requirements (referred to in the officer recommendations) were met. He also confirmed that Yorkshire water and CYC would be supervising the installation of the system to ensure compliance.

Members requested clarification on the time it has taken to complete the application and whether it had missed deadlines, which was alluded to during public participation. Officers informed Members that the time it had taken was necessary in order to ensure that the decision was made on correct information.

A majority of members agreed that they were happy with the findings of the engineers and did not see any reason why the application should be refused.

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report. 

Reason:     It is considered that the proposal will add to the housing supply in a sustainable location. It is not considered that the amenity value of the existing garden is such that would preclude the development of the site. It is further considered that the scale of the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the street scene and overall character of the area, and the existing and proposed dwellings will have a garden area that is commensurate with their scale. It is considered that the proposed access and parking provision is acceptable. The site is situated within Flood zone 1, however Officers have taken account of the significant level of objection based on surface water problems in the area. Nevertheless, having taken account of the advice of both Yorkshire Water services and the Flood Risk Management Team it is considered that surface water can be disposed satisfactorily, in a manner that will not increase surface water problems in the locality.