Agenda item

The application seeks full planning permission for the provision of two dwellings at the rear of 62 Heworth Road, which is a two storey property fronting the public highway with rear outbuildings and linear garden plot. The site comprises a collection of buildings in the northern part immediately south of no.62 and an area to the south that is undeveloped with overgrown vegetation. It is accessed by an existing private lane that also serves the Nags Head Public House to the west and commercial building behind it. The area of land is bounded to the east and south by residential properties on Heworth Road and East Parade. It lies within the Heworth/Heworth Green/East Parade/Huntington Road Conservation Area No.5 (“Heworth CA”). The site falls within Flood Zone 1 (low probability).

Members considered an application which sought full planning permission for the provision of two dwellings at the rear of 62 Heworth Road, which was a two storey property fronting the public highway with rear outbuildings and linear garden plot. The site comprised a collection of buildings in the northern part immediately south of no.62 and an area to the south that was undeveloped with overgrown vegetation. It was accessed by an existing private lane that also served the Nags Head Public House to the west and commercial building behind it. The area of land was bounded to the east and south by residential properties on Heworth Road and East Parade. It lay within the Heworth/Heworth Green/East Parade/Huntington Road Conservation Area No.5 (“Heworth CA”). The site fell within Flood Zone 1 (low probability).

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application. A question was raised by a member regarding amenity space, officers responded that the only outside space for 62 Heworth Road was its driveway.

Public Speakers

Lee Vincent, an architect and agent acting on behalf of the applicant spoke in favour of the application. He emphasised that he considered the proposal to be modest in nature and referred to the mitigation efforts on the impact on neighbouring properties. He explained that in his opinion the property would provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, he also referred to the positive impact the development would have on biodiversity, and he referred to development’s adherence to the City of York Council’s Climate Change Policy. Referring to a previous question from a member, he clarified that the driveway for 62 Heworth Road was at the front of the property and that the area marked driveway on the papers was in fact an amenity space.

Molly Newton, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. She raised her concerns that the development would not create affordable housing and would have a detrimental impact on biodiversity, claiming that it did not take into account that the area is a priority habitat. She referred to the heritage plum tree in her garden, which had been mislabelled as an ordinary apple tree, concerned that the development would affect its roots. She also suggested that the Council’s Biodiversity Action Plan had not been adhered to, stating that a detailed ecology report had not been carried out. Finally, she stated that she had not been consulted on the impact of the development on her property, and raised concerns about the impact of increased traffic near the local primary school.

In response to a question from members, Mrs Newton stated that her greatest concern in regards to biodiversity was that three trees were due to be felled with no plans for them to be replaced. Furthermore she stated that there had been no communication from the applicants at any stage regarding air, light or noise pollution.

Cllr Robert Webb (Ward Councillor for Heworth Ward) spoke in opposition to the application. He emphasised that the property the application related to was situated in a conservation area and referred to the National Planning Policy Framework provisions for such areas. He explained the he considered the proposal to be harmful to a heritage asset and  in his opinion the current proposal is not dissimilar to an application for the same site rejected last year. Finally, he raised concerns around increased traffic levels around the local primary school.

In response to questions from members, Cllr Webb stated that the development is surrounded by residential properties which would be able to view it and that access to the development would be shared with the nearby pub.

In response to further questions from members, officers stated that:

·        Trees in conservation areas are afforded extra protection, although on this occasion the consulted landscape architect had determined that none of the trees due to be felled were worthy of a tree protection order, which is why there were no proposals to replace them in the application. Furthermore, there would be little space left after the development for the planting of any replacement trees.

·        That root protection measures for the heritage plum tree on Mrs Newton’s property could be conditioned if required by members.

·        It was possible to have discussions with the applicant around replacing the trees outside of the proposed development, but that may prove difficult.

Following debate, it was moved by Cllr Crawshaw and seconded by Cllr Lomas to reject the application. A named vote was taken, with Cllrs Crawshaw, Fisher, Lomas, Melly, Perrett, Waudby and Hollyer voting in favour and Cllr Galvin voting against. It was therefore:

Resolved: That the application is refused.

Reason:

1 - The proposed erection of 1 dwelling and the conversation of an outbuilding to a dwelling by virtue of their scale, design and layout would result in the creation of dwellings which would be out of keeping with the existing character of the locality and result in significant harm being caused to the character and appearance of the area which is considered unacceptable in principle. The proposals would constitute an overdevelopment of a constrained site which contributes to the character and layout of the area and is considered to be inappropriate for a development of this nature in this location. The proposals would therefore conflict with Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), in particular paragraphs 130 and 134 and Policy D1 of the emerging Publication Draft City of York Local Plan 2018.

2 - It is considered that insufficient information has been submitted to enable an assessment of the impact the proposal  will have on the trees both on an adjoining the site and the associated biodiversity impacts. The proposal would, therefore not be in accordance with guidance contained within section 15 of the NPPF and policy GI4 (Trees and Hedgerows) of the Publication Draft Local Plan (2018).