Agenda item

Conversion of existing house into two dwellings with single storey rear extension, side and rear dormers, 2no. rooflights to front and 4no. rooflights to side – resubmission. [Haxby and Wiggington Ward]

Members considered an application which sought permission for the conversion of the existing property into two dwellings with associated extensions and alterations including a new access from Ash Lane. 

The Development Manager gave presentation on the application, noting that it was a resubmission of application 20/01958/FUL which had previously included a detached dwelling to the rear garden. He explained that the application had been refused at sub-committee in August 2021 on the basis that the proposed single story dwelling was out of character for the area.  The new application had removed the detached dwelling.

In response to Members’ questions, the Officer confirmed the garden boundaries.

Public Speakers

Paul Lee spoke in support of the application as the owner of the property.  He confirmed the garden size for one of the proposed properties would be 110 square metres, including parking and storage, he explained that he had not found any planning guidance in York for garden sizes and that close neighbours had 96 and 60 square metres.  Access would be via a private drive and that a very small number of vehicles, pedestrians use the lane on a daily basis.  He confirmed that the 3^rd dwelling had been removed due to feedback from Members on the last application.

Richard Bailey spoke in opposition to the application as a local resident.  He raised concerns regarding the size of the plot, the outlook for 1 Cedar Court and the access via Ash Lane. He suggested that parking places to the front of the property would be more appropriate and in keeping with existing properties.

Cllr Edward Pearson spoke in objection to the application as Ward Councillor on behalf of local residents. He suggested that the figures provided by the first speaker did not take into account the front gardens of neighbouring properties.  He noted that the application had removed the detached property but had not addressed the concerns of the Committee regarding garden size.   He asked that Members consider conditioning parking at the front of the property and a more equable split of the garden. He suggested that the application could be accepted with conditions.

In response to questions from Committee Members, Cllr Pearson stated that the houses close by had front and back gardens and that three houses on one driveway, with further access for two of the properties via a narrow lane, was dangerous and that there was no pedestrian access.

The Development Manager noted the following in response to further questions from Members:

·        Should the dwelling that had been dropped from the application come back for planning permission in the future, the application would be considered on its merits at the time. Granting planning permission to the current application would not weaken the authority’s position in the future.

·        It would be considered unreasonable to refuse the application based on a different refusal reason as there had not been any material changes to the application apart from the removal of the single storey dwelling and it was that dwelling that had been the basis of the previous refusal.

·        There was no local policy that stipulates minimum garden size.

Cllr Webb asked the Chair to consider whether Cllr Fisher was pre-determined based on his comments on the application at the planning meeting of 12 August 2021.  The Chair took the view that Cllr Fisher was not pre-determined and made it clear that it was the responsibility of Cllr Fisher to decide if he was or not.  Cllr Fisher stated that he had been expecting the gardens to come back to planning more evenly divided and that he was still undecided on the application.

It was moved by Cllr Galvin and seconded by Cllr Webb to approve the application. Cllr Orrell then enquired about a ‘no bonfire’ condition. The Development Manager confirmed that an informative could be added referring to the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which included the exclusion of bonfires.  Cllr Galvin, as the mover, accepted this proposal. Following a vote, the motion was carried unanimously by the Committee Members and it was therefore:

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the report, with the added informative regarding the Control of Pollution Act.

Reason:     The proposed subdivision and extension to no. 29 was not considered to harm the appearance of the dwelling or cause significant impact to neighbour amenity.  The newly created dwelling would be within a sustainable location, utilising an existing access lane which, given the modest additional vehicle movements, would not cause harm to highway safety.  The proposals thereby comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and with Publication draft Local Plan (2018) policies D1, D11, CC2 and ENV5, the draft Local Plan (2005) policies GP1 and GP10.