Agenda item

Members will consider a full application by Mr Gordon Harrison for the variation of condition 2 of permitted application 18/02129/FUL to omit footpath across the front of houses, alter position of fences between properties and erect a shed between plots 2 and 3 (retrospective). [Fulford and Heslington Ward]

Members considered a full application by Gordon Harrison for the variation of condition 2 of permitted application 18/02129/FUL to omit footpath across the front of houses, alter position of fences between properties and erect a shed between plots 2 and 3 (retrospective) at Land adjacent to 141 Broadway, York.

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the plans and the Development Management Officer provided an update containing an additional condition as follows:

Within 6 months of this permission, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority indicating the proposed boundary treatment between the private garden of plot 4 (Number 149) and the amenity open space to the front of the garden. The boundary treatment shall be provided in accordance with the approved details within three months of that approval and thereafter retained as approved.

Reason:  To ensure that there is clear demarcation between the private garden and separate non-garden amenity open space to the front.

In response to questions from members, officers clarified that the retrospective aspect of the planning application referred specifically to the shed and the fence to the front of the properties. They also confirmed that the footpath which is in private ownership, ran in front of the houses and did not link with any public footpath and was not required to do so.

Public Speakers

Peter Huxford spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the Fishergate Planning Panel.  He raised concerns that a precedent would be set if private individual overrode planning decisions. He questioned the loss of open landscaped space and stated that an opportunity to improve access to Walmgate Stray and traffic safety would be lost.

Mary Urmston spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Fulford Parish Council.  She requested that the application be deferred until an accurate site plan could be submitted.  She also stated that the additional conditions from the original planning application had not been met and that the Planning Authority would not have any control over the space should the application be approved.

Officers reported that conditions with regard to landscaping had previously been discharged as agreed.

Jeremy Fong spoke in support of the application as one of the homeowners.  He stated that the land is privately owned, evenly divided between the four properties and is maintained as gardens by each household.  There were no rights of way over the land or access to the Stray.

In response to questions from members, he confirmed the area of land to which he referred and stated that the gardens were maintained individually, and they were to remain undeveloped.

Officers confirmed the details of the previous planning applications and explained that for a section 73 application, consideration was to be given to the conditions the applicant sought to amend but decisions relating to previous applications could not be reconsidered.  It was also highlighted that further changes to the footpath which had been built to the 2018 amendment could not be made.

In response to questions from Members, it was confirmed that the gardens could not extend to the boundary and the 2018 plans were current.

Officers noted that prior to the land being developed it was open land within the urban area and not designated public land.  It remained open land with planning conditions that did not allow for the erection of buildings or other development.  They confirmed that should the planning conditions be breached that would be a matter for planning enforcement. 

The Development Manager confirmed that condition 1 (commencement of development) of the report, did not apply to a section 73 planning application and would therefore be removed.

Following debate, Cllr Fisher proposed the officer recommendation to approve the application, this was seconded by Cllr Vassie.  Members voted seven in favour and two against the motion and it was therefore:

Resolved:             that the application be approved, subject to the removal of condition 1 of the report and the addition of the tabled condition contained within the update and outlined above.

Reason:                The proposed development of four homes was set to the back of the application site to enable the frontage to be soft landscaped to retain the open character of this part of the street. Car parking, external storage facilities and the access road are to the rear and largely screened by the houses.  The houses were designed to appear to front Heslington Lane, however, the main entrance is to the rear and what appears as the front gardens are the properties main garden space.  Planning conditions exist for the site that allows the Local Planning Authority to control the erection of walls, fences and garden buildings. 

It is not considered that the absence of a path along the front gardens detracts from any necessary planning need such as providing suitable private access to the 4 homes or public access to Walmgate Stray. Although the path is shown on the approved drawings and should be provided, no planning conditions exist that require it to be retained once provided.  It is not considered that the lack of the provision/retention of the path would have a significant impact on the future use and appearance of the land within the application site that fronts Heslington Lane. 

The proposals are considered to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and the relevant policies of the emerging Local Plan.