Agenda item

Erection of 2no. semi-detached 4 storey dwellings with associated garages, in connection with (06/01704/CAC) [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a full application, submitted by Westwood Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd, for the erection of two semi-detached four storey dwellings with associated garages, in connection with (06/01704/CAC).

The case officer updated the Sub-Committee on the following points:

·        There was a correction to paragraph 1.5 of the Committee report – last scheme approved April 2007.

·        Drawing 07A had been received. This clarified the details of the entrance steps, paving stones and the retaining wall to the lightwell. The Council’s Landscape Architect advised that the proposed works, based on the plans posed no more of a risk to the  (Chilean Pine) tree than the previously approved scheme.

·        It was requested that Condition 8 regarding tree protection be expanded, to include the requirement for an exclusion zone where works/storage may not occur. The exclusion zone was to be checked on site by Officers at specific times before and during the works.

·        The Planning Panel had no objections to the proposed development

·        An additional thirteen objections had been received bring the total to eighteen. These were as follows:

·        This proposed building is closer to the neighbour and would restrict/lead to a loss of light and space.

·        The garages and driveways would add to the loss of openness as a consequence of the development.

·        Although houses opposed to flats are welcomed, the design is poor, in particular the garages which would be uncharacteristic of the area.

·        This would be crowded, overdevelopment of the street that would harm the conservation area – suggest there be only 1 house and site and that it only be 3 storeys in height.

·        There would be an overall loss of openness.

·        There would be an impact on the Monkey Puzzle tree due to the excavations required basement level and proximity of the proposed building.

·        The entrance steps shown on the plans and elevations are inconsistent. They would also affect the tree in the front garden.

·        The building would be out of keeping with the established front and rear building lines.

·        The building would fail to preserve the appearance of the conservation area. The design is confused, superficial and a pale reflection on its surrounds. The rear elevation is a visual disaster. The design is not of architectural merit nor is it in character with the street.

·        The would be a loss on 2 on street parking spaces.

·        There would be no turning space within the plots and this would lead to vehicles parking on the road.

·        Should the development commence there should be no obstruction of the street or damage to the Yorkshire stone pavements. Vehicles should be required to park in Marygate car park.

·        There would be disruption during building works.

Representations were received, in objection, from a local resident who said that the economy of York relied on tourism and Members should bear this in mind when considering new planning applications; especially in terms of what proposed developments could add to the local area and the City as a whole. He said that St Mary’s was a street in the conservation area and it was hoped that the proposed site could be left open or at the very least, filled with a building of a good quality contemporary design.

Representations were also received, in objection, on behalf of St Mary’s conservation Group who said that the existing building was not harmful to the area and respected the building line. The proposed development was of a poor quality and design and did not respect the building lines of the street. He said that the proposed development would have a negative impact on the appearance of the local area.

Representations were received, in support of the application from the Applicant who raised the following points:

·        Planning permission had already been granted for seven apartments.

·        The Housing Assessment highlighted that there was a need for family homes and this is why the present proposal was before the Committee.

·        The proposed dwellings would not be any closer to other properties than the existing house.

·        There had been no objections from the highways department.

Members discussed the proposed scheme and thought that it was an improvement on the one already approved as it provided more garden space and much needed family homes.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.¹

REASON:                  That the proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to the character and appearance of the conservation area and setting of nearby listed buildings, landscape features, amenity, highway safety, flood risk and protected species.