Agenda item

Erection of 12 two storey semi-detached and terraced houses and 4 garages [Acomb Ward]

Members considered a full application submitted by Hogg Builders (York) Ltd for the proposed erection of 12 two-storey semi-detached and terraced houses and 4 garages.

The case officer updated that:

• drainage details had now been received and the Council’s Drainage Engineer had withdrawn his objections. It was therefore suggested that the reason for refusal in relation to drainage be removed. Should Members be minded to approve the application, then a condition regarding the provision of final drainage calculations should be added.

• the applicants had confirmed that, should the application be approved, they are prepared to provide funding for Kassel kerbing on the outbound bus stop opposite 9 Beckfield Lane and a BLISS (bus real time display) on the inbound bus stop opposite 19 Beckfield Lane.

• the applicants had confirmed that they would be prepared to pay a commuted sum to the Council. It was therefore suggested that the reason for refusal in relation to open spaces be removed. Should Members be minded to approve the application, then a condition regarding the provision for public open space facilities or alternative arrangements should be added.

• additional correspondence had been received from a local resident refuting claims that there were newts, baths and sparrow hawks on the site and expressing the problems that he and his neighbours have in maintaining their gardens due to size and soil conditions.

• that comments had been received from Councillor Horton who fully supported the officer recommendation of refusal.

Representations, in objection, to the proposed development were received from:

• a local resident who raised concerns over the proximity of the proposed development to existing properties, the possible effect on elderly residents, the siting of the proposed access road, the impact of the hard landscaping, the detrimental effect on the existing character of the area including loss of open space and mature trees.

• Another local resident who raised issues of overshadowing due to the height of the proposed buildings and existing land levels. He also raised concerns about the proposed boundary fence and drainage.

• the Acomb Planning Panel whose view was that the proposed two storey development was not compatible with and would overlook the current bungalows and that the traffic flow did not take account of the existing congestion near local retail premises.

• Councillor Simpson-Laing as Ward Councillor on behalf of some local residents. She stated that the drawings submitted were incorrect in places as they did not show extensions to properties, the effect of this being that the development was closer to existing properties than shown, exaggerating the issue of overshadowing/overmassing. She also raised concerns regarding traffic flows in the vicinity of the retail premises, loss of the open space as an amenity, loss of trees and the effect on wildlife and the potential increased risk of flooding due to replacement of gardens with tarmac.

A written representation, in support of the application, was received from a local resident  and circulated at the meeting which raised the following points:

• Gardens are private gardens and not a communal amenity – there is no evidence of historic tree planning on the plot and no public access.
• Some Beckfield Lane residents have difficulties in maintaining their long gardens. The proposed scheme makes sensible use of land which is increasingly difficult to maintain in its present state.
• There are security issues in relation to long gardens.
• The character of the area prior to the building of houses on Runswick Avenue.
• The development would provide good quality family housing in a convenient and desirable location.

Representations in support of the proposed development were received from the Planning Consultant who addressed the reasons given for the recommended refusal of the application. He stated that the development was in a sustainable location and the character of the area was mixed with no predominant building form. Furthermore he didn’t feel the proposed buildings would be overbearing and would only generate a low level of traffic.

Members discussed the proximity of the proposed development to the existing bungalows, the density and heights of the proposed housing,  traffic issues and the loss of trees and scrubland.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.¹

REASON:                  (1)       The density of the development is too high in relation to the existing character and form of the area.  The character and form of Runswick Avenue is semi-detached bungalows.  The 2-storey houses proposed would look out of character with the area when seen in this context.  In addition the scheme, if approved, would require the removal of a number of mature trees and the almost all of the area open space.  Both of these greatly add to the character and greenness of the area.  Their complete loss would have a significant impact upon the immediate area.  As a consequence the proposed scheme fails to satisfy draft local plan policy GP10, parts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and part (l) of policy GP1 and also PPS1 and PPS3.  Furthermore the scheme fails to satisfy the requirements of policy GP9 which requires suitable landscaping schemes to be submitted as part of an application.

                                    (2)       The scheme if approved would have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of adjacent neighbouring dwellings.  In particular there would be significant detrimental impact upon 9 and 11 Runswick and 18- 36 (even numbers) due to vehicular movements of traffic entering and leaving the site and also vehicular movement within the site in such close proximity to residents primary rooms i.e. their bedrooms and living rooms, but also their gardens.  In addition, due to the inappropriate height of the proposed scheme, overlooking of neighbours private rear gardens would occur and also intrusion into their principal living rooms.  In particular no.'s 38, 40 and 42 would be particularly affected, due to the difference in land levels between the site and their dwellings.  The scheme would also create intrusion towards existing adjacent neighbours due to being overbearing and un-neighbourly.  As a consequence the proposal fails to satisfy policy part (i) of draft policy GP1 of City of York Local Plan and PPS1 and PPS3.

                                    (3)       No sustainability statement has been submitted, furthermore no details have been submitted regarding how the proposal satisfies points (a) to (i) of the policy GP4a.  Policy GP4a requires the submission of a sustainability statement with every planning application.  Without this document the Council cannot judge the sustainability of the scheme against this policy or the requirements of policy GP1 (j) which requires applications to accord with sustainable design principles.