Agenda item

Application: 2020/0191/FUL

Location: Jubilee Cottage, 13 Main Street, Thorganby                      

Proposal: Construction of 1 No. dwelling on land to the rear of Jubilee Cottage

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Members of the Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Planning.

The Committee noted that the application was for the construction of 1 No. dwelling on land to the rear of Jubilee Cottage.

An Officer Update Note had been circulated to Members and made available on the Council’s website that set out additional information and representations that had been made available since the publication of the report.

Section 1.6 of the report provided details of the relevant planning history and included application number 2018/1139/FUL, which was refused by the Planning Committee in November 2019 and subsequently appealed by the applicant. Since the report was written, the appeal decision had been received from the Planning Inspectorate. Details of the appeal decision were set out in the Officer Update Note.

The Inspector had concluded that the development “…would not be in a suitable location having regard to the sustainable development aims of Policies SP2 and SP4 of the CS and the Framework…”, upholding the first reason for refusal. The Inspector also considered that “…the proposal would have a harmful effect on levels of privacy for occupants of the existing and proposed dwellings and on the quality of outlook for occupiers of Jubilee Cottage…”, thereby also upholding the third reason for refusal. However, the Inspector stated that “…whilst the dwelling would not reinforce the prevailing linear alignment of dwellings, I find that its design and specific position in this instance would not result in material harm to the significance of the CA…”, so did not agree with the second reason for refusal.

The appeal decision represented a material consideration in the determination of the current application and, consequently, Officers were of the view that the second reason for refusal in the recommendation should be deleted. The remaining reasons for refusal would be consistent with the Inspector’s recent decision in which it was concluded that those matters attracted “…significant weight…” and were “…firmly against the proposal”. The Officer Update Note therefore also included details of the revised recommendation for refusal of the application.

Councillor S Duckett joined the meeting at this point and as such was unable to take part in the debate or decision on this item, as she had missed part of the Officer’s presentation.

Members asked questions of the Officer about the application, relating to impact on the character of the conservation area and village, and the visibility of the proposed dwelling. Officers confirmed that it was their view that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the linear nature and character of the village.

The Committee discussed the application and acknowledged a previous application on the same site, almost identical to the one under consideration, apart from the siting of the dwelling, had already been considered and refused in November 2019.

Members noted the decision of the Planning Inspectorate and that the Parish Council was still strongly opposed to the application. Members agreed that the Officer’s report was comprehensive and concluded that the application was unsuitable.

At this point Councillor J Mackman left the remote meeting due to technical difficulties and did not return.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused; a vote was taken on the proposal and was carried.

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.      The site lies within the development limits of a secondary village which is a less sustainable location. The proposed development would result in backland development  to the rear of other properties, and would not constitute the ‘filling of a small linear gap in an otherwise built up frontage’, or any of the other categories of development identified as acceptable in Secondary Villages in Policy SP4(a). The development is therefore contrary to Policy SP4(a) and consequently Policy SP2A(b), of the Core Strategy.

2.      The poor juxtaposition between the proposed dwelling and Jubilee Cottage would result in harm to the amenities of future and existing occupiers by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and overbearing. As such the development is contrary to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and chapter 12 of the NPPF.