Agenda item

2020/0828/S73 - Quarry Drop, Westfield Lane, South Milford

Minutes:

Application: 2020/0828/S73

Location: Quarry Drop, Westfield Lane, South Milford

Proposal: Section 73 application to vary condition 04 (approved plans) of planning permission 2010/0507/FUL for construction of a five-bedroom, three storey detached house

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee as the application was a minor application where 10 or more letters of representation had been received which raised material planning considerations, and where Officers would otherwise determine the application contrary to these representations.

 

The Committee noted that it was a Section 73 application to vary condition 04 (approved plans) of planning permission 2010/0507/FUL for construction of a five-bedroom, three storey detached house.

 

An Officer Update Note had been circulated to Members and made available on the Council’s website which explained that since the report had been written, fifteen letters of support had been received in respect of the application (eight from residents of South Milford, one from a resident of Sherburn in Elmet and six from people of unknown addresses). The letters of support set out that the proposed amendments to the application had no adverse impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties beyond the original permission, and that the resultant dwelling would have an acceptable design and appearance, in keeping with the local area, which would result in no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area beyond the original permission. The rationale for the amendments were sound and the family were working hard to build the dwelling under difficult circumstances.

 

The applicant had submitted written representations in response to objector comments and covered a number of points including reasons for the delays in build time, which had been due to land ownership issues, site hoarding along the Westfield Lane boundary and having to re-apply for planning permission and a Certificate of Lawfulness. The applicant also advised that they would be willing to accept a condition to limit the time to complete the development. Officers explained to the Committee that such a condition would not meet the required six tests and was not reasonable or enforceable. This had been confirmed by an Inspector under the appeal relating to planning permission reference 2018/0800/FUL.

 

The applicant also stated that even though the site was located within Flood Zone 1, it had flooded before, and therefore the applicant would like to move the bedroom from the ground floor.

 

The applicant went on to explain that the number of reported breaches of planning control were not as high as stated by the objectors, and many of these related to working hours, and that they had worked with the Council on the working hours condition to ensure it was appropriate.

Lastly, the Committee were informed that vehicles parked on High Street were not material to the application, and that the application had given objectors an opportunity to raise this as a general issue.  

 

Members considered the application and expressed some concerns around the increase in height of the building, and suggested that street scenes and further images be presented to the Committee before a decision was taken, as well as a comparison with the original permission.

 

Officers confirmed that such a comparison would be possible and that this information could be brought back to the Committee at a later date. However, some Members felt that there was enough information before them to take a decision and that the Committee should do so.

 

Officers shared some further images and plans that compared the application under discussion and the permission granted in 2010. The Committee considered the images with some Members feeling that the increase in height changed the character and scale of the building significantly, and that there were a number of other issues that required further clarity.

 

Officers explained that as an organised group site visit was not currently possible due to the Covid-19 pandemic, Officers could instead bring the application back to Members with further images and information to inform their decision.

 

Members considered this and agreed that the application should be deferred in order for more visuals to be gathered by Officers and brought back to the Committee at a future meeting. Members were also reminded that they could visit the site on an individual basis if they so wished.

 

It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred in order for more visuals and information to be gathered and presented back to the Committee. A vote was taken on the proposal to defer and was carried.

 

RESOLVED:

To DEFER consideration of the application in order for Officers to gather further visual information, and that this information be presented to the Committee again at a subsequent meeting.

Supporting documents: