Agenda item

Application: 2020/1300/FUL

Location: Tamwood, Station Road, Riccall

Proposal: Demolition of the existing dwelling, and construction of seven residential properties

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee due to the number of objections received which were contrary to the Officers’ recommendation to approve, and in addition at the request of the local Ward Member.

Members noted that the application was for the demolition of the existing dwelling, and construction of seven residential properties.

The Committee asked questions of the Officer regarding the preservation of trees on the site and tree surveys, the density of development, the provision of parking and the space for larger vehicles such as delivery and refuse lorries, the withdrawal of previous applications by the applicant, design of the scheme and the functionality of the chimneys.

Officers confirmed that the trees on site had been considered by an expert who was content that they could be retained, and that the proposals for seven properties did not constitute overdevelopment. The County Ecologist considered the site’s bat surveys as completed and was satisfied with the proposed scheme; bat tubes and nest boxes for birds would be provided and was a matter which would be conditioned. Officers were unable to confirm if the chimneys on the properties would be decorative or functional; this would be for the applicants to answer.

In attendance remotely at the meeting was an Officer from the North Yorkshire County Council Highways Team, who expressed the view that there would be sufficient space on site for lorries and refuse vehicles.

The Officer Update Note set out changes to the scheme design (site plans and plot layouts/elevations), an updated ecology report regarding bats, clarification from the arboriculturist on tree retention, revisions to existing conditions and the addition of various new conditions.

Mr Matthew Pardoe, objector, was invited remotely into the meeting and spoke against the application.

Mr Brian Keen, parish council representative, was invited remotely into the meeting and spoke against the application.

Councillor John Duggan, objector, was invited remotely into the meeting and spoke against the application.

Mr Lee Vincent, agent, was in attendance at the meeting in person and spoke in favour of the application.

Members debated the application in detail and expressed their concerns about the scheme. The Committee noted that whilst there were several revised drawings, the changes had been relatively minor and as such had not required re-consultation.

Councillors referenced the recent site visit by the Committee and as a result repeated their concerns regarding space on Station Road for larger vehicles.

Some Members expressed their support for the application and stated that it was preferable to build in already built-up sites such as the one currently before the Committee, as opposed to the open countryside. No issues had been raised by North Yorkshire County Council and trees on site would be retained. 

It was felt by the majority of the Committee that the main issues with the proposals were highways, residential amenity, nature conservation, the impact on the character of the local area and the impact on the conservation area. Whilst the application could not be refused on highways or density grounds, there were still significant concerns from Members around nature conservation. The retention of trees was very important, more so than ever with the low carbon agenda, and there was no positive contribution to conservation in the scheme, despite the site being surrounded on three sides by the conservation area. Trees on the site would be damaged or put under threat and the spaciousness of the plot being lost had already been acknowledged by the Conservation Officer.

Members disagreed with the Officer’s recommendation in the report as it was contrary to policies SP 4(c), SP 18, SP 19, ENV 25 and ENV 1(i)(5).

The Chair informed the meeting that he would be abstaining from any decision on the application as he was not present at the meeting at which it had first been considered and had also not attended the site visit.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused for the following reasons: detrimental impact to the setting of the conservation area, overdevelopment of the site with the loss of residential amenity, the lack of parking facilities and highways safety issues and that the privacy of neighbours would be compromised by overlooking and overshadowing.

A vote was taken on REFUSAL and was carried.

RESOLVED:

1.     To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

·     the detrimental impact to the setting of the conservation area;

·     the overdevelopment of the site with the loss of residential amenity;

·     the lack of parking facilities and highways safety issues;

·     that the privacy of neighbours would be compromised by overlooking and overshadowing; and

2.     To delegate to Officers the agreement of the precise wording, in consultation with Councillor J Mackman and Councillor R Packham.