Agenda item

Application: 2021/1295/REM

Location: Yew Tree House, Main Street, Kelfield

Proposal: Reserved matters application (following the 2017/0701/OUT) including access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 6 No dwellings

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee as 12 letters of representation had been received, which raised material planning considerations in objection to the scheme; Officers would otherwise determine the application contrary to these representations. The item was also deferred from the 8 December 2021 meeting to seek amendments for the following:

·           a design that better reflected the Conservation Officers’ comments;

·           addresses issues of over development;

·           minimum privacy distances;

·           reduction in the number of accesses; and

·           differing and smaller house types.

Members noted that the application was a reserved matters application (following the 2017/0701/OUT) including access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 6 No dwellings.

Officers presented additional information provided within the Officer Update Note, which included additional highways consultation on the amended plans, amended plans submitted by the applicant to address highway concerns i.e., parking and turning and clarification of matters relating to condition 7.

The Committee asked numerous questions of the Officer about the scheme, pertaining to bin numbers and storage, the current depth of some gardens and the potential extension of gardens beyond the boundary hedge, the absence of a tree survey, the landscape plan, proposed tree planting, streetlighting, the scale of development in a secondary village, the impact on a non-designated heritage asset and appropriate screening of the scheme.

Officers addressed Members’ questions by explaining that the issue of bin storage had been recognised and that only two properties would use the main highway when putting out bins for collection. It was acknowledged that there was some visual impact from this and as such, Members suggested that this should be looked at again.

With regards to garden extensions, the Committee noted that a previous reserved matters application had more land with the proposal which extended between three and five metres, giving the properties more usable amenity space. The red line on the plans did not reflect the outline consent; as such, the gardens were shallower with gated access to the land at the rear. Officers confirmed that should the application be granted, the applicants had indicated that they would apply to extend the gardens.

In relation to tree planting, Officers explained that no concerns had been expressed by Yorkshire Water, but that the amended plans for Plot 4 may need to be checked again for changes. Members were also made aware that, following on from the query on the relocation of streetlights, this was a matter that would be the responsibility of the Highways Department at NYCC and would be at the applicant’s expense.

The scale of development in a secondary village had been raised by the Committee; Officers explained that the original indicative plan was originally less intensive, but that there had been some condensing of scheme, which had been of concern to some Members.

It was acknowledged by Officers that the gardens for of plots 4, 5 and 6 were small, and accepted that it could be due to the number of houses proposed for the site; adjustments to the layout had been attempted but had not been successful. Officers therefore felt that the proposed garden dimensions were acceptable.

Members were informed that the application had been previously deferred in order for more suitable screening from the neighbouring heritage asset to be explored, but the agent for the application had maintained that the scheme was not in a Conservation Area. The Conservation Officer that considered the proposals had also stated that the scheme related to non-heritage assets. When the application was originally debated in 2017, the existence of the historic courtyard had been noted; however, the Conservation Officer had not looked at the current application from the viewpoint of the existence of a heritage asset, as it was not designated. As such, it could be demolished. Listed status could be applied for which would give it more weight, but at present, that was not its designation. There was no heritage statement relating to the application, which had been requested by the Conservation Officer.

Mark Thompson, objector, was invited to speak at the meeting and spoke against the application.

Rachael Bartlett, agent, was invited to speak at the meeting and spoke in favour of the application.

Members debated the application further and acknowledged that even though the outline permission had been agreed by the Committee, there was a strong view that there were a number of matters that needed further attention by the applicant and Officers. These matters were the need for a design that better reflected the character of the historical settlement; that issues of overdevelopment were addressed, as well as layout, and garden size afforded to plots 4, 5 and 6; that there was a more considered landscaping scheme informed by a tree survey that took into account any boundary trees, tree protection, the position of the proposed trees in relation to the dwellings and Yorkshire Water standoff distances; and the need to address the frontage bin issue.

As such, deferral of the application was agreed as the preferential way forward for the Committee. Members were made aware of the upcoming deadline for determination of the scheme and the possible need for the applicant and agent to revisit the scheme and potentially undertake a fundamental replan of the proposals.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be DEFERRED. A vote was taken and was carried.

RESOLVED:

That permission be DEFERRED in order for the following matters to be addressed by the applicant:

·      the need for a design that better reflected the character of the historical settlement;

·      that issues of overdevelopment be addressed, as well as layout, and garden size afforded to plots 4, 5 and 6;

·      to develop a more considered landscaping scheme informed by a tree survey that took into account any boundary trees, tree protection, the position of the proposed trees in relation to the dwellings and Yorkshire Water standoff distances; and

·      the need to address the frontage bin issue.