North York Moors National Park Authority. Director of Planning s Recommendation

Transcription

1 23 July 2015 List Number 1 North York Moors National Park Authority Scarborough Borough Council (North) Parish: Danby App Num. NYM/2015/0150/FL Proposal: Location: Applicant: Agent: construction of 1 no. local occupancy dwelling with associated access, parking and amenity space following demolition of existing garage land adjacent to 85 High Street, Castleton Mr & Mrs Sanderson, 85 High Street, Castleton, YO21 2DB David Bamford Architects, The Old Grammar School, Manor Square, Otley, LS21 3AY Date for Decision: 01 May 2015 (extended to 14 August 2015) Grid Ref: NZ Approval subject to the following conditions: Director of Planning s Recommendation 1. TIME01 Standard Three Year Commencement Date 2. PLAN01 Strict Accordance With the Documentation Submitted or Minor Variations - Document No s Specified 3. RSUO13 Occupancy in Accordance with NYM Core Policy J 4. GACS13 Obscure Glazing - Submit Details 5. GACS00 During construction noise from the site shall be limited to 07:00-18:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00-13:00 Saturday with no work allowed on Sundays and Bank Holidays. All machinery should be properly silenced and should comply with BS5228 and details of any proposed measures to prevent harm to amenity should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. There should be adequate measures taken to suppress dust and the details of these should also be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. 6. MATS05 Natural Stone Traditionally Coursed/Jointed 7. MATS06 Stone Panel 8. MATS21 Roof Slate to be Agreed 9. MATS30 Doors - Details of Construction to be Submitted 10. MATS40 Detailed Plans of Window Frames Required 11. MATS70 Guttering Fixed by Gutter Spikes 12. MATS00 No work shall commence to paint the windows and doors in the development hereby approved until details of the paint colour of the windows and doors has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall be completed in accordance with the approved details within six months of being installed and shall be maintained in that condition in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 13. HWAY06 Discharge of Surface Water 14. HWAY12B Completion of Works in the Highway (Before Construction)

2 North York Moors National Park Authority The Old Vicarage Bondgate Helmsley YO62 5BP Application Number: Scale: 1:1250 NYM/2015/0150/FL

3 Page 2 List Number 1 Informative 1. You are advised that a separate licence will be required from the Highway Authority in order to allow any works in the adopted highway to be carried out. The Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works published by North Yorkshire County Council, the Highway Authority, is available at the County Council s offices. The local office of the Highway Authority will also be pleased to provide the detailed constructional specification referred to in this condition. 2. Bats Consultations Parish The Parish Council resolved to object to this application. There was a great deal of concern expressed at the access on to the busy main road at a point which is already considered as dangerous. Vehicles are parked on the pavement in this area making it difficult for pedestrians. Councillors are also aware of a covenant on one of the proposed parking spaces. There have also been historical issues with the sewerage system in this part of High Street. Comments in relation to the amended plans: Councillors resolved to object to the amended plans on the grounds as stated on the original Parish consultation form. Councillors agreed that the amended plans have not changed anything and in fact would make the situation worse by the reduction in the number of parking spaces. Highways In assessing the submitted proposal and reaching its recommendation the Highway Authority has taken into account the following matters: The design standard for the visibility requirement for the site is Manual for Streets as it is within a built-up area, a 30 mph limit and has a footway. The required visibility splay is 2.4 metres by 33 metres. The available visibility for the proposed parking spaces, as shown on the plans fall short of this figure. For the most north easterly of the three proposed spaces, the visibility would be 2.4 metres by 10 metres looking in a north easterly direction. For the most south westerly of the spaces, the visibility would be 2.4 metres by 12 metres looking south westerly. Consequently the Local Highway Authority recommends that planning permission is refused for the following reason: R2 Visibility at New Access - The Planning Authority considers that clear visibility of 33 metres cannot be achieved along the public highway in a north-easterly direction from a point 2.4 metres from the carriageway edge measured down the centreline of the most north-easterly car parking space and consequently traffic generated by the proposed development would be likely to create conditions prejudicial to highway safety. Comments in relation to the amended plans: In assessing the submitted amended proposals and reaching its recommendation the Local Highway Authority has taken into account the following matters: The parking standards are set out in North Yorkshire County Council Transport Issues and Development - A Guide For a two or three bedroom dwelling in this location, the guide specifies two spaces per dwelling. The amended application is proposing only one space per dwelling. It is reasonable to consider that, if approved, this will increase the amount of on-street parking in this area. The design standard for the visibility requirement for the site is Manual for Streets as it is within a built-up area, a 30 mph limit and has a footway. The required visibility splay is 2.4 metres by 33

4 Page 3 List Number 1 Consultations (continued) metres. The available visibility for the parking space for the proposed dwelling, as shown on drawing no P1, revised 1/6/15, falls short of this figure. The visibility is 2.4 metres by 10 metres looking in a north easterly/downhill direction and 2.4 metres by 12 metres looking south westerly/uphill. It should be noted that this is an existing parking space and no changes are proposed to improve or make worse the visibility splay at this location. The proposed space for no. 85 would result in the vehicle entering and exiting the publicly maintainable highway along the shared access, located just up hill of the parking bay. The visibility is adequate looking in a south westerly/uphill direction and 2 metres by 8 metres looking north easterly / downhill. Due to the lack of any turning area for the parking space, it is reasonable to consider that a vehicle may reverse out onto the carriageway. However, a vehicle exiting from the shared access would be more likely to leave in a forward direction. Consequently, the Local Highway Authority recommends that planning permission is refused for the following reason: R8 Lack of Parking - The Planning Authority considers that in the absence of adequate on-site parking space the proposed development would be likely to result in vehicles being parked outside the site on the County Highway to the detriment of the free flow of traffic and road safety. As is normal when assessing the figures for the visibility splays, I have not taken into account the cars that already regularly park in the highway which affect visibility for drivers leaving the existing access and parking space. However, any increase in the amount of street parking will exacerbate this situation for the parking space, the shared access and other nearby similar accesses. The Local Highway Authority has recommended refusal for this and the previously submitted proposal. Of these two, the first design, showing three parking spaces at the front of the property, is more desirable in highway safety terms, as it will slightly improve the visibility in one direction for vehicles that currently use the shared access and would not have a detrimental effect on visibility nearby accesses. Natural England No Comment Environmental Services (Housing) - I can confirm that we have no objections to the granting of planning consent on housing grounds Environmental Health Officer Construction work can often give rise to complaints about noise and dust. Regarding noise, I ask that construction is limited to Monday to Friday, Saturday with no work allowed on Sundays and Bank Holidays. All machinery should be properly silenced and should comply with BS5228 and details of any proposed measures to prevent harm to amenity should be submitted for approval. There should be adequate measures taken to suppress dust and the details of these should also be submitted for approval. Yorkshire Water Site Notice Expiry Date 30 April 2015 Others all of the neighbours listed below object for one or more of the following reasons: Mr & Mrs M Fitton, 75 High Street, Castleton Mr & Mrs K Wall, 81 High Street, Castleton Ms T Tasker, 83 High Street Mr A J Liddle, Stable Hills, 87 High Street, Castleton

5 Page 4 List Number 1 Consultations (continued) Mrs D Liddle, Stable Hills, 87 High Street, Castleton K Jeffels, 79 High Street, Castleton - Lose or reduction in width of the right of access to the side of 85 High Street, which should be wide enough for Horse and Cart (9ft) due to the car spaces at the front and rear. Concern with regard to the above right of access and that alteration to it will be in breach of the Equality Act 2010 and also the Human Rights Act Parking on High Street is already bad and will be much worse both during the construction phase and in perpetuity. Cars speed round the bend into the village from Blakey Ridge and the movement/parking of extra vehicles will pose a problem for those seeking to walk at that part of the village. It is likely that cars will park at least in part on the pavement, driving pedestrians (including children walking to school) on to the dangerous road. Thus the new development will result in unsafe conditions on the road or will mean that traffic cannot move freely along the road outside this property. There are already difficulties with the line of sight for vehicles coming out of 85 High Street and Stable Hills exit as well as the Didderhow exit. Visibility from the parking spaces will be very poor and is significantly worse on bin day. The mass of the property as proposed on the plans looks not to be suitable for an infill site. The proposed house would have an overbearing and overshadowing impact on 87 High Street which has side windows which look out across the plot. The gable end of the property would be 11 metres from 87 High Street. three of our bedrooms and only bathroom have windows on this elevation. Concern about the use of stone in this location. There have already been issues with local sewage and drainage facilities. The proposed plans seem to take no notice of this. The additional proposed house will produce extra cars needing car parking space, thus exacerbating an already difficult situation with the occupants of number 85 currently having six vehicles at regular times parked on, around and on the road in front of the property. The proposal does not represent the most practical and sustainable solution to meet the local housing need identified. Concern over the angles of access to the proposed car parking space at the rear of number 85 for the new house, to identify whether it is a viable space and therefore there is concern over how many of the proposed spaces will actually be viable after completion a significant point of objection from a planning point of view. The grassed lane to the south of 85 High Street is an attractive visual amenity. The application states that it will be covered in gravel to provide access to the parking space to the rear. The applicant does not own this land and permission will not be granted for this work. The use of the grass lane to access a parking space would result in making this grassed area unsafe for our children to play on and so therefore a loss of a residential amenity. If developed there would be a knock on effect that would reduce the level of off street parking at 87 from three to two, thereby causing further on-street parking. Mr & Mrs M Fitton, 78 High Street, Castleton - Conclude by stating that they have no objection to the aesthetic look of the property and they sympathise with the desire to provide a home for their children, but feel the above comments outweigh the need. Comments in relation to the amended plans: All of the names below maintain or strengthen their objection to the amended plans due to the reduction in the number of off road spaces available for parking. Castleton already has a major problem with on road parking and congestion due to the chronic shortage of off road parking.

6 Page 5 List Number 1 Consultations (continued) Mr & Mrs M Fitton, 75 High Street, Castleton Mr & Mrs K Wall, 81 High Street, Castleton Ms T Tasker, 83 High Street Mr A J Liddle, Stable Hills, 87 High Street, Castleton Mrs D Liddle, Stable Hills, 87 High Street, Castleton K Jeffels, 79 High Street, Castleton Mrs C Stainsby, 87A High Street, Castleton Background 85 High Street Castleton is the end terrace house to a terrace of seven properties that were constructed in the mid-1930s along the main road through Castleton. The properties have bay windows and a lean-to porch to the front and have a painted pebbledash finish with concrete roof tiles. The rear of the properties are constructed in brick and have single storey rear extensions. Bedrooms are accommodated on the first floor and within the attic area within most of the properties on the terrace. Due to the linear form of the village in this location and the siting of the terrace on the brow of the hill the properties benefit from open views to both the north and south. The terraced properties do not have in-curtilage parking except no 85 which has the benefit of owning the land adjacent to the side of the terrace. This application relates to the land to the west of 85 High Street, Castleton which is currently occupied by a detached garage building which is in the same ownership as 85 High Street. To the west of the application site is a larger detached brick dwelling constructed at some point around the 1970s. The garage to this property is accessed from the same area to which the proposed dwelling will be accessed. This application is for the construction of a detached three bedroom dwelling in replacement of the garage which currently occupies the site. The property would have a local occupancy restriction placed upon it and the application states that the proposed occupant would be the applicant s son (27) who currently resides with them. The proposed dwelling follows a similar building line to the terrace and proposes a similarly designed building which incorporates a lean-to roof over the porch and bay window proposed on the front elevation. The building has been designed to make the most of the width of the plot available and includes a small gable towards the rear of the side elevation to increase the width of the rear elevation. To the rear a wide glazed opening is proposed at ground floor level with bedroom windows and rooflights to the attic room proposed above. The side elevation which faces 87 High Street at a distance of 16.5 metres includes small windows to the WC and stairwell at first and second floor level however the application states that these will be constructed with obscure glazing. Off street parking is proposed to the front of the dwelling in a similar manner to that which currently takes place in front of the garage. The original proposed plans show three parking spaces to the front of the proposed dwelling and slightly in front of 85 with steps up to the front door of 85 which will involve an alteration to the existing front wall of the property; however this will be reconstructed in a similar manner. To the rear of the new dwelling an area of decking and a small lawn is proposed. To

7 Page 6 List Number 1 Background (continued) the rear of 85 part of the rear garden is proposed to be given over to being used as a parking space, accessed off the private lane which the property has a right of access over. The dwelling is proposed to be constructed of stone and slate which the architect believes is more traditional in Castleton, rather than trying to match the less vernacular properties which it would be sited next to. Main Issues The main points to consider in determining this application are whether the plot is considered to accord with the requirements of the NYM Local Development Framework Policies as an infill plot, whether the proposed design and materials are appropriate for this location, whether the site can be safely accessed and developed without having a detrimental impact on highway safety and also the neighbours concerns with regard to this matter. Policy Background The NYM Local Development Framework policies most pertinent to this application are Core Policy J and Development Policy 3. Core Policy J of the NYM Local Development Framework seeks to ensure the provision of a mixture of housing types and tenure to maintain the vitality of local communities, consolidate support for services and facilities and support the delivery of more affordable housing. This is to be achieved through locating all open market housing, including new build and converted units to the Local Service Centre of Helmsley and the Service Villages, as well as other measures including supporting the development of local needs housing within the main built up area of the Local Service Villages and Other Villages, and restricting new housing development in the Open Countryside to that which is proven as essential for farming, forestry or other essential land management activities. Development Policy 3 seeks to maintain and enhance the distinctive character of the National Park by ensuring that the siting, layout and density of development preserves or enhances views into and out of the site; that the scale, height, massing, materials and design are compatible with surrounding buildings; that the standards of design details are high and complements that of the local vernacular; good quality sustainable design and construction techniques are incorporated; that there is satisfactory landscaping and that the design takes into account the safety, security and access needs for all potential users of the development. With regard to highway Issues Development Policy 23 is also relevant, it seeks to effectively minimise the overall need for journeys and reduce the environmental impacts of traffic on the National Park by permitting development where its location is capable of being accessed by public transport, walking or cycling, where there are existing Public Rights of Way, and it is of a scale where the adjacent road network has the capacity to serve without detriment to highway safety. The final bullet point of this policy states that parking will be provided in accordance with the relevant maximum standards adopted by the Authority, thereby meaning that the provision of excessive amounts of parking will not be considered to be appropriate. This reflects an approach to parking which is not demand led but seeks to suppress demand to promote other forms of other transport use above private cars The current NYCC Parking standards are set out in their Document Transport Issues and Development A Guide, which states that the guidelines are maximum parking standards, with different values dependent on accessibility to public transport, proximity of different land uses and location. A flexible approach should be taken in using the standards so that each development

8 Page 7 List Number 1 Main Issues (continued) proposal is assessed on its merit. A lower parking provision may be appropriate, particularly in more central locations where public transport provision is greater. This document states that for a three bedroom dwelling located within a rural area 2 spaces is the maximum that should be allowed. Accordance with Policy The proposed site is considered to be a gap site within a continuously built up frontage as required by Core Policy J. The Local Occupancy Proforma submitted with the application also clarifies that a prospective occupier who satisfies the local occupancy requirement has been identified. Design The proposed dwelling follows a similar building line to that of the existing terrace although the main façade of the building is set back 600mm from this, with the front of the bay window being in line with the front of the adjacent properties. The street views submitted with the application show the height and width of the proposed unit to match that of the adjacent terrace which therefore results in a very similar massing. The incorporation a lean-to roof over the porch and bay window proposed on the front elevation also helps to tie the proposed design in with the adjacent terrace, without copying it directly. The building has been designed to make the most of the width of the plot available and includes a small gable towards the rear of the side elevation to increase the available width of the rear elevation. To the rear a wide glazed opening is proposed at ground floor level with bedroom windows and rooflights to the attic room proposed above. The side elevation which faces 87 High Street at a distance of 16.5 metres (not 11 metres as stated by the objector) includes small windows to the WC and stairwell at first and second floor however the application states that these will be constructed of obscure glazing and this has also been conditioned. The neighbour at 87 has raised concerns with regard to the proximity of this gable to their property. The rooms overlooking the building plot are three bedrooms and a bathroom. Due to the obscure glazing the secondary nature of the rooms that these windows serve there is not considered to be any overlooking of the neighbouring property from the application site. The distance of 16.5m between the gable end of the proposed property and the neighbouring property at 87 High Street is not considered to have detrimental impact on the level of amenity enjoyed by the existing property and the view out from the property should be improved since they will overlook a dwelling and garden area rather than a garage, parking area and area to the rear of the garage which appears to also be used a general storage area. The materials proposed is one area where the proposed property differs from those in the surrounding area. The site is located outside of the traditional village Conservation Area where the domestic properties are predominantly constructed of stone and pantile with some of the larger buildings having slate roofs. The location of the proposed site is between two post war developments, constructed in 1930s & 1970s, neither of which have followed vernacular design. The architect has followed the design and massing of the adjacent terrace when designing the proposed dwelling, however they have chosen to use stone and slate in the construction of the dwelling as they feel that it is more appropriate in the National Park setting. They feel that a local coursed stone under a slate roof would result in a more traditional appearance and would make a quieter statement than using a modern render and concrete tile roof. Objectors have cited the use in stone is this location as one of their reasons for objection; however Officers agree with the architect that a quieter statement could be

9 Page 8 List Number 1 Main Issues (continued) made by using more traditional materials. Painted timber windows have been proposed by the applicant. Officers have no concerns with the design of the proposed dwelling or the boundary treatment to the site. Samples of the proposed materials will be conditioned for approval should permission be granted. Highway Issues The scheme originally submitted showed the creation of three off road parking spaces to the front of the application property and just in front of the existing dwelling at 85 High Street, with an additional parking space located within the rear garden of 85 High Street, accessed off a private access over which the property has the right to pass and repass. After consultation numerous objections were received from the neighbouring properties with regard to the safety of parking and access proposed. The Highway Authority also objected to the proposed scheme due to the level of visibility which would be achievable from the north eastern most parking space, however as four spaces were proposed there was no objection to the level of parking spaces proposed. Officers then discussed the scheme internally and suggested to the applicant that as the Highways Authority have maximum parking standards that the plans should be altered to retain the existing boundary wall location and therefore overcoming the issues with regard to visibility as no alterations would then be proposed. This would result in only one parking space to the front of the property and one retained in the rear garden of 85 High Street which still results in more off road parking than all of the other terraced properties in the locality. As the Highway requirements seek no more than four spaces between the two properties this reduction would still be in line with their requirements. However on re-consultation the Highway Authority changed their objection to be on the grounds of lack of parking, stating that in the absence of adequate on-site parking space the proposed development would be likely to result in vehicles being parked outside the site on the County Highway to the detriment of the free flow of traffic and road safety. They went on to state that of the two schemes submitted that the first design, showing three parking spaces at the front of the property, is more desirable in highway safety terms, as it will slightly improve the visibility in one direction for vehicles that currently use the shared access and would not have a detrimental effect on visibility nearby accesses. Neighbouring properties maintain their objection or even strengthen them in relation to the amended scheme. For the reasons stated above the agent has requested that the scheme before Members for determination is the originally submitted scheme which proposes the realignment of the boundary wall to the front of the properties to accommodate three parking spaces. Due to the ambiguity in the comments from the Highway Officer s comments Members may which to visit the site themselves to make their own assessment of the issue. The provision of the additional parking space to the rear of 85 High Street would be considered to be permitted development and is not included within the application boundary being considered as part of this application. Nevertheless the Highway Authority have taken into account the feasibility of being able to provide two spaces for the existing property as well as for the proposed property since the application site is currently being used for parking for the existing property. Officers however have it in mind that should the applicant have sold the plot prior to applying for permission that there would be no requirement to provide any parking for 85 High Street. Neighbours have also raised concern with regard to the reality of actually being able to access the parking space proposed to the rear of 85 High Street due to the radii of the corners on land which is not owned by the applicant, should the owner

10 Page 9 List Number 1 Main Issues (continued) wish to fence the boundary of their own land. Safety issues have also been raised in objection to the more frequent vehicular use of this lane with regard to the conflict of uses as a result of and pedestrian access e.g. putting out bins and children playing on this back lane. Neighbour Concerns In addition to the parking and highway safety issues raised by the neighbouring properties a number of the objectors have gone into depth with regard to an existing right of access which exists along the gable end wall of 85 High Street which is currently blocked by steps, three gates and an oil tank. They state that the proposed application makes the situation worse due to the location of the parking spaces to the front and rear which would result in them being unusable and also the potential for the access to get churned up due to the increase in use and state that they believe the proposal would breach the terms of the Equality Act (2010) and also the Human Rights Act (1998). The right of access shown on the deeds of the properties in the terrace is a civil matter which cannot be considered under a planning application. Granting of planning approval does not mean that the works can go ahead if there are other restrictions in place which would prevent this, such as ownership or access issues. The parking space to the rear of 85 High Street could be moved across further into the garden area, thereby removing the obstruction without the benefit of planning permission which only leaves the parking space to the front of the property. If the north eastern most space was unable to be used for parking a vehicle in this would result in improved visibility to the other two spaces and a level of parking still in line with the Highway Authority s parking standards and therefore although the right of access is not a planning issue, Officers still feel that an acceptable scheme is able to be accommodated on site even if it is taken into account. Explanation of how the Authority has Worked Positively with the Applicant/Agent The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework