Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...
Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ... Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...
2.8 Changes to the Site and its Surroundings 2.8.1 Following a site visit and having undertaken a comparison between the site as currently exists and as existed on the previous application, it appears that there is no significant change in the surrounding area, nor the layout and arrangement of the site, including landscaping, boundary treatments, accesses and egress. It is therefore considered that in respect of the site itself and its immediate surroundings there is nothing in this respect that would lead to a different decision than that originally made. 2.9 Planning Applications on or Around the Site 2.9.1 Since the previous application was granted there are no subsequent planning applications recorded for the application site itself. In relation to surrounding sites there was an application granted under reference 2009/0884/FUL for the erection of a detached dwelling on the site to the north, wrapping around the opposite side of Lambourne. The application had not been implemented when the Planning Officer visited the site, however having examined the plans for the proposals they are not considered to materially impact on the application proposals due to the separation distances involved between the respective properties. It is therefore considered that in respect of planning applications on or around the site there is nothing in this respect that would lead to a different decision than that originally made. 2.10 Changes in Policy 2.10.1 The policy context for this application is set out earlier in this report and it should be noted that the Selby District Local Plan Policies against which the application was originally assessed would still be relevant. 2.10.2 In June 2010 the Government updated PPS3 to exclude private residential gardens from the definition in order to prevent overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and ‘garden grabbing’. Whilst PPS3 has now been superseded by the publication of the NPPF and this document also considers garden plots not to be previously developed land it is clear that such proposals would only be considered unacceptable where they cause harm to the local area. The proposals are for an extension of time and as such the original plans are to be considered whereby the layout and design were not considered to cause harm to the local area. Therefore, having taken into account the NPPF policies there would be nothing to preclude this type of development in this location and as such there are no changes in policy that would lead to a different decision to that originally made. 2.11 Conclusion 2.11.1 The development proposed is an application for extension of time for the erection of a detached dwelling with new existing for the existing dwelling, which was judged to be acceptable at an earlier date. The main issue is therefore whether there are any significant changes in the development plan or other relevant material considerations since the permission was granted, which would lead to a significantly different decision on the application. Having taken into account the changes to the site and its surroundings, planning applications on or around the site and changes in 382
policy since the previous approval it is not considered that there are other material considerations that would lead to a significantly different decision. 2.12 Recommendation This application is recommended to be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the details of the (a) layout, (b) scale, (c) external appearance of the buildings, (d) the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called 'the reserved matters') shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: This is an outline permission and these matters have been reserved for the subsequent approval of the Local Planning Authority, and as required by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. Applications for the approval of the reserved matters referred to in No.2 herein shall be made within a period of three years from the grant of this outline permission and the development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 3. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, there shall be no excavation or other groundworks, except for investigative works, or the depositing of material on the site until the access(es) to the site have been set out and constructed in accordance with the published Specification of the Highway Authority and the following requirements: (i) (ii) (iii) The access to Lambourne shall be formed to give a minimum carriageway width of 3.2 metres, and that part of the access road extending 6 metres into the site shall be constructed in accordance with Standard Detail number E6. Any gates or barriers shall be erected a minimum distance of 6 metres back from the carriageway of the existing highway and shall not be able to swing over the existing or proposed highway. Provision shall be made to prevent surface water from the site/plot discharging onto the existing or proposed highway in accordance with the Specification of the Local Highway Authority. All works shall accord with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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 383
- Page 331 and 332: Report Reference Number 2012/0479/F
- Page 333 and 334: 1.3.5 An application for conservati
- Page 335 and 336: 8. Nature conservation and protecte
- Page 337 and 338: 2.9.7 NPPF, Paragraph 200, states p
- Page 339 and 340: 2.12.2 The NPPF paragraph 94 states
- Page 341 and 342: the demolition and construction pha
- Page 343 and 344: INFORMATIVE: An explanation of the
- Page 345 and 346: 3.1.2 Human Rights Act 1998 It is c
- Page 347 and 348: Report Reference Number 2012/0443/F
- Page 349 and 350: edrooms in the care home accommodat
- Page 351 and 352: 1.4.8 Yorkshire Wildlife Trust The
- Page 353 and 354: 2.8.3 The Local Planning Authority
- Page 355 and 356: It is therefore concluded that the
- Page 357 and 358: uildings shall be occupied or broug
- Page 359 and 360: APPENDIX 1 The Town and Country Pla
- Page 361 and 362: Sustainability Given that the propo
- Page 363 and 364: covering being artificial slate. Th
- Page 365 and 366: COUNTY ECOLOGIST It is recommended
- Page 367 and 368: ASSESSMENT The principal issues to
- Page 369 and 370: continually deteriorating building.
- Page 371 and 372: The proposed development would invo
- Page 373 and 374: The Landscape Assessment of the dis
- Page 375 and 376: The submitted bat report states tha
- Page 377 and 378: 377
- Page 379 and 380: 1. Introduction and background 1.1
- Page 381: Please see note at start of agenda
- Page 385 and 386: Appendices: None 385
- Page 387 and 388: 387
- Page 389 and 390: 1. Introduction and background 1.1
- Page 391 and 392: • Significant height increase fro
- Page 393 and 394: which will have been judged to be a
- Page 395 and 396: In the interests of visual amenity
2.8 Changes to the Site <strong>and</strong> its Surroundings<br />
2.8.1 Following a site visit <strong>and</strong> having undertaken a comparison between the site as<br />
currently exists <strong>and</strong> as existed on the previous application, it appears that there is<br />
no significant change in the surrounding area, nor the layout <strong>and</strong> arrangement of<br />
the site, including l<strong>and</strong>scaping, boundary treatments, accesses <strong>and</strong> egress. It is<br />
therefore considered that in respect of the site itself <strong>and</strong> its immediate surroundings<br />
there is nothing in this respect that would lead to a different decision than that<br />
originally made.<br />
2.9 Planning <strong>Applications</strong> on or Around the Site<br />
2.9.1 Since the previous application was granted there are no subsequent planning<br />
applications recorded for the application site itself. In relation to surrounding sites<br />
there was an application granted under reference 2009/0884/FUL for the erection of<br />
a detached dwelling on the site to the north, wrapping around the opposite side of<br />
Lambourne. The application had not been implemented when the Planning Officer<br />
visited the site, however having examined the plans for the proposals they are not<br />
considered to materially impact on the application proposals due to the separation<br />
distances involved between the respective properties. It is therefore considered<br />
that in respect of planning applications on or around the site there is nothing in this<br />
respect that would lead to a different decision than that originally made.<br />
2.10 Changes in Policy<br />
2.10.1 The policy context for this application is set out earlier in this report <strong>and</strong> it should be<br />
noted that the <strong>Selby</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Policies against which the application was<br />
originally assessed would still be relevant.<br />
2.10.2 In June 2010 the Government updated PPS3 to exclude private residential gardens<br />
from the definition in order to prevent overdevelopment of neighbourhoods <strong>and</strong><br />
‘garden grabbing’. Whilst PPS3 has now been superseded by the publication of the<br />
NPPF <strong>and</strong> this document also considers garden plots not to be previously<br />
developed l<strong>and</strong> it is clear that such proposals would only be considered<br />
unacceptable where they cause harm to the local area. The proposals are for an<br />
extension of time <strong>and</strong> as such the original plans are to be considered whereby the<br />
layout <strong>and</strong> design were not considered to cause harm to the local area. Therefore,<br />
having taken into account the NPPF policies there would be nothing to preclude this<br />
type of development in this location <strong>and</strong> as such there are no changes in policy that<br />
would lead to a different decision to that originally made.<br />
2.11 Conclusion<br />
2.11.1 The development proposed is an application for extension of time for the erection of<br />
a detached dwelling <strong>with</strong> new existing for the existing dwelling, which was judged to<br />
be acceptable at an earlier date. The main issue is therefore whether there are any<br />
significant changes in the development plan or other relevant material<br />
considerations since the permission was granted, which would lead to a significantly<br />
different decision on the application. Having taken into account the changes to the<br />
site <strong>and</strong> its surroundings, planning applications on or around the site <strong>and</strong> changes in<br />
382
Change language