Issue - meetings

Consideration was given to planning application 23/1820/FUL Bay Tree House, Seamer Road, Hilton.

The application sought planning permission for the demolition of existing dwelling/garage and the creation of a replacement, a 1.5 storey detached dwelling.

The application site was a detached bungalow on Seamer Road in Hilton village. The surrounding properties on Seamer Road were a mix of 1940s/50s and 1960s/70s, single and two-storey properties of a range of different types and styles.

The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the main report.

Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the main report.

The planning policies and material planning considerations that were relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.

The Planning Officers report concluded that the planning application be recommended for approval with Conditions for the reasons as specified within the Officers report.

Objectors attended the meeting and were given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

. The property was too large and too far forward in comparison to those close by as most of those were bungalows.

. The proposed development  would look out of place and spoil the thoroughfare.

. The plot could easily take a family bungalow.

. If approved, it would set a precedent for the main street through Hilton Village.

. The property would encroach on the existing frontage and there was enough land to be moved back and keep within the existing building line.

. Chair of the Hilton Village Parish Council indicated he was speaking on behalf of himself and the Parish Council representing 27 other residents that could not attend.

. This was an ancient Village, and there would be no issue if the house was less intrusive and part of the Village.

. There had been a previous application submitted which had been refused, however this new application was bigger and more intrusive.

. The fact there were 2 storey homes on Falcon Walk was irrelevant to this application.

The Applicant attended the meeting and was given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

. The property was purchased and had remained unchanged from 1970 and needed significant development.

. The plot was a generous size however had structural issues. Shale needed to be removed therefore the building needed to be demolished and rebuilt.

. Officers had provided guidance following the original application had been refused. The resubmitted application included building into the roof space and extending the building as advised by Officers.

. There would be no significant impact in terms of overshadowing to neighbouring properties.

. The application accorded with the Council’s planning polices and was in keeping with the surrounding area.

. No other regulatory authorities had submitted objections.

. The house will be our family home, much improved and be energy efficient.

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39