Agenda item

Two storey rear extension and 2no. rooflights to front roof slope. [Micklegate Ward]

Members considered a full application for a two-storey rear extension and 2 no. rooflights to front roof slope by John Christensen.

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the plans, there was no further update to the officer’s report.

Public Speaker

Pedro Saramago, a neighbour, spoke to oppose the application.  He described the proposed extension as unprecedented and raised concerns regarding the property’s previous use as an HMO (House in Multiple Occupation), explaining that he expected the building to become an HMO in the future.  He was also concerned about the impact this would have on parking.

Caroline Adkin, also a neighbour, spoke in objection to the application.  She raised concerns regarding an anticipated increase in noise levels, on street parking and the previous HMO operation.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Saramago confirmed that the issues with the previous HMO had been pursued with the council enforcement team.

Cllr J Burton, Micklegate Ward Cllr, was unable to attend the meeting, the Chair had therefore agreed to read out her statement. She noted the concerns of the local community and questioned the ratio of bathrooms and en-suites to the proposed number of bedrooms.  The impact on residents, when the property had been an HMO was also highlighted and issues with existing HMOs in terms of litter and antisocial behaviour were raised.  The impact on parking and the size of the extension were also cause for concern.

Officers responded to questions from Members, and reported the following:

·       The HMO status had achieved lawfulness; there was no requirement for the owner to apply for planning permission or to get a certificate of lawfulness. There was no evidence that the HMO use had been abandoned in planning terms, although it did not appear to have been used as such for some time. It would not be considered lawful to extinguish existing HMO rights through a condition and require the owner to apply for planning permission to revert to HMO use.

·       The impact of the number of bedrooms was considered neutral if used as an HMO, the property currently had seven bedrooms, this was being reduced on the plans to five, with two rooms that could be returned to bedrooms, totalling seven bedrooms.

·       There were examples in the area of the type of infill extension; it would not impact on the neighbours in terms of loss of light.

·       Sound proofing was a building regulation issue, not related to planning permission.

Following debate, Cllr Baxter proposed the officer recommendation to approve, subject to an informative covering the HMO licence, should the previous use be resurrected.  This was seconded by Cllr Vassie.  On being put to a vote, with six Members for and two against, it was therefore:

Resolved:             That the application be approved subject to the above informative.

Reason:                The proposed works will respect the general character of the building and area and the impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents would be acceptable. It is considered it complies with national planning guidance, as contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, City of York Council Draft Local Plan 2018, and the City of York Council's Supplementary Planning Document (House Extensions and Alterations).