|
Date: |
8 December 2022 |
Ward: |
Holgate |
|
Team: |
West Area |
Parish: |
Holgate Planning Panel |
|
Reference: |
22/01864/FUL |
|
Application at: |
67 Grantham Drive York YO26 4UE |
|
For: |
Single storey rear and side extension following demolition of existing conservatory |
|
By: |
Mr & Mrs Wragg |
|
Application Type: |
Full Application |
|
Target Date: |
16 November 2022 |
|
Recommendation: |
Householder Approval |
1.1 The application property is a two-storey semi-detached house located within the Holgate area of York. The proposal seeks permission for a single storey side and rear extension following the demolition of an existing conservatory.
Development Control Local Plan 2005
CYGP1 – Design
CYH7 - Residential extensions
Publication Draft Local Plan 2018
D11 - Extensions and Alterations to Existing Buildings
3.0 CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Holgate Planning Panel were consulted as part of the application however no comments were received.
4.0 REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 No comments received
5.0 APPRAISAL
KEY CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDE
-Impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties
-Visual impact on the surrounding area
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY
5.1 The most up to date representation of key relevant policy issues here is the National Planning Policy Framework, July 2021 (NPPF). This sets out the Government’s overarching planning policies and at its heart is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
5.2 Paragraph 130 states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments will achieve a number of aims, including:
· be visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping
· are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting
· create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and promote health and well-being with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
5.3 The NPPF also places great importance on good design. Paragraph 134 says development that is not well designed should be refused especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design. Significant weight should be given to development which reflects local design policies and government guidance on design.
-The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation the greater the weight that may be given);
- The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and
-The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the previous NPPF published in March 2012. (N.B: Under transitional arrangements plans submitted for examination before 24 January 2019 will be assessed against the 2012 NPPF).
5.5 Policy D11 (Extensions and Alterations to Existing Buildings) states that proposals to extend, alter or add to existing buildings will be supported where the design responds positively to its immediate architectural context, local character and history in terms of the use of materials, detailing, scale, proportion, landscape and space between buildings. Proposals should also sustain the significance of a heritage asset, positively contribute to the site's setting, protect the amenity of
current and neighbouring occupiers, contribute to the function of the area and protects and incorporates trees. This policy is generally in accordance with the NPPF.
5.6 The York Development Control draft Local Plan was approved for development control purposes in April 2005. Its policies are material considerations, but generally their weight is very limited. However policy H7 which states that residential extensions will be permitted where (i) the design and materials are sympathetic to the main dwelling and the locality (ii) the design and scale are appropriate to the main building (iii) there is no adverse effect upon the amenities of neighbours, is considered in accordance with the NPPF.
5.7 The Supplementary Planning Document 'House Extensions and Alterations' dated December 2012 provides guidance on all types on domestic types of development. A basic principle of this guidance is that any extension should normally be in keeping with the appearance, scale, design and character of both the existing dwelling and the road/streetscene it is located on. In particular, care should be taken to ensure that the proposal does not dominate the house or clash with its appearance with the extension/alteration being subservient and in keeping with, the original dwelling. The character of spacing within the street should be considered, and a terracing effect should be avoided. Proposals should not unduly affect neighbouring amenity with particular regard to privacy, overshadowing and loss of light, over-dominance and loss of outlook.
APPRAISAL
Design and Visual Amenity
5.8 The proposal seeks permission for a single storey side and rear extension. The proposed rear extension is to project out 2.5 metres and have a width of 8.4 metres. This extension will connect to the side extension which is to have a width of 2.1 metres and a depth of 8.3 metres. The eaves height for both parts will be 2.3 metres and the ridge line 3.6 metres. The extension is to be constructed of matching brick and tile. The doors are to be grey sliding doors with 3 roof lights. The use of sympathetic materials in the extension enhances the overall design.
5.9 The proposed rear aspect of the extension is of good design being both modest in height and depth. Paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2 of the SPD gives guidance on how rear extensions should be designed and how when extensions exceed 3 metres on semi-detached properties that they should be assessed for the impact the design of the development will have upon neighbours. The proposed extension will be reduced in depth compared to the existing conservatory. Linking with the side extension both aspects of the development sit subservient to the original house. Given that the extension will be shorter than the existing conservatory the proposed development is regarded to comply with the SPD. The side extension is set well back from the front of the property meaning that sufficient space has been left at the property for the parking of vehicles. Although the side extension will lead to the loss of side access at the house a storage area has been created at the front of the side extension which will provide sufficient integral storage for bins and bikes at the property. The incorporation of this within the design enhances the quality of the scheme. Paragraph 8.1 of the SPD states that adequate storage should be provided at the site and when there is to be a loss of rear access storage should be created.
5.10 The orientation of the adjacent house to the south means that the side extension will be visible from both the front and side of the property. However, the proposals will be sympathetic within the street and it will not lead to a significantly harmful impact upon the street scene. SPD Paragraphs 7.1, 7.2 and 12.2 states that side extensions should be well designed to create a development that does not impact the street scene and in this instance the development is not harmful to the street.
Neighbouring Amenity
5.11 The attached house to the north has a rear conservatory. The householder SPD states that when extension exceed 3 metres in length consideration should be given to the impact that might result in the loss of sunlight. The modest height and relatively shallow 2.5m extension mean that there will not be a significant loss of light, privacy or outlook from the property. The guide also sets out that gardens should retain adequate light, and in this instance, given the previously discussed small scale extension the impact on the garden will be minimal and will not result in a significant loss of light.
5.12 The orientation of 69 Grantham Drive to the south means that it looks onto the rear extension however given its size and proportions the outlook from no69 will not be significantly impacted. Paragraph 3.2 of the SPD discusses separation distances and how privacy should be considered when assessing proposals. Although the distance between the corner of no69 and the side of no 67 is only approximately 4.5 metres the offset provided by the orientation of the no69 is felt to be sufficient to meet the council’s householder design guide on rear extension. Similarly in terms of light and privacy these will not be reduced as a result of the works. Overall the impact upon no 69 will be limited and will not lead to undue harm.
6.0 CONCLUSION
6.1 The proposed works would respect the general character of the building and area and cause no neighbouring harm. It is considered that it complies with national planning guidance, as contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, and local policies in the Publication Draft Local Plan 2018, Development Control Local Plan 2005 and the City of York Council's Supplementary Planning Document (House Extensions and Alterations).
7.0 RECOMMENDATION: Householder Approval
1 TIME2 Development start within three years
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:-
Drawing No: 22-07-02 Proposed Plans
Drawing No: 22-07-03 Proposed Elevations
Drawing No: 22-07-04 Proposed Site Plan
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority.
3 The materials to be used externally shall match those as stated on the planning application form submitted with this application.
Reason: To achieve a visually acceptable form of development.
8.0 INFORMATIVES:
Contact details:
Case Officer: Joseph Bourke
Tel No: 01904 551346