Agenda item

A full application to erect a two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension to a semi-detached house at 18 Brentwood Crescent.

Members considered a full application to erect a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension to a semi-detached house at 18 Brentwood Crescent.

The Officer provided an update for Members in which it was noted that there had been;

·        two further letters of objection to the application received from neighbours, mainly regarding the loss of privacy

·        information that the applicant owns and lets other properties within the area

·        that internal alterations that were due to be made were not included in the plan

A written representation in opposition of the application was circulated amongst Members from two neighbours at number 15 Brentwood Crescent.  The main objection contained in the submission was that of parking issues should there be an increase in the number of car users at the application site.

Further representations against the application were heard.  The first was from a neighbour who lived at number 19 Brentwood Crescent who commented on the angle and proximity of the extension and her view that its dominant nature will negatively affect her property.  She added that the terracing effect of the extension would block out light from her son’s bedroom and the hallway. She added that there were major parking issues that needed to be addressed as numbers 15, 16, 19 and 20 Brentwood Crescent do not have road frontages to allow parking. The neighbour stated that currently the residents of number 21 have four cars and that she has been blocked from leaving her property by these cars.  The neighbour also added that she did not think that the extension would fit in with the already existing buildings on the cul de sac.

The second representation in opposition of the application was from a neighbour who lived at number 17.  He told Members that he had lived there for seventeen years and was devastated that developers could spoil the area again.  He commented that the application site will house four students this coming academic year, but that with the extension could house two additional people, taking the occupancy up to six. He suggested that the additional numbers of student residents in the area have caused the current parking problems. He added that on a previous application for a conservatory the applicant had incorporated a glass panel on top of the brick wall to reduce the loss of light.  He was concerned that the proposed structure was a more solid construction with a tiled roof and would reduce light to his property.  He remarked that this conservatory and an existing en-suite had not been shown on the site plan.

The third representation in opposition to the application was from the Ward Member, Councillor Pierce. He urged refusal of the application on the grounds of overdevelopment and the adverse impact on the streetscene. He suggested that if the application was not refused then he recommended that it be deferred and delegated to the Assistant Director in order to obtain assurances from the applicant that no more than two cars are kept outside houses that are owned by the applicant on Brentwood Crescent, and that if this is ignored that the applicant should pay for a prohibition waiting order.

The Officer reminded Members that the nature of the occupants, whether students or otherwise could not be taken into account in determining the application.  He also added that it would not be appropriate to seek assurances from the applicant on his other properties given that this is not directly related to the current application.

In relation to a question from Members on the plans for the conservatory, the Officer remarked that it would have a pitched tiled roof at a height of 3.2 metres instead of a glass-panelled roof.  Another question was asked of the Officer in relation to the difference in height between the conservatory and the new proposal. The Officer responded that the highest point of the proposed extension was 3.5 metres in comparison to 2.5 metres for the existing conservatory.  In relation to the side extension, the highest point would be 6.8 metres in comparison to 2.7 metres for the existing garage.

Members asked the Officer on what grounds an applicant could build an extension without asking permission from neighbours. The Officer replied that under new regulations, a home owner could extend from the rear wall of a semi-detached property by up to 3 metres without seeking planning approval.  Consent would also be required under the Party Wall Act, but this is a separate piece of legislation and not related to planning legislation.

Members suggested that the focus needed to be on the current plans and even though they accepted that the extension would be slightly smaller than previously refused, the impact of it would remain the same, and considered that it would constitute overdevelopment of the site.

Members added that there was nothing unique about the property that would merit granting an application and that overdevelopment of this kind was a growing problem throughout the city. They suggested that the application should be refused on the grounds of:

• overdevelopment
• the impact on neighbours
• parking and traffic issues

Certain Members disagreed and remarked that although they had sympathy with neighbours concerns that they thought as a result of their experiences from the site visit that the impact on the adjacent property will be minimal, the garden will not be greatly impacted and in answer to a representation about noise, that this was not in the remit of the Committee.  They added that there would be an impact during the construction phase of the extension but that a condition could be added to restrict the hours of construction and ensure that there is construction management.

Members remarked that it must be stated that the University does not discourage students from bringing their cars to York which can cause pressure on traffic problems in residential areas.  Additionally Members mentioned that one of the plans for the property was to replace the garage with a cycle store and questioned the wisdom of this alongside the apparent parking problems on Brentwood Crescent.

Certain Members spoke about how the proposed extension was not going to create a terracing effect and that they had noticed that the existing extension on the property at number 13 had already created such an effect within the street.  They added that the impact on light entering the adjacent bedroom and hallway would be marginal. Finally, they added that the Committee cannot restrict traffic using Brentwood Crescent and that whoever is resident at number 18 has a right to park their car in the street.

Members reiterated their reasons for refusal on visual impact grounds and commented that even if an appeal was lost that this does not necessarily mean that the Committee had taken the wrong decision.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.¹

REASON:   (i)  It is considered that the proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site by virtue of an unacceptable reduction in the spacings between dwellings at the head of the cul de sac and thus would have an adverse impact on the streetscene.  Thus the proposal would conflict with Policies GP1(criteria a, b and c) and H7(criterion e) of the City of York Draft Local Plan.

                       (ii)It is considered that the proposed extension would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling (19 Brentwood Crescent) by virtue of its size, scale, massing and proximity to the boundary and the loss of light and outlook that would result.  Thus the proposal would conflict with Policies GP1(criterion I) and H7(criterion d) of the City of York Draft Local Plan.

                     (iii)It is considered that the proposal would increase the likelihood of vehicles being parked outside the site within the public highway, restricting access to adjacent properties and adversely affecting the amenity of the adjacent occupiers at the head of the cul de sac, where there are a number of properties with narrow frontages and where there are only limited opportunities for vehicles to park within the highway.