Agenda item

Erection of garage (resubmission) [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a full application by Mr Daniel Rose for the erection of a garage (resubmission)

Officers updated the Committee on further objections and responses that had been received since the agenda had been published. They advised that Highways Network Management had raised no objections to the application.

They also advised that 5 further objections had been received including St Mary’s Conservation Group and the owner of no 35, making the following points:-

• Garage building intrusive due to alien orientation, scale and volume, Does not respect the context and established openness between the houses and the railway line.
• The character of an area derives not only from its building but their layout and space around. This scheme is over development and detrimental to character of the conservation area (in particular its linear layout of houses and openness) This has already been affected by allowing the applicant and neighbour to have larger garages (in footprint) The garages referred to behind the houses fronting Bootham (in the applicant’s statement do not form part of the St Mary’s  corridor , the form part of the cartilages of the houses on Bootham.
• The garage would be too large and dominate the plot. Its prominence would be noticeable in particular when trees are not in leaf.
• Development of this site has failed to take into account sustainability or ecology and has lead to a disappointing scheme.
• Harm to amenity and setting of no 35.
• The use of playroom is seen as dubious and there is concern the garage could become a separate dwelling. Could not the room be accommodated in the new house given its size.
• It should be enough that the occupants of this house have a garage, a facility that many residents in the street do not have the benefit of.

Objections from owner of no 35.

1.         “Any increase to the height of the building already approved is not required for the original intention of domestic outbuildings. It is clear that the last application and this application are attempts to completely alter the intended use of the building.

2.         The main house already projects further than the building line of our property affecting the outlook from our property’s rear windows which are main living rooms for tenants.

3.         The Inspector appointed to consider an appeal against a previous application to build flats on the site advised that any new building should be sympathetic to the site, which is in a conservation area, and the setting of the neighbouring listed building.

4.         Any further increase to the size of this building is overdevelopment for the size and setting of this site.

In summary, the new building is a considerable increase in height compared to the original plan and the approved amendment, which was widely known at the time to be a precursor increasing the footprint prior to the following two applications to increase the height.

Even if vehicle access to the garage is possible, it is clear that the proposed building is far larger than required to shelter a car and provide a reasonable small amount of extra storage. Instead, the application is an attempt to provide a reasonable small amount of extra storage. Instead the application is an attempt to provide residential accommodation even further beyond the existing building line. Therefore I request that the application is rejected and that the council take particular care to ensure that the letter of explanation is full and comprehensive. “

Representations were received from the applicant and his architect in support of the application.

The Applicant explained that he had bought no 34 St Mary’s eighteen months previously with planning permission already granted and they had put great care and effort into ensuring that the design and materials used would enhance the street scene. Planning permission had already been granted for a garage and this application was to raise the height of the garage by just over 1 metre in order to provide a playspace. He confirmed they were not creating a granny flat and would be happy to accept a condition to cover this.

The Architect addressed the Committee and acknowledged that this was a contentious application due to the importance of the conservation area and the neighbouring listed building. He referred to the photographs which had been circulated to Members which showed several views of the property. With reference to the final photo, taken at 3 in the afternoon, he stated that it was the building itself which casts a shadow over the back of no 35 and the garage extension would not worsen this. He voiced concerns that paragraphs 4.14 and 4.15 of the report contradicted each other.

Members sought clarification on the increase in height of the garage and officers provided the requested information.

Members discussed the photographs which showed the existing garages nearby and the car park and discussed whether the increase in the height of the garage would improve or destroy the outlook. Officers advised Members that the Conservation Officer’s view was that although it would not spoil the view from the street, it would have a harmful impact on the view from and openness of the surrounding gardens.

Councillor Gillies moved and Councillor Galvin seconded a motion to approve the application. On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused. ¹

REASON:                  The proposed garage due to its location, size and height, and considering the building line of the host dwelling, would significantly detract from the openness of the rear gardens/space behind the buildings on the northwest side of St Mary's.  This open vista forms part of the historic character of the area and makes a positive contribution to both the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of no.35 St Mary's, which is a grade II listed building.

                                    The proposal is therefore contrary to national planning policy contained in PPG15 which requires development proposals to at least maintain the character and appearance of conservation areas, and advises that the quality of such areas is dependent not only upon the quality of buildings, but also includes other considerations including, the historic layout of property boundaries and thoroughfares, character and materials, scaling and detailing of contemporary buildings, and vistas along streets and between buildings.  The proposal also conflicts with policies GP1, HE2, HE3, HE4 and H7 of the City of York Local Plan.

                                    The proposed garage building would have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of no.35 as it would be overbearing and over dominant, due to its location, size and height.  As such the proposal is contrary to policies GP1 and H7 of the City of York Local Plan.