Agenda item

This is an application to erect a two-storey extension to a small bungalow fronting onto School Lane. The building is located within what was originally the rear garden of 65 Main Street. Several amendments have been submitted since the application was originally submitted in August 2009. [Fulford] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for the erection of a two-storey extension to rear of the property at 52 School Lane, Fulford. Several amendments had been made since the application was originally submitted.

They were updated that there had been a further letter of objection to the application received from a resident of 69 Main Street, Fulford. The letter expressed concern that the proposed extension to the property at 52 School Lane would shorten the distance to the back of his property and would result in a loss of privacy.

Councillor Aspden as Ward Councillor had made representations to Officers. He stated that he supported the Officer’s recommendation for refusal, but sought further clarification. In particular, he wished to draw attention to the loss of the burgage plot resulting from the development.

Councillor Moore sought clarification from Officers of whether the proposed car port to the rear of the extension as highlighted in paragraph 4.12 had been deleted. They responded that the applicant had deleted this element of the proposal.

Representations in opposition were heard from a neighbour, Mr Young, who was representing other neighbours adjacent to the property. He circulated additional diagrams and photographs to illustrate the impact of the proposal. He also declared to the Committee that he had recently become a Parish Councillor but that this was three months after the application had been submitted. His reasons for opposing the application was that the property would be increased by 3.5 times of the original size and that only 25% of the amenity space would remain.

Further representations in opposition were heard from a Representative of Fulford Parish Council, Mrs De Vries. She stated that the Parish Council welcomed the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application due to the harm it would cause to the Conservation Area. She said that the Parish Council was opposed to the truncation of the burgage plot, resulting from the extension of the existing granny annex to a two storey dwelling. She finally stated that the design of the proposed dwelling was inappropriate and would have a detrimental effect on the street scene and appearance of the conservation area.

Representations in support of the application were also heard from the applicants agent, Mr Chapman, who stated that in essence the burgage plot would be retained due to the elongated nature of the extension. He added that he respected that the Officer’s recommendation was particularly difficult as it only made reference to the tight manoeuvring space. Further to this he said  that the comments from the Highways department towards the application were not negative.

Councillor Pierce moved approval because he felt that the application would capture, recreate and underline the burgage plot and conservation area.  He added that the remodelling of the building had been successful and urged the Committee to review the recommendation of refusal. He finally added that he did not consider that the proposal was not for a extension, but for the replacement of a smaller dwelling with a larger one. He asked for clarification from the Officers as to how the applicant described the proposal.

Officers responded that the applicant had described it as an extension.

Councillor Moore disagreed with Councillor Pierce and moved the Officer’s recommendation refusal. His reasons for refusal were that; there was no amenity space for the existing building, the proposed extension would not appear to be subservient to the other building and that if the application were approved that the property would not enhance the conservation area. He also added that there was a conflict between vehicle and pedestrian access which had not been addressed by the application.

Councillor Firth seconded Councillor Moore’s call for refusal.

Councillor Taylor highlighted that the impact on the conservation area by the proposed building should not be overlooked. This was because it was one of the few locations in the local area in which the original burgage plots are still visible.

Councillor Hyman added that the proposal would conflict with Council guidance on extensions.

Members then asked about the path adjacent to the property and specifically if it was a Public Right of Way.

Mrs De Vries said that the path was not a Public Right of Way and that the path that was named as such was nowhere near the property in question.

Mr Chapman responded that the previous owners of 52 School Lane had created the path. They originally had situated it to the left of 63 Main Street and widened it out to include usage by residents at 50 School Lane. This path was only intended to be for residents of these properties and not as a Public Right of Way.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:  (i)             The proposed extension would result in a significant increase in the size of the existing dwelling, however, the external amenity space to serve the extended property is extremely limited and contains no provision for cycle storage. In addition the shared space for vehicle manoeuvring is unduly tight. It is considered that this would create a poor living environment for the occupiers of 52 School Lane and have the potential to cause conflict with the occupants of 65 Main Street. It is considered therefore, that the proposed extension conflicts with policy GP1(criterion g) and H7 (criterion g) and appendix E of the City of York Draft Local Plan(fourth set of changes) approved April 2005 and advice contained within paragraph 1.23 of the City of York Council’s Guide to extensions and alterations to private dwellings March 2001.

                  (ii)              The proposal would, by reason of its massing, scale, design and external appearance, result in an incongruous form of development that would be out of scale and character with the area. It is considered that this proposed development would seriously detract from the quality of traditional building pattern which is enjoyed at this location within Fulford Conservation Area. The proposal is, therefore, considered to conflict with Central Government advice contained within Planning policy Guidance Note 15 (“Planning and the Historic Environment”) and Policies GP1, GP10 and HE2 of the City of York Draft Local Plan.

(iii)        The proposal would involve the shared use of the driveway that serves both the proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling at 52 School Lane. This driveway runs alongside the side elevation of the proposed dwelling in close proximity to ground floor windows and the main entrance door. As a result, there would be potential for unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance, together with pedestrian/vehicular conflict, to the detriment of the residential amenity of the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy GP1 (criterion i) of the City of York Draft Local Plan, and the objectives of Central Government advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 1 (“Delivering Sustainable Development”) and Planning policy Statement 3 (“Housing”) which seek to deliver a high quality residential environment.