Agenda item

This application proposes a two storey rear extension with balcony, two storey extension to front incorporating porch, alterations to roof, with gates, brick piers, wall and railings to front. The proposal has been amended since it was first submitted. [Fulford] [Site Visit] 

Members considered an application for a two storey rear extension with balcony, two storey extension to front incorporating porch, alterations to roof, with gates, brick piers, wall and railings to front at 34 Eastward Avenue.

Officers circulated an update to Members, which was attached to the published agenda after the meeting. The update stated that the Council’s  Highways Engineer had confirmed that the minimum standard width to allow a vehicle to pass around the side of the house was 1.8 metres, and that therefore there were no objections from the Highways Department to the application.

Representations were heard from a neighbour in objection who stated that she along with other neighbours were against the application because;

• The extension would appear “fortress like” and thus significantly overshadow the neighbouring property.
• Other extensions to properties on the street had not been as dominant as the proposed application.
• If the application was approved that the decision could set a precedent for the design of future property extensions in the vicinity.

Representations were heard from a member of Fulford Parish Council. She told Members how the Parish Council did not agree with the Officer’s recommendation for approval because;

·        Although the impact of the extension had been reduced since previous submissions were rejected, a significant impact remained.

·         They felt that the description of the extension to a room was incorrect, as it was their opinion that this could be used as a room itself.

·        They felt that there were no special circumstances to warrant approval of the application because a lift could be installed without having to build an extension on to the property.

Members asked Officers questions regarding;

• Acceptable planning limits on the overshadowing of neighbouring properties.

• Whether there was existing development in the roof space of the property.
• Whether permitted development rights could be removed after approval of the application.

In response to Members’ questions Officers stated that:

• There were no definite acceptable planning limits on buildings overshadowing neighbouring properties, but that the  amount of light to the neighbouring property was regarded as being acceptable.
• The applicant had not shown development in the roof space of his property, but that internal alterations would not need planning permission.
• Permitted development rights could be removed, if Members were minded to approve the application.

Some Members stated that they considered that the application should be refused on grounds of visual amenity, neighbour impact and for parking issues. 

Other Members called for refusal of the application because they felt that the sunpath would be detrimentally affected by the extension to the adjacent property. They added that they considered that the height and design of the front boundary enclosure was not in keeping with the area.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:     (i) The proposed front boundary enclosure, due to the height and design of the piers and railings, would result in an incongruous addition to the dwellinghouse that would be out of character with other boundary features along Eastward Avenue, and would be unduly prominent in views along the street. It would consequently detract from the appearance of the property and the streetscene to the detriment of visual amenity in the area. It is considered, therefore, that the proposal would conflict with Central Government advice in relation to design contained within Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (Paragraph 34) and policies GP1 and H7 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan (2005).

                    (ii) The proposed two storey rear extension, due to its height, size, scale and proximity to the site boundary, would result in an excessive degree of overshadowing and loss of light to the adjacent property at 36 Eastward Avenue, to the detriment of the residential amenity which occupiers of that dwelling could reasonably expect to enjoy. It would, therefore, conflict with policies GP1 and H7 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan (incorporating fourth set of changes 2005) and City of York supplementary planning guidance-Guide to extensions and alterations to private dwelling houses.(2001)