Agenda item

Alterations, extension and part demolition of existing building to create a single storey dwelling [Acomb Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr J M Armitage for alterations, an extension and part demolition of the existing building to create a single storey dwelling.

Officers updated the Committee on the planning history of the site and what developments had taken place to date.

Officers advised Members that Acomb Planning Panel had responded to the consultation and had no objections to the application. They also advised that an additional letter of objection had been received from the residents of 240 Beckfield Lane on behalf of residents of 236, 238 and 242 Beckfield Lane, 243 Boroughbridge Road, 1 Portal Road and 104 and 108 Albion Avenue as well as themselves. This letter raised concerns over the loss of amenity of neighbours due to overshadowing, loss of open space, loss of skyline, the size of the extension and mass of the building. It also suggested that the proposed extension should be removed from the plans leaving a two bedroom bungalow which would be more in keeping with the area and would maintain some of the openness of  the site. (A copy of the officer’s update has been published online with the agenda papers for this meeting.)  

Representations were heard from a resident of Beckfield Lane in objection to the application. She stated that the extension was too large for the site, that it would be overbearing and would compromise the amenity of neighbours, spanning several gardens. She asked that the roof be hipped on all elevations and the roof height reduced. She raised concerns that dormer windows could be added at a later date by the applicant and requested that the application be conditioned to prevent this from happening. She expressed concerns about the work which had taken place on the site previously and requested that the site be carefully monitored by enforcement officers from now on. 

In response, Officers responded that condition 3 removed permitted development rights in respect of any future extensions and that condition 4 limited the height of the development to 5.2m from the existing ground level. 

Representations were also received from the agent in support of the application. She reiterated the fact that Acomb Planning Panel did not object to the application. She advised Members that she had re-measured the site and she confirmed the distances between the development and adjacent properties. She stated that further discussions had taken place between the applicant and the owner of 106 Albion Avenue. She advised that her client would demolish the shell of the building which was already on site and revert to the previously approved scheme if required but advised that he would not be prepared to redesign the proposed house with a hipped roof.

Members acknowledged that the principle of building on the site had been established by the approval of the original application and some Members agreed that the new proposals went a long way to addressing residents concerns by creating a single storey building with a condition to remove future extensions under permitted development rights. They voiced the opinion that in many ways it fitted the site better than what has previously been approved and was therefore acceptable. Councillor Galvin moved and Councillor Reid seconded a motion to approve the application. On being put to the vote the motion fell.

Some Members raised concerns that the development was still too large for the site. They also expressed concerns with the shape of the roof and suggested it would be less overbearing if it was hipped and the slope of the roof was flatter. Councillor Horton moved and Councillor B Watson seconded a motion to refuse the application on the grounds of overdevelopment and the design of the roof. On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:            

That the application be refused.

REASON:                 

The proposed dwelling by reason of the design, pitch and height of the roof and its site coverage, in particular the front projection towards no.106 Albion Avenue, would result in a development that is too big for the site and that would be overbearing and dominate the outlook from adjoining residential properties. The dwelling would therefore harm the living conditions of the adjoining dwellings which is contrary to the following policies of the Development Control Local Plan:

Policy GP1 which states that development proposals will be expected to be of a layout, scale, mass and design that is compatible with neighbouring buildings and ensure that residents living nearby are not unduly dominated by overbearing structures;

Policy GP10 which states that planning permission will only be granted for the sub-division of existing garden areas where this would not be detrimental to the amenity of the local environment, and;

Policy H4a which states that proposals for residential development will be granted where it is of an appropriate scale to surrounding development.

The proposal is also considered to be contrary to National planning policies contained within PPS1 "Delivering Sustainable Development" and PPS3 "Housing".