Agenda item

Members considered a full application from Mrs Gwen Bentley for a single storey side and rear extension and the raising of the roof to provide first floor accommodation.

Officers advised Members that an objector had submitted some further information and it had been requested that this be put before the committee. Copies of the existing and proposed footprint (scale 1:100) and a drawing of the existing and proposed front elevation of the house were therefore circulated to the committee.

Officers also advised that in addition to the objections listed in the report at paragraph 3, an objection had also been received from the occupier of no 8 Brackenhills. They advised Members that the objection from 11 Sycamore View was with regard to drainage proposals.

Some photographs of the site were circulated for the benefit of those Members who were not able to attend the site visit.

.

Representations were received from a neighbour at 8 Brackenhills in objection to the application. With the Chair’s agreement, she placed some scale models (1:40) on the table in order to help Members visualise the proposals. She stated that these proposals would create one of the largest properties in terms of scale and footprint on one of the smallest plots on the street. She drew Members’ attention to the plans which she had produced and which had already been circulated. She raised concerns based on the following seven factors:

·         the large footprint in relation to the size of plot;

·         the height of the proposed property

·         the forward position in relation to the neighbouring property

·         the angle of the building

·         the roof size and appearance

·         the large front facing gable end

·         its closeness to the boundary.

She asked that the application be refused due to its scale and dominant nature.

In response to a question, the speaker confirmed that one side of the road consisted solely single storey bungalows and on the other side there were bungalows with five 2 storey houses at one end of the road. She provided clarification of the how the proposed roof height would compare to neighbouring properties.

Representations were also received from the joint owner of 10 Brackenhills, in support of the application. He noted that the officer’s report had addressed all the objections which had been put forward and reminded Members that the planning officer had recommended approval.. He advised the Committee that he was a builder with 50 years experience and made the following points in relation to the application:

·         the front driveway would be block paved with parking for 3 cars and would provide wheelchair access for his disabled nephew.

·         the proposed extension would allow them to create a downstairs ensuite bedroom for his nephew to use when he came to stay and therefore they was the need for an additional upstairs bedroom.

·         the roofline would be visually inline with other properties.

·         there were 2-storey houses opposite, the one directly opposite having had multiple extensions.

Councillor Healey spoke in objection to the application on behalf of 17 local residents who had put forward objections. He advised the Committee that most residents’ concerns related to the scale and appearance of the proposed extension.  He made the following points:

·         it would have the largest footprints of any property in the street yet is on one of the smallest plots

·         the garden amenity space would be greatly reduced leaving only a very small garden.

·         It is doubtful whether there would be room to park 3 cars on the drive and if correct this would create a crowded effect.

·         It would be the only property in the street with no front garden which would impact on the street scene.

·         It would create the highest property on that side of the road

·         the roof is not into proportion to ground floor of building creating a top heavy appearance

·         the front facing gable end would create a negative visual impact on the street

·         the forward position combined with angle and closeness to boundary would give it an odd skewed appearance

·         It does not take into account guidelines in Local Development Framework and Poppleton Village Design Statement

·         it would be over dominant and incongruous and would impact negatively on other properties

In response to the issues raised by Councillor Healey, officers advised that the garage was below normal standards but that the available parking area was adequate.

Councillor Gillies moved and Councillor Cuthbertson seconded a motion to refuse the application on the grounds that the proposed extension was too large for the size of plot and would have a negative impact on the street scene due to its height and density. On being put to the vote, this motion fell.

While other members acknowledged that the footprint would be large, they did not believe there was sufficient justification to refuse the application and pointed out that it would be the applicant, rather than other residents, who would be most affected by the loss of garden space and this was his choice to make.

Councillor Watson moved and Councillor Crisp seconded a motion to approve the application. On being put to the vote, this motion was carried.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.

REASON:                  The proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to residential amenity or the overall character of the area. As such the proposal complies with Policies GP1 and H7 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan and the 'Guide to extensions and alterations to private dwelling houses' Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Note: Councillor Riches entered the meeting when the first speaker was addressing the Committee. As he had not been present for the officer’s update, he did not take part in the vote on this application.