Agenda item

This is a full application for a two storey rear and side extensions. This application was originally considered by the Committee at their January meeting, where it was decided that the application be deferred until formal consultation had taken place on additional revised drawings that had been received.[Osbaldwick]

Members considered a Full Application by Mr. A Sullivan for a two storey rear and single storey side extensions to a detached dwelling.

Councillor Warters requested that he be able to address the Committee to outline reasons why he called in the application for consideration, the Chair accepted his request. He urged the Committee to defer the application due to a number of issues which included;

·        That he felt that there were numerous mistakes in the Officer’s report, which would not enable Members to make a fair decision.

·        That the property at 293 Hull Road did not have an extension, but that what had been perceived as such was part of the original building.

·        That objectors had not received copies of the revised plans that they had requested at the site visit.

In response to Councillor Warters’ concerns, the Chair reported that amended plans for the proposal had been available for members of the public to view at the Council Offices.

Officers informed the Committee that they had received an email, which had also been sent to all Members by a member of the public. In their response to the email, Officers stated that;

·        Whether the kitchen at 293 Hull Road constituted an extension or a part of the original house was not relevant as the Officer’s report was based on information that had been given by the occupier of the property, and what had been observed by the case officer on site.

·        The dimensions of the extension and distance from the boundary in the report were correct and that the proposed two storey extension was not as wide and was further away from the boundary of the property at 293 as originally reported.

·        References to 263 Hull Road in the Officer’s report were incorrect and should have referred to 293 Hull Road, and were unfortunate typographical errors.

For these reasons Officers suggested that, in their view, that there would not be justification for the Committee to defer a decision on the application again.

Officers answered a number of other queries from Members relating to cycle storage, existing car parking problems in the vicinity and confirmed that the Article 4 Direction in relation to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) would not take effect until  April, so a decision on the application would not have to comply with this.

Representations were received from a neighbour in objection. He raised a number of concerns which included;

·        Reduction of light for adjacent properties.

·        That surface water drainage had not been considered, in that the height of the garden at 295 was greater than the neighbour’s property which would lead to higher levels of water run off.

·        That the loss of kerbside parking would exacerbate current car parking problems and would lead to cars parking in the turning point in the road, which would block access to neighbouring properties.

Members asked Officers for clarification on whether the applicant could build some or all of the extensions under permitted development. It was reported that the applicant could build either the single storey side extension or the two storey rear extension in isolation without the need for planning permission. However, due to the combined width of the development, planning permission was required to build both elements together.

Some Members considered that the parking problems in the area were more likely to be due to the close proximity of a doctor’s surgery, not due to the inhabitants of the property. Additionally, it was noted that not all HMOs, were inhabited by students, and that Members could not base their decisions on perceptions about the behaviour of the inhabitants of the property. 

RESOLVED:       That the application be approved.

REASON:           In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance with particular reference to the amenity and living conditions of adjacent occupiers and the impact on the street scene. As such the proposal complies with Policies GP1 “Design” and H7 “Residential Extensions” of the City of York Local Plan Deposit Draft and the ‘Guide to extensions and alterations to private dwelling houses’ Supplementary Planning Guidance.