Agenda item

This full application is for two storey rear and single storey rear extensions.

This application has been brought before East Area Planning Sub-Committee for a decision by Councillors Richardson and Cuthbertson due to concerns made by local residents. [Haxby and Wigginton] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr Horsman for two storey rear and single storey side and rear extensions.

Members received a drawing from Officers, which illustrated the development that could take place at the property under permitted development rights, without the need for planning permission. All of the Committee felt that this was particularly useful to help them determine the application, and suggested that if possible, similar drawings be presented at future meetings.

Members raised two questions to Officers about how the extensions related to the building line, adjacent properties  and the reasons for consideration by the Committee.

It was reported that the extension would encroach beyond the building line at the rear of the property, but that separation distances to properties in Abelton Grove exceeded minimum standards. It was also noted that the application had been brought for Members’ consideration because of the close proximity of the first floor of the two storey extension to the neighbouring property.

Representations in objection were received from the immediate next door neighbour. She was concerned that the proposed side extension would encroach over the boundary of number 10 Old Orchard, and that access to the rear of the property to enable construction work to take place and protection of the drains had not been outlined by the applicant. Further to this she felt that the size of the proposed extensions would adversely affect adjacent residents, particularly in the winter months, due to loss of light.

Members asked the neighbour how the ground floor extension would be detrimental to her property. She responded that the extension would leave her with a lack of privacy due to the difference in height between the two storey house , and that the boundary would also only be maintained by a low fence.

Some Members felt that the application should be approved as the extension at the first floor was relatively small, and the ground floor extension would not be visible from the ground floor of the neighbouring property.

The Chair allowed Councillor Richardson, who had taken no part in the discussion due to his declaration of interest, to speak. He felt that there was an existing drainage problem that had not been addressed. He stated that it was particularly problematic in that a number of drains in the area did not appear on maps.

Officers informed Members that under permitted development rights, the applicant could build over the drains and that this was a matter to be resolved under Building Regulations or with Yorkshire Water, as appropriate.

Some Members felt that drainage concerns were not an issue to be considered as part of the planning process. Others were concerned that the development could distort the line of the neighbouring properties, and that the extensions would not fit in with the surrounding properties.

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 effect on residential amenity and the impact on the streetscene. As such the proposal complies with Central Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), 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.