Agenda item

This application relates to an amendment to a previous planning permission granted in December 2011 (Ref: 11/02797/FUL) for a two storey side and single storey rear extension, on a detached dwelling at 55 Rawcliffe Lane, Clifton Without.

The application has been called to Committee for a decision by Councillor J. Watt due to concerns over a proposed balcony on the rear extension being constructed without planning permission and further concerns regarding privacy.[Skelton, Rawcliffe and Clifton Without] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr Nigel Courtis for a two storey and single storey rear and side extension (amended scheme) (retrospective).

Officers stated that they had received a revised plan that morning and that Members must agree whether they were happy to consider this revised plan.  Members acknowledged that due to the application being retrospective, they had the benefit of being able to assess any concerns raised by neighbours with regard to the development.

Representations were received from the next door neighbour in objection to the application. He expressed dismay that the development bore little resemblance to the original approved plans and included glazed doors leading out onto a lead roof which were not shown on the original plan. He advised the Committee that he had barely used his own garden during the summer due to disturbance from building works taking place. He expressed the view that the applicant has total disregard for other people’s privacy stating that if this scheme was approved, he would lose the privacy in his garden. He asked Members to require the applicant to reinstate the pitched roof and change the door to a window as well as to convert the main balcony to a Juliette balcony to prevent loss of privacy.

Representations were also received from a member of Clifton Without Parish Council. He questioned the point of consultation if the applicant then ignores the planning decision which takes account of consultation responses as appears to be the case here where the applicant has gone against the ruling and built two balconies.  

Members considered how the application could be conditioned to prevent  loss of privacy to the neighbour if they were minded to approve it, for example preventing the lead apron being converted to a balcony at a later date, requiring that the glazed doors to be changed to a window or requiring the lead apron to be reinstated as a pitched roof. However concern was expressed that the applicant may ignore any conditions imposed.

Members agreed that use of the existing balcony and the potential use of the lead apron as a second balcony (accessed using the existing glazed doors) would lead to overlooking of the garden of the neighbouring property at number 57 Rawcliffe Lane and subsequent loss of privacy in the garden.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:                  It is considered that the use of the balcony and the area annotated as 'lead apron' on the submitted drawing, both at first floor level at the rear of the dwelling, would result in (and in the case of the lead apron would potentially result in) unacceptable overlooking of the adjacent private rear garden of 57 Rawcliffe Lane to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers. The application would, therefore, conflict with guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 17) which states, inter alia, that planning should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. It would also conflict with City of York Development Control Local Plan policy GP1 (i), which expects development proposals to ensure that residents living nearby are not unduly affected by overlooking, and policy H7 (d), which states that residential extensions will be permitted where there is no adverse effect on the amenity which neighbouring residents could reasonably expect to enjoy.