Agenda item

Two storey front, first floor side, single storey front extensions and balcony to side. [Bishopthorpe Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr Michael Meek for a two storey front, first floor side, single storey front extensions and balcony to the side.

Councillor Galvin had submitted a letter in support of the proposals which made the following comments:

·        Although there may not be “special circumstances”, there was a need for the extension to facilitate accommodation for ageing parents

·        The proposed changes would in fact enhance the overall appearance of the property and show a much more balanced frontage.

·        The proposals would not have a harmful effect on the green belt as the view from the road and the surrounding area would remain almost unchanged due to the location of the property.

Mr Michael Meek, the applicant, had registered to speak in support of the application. He explained that the proposed changes would allow him to be able to care for his elderly parents at the property while allowing them all sufficient space in order to be able to live together harmoniously. He stated that the proposed changes would give the building a better appearance and the changes were sympathetic to both the building and the surrounding area.

Members accepted that the proposed design may well be an improvement on current house although acknowledged that design was an issue of personal preference. They noted however  that taking into account the previous extension, the proposed extensions including  the addition of the balcony, the percentage increase would be 53% on the original footprint which was far in excess of the 25% maximum increase guideline in policy GB4 of the Development Control Local Plan. They also considered the view of the building from the main road and the effect on neighbouring properties and expressed the view that the proposed changes would have an overbearing effect. They agreed that while the applicant’s intentions were laudable this was not very special circumstances, and Greenbelt Policy must take priority in this case.

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reason:     It is considered that the proposed increase in height of the existing side extension, the scale and design of the two storey front extension and the creation of a balcony would not appear subservient in relation to the host dwelling and would represent a disproportionate addition. Furthermore, the resultant dwelling would have an awkward appearance which would be at odds within this location and would be detrimental to the rural character of the area. As such, the proposal would conflict withadvice relating to design contained within the National Planning Policy  Framework (March 2012), and with Policies GP1 (a, b and c) and H7 (a and e) of the City of York Draft Development Control Local Plan and advice contained within Section 7 of York Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions and Alterations (2012).

It is considered that the proposed extension would constitute a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling and thus constitutes an inappropriate form of development that would, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt. It is considered that the proposal would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, and thus would be contrary to national planning advice contained within paragraphs 88 and 89 of the National

Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies GB1 (Development in the Green Belt) and GB4 (Extensions to Existing Dwellings in the Green Belt) of the City Of York Draft Local Plan.