Agenda item

Two storey side extension and repositioned bike shed. [Fishergate Ward]

Members considered a Full Application, submitted by Mr T Bayley, for a two storey side extension and repositioned bike shed.

In answer to a request, the Chair confirmed that he would allow two speakers to make representations on different points in relation to the application.  Officers updated that two additional letters of objection had been received reiterating concerns to the proposal. If the application was approved, Officers requested the amend of Condition 4 to ask that materials were to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and Condition 5 amending to relate to surfacing with a permeable material rather than gravel.

Representations were then received in objection from a neighbour on behalf of residents of Wilsthorpe Grove and Heslington Lane. He stated that the development would produce an 8 bedroom student house, which it was felt would have a detrimental affect on neighbour’s amenities from noise, an increase in traffic, parking and drainage. He confirmed that they would have no objection if the dwelling was to be used a family home.

Representations in objection were also received from the immediate neighbour who confirmed that the property was at present occupied by students. She stated she suffered from tinnitus and that an increase in occupancy of the dwelling would result in increased noise levels. She requested Members to refuse the application as it introduced a business venture into a small community which would affect the quality of life of residents.

Cllr Hill, Local Member, confirmed that the proposal was in Fishergate Ward. He questioned the condition relating to cycle parking and the policy relating to the change of use from a dwelling house to a house of multiple occupation (HMO).   He stated that the area deserved protection as the development would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the area.

Officers clarified that an HMO application was required if there would be more than 6 unrelated people who lived together as a single household and if the proposal would result in a material change of use of the site.  It was confirmed that enforcement action could be taken if it could be proven that the living conditions of neighbours were harmed as a result of an increase in occupancy but that the loss of family housing was insufficient reason to refuse an application.

Members expressed concerns that the area was losing family housing, that the character of the area was being altered, the proposal was overdevelopment and questioned whether details were kept of properties that changed to student accommodation.

RESOLVED:                        That the application be refused.

REASON:        1 Due to its scale and its positioning, the proposed two storey extension would create a detrimental overbearing impact when viewed from the front public highway (Heslington Lane), contrary to Policy H7 of the City of York Draft Local Plan 2005.

                        2 It is considered that the proposed extension, which would have the potential of being used as a house for multiple occupation, would harm the living conditions which neighbours could reasonably expect to enjoy because of the potential noise and disturbance from the high level of occupancy and activity.  Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policies H7 and H8 of the City of York Draft Local Plan and Planning Policy Statement 1.