Agenda item

Two storey side and rear extensions, single storey rear extension and detached annexe to rear.

[Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward][Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr and Mrs Forsyth for two storey side and rear extensions, single storey rear extension and detached annexe to rear.

Officers provided an update to the committee. They advised that three letters of objection had been received from neighbouring residents which raised the following issues:

·         Generally supports the scheme and the change of use.

·         Some concerns in connection with the revised design of the annex

·         The increase in eaves height of the annex will make the building more imposing and result in the loss of a view.

·         The annex would result in the loss of possible access to an existing telecom pole.

·         The addition of the two roof lights and window to the rear gable end may result in the loss of privacy.

·         The two storey side extension comes very close to the property.

·         The ground level at 292 Tadcaster Road is higher and as such is acting as a retaining wall.

·         New foundations for the extension would be very close to the boundary and could affect the foundations of the apartment.

Officers advised that the applicant’s agent had also submitted three letters of support that they have received from neighbouring residents which raised the following points:

·         The way the architect has designed and proposed this development without spoiling its facade is fantastic and is to be applauded

·         we strongly support the application and the principle of 292 being returned into a fine family home , enhancing the neighbourhood

·         a sympathetic and tasteful restoration, bringing a dowdy former office into a grand Villa as it would have been when originally built

·          The transformation from Commercial to a Period feature family home will be an asset to the neighbourhood as it stands proud and faces east across the Knavesmire.

Officers advised the committee that their main concern was the impact of the side extension which it was considered would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area and the special interest of the listed building.

Ms Janet O’Neill, the applicant’s agent, addressed the committee in support of the both this application and the application for listed building consent. She circulated a document to members which showed photographs and plans of the proposals which she explained in detail. She stated that this was the best option for bringing the historic building back into active use while retaining the most important features of the building. She advised that neighbours were supportive of restoration of the building to a family home and that the only point of issue was the narrow two storey side extension which she explained would be set back and hidden by trees. In respect of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) test, officers had not advised that substantial harm would occur, therefore any harm must be weighed against the public benefit.

Members questioned the necessity of the side extension and asked whether it would be possible to reconfigure the internal layout so that there would not be a need for the side extension. The agent explained that this side extension allowed for ensuite bathrooms without having the make the bedrooms L shaped to allow space for bathrooms. This option would best preserve the historic proportions of the house and enable the house to retain its square shaped rooms as when it was built.

Officers advised the committee that the starting point for consideration of the application was the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act rather than the NPPF, and that balancing the NPPF followed on from the Act. While the conservation officer has determined that it constituted less than substantial harm, this still had to be clearly weighed against the public benefit of the proposals and Members must consider whether the proposals were necessary and whether they outweighed the harm to the conservation area and listed building..

Some members felt that, while the proposed side extension was not ideal, any harm was outweighed by the resulting restoration of the building to a family home. Councillor Carr moved and Councillor Gillies seconded a motion to approve the application. On being put to the vote, this motion was lost.

Other members, while welcoming many aspects of the proposals, felt that the side extension was out of place and would cause harm to the street scene and would have a detrimental effect on the conservation area. They did not agree that the harm was outweighed by bringing the building back in active use as a family home and noted that the application could be resubmitted without the side extension.

Resolved:      That the application be refused.

Reason          It is considered that the proposed two storey side extension, by reason of its roof design and blank side elevation, would constitute a discordant addition which would appear at odds with the design of this attractive detached dwelling. It is further considered that the extension would infill an important gap between the host dwelling and the neighbours property and would have a detrimental impact upon the street scene and the character and appearance of the Tadcaster Road Conservation Area. It is considered therefore that the two storey side extension fails to accord with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act and conflicts with national guidance on good design in the NPPF, Policy H7 (criterion a and e), HE2 and HE3 of the 2005 City of York draft Development Control Local Plan.