Agenda item

Two storey front and rear extensions, first floor side extensions and erection of garage block to front (resubmission)[Copmanthorpe] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from Mr and Mrs Jennings for two storey front and rear extensions, first floor side extensions and the erection of a garage block to the front (resubmission).

Officers advised that there were two main issues with the proposals. The first was the two storey side extension which they felt would reduce the existing visual gap between the host dwelling and 19  Tadcaster Road, which was an important characteristic of the style of properties in the area. The second was the scale of the proposed detached garage block to the front would harm the character of the area and due to its footprint, height and siting in the front garden, would significantly harm the outlook from 19 Tadcaster Road. They asked Members to consider whether the harm identified outweighed the general presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Mr Matthew Pardoe addressed the committee on behalf of the architects in support of the application. The applicant’s architect, Kate MacNeill, was also in attendance. Mr Pardoe advised Members that, if approved, the current ad hoc appearance of the building would be replaced with a cohesive design. The revised scheme addressed the two main concerns raised by officers in relation to the withdrawn scheme. It would not bring the property any closer to the properties to either side than at present, and a similar separation to the road would occur, therefore there would be no significant impact on the amenity of adjacent residents and no neighbour objections had been received. He advised that there would be considerable landscaping around the garage so the outlook for 19 Tadcaster Road would not be significantly affected, nor would the proposed garage have a significant detrimental impact on the area.

One Member questioned whether the garage could be located on the large area of land at back of the house instead of it being at the front of the plot but was advised that there was no access to the rear as the property from the front as the building stretched from one side of the plot to the other as did another six out of eight other substantial houses on the street.

Mr Pardoe explained that due to the change in levels of the sloping site, the house would be elevated in comparison to the garage which would sit at a lower level and this had been the reason for choosing this position for the garage.

One member expressed concern about the impact of the proposed changes on the property’s boundaries and concern about the garage.

Members agreed it had been beneficial to go on the site visit. They noted that the property was currently a combination of many different add ons and was not a particularly attractive building, and they felt that these proposals would produce a more coherent appearance. They acknowledged that the garage could not be positioned at the rear of the site due to access issues.  They noted however that there was good landscaping around the proposed garage in the form of trees and bushes and considered that the garage would hardly be apparent in the streetscene. The majority of members expressed their support for what they considered was a well thought out scheme which would significantly improve the appearance of the building.

Officers reminded committee members that there was still a week to run on the consultation period and advised that if Members were minded to approve the application subject to the standard conditions, that delegation be given to officers to approve it following the end of the consultation period. Members asked that if any objections were received during the remainder of the consultation period, that this application be brought back to committee for reconsideration.

Resolved:  (i)      That delegated authority be given to officers to approve the application, subject to standard conditions, following the end of the consultation period on 13 August and subject to no objections being received during the remainder of the consultation period.

(ii)      That if any objections were received during the remainder of the consultation period, the application be taken back to committee for reconsideration.

Reason:     Members felt that the harm identified in the report would be outweighed by the improvements to the appearance of the building through the proposed scheme.