Agenda item

Single storey rear extension and rooflights to side of The Coach House. [Fulford and Heslington Ward]

Members considered a full application from Mrs Sarah Urmston for a single storey rear extension and roof lights to the side of The Coach House.

Officers advised committee members that Fulford Parish Council had responded to the consultation and confirmed they had had no objections to the original application and believed that the amendments made the extension further subservient to the overall design therefore did not have any objections to this application.

With regard to the proposed recommendation, officers advised that as the consultation period had not yet ended, the officer recommendation should be that Members grant delegated authority to them to refuse the application at the end of the publicity period, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair should any further representations be received.

Mr Steven Urmston, the applicant, addressed the committee in support of the application. He made the following statement:

·        He and his wife were committed to achieving a high quality design which was why they had chosen to use an architect and submit a planning application rather than choosing to extend under permitted development rights.

·        They needed more space as they lived as an extended family with their children and mother.

·        With regard to public views of the property, only the east side of the property bordered public space and the proposed extension was orientated to face west away from the road.

Mr Joel Smith, the architect, also addressed the committee. He advised members that:

·        The proposed extension would only be 2.5m² larger than permitted development would allow

·        It would not be possible to introduce different types of design without being extremely pastiche or damaging scale.

·        The glass link was important as it detached the new part of the house from the existing property.

·        Planning officers felt existing open space in area would be compromised slightly by design but it only added 1% to overall built form, still less than 20% of that open area.

Members noted that the glazed break physically linked but separated the extension from the host building which was an accepted architectural feature. They felt it would have been impossible to extend in any other way apart from this, the only other option being to build in same style which would be considered pastiche. They felt that the chosen materials were sympathetic to the host building, Members noted that in Fulford there was already a mix of property styles and building materials and that no objections had been received from Fulford Parish Council. They did not feel there was any reason to refuse the application.

Resolved:  That delegated authority be given to officers to approve the application at the end of the publicity period, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair should further representations be received. 

Reason:     The contemporary design of the extension using appropriate materials would not harm the appearance of the host dwelling and would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.  The proposal was therefore in line with the built heritage policies of the NPPF and the Development Control Local Plan.