Agenda item

Full height rear extension to no.31 including insertion of first floor windows and roof lights to side elevations and (recessed) balcony to rear, single storey rear extension to detached annex (31A Princess Road) and erection of detached garage with car port [Strensall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr and Mrs B Pepper for a full height rear extension, including insertion of first floor windows and roof lights to side elevations and (recessed) balcony to rear and a single storey rear extension to detached annex (31A Princess Road) and the erection of detached garage with car port.

Officers gave an update, which was attached to the online agenda following the meeting. This included an amended recommendation and amendments to paragraph 4.11, with particular regard to proposed new window openings.

In response to Member questions, Officers clarified that there were five proposed windows on the side facing towards no.29 Princess Road. On the ground floor two were in the extension and two in the existing house. On the first floor the window would be obscure glazed and that was a condition of any consent. They also clarified that the distance between the extension and the neighbouring property was 15 metres. Officers also answered questions on what could be provided as permitted development.

Philip Thorpe, a neighbour, spoke on behalf of local residents in objection to the application. He stated that there were concerns locally regarding the height of the proposal and over massing. He also expressed concern that amenity at his property (no.29) would be seriously affected.

Brian Pepper, the applicant, stated that his wife had medical issues and was registered disabled. They felt the proposed extension would significantly enhance their quality of life. The plot was private, well spaced and the current plan was less than 25% of the existing footprint. He suggested that there would be minimal overshadowing due to the design and stated that the upper rear windows would not be visible from any aspect of the neighbouring property.

Councillor Paul Doughty spoke, as a Ward Member, to express his concern about amenity of residents and overdevelopment.

During debate members expressed that they felt sympathy for the concerns of neighbours, but did not feel that there were strong enough planning reasons to refuse the application. The balcony was recessed and the ground floor windows were/could be screened. The first floor window was obscure glazed and overlooking was further minimised as the properties diverged.

Resolved:  That delegated authority be given to Officers to approve the application, following expiry of the consultation period. If any further material planning issues are received which have not been considered in the Officers report, they will be discussed with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Reason:     The revised development is considered acceptable and is considered to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. With regards to neighbour amenity the development would not create any significant harm in terms of overbearing impact proximity, light or overlooking, particularly given the generous size of the plots and separation distance. As such the proposal is considered to comply with the NPPF and Policies GP1 (Design), HE3 (Conservation Areas) and H7 (Residential Extensions) of the Development Control Local Plan and City of York Council's Supplementary Planning Document (House Extensions and Alterations).