Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda item

45 Osbaldwick Village, Osbaldwick, York, YO10 3NP [19/02200/FUL]

Two storey side extension following demolition of garage, and dormer to front (resubmission) [Osbaldwick and Derwent]

[site visit]



Members considered a full application from Mr and Mrs Sanderson for a two storey side extension following demolition of garage, and a dormer to front.


Officers provided members with an oral update on the application and reported further comments from Design, Conservation and Sustainable Development (these can be found as a supplement to the agenda).


The Conservation Architect was present to respond to questions.


The following registered speakers spoke in support of the application: Cllrs Warters and Rowley, Ward Members for Osbaldwick & Derwent and the applicant, Mr Rory Sanderson.  Their comments included the following:


·        The applicant had intended to create a useable family house.  

·        The applicant had worked with the Parish Council to submit a suitable plan and had been very open and transparent in consultation regarding the proposals.

·        The Parish Council, neighbouring properties and had fully supported the plans.

·        During consultation a whole host of organisations had raised no objections to the proposals, two organisations had been in support.

·        The new proposal was an improvement on that previously submitted in terms of the size, it introduced symmetry, the dormers were in keeping with the area in that they were similar to the house across the road.  The proposal was an enhancement to the village.

·        The Ward Members stressed that they always seek to preserve the conservation area and that they were both fully supportive of these proposals.

·        Page 71 paragraph 5.20 of the officer’s report referred to features that are ‘not characteristic of the area’ these comments were considered to be subjective.

·        Page 70 paragraph 5.18 referred to the previous extension and mentioned how the new extension would ‘mirror the existing extension’ which had been approved in 1986.  Members asked how this could be considered acceptable for approval in 1986 but not acceptable now.


The following information was provided in response to questions from committee members: 


·        Officers clarified that Osbaldwick Parish Council had previously objected to the previous proposal but were in support of this proposal.

·        The area had become a conservation area in 1976.

·        Catslide dormer windows were considered to be more prevalent in suburban areas, this is a rural area.

·        The Conservation Architect explained that defining characteristics of a rural dwelling in the conservation area would be symmetry, quality of design, traditional windows with timber frames, spaces between dwellings, gables rather than hipped roof, the setting of dormers, properties being set back from the road.  Ultimately does a proposal preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

·        The overriding reason for refusal on this application had been scale and massing rather than features of a rural area.



A motion to overturn the officer recommendation to refuse was proposed and seconded.  This motion was Lost.


Members considered that the ideal outcome would be if the applicant resubmitted a proposal which would be acceptable to the conservation area.


To that end a second motion was proposed to Defer the application, and it was therefore:


Resolved:  That the application be Deferred.


Reason:     The existing proposal was not considered to be acceptable in the conservation area.  The application has been deferred until such a time as a revised scheme, which is more acceptable in the conservation area, is submitted.




Supporting documents:


Back to the top of the page