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

Southbank Stores, 75 Balmoral Terrace, York YO23 1HR [19/02133/FUL]

Two storey rear extension, single storey rear extension, dormer to rear, 1 rooflight to rear and 2 rooflights to front following demolition of single storey rear extension [Micklegate Ward] [Site Visit]



Note: Cllr Crawshaw left the meeting for discussion of this item.


Members considered a full application from Ms Sara Winlow, for a two storey rear extension, single storey rear extension, dormer to rear, 1no. rooflight to the rear and 2no. rooflights to the front following demolition of single storey rear extension.


Officers provided Members with an oral update on the application and reported six additional representations from interested parties in support of the application.  It was also noted that a petition in support of the application had been submitted which had 631 signatures in support of the application.  Additional comments from the applicant had also been received and can be viewed as a supplement to the Agenda.


Representations were received from the applicant Ms Sara Winlow and Ms Liz Musk who spoke in support of the application, and the  neighbouring resident, Ms Elena Myers who spoke in objection to the proposal.


Ms Liz Musk spoke and then read out a statement on behalf of the applicant, Ms Sara Winlow, who explained her intention was to re-open a shop on the ground floor and to create a family home.  She reported that the application had generally been well received and that she considered the impact of the two storey extension and dormer on the neighbouring property at 75A to be negligible.  What they had proposed had been similar to developments in nearby properties.


Ms Elena Myers of 75A Balmoral Terrace spoke in objection to the proposal stating that although she supported local businesses and the intention of the applicant to re-open the shop on the ground floor, she considered that the extension and dormer proposed to be dominant and overbearing.  She had made several efforts to communicate with the applicant regarding creating a reduced extension and dormer.  Her concerns were the close proximity of proposal and how that would reduce the amount of daylight into their living room and bedroom.  She considered that this would create a sense of being ‘boxed in.’  The extension would create overlooking into their kitchen and dining room.  Furthermore, she considered that the proposal was unattractive and not in keeping with the area.


Members considered that the difficulty in agreeing a scheme that was satisfactory to both parties was in relation to the size and mass of the rear extension, the dormer and the impact that that would have on the amenity of no.75A. The Development Manager explained that the wish to convert the attic into a bedroom required a new set of stairs into the roof which would be difficult without a dormer.


It was moved and seconded that the application be Deferred to allow the applicant time to produce an acceptable scheme suitable for both parties.  It was also requested that a day light and sun light study be undertaken which accords with Building Standards requirements, in order to provide clarity and certainty of the impact of this aspect to the amenity of no.75A.  It was therefore:


Resolved:  That the application be Deferred.


Reason:     To allow the applicant time to produce an acceptable scheme suitable for both parties.

Supporting documents:


Back to the top of the page