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, 1no. rooflight to rear and 2no. rooflights to front following demolition of single storey rear extension [Micklegate]


Members confirmed that in the event that the Chair was unable to

Chair this item (such as technical problem), Cllr Webb would

act as Vice-Chair in the Chair.  It had been necessary to confirm

this position as the Vice-Chair, Cllr Crawshaw, would be leaving

the meeting having declared a prejudicial interest in this



Cllr Crawshaw left the meeting having declared a prejudicial

interest in this item.


Members considered a full application from Ms Sara Winlow for the construction of a two storey rear extension, single storey rear extension, dormer to the rear of the property, a roof light to the rear of the property and two roof lights to the front of the property, following the  demolition of the single storey rear extension.  The decision for this application had been deferred by this Committee at its meeting on 6 February 2020, to allow the applicant time to produce an acceptable scheme suitable for both parties.


Officers gave a presentation based upon the slides at pages 29-35 of the Agenda and provided an update which had been circulated via email prior to the meeting, reporting:

·        An additional representation received from Cllr Carr, who had acted as substitute for Cllr Galvin during discussion of the application at the February Committee, where he had spoken in support of the application, expressing the view that the proposal was a sustainable development offering many benefits for the community which outweighed any harm caused by the proposal.  He considered that these views remained valid.

·        The previous representations published in 6 February 2020 officer’s report:

o   those in objection raising concerns regarding loss of light, outlook and privacy and the front yard feeling more enclosed;

o   those in support stating the benefits to the community of a nearby local coffee shop especially when compared to the impact of residents driving elsewhere for this service.

·        A representation from a neighbouring resident in response to the revised proposals, stating that their previous objections still stand, such as dominance and loss of light, outlook and privacy.


Ms Elena Myers, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application, stating that the proposed scheme remained largely unchanged in that the two storey extension had remained the same and the dormer had widened, increasing its footprint.  Therefore, her objection remained based on loss of amenity, privacy and light.  She considered the proposed scheme to be an overdevelopment of an already developed site.


The Democratic Officer, read out a statement on behalf of the applicant Ms Sara Winlow, stating that the application had received significant support and had met with no objections at Micklegate Planning Committee.  The applicant had amended their plans to address their neighbour’s concerns and considered that there were no further adjustments that could be made which would also allow for a habitable space for herself and her son and urged Members to accept this scheme due to the special circumstances the proposal had met in terms of providing a community facility.


Janet O'Neill, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application, stating that the potential detriment to the amenity of neighbours at 75A was not considered significant, in the daylight and sunlight study, and when views were analysed from the 3 affected windows. She considered that the benefits of creating an adequate family home; a livelihood; and a resource for the local community far outweighed the detriment to outlook from no.75A.


Cllr R Baker, spoke in support of the application on the grounds that this scheme would rejuvenate life in the Southbank terraces and create a much-needed new community hub for the area.  Residents moving in to the developments near the racecourse would need facilities on their doorstep to discourage them from driving elsewhere. 


In response to questions from Members, officers confirmed that:

·        The dormer in the revised proposal was further away from no. 75A and wider, resulting in a reduction in terms of the cubic content and mass.

·        Although BRE 2007 guidelines were not adopted as part of NPPF they were recognised as being widely used and applied in relation to building standards.

·        The application had been submitted as a ‘householder application’, although the applicant had made the point that there were elements of the application which related to the business such as the stock room and downstairs W/C.  Were the application to be granted and no business to materialise, planning enforcement would not be in a position to require the business to open.

Following a debate, Cllr Craghill moved, and Cllr Galvin seconded, that the application be approved, on the grounds that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) asks Members to support local sustainable business development wherever possible; the need for this business to have a combined use and provide a family home; the contribution of the business in terms of building a community.  These factors outweighed the limited harm to the neighbouring property at no.75A, and the proposal was in keeping with the area.

In accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken. Cllrs Craghill and Galvin voted in favour of this proposal, and the motion was declared LOST.


Cllr Fisher then moved, and Cllr Webb seconded, that the application be refused, in accordance with the officer recommendation.  Cllrs: Cullwick, Fisher, Melly, Orrell, Perrett, Waudby, Webb and Hollyer all voted in favour of this motion.  Cllr Craghill voted against this motion and Cllr Galvin abstained from voting, and the motion was declared CARRIED.  It was therefore:


Resolved:            That the application be REFUSED.


Reason:               The mass of the two storey rear extension and rear roof dormer would appear dominant and overbearing to neighbouring residents at no. 75A Balmoral Terrace. The additional mass of the two storey rear extension and rear roof dormer would be detrimental to the pattern of the existing buildings and the spacing between them resulting in the neighbouring residents feeling unduly 'hemmed in'. The proposals would detract from the outlook from the ground floor living room and first floor bedroom of the neighbouring dwelling house resulting in harm to the levels of amenity that these neighbouring residents could reasonably expect to enjoy.  As such the proposals result in harm to residential amenity and visual amenity which is in conflict with paragraph 127 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy D11 of the Publication Draft York Local Plan 2018, Policy GP1 (criterion b and i) and H7 (criterion d and e) of the 2005 Development Control Draft Local Plan and advice contained in the City of York Council House Extensions and Alterations Draft Supplementary Planning Document, approved in December 2012, in particular paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, 7.2, 7.4 a), 13.4 and 14.1.



[There was a short comfort break between 6.20pm to 6.35pm]


Cllr Perrett left the meeting due to technical obstacles preventing her from being able to continue to participate in the meeting sufficiently.

Supporting documents:


Back to the top of the page