Agenda item

Members will consider a full application by Mr T Mudd for the change of use from office to residential (use class C3) single storey rear extension following demolition of existing single storey rear extension, and dormer to rear (resubmission). [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered an application from Mr T Mudd at Mudd and Co, 5 Peckitt Street, York, YO1 9SF for the change of use from office to residential (use class C3), single storey rear extension following demolition of existing single storey rear extension, and dormer to rear (resubmission).

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the plans and the planning history of the application and highlighted the legal requirements as described in paragraphs 5.2 to 5.9 of the report.

At the request of Members, the plans were clarified in relation to the changes in the plans from the previous submission. 

The Conservation Officer confirmed that the roof was considered integral to the building, as such, a dormer would cause significant harm to the original character of the property.

Public Speakers

John Dench, known as Richard, spoke in support of the application as a neighbour.  He stated that the plans were appropriate and long overdue and noted that other houses in the area had been similarly developed.  He questioned how planning permission was granted for the extension at a neighbouring property.

Tim Mudd, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He noted that he wished to live in the house and explained the plans in some detail.  He noted that his neighbours supported his plans, and he requested that the committee defer their decision to allow for a site visit to take place.

In response to questions from Members, he explained that the second bedroom would be converted into a bathroom.  The dormer window would be of benefit to the property as it would provide light from the south; a conservation roof light would be a disappointment. He stated that he wanted to improve access on the ground floor by making the kitchen level with the dining room, it was possible to raise the kitchen floor but the ceiling height would be reduced.

The Conservation Officer clarified the following:

·        The Senior Flood Risk Engineer had confirmed that flood prevention measures were now in place.

·        The application at Peckitt Street was considered differently from the extension at the rear of Tower St as there had been no loss of an existing building for that extension.

·        The removal of an integral part of an historic building would cause harm.

·        The Planning Inspectorate had agreed at the appeal in relation to this property that the Dormer was of poor design, unsympathetic and excessive in scale.  Due to changes in building regulations, it was now unlikely that a dormer window would be approved.  A roof light was considered more suitable.

·        The internal alterations were acceptable; the existing kitchen could be used in conjunction with the dining room, with the rear service range left in place.

·        Maintenance issues were separate to the application; however it was recommended that maintenance was carried out to the neighbouring gutter and service range.

It was confirmed, in response to questions from Members, that the flood mitigation measures had been implemented subsequent to the 2015 floods.

Officers highlighted the report of the Planning Inspector at appeal and explained that the decision to list buildings was based on their inherent qualities, irrespective of how visible they are to the public.  The subservient relationship between the extension and the main building was also emphasised, as a larger extension would not be as subservient to the original building.

During the debate some members noted their sympathy for the applicant but highlighted their concerns regarding the dormer and extension. Members recommended that the applicant work with council officers to move the application forward in the future.

Following debate, Cllr Warters moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application, and this was seconded by Cllr Fenton.  Members voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation, and it was therefore:

Resolved:            that the application be refused.

Reason:              The proposal would have an adverse impact on the historic character of the application property and the character of the conservation area and be in conflict with paragraphs 130, 134, 189, 197 and 199 of the NPPF, and emerging Local Plan Policy D4 and Policy D5.