Agenda item

One and two storey pitched roof rear extension, single story extension to side and pitched roof dormers to front [Osbaldwick Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a full application, submitted by Mr and Mrs P Fort, for a one and two storey pitched roof rear extension, a single storey extension to the side and pitched roof dormers to the front.

Officers updated that the points raised in the four letters of objection were all material planning considerations other than references to the introduction of a first floor and problems during the construction. Reference was also made to the letter of objection, circulated at the meeting, from a neighbour, which raised a number of points.

Representations, in objection to the application, were received from the neighbour who confirmed that he was not against an extension to the property but he objected to the complete rebuild and scale of this proposal, which was not in keeping with the area. He referred to the number of objections received to the application mainly on the grounds of the scale of the development and massing. He stated that this would have a major impact on his property from a loss of light owing to the close proximity of the development to the boundary.

Representations, in support of the application were received from the applicant, who confirmed that his architect had given careful consideration to the design and that the proposal was for a family home for his wife and three children. He stated that they had felt that the proposal did not affect the amenities of the neighbours and that many of the points raised were emotional rather than factual. He went on to list the points raised in objection some of which had been addressed at the site visit and stated that the footprint of the extended property would be 24% of the total plot the same as the neighbouring property.

Councillor Morley, as Ward Member, spoke from the floor and referred to local concerns he stated that the report summarised the guidance on extensions but he felt there were a number of points in relation to the application where there were conflicts.  These conflicts related to the scale of the property, its orientation, roof pitch, the porch height, the front dormers and the breach of the building line at the rear, which impacted on the Green Belt.

Members questioned how many properties in the area had used upper floors. In answer the applicant stated that he had undertaken a survey of 30 properties in the area of which 19 had made use of the loft space. The objectors stated that all 120 properties on the Meadlands estate would need to be taken into account in this survey as the majority were bungalows with some having bedrooms in the roof space which only entailed windows in the gable ends of the property.

Members expressed concerns at the dominance of the rear extensions on the neighbouring property so close to the property boundary.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused. ¹.

REASON:                  The City of York Council considers that the development, by virtue of its design, size and scale will dominate the original building and when viewed from neighbouring properties would result in an overbearing and oppressive development which would lead to a significant loss of amenity to the detriment of the living conditions of these residents. As such the application is considered contrary to the City of York Draft Local Plan policies H7 and GP1 and the City of York Council Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Guide to extensions and alterations to private dwelling houses' approved March 2001.