Agenda and minutes

  There were no late items

  The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked Members and Officers to introduce themselves

  There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests or other interests

  For the record, Councillor Selby stated that although he lived in the next street to Primley Park Crescent – Application 12/04103/FU – 29 Primley Park Crescent – he did not know the applicant or any of the objectors other than Councillor Harrand (minute 35 refers)

  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R Grahame who was substituted for by Councillor J Harper

To approve the minutes of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 29^th November 2012

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED -  That the minutes of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 29^th November 2012 be approved

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for new first and second floor with dormers to existing bungalow to form house; porch to front and new ground floor window to each side; two storey extension and conservatories to rear and front boundary wall and gates

(report attached)

  Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  The Panel’s Lead Officer presented the report which sought permission for extensions to form a new house at 29 Primley Park Crescent Alwoodley LS17

  The design characteristics of the surrounding area were outlined with Members being informed that it was not unusual for there to be a mix of bungalows and two storey properties adjacent to each other

  An in/out driveway was proposed which was considered to be acceptable.  As the plot was a generous one, two conservatories would be sited at the rear of the property, whilst still leaving an appropriate area of garden land

  Officers were of the view there were good levels of separation between the property and its neighbour; that the spatial setting of the proposals was acceptable and that a generous garden would be retained and recommended approval of the application, with an additional condition in respect of the boundary enclosure to the eastern side of the property

  Panel was informed that a revised plan had been submitted and had been sent to Councillor Harrand.  In response to a question from Panel, it was stated that Councillor Harrand had not made further representations in respect of this revised plan

  Members discussed the application and sought clarification about the size of the second storey dormer windows, with the Panel’s Lead Officer stating these were slightly smaller than those on the adjacent property

  RESOLVED -  That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report and an additional condition requiring the submission of details of the boundary enclosure to the eastern side of the site

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for two storey side, front and rear extension including dormer window with Juliet balcony to the side; raised terrace with balustrading above to front and new bay window to other side

(report attached)

  Plans, photographs and drawings showing the current application and previous consented schemes were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  The Panel’s Lead Officer presented the report which sought retrospective permission for extensions to Dene Cottage, Linton Lane, Wetherby, which was situated in a Conservation Area

  Members were informed that a peculiarity of the site was that the rear of Dene Cottage was the front of the adjacent house, The Willows, and that this was an important consideration in understanding the application

  Members noted that unauthorised works had been carried out on the property and initially the applicant had not ceased work but had now done so

  A particular issue was the impact the extensions, which were at an advanced stage, had on the amenity of the residents of The Willows

  Whilst the extension to the front of the house which had been constructed was similar in scale and form to what had been granted planning permission in 2004 and 2009, there were elevational differences.  It was set out that it could be contended that the extension to the rear did not comply with the Householder Design Guide in respect of how the impact of an extension, on the amenity of neighbours was assessed.  Members were informed that in respect of this, although the proposals contravened the letter of the Code, Officers were of the view that due to a number of other factors, this was a balanced decision and were recommending approval of the application.  It was noted that the Conservation Officer’s view differed from that of Planning Officers

  The receipt of 15 further letters of support were reported

  The Panel heard representations from an objector who attended the meeting

  Panel then discussed the application and commented on the following matters:

·  the rear boundary treatment which would help screen the extension from The Willows and that although a condition had been placed on the retention of this in the 2009 application, this had not been included in the current scheme

·  that the 2009 scheme was more suitable as it was subservient to the host property, unlike what had been constructed on site

·  that whilst Planning Officers might express a view to an applicant on a planning application this could only be an initial view as the planning process provided the opportunity for public consultation on the proposals, including representations both in support and against an application

·  concerns about the rear extensions and its impact on The Willows

The Panel’s Lead Officer stated that whilst the Head of Planning Services had been asked by the applicant to give an initial view on the proposals and had done so, without prejudice to the determination of any planning application that might be submitted, the applicant had been somewhat premature and had commenced the works

Members considered how to proceed

RESOLVED -  That determination of the application be deferred to enable further negotiations regarding the projection of the extension with a view to making  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Further to minute 212 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 17^th May 2012, where Panel resolved to refuse an application for the variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of approval 09/03138/FU for minor material amendment relating to three 4 bedroom detached houses with integral garage to rear garden, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the appeal summary in respect of this application and an enforcement notice issued against the raising of ground levels to facilitate the erection of a detached house and associated works

(report attached)

  Further to minute 212 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 17^th May 2012, where Panel resolved to refuse an application for the variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of approval 09/03138/FU, for minor material amendment relating to three 4 bedroom detached houses with integral garage to rear garden, Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer on appeal decisions in respect of this refusal and of an enforcement appeal

  The Panel’s Lead Officer presented the report and stated that the applicant had been successful in appealing the decision to refuse planning permission but had lost the enforcement appeal.  The Inspector required plot 3, which had not been built in accordance with the approved plan, to be demolished within three months and that to address this, the applicant would now implement the planning permission granted on appeal, within three months.  Members were informed that issues still remained regarding boundary treatments and drainage and that these were being dealt with

  Concerns were raised that no reference had been made to why the planning appeal had been granted, i.e. through an administrative error within Planning Services which resulted in the timescale for submission of evidence being missed,  as set out in the submitted report and that no apology had been offered to Panel or to the local residents who were affected by this situation

  The Panel’s Lead Officer stated that a meeting had been arranged with local residents and objectors for January and that steps had been taken to ensure this situation could not be repeated

  Members noted the steps which had been taken and suggested that a report be submitted to the Joint Officer/Working Group, if considered appropriate, which set out the measures which had been put in place to prevent this situation from occurring in the future

  RESOLVED -   To note the appeal decisions and the comments now made

Thursday 24^th January 2013 at 1.30pm

  Thursday 24^th January 2013 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds

  The Chair wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy 2013