Agenda item

Further to minute 186 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 19^th May 2011 where Panel deferred consideration of an application for alterations to existing unlawful residential annexe to form 3 bedroom residential annexe, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

(report attached)

  (Having declared personal and prejudicial interests, Councillor McNiven withdrew from the meeting)  (Councillor Hardy also left the meeting at this point)

  Further to minute 186 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 19^th May 2011 where Panel deferred consideration of an application for alterations to existing unlawful residential annexe to form 3 bedroom residential annexe, Members considered a further report

  Plans, photographs and drawings were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and informed Panel that discussions had taken place with the applicant and agent on the issues identified by Panel, these being, the extent of the ground floor to be reduced further and the side wall of the building to be sited to allow for a substantial hedge to be planted.  The Panel was informed that there had not been any alterations to the scheme to reduce its size

  In respect of the hedge, a request had been made to the adjacent school to purchase a small area of the land to facilitate the planting of a substantial hedge, however the Governors had refused this request

  Members were informed that earlier in the week revisions to the scheme had been submitted for preliminary discussions only and that it had been stressed that these revisions should not form the basis of any determination by Panel

  Officers highlighted the Inspector’s comments on the enforcement appeal which was heard at a Public Inquiry in July 2010.  The Officer presenting the application stated that in the light of all the information, including the Officers’ and the Inspector’s comments, Members might consider that there were sufficient grounds to refuse the application and reminded Members of the recommended reasons for refusal, set out in the report to Panel in May 2011

  Officers reported additional representations which had been received, these being 9 further objections and additional comments from the Roundhay Conservation Society.  Members were informed that an additional representation from the applicant in the form of an e-mail to the Chief Planning Officer had been received making reference to the report as a position statement and seeking assurances that the application would not be determined.  On this matter the Chief Planning Officer who attended the meeting informed Panel that he had responded to that e-mail stating he was not able to give the assurances the applicant had been seeking

  Concerns were raised by Panel at the amount of Officer time which had been spent in dealing with this application

  Further advice was sought on whether it was possible to determine the application which was described in the report as a position statement

  The Panel’s Legal adviser confirmed that all the information had been presented to Panel on which to make a decision and therefore Panel was able to take a decision on this occasion

  The Chief Planning Officer explained that where a position statement was being presented which preceded an Officer’s report and recommendation, it would not be appropriate to determine the application but that was not the situation before Panel

  In response to a question, the Chief Planning Officer stated that he had received the e-mail from the applicant at 4.20pm on Wednesday 5^th October and had replied to that message at 8.15am on 6^th October and had explained that Members might consider it appropriate to determine the application on the basis of information before them and that no further response had been received from the applicant

  The Panel considered how to proceed

  The Chair stated that the Panel and Officers had been patient and had asked for the applicant to revisit the application but that had not happened

  A proposal to refuse the application on the grounds set out in the report to Panel of 19^th May 2011 was made and seconded

  RESOLVED -  To refuse the application as presented to Panel on 19^th May 2011 on the grounds of the size of the building, the impact of the tree to the rear of the site and the lack of information to demonstrate that a hedge could be planted along the north western boundary to screen the building and for the specific reasons set out in the report submitted to Panel on 19^th May 2011

  (Following consideration of this matter, Councillor McNiven rejoined the meeting as did Councillor Hardy)