Agenda item

Further to minute 56 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 11^th August 2011 where Panel refused a revised application for 3 bedroom detached house incorporating second floor ancillary granny annexe to garden plot (part retrospective), to consider a further report in light of the recent Court judgement

(report attached)

  Further to minute 56 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 11^th August 2011, where Panel refused a revised  application, Members considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer in light of the recent Court judgement on this matter

Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting

Officers presented the report and informed Members that the Inspector’s letter on the most recent appeal was not attached as stated but had been when the Panel had previously considered the matter in August 2011

The Deputy Area Planning Manager drew the Panel’s attention to paragraph 5.4 of the submitted report which explained that during the recent court hearing, consideration to altering the appearance of the dwelling, particularly the roof form had been discussed.  As Officers were not seeking further revisions to the scheme, the applicant’s request for this to be put formally in writing to him had not take place.  On this matter, a representation had been received from the applicant’s solicitor expressing concern and requesting that the application be removed from the agenda to enable discussions to take place.  As a result of this request, Panel was asked to take a view on this with Members being informed there was no obligation to seek further amendments to the submitted scheme

Members were informed that the Court’s view of the original site plan which had been submitted was that it was so inaccurate, (as it showed the street to be level, which is not the case) that it could not be relied upon.  A survey had been carried out which confirmed this with Officers being satisfied on the accuracy of the latest street survey

In respect of the height, Members were informed that the applicant was of the view that this was correct at 10.4m.  Whilst the Judge had confirmed the maximum height should be 10.4m, he had not come to a decision on where this would be measured from, with Officers of the view that the height of the property could be considered in the round and therefore, due to the inaccuracies in the original street plan submitted with the application, they would no longer support the fall back position

Photographs showing alterations which had been made to the ground levels to achieve a height of 10.4m were displayed

The current proposal was outlined, which contained some design differences from the previous scheme and was set back 0.9m to the front and 0.8m at the rear, although Officers were recommending the application be refused as set out in the report before Members

Having considered the report and the Officer’s presentation, the Chair was satisfied that the Panel was in receipt of all the information needed to determine the application

The Panel heard representations from the applicant’s agent and an objector who attended the meeting

The agent’s comments that his client sought an amicable solution to the situation were noted as was the length of time – 7 years – this matter had been ongoing

Tribute was again paid to the tenacity of the local residents in seeking to resist an illegal development in their community

RESOLVED -  That the application be refused for the following reason:

The proposed retention and modification of the dwelling house would by reason of its excessive height and resulting scale, mass and bulk relative to its immediate neighbours, in conjunction with the uncharacteristic vertical emphasis of the overall design appear obtrusive and represent a discordant feature in the street scene to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.  As such, the development would be contrary to Policies GP5, N12 and N13 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review), residential design guide for Leeds ‘Neighbourhoods for Living’ and the design advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework