Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application relating to alterations to existing unlawful residential annex

(report attached)

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

  Officers presented the report which sought approval for alterations which had been made to an existing unauthorised residential annexe at 11 Old Park Road Gledhow, which was situated in the Roundhay Conservation Area

The Panel noted the planning history and that several applications in respect of the annexe had been refused since planning permission was first granted in 2007, with enforcement proceedings being implemented culminating in appeals and a public inquiry, with the Inspector requiring the building to be demolished within 8 months of the date of his decision, this being by 19^th April 2011.  The Panel also noted that a further application had been submitted in December 2010 which was subsequently refused by Plans Panel East at is meeting on 6^th October 2011 (minute 85 refers)

  Members were informed that when comparing the 2007 approved scheme with the current application, the first floor level would be identical to that which was approved in 2007, although at ground floor level this would be 2.6m longer and slightly higher by approximately 10cm.  The footprint of the proposed building would be 25% larger than that approved in 2007 but would be constructed narrower than that originally approved.  The accommodation in the roofspace of the existing building would be removed; the gable roof of the annexe would be removed and lowered to a pitch roof and re-clad in clay tiles.  In respect of the windows, the UPVC windows would be removed and replaced by timber frames

  Alongside these alterations, Members were informed that the applicant had agreed to enter into a unilateral undertaking which would restrict occupancy of the annexe building solely to family members of the occupants of the main dwelling on the site.  If minded to approve the application, Officers proposed that a timescale for the completion of the necessary works should be incorporated into the unilateral undertaking, which would also include timetables for the submission of details to discharge conditions

  When considering the application, Officers advised Members that the main issues related to:

·  the principle of development – and that an annexe to the main house had been accepted by the Inspector

·  the impact on the Roundhay Conservation Area – that the Inspector identified a sense of spaciousness to the properties surrounding the Park and that as built, the annexe was too big and constrained this openness.  The proposal before Panel had been reduced and to the front, now complied with the 2007 approval.  It was the view of Officers that the proposed alterations helped address some of the concerns which existed and that on balance, it could be difficult to refuse on the grounds of the minor impacts on the Conservation Area which remained

Receipt of further representations were reported, these being from

Gledhow Valley Conservation Group; a local resident; Leeds Civic Trust and local Ward Members Councillor Urry and Councillor G Hussain

  If minded to grant the application, Officers recommended a further condition to set out that the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved and specified finished floor levels and ridge height.  A amendment to condition no. 2 was also recommended to specify the development to be built in accordance with the most recently submitted plans

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

  Members discussed the application and commented on the following matters:

·  that the situation concerning this development, as described to Panel, brought the planning process into disrepute

·  the length of time which had been spent on this development; Plans Panel East’s concerns about the application which had been considered in October 2011; the fact that an Inspector had required the annexe to be demolished and why this had not been followed up by Officers

·  the materials used and whether if approved, the building would remain the existing colour of whether it would be rendered to match the host property

·  the applicant’s agent’s comments that a draft unilateral undertaking could be submitted to the Council within a few days and the possible timescales for Officers to deal with this

The Head of Planning Services stated that Officers had sought to

pursue the enforcement matter but that where, as in this case, an applicant wished to submit a further application, on the grounds of reasonableness, this had to be considered.  In relation to the application now being considered, there had been a substantial push by the applicant to retain more of the first floor and that the lengthy negotiations which had taken place were reflected in the time taken to bring a scheme before Panel which could be recommended for approval

  In terms of the Inspector’s decision, some of the scheme was found to be acceptable and that proportionality also had to be considered when seeking an outcome

  Concerning the unilateral undertaking, a completed document had not yet been obtained from the applicant as this was a relatively recent proposal and arose only when an acceptable scheme had been drawn up

  The Panel’s legal adviser stated that it would be possible to deal with the documents for the unilateral undertaking fairly quickly but this would require a willingness on both parties and for there not to be any problems arising out of the documentation

  In respect of materials, Members were informed that the existing stone material would be retained and that this was considered to be acceptable by the Council’s Conservation Officer

  Members considered how to proceed with concerns continuing to be raised at the way the development had proceeded in this case; the time taken to deal with the issues it had raised and that what was being proposed was a material change from the original proposals

  Discussions also took place on the recommendation proposed with Members requiring the application to be determined by Panel rather than delegated to the Chief Planning Officer, in the event that a satisfactory unilateral undertaking was not submitted by the applicant

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report, subject to an amendment to condition no.2 to state that the development to be built in accordance with the approved plans to refer to the most recently submitted plans; an additional condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved and specified finished floor levels and ridge height and the receipt of a completed and signed unilateral undertaking from the applicants restricting occupation of the annexe building to family members of the occupants of the main dwelling and tying the applicants into completion of the works to comply with the plans now submitted within a period of 8 months from the date of the decision

In the circumstances where the unilateral undertaking has not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, that a further report be submitted to Panel for determination of the application