Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for 4 bedroom detached house incorporating basement accommodation (part retrospective)

(report attached)

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

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out a further application on the site to address issues of non-compliance with the approved scheme

  Officers presented the report and briefly outlined the latest developments in respect of this case, with Members being informed that following refusal of an application in July 2013 by Panel, referral of the matter to the High Court by the applicant and the dismissal of an appeal, the applicant was required to demolish the building to ground floor level within a period of 6 months, from 6^th June 2014

  The scheme before Panel was originally submitted in January 2014 as an alternative option.  Members were informed that a late representation had been received from the applicant’s legal representative at the point of the original officer report deadline, which requested further information regarding the content of any undertaking.  However, it was the view of Officers that consideration of the application should proceed as previous guidance had been provided

  The current proposal was outlined, with Members being informed that the issue with previous applications and what existed on site was that the surrounding properties were two storeys in height and a three storey building had been constructed.  The application now before Panel was a two storey building and that Officers considered the scheme could now be supported.  The level of local objection to the application was noted but it was felt that the tone of the objections had mellowed in view of the revisions made to the scheme

  In noting the scheme was an improvement on the fallback position, Ward Members and Officers were aware of the length of time this matter had continued for and that in this particular case, there was a need for firm guarantees about implementation of any approved scheme.  Officers had sought to obtain this but no draft undertaking had been provided by the applicant to the Local Planning Authority.  In view of this, the application was recommended for refusal, with the suggested reason being included in the report before Panel

  The Panel heard representations from the applicant who attended the meeting and provided information which included:

·  that a resolution to the situation was sought and that the scheme before Panel resolved all of the issues

·  that the concerns of neighbours had been listened to and that neighbours had indicated their support for the current scheme

·  that an offer to undertake the works was made in public but

that the applicant’s legal team had been seeking details of what Planning Officers required

The applicant stated that he was willing to give an undertaking to

build whatever was granted permission and in a timely manner, within 9 months.  The applicant also referred to a letter which had been submitted.  The Chair advised that the letter had been submitted too late for circulation to Members

  The Panel then heard representations from a local resident who in the absence of the Professor Judge, spokesman of the Cross Gates Watch Residents Association read out a statement, which included the following matters:

·  the short notice given that the application was to be considered by Panel

·  whilst the proposals were an improvement, issues still remained

·  there was a need for guarantees to be given about implementation and timescale and if these were not legally enforceable there was the possibility of further delays occurring

The Panel then heard from Councillor P Gruen who used the

remainder of the allotted time to address the Panel and refer to the need in this case to have a tightly controlled and legally binding S106 Agreement to ensure any approved scheme was properly implemented within an agreed timescale

  For clarification, the Panel’s Lead Officer stated that he had not seen an agreement from the applicant and that he was not aware that the case officer or Legal representative had seen one either, so the contents of such an agreement were not known

  The Panel discussed the application with the main issues being in relation to:

·  the reasons for the report being a ‘late item’

·  that the report went beyond the planning merits of the application

The Panel’s Lead Officer advised that the application was scheduled to

appear on the agenda for this meeting but that at the time the agenda was to be published further representations were made from the applicant’s solicitor.  Officers sought advice from Legal Services and then decided to proceed, albeit with a late item.  Members were also informed that the applicant was required to submit proposals to overcome the harm of what had been built

  The Panel continued to discuss the scheme; the nature of the legal advice given and the approach taken to this application

  RESOLVED - That subject to legal clarification, to refuse the application for the following reason:

  The application proposes extensive alterations to an existing unauthorised building that has itself already been refused planning permission and dismissed at appeal due to the harm it has on surrounding residents’ living conditions and also the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.  In the absence of any formal commitment relating to implementation of the development subject to this application there is no mechanism in place to ensure the harm currently being experienced will be remedied.  The application in its entirety therefore fails to address the site specific circumstances which exist would be contrary to Policies GP5, N12, N13 and BD5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006), residential design guide for Leeds ‘Neighbourhoods for Living’ and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework which combined seek to ensure developments do not adversely impact on residential amenity or the character and appearance of an area