Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the demolition of existing outbuilding; conversation of existing buildings to three dwellings with associated parking and landscaping at 29-35 Gledhow Lane.

(report attached)

Officers presented a report seeking approval for the demolition of existing outbuilding; conversion of existing buildings to three dwellings with associated parking and landscaping at 29-35 Gledhow Lane, LS8.

Plans and photos were displayed at the meeting and Members had visited the site prior to the meeting.

The Officers recommendation was to grant permission subject to conditions set out in the submitted report.

Members were informed that this was a sustainable location comprising of large semi-detached houses with good links in to the city.

The three two storey buildings located in the Roundhay Conservation Area which were adjacent to a Grade ll Listed Building were currently used for commercial purposes. Number 29 the outbuilding was set slightly apart from the other buildings the proposal was to demolish this building to allow car parking for three cars.

The proposal for the three dwellings was to have skylights to the rear of the properties to allow sufficient light into the properties. The skylights would overlook the neighbouring property. The Panel was informed that the proposal stated that the skylights would not directly look over the property at the rear as the internal floor level in the three dwellings would be 2.5 metres. The proposal was to have openings only at the bottom of the skylights and for them to be fitted with obscured glazing.

The Panel heard from Councillor Urry the local ward member, on behalf of the local residents against the application.

The local ward member highlighted a number of concerns with the application including: 

·  that the buildings had a history of flooding several times a year

·  the heritage nature of the building and its unique character due to the small businesses it housed

·  bin storage

·  addition of skylights could cause issues with the roof trusses

·  the skylights overlooking the property at the rear and the need for fixed skylights with opaque glazing

·  extraction of fumes for gas appliances

·  access to the dwellings through a narrow opening and restricted view when leaving to properties and entering a busy main road.

·  close proximity to primary schools and a nursery

·  that the scheme represented overdevelopment and should be refused

The Panel also heard from the architect representing the applicant who stated that he did not wish to address the Panel but was available to respond to questions.

In response to questions from the Panel further information was obtained:

·  flooding – if granted planning permission the developers would work with building control to address the issue of flooding prior to the start of any works.

·  he told how his client had consulted with the business owners and was assisting in the search for new business premises within the local area.

·  that currently some on-street car parking occurred from the premises but the inclusion of car parking for the proposed properties would reduce on-street parking

·  that the location of extractor fans and flues would be sited either to the front elevation, or through the roof with a slate ventilator tower

·  the properties if converted could be for sale or rent

Members were of the view that the size of the accommodation being proposed could possibly accommodate two dwellings but what was proposed was overdevelopment.

The Highways Officer informed the Panel that it was recognised that the parking area was tight and although the access gap was narrow it was wide enough to get a car through.

The Highways Officer explained to the Panel that the businesses currently on the site did generate some on street and commercial parking. The properties benefit from an established access within a sustainable location, and taking into account the guidelines it would be one low key use for another.  He informed Members that there had been no relevant recorded accidents in the vicinity of the site access.

The Panel’s Lead Officer addressed Members concerns on the issue of flooding explaining that flooding was a material planning consideration the test was not to resolve the issue but ensure that through flood risk management the development did not make the existing situation worse.

RESOLVED - Members resolved not to accept the officer recommendation to grant planning permission and delegated the refusal of the application to the Chief Planning Officer. The reason for refusal being along the following lines:

The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of that site that will fail to provide an adequate level of amenity for the prospective occupiers of the accommodation by reason of the size of some of the rooms, inadequate parking and amenity space provision, as such the proposal is contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy Saved Policies GP5 and BD5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006, Supplementary Planning Guidance Neighbourhoods for Living, and the National Planning Policy Framework.