Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requests Members give consideration on a retrospective application (15/06738/FU) for double garage with gym, snooker and cinema rooms above at Ling Beeches, Ling Lane, Scarcroft, LS14.

(Report attached)

A site visit had taken place earlier in the day. Plans and photographs were shown at the meeting.

The application sought retrospective permission of a large garage that had been constructed within the site. The application was brought to Plans Panel at the request of Councillor Racheal Procter who raised concerns in relation to the visual impact of the development and the harm the development causes to neighbouring residential amenity.

The application sought retrospective planning consent for a large outbuilding with accommodation in the roof that was under construction to the rear of the site. The garage measured 6.6m in height, 17m in width and 10.7m in depth. The garage featured 3 dormer windows in its front elevation. The garage was of a stone construction.

A number of trees have been removed to accommodate the development although there is a Tree Protection Order in place. The location of the building is close to neighbouring properties in The Glade, a cul-de-sac arrangement of properties.

Officers had shown concerns in particular 5 The Glade so applicant was told to remove 2 windows to the side of the building and obscure glaze to the rear windows. The applicant has said that a screen of substantial potted trees will be used to block the boundary with 5 The Glade.

The trees that are still on the site had been asses by the tree officer and it was noted that there is no impact to the trees from the building.

Members were informed of the difference in levels between the property and neighbouring dwellings.

Members were informed that the applicant could have built the garage under Permitted Development. However, the building had been constructed to a height of 2m beyond that of Permitted Development.

The residents of 5 The Glade were present at the meeting and informed the Panel of the following concerns:

·  Planning  guidelines breached

·  Distance and space between the two properties

·  Amenity space overlooked

·  Overshadowing of property and garden

·  Loss of privacy

·  Loss of light into certain rooms in the property

·  Neighbours in the Glade also have some loss of light

In response to Members they explained via a photograph which trees had been removed. They said that no consultation had taken place prior to the start of building and had been told by a relative of the applicant that it was a single storey garage. They said that they had alerted the Council on two occasions.

The applicant was in attendance at the meeting and decided to speak to the Panel.

The applicant said that trees on the site had been removed by a tree specialist.

He informed the Members that construction had begun within the Permitted Development. However he had had a change of heart and decided to add another floor and had requested approval for this work before continuing with the build.

Members were of the view that the building looked close to completion.

The applicant told the Panel he had not had any contact with the neighbours at 5 The Glade he had spoken to others in the area. He went on to explain that he is a private person and would replace foliage to the boundary to ensure his privacy.

He said that Ling Beeches was built in 1957 and the new property was in keeping with the house and that the building would be of stone not render. The building was purely for pleasure not for commercial use. He went on to explain that the building was being built on the site of the old garage as this was the easiest solution as he was able to use the base that had been there already.

The applicant said that he had lived at Ling Beeches since 2014 and had starting building about 18 months ago. He was unable to comment on loss of sunlight.

Members discussed the application at length which included the follow points:

·  Guidelines of permitted development

·  The size of the new building in comparison with the dwelling house

·  The depth of the garage floor

·  Need for drive to be excavated

·  Planting of trees and foliage to the boundary with substantial plants

·  Overlooking and dominance of building on to neighbouring properties

·  Effects of shadowing on neighbours

·  Noise nuisance

·  Concerns in respect that the new building should remain a garage

 RESOLVED – That the Plans Panel resolved not to accept the officer recommendation to grant planning permission and that permission be refused on the following grounds:

1.  Harm to residential amenity through over dominance of the structure

2.  Harm to the character of the area by reason of it constituting a disproportionate to existing dwelling, the loss of trees and the extent of engineering works still to be undertaken.

The precise wording of the reasons to be delegated to officers.