Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application for a part two storey, part single storey side extension and single storey rear extension at 43 Moor Flatts Avenue, Middleton, LS10 3SS.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for a part two storey, part single storey side extension and single storey extension at 43 Moor Flatts Avenue, Middleton, Leeds.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The application had been referred to the Panel at the request of local Ward Members who had expressed concern that this could set a precedent for similar extensions.

·  The proposed extension would be part two storey and single storey at the side and single storey to the rear of the property.

·  Reference was made to representations that had been received which included impact on the streetscene and the impact on a neighbouring property.

·  The proposed extension would cause some shadowing and loss of light to the neighbouring property but the majority of this overshadowing would be on the driveway and not on the garden.

·  The single storey element of the extensions could be done under permitted development rights.

·  It was recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions outlined in the report.

The owner of the neighbouring property addressed the Panel with objections and concerns regarding the application.  These included the following:

·  It was felt that the displayed plans were misleading and did not show that the extension was only 2.5 metres from their kitchen window.

·  The extension would affect quality of life by causing darkness and compromising views.

·  The revision to the original proposals only affected the first story part of the extension.

·  There was a covenant that stated there should be no building within 6 feet of boundaries.

·  In response to questions, the following was discussed:

o  The applicant had informed of plans to extend but not to the extent applied for.

o  There were smaller extensions elsewhere on the street.

The applicant addressed the Panel.  The following was raised:

o  The applicant had tried compromising and did not feel that the proposed extension would affect the neighbour’s driveway.

o  The proposed utility room that overlooked the neighbours property would have frosted glass.

o  The proposed extension would not cause the applicant problems with access to the rear of their property.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

o  Under permitted development rights, the applicant could build to the boundary at ground floor level.  The wrap around part to the rear and any first floor extensions would require planning permission.

o  Concern that neighbouring extensions could cause a terracing effect.

o  The application met housing design guidelines and met other current guidance.

o  It was requested that a report be brought to Joint Plans Panel on the issue of building on party boundaries.

o  There would be overshadowing caused by the proposals even from the single storey parts that would be allowed by permitted development.

o  Concern regarding parking arrangements due to the slope at the front of the property.  It was reported that this could be raised to reduce the gradient and be conditioned as part of the application if necessary.

o  It was proposed that the application be deferred for one cycle to allow for further negotiation with the applicant to see if further compromise could be reached.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred for negotiation with the applicant regarding setting the extension in from the boundary by one metre at ground floor and reducing it in size.