Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requests Members to consider application 16/03555/FU for the rebuilding and extension of dwelling (part retrospective) at Lofthouse Lodge Harrogate Road, Harewood, Leeds LS17 9LU.

(Report attached)

Councillor S McKenna re-joined the meeting at the start of this item.

Further to minute 54 of the meeting held on 1^st September 2016 the Chief Planning Officer submitted a report in respect of this application. 

The Conservation Officer was present at the meeting to answer questions and offer advice.

Members were informed that the building recently demolished was not the original gatehouse and was re-built around 1968. The property sites on the edge of the Harewood estate, the lodge is not listed however the gates and pillars are grade II listed.

Members heard that extension works had been previously approved under a recent Certificate of Lawfulness and a Prior Approval application. Structural problems with the 1960s building were discovered and the building was part demolished as the Council issued a Stop Notice with only a single storey element of the building being retained to the rear.

Members were informed of negotiations that had taken place with the applicant and along with suggestions from the Conservation Officer as a way to improve the design and in keeping with the Harewood Estate. The changes were listed at 2.1 of the submitted report and included;

·  The roof of the dwelling on the northern side to be altered from a hipped roof to a gable to match the gable on the opposite side

·  The removal of the glazed dormer window

·  Window proportions  with heads and cills in keeping with the Georgian period

·  Landscaping to front and rear

The Panel were shown photographs, plans and 3D plans.

Members noted the following points:-

·  Parking would be through the existing access

·  Parking would be located at the bottom of the site

·  There would be no increase in roof height

·  The design and materials were much improved

·  Harewood House cannot be viewed from the site

·  Highways had not raised any objections

·  The chimney was design only there would be no working fire

·  In Green Belt area but there were special circumstances to replace the dwelling and needed to be mindful of Permitted Development fallback position

·  A reduction of almost 50 cubic metres had been negotiated on what could be implemented under permitted development rights and the certificate of lawfulness granted.

Members were advised of the following:-

·  At 8.4 of the submitted report the reference to section 16 should have been Section 66

·  That both left and right curtilage walls of the lodge may be listed structures as part of the Harewood Estate.

·  That the single storey extension to the rear was within permitted development of no more than 8 metres of the boundary

Members discussed the proposed design of the dwelling and materials to be used. Concerns were raised that the dwelling would impact on the Grade I listed estate with visitors to the area being able to view the property from the estate.

Mr White the Architect was at the meeting and provided answers to the Panel’s questions:

·  The applicants had wanted to avoid the long application process so had opted for Permitted Development

·  The applicants had been willing to make improvements suggested to the design and build of the dwelling

·  The applicants had spent a large amount of money getting the design to this stage

·  The fall-back position remained and the Council could either rebuild the 1960s dwelling or permitted development could come back into play

·  The design of the windows with blanked out sections and arches were at the suggestion of the Conservation Officer

·  The design was not balanced but because of the design was now increased in volume which was mainly in the roof space.

Members noted that the Conservation Officer was experienced in design of graded buildings.

Cllr. J Procter moved a motion to defer this report for one cycle to look at the scheme and the design this was seconded by Cllr. Wilkinson. However, when put to the vote this motion was rejected by the Panel and it was;

RESOLVED – That permission be granted subject to the specified conditions as set out in the submitted report.