Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the demolition of existing bungalow and erection of detached house at 402 Street Lane, Roundhay, LS17.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer sought consideration for an application to demolish an existing bungalow and the erection of a detached house at 402 Street Lane, Roundhay, Leeds, LS17 6RW.

Members were informed of an omission in the report in relation to the fact that the Moortown Neighbourhood Design Statement was not referred to in the policy section. Officers apologised for this omission.

Members noted that the document identified that one of the general issues facing the locality is the demolition or alterations to bungalows to build houses especially where this would lead to an overcrowded sit. It identified that there are few bungalows in the area and that such accommodation are needed by certain groups of people and so form an important part of the housing offer in Moortown.

The site falls within identified Area 2 Street Lane and North East of that document and identifies that the High Moors estate is the only significant provision of bungalows in the area. The High Moors are due north of the application site and High Moor Crescent is particularly dominant in bungalows from the junction with High Moor Avenue going west towards Donisthorpe Hall and along High Moor Drive to the northern part of High Moor Crescent where over 130 bungalows exist.

Officers concluded therefore that the loss of a single bungalow on Street Lane would not materially and adversely impact on the supply of this type of accommodation in the Neighbourhood Design Statement.

Members had visited the site earlier in the day and photographs and plans were shown at the meeting.

Members were informed that a previous application had been refused on harm to the amenity of neighbours and had been upheld on appeal. It was noted that the applicant had taken on those concerns raised in the previous application and revised plans so as not to impact on neighbouring properties.

Mr Malcolm Taylor attended the meeting on behalf of his son who lives and works from home at 400 Street Lane.

Mr Taylor informed the Panel that currently the property benefits from complete privacy on the back courtyard and that if the proposal was to be granted this privacy would be lost.

Members heard that Mr Taylors’ sons was a chiropodist who ran is practice from home and that the lack of privacy would impact on his clients when changing for treatment.

Mr Taylor reiterated the Moortown Neighbourhood Design Statement and the objections raised by Alex Sobel MP in relation to the need of bungalows in the Moortown area.

Mr Taylor informed the Members that the neighbouring bungalow even with a pitched roof impeded the sunshine onto his son’s garden at certain times of the day and that the proposed construction would create over shadowing on his son’s garden.

Mr Taylor informed the Panel that the planning officer’s report at 3.2 was incorrect as it stated that the current building at 402 Street Lane was constructed of brick and white render but in fact the property was solely brick built. However the owners at 404 Street Lane had painted the front wall of the property white which in Mr Taylor’s was out of keeping with the character of the area. Mr Taylor went on to quoteUDP Policy BD6 in relation to the construction materials of the original build saying that this proposal of construction in white render was contravening this policy.

Mr Taylor made a request to the Panel that if the application was granted that consideration be given to a condition so that at no time in the future a second storey could be added to the proposed single storey.

Mr Singh the applicant attended the meeting. He explained that he owned 402 and that his brother owned 404 Street Lane.

Mr Singh informed the Panel that he had worked with his architect and the planners to negotiate the current plan and although he said it was not ideal he had taken on the concerns raised and was willing to compromise and go with the proposed application.

In response to Members questions to officers Members were informed of the following:

·  That planning conditions had been suggested in respect of investigating and remediating any land contamination in the interests of protecting the health of future occupiers of the house.

·  That there would be some over shadowing as the sun changes position from east to west and the height of the sun in the sky at different times of the year. Members were informed that the extent of overshadowing was not so significant so as to justify the refusal of planning permission.

·  That condition 6 of the submitted report related to the removal of PD rights for further extensions and insertion of windows and that future proposals would have to be subject of a planning application.

·  That there was approximately 130 bungalows due north of the proposed site.

·  That the Planning Department had not been privy to the operation of the chiropodist next door. However the distance from the proposed build to the neighbour’s boundary would be 4.6 metres which was a generous distance and therefore would not significantly impact on the neighbouring property.

RESOLVED – That the North and East Plans Panel grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report.