Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for residential development of one 3 storey block of 7 No. apartments and associated works including demolition of existing three storey dwelling at Eden House, Alwoodley Lane, LS17.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer advised Members of a proposal to demolish the existing house known as Eden House and replace it with a three storey block containing 7 flats, amenity space and surface car parking.

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

It was noted that the site had constraints for development due to the triangular shape of the site.

Members were advised that a revised layout had been submitted and was displayed at the meeting which resolved the concerns discussed in the submitted report regarding the internal car parking arrangements. The spaces to the front had been reduced by one to allow for wider spaces to ease manoeuvring, and thus the deficiency in the reversing aisle was mitigated. The removed space from the front is relocated to the rear parking provision and those spaces had been moved to allow a full depth 6.0 metre reversing aisle and rotated to that they are perpendicular to it.

Members were also advised of an additional condition requiring the submission of detail relating to a white ‘keep clear’ marking on the highway outside the access point to the development. It was noted that this was a simpler alternative to the scheme submitted by the developers. 

The proposed development would be of three storeys with rooms located in the roof space. The external appearance of the building was to be broken with vertical features most of which terminate to provide balconies for the units on the 2^nd floor.

The Panel heard that the proposed building would be slightly higher than the current building, with the two storey element lower to maintain the gap between the neighbours.

Mr Straight the neighbour of 380 Alwoodley Lane was present at the meeting. He informed the Panel that his property was adjacent to Eden House and he was speaking on behalf of local residents who were also present.

Mr Straight told the Panel that that there was a restrictive covenant on the land which restricted development to only one property on the site not seven.

Mr Straight informed the Panel that he had four main concerns being:

1)  The scale of the development;

2)  The development would set a precedent for those motivated for profit to sell their properties;

3)  Loss of privacy and amenity saying that obscure glazing to the balcony serving a flat adjacent to the common boundary would not be adequate and that the proposed car parking area was located next to his garden and that the balcony overlooked his garden;

4)  The junction at Harrogate Road was dangerous and that access to and from driveways was difficult and there was a danger of rear end shunts.

Mr Straight was of the view that the proposed development would increase the issues of an already dangerous junction and that there was insufficient car parking for seven 3 bedroomed flats. He went on to inform Members that there was double and single yellow lines within the vicinity of Eden House.

Mr Straight Informed Members that there was already a box junction and he was of the view that a white ‘keep clear’ box would not make the entrance safe for turning into the development.

Mr Straight informed the Panel that he believed the restrictive covenant had been placed on the land by the original builder. He realised that this was not a material matter that could be taken into account by the Plans Panel and could only be looked at by the courts. Members were also advised by the Legal Officer that Members should not take account of the restrictive covenant in reaching their decision. 

Ms Hulse the agent for Peacock and Smith informed Members that the developers had proactively worked with officers to address issues raised by neighbours. She said that the apartment building did have a larger footprint than the current dwelling and had been designed as per advice of officers and that the scale and mass was within guidance for neighbouring dwellings.

Ms Hulse informed Members that the design of the building had been done to retain the character of the area and that the dropped level of the design was to create less of an impact on neighbouring property.

Ms Hulse accepted that there would be an intensification of the use of the entrance but was of the view that there would not be a significant impact on the traffic in that location.

Members gave consideration to the collection of refuse for the new development of seven properties. Discussion took place in relation to refuse collection and potential internet deliveries to the proposed dwellings.

Ms Hulse informed the Panel that her clients had approached the neighbours to discuss any issues however the neighbours had not been interested to engage with her clients. She said that her clients had not spoken to the Parish Council or to Ward Members.

Members were informed that the balconies provided extra amenity space for future residents and that privacy for residents and neighbours would be provided using obscured glazing panels.

Members noted that amenity space provision was in line with the guidance set out in Neighbourhoods for Living.

Members were informed that officers had worked closely with the applicant and the building was now smaller than that first proposed, officers had provided advice to the applicant in line with NPPF for the final product.

The Group Manager provided clarity of usable amenity space concluding that on the basis of information provided by the application documents and in the report this development met the requirements set out in Neighbourhoods for Living.

Members were informed that the junction had been assessed and it was noted that there had been 1 recorded accident in the last 5 years. It was noted that car parking was appropriate level for development with 2 parking spaces for visitors.

At this stage in the proceedings the motion was moved and seconded.

Members continued to have discussions in relation to the following issues:

·  Type of advice provided to applicant and Panel

·  Traffic movement around the Harrogate Road / Alwoodley Lane  junction

·  Assessments provided by Highways

·  Comments provided by neighbours

·  The type and construction of the roof

·  Loading restrictions in the area

Cllr. Procter said that this was an inappropriate development being too large for the site and its proximity close to this junction. 

Cllr. Procter commented on the running order of the agenda saying that it was not acceptable that an appeal decision on a similar application had preceeded this application. He said that appeal decisions usually went at the end of the agenda.

Cllr. Procter said that he would be happy to assist the objector should he wish to appeal the decision if it were to be approved – due to overdevelopment of the site.

Cllr. Procter moved to refuse the officer recommendation however this motion was not accepted and the Chair went with the first motion to accept the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED - To grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report with the following additional conditions:

1)  Off-site highways work

2)  Access to be widened

3)  To amend the conditions relating to the screening of balconies