Agenda item

The receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer for a retrospective application for dwelling with detached outbuilding to rear at Wigton Court, Wigton Lane, Alwoodley, Leeds.

(Report attached)

The submitted report of the Chief Planning Officer set out a retrospective application for a dwelling with new detached outbuilding to rear; Wigton Court, Alwoodley, Leeds.

Prior to the start of the presentation the Panel were informed of an additional condition relating to the submission of details of retaining structures to the garden space and in particular to the retaining structure at the end of the garden.

Members had visited the site earlier in the day, plans and photographs were shown throughout the presentation.

Members were provided with a brief history which explained that the proposal seeks in part, to vary an earlier approval (13/01614/FU) for the redevelopment of the site through the refurbishment of Wigton Court, the original building on this site, which constitutes several apartments, and the construction of a separate dwelling to the rear of that building on land that was originally the garage court for the apartments. It was noted that car parking for Wigton Court had been provided elsewhere on site.

Members were advised that the site had changed ownership and that the new owner wished to change the dwelling that had been approved. The owner wanted to provide an outbuilding at the bottom of the garden to the proposed dwelling to provide a gym, patio, covered pool and garden store. The proposed area for the outbuilding was the north east corner of the site and had an ‘L’ shaped footprint, which projected approximately half way across the rear boundary which is a common boundary to properties in the Wikes Ridges development. Originally this had been proposed to be the full length across the boundary. However officers were of the view that this would be too much and the plans had been revised.

The Local Ward Members, Councillors Harrand, Buckley and Cohen had requested that the application be brought to Plans Panel.

The Plans Panel heard that the new house which also forms part of the proposal had already been commenced which was why the description referred to a

‘retrospective’ application. The proposal also seeks to add an additional storey to the dwelling to that already approved. Other alterations that have taken place included the provision of a terraced landscaped garden.

The Panel were advised that the new (outbuilding) building was of a modern design, in keeping with the house. The boundary was stepped in and vegetation was to be retained or enhanced as necessary.

Mr James of 71 Wike Ridge Avenue and Mr Hamer of 73 Wike Ridge Avenue attended the meeting informing the Panel of their objections as follows:-

·  Height of the proposed outbuilding would be in excess of 5 metres;

·  The existing trees, along their common boundary with the application site, were Leylandii which can grow to a considerable height if not maintained properly;

·  The slope from the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring properties could not be appreciated without a site visit;

·  Loss of light

·  Overbearing structure;

·  The ground in Wike Ridge development was clay concerns about flooding;

·  Concerns in relation to window levels and privacy to neighbouring properties.

Mr James and Mr Hamer responded to Members questions as follows:-

·  No issue with the dwelling and the extension to it but were of the view that the new industrial style building would be overbearing from the Wike Ridge Avenue side.

·  Drainage was an issue because of the clay soil.

·  Plants would not be able to grow due to loss of light

·  Leylandii tress were too tall and were overwhelming

·  It would not be so dominant if the land was not as high

Mr James and Mr Hamer said that it would be a welcome compromise if the build could be achieved on a lower construction. However the Leylandii were still of a concern if they were allowed to grow too high.

Mr Tom Cook the agent informed the Members that the applicant and the officers had made changes to the design of the outbuilding after negotiations. He said that the site had sat in this state for about four years.

Mr Cook informed the Members that the applicant was looking to make this property into a family home and hoped to stay in the area.

Mr Cook said that the outbuilding could be constructed without harm to Wigton Court. He said that the construction was 4 metres high at the boundary and 2 metres from the boundary and was not thought to be detrimental to neighbours amenity.

Mr Cook in responding to Members questions informed the Panel of the following points:-

·  Leylandii trees on the boundary were lower than some trees in the area;

·  A walk way would be left so that the Leylandii trees could be maintained;

·  The applicant was open to fencing or planting to provide privacy to neighbours;

·  There had been issues with drainage but the previous applicant had installed a drainage channel to stop water running on to neighbouring properties;

·  The canterleaver walkway was stepped in from the common boundary by 2 metres;

·  The plant for the pool would be located within the building;

·  The pool was for the private use of the owner.

Members discussed the position of the outbuilding suggesting that it be lowered. The Architect approached the Panel and explained that this would need to be investigated as it would require dropping the floor slab and could affect the water table. It was also noted that a pool required sufficient depth to it.

Following on from Member discussions to lower the building the Chair suggested that Members may wish to make a recommendation to defer and delegate after further negotiations had taken place between interested parties to reach a compromise.

At the conclusion of the discussions the Chair suggested to reject the recommendations set out in the submitted report to defer and delegate the approval to officers. This motion was moved by Cllr. Harland and seconded by Cllr. Hamilton. On being put to the vote, the motion was passed, and it was

RESOLVED - To defer and delegate approval subject to:

·  Further negotiation to reduce height of the outbuilding by (in region of) 1.5m with the objective of reducing impact of building on neighbours to rear.

·  Upon receipt of revised plans re-consult neighbours.

·  Consult with ward Members.

·  If agreement is reached with ward Members on the revised scheme then the application can be approved under delegated authority. If no such agreement can be reached the application will be reported back to Panel for determination.

·  Add conditions in respect of detail of retaining structures and boundary treatments and the soundproofing of the plant room and outbuilding.