Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Officer on an application for extensions and alterations to existing roof to create new first floor including hip to gable extensions to both sides, dormer window to rear and rooflights to front; new render to both sides; new windows to side and blocking up of existing window to rear; conversion of part of integral garage to habitable room; alterations to existing garage including new pitched roof and rooflights and render to front and rear elevations; widening of existing driveway including removal of part of front boundary wall at 3 North Grove Drive, Wetherby, LS22 7QA.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application seeking planning permission for extensions and alterations to existing roof to create new first floor including hip to gable extensions to both sides, dormer window to rear and rooflights to front; new render to both sides; new windows to side and blocking up of existing window to rear; conversion of part of integral garage to habitable room; alterations to existing garage including new pitched roof and rooflights and render to front and rear elevations; widening of existing driveway including removal of part of front boundary wall at 3 North Grove Drive, Wetherby, LS22 7QA.

The report recommended to the Panel that the matter be granted planning permission subject to conditions as outlined in the submitted report.

The application was brought before the North and East Plans Panel at the request of local Ward Councillor Lamb.

Panel Members (referenced above) had attended a site visit prior to the meeting.

Slides and photographs of the site and proposals were presented by the Planning Officer who outlined the application and contents of representations received as detailed in the submitted report.

Objectors to the application attended the meeting. 2 residents addressed the Panel (Mr Saunders and Ms Preston). Following this, Mr Saunders provided responses to the questions raised by Panel Members, which in summary, related to the following:

·  Specific parts of the proposal they feel are out of character with the local area.

·  The wider street scene and housing mix.

The applicant (Mr Hoffman) attended the meeting. Mr Hoffman addressed the Panel.

Questions and comments from Panel Members then followed, with officers responding to the questions raised, which included the following:

·  It was confirmed that the applicant under Permitted Development rights, could erect a dormer. Members requested further clarity on Permitted Development rights, and it was noted that whilst the current proposal would not be permitted development as a result of exceeding the maximum volume allowed, alternative proposals, with similar impacts would be possible under permitted development.

·  It was confirmed that there is only 1 x separation distance falling half a metre short of guidance from one of the bedrooms to the nearest window of the nearest rear dwelling which is a conservatory and that distances to all other windows were guidance compliant. It was also noted that the bedroom window has an off-centre position, and the two properties would be angled such that the shortfall in the guidance would be sufficient to mitigate against unreasonably harmful impacts.

·  Further to a point of clarity, officers confirmed that the conservatory / extension at the neighbouring dwelling to the rear at No.6, was erected after the dwelling was built.

Members commented included the following:

·  After attending the site visit on the morning of the meeting, it was of the opinion of a member that the character of the area included a variety of buildings. Another member also commented on the mixed street scene.

·  The constraints of planning policies in terms of what can be taken into account in decision-making on applications of this nature, as well as what development would (in any event) be permissible by way of Permitted Development rights.

·  While there was an identified shortfall in 1 x separation distance, the proposal as a whole was not considered a big impact on the conservatory of the rear dwelling.

Upon voting, a motion was put forward to move the officer recommendation, as per the submitted report. This was moved and seconded, and it was

RESOLVED – To grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the submitted report.