Agenda and minutes

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2 of the Access to Information Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded)

(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance Services at least 24 hours before the meeting)

There were no appeals.

There was no exempt information.

There were no late items.

To disclose or draw attention to any interests in accordance with Leeds City Council’s ‘Councillor Code of Conduct’.

There were no declarations.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor R Finnigan.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meetings held on 1 July 2021.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meetings held on 1 July 2021 be confirmed as correct records subject to the following amendment:

Minute 22 - Application 19/01670 – Land Off Cockshott Road, Armley

·  To amend bullet point to – Re-use of wood from trees that have been removed to be discussed with the applicant.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for demolition of existing outbuilding; erection of single storey side and rear extension

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the demolition of the existing outbuilding, erection of a single storey side and rear extension at 3 Glebe Terrace, Headingley, Leeds, LS16 5NA.

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The following was highlighted:

·  Additional information relating to the parapet and skylight details had been received.

·  There had been a late representation which highlighted issues relating to land levels.

·  The property fell within the Far Headingley Conservation Area where the terrace was identified as a positive building.

·  There were modest changes in land levels across the terrace.

·  The rear elevation of the property was brick and render and was screened from wider views.

·  There was no uniformity with extensions of other properties along the terrace.

·   The proposed extension would not extend any further back than the existing structure but would extend to cover the full width of the property.

·  There had been 31 letters of objection from 13 different households.  The plans had been revised during the process of the application.

·  Consideration had been given to the fact that the property fell within the conservation area and the statutory requirements to have regard to that and the National Planning Policy Framework had to be met.  Although the extension had a proposed flat roof, it was not felt to be subordinate and materials matched the existing materials.  There was an array of varying styles of rear extension across the terrace and these were well screened and the proposals were not considered to be incongruous within the character of the area.

·  In relation to neighbouring properties, the extension would not protrude further than others.  There was a slight difference in the levels of the land.

·  It was recommended that the application be approved.

A local resident addressed the Panel with objections to the application.  These included the following:

·  Further consideration needed to be given to the revised proposals with regard to the finished levels of the plans.  Reference was made to the difference in levels between properties.  There was concern that the extension could be higher than 4 metres due to the change in levels and this needed detailing in the plans.  The lack of scale on the plans made it impossible to gauge how it may impact on residential amenity.

·  There would be an impact on the unique character and appearance of the conservation area.  Proposals for a flat roof did not enhance or conserve the character of the area.  All others had pitched slate roofs.  It would not fit with the host or adjoining properties.

·  It was felt that the plans lacked the necessary detail to assess the proposal and its impact on amenity within the conservation area and it was requested that accurate drawings including details of land levels and elevations be produced.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel.  The following was highlighted:

·  The property was being refurbished for use as a family home.

·  The proposals would enhance the character  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Thursday, 23 September 2021 at 1.30 p.m.

Thursday, 23 September 2021 at 1.30 p.m.