Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a single storey side extension at Pine Chase, Syke Lane, Scarcroft, LS14 3JA.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which sets out details of an application for a prosed single storey side extension at Pine Chase, Syke Lane, Scarcroft, Leeds, LS14 3JA

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

The Presenting Officer addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  The application proposes a single storey extension; 4.65 metres in projection from the western elevation of the dwelling, 12.05 metres in width with a sloping roof 2.3 metres to the eaves, and measuring 2.544 metres to the ridge. The extension would essentially take the form of a lean to conservatory that would serve the ground floor games room and lounge.

·  The application related to a detached property located within the designated Green Belt and Special Landscape Area at the corner of the junction of Syke Lane with Blackmoor Lane in Scarcroft.

·  The existing property was a two storey stone built and slate roofed dwelling, of simple symmetrical form and design and set within mature gardens.

·  The application dwelling sits almost centrally within the curtilage atop an approximately 9 courses high stone slab. The house sits within verdant surroundings with expansive lawns surrounding the property and boundaries being defined by mature trees to the northern, eastern and western edges of the site. A stone wall interspersed with fencing defines the southern site boundary. Beyond the northern boundary are the mature gardens of a larger scale dwelling ‘Bracken Park Lodge’ and dwellings on Fern Way are situated opposite on the southern side of Syke Lane. To the west is Moor Allerton Golf Club.

The Presenting Officer reported that the application was being brought before Panel following concerns raised by a Ward Councillor that the house had not been rebuilt, and had instead been previously altered and extended, and was of the view that the extension cumulatively with earlier extensions would be disproportionate and therefore inappropriate development

In response to Members questions, the following were discussed:

·  Clarification was sought as to whether the original property had been totally demolished

Responding, Officers confirmed that original property had not been totally demolished (it was not raised to the ground). It was reported that the current building was on the same footprint of the old dwelling with the applicant advising that in order to produce efficiencies in build cost (and by virtue of its good condition) the existing slab foundation was reused. It was also pointed out that some of the external walls and potentially the chimneys survived from the earlier dwelling. However, notwithstanding this, and irrespective of precisely how the current construction was arrived at, in view of the above considerations and the planning history it was considered that in substance and form the house was a new replacement dwelling.

Officers had expressed the view that the recommendation to approve was consistent with Planning Inspectors’ decisions in relation to appeals considering proposals for the extension of replacement dwellings, it thereby represented a new chapter in the planning history of the site. Provided therefore that the proposed extension of itself was not disproportionate, the application was therefore considered to be acceptable in principle.

One Member expressed concern at the opinion being provided by officers, he said parts of the original building remained so the current construction should not be viewed as a new replacement dwelling house, the existing policy should be adhered to.

Other Members expressed the view that the vast majority of the building had been demolished and therefore, legally this was a new building.

In summing up the Chair suggested that the majority of Members appeared to be supportive of the application

RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report with the inclusion of an additional condition requiring the removal of the Permitted Development Rights