Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for demolition of existing house and erection of eight flats with basement car parking, landscaping and associated works at Heather Royd, Wigton Lane, Alwoodley, LS17 8SA.

 

(Report attached)

 

 

The report of the Chief Planning Officer application 17/02540/FU sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling at Heather Royd, Wigton Lane, Alwoodley, and its replacement with a single building that would contain 8 flats.

 

Members were informed that the application had been brought to Plans Panel at the request of Cllr Dan Cohen for reasons set out at paragraph 1.1 of the submitted report.

 

Members were advised that this application differed from a previous application which had been refused due to a belt of trees of 6.5 me in height being along the boundary between the development site and High Ash Drive. The planting and retention of the trees being secured through a unilateral undertaking provided by the applicant.

 

The application includes the same access proposals and car parking as the previous application. This includes a widened access providing access to underground car parking for residents of the flats with additional parking spaces located within the site for visitors.

 

It was noted that the proposed building would be larger than that currently on the site and would be over three levels with some accommodation in the roof space. The building would have balconies and terraces which would overlook neighbouring properties.

 

Members were advised of the recent planning history, of the subsequent appeal and of the Planning Inspectors report which was attached to the submitted report.

 

The Panel was informed that the applicant had addressed some of the concerns highlighted in the Planning Inspector’s report with a proposal for dense mature landscaping around the perimeter to address privacy concerns. The proposal was to plant trees of a sufficient height. The Officer explained that to do this the current building would need to be demolished and the trees craned in and in situ prior to the start of construction. It was noted that maintenance of the trees and landscaped areas would be undertaken by the management company.

 

A site visit had taken place earlier in the day and plans, maps and photographs were shown at the meeting.

 

Members were advised that should the application be granted a condition would be added for obscure glazing to be used to screen the side panel of the balconies.

 

Janine Nelson of 2 High Ash Drive was present at the meeting and addressed the Panel.

 

She thanked Cllr. Cohen for requesting that the application be heard at Plans Panel.

 

Ms Nelson said that she had not received notification of the meeting and only knew of it as a neighbour had informed her. She went on to say that the proposed development was first put forward about 5 years ago and had been withdrawn 3 times with the last time going to appeal at that point she had believed that that was the end of the matter.

 

She highlighted her concerns in relation to the planting of trees as a screen for the following reasons:

·  What type of trees were proposed;

·  Many tree types drop their leaves and need clearing;

·  The maintenance of the trees;

·  What height the trees would grow to;

·  Trees have the potential for their roots to damage properties.

·  Trees would block out the light

 

 

Ms Nelson said that the overall size, mass and bulk would be overbearing and would impact on the enjoyment of the gardens at neighbouring properties.

 

The Chair asked Ms Nelson what would be her ideal barrier between the development and her property. Ms Nelson was of the opinion that no barrier would hide the fact that there would be a large building behind and would block out light. Ms Nelson explained to Members the direction of the sun on to her garden she said that a barrier of trees would block out the sky light in to her house.

 

Members were shown a slide which provided them with information on the direction of light into the neighbouring garden. Members were of the opinion that the use of trees as a barrier would not take light from the neighbouring garden.

 

Ms Nelson also had concerns in relation to loss of privacy due to proximity of the building line, and the proposed balconies and roof gardens.

 

 

Andy Rollinson the agent addressed the Panel he was of the view that the report was very comprehensive and addressed the matters raised by Ms Nelson. He said that he understood the concerns of the neighbours and that this scheme would bring some changes. He went on to say that the appeal had been dismissed on a single issue which the applicant had tried to address through discussions with planning officers and landscape officers to come to a solution to properly address matters.

 

He explained that the proposal was not just a few trees but was a proposal for substantial tree planting and landscaping which would be well maintained and went well beyond what would normally be imposed as part of the conditions. The wording of the condition had been agreed with the planners and legal officers. He said that officers were now satisfied that this barrier would be an appropriate solution and would provide proper screening and mitigate the loss of privacy.

 

He said that the current building is very close to the boundary whereas the proposed building would be significantly away from the boundary of neighbouring properties.

 

Mr Rollinson was of the view that the proposed barrier would not cause a loss of light on the long gardens of the neighbouring properties.

 

Chair asked Mr Rollinson what the barrier would look like in the winter months and was informed that the barrier would be a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees.

 

Councillor Nash made a suggestion of winter flowering cherry trees as they are full of blossom during the winter months and are fast growing whereas Holly is slow growing. It was noted that the landscape scheme had already been agreed with officers.

 

Members were advised that the application was the same as proposed earlier but with the addition of a barrier of trees with the unilateral undertaking by the Council that should the trees fail further trees would be planted to maintain the barrier between the development site and the neighbouring properties.

 

Members discussed at length the following issues:

·  The type of trees to be planted;

·  The maintenance of the trees;

·  The density and height of the trees;

·  The height and depth of the proposed building;

·  Issues relating to the Inspectors report attached to the submitted report;

·  Start and finish times of the construction workers;

·  Proposed roof gardens;

·  Light direction across development site and impact on neighbouring gardens;

·  Whether the height and density of the trees would be oppressive to neighbours;

·  Safety and privacy aspects of the balconies including height and use of obscured glass; and

·  Members also discussed the points made in the Inspectors Report. It was the view of some Members that the report could be interpreted differently and seemed in conflict with some of the Council’s policies.

 

Members were provided with information relating to their discussions throughout the meeting and included the following:

·  Maintenance of proposed trees to be carried out by management company through imposed condition;

·  The height of the trees proposed would be to a height of 6.5 metres at planting stage it was noted that some of the proposed trees could grow to a height of 9 or 10 metres;

·   Should a tree fail it would be replaced and would be craned in over the roof of the development;

·  The direction of light would not impact on neighbouring gardens, slides were shown;

·  Overshadowing would affect the units on the development site;

·  It was clarified that the roof terraces would be on all sides of the development;

·  It was noted that the boundary from the proposed building to the nearest properties located on High Ash Drive and Alwoodley Gates was the same;

·  Use of fastigiate trees was suggested as these would not grow any higher than 6.5 metres.

 

During in comments Councillor Procter spoke of his astonishment and outrage at the application to build flats in this area where there were currently no flatted developments. He was of the view that the Inspectors Report could and should be interpreted differently.

 

Councillor Nash said that issues raised such as loss of view, better site or better use and change from previous scheme were none material matters and that Plans Panels across the city were being asked to consider a number of schemes such as this one. She went on to say that Members could do nothing but ensure that that building did not have adverse effects on other properties. She was of the view that all that could be done had been done.

 

RESOLVED – To grant planning permission subject to conditions set out in the submitted report with additional condition to deal with obscured glazing to the side panels of the balcony as discussed and to limit the times of construction to 08:00am to 17: 00.

 

Councillor Cleasby requested that the minutes duly showed that the Inspector’s statement was in conflict with certain polices of the Council.