Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for a two storey detached outbuilding to rear at 2A Allerton Park, Chapel Allerton, Leeds LS7 4ND.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requested consideration on an application for a two storey detached outbuilding to the rear of 2A Allerton Park, Chapel Allerton, Leeds LS7 4ND.

Panel Members had visited the site earlier in the day. Plans and photographs were shown throughout the presentation.

Members were informed that the application site was a subdivision of a larger site of number 2 Allerton Park.

Members heard that the applicant was looking to build a summer house to the rear of the property which would be reached by a decked walkway from the main house.

Concerns had been raised that the new building may be used as a separate property for residential use. Members were reminded that should this be so at a future date this would be subject to a further planning application.

Concerns had also been raised in relation to the impact on trees and the modern design of the building. Members were advised that there would be minimal construction and a condition was specified for tree protection, replacement and landscaping. It was noted that although the building design was not conventional it would not be visible to public view.

Members were informed that the building proposed a mezzanine floor and this was to be conditioned to prevent the mezzanine floor coming to the end of the building.

Members were made aware of an objection received from the occupants of 18a Allerton Park which is located to the rear of the site. Their concerns related to:

·  The panel report failing to make reference to the distance the outbuilding would be located from 18a Allerton Park.

·  The rear elevation window directly overlooks number 18a. The panel report suggests the trees which are present near the boundary would screen views out from the window. The objector highlights that trees cannot be used for this reason as they have a limited life span and loose leaves in winter.

·  Number 18a is significantly lower ground to the garden level of 2a and 2 Allerton Park. Therefore the proposed structure would appear as a 3 storey in height.

Members were advised the measurements had been checked are were 10 metres from the boundary and 19 metres from the property itself. Trees used as screening are tied in the distance, it was the officers’ view that impact would be minimal.

Mr Bull occupant of 2 Allerton Park attended the meeting and explained to the Panel that in his opinion there were inaccuracies in the drawings relating to the boundary with his garage and 2 silver birch trees instead of 3 shown and the structure is shown in various position on various plans.

Mr Bull said that he had spoken with Cllr. Rafique on 4th November and he had said that the proposed building was too big and overbearing.

Mr Bull said that Conservation officers had raised concerns.

Mr Bull informed Members that there had been 14 local objections with non in support of the application.

Mr Bull said that he had 3 main areas of objection they were:-

·  Visual intrusion

·  Overlooking

·  Use

He went on to say that a 2 storey garden house would be a visual intrusion at 6.5 metres high, due to the difference in ground levels he said that the building would loom between 8 and 9.5 metres above his property. The roof height he said was 1 metre lower than the apex of his roof and exceeded the height of his eaves by 3 metres. Mr Bull said that it would be 8.5 metres away at its nearest point.

Mr Bull said that the building would look discordant with its surrounding due to its size, the materials to be used and its dissimilarity to neighbouring properties.

Mr Bull informed the Panel that a window on the mezzanine would directly overlook his garden. A window on the south side directly over looks a balcony to his bedroom.

Mr Bull raised his concerns in the use of the proposed building as being for commercial use to rent out, office space, B&B, or for applicant whilst he rents out his current property.

Mr Bull suggested some conditions to be considered should the Panel decide to grant the application.

When asked if a smaller structure would be acceptable Mr Bull replied that something further away from his boundary towards the flats would be more acceptable. Principle concern is height and closeness to his boundary. He spoke about the current boundary being open and was of the view that screen and fencing structures would be erected in future.

Mr Lyons the applicant was at the meeting and informed the Panel that his motivation for the proposed building was his current property is a 3 bedroom house and he would like to invite friends and family to visit he did not intend to use it for commercial use.

Mr Lyons explained that a number of positions within his garden had been considered. However the tree officer was particular about its position to preserve the tree roots.

Mr Lyons informed Members that there was a window on the south, south east of the property but it was 9 metres away from Mr Bull’s property.

Mr Lyons said that he was happy with the conditions set out in the report but was of the opinion that conditions should not be attached to withdraw any of the windows.

Clarification was provided to Members that conditions within the submitted report already addressed three of the conditions proposed by Mr Bull

Members noted that moving the structure towards the trees would damage the roots.

RESOLVED -To grant permission as set out in the submitted report.