Agenda item

17/06735/FU - Alterations including two storey part single storey front, side and rear extension incorporating a double garage; first floor terrace area with balustrade to rear; inset dormer window to rear and raised roof height at 24 Lakeland Crescent, Alwoodley, Leeds

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for alterations including two storey part single storey front, side and rear extension incorporating a double garage; first floor terrace area with balustrade to rear; inset dormer window to rear and raised roof height at 24 Lakeland Crescent, Alwoodley, Leeds.

 

(Report attached)

Minutes:

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requested Members to consider an application for alterations including two storey part single storey front, side and rear extension incorporating a double garage; first floor terrace area with balustrade to rear; inset dormer window to rear and raised roof height at 24 Lakeland Crescent, Alwoodley, Leeds.

 

The application had been brought to Plans Panel at the request of Councillor Peter Harrand on the grounds of:

·  The proposed height of the proposal;

·  Potential overlooking of adjoining properties and lack of privacy;

·  Incursion into public footpath.

 

Members were informed of two further requests for the item to be determined at Plans Panel from Councillor Dan Cohen for the following reasons;

-  Front design is inconsistent with the street scene; particularly the height

-  Overbearing impact on adjoining properties; affecting light and privacy; and

Councillor Neil Buckley for the following reasons;

-  Impact on public right of way

-  Overbearing impact; loss of light

-  Incongruous design

 

Members were also informed of follow up comments from original objectors:

·  Alwoodley Parish Council cited objections as previously set out in the submitted report;

·  25 Lakeland Crescent unable to access revisions until 7th February;

·  23 Lakeland Crescent no front elevation shown on revised plans, previous comments still stands;

·  26 Lakeland Crescent unable to open plans until 9th February;

·  21 Lakeland Crescent no discernible differences;

·  22 Lakeland Crescent unable to originally access plans privacy screen of concern due to open fields/ high wind, removal of tree at boundary not helped. Previous objection remains;

·  23 Lakeland Crescent publication of officer report, in advance of 22nd February date inability to view plans.

 

The Panel was advised that once the officer had been made aware that the revised plans could not be accessed the Design and Access statement containing the revisions was uploaded onto Public Access.

 

Members were advised of an objection by the Ramblers Association set out at 6.3 of the submitted report. Members were further advised that the public right of way was in the ownership of the applicant.

 

Members had attended a site visit earlier in the day, photographs and plans were shown throughout the presentation.

 

Members were informed of the following points:-

·  Proposed height was consistent with neighbouring properties;

·   The integral garage would have space for two cars;

·  Houses on Lakeland Crescent were of different designs;

·  10.7 of the submitted report was highlighted especially in regard to special character and the privacy screen which would be condition 7;

·  10.9 of submitted report was highlighted, especially the quote from the NPPF Paragraph 59;

·  The parking provided was policy compliant;

·  Unprotected trees to be removed fencing and hedging was proposed;

·  The proposed alterations would not encroach on the public right of way

 

Mr Allanson of 23 Lakeland Crescent and on behalf of residents of numbers 21, 22, 25 and 26 attended the meeting to speak against the application.

 

Mr Allanson said that many of the residents had lived on Lakeland Crescent for a number of years whereas the applicant had lived there only 1 year.

 

Mr Allanson said that the size, style and character was a complete change to the existing dwelling and should not be called an extension. Mr Allanson highlighted 10.9 of the submitted report and was of the view that BD6 of the Core Strategy had not be strictly adhered to and that the residents would suggest that this was a rebuild.

 

Members noted that the original building was constructed of stone and brick with grey tiling to the roof. The proposal for split-faced stone, cedar cladding, white render with slate tiling and extensive use of glass to the front elevation not in keeping with area.

 

Mr Allanson was of the view that the proposal being 50% larger than the current footprint should be considered as a rebuild. He informed Members that the proposal increased the height and depth creating a 7 bedroom 4 bathroom property and would be too large for the area and over dominant to immediate neighbours.

 

Mr Allanson reminded the Panel of Polices HDG1 in respect of scale, character and appearance and HDG2 in respect of amenity of neighbours.

 

Mr Allanson was of the opinion that this was the wrong house in the wrong location.

 

Mr and Mrs Jones the applicants and Paul Carter attended the meeting.

 

Mrs Jones spoke to the Panel informing the Members of the following points:-

·  Amendments have been submitted during the process to address all areas of concern;

·  The public rights of way in their ownership would not be affected as the area between the property and the boundary of the footpath would be increased;

·  Replanting scheme to be conditioned;

·  The property would be 1 metre away from the footpath at its closest point;

·  The property on the other side of the footpath over hangs the boundary line and footpath;

·  The height of the roof was no higher than other houses on the street;

·  The loft space was being better utilised and other houses in the area had also used the loft space;

·  Squaring off the bay windows to the front of the property to provide symmetry to the house they will not project out any further than they do currently;

·  Front of house would be 29 metres from the house opposite;

·  Reducing current depth upstairs removing walls of 3rd bedroom which currently juts out;

·  Demolishing 2 storey rear extension and a single storey extension to the side.

·  The house already looked different to those houses on Lakeland Crescent;

·  There were over 15 different designs of property on Lakeland Crescent

·  Obscure glazing to windows to the West;

·  Windows to the East to be a double height room so unable to see out.

 

Mrs Jones explained to the Panel that they wanted to provide a family house which maximised the plot that it sat in and increased light into the house mitigating the need for the light tunnel on the landing. The applicant was of the view that this proposal has the potential to be a beautiful, modern addition to the diverse styles of Lakeland Crescent.

 

In response to Members questions and comments the Panel were informed of the following points:-

·  The footpath was a defined public right of way;

·  The footpath would not be suitable for disabled access as there was a stile leading to open fields;

·  The cedar cladding will become dated naturally;

·  Split–faced stones would be used round the windows;

·  There was sufficient parking with a double garage and a driveway large enough for two cars;

·  The privacy screen on the balcony would be 1.8 metres high  and 1metre from the public footpath;

 

Members requested a condition be added for construction traffic to be on site and not parked on the street.

 

RESOLVED – To grant planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation and subject to imposition of an additional condition requiring the submission for approval of a construction management plan.

Supporting documents: