Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for a detached dwelling.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for a detached dwelling at 238 West End Lane, Horsforth, Leeds.

Members attended the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

Issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The application was for a detached house to the rear of 238 West End Lane.

·  Although consent had been given for similar properties in the area this application was not considered to be in the same context as previous approvals in the locality had been granted under a different policy framework.

·  Objections had been received from neighbouring properties on the grounds of potential noise and disturbance and damage to amenity.

·  Further objections had been received from Ward Councillors regarding the property being out of character for the area.

·  The application was not considered to be policy compliant and was recommended for refusal.

·  The applicant disagreed with the reasons for refusal.  Issues highlighted included the following:

o  The development would not be harmful to the character or patter of development in the area.

o  The scale and massing would not be harmful to others views.

o  The house would be situated on the lower part of the plot and be surrounded by trees.

o  The single storey element could be done under permitted development rights.

o  There would only be minimal vehicle movement.

o  The lack of road frontage to the proposed property would not make it out of character with other properties in the area.

The Applicant’s representative addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

·  The applicant wanted to build the property for a relative and to meet their care needs.

·  It was not disputed that it would be a back garden development but there were others in the area.

·  Existing properties would still retain reasonable sized garden areas.

·  There would not be significant noise and disturbance and the applicant would be happy to see conditions to have windows facing existing properties obscured.

·  There would not be significant overshadowing of other properties and gardens.

·  In response to questions from the Panel, it was reported that there had not been any further discussion regarding the size of the development or distance from neighbouring properties.

The Panel heard from local residents with concerns and objections to the application.  These included the following:

·  This was development of back garden land with no road frontage and out of context and character for the area.

·  The plans were contrary to planning policy.

·  The proposal would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties amenity and be intrusive on others privacy.

·  The proposal would dominate all surrounding properties.

·  Boundaries were closer than set out in Neighbourhoods for Living guidelines.

In response to Members’ comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  There had been some discussion with regard to amending the proposals but the applicant wanted the proposals as they were to be determined.

·  The plans showed a height of 9.2 metres.  There were no cross section drawings to demonstrate that the height would actually be lower.

·  There was a significant shortfall in the distance from windows to neighbouring properties.

·  As the proposals stood, they were not policy compliant and it was suggested that the officer recommendation for refusal be supported although some Members were not adverse to the principle of development in the location.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per the officer recommendation.