Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requests Members to consider an application for two detached houses on land opposite 6 to 10 Church Drive, East Keswick, Leeds.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application for full planning permission for the erection of two detached houses each with a detached single garage, landscaping and provision of new footway across the site frontage on land between 11 and 37 Church Drive, East Keswick, LS17 9EP.

It was noted that the proposal was for the properties to be constructed of stone and slate with front projecting gables, window head and sill details and chimneys.

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

Members were informed of the following:

·  A number of planning applications had been submitted for this site.

·  This submission followed the recent dismissal of an appeal for a scheme for 3 houses at this site. The appeal for non-determination was dismissed on 23^rd January 2018.

·  A previous appeal also for non-determination had also been dismissed on 27^th February 2017. The Inspector had dismissed the appeal on the basis that the narrow gaps between the proposed 3 dwellings  and the relatively shallow spaces between the back edge of the highway and the front of the dwellings would give the appearance of being cramped and would result in the lack of spaciousness that characterises the locality. It was also noted that the Inspector had raised concerns with regards to the proximity of the dwelling to the ground floor windows of the flats to the south and would raise issues of over-dominance. 

·  This proposal for two dwellings tried to address the issues raised by the Inspector, providing larger gaps between the two proposed dwellings and larger gaps between the neighbouring properties. The minimum requirement between was 12 metres and the proposal was for 17 metres.

·  An assessment had been undertaken to look at overshadowing and it was noted that there would be slight overshadowing in a westerly direction.

·  Additional planning history omitted from report in relation to:

o  17/00877/UOPS2 – Erection of fence: case closed

o  17/01003/US3 – Unauthorised banner signs: case closed

Mr Fowler and resident of Church Drive and Mr Lord of the Parish Council attended the meeting and addressed the Panel informing them of the following points:

·  The development was too large for the area

·  It would be preferable for 2 single storey dwellings

·  Concerns for the boundary and the fact that the developer had erected a fence and posters without permission

·  The proposed dwellings would not have a sufficient back garden/yard

·  Street parking issues

·  That garages were out of character and would not be used for cars

·  Turning movement in that area would be limited

·  A development that provided smaller units would be more acceptable

The agent Mr Watts addressed the Panel saying that the development had been designed to be in keeping with the local area, detached garages were not an exception with many houses having detached garages.

Mr Watts was of the view that a block of flats at the development site would be more dominant and cause overshadowing. He also noted that neither of the speakers were residents of the nearby flats. Mr Watts was of the opinion that there was sufficient on street parking and that the proposed driveways could hold 2 cars.

Mr Watts said that the developer had addressed the 2 outstanding matters they being the size of the gaps between the properties and the impact on the amenity of the flats to the south. It was noted that the proposal was now in accordance of the council’s design guidance.

In response to Members questions and comments the follow was noted:

·  The garages could be brought forward to increase the size of the rear gardens

·  Planning breaches had been the mistake of the original architect which as soon as realised had been rectified

·  The developer had tried to consult with the Parish Council inviting comments and discussion without success.

·  There had been the required 21 day consultation period for comments to be gathered for the report.

·  There had been an error in the report and it should be noted that the Neighbourhood Plan had been given weight in relation to this application.

·  Boundaries could be changed to provide plots of equal size.

At the conclusion of the discussions Members agreed to change the officer’s recommendations to defer and delegate the permission once changes had been made in relation repositioning of garages to create larger rear gardens.

RESOLVED – To defer and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer pending further negotiations and the receipt of revised plans showing the repositioning of the garages to maximise garden space.

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.5, Councillor Jenkins required it to be recorded that he abstained against the decision to grant the permissions as resolved by the Panel