Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for an application raising ridge height, two storey and single storey extensions to front, side and rear with Juliet balcony to rear, dormer windows to front, alterations to boundary treatment at 50 Roper Avenue, Gledhow, Leeds LS8 1LG.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application to raise ridge height, two storey and single storey extensions to front, side and rear with Juliet balcony to rear, dormer windows to front, alterations to boundary treatment at 50 Roper Avenue, Gledhow Leeds LS8 1LG.

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

The application proposed to convert the existing bungalow to form a two storey dwelling. The extensions would increase both the height and the width of the bungalow with some of the original building being retained. It was noted that other houses on the street were two storey dwellings.

Members were informed that the drive was to be made wider to allow parking for two cars.

It was noted that concerns had been raised by officers that the first floor windows in the rear elevation would overlook the dwelling beyond the rear boundary. After discussions with the applicant the depth of the first floor had been reduced so that a gap of 7.5m was retained from the rear boundary of the neighbouring dwelling. Members were informed that written representation had been received from the occupant of no. 55 Denton Avenue (located directly beyond the rear boundary of the site). The occupant of No. 55 had no concerns with the scheme.

It was noted that a request to view the development from the main objectors’ site had been received.

Mr Cook of 48 Roper Avenue attended the meeting, he said that he was speaking on behalf of 46 and 51 Roper Avenue and 57 Denton Avenue and 59 The Drive.

The following points were made by Mr Cook:

·  Proposal was too large for the site

·  The current dwelling was set back in the plot

·  The property should be 5m from the rear boundary

·  The proposed dwelling would be over dominant and overbearing

·  Extensions to the side boundaries meant that there was no access to the rear

·  Minimum distances were being disregarded

·  Front facing dormer was over prominent

·  No garden area for a property of this size

·  Would cause issues of parking on the street

Mr Swinney the agent for the applicant attended the meeting and informed the Panel of the following points:

·  The applicant had bought the property for its plot size and location in an area that was known to them and that they loved.

·  The property was prime for development and acceptable within the street scene

·  The applicant did not want to alienate new neighbours and had worked closely with planning officer making amendments to the original plans

·  Consultation had taken place with neighbours in relation to the side boundaries

·  The dwelling would be in line with other properties in the street

·  A neighbouring property had a large extension

In response to questions from the Members Mr Swinney said that the maintenance of the street scene in his view was subjective as there was an eclectic mix of houses on the street.

Mr Swinney said that the hedges on the boundaries would be maintained.

RESOLVED – To grant planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation.