Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requests consideration for the application 19/01819/FU single storey extension to the side/rear and boundary fence to side at  8 White Laithe Grove Whinmoor Leeds LS14 2EN

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requested Members consideration on an application for a single storey extension to the side/rear and boundary fence to side at 8 White Laithe Grove, Whinmoor, Leeds, LS14 2EN.

A site visit had taken place with Members in attendance earlier in the day. Photographs, maps and plans were shown throughout the presentation.

The Panel was informed of the following points:

·  The application had been brought to Plans Panel by Cllr Pauleen Grahame who was concerned about the increase in traffic in the area due to visitors to the property and also that the fencing would be unsightly and spoil the look of the area;

·  The proposal was to make the dwelling into a six bed property the extension would provide two additional bedrooms and an additional bathroom;

·  The extension would bring the property close to the rear boundary and there was a proposal that a 8 metre high fence would be erected to mitigate overlooking;

·  The drive would be made wider to accommodate two cars;

·  Email received from the applicant (LCC) 18^th June 2019, stating the conifer hedge was to remain

Cllr. Pauleen Grahame and two residents were in attendance at the meeting and informed the Members of the following;

·  Specifics on the proposed measurements;

·  This is not a modest build;

·  Most of the garden would be taken over by the extension and therefore the garden would not be sufficient for the proposed number of children to play in;

·  No management construction plan was proposed;

·  The construction noise and disturbance will affect all neighbours;

·  There had been 23 complaints to the proposal – the main concerns were  listed in the submitted report at point 6.4;

·  This is not the area for a dwelling of this size;

·  This property would decrease the value of the surrounding properties specifically the adjoining house.

A Principal Surveyor from Resources and Housing attended the meeting to answer questions from the Panel.

Members in considering the application discussed the following:

·  Parking spaces

·  Amenities within the area including bus stops, and schools;

·  The size of the garden that would be available for use;

·  If the living space would be adequate for a large family;

·  Future occupancy of such a large house;

·  Too large for the size of the plot;

·  Character of the area and the size of proposed property.

At the conclusion of the discussions, Councillor Nash moved a motion to reject the recommendations as detailed in the submitted report, so that the application be refused. The motion was seconded by Councillor Collins. On being put to the vote, Councillor Nash’s motion was passed.

RESOLVED – Not to accept the officer recommendation that planning permission be granted and resolved that planning permission should be refused for the following reasons:

·  Parking insufficient for size of the extended dwelling;

·  Impact of the development on the character and visual amenities of the locality;

·  The proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site with the resultant private amenity space being inadequate to serve the needs of the occupiers of the dwelling.

Councillor Collins moved to delegate to officers the final wording of the refusal this was seconded by Councillor Wray. On being put to the vote it was resolved that the final wording and issuing of the refusal of planning permission was delegated to officers.