Agenda item

APPLICATION 19/00835/FU ALTERATIONS INCLUDING RAISED ROOF HEIGHT TO FORM HABITABLE ROOMS; TWO STOREY PART FIRST FLOOR SIDE/REAR EXTENSION 22 PARK LANE MEWS SHADWELL LS17 8SN

 

To receive the report of the submitted report of the Chief Planning Officer on the application 19/00835/FU for alterations including raised roof height to form habitable rooms; two storey part first floor side/rear extension at 22 Park Lane Mews, Shadwell, LS17 8SN.

 

(Report attached)

Minutes:

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requested consideration on alterations including roof height to form habitable rooms; two storey part first floor side/rear extension at 22 Park Lane Mews, Shadwell, Leeds, LS17 8SN.

 

Members had attended a site visit prior to the meeting held on 16th May 2019 where the application had been due to be heard. However a procedural error had occurred and the application had to be withdrawn.

 

Photographs, maps and plans were shown throughout the presentation.

 

Objections had been received from No 20 and No 24 Park Lane Mews the comments were provided to the Panel alongside comments from officers in response to concerns as follows:

·  Overlooking from bedroom windows on No 1, 2, and 5 to 20 Park Lane Mews.

o  The windows directly look over the applicants own property rather than neighbouring rear gardens and as such will not overlook No 20 Park Lane Mews

·  The report does not mention the effect on the front garden or the sunlight enjoyed in the front living room

o  The existing dwelling already creates overshadowing to the neighbouring property to the front garden area. It is considered that the proposed extension will not negatively impact the front garden area of the neighbouring property.

·  Condition 4 states no insertion of windows. Revised plans were received on 12th June with an additional window at ground floor and a fake window at first floor.

o  The additional window at ground floor will be screened by the existing boundary treatment facing onto Park Lane Mews. The fake window is to break up the amount of material on the side elevation. The condition will remain so that the LPA has control if any other openings are proposed in the side elevations at a later date.

·  Overbearing and over dominant.

o  Discussed in officer’s report

·  Proposal will be overwhelming to neighbouring properties

o  Discussed in officer’s report

·  Out of character.

o  Discussed in officer’s report

·  Set a precedent.

o  Each application is assessed on own merit

·  Increase pressure on parking, amenities and services

o  Discussed in officer’s report

·  The probability of the materials used on all four sides of the building will make this a prominent building and an eye sore.

 

The Panel were informed that photographs had been sent by a resident of Park Lane Mews which showed parking issues these were viewed by Members at the meeting.

 

The Panel were advised that the parking on site was adequate for the size of the proposed property. It was noted that the garage cannot be classed as a parking space. However, it was the view that there was sufficient parking to the front of the property.

 

Two objectors were in attendance at the meeting and put their concerns to the Panel as follows:

·  16 residents out of 29 had raised concerns in relation to the proposals;

·  The proposal was over dominant and overwhelming;

·  It would spoil the character of the area;

·  The house style on Park Lane Mews is in the Georgian with small panes of glass at the windows, the proposed dwelling is totally out of character with the area;

·  The windows have already been changed and look out of character;

·  The property should have 3 parking spaces;

·  It will be 4 metres closer to numbers 11, 20, 26, 15, and 28;

·  Overlooking of number 20 would affect privacy;

·  It will be difficult to source the same materials for the build;

·  The roof line will be higher than neighbouring properties.

 

The applicant was also present at the meeting and provided the Panel with the information relating to the proposals and responded to their questions with the following:

·  No. 22 is a gable fronted property and this would remain the same, there are other properties within the development that are also gable fronted;

·  There will be no impact on 18,16 or 20 with overlooking;

·  The majority of light into the upper floor would be through velux windows;

·  The properties are not identical;

·  There is sufficient parking for 2 ordinary cars to the front of the property and the garage is used for an oversized vehicle;

·  The front canopy is to be removed, therefore there will not be cars parked on the pavement as shown in photographs;

 

In reconsidering the application the Members discussed the following points:

·  Parking spaces, with a suggestion that parking be considered to the rear of the property;

·  Received clarification on guidelines in relation to garages;

·  Height of proposed property in comparison to surrounding properties;

·  Overlooking.

 

Towards the end of the discussions Councillor Wray moved a motion to defer for further negotiations but then withdrew this motion.

 

Councillor Collins moved a motion to reject the officer recommendation as detailed in the submitted report, so that the application be refused. The motion was seconded by Councillor Nash. On being put to the vote Councillors Collins motion was passed.

 

RESOLVED - Not to accept the officer recommendations that planning permission be granted and resolved that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

·  Parking insufficient for size of the extended dwelling;

 

The final wording and issuing of the refusal of planning permission was delegated to officers.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: