Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer sets out an application 19/01375/FU for the demolition of existing property and replacement new dwelling at 165 Alwoodley Lane Alwoodley Leeds LS17 7PG

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application for the demolition of exiting property and replacement new dwelling at 165 Alwoodley Lane, Leeds, LS17 7PG

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

Members were advised that since the publishing of the report there had been 3 additional objections to the proposal submitted from the occupiers of 141 Alwoodley Lane, the property to the west; the occupiers of The Barn, 167 Alwoodley Lane, the property to the east of the application site and from the occupiers of 139 Alwoodley Lane the property to the west of 141 Alwoodley Lane.

The comments raised were provided to Members as follows along with the comments from officers in response:

·  Still represents an over dominance;

·  Makes reference to previous appeal decision and reference to the footprint of the current proposal being 11% larger than the building that was the subject of the appeal decision

o  This simplistic comparison of floorspace does not take into account the significant changes to the form of the proposal. The previous proposal that was subject to the appeal was a much blockier, modernist approach proposal with a flat roof whereas this proposal with a pitched roof and garage at ground level rather than undercroft. Parking which would help reduce the footprint, the scheme has to be assessed in the round rather than simplistic mathematical interpretation of the proposal;

·  Reference is made to the Householder Design Guide;

o  This document is written primarily to guide existing householders as to what is acceptable in terms of extending exiting properties, it is more proper to apply the advice of the SPG Neighbourhoods for living which has been applied in the assessment in the report;

·  Reference made to lack of consultation by developer with local residents;

o  There is no absolute requirement for this to take place as desirable as such consultation is the lack of it prior to submission does not weigh heavy in the decision making process;

·  Amendment seek to hide blatant disregard to planning taken from outset;

·  Increase in height although reduced is still 2.0 metres higher than existing dwelling currently on site;

o  This is addressed in the assessment in the report. The proposal has been assessed on its own merits;

·  Creation of an overbearing gable facing 167;

·  Re-iteration of the loss of privacy to 167;

·  Impact on vegetation

·  The planning officers report is a subjective interpretation which is contrary to every other interpretation of material planning consideration

·  Most recent submission so not alter view of objector and simply reinforces that the building will cover and unacceptably large area of the plot;

·  Building projects beyond the rear elevations of neighbouring property

·  Given the case officers obvious support for this development is seems all neighbour comments have been entirely disregarded.

It was noted that the LPA do take into account the local plan and this had been addressed within the submitted report.

Members were provided with the following information:

·  The proposal is for a one and a half storey building of traditional design;

·  The rear of the property has been reduced in size and massing;

·  Alterations have been made to the balcony at the rear so that there is no overlooking onto neighbouring properties;

·  The rear looks out onto open vistas of the golf course;

·  Skylights to be used in the bedrooms;

·  Windows to the side elevation to conditioned that these are obscure glazed;

·  The current screening of vegetation to the side boundary to remain.

The Chair informed the Panel that he had been contacted directly by 2 objectors to the scheme prior to the meeting.

Members noted that consultation closed after the date of publication of the agenda for the meeting.

Two of the neighbours were present at the meeting and provided the following points to the Panel:

·  3 planning applications for this site have previously been refused and there is no difference to this one;

·  11% larger than previous application;

·  Overbearing and foreboding development;

·  Their agent had tried to make contact with the applicant but had no success;

·  The proposed property would impact on the lives of the neighbours and their children;

·  17 residents have objected and feel that their objections have been ignored;

·  Of the view that this application is in contradiction with a number of policies.

Responding to Members questions the Panel were given the following information;

·  The garage is not a problem it is the size of the house that is of concern as it will be so prominent;

·  The size of the property will take away the character from Alwoodley Lane;

·  They do accept that the applicant has made significant changes, however they would suggest that the property is be brought in line with neighbouring properties;

·  There has been no consultation with neighbours.

Mr Taylor the applicant attended and spoke to the Panel advising them of the following points:

·  The vegetation to the east side boundary will remain;

·  He had received a torrent of objections since his next door neighbour had sent a letter to other neighbours, some of the objections are duplicated;

·  Mr Taylor said that he had received no request for their agent if he had he would happily have met with him;

·  Mr Taylor said that he had engaged with the local ward Member Cllr. Buckley and with the Parish Council with a positive outcome;

·  Mr Taylor said that he had in the Alwoodley area all his life.

Responding to Member questions Mr Taylor informed the Panel of the following:

·  The size has been reduced, alterations made to the balcony so as not to overlook neighbours, the build will be energy efficient and the hedges will be staying;

·  The balcony will be used to sit and watchers the golfers and the sunset;

·  His wife is also an artist and would paint sunsets and scenery from the balcony;

·  Needs a large house as he has a large family who all gather together on Friday evenings;

·  He would be happy to fill in any gaps of vegetation to the east side boundary.

Member’s discussions focussed on the following points:

·  Design of the house

·  Height of the house

·  Boundary treatment

·  Character of the area

RESOLVED – Members agreed the officer recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report with the imposition of an additional condition:

·  Enhancement of planting to the common boundary with No. 141 Alwoodley Lane (to fill in the gaps in planting along that boundary)