The report of the Chief Planning Officer requests Members consideration for part single storey, part two storey extension with three air conditioning units to side of 152 Stainbeck Lane, Meanwood, Leeds, LS7 2EA.
Chief Planning Officer’s report requested the Panel give consideration to an application for a part single storey, part two storey extension with three air conditioning units to the front of the property at 152, Stainbeck Lane, Meanwood, Leeds, LS7 2EA.
Officers’ recommendation was for refusal and the reasons for refusal were set out in the submitted report
Members were informed of the proposal as set out at point 2 of the submitted report. The applicant requires additional bedrooms for his growing family and the storage space and the air conditioning units are in connection with the retail business.
Members were advised that the application had received four letters of objection the concerns raised were set out at point 6.3 of the report. Members were advised that the application had been brought to Plans Panel by Cllr. Hamilton who had written in support of the application. Cllr. Hamilton stated that she had looked at the plans and could see no reason for refusal. Her reasons for supporting the application were documented within the report.
The Panel were provided with the following key points:
· Concerns had been raised in relation to the noise from the air conditioning units. It is proposed that the units would be located to the front of the property, they would be screened so not visible from the road;
· The current air conditioning units are the subject of an enforcement order in relation to noise;
· There are no design issues with the proposed extension;
· Residential properties are at least 5 metres away from the proposed extension;
· Noise from the air conditioning units would probably only be a problem for the resident on the first floor flat who is currently the applicant, and the occupier of the commercial unit. Members were advised that a condition could be added that the occupancy of the first floor flat could be restricted to the owner occupier of the commercial unit;
· It was noted that 42 Carrholm Road may also suffer some noise issues from the units as it is directly across the road from the premises. A letter of support had been received from the occupiers of number 42 Carrholm Road who were in support of the location of the air conditioning units. The letter also supported the extension highlighting its benefits to the street and the community as it offers a retail service within walking distance of local residents and creates jobs;
· The proposal set out a mass of walling which would extend the full length of 152 and over dominate the property at 150, it was the view that the extension would cause overshadowing during daylight hours.
The resident of 150 Stainbeck Lane was at the meeting and informed the Panel of her concerns:
· Members attention was drawn to 4.1 of the report which provided relevant history and showed that previous applications had been refused;
· The extension would cause over dominance and overshadowing to her property. There would be a loss of light to the dining room and the bedroom and they would have to switch on lights to use these rooms even during daylight hours;
· The garden would suffer from damage due to overshadowing and an established seating area would become unusable;
· The occupier of 150 also queried the red line boundary and ownership of the land.
The applicant’s relative attended the meeting and informed the Panel of the following points:
· This had been a family business since the 1980’s providing a local community store;
· There was a need to extend as storage was required to ensure that the business could be maintained;
· The store employ local people from the area and one of those employees is disabled and is unable to access the store room in its current position on the first floor;
· The family wish to continue living above the premises and as the family grows there is a need for more rooms and space. The panel were informed that the son who is currently at university will soon finish his course and want to return home. He currently resides with his grandma when he is on leave;
· Members were advised that it was owned by the parents and it was the speaker’s brother who ran the family business currently.
The architect was invited to the table to answer questions, his answers were as follows:
· The land within the red line boundary was in the ownership of the applicant;
· Alternative plans had been considered in relation to layout of rooms. However, it was not permissible to extend to the front of the premises so the bedrooms need to be in an extension at the side;
· A loft conversion had not been offered for consideration.
In Members discussions they were sympathetic to the applicant who was trying to continue to run a sustainable business and bring up a growing family. However, they were mindful of the impact on the neighbours and were of the view that 7 metres of extension was unacceptable especially as the garden of 150 was so small.
Members were advised that enforcement action in relation to the noise of the air conditioning units would continue.
RESOLVED – To refuse planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation (harm to residential amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of the scale and siting of the extension).