Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer which sets out an application for alteration to the front and rear dormer windows at 71 Mexborough Drive, Chapeltown, Leeds, LS7 3EL.

(Report attached)

The submitted report of the Chief Planning Officer set out a proposal for the alteration to form front and rear dormer windows at 71 Mexborough Drive, Chapeltown, Leeds, LS7 3EL.

Members had attended a site visit earlier in the day and slides were shown throughout the presentation.

Members were informed of the following points:

·  This application was brought to plans panel at the request of Cllr Rafique the local ward member, on the grounds that there are already a number of similar dormers in the area and that there will be no impact on the neighbours or on the character of the area.

·  The proposal site is an end terrace sitting at the junction of Mexborough Drive and Mexborough Place. The property forms one of a long line of terraced properties in an area characterised by such terraces.

·  The property is a former terraced house that, along with the immediate neighbouring property at number 69 Mexborough Drive, has been granted planning permission for conversion into an Islamic Education and Prayer Centre.

·  Attention was drawn to number 69 which has a rear and front facing dormer window extensions that appear to have been constructed some time ago and prior to the integration of that part of the centre into 71 Mexborough Drive. Members were asked to note that this dormer and others in the area had been built prior to planning policy 2012, if such an application were to be brought now they would not have received planning permission.

·  It was noted that guidelines rarely allow for front dormers and it was rarely acceptable on long rows of terraces houses where the original roof form is retained, which are a character of this area. However, in some cases rear dormers would be acceptable where they are in proportion to existing roof, having regard to the character of the area and of appropriate design.

·  Members were advised that generally officers were supportive to applications for uses for the community. However, this application was contrary to design guide and policy. It was noted that users of the centre lived within the vicinity.

In response to Members questions the Panel were provided with the following information:

·  There was no record of when the dormers to number 69 had been built but it was presumed to be either 1970’s or 1980’s probably under permitted developed.

·  The roof space in 71 is used currently as an overflow prayer area. The application was for this area to be increased.

·  Highways Officers did not believe that an increase in the dwelling would increase parking issues as most of the users of the centre lived in the vicinity, with 70% of people walking to use the facility.

·  It was noted that discussions had taken place with the applicant and Cllr Rafique the local ward councillor, who was supportive of the application. The applicant had been told that if they removed the front dormer and made the rear dormer smaller the officers would be supportive. However, the applicant wished to continue with this application.

Members’ discussions included:

·  Members did have sympathy with the applicant but were of the view that the benefits of this application were minimal and that there would be significant harm to the character of the area.

·  Members were if the view that if this was allowed it would open the door for similar applications and it was contrary to planning guidelines.

·  It was also noted that concerns were raised that if this application was allowed for the prayer centre, that it could be sold in the future to become a dwelling.

RESOLVED – To refuse the application for the reasons set out in the submitted report.