Agenda item

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer for part retrospective application for part two storey side and rear extension; part first floor rear extension; dormer windows to rear at 43-45 St Wilfrids Circus, Harehills, Leeds, LS8 3PF.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requested Member’s consideration on an application for part retrospective application for part two storey side and rear

extension; part first floor rear extension; dormer windows to rear at 43-45 St Wilfrids Circus, Harehills, Leeds, LS8 3PF. 

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

The Planning Officer provided the following information:

·  This application had been submitted in part to rectify works retrospectively which had been undertaken without planning permission, in addition to further proposed extension work. The retrospective works included two rear dormer windows, hip to gable extension on either side and a two storey wrap around extension to number 45. It was proposed to rectify works by reducing the two rear dormer windows, altering roof of the existing two storey rear extension and construction of a first floor side extension above the existing side extension.

·  Ward Members supported the application and had requested that the retrospective application for part two storey side and rear extension, part first floor rear extension, dormer windows to rear at 43 and 45 St Wilfrids Circus be considered by the Plans Panel.

·  It was noted that this pair of semi-detached houses were located in a residential area, of properties of a similar type. Members were advised that the internal layout of the dwellings were entirely separate.

·  Plans of the existing extension were shown. It was noted that the house holder design guide says that roof forms should match the existing dwelling. Proposed plans were also shown to the Panel and showed a slight reduction to the dormer windows but still remain a dominant feature of each roof and retain the three storey influence. The roof of the two storey rear extension protrudes into the face of the dormer windows and this type of development would not normally be support by planning given the poor design. The Panel were advised that the floor plans showed that the proposed application would provide two more bedrooms to each property. The main concerns with the proposal were the scale of the dormer windows, the impact of the integration of the two storey rear extension with the dormer windows and the impact on the character of the surrounding area.

·  It was acknowledged that had the application come to Planning, officers would have had concerns about the scale of the dormer windows. Officers suggested that the dormer windows should be removed, or the scale be significantly reduced.

Mr Khan a family friend and Cllr Arif were present at the meeting to support the applicant and informed the Panel of the following points:

·  The applicants are two separate families who get on well and decided to have the work done at the same. They have 4 children each so need 5 bedrooms.

·  An architect had drawn up the plans for the extensions and the dormer windows. The work had been undertaken during the pandemic and the families had been misled. When it was realised that they did not have the correct permission they had tried to get retrospective planning permission. They had been advised that the extension was within Permitted Development, but the dormer windows were not correct as they were too big. However, Mr Khan said lots of houses in the area and around Leeds have similar style dormer windows.

·  The families have already spent thousands of pounds doing the work and it would be costly for them to remove the dormer windows. It was unfair as they had not done this intentionally and they had been living in the rooms for a number of years.

·  Mr Khan was able to provide examples of similar work undertaken. He said that the example provided at Paragraph 25 of the submitted report setting out the refusal of St Augustine’s Road was because the dwelling was on a main road, whereas 43 and 45 St Wilfrids Circus are not.

Member’s discussions included:

·  The fact that the family had been misled by the architect to believe that they had planning permission.

·  The size of the dormer windows and the character of the surrounding area.

·  The family’s circumstances and the need to provide adequate room for the families.

·  The effects of removing or reducing the size of the dormer windows on the dwellings and on the financial impact to the families.

·  Consideration of refusal and subsequent appeal and whether the reasons and policy were enough for the Council to defend any such appeal.

·  The Legal Officer provided clarification on issues surrounding personal circumstances in planning application and materiality.

·  Clarification on planning history and enforcement action was provided to the Panel. The enforcement notices should have been complied with by 4 February 2023, which required the removal of the dormers

·  Recognised the culture of extended families in dwelling in the Harehills area.

Member’s comments included:

·  The struggle to find a suitable solution to this application given the circumstances of the families and any financial impact or move that there may be on the families.

·  On the site visit Members said they could see the extensions from the front of the properties but acknowledged that the rear of the properties was not overlooked from public vantage points.

·  In answer to a question from Members officers confirmed that the proposal was clearly contrary to the policies and guidance set out in the Householder Design Guide.

·  Members acknowledged recent training which had covered planning matters, material matters, and social demographics and that the application was unacceptable in its current form.

Cllr Stephenson moved the officer recommendation for refusal, it was seconded by Cllr Lamb, this was put to the vote, and it did not receive a majority.

Legal advice was provided by the officer as to options available to members, to defer, approve or leave undetermined.

RESOLVED – Defer the application for one cycle in order that the application be revisited and returned to plans panel for determination