Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for a variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of previous approval 23/01597/FU (One new detached dwelling with detached garage to front and garden shed to side/rear; landscaping and pond to rear) to allow for creation of basement and rooms in roof space (including two additional bedrooms) with external alterations including rooflights and new lower ground floor doors to rear and lightwell to side; alterations to rear terrace, steps and external landscaping; relocation of shed to other side/rear at Old Parsonage, Main Street, East Keswick, Leeds, LS17 9EU.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application for a variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of previous approval 23/01597/FU for one new detached dwelling with detached garage to front and garden shed to side/rear; landscaping and pond to rear to allow for creation of basement and rooms in roof space (including two additional bedrooms) with external alterations, including rooflights and new lower ground floor doors to rear and lightwell to side; alterations to rear terrace, steps and external landscaping; relocation of shed to other side/rear at Old Parsonage, Main Street, East Keswick, Leeds, LS17 9EU.

The report recommended to Panel that the variation be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report (with amendments or addition to the same as deemed appropriate).

Slides and photographs of the site and proposals were presented by the Planning Officer who outlined the application as detailed in the submitted report. It was noted that the report had been listed as being in the Wetherby Ward however, the application site was listed in the Harewood Ward. It was also noted that the report was dated wrongly, and that the ‘target determination’ date shown did not reflect the fact that an extension of time had been agreed with the applicant to accommodate the date of the Panel meeting.  Finally, it was confirmed that publication of the application had been by way of Site Notice.

The application was presented to the Panel at the request of Cllr Firth and his reasons were set out in the submitted report at Paragraphs 1 and 2.

Objectors to the application attended the meeting and addressed the Panel. Following this the objectors provided responses to the questions raised by Members, which in summary, related to the following:

• The proposed position of the gate would limit access to the site. Lumby Lane was already a busy road with roads merging onto it and it was already difficult to negotiate. The applicant has said that they would maintain the visibility splays however, the residents were unsure how these would be maintained.

The applicant’s agent attended the meeting and addressed the Panel. Following this, Mr Flatman provided responses to the questions raised by Panel Members, which in summary, related to:

• Clarification on the disputed piece of land which had been submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
• The depth of the excavations required for the basement room and the method of disposal for soil.
• Removal of the hedgerows and planting of trees.

Questions and comments from the Panel then followed, with officers responding to the questions raised, which included the following:

·  The matter of the removal of soil during excavations for the new basement area meant it was sensible that additional measures were put in place to control these works, and these could be incorporated into the proposed condition for a Construction Management Plan.

·  The development generated a car parking demand of 3 cars with the garage and driveway areas proposed were capable of accommodating 5 cars. As such the proposal was highways compliant for the size of the proposed dwelling.

·  The proposed boundary treatment had been amended from the previous proposal to be sited alongside the area of land to which ownership was disputed.

·  The Legal Officer provided advice in relation to the certificate of land ownership submitted with the application, as well as clarifying that the existing dispute regarding land ownership for a small parcel of land remains a private law matter to be resolved between the relevant parties.

·  The final finished levels would be addressed via a condition which could also control the siting of the proposed gate to the front of the site (which would allow vehicles to enter the site without waiting on the highway).

·  There were still some concerns in relation to the disputed piece of land, which would make for a difficult decision.

The Area Planning Manager in summing up noted that the land ownership dispute related to a matter of process rather than speaking to the planning merits of the scheme. It was recognised there was a dispute over land and by the serving of a notice, which was to alert others of the applicant’s intentions, the applicant had complied with the correct process. However, there were no grounds to refuse the proposal on the basis of the land ownership issues raised or as a result of the way the redline was drawn. It was acknowledged that this was a difficult position for the parties involved, but it was difficult to refuse the planning application on that basis.

Upon voting, a motion was put forward to move the officer recommendations, as per the submitted report. This was moved and seconded, and it was:

RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted as per the officer recommendation set out in the submitted report, with an amendment to Condition 13 for a Construction Management Plan to also address the need to control soil removal and related excavation works, and to note that Condition 4 would seek to control matters related to the positioning of an entrance gate, boundary treatments and site levels.

Councillors Ryan Stephenson and Simon Seary wished it to be noted that they had abstained during the vote.