Controversial house extension on private road in Far Headingley approved by council

Plans to extend a house in north Leeds have been unanimously approved by Leeds City Council decision-makers at a meeting this week.

Friday, 27th August 2021, 6:28 am

According to a report which went before members of Leeds City Council’s South and West Plans Panel, the applicant wanted to demolish an existing outbuilding and build a single storey rear extension at a house in Glebe Terrace.

But the plans have been “called-in” by Weetwood councillor Jonathan Bentley (Lib Dem), however, who considers the proposal inappropriate.

It also received 31 letters of objection, with accusations made that the development is not “in keeping with the area” and that the development would be “overbearing”.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

Plans to extend a house in Glebe Terrace received 31 letters of objection but have been unanimously approved by council description makers.

Speaking against the application during the meeting, a member of the public said: “A lack of scale on the plans could mean the development could impact amenity.

“The overall height of the extension could be significantly higher than the stated 3.15m leading to undue impact regarding over-dominance and overshadowing.

“The design is not sympathetic and does not sit harmoniously within the host and adjoining dwellings.”

Speaking in support of the application, planner Louise Thorne said: “The applicants are in the process of refurbishing the property for use as a family home.

“Their intention is to preserve and enhance the historic character of the building. They have renovated three Yorkshire stone properties and have expertise in this area.

“They have taken on this property in a state of disrepair and are looking to vastly improve it.”

She added that the applicants had tried to speak to the local residents “on a number of occasions”, and explained that the owner is from Leeds and wants to live in the house.

Following a consultation on the plans, a letter from Kate Newell, Leeds City Council’s senior conservation officer, said: “The revisions have addressed the issues previously raised. I recommend agreeing a number of details to ensure that the scheme preserves the special character and appearance of the conservation area.”

The council report concluded: “It is considered that the proposal would be an appropriate addition that preserves the character and appearance of the conservation area, and will not have an unreasonably harmful impact upon near neighbours.

“Officers recommend that planning permission is granted for the proposal, subject to the conditions set out at the start of this report.”

Members of the committee unanimously agreed to approve the application.