The Spring Bank Planning Application - Grounds for Objection

A similar planning application was refused a year ago. The reasons given by the council for their refusal were as follows :

 

1. The proposed development would be overbearing and dominant and result in a

shadowing effect upon the rear garden and rear elevation resulting in a loss of outlook on the neighbouring residents, particularly those living at No. 2, No. 4 and No. 6 Spring Bank Crescent by reason of its size and siting and is contrary to Policies GP5, BD5, N12 and N13 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and the Neighbourhoods For Living SPG.

 

2. The proposed development would result in over looking and a loss of privacy on the neighbouring residents particularly those living at No. 2, No. 4 and No. 6 Spring Bank Crescent by reason of its height and the proximity to the common boundary with these dwellings and is contrary to Policies GP5, BD5, N12 and N13 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and the Neighbourhoods For Living SPG.

 

3. The proposed development would due to its size, siting, height and mass result in an overly dominant form of development that would be seriously detrimental to the setting of the Listed Buildings, Springbank and Springbank Cottage. Furthermore due to the elevated ground level of the proposal in comparison to the Listed Buildings the proposal would cause further planning harm and have a detrimental effect upon the spatial settings of the Listed Buildings. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies BD5, N12, N13, N19 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006).

 

4. The proposed development would due to its size, height, mass and proximity to the boundary with Headingley Lane result in an incongruous addition to the street scene that is out of character with the plan form of the area and not in keeping with the character and appearance of the Headingley conservation area. As such the proposal is contrary to adopted UDP Policies N12, N13 and N19 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006).

 

5. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would

represent overdevelopment of the site, such that the extra car parking spaces are required and the need for bins and cycle parking, plus the loss of planting/landscaping would result in significant harm to the setting of the existing Listed Buildings. This is contrary to Policies GP5, N19, LD1, N12 and N13 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 1 and Planning Policy Guidance 15.

 

6. The Local Planning Authority considers that the development is without adequate

provision of green space to the detriment of future occupants’ residential amenity and appropriate access to the hierarchy of spaces identified within Policy N2, thereby being contrary to Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) Policies N2, N4 and GP5.

 

7. The proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policy H15 of the

Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006 by reason of being out of scale and character with its surroundings. The proposal also fails to improve the quality of accommodation available for students by reason of unsatisfactory levels of light and outlook to habitable room windows.

 

Objections should be sent to :

 

planning@leeds.gov.uk

 

And remember to include your postal address and the planning application reference numbers P/08/04775/FU/NW and P/08/04777/LI/NW with your objection.

 

Done