Dear Leeds City Council,

Dining room extension to rear of dwelling is showing on your website as approved conditionally with endorsements. What the details of the endorsments are is not showing. The status is shown as building started. The building has been finished and I want to know what the endorsements are and why the planning department allowed a differentiation of the area conditions and permitted a conifer planting instead of a fence.

Yours faithfully,

Karin Virco

Dear Brook, Richard,

Whilst the original request was declined for safety reasons for the fence which I can understand. It would have been reasonable for the planning authority to assume that the ammended granted plan would have needed a perimeter barrier. The extension has been built and the existing perimeter removed.

Whilst you say that can not prevent the occupier planting trees, I would disagree, it was reasonably forseeable that the fence in the planning application originally refused would be replaced on the conditional permitted development by an alternative. As the permited development did not exclude an organic alternative this is what has been substituted. I believe that the perimeter has been extended onto the section 106 ground without permission. It looks incongruous and still constitutes the safety hazard which was cited as an objection by 2 Pelham Court (I would be grateful if a planning inspector could visit the property and appreciate my point)

Therefore can you please clarify why the development was permitted.

Yours sincerely,

Karen