08/02569/DEXFP

The request was successful.

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

CS Freedom of Information, Leeds City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Madam

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request. Please find attached acknowledgement letter.

Yours faithfully

Katrina Jenkins

Legal Officer

Property and Finance

Legal, Licensing & Registration

Leeds City Council

Tel: 0113 2474392

Fax : 0113 2474651

E- mail: [Leeds City Council request email]

www.leeds.gov.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen [mailto:[FOI #45912 email]]
Sent: 28 August 2010 21:24
To: CS Freedom of Information
Subject: Freedom of Information request - 08/02569/DEXFP

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #45912 email]

Is [Leeds City Council request email] the wrong address for
Freedom of Information requests to Leeds City Council? If so please
contact us using this form:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact

If you find WhatDoTheyKnow useful as an FOI officer, please ask
your web manager to suggest us on your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________________________________________

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the
intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient,
please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please
delete this email (and any attachment) from your system.

The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.
________________________________________________________________________

hide quoted sections

Brook, Richard, Leeds City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Ms. Virco,

Please find attached the response to your Freedom of Information request.
Regards,

Richard Brook,
Administration Assistant,
Level 2,
Thoresby House.

________________________________________________________________________

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the

intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient,

please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please

delete this email (and any attachment) from your system.

The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

________________________________________________________________________

hide quoted sections

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

Brook, Richard, Leeds City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Ms. Virco,

Please find attached the response to your email of 31st August 2010.

Regards,

Richard Brook,
Administration Assistant,
Level 2,
Thoresby House.

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen [mailto:[FOI #45912 email]]
Sent: 31 August 2010 22:58
To: Brook, Richard
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - 08/02569/DEXFP

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

-----Original Message-----

Dear Ms. Virco,

Please find attached the response to your Freedom of Information
request.
Regards,

Richard Brook,
Administration Assistant,
Level 2,
Thoresby House.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #45912 email]

If you find WhatDoTheyKnow useful as an FOI officer, please ask
your web manager to suggest us on your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________________________________________

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the
intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient,
please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please
delete this email (and any attachment) from your system.

The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.
________________________________________________________________________

hide quoted sections