Councillors in Leeds have used new national powers on 'garden grabbing' for the first time - refusing one planning application in Thorner but approving another in Morley.
Members on yesterday's east plans panel rejected 'inappropriate' proposals for a pair of semi-detached houses with garages to a garden opposite Moat House, Church View, Thorner, because of its impact on the greenfield site and the village as a whole.
New legislation passed recently removed garden land from brownfield and into the greenfield category, making it more difficult for people to build in their gardens.
More than 400 objections
Addressing the committee, Michael Brereton of Thorner Parish Council, said that there had been more than 400 objections from the village. He said:
"This is the defining view of the village and we want to protect it. It is used as an icon for boundary markers."
Wetherby Conservative councillor John Procter said:
"The new planning policy has been out in to protect gardens from inappropriate development and garden grabbing applications like this."
However, councillors approved plans for four five-bedroom detached houses on garden land near Crank Cottage in Station Road, Morley, subject to a number of provisions, including a traffic order.
It was felt that the development was appropriate because the garden space was a distance away from the property and there wasn't the same impact on the area as the application in Thorner.
Meeting chairman, Beeston and Holbeck councillor David Congreve, said:
"The new legislation is welcomed but each application has to be taken on merit. It is designed to protect back land development and gardens that have some impact on the street scene - and this application doesn't really."
Morley Borough Independent councillor Robert Finnigan opposed the application. He said:
"What's not good enough for Thorner shouldn't be good enough for Morley either. I have to oppose this."
Thorp Arch plans approved in principal, despite concerns
Proposals for 12 houses at Thorp Arch Grange - part of the site of the former Leeds United training ground - were approved in principal.
But councillors had a number of concerns, including lowering the height of the development from two and a half storeys high, the type of housing and the need for better screening.
They agreed to defer and delegate final approval of the scheme fto the chief planning officer, once the issues had been resolved with the developer.
What do you think? Have your say in the comments section below.
