Planning row man's council broadside

Mike Winterhalder, who faces having to knock two metres (6 feet) off his house in Moor Road for building it too high, launched a blistering attack on Leeds City Council at a hearing on Tuesday.

The 49-year-old interior designer, appealing against enforcement action, was given permission to extend Green Acres in 2000 but went far beyond the plans and created a third storey in the roof.

His attempts to gain retrospective permission for the extra work, which angered many Bramhope residents and was criticised by Leeds planners for its impact on the green belt, were rejected last year.

But Mr Winterhalder told this week's hearing he was furious that a planning officer at a 'crucial point' in the building phase had told him the higher roof would be approved.

He alleged: "At that point the costs of altering the building were minimal, we could have done it very cheaply.

"We said 'have we to stop?' and the officer said 'no, you're too far on, continue'.

"To us that is absolutely critical - he did not put a stop notice on us. He told us on three occasions that retrospective planning approval would be needed but that the planning department would recommend approval.

"He told us we would get objections, because Bramhope Parish Council would complain about anything but that it would go through."

At a later meeting, however, Mr Winterhalder claims he was told his application would hit difficulties.

He said: "The officer told us this was a very, very political issue and because I was thought of as being a developer they wanted to make an example of me."

He added that if he was forced to lower the roof by two metres (from 9.5m to 7.5m) it would mean 'ripping up' the first floor of the house, making it uninhabitable, and take six months.

Mr Moxon said he could understand Mr Winterhalder's frustration, but said nothing he had claimed 'could be given any weight' in deciding the appeal.

He said: "Whether or not there is a political issue involved I don't know, and I'm not concerned about that.

"Council officers' opinions about what may or may not be approved are not binding, it's the members who make the decision."

Mr Moxon, who visited Green Acres after the hearing, will not make his final decision until late September.

But everything on Tuesday, when he rejected several of the main appeal arguments from Mr Winterhalder, suggested part of the house will have to be demolished.

The inspector agreed with planning officer Claire Chambers that doing more landscaping work to 'screen' the property would not make up for its detrimental effect on the green belt.

He said: "The primary purpose of a green belt is to preserve openness - putting up a building and then screening it with conifers and so on certainly does not restore openness."

He also shared the council's opinion that a compromise proposal by Mr Winterhalder to lower the roof's ridge by 1.3 metres would create 'no reduction in short term views', and a 'minimal reduction' in the house's size.

Among the unauthorised alterations made to Green Acres were:

lThe addition of new bay windows and balconies on the ground floor.

lThe creation of a third storey in the roof space where three more rooms were built.

lAn extension of the first floor over almost the entire garage site to create extra accommodation.

The council also claims the house, which has 14 rooms plus toilets, is now bigger than what could be 'reasonably needed' for a single dwelling.

But Mr Winterhalder insists it is purely a family home for him, his wife Rachel, threel children and his mother.

He also claims he needs an office there to run the equestrian business he has on the land - but admitted the riding school had ceased trading in December, 2003.

When asked if that was permanent, he replied: "We've got all this hanging over us so big decisions like that can't be made."

Mr Winterhalder's planning consultant, Harvey Pritchard, meanwhile argued that the site as a whole had actually been improved by his client's work since moving in.

He said: "It's our view that the development as a whole has seen a substantial benefit to the green belt, in terms of the many old out buildings which have been removed and replaced."

The inspector and Mr Winterhalder agreed that if any alterations to Green Acres were decided on they should be completed within 12 months.

Speaking at a break in Tuesday's hearing, Mr Winterhalder said: "It's not about being wrong or right, there's a principle at stake here.

"I'm not a property developer, I just did my old house up to pay for this one, which was meant to be our 'dream home'."

Asked if the row over his home had soured things with his neighbours, he said: "It's not good, all of this. But I've had more people, especially when we were doing the work, come up and say 'wow, this is far better than what was there before, you've tidied it up!'"

In the meeting itself he admitted that one of the central issues of the controversy, the increased height of Green Acres, had been down to his own "pressure cock-up" - when he had to make a quick decision after builders hit a snag with the roof.

Several members of the public turned out to air their views on the Winterhalders' home.

Pat Barnes, of Old Lane, said: "The dwelling is in a very prominent position in terms of the green belt, from the perspective of the public footpaths which surround Bramhope."

A Mrs Clark, also of Old Lane, said: "We're talking about green belt and 6ft high gates have been put up where farm gates used to be and high walls which don't produce the feeling that it's a green belt environment.

"I'm worried if this is allowed it might set some sort of precedent."

Fiona Wrightson, of Old Lane, however, spoke out in favour of Green Meadows.

She said: "As a resident of Bramhope I pass the house daily and I think it's a vast improvement on what was there years ago.

"It's much neater and tidier and does seem to be in line with a number of homes in Bramhope."