30 APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL OR REFUSAL 
PDF 578 KB
The Panel is asked to consider the planning applications which are set out in Document “K” relating to items recommended for approval or refusal:
The sites concerned are:
(a) 188 Bradford Road, Riddlesden, Keighley (Approve)Keighley East
(b) Land adjacent to 3 Woodlands Court, Bingley (Approve) Bingley
(c) Land back of Baildon Lane, off Sandals Road, Baildon Baildon
(Approve)
(d) Marsh Farm, Banks Lane, Riddlesden, Keighley Keighley East
(Refuse)
(e) The Croft, Keighley (Refuse) Keighley East
(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)
Decision:
(a) 188 Bradford Road, Riddlesden, Keighley Keighley East
Construction of hip to gable roof enlargement, front and rear dormer windows, single storey extension to the side and part single storey and part two storey extension to the rear at 188 Bradford Road, Riddlesden, Keighley - 16/07306/HOU
Resolved –
That the application be approved for the reason and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report.
Action: Strategic Director, Regeneration
(b) Land adjacent to 3 Woodlands Court, Bingley Bingley
Full planning application for the demolition of an existing garage and construction of a two bedroom house and associated parking on garden land adjacent to 3 Woodlands Court, Bingley - 16/02521/FUL
Resolved –
That the application be approved for the reason and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report.
Action: Strategic Director, Regeneration
(c) Land at Back Baildon Road, Off Sandals Road, Baildon Baildon
Full application for the construction of a detached dwelling on land at Back Baildon Road, off Sandals Road, Baildon - 16/06912/FUL
Resolved –
That the application be approved for the reason and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report.
Action: Strategic Director, Regeneration
(d) Marsh Farm, Banks Lane, Riddlesden, Keighley Keighley East
Full planning application for construction of a new boarding kennel for up to 44 Dogs and associated parking facilities at Marsh Farm, Banks Lane, Riddlesden, Keighley - 16/08142/FUL
Resolved –
That the application be deferred and referred back to the meeting on 18 January 2017 in order for the issues regarding noise, water contamination and biodiversity to be resolved and for the applicant to substantiate the very special circumstances in respect of the proposal.
Action: Strategic Director, Regeneration
(e) The Croft, Keighley Keighley East
Full planning application for construction of three detached houses, improvements to access drive with turning head at The Croft, Keighley - 16/06629/FUL
Resolved –
That the application be refused for the reason as set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report.
Action: Strategic Director, Regeneration
(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)
Minutes:
The Strategic Director, Regeneration presented Document “K”. Plans and photographs were displayed in respect of each application and representations summarised.
(a) 188 Bradford Road, Riddlesden, Keighley Keighley East
Construction of hip to gable roof enlargement, front and rear dormer windows, single storey extension to the side and part single storey and part two storey extension to the rear at 188 Bradford Road, Riddlesden, Keighley - 16/07306/HOU
The Strategic Director, Regeneration gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout. He explained that the application was for the construction of a single storey extension to the side, a part single storey extension to the side and rear, changes to the roof and front and rear dormers. It was noted that a number of schemes had been previously submitted and refused due to the impact on the adjoining property. A number of representations had been submitted in support and against the application and the issues were detailed in the officer’s report. Members were informed that the amendment to the roof from hip to gable and the rear dormer were covered under permitted development rights. The first floor extension to the rear and the front dormer were also in accordance with the Council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Document (HSPD). The Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that the side extension would be widened, however, there would still be a 1metre gap to the boundary hedge and the rear extension would project out by 4.8 metres, which was the same distance as the sun room on the adjoining property. He indicated that the proposal would effect the neighbours property, but on balance it would not warrant that the application be recommended for refusal.
An objector was present at the meeting and raised the following concerns:
· Would the proposed front dormer be acceptable?
· The roof of the dormer would meet the apex of the roof and the pitched roof effect would be lost.
· The appearance of the two dwellings needed to be preserved as much as possible.
· The symmetry of the two dwellings would be lost.
· The proposal was not acceptable and was in stark contrast to other houses in the neighbourhood.
· Other neighbours were in agreement that the development was not acceptable.
· A petition had been submitted in objection to the proposal by local residents, however, those in support lived far and wide.
· He had purchased his property because of the sun room to the rear which was used as a library.
· The proposed scheme would cause a significant reduction in light to his sun room and have a negative impact on his home.
· The issues had been discussed with the new owners.
In response to a comment made, the Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that the front dormer would require planning permission.
The applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and stated that:
· The previous application was refused due to the two storey side extension element.
· The submitted application was for a different extension.
· The light in the neighbour’s sun room was ... view the full minutes text for item 30
