The Panel is asked to consider the planning applications which are set out in Document “Q” relating to items recommended for approval or refusal:

The sites concerned are:

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

(a)       110 Skipton Road, Ilkley                                                   Ilkley

Construction of detached car port with office above plus associated works at 110 Skipton Road, Ilkley - 16/07296/HOU

Resolved –

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

(i)         The proposed development will have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and the Ilkley Conservation Area contrary to Policies D1 and BH7 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

(ii)        The building will have substandard access due to the narrow width of Riverside Walk and the increased likelihood of parking by clients of the proposed home business would cause obstruction.  As such the proposal is contrary to Policies TM19A and TM2 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

(iii)       The position of the roof lights on the submitted drawings is such that overlooking would be caused to occupiers of existing dwellings on Riverside Walk, resulting in loss of amenity to occupiers of these dwellings contrary to Policies D1 and UR3 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

(iv)      The development would pose a threat to the trees immediately adjoining the site which is within the Conservation Area. This would be contrary to Policies NE4 and NE5 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Action:  Strategic Director, Place

(b)       29 Greenside Lane, Cullingworth, Bingley                  Bingley Rural

Householder application for a proposed two-storey side extension to 29 Greenside Lane, Cullingworth, Bingley - 16/09228/HOU

Resolved –

That the application be approved for the reason and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report and an additional condition in relation to:

The first floor windows, serving the en-suite bathroom and dressing room, in the rear and side elevations of the extension hereby permitted shall be glazed in obscure glass prior to the first occupation of the extension and thereafter retained as such, in order to prevent overlooking of the adjacent property or garden area.

Action:  Strategic Director, Place

(c)       3 Park Dale, Menston, Ilkley                                            Wharfedale

Full application for the construction of a detached dwelling with associated parking at 3 Park Dale, Menston, Ilkley - 16/08877/FUL

Resolved –

That the application be approved for the reason and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

Action:  Strategic Director, Place

(d)       5 West View Wells Road, Ilkley                                       Ilkley

Retrospective application for an extension to rear of the property to house a lift and staircase, at 5 West View, Wells Road, Ilkley - 17/00515/FUL

Resolved –

That the application be approved for the reason and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

Action:  Strategic Director, Place

(e)       Cullingworth and District, Bingley Rural                     Cullingworth

Conservative Club, 21 - 23 Station Road

Full application for an externally mounted flue to serve kitchen extract ventilation at Cullingworth and District Conservative Club, 21-23 Station Road, Cullingworth - 16/08874/FUL

Resolved –

That the application be approved for the following reason:

The flue will bring public benefits, in terms of an improvement to amenity  ...  view the full decision text for item 47

The Strategic Director, Regeneration presented Document “Q”. Plans and photographs were displayed and/or tabled in respect of each application and the representations summarised.

 (a)      110 Skipton Road, Ilkley                                                   Ilkley

Construction of detached car port with office above plus associated works at 110 Skipton Road, Ilkley - 16/07296/HOU.

The Strategic Director summarised a written representation from the applicant, who was unable to attend the meeting, which stated that: he was self employed and worked at various locations dependent upon his clients; the development would allow him to re-locate from the existing office within his house; there was already an existing car parking area which had been in place for a number of years; there would be no significant impact or increase of highway use on Riverside Walk as a result of the works and that the proposed office and car port would be above an existing structure.

A Ward Councillor outlined objections to the application, as follows:

·         The access road (Riverside Walk) was very narrow and he did not believe that cars parked on it very often due to the obstruction this caused.

·         The roof lights proposed on the front elevation would be at head height and he considered there would be overlooking of properties 5, 7 and 9 Riverside Walk.  An increase in the height of the roof lights would be an improvement.

·         The right of access on Riverside Walk was a private legal matter which was for residents to resolve.

·         He considered the proposal to be an overuse of the site.

·         He believed that trees had already been removed from the site without authority.

An objector to the application put forward the following points:

·         He considered the size of the proposals would dominate Riverside Walk and be out of character.

·         The officer’s report stated that the conifer hedge between the property and   No. 7 Riverside Walk was 4 metres high, but this hedge only covered 45% of the boundary and the proposal would be an additional 3 metres higher. The development would therefore have an overbearing impact upon neighbouring residents.

·         It was questioned why the applicant didn’t appear to be subject to the same restrictions as other residents of Riverside Walk.

·         Residents would have to reverse out of Riverside Walk if vehicles parked there as it was very narrow and there would be no turning facility.

·         He believed the applicant’s statement in relation to the existing concrete hard standing having been built years ago to stabilise the rear garden area after the removal of a former dilapidated garage to be untrue.  He stated there were numerous photographs available since the development of houses on Riverside Walk to verify this.

·         Previously this garden had included a number of trees that had been removed. Consent for removal of the Ash tree on the site had been refused but branches had still been removed.

·         The drawings showed one small car and one medium car on the site but this could not be controlled.  It was considered that it would not be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47