In the interests of transparency, Councillor Cunningham declared that he was a member of the Town Scape Heritage Board.

Action: City Solicitor

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2021 be signed as a correct record.

(Su Booth – 07814 073884)

That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2021 be signed as a correct record.

Action: City Solicitor

(Access to Information Procedure Rules – Part 3B of the Constitution)

Reports and background papers for agenda items may be inspected by contacting the person shown after each agenda item.  Certain reports and background papers may be restricted. 

Any request to remove the restriction on a report or background paper should be made to the relevant Strategic or Assistant Director whose name is shown on the front page of the report. 

If that request is refused, there is a right of appeal to this meeting. 

Please contact the officer shown below in advance of the meeting if you wish to appeal. 

(Su Booth – 07814 073884)

There were no appeals.

The sites concerned are:

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

A.   97 Whetley Lane, Bradford                                   Manningham

This is a full application proposing a first floor rear extension to an existing shop above an already approved extension.  Officers submitted an overview of the application indicating the nature of the application and previous approved planning permission demonstrating that materials used would be in keeping with neighbouring properties.  The impact on a neighbouring property was also considered and was judged that there would be no impact both presently and in the future due to the nature and use of the adjoining properties.

Members asked the following questions for clarity:

A Member asked whether the property was commercial or residential and was advised that the property was for commercial use and that there was a neighbouring property with some residential use.

Officers were asked whether there was space for commercial waste bins at the rear and were advised that there was sufficient space and reminded Members that the ground floor application had already been approved and that this was for the first floor.

Resolved –

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report (Document “C”).

Action: Strategic Director, Place

B.   16 Victor Street, Heaton, Bradford                     Manningham

This is a householder application for dormer windows to the front and rear roof of 16 Victor Street, Manningham.  The application seeks permission for dormer windows to a property which sits in a conservation area. 

Officers presented an overview of the application stating that the proposed windows were disproportionate in size and would impact on the appearance of the property and the wider street for this reason and due to the proposed materials.  There were other properties in the vicinity with dormer windows but these were pitched roof dormers of an appropriate size and were possibly installed prior to the introduction of the Council’s Householder SPD.

Members were then given the opportunity to ask questions of Officers, the details of which and responses given, are as below:

·         Was the issue with the rear dormer that the property was in a conservation area? 

·      Officers advised that there were no permanent development rights in conservation areas and they were looking to protect the property’s appearance.  A dormer window with a pitched room design would be acceptable

·         Had special circumstances been used before?

·      Officers advised that larger dormer windows were not permitted and the special circumstances would not change the outcome.  The addition of cladding was also not permitted, the guidance hadn’t changed and the design was not acceptable

The applicant and Ward Councillor attended the meeting and addressed the Panel stating that there was a specific need for more room as the family living in the house was growing and there were disabled children needing more space.  It was not economically viable for the family to move to a larger property and that the applicant was willing to work with Planning to find a solution.

A brief discussion then took place as to how to proceed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Panel is asked to consider other matters which are set out in Document “D” relating to miscellaneous items:

(A-M) Requests for Enforcement/Prosecution Action

(N-V)   Decisions made by the Secretary of State – Dismissed

(W-X) Decisions made by the Secretary of State – Varied and Upheld

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

The Panel was asked to consider other matters which were set out in Document “D” relating to miscellaneous items:

(A-M) Requests for Enforcement/Prosecution Action

(N-V)   Decisions made by the Secretary of State – Dismissed

(W-X) Decisions made by the Secretary of State – Varied and Upheld

Resolved –

That the requests for Enforcement/Prosecution Action and the decisions made by the Secretary of State as set out in Document “D” be noted.

Action: Strategic Director, Place

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)