(Members Code of Conduct - Part 4A of the Constitution)

To receive disclosures of interests from Members and co-opted members on matters to be considered at the meeting. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the Member during the meeting.

Notes:

(1)       Members may remain in the meeting and take part fully in discussion and voting unless the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an interest which the Member feels would call into question their compliance with the wider principles set out in the Code of Conduct.  Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member concerned or their spouse/partner.

(2)       Members in arrears of Council Tax by more than two months must not vote in decisions on, or which might affect, budget calculations, and must disclose at the meeting that this restriction applies to them.  A failure to comply with these requirements is a criminal offence under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. 

(3)       Members are also welcome to disclose interests which are not disclosable pecuniary interests but which they consider should be made in the interest of clarity.

(4)       Officers must disclose interests in accordance with Council Standing Order 44.

In the interest of transparency the following declarations were made:

(i)            Councillors Amran, Brown, Ellis, Warburton and Watson declared an interest in the item relating to the function hall on land at Dick Lane (Minute 19), as they were Members of this Committee when they determined the previous application on this site, however they stated that they would consider this application afresh.

(ii)           Councillor Ellis also disclosed that he was a member of a number of professional drainage bodies.

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. 

(Tracey Sugden - 01274 434287)

There were no declarations of interest in matters under consideration.

The Committee is asked to consider the following recommendation from the Corporate Parenting Panel held on 29 June 2020.

That it be recommended to the Regulatory and Appeals Committee that the appointment of Non-Voting Co-opted Members to the Corporate Parenting Panel for the 2020/21 municipal year be confirmed as set out below:

·Sue Lowndes to replace Yasmin Umarji
·Inspector Steven Greenbank to replace Inspector Kevin Taylor
·Jude MacDonald to replace Sue Thompson
·Chair of the Children in Care Council

                                                            (Tracey Sugden – 01274 434287)

Resolved –

That the appointment of Non-Voting Co-opted Members to the Corporate Parenting Panel for the 2020/21 municipal year be confirmed as set out below:

• Sue Lowndes to replace Yasmin Umarji

• Inspector Steven Greenbank to replace Inspector Kevin Taylor

• Jude MacDonald to replace Sue Thompson

• Chair of the Children in Care Council

ACTION: City Solicitor                             

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways) will present a report (Document “L”) which  presents a retrospective application in relation to the construction of a function hall on land at Grid Ref 418980 432519 Dick Lane, Bradford.

Recommended –

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions included with Appendix 1 to Document “L”.

 (John Eyles – 01274 434380).

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways) presented a report (Document “L”) which  set out a retrospective application in relation to the construction of a function hall on land at Dick Lane, Bradford.

The Assistant Director gave a detailed overview of the planning application, showing plans, photographs of the proposed site, layout and construction activity to date.  He also updated Members on an additional representation that had been received, objecting to the building in terms of its size, the impact on local residents and concerns regarding the use of fireworks.

The Assistant Director explained that although a previous application had been granted in respect of the proposed function hall, the applicant had failed to submit details on a number of pre-commencement conditions within the prescribed timescale following the commencement of the development.  As a consequence these conditions were not discharged at the appropriate time thereby resulting in the development being unauthorised.  In addition the building was also not being built in accordance with the approved plan with changes being made to the design of the building.  The application had therefore been submitted to regularised the development through the submission of the appropriate information and drawings showing the revised design of the building.

The Assistant Director added that the information now submitted by the applicant was considered acceptable and met the requirements of the conditions and whilst the revised design of the building, was slightly higher than that previously approved, it had also been considered to be acceptable and would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety or residential and visual amenity.  Subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions the application was therefore recommended for approval.

In response to a question regarding fireworks, the Assistant Director stated that the use of fireworks would not be conditioned and that it would up to the management of the premises to ensure that no fireworks were let off late at night, and to impose an appropriate financial penalty in such instances.  The applicant also clarified that he was happy to include the use of fireworks into the management plan for the function hall and enforce accordingly with users. He added that after 8pm there would be no fireworks let off, however he was aiming to have a blanket ban on the use of fireworks.

In response to a question on disability, it was confirmed that lifts would be installed to ensure access to the first floor, and as such the building would comply with regulations relating to disabled access.

In response to a question why no sanctions had been applied in relation to the discharge of the conditions and the change to the height of the building, it was explained that this application had now been submitted to rectify the breaches and it was only appropriate to determine the application before the Committee, as enforcement was not seen as a viable route to take.

The applicant was present at the meeting and stressed that this situation had been reached  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways) will present a report (Document “M”) which explains a planning application 20/01415/FUL for construction of a detached two storey dwelling with associated parking on land at 30 Longacre Lane Haworth Keighley BD22 0TE

.

Recommended –

That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in appendix 1 to Document “M”

(John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways) presented a report (Document “M”) which set out a planning application for construction of a detached two storey dwelling with associated parking on land at 30 Longacre Lane Haworth Keighley.

The Assistant Director gave a detailed overview of the application, showing plans, photographs of the proposed site, layout and proposed house type and summarising the representations that had been received. 

.

The Assistant Director stated that the application site was part of the curtilage of 30 Longacre Lane which was a modern detached house on a residential estate in the Cross Roads/Lees area of Haworth. The estate was built under planning permission in the late 1990’s and no. 30 was one of 5 houses grouped around a mews court de-sac.  A number of objections (12 in total) had been received which were set out and addressed in the Appendix of the report, including 12 representations in support. An additional 5 objections had been received which had been circulated by email in advance of the meeting, which included representations from a Ward Councillor urging refusal on the grounds of overdevelopment and that it would set a precedent for similar applications in the ward. Although the site was not developed when the rest of the estate was built, the plot is not protected from development by any open space or recreation designation. It is understood from objectors that trees once occupied the site, but these have now been lawfully removed and there are no planning conditions which would require replanting of trees. The proposed house would form an infill within the built up area and officers consider that the loss of the garden would not significantly affect the overall spatial qualities of the neighbourhood. The proposed design and scale of the proposed dwelling closely reflect the surrounding houses and it has been sited and designed so that no adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining neighbours would be caused. The house makes adequate provision for on-site car parking and existing vehicular access and turning facilities are unaffected.  Subject to the suggested conditions set out in the report, the application was recommended for approval.

In response to a question regarding habitable rooms, the Assistant Director clarified that there would be four bedrooms and an integral garage, with two parking spaces.  A Member suggested that if the Committee was minded to grant planning permission, that it conditioned that the garage not be converted into a habitable room in the future.

In response to a question regarding the context of the current site, it was explained that the land in question was currently a private garden with a boundary wall, and that it had always been maintained as such.

A representative of the objectors was present at the meeting and during his submission made the following points:

Express concerns to the lack of due process given to the proposal and to the lack of considered regard to the objections the council had received. No more than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

The Committee is asked to consider Document “N” which  outlines a full planning application requesting permission for the change of use of the ground floor at 33 Lilycroft Road from a betting shop (sui generis) to hot food takeaway (use class A5) with the installation of extraction duct and jet cowl to the rear.

Recommended –

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director’s report.

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 433950)

The Committee was asked to consider Document “N” which outlined a full planning application requesting permission for the change of use of the ground floor at 33 Lilycroft Road from a betting shop (sui generis) to hot food takeaway (use class A5) with the installation of extraction duct and jet cowl to the rear.

The Assistant Director gave a detailed overview of the planning application, showing plans, photographs of the proposed site, layout and proposed arrangements in relation to the storage of the bins and summarising the representations that had been received.  One letter of objection had been received citing that there were already too many takeaway establishments in the vicinity, resulting in parking and litter issues. Concerns were also expressed in relation to its proximity to Lillycroft Primary School.

That Assistant Director added that the site was located in close proximity to schools and youth facilities and proposed a use that raised a number of health concerns. The location was not within a designated centre and was contrary to principle 2 of the Council’s adopted Hot Food Takeaway SPD which sought  to minimise the negative impacts of hot food takeaways on childhood health.

The proposed use would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of residents in the unit above the proposed takeaway and it was likely to result in additional noise, waste and general disturbance which are generally related to uses such as that proposed here. This is contrary to Policies DS5 and EN8 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and principle 4 of the Hot Food Takeaway Supplementary Planning Document

Waste storage facilities for the proposed use are inadequate and fail to demonstrate how they can be stored safely and securely within the curtilage of the site, and clear of a public highway causing harm to highway safety and would impact on the ability of vehicles to move freely on the highway, which is contrary to Policies DS4 and DS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.  The application was therefore recommended for refusal.

In response to a question regarding storage and maintenance to the rear of the property, it was explained that currently the rear access was unadopted and that bin storage did not form part of this application proposal, nor had the applicant demonstrated that it was within in his ownership.

The applicants agent was present at the meeting and stated the following points during his submission:

That 33 Lilycroft Road was vacated by a bookmaker in February, it is part of an established commercial row and it is important that it is brought back into use, with viable options being limited by the health of the retail sector.

The recommended reasons for refusal concern:

1. proximity to schools and conflict with the Hot Food Takeaways SPD;

2. impact on the residential amenity of those occupying the first floor flat; and,

3. in adequate bin storage facilities. 

I will address each issue in order.

1. Conflict with the hot food takeaways SPD

National Planning Practice Guidance states:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Members are asked to note the decision made by the Secretary of State as set out in Document “O”

Members were asked to note the decision made by the Secretary of State as set out in Document “O”

Resolved –

That the decisions made by the Secretary of State as set out in Document “O” be noted.

ACTION: No Action