The following disclosure of interest was received in the interest of clarity:

Councillor Miller disclosed that, having lived in this area for a lengthy period, he may know people associated with any of the applications but he had not discussed any of the matters now before the Panel for determination with any interested parties.

Councillor Lee disclosed that there was an application pertaining to her ward (Keighley East), but she had not discussed any of the matters relating to that application wiith any interested parties.

Councillor Riaz disclosed that there was an application pertaining to his ward (Bingley Rural), but he had not discussed any of the matters relating to that application with any interested parties.

Councillor Bacon disclosed that there was an application pertaining to the ward in which she lived, but she had not discussed any of the matters relating to that application with any interested parties.

Action: City Solicitor

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2017 be signed as a correct record.

(Claire Tomenson – 01274 432457)

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2017 be signed as a correct record.

(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. 

(Claire Tomenson – 01274 432457)

There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents. 

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

To hear questions from electors within the District on any matter which is the responsibility of the Panel. 

Questions must be received in writing by the City Solicitor in Room 112, City Hall, Bradford, by mid-day on Monday 8 January 2018. 

                                                (Claire Tomenson - 01274 432457)

There were no questions submitted by the public.

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

The sites concerned are:

(a)       18 Mornington Street, Keighley (Approve)          Keighley Central

(b)       32 Coach Road, Baildon (Approve)                     Shipley

(c)        Coppice Cottage, Lee Lane, Wilsden (Approve)            Bingley Rural

(d)       48 Green Head Lane, Keighley (Refuse)                        Keighley Central

(e)       63 Saltaire Road, Shipley (Refuse)                      Shipley

 (f)       The Bungalow, Florist Street, Keighley              

(Refuse)                                                                   Keighley East

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

The Strategic Director, Place presented Document “I”.  Plans and photographs were displayed in respect of each application and representations summarised.

(a)       18 Mornington Street, Keighley                                  Keighley Central

Change of ground floor from C3 dwelling to A2 estate agent's office (upper floors to remain as a dwelling) at 18 Mornington Street, Keighley - 17/05853/FUL

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He reported that the application proposed a change of use from a dwelling to an A2 estate agent’s office that was located close to the town centre in an area that had a strong residential character along with a corner shop tradition.  Members noted that the original proposal to install a new door had received objections in relation to aesthetics and disturbance, therefore, the application had been amended.  The existing door would now be retained and a new door would be installed in the side wall to provide access to the flat upstairs.  Other representations received were covered in the report.  The Strategic Director, Place stated that the scheme would not cause significant highway safety issues and recommended the application for approval subject to conditions.

In response to a number of questions from Members, the Strategic Director, Place explained that vehicles could park on the opposite side of the road and there was a large car park in the vicinity.

Objectors were present at the meeting and raised the following concerns:

·         The work should be carried out following the granting of planning permission.

·         Customers would not use the car park nearby.

·         Cars parking in the area caused issues.

·         The applicant was flouting regulations.

·         A complaint had been submitted in respect of work being undertaken prior to approval being granted.

In response the City Solicitor confirmed that it was perfectly legal for internal work to be undertaken.

Another objector was present and addressed the Panel stating that:

·         She lived next door to the property.

·         There was too much traffic in the vicinity.

·         Many cars parked in the area and accidents occurred.

·         Customers would not park in the car park.

·         Vehicles parked in front of her property on double yellow lines.

·         There was a school nearby.

·         Residents did not have anywhere to park their vehicles.

·         There was a doctor and dentist surgery opposite.

The Chair acknowledged the parking issues in the locality, but explained that the application submitted was for a change of use and this was the only aspect that could be considered by the Panel.

During the discussion a Member reiterated that it was understood there were issues in the area.  It was noted that there were already estate agent offices located in the town centre and a residential area should not be changed to a commercial zone.  Another Member agreed that the parking was an issue in the area and questioned why an estate agent’s office was required in that location.

Resolved –

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

(1)  That the proposed change of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

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

(a) – (c)           Requests for Enforcement/Prosecution Action

(d) – (f)           Decisions made by the Secretary of State – Allowed

(g) – (h)          Decisions made by the Secretary of State - Dismissed

 (Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

The Strategic Director, Place presented Document “J” and the Panel noted the following: