(a)          In the interest of transparency Councillor Godwin disclosed an interest in Minute 46 (a) as the representative was known to him, however, he had not disclosed any of the matters now before the Panel for determination with any interested parties.

(b)          In the interest of transparency Whitaker disclosed a prejudicial interest in Minute 46 (d) as she had discussions with the objector and left the meeting during consideration and voting of this item.

(c)          In the interest of transparency Councillor Lee disclosed an interest in Minute 46 (c)  as one of the representatives was at the same golf club as her husband and was within her Ward, however, she had not disclosed any of the matters now before the Panel for determination with any interested parties.

(d)          In the interest of transparency Councillor Lee disclosed an interest in Minute 46 (e) as the application was within her Ward, however, she had not disclosed any of the matters now before the Panel for determination with any interested parties.

(e)          In the interest of transparency Councillor Lee disclosed an interest in Minute 46 (a) as the objector was known to her, however, she had not disclosed any of the matters now before the Panel for determination with any interested parties.

(f)        In the interest of transparency all Members disclosed an interest in Minute 46 (f) as the applicant was known to them, however, they had not disclosed any of the matters now before the Panel for determination with any interested parties

Action:  City Solicitor

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2020 be signed as a correct record.

(Fatima Butt – 01274 432227)

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2020 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. 

(Fatima Butt – 01274 432227)

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 26 July 2021. 

                                                (Fatima Butt - 01274 432227)

There were no questions submitted by the public.

The Panel is asked to consider the planning applications which were set out in Document “A” relating to items recommended for approval or refusal.

The sites concerned are:

                                                (Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

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

(a)       19 WHARFEDALE DRIVE, ILKLEY

Householder application for an upward extension to form a two-storey contemporary dwelling house at 19, Wharfedale Drive, Ilkley.

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He provided an appraisal of the application and informed Members that Wharfedale Drive was a cul de sac to the east of Ilkley town centre off Bolling Road. It was lined by mid-C20th, mostly semi-detached houses, in a variety of designs with many built with stone to the ground floor and render or pebbledash above. The application property at No. 19 was a stone fronted bungalow of more recent (early 1990's) construction. The side and rear were rendered. Many of the houses along the street had been extended at the sides. The property at No 17 Wharfedale Drive had been enlarged at the side twice, with a chamfered 1-1/2 storey extension with dormer window forming an annexe that had been added to a more conventional two-storey side extension.

Members were informed that Ilkley Town Council wished to record a neutral position on this application. The Plans Committee also remained neutral with regard to the revised drawings and had no further comments to add.

It was reported that 3 objections had been received, including one on behalf of 4 occupiers of the adjacent house and its annexe; 4 representations supporting the application have been received; 1 "neutral" comment.

In addition, comments from all 3 Ilkley Ward Councillors had been received with requests that the application be considered by Panel and raising matters of concerns from residents regarding the inconsistent design, over-development and a loss of privacy and light.

The Chair stressed that when Ward Councillors wished the application to be considered by the Planning Panel it was imperative that they attend the meeting.

It was reported that this proposal to enlarge the existing single-storey property upwards to create a contemporary two-storey home would be appropriate to the site's context and would enhance the quality of the original bungalow and thereby improve the wider area. The scheme design was in accordance with design principles of the Council's Householder policies. It would not be imposing or out of scale with the local context. The proposal was not considered to significantly affect the outlook, daylight or privacy of occupiers of any of the adjoining dwellings and it maintained amenity for existing and future occupiers of adjoining land and buildings in accordance with Core Strategy Policy.

An objector attended the meeting and made the following comments:

·         The proposal was an over development.

·         The contemporary design was inconsistent with properties in the area and not in keeping within the residential area.

·         The impact the two storey development would have on neighbouring properties.

·         It was not an extension but a new dwelling.

·         Impact on no 17 was significant.

·         Application should be deferred for further investigation.

The applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

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

(a-b)    Requests for Enforcement/Prosecution Action.

(c)        Decisions made by the Secretary of State – Dismissed

                                                (Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

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

(a-b)    Requests for Enforcement/Prosecution Action.

(c)        Decisions made by the Secretary of State – Dismissed

Resolved –

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

Action: Strategic Director, Place