(a)          In the interest of transparency Councillor Godwin disclosed an interest in Minute () as the application was within his Ward, 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 Councillor Watson disclosed an interest in Minute () 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.

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/Fatima Butt – 07814 073884/01274 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, please email your representation to the following Officers: Susan Booth or Fatima Butt (susan.booth2@bradford.gov.uk , fatima.butt@bradford.gov.uk) by midday on Monday 25^th January 2021

            (Susan Booth – 07814 073884, Fatima Butt - 01274 432227)

There were no questions submitted by the public.

The Chair paid tribute to the valuable work of Councillor Ellis and Councillor Abid Hussain who had recently passed away and would be sadly missed by all. A minute silence was held in commemoration.

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

The sites concerned are:

(Mohammed Yusuf – 01274 434605)

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

(a)       2 Exley Drive, Keighley                                        Keighley West

Construction of a two storey extension and a new two storey dwelling to the side of the existing house, with parking to the rear at 2 Exley Drive, Keighley, - 20/04286/FUL.

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 the application site was the side garden of 2 Exley Drive; this wa a two-storey house faced in render with a hipped roof and located on the end of terrace of 5 houses. The terrace faced onto a short and narrow cul de sac. A similar row of 5 houses in the other side of the street. There was a turning head at the end of the cul de sac with pedestrian routes running off to the west and north. The garden was on a corner plot, being visible from Exley Drive and Exley Avenue but at present the garden was screened by tall hedging. A timber fence and gate enclosed the rear garden. The existing house had parking spaces at the rear accessed via a dropped kerb off Exley Avenue.  Pedestrian access was from Exley Drive which led to the front entrance of the existing house. The land was unallocated on the Replacement Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map but it was situated in a densely populated residential setting.

The objector attended the meeting and made the following comments:

·         Most families who lived in a 3 bedroom house would have more than one car. This meant that the second car on the first property would have to park on the road side on Exley Avenue which was already overcrowded with cars from the local surgery which was directly in front of the development. Due to the roll out of the Covid Jabs this would only get worse.

·         The second new build home had its parking at the rear which possessed a problem in the way the drive was designed because it led out at a diagonal on to the busy footpath which ran down the back of the houses. This was not shown in the drawing and could only be seen by a site visit. With the fence staying the same height on the footpath and the cars reversing out it could easily end in someone getting knocked down on the path. A previous planning application was turned down due to parking being an issue.

·         The new roof line on the new build home was not in keeping with all the houses on both sides of the street and would look out of place.

·         The hedge down the side of the property would be taken out and replaced by a low wall. This was a mature hedge had been there for at  least 80 years. This would be a great loss to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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

(A-U)               Request for Enforcement/Prosecution Action

(V-W)              Decisions made by the Secretary of State – Allowed

(X-AB)            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 “D” relating to miscellaneous items:

(A-U)               Request for Enforcement/Prosecution Action

(V-W)              Decisions made by the Secretary of State – Allowed

(X-AB)            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 “D” be noted.

Action: Strategic Director, Place