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 a cursory mention has been given to most aspects of the build. The weighting afforded to the supporters was equal to the real and justified concerns of those objecting. Not one of those supporting would be adversely impacted by this proposal.

That comments relating to NPPF and the key planning legislation had been ignored. In favour of the broad objectives of the various policies which will here not be delivered or met.

Contest the thinking of the council in relation to the condition placed on the original development relating to the trees. There can be no time limit on the condition. It was applied to restrict further development and whilst I agree that the council cannot enforce replacement tree planting it can and should enforce the retention of this condition. Not doing so will make an absolute mockery of the planning system.

The land was not left as described by the council as incidental landscaping and it was not left as infill land. A s106 agreement was put in place to secure the trees and their retention was ordered by way of a condition. Granting permission now, no matter how long after the condition was made will open the flood gates for all those on the estate including number 18 Longacre Lane to remove their trees. Ignoring the reason why this plot was left without development is unacceptable and it will send the completely wrong message to anyone being similarly restricted in the future. This issue cannot simply be ignored or brushed aside.

Disagree with the councils rationale with respect to trees which suggests that it is lawful to remove trees without the protection of a TPO This is totally incorrect and if consented in this manner will open the floodgates for all on the estate and further a field to remove any trees that they see as a slight nuisance or annoyance.

That officers do not agree that the proposal could not be described as overdevelopment. Skipton properties crammed 5 houses into what became the smallest and most densely housed cul-de-sac on the estate. Number 24 has no frontage out into the space.The officers do not live here and with respect have no idea of the problems encountered with parking, manoeuvring and or the problems we have with normal access and exit. The situation is dangerous and will become even more dangerous with the loss of the visitor parking spaces of which there are currently two. These will be lost to the resident, replaced by  2 private parking spaces within the plot. How can the officers blatantly disregard this in their assessment?

In relation to highway safety The council have grossly failed to understand the implications of the build on traffic, access, parking and particularly the combined effects of these on child safety. A full impartial traffic assessment must be carried out by the applicant prior to grating approval for this development. Without this the council will ultimately remain responsible for accidents or issues arising.

That no regard has been given to parking and the increased risks the increased risks to child safety. Just like the supporters the local authority does not recognise these risks but the residents will be forced to live with them. The council must refuse this development on the grounds of increased child safety risks.

That the council have failed to adequately consider flood risk and drainage issues.Several of the objections received relate to the direct problems faced with flooding. To brush this off as is being done is a gross failure of the council’s democratic duties.

That a full drainage and flood risk assessment must be carried out using a recognised impartial consultant before any work commences on this build.

We live in a period of unpredictable weather How can the drainage officers be so categoricin stating that a separate drain will be sufficient. What assessments have been undertaken I suspect none unlike my objection whereupon calculations of increased run off are offered. The drain will capture some of the water but where will this new drain connect with the existing? The existing drains do become overwhelmed during heavy downpours and the council have raised the road elevation when resurfacing leaving little height to the kerb. As a result, numbers 24 22 and 18 have been flooded on 3 and 4 occasions in the past. The council must take full responsibility for flood episodes to these and possible other properties if consented Further more my calculations are based on regular storm events of 30mm we are even this year seeing storms releasing 125mm which will massively elevate the flood risk and drainage issues.

In relation to being overlooked and overshadowed, I am shocked to see how readily the council has glossed over the issues around visual impact Overlooking and overshadowing Stating in their report that these issues will not occur. I ask that you request a detailed visual impact assessment again carried out using experienced impartial consultants to address these issues fully and correctly.

This property will be 8.5 m higher than most and as pointed out 1.5m lower than number 2 and no.4 Fowlers Garth. I agree that the roof of these properties will receive sunlight and surrounding households from a distance may see their roof tiles but it is completely erroneous to suggest that there will be no issues arising to these and other properties as a result of this build.

In relation to the publicity notice, the council disregarding this important issue will leave them open to judicial review. It is incumbent on the council to inform and allow objections that must be then fully considered by the governance panel. This has again significant relevance when considering child safety. Many of the residents to be impacted by the development will be unaware of the build or upon the issues that will impact on their child’s safety whilst at play.

If this development is consented with out due assessment and process the council cannot boast “local democracy” as is their strapline. I do also hope it is not a reflection of our “Modern Gov”. The recommendation to approve this development will show a lack of regard due process assessment and considered evaluation.

In response to the issues raised by the objector, the Assistant Director stressed that these objections had been fully assessed and that the impact of the application on the character of the area had also been looked at, and it was felt that the application would not significantly affect the amenity nor the character of the area, and that the design was in keeping with the existing houses in the vicinity.

In addition the issues of drainage would be covered by way of condition; that visitor parking was considered acceptable and that publicity of the application was in accordance with the normal notification guidelines.  The Assistant Director also stressed that in terms of the historical issues raised about the site and its intended use, it was clear that the proposed site was a part of a residential curtilage and never intended as a public open space.  He added that the development was sympathetic to its location, with the hedge and boundary wall being retained.

The Assistant Director also stated that, in law, there was no requirement for publicity by site notice for this type of development and that publicity by neighbour letters was appropriate and sufficient, given the number of responses received from local residents, showed that near neighbours were well aware of the application.

In response to the highways issues raised by the objectors, the Senior Highways officer stated that he was not concerned about the highway capacity issue, resulting from one additional property, and that visitor parking was also considered acceptable.

The applicants’ agent was also present at the meeting and stated that officers had covered the majority of the issues raised by the application and the concerns raised by the objectors.  He stressed that the proposed house would be in keeping with the area and its impact on the street scene would be limited.  That concerns raised by the objectors in relation to highway safety, parking and drainage were not founded and that drainage pertaining to the site would be covered by condition in any case.

During the discussion Members expressed broad support for the application, however they were keen to ensure that permitted development rights be removed relating to the future conversion of the proposed integral garage, and it was therefore:

Resolved –

That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in appendix 1 to Document “M”, and also subject to an additional condition removing permitted development rights relating to the future conversion of the proposed integral garage.

ACTION: Assistant Director Transportation Design and Planning