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

 

The sites concerned are:

 

Item	Site	Ward
A	11 Springfield Place, Bradford – (Approve)	Manningham
B	258 Thornton Road Bradford – (Approve)	City
C	Land East Of 74 Airedale College Road Bradford – (Approve)	Bowling And Barkerend
D	Telecommunications Mast  Gilstead Reservoir Off Agincourt Drive Ferncliffe Bingley – (Approve)	Bingley
E	4 Farcliffe Road Bradford – (Refuse)	Toller
F	Heather Lodge Back Shaw Lane Keighley – (Refuse)	Bingley Rural

 

(Mohammed Yousuf 01274 434605)

 

a)         11 Springfield Place, Manningham, BradfordManningham

 

Householder application for the construction of a single storey annex to the rear of 11 Springfield Place, Manningham, Bradford  - 20/04055/HOU

 

An overview of the application was presented showing details of the location and proximity to the host dwelling as well as details of the site in relation to surrounding properties. Details were provided as to the nature of the application and it’s intended use.  Eleven objections had been received but there were no representations made at the meeting by either objectors or the applicant.

 

Members raised the following questions for clarity in respect of the above application:

 

A Member asked what would happen if the use changed to that granted.  It was advised by Officers that a change to another type of usage would require planning permission.

 

The question of whether adding conditions to the application could be made and Officers confirmed that the existing condition number three in the application allowed for this contingency.

 

Another member asked whether the structure was a separate dwelling and was advised that it was ancillary to the main property.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report (Document “A”)

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(b)       258 Thornton Road, Bradford                                                    City

 

Full application for a first floor extension at 258 Thornton Road, Bradford - 20/04766/FUL.

 

Officers presented the application which was for a first floor extension to a two storey commercial property in a mixed use area.  The presentation included detailed plans of the proposal including roof elevations and their position in relation to an adjoining building as well as a map of the location of the property.

 

An objector attended the meeting and raised concerns regarding window openings as he was not satisfied that he would be able to open his windows fully as they opened outwards.  He also expressed his concern in relation to drainage and the omission of a chimney in the plan.

 

Planning Officers advised that windows would be able to open fully as the extension was below the height of the windows in the adjoining property.  Drainage would be covered by building regulations and the chimney would come under the Party Wall Act.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report (Document “A”)

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(c)       Land East Of 74 Airedale College Road, Bradford

Bowling and  Barkerend

 

Construction of new dwelling on land east of 74 Airedale College Road, Bradford - 20/03280/FUL.

 

Officers presented details of the application which was for the construction of a residential dwelling that had previously been granted planning permission but had lapsed due to work not commencing.  The presentation including site plans and information relating to the surrounding buildings and the nature and type of nearby structures and properties.  Officers indicated that there were no significant differences in the current application to the previous lapsed application.

 

An objector attended the meeting and raised a number of issues in relation to the above planning application.  Concerns raised included a previous breach of the Party Wall Act, resulting in an emergency injunction being taken out, the fact that the proposed property would be constructed in a private road which was already in a state of disrepair as it was the residents’ responsibility to maintain.  It was felt commercial delivery vehicles could cause further deterioration.  Street lighting was minimal, the disturbance was detrimental to elderly residents, a grade 2 listed cemetery wall was at risk and possible infringements of a boundary wall were anticipated.

 

A Ward Councillor also attended the meeting to support the objector and raised the same concerns as well as the fact that the proposed site is sloping.

 

The applicant attended the meeting and stated that previous planning permission had been granted in 2015 but had lapsed leading to the current application being submitted.  He further stated that no issues had been raised from the Highways Department and that the injunction had been removed on condition that the Party Wall Act was adhered to.  He stated that the objector had been using the land and stated that no work had been carried out to rectify any existing structural issues to the objectors’ property.  He stated that he would comply with all regulations.

 

Members asked the following questions in relation to the above application:

 

An explanation was sought to explain the Party Wall Act in the context of the application being considered.  Officers advised that it is a separate piece of legislation where a wall is used jointly but would not be a point to refuse permission on.

 

A Member expressed concern about further damage to the road and whether it would be repaired.  Officers advised that heavy vehicle movements would be temporary and there is limited control under the planning process and would not be considered as a condition.  It should be sorted by residents (unadopted road).

 

A member asked about the implications of the construction to the nearby cemetery as its wall formed part of the boundary to the construction site and whether the cemetery’s owners had be in contact or raised any concerns about possible damage.  Officers advised that conservation issues had been addressed and that no communication had been received in relation to the cemetery from its owners.

 

Members asked whether a condition for the delivery and storage of materials could be included and if it was possible to stipulate times during which work could be carried out.  Officers advised that the application was identical to the previous one and a change in the application would need to be identified in order to reach a different decision.  They did advise also, that the issues for storage of materials and working hours could be addressed with a suitably worded planning condition.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report (Document “A”) and also subject to the additional conditions:

 

1. That no construction materials shall be brought onto the site until a plan showing a location within the site where they would be stored has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and neighbour's amenities and to comply with Policies DS4 and TR2 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2. That construction work shall only be carried out between the hours of 0730 and 1800 on Mondays to Fridays, 0730 and 1300 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To protect the amenity of the occupants of nearby dwellings and to accord with Policy DS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

(d)       Telecommunications Mast Gilstead Reservoir, Off Agincourt Drive, Ferncliffe, Bingley                                                                    Bingley

 

Removal of an existing telecommunications mast, antennas, cabin and cabinets from the site and installation of new 20-metre high slimline monopole with 12 x MBNL antennas and associated equipment at top of mast, 1 x new 0.6m and 3 x 0.6m transmission dishes relocated from existing mast, 8 x ground based equipment cabinets and minor ancillary works - 20/03830/FUL

 

Site – existing telecommunications mast on land near Gilstead Waterworks Off Agincourt Drive, Warren Lane, Bingley, BD16 3NQ - 20/03830/FUL

 

The main points were clarified for the Panel as an additional summary in support of the application which was recommended for approval.

 

The agent attended the meeting and presented further information including the fact that the new mast was an upgrade for 5G technology.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report (Document “A”)

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(e)       4 Farcliffe Road, Bradford                                                           Toller

 

Application seeking retrospective planning permission for a first floor extension at 4 Farcliffe Road, Bradford - 20/03964/HOU. 

 

Officers presented the application to the Panel that showed details of the structure, it being a conservatory which was erected on top of an existing part of a residential dwelling and within its existing structural footprint.  The presentation also included photographs of the structure in situ as this was a retrospective application.  Officers stated that there had been no objections received by residents occupying nearby residential properties, indeed they had received letters of support but these did not contain any points of planning merit.

 

The applicant attended the meeting and explained that there had been an error in not seeking planning permission prior to the addition as it did not increase the footprint of the property.  He also stated that neighbours had been in support of the additional structure as well as support from Ward Councillors.

 

Members asked what changes would be needed to make the structure acceptable to Planning as it was recommended for refusal.  Officers advised that the structure should have a different roof and be constructed using stone as it was unsympathetic in appearance.  A brief discussion took place around deferral of a decision to make modifications but this could be appealed.  The property was not listed and was not in a conservation area.

 

Members also commented that it would have been preferred if the application had been supported by Occupational Health.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the following reasons:

 

That it is considered that the first floor extension is not over dominant or an incongruous structure of the host dwelling and so complies with the Council’s adopted Householder Supplementary Planning Document and policies DS1, DS3 and DS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(f)        Heather Lodge, Back Shaw Lane, Keighley               Bingley Rural

 

Application for use of field for mobile glamping pods and shepherd huts.  Land at Heather Lodge, Back Shaw Lane, Keighley - 20/01863/FUL

 

Officers presented the application which showed plans including the size of the area and proposed facilities that were submitted as being temporary.  Photographs were also shown to the Panel of the site which already had some structures present.  The application was recommended for refusal on the grounds that the site was in a green belt area, would intensify the use of cars to access the site via a public bridleway, the lack of information provided by the applicant in relation to an assessment of the proposal’s impact on landscape character as well as no mitigation of those affects.  Lastly the site is located immediately adjacent to Harden Moor and it’s potential affects on this designated Local Wildlife Site were cited.

 

A written representation was circulated to Members prior to the meeting as the applicant was unable to attend the meeting. The Panel discussed the application and the concerns around the location and suitability of the proposal.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report (Document “A”).

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place