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:

 

(a)       2 Tower Road, Saltaire, Shipley (Approve)           Shipley

(b)       28 Lindisfarne Road, Shipley (Approve)                Shipley

(c)        50 Falcon Road, Bingley (Approve)                       Bingley

(d)       6 Wheatley Rise, Ilkley (Approve)                           Ilkley

(e)       9-11 Rocklands Avenue, Baildon (Approve)         Baildon

(f)         Oxenhope Station, Station Road, Oxenhope,        Worth Valley

            Keighley (Approve)

(g)       Rivendell, 49 Cemetery Lane, Keighley                 Keighley Central

            (Approve)

 

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

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

 

(a)       2 Tower Road, Saltaire, Shipley                                                    Shipley

 

Full planning application for construction of two dwellings on land at 2 Tower Road, Saltaire, Shipley – 16/03326/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He reported that the proposal was for the construction of two semi detached properties in a side garden of an existing house that was located on a reasonably wide sloping street.   There was residential parking on the street and a row of terraced properties faced onto the garden.  The site had a stone wall boundary and could be accessed via a back street between the terraced houses and the garden site.  Members were informed that the proposal was to construct a pair of two storey houses with rooms in the roof space that would be 9.8 metres wide and comparable in height to the existing property.  The dwellings would be set back from the road and have parking provision.  The garage and parking would also be retained for 2 Tower Road.  It was noted that a number of objections had been received, including two from Ward Councillors and the issues were outlined in the officer’s report.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that there would be 13 metres between Bingley Road and the proposed development and 21 metres between the new houses and Dallam House.  He explained that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that applications should be considered on their own merits.  The site was an infill gap and the proposal would increase the density in the street.  There was an assortment of houses in the area and the character of the street scene would be maintained.  It was noted that the site was located on a relatively busy route, however, it was acknowledged that parking would be provided for the new development and retained for the existing property.  The Council’s Highways Department had not objected to the scheme and, therefore, the application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

In response to a Member’s query, the Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that another application would have to be submitted if dormer windows were to be added.

 

A couple of objectors were present at the meeting and made the following statements:

 

·        The pleasant view would be blocked by houses.

·        The kitchen and dining room of his property was located on the lower floor.

·        The rear of his property was used more than the front, as it was beside a busy main road.

·        Traffic was an issue in the area.

·        The proposal did not meet the requirements of the NPPF.

·        Safety y was an issue.

·        Tower Road was used as a ‘rat run’ at busy periods due to the traffic in Saltaire.

·        Bin collection days were problematic.

·        It was an awkward street for existing residents.

·        The proposal was out of character with the street.

·        The scheme would have an effect on the residential amenity of houses on Dallam and Bingley Road.

·        It was a windfall site and not in the Council’s Plan.

·        The Council did not have a ‘garden grabbing’ policy.

·        The application should be refused.

·        The proposal would affect density.

·        The NPPF did not argue for such applications and it was not a compelling argument.

·        It was not accepted that the issues had been fully considered.

 

In response to a number of the points made, the Strategic Director, Regeneration stated that the site was unallocated and many proposals submitted were on infill sites.  He confirmed that windfall sites could be counted towards the Districts’ housing targets and all the issues raised had been considered.

 

The applicant was present at the meeting and outlined the following points:

 

·        The neighbours enjoyed the garden, but it was time to move on and maximise the available space.

·        The existing garage was not accessible, as residents parked in the way.

·        The neighbouring property had been extended and created an impact but he had not objected .

·        The proposal would create affordable houses in a desirable location.

·        The proposed properties would be set at a lower level than the gable end of the existing house.

·        There would be a driveway for the existing property and the two proposed  houses.

 

During the discussion a Member acknowledged that all applications were considered on their merits and that the District needed more housing.  The proposal did not contradict the Saltaire World Heritage Site Buffer Zone policy and met the objectives of effective and efficient use of land.  Another Member agreed that condition 5 on the application adequately covered the Buffer Zone issues.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report.

 

Action:  Strategic Director, Regeneration

 

 

(b)       28 Lindisfarne Road, Shipley                                                      Shipley

 

Full application for a two storey dwelling with side, rear and front porch extensions at 28 Lindisfarne Road, Shipley – 16/02066/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the application proposed an alteration to a previously approved detached property on a site that was currently occupied by a bungalow.  It was noted that in February 2016, a scheme had been submitted to replace the bungalow with a detached house.  A two storey property with single storey wings at either end had been approved, however, the applicant now wished to redesign the building and move the upper floor to the right.  The new development would be 0.5 metres deeper but no wider.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that 23 objections had been received, however, the new proposal would not affect the site, have an additional impact on the neighbours or any privacy implications.   He stated that a minor redesign had been proposed and it would not be any larger or higher than the approved scheme.  The application was then recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.  

 

Members were informed that a further application had been required due to the significant change to the approved permission.

 

An objector was present at the meeting and made the following comments:

 

·        The previous application had been considered in February and a number of objections had been submitted.

·        He disagreed with the officer’s points.

·        The property would be closer to existing houses.

·        His garden dropped away and looked to the basement area of the bungalow.

·        If a first floor was added the property would resemble a three storey development.

·        The proposal would obscure the tree line of the woods and result in a lack of amenity.

·        His garden was enjoyed and the proposal would make it less attractive and enjoyable.

·        The proposed development would affect the enjoyment of his property.

·        The new house would look directly into various habitable rooms of his property and have a detrimental effect.

·        The scheme would cause a significant serious detriment.

·        The application should be refused.

 

In response to some of the points raised, the Strategic Director, Regeneration explained that there was 25 metres between the existing bungalow and 34 Farfield Road.  He confirmed that the proposal would not increase the height and the first storey would move across the property, which would not affect neighbouring houses.  In relation to the bathroom privacy issues at 34 Farfield Road, the distance between habitable room windows was 21 metres and this exceeded what was normally accepted.  Members were informed that the upper floor would be moved to one side of the property and that all the concerns had been acknowledged.

 

The applicant was present at the meeting and stated that:

 

·        The moving of the first floor would assist the neighbour.

·        A bedroom had overlooked the neighbour’s property, so it had been moved one metre away.

·        The house had been redesigned to ensure neighbours were not overlooked.

·        Some objectors did not live on the street and could not see the house.

·        The property currently had garden to all four sides.

·        The occupier of number 30 had objected, but they had an application for an extension approved.

·        The property would be further away from number 30.

·        Number 30 and 34 could clearly see into his garden.

·        Parking would be provided.

·        The house would not be made larger.

·        The Council’s Highways Department had not objected.

 

In response to a Member’s query, the City Solicitor confirmed that the principle of development had already been established and the issue for consideration was the movement of the first floor. 

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report.

 

Action:  Strategic Director, Regeneration

 

 

(c)       50 Falcon Road, Bingley                                                                 Bingley

 

Outline planning application for demolition of existing house and construction of seven, two-storey detached houses at land at 50 Falcon Road, Bingley – 15/06926/OUT

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the site had not been allocated in error, however, the intention had been that it would be a housing site.  The existing house would be demolished in order to permit access to the site, which would be via Falcon Road.  It was noted that the site had been cleared with the exception of two large oak trees that were subject of a Tree Protection Order pending the outcome of the application.  If granted the trees would be able to be removed.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that the scheme now proposed the construction of seven houses, which was a more effective use of the site.  He reported that the submitted plan detailed an indicative layout as the submission was an outline application.  The proposed row of dwellings would face onto the access road and the demolished house would be reconstructed.  The principle of development was acceptable, as the site was existing urban land and there would not be any overlooking as there were no other developments.  Members were informed that a number of representations had been raised and these had been covered in the officer’s report.  It was reiterated that the application was outline, therefore, the principle of development was to be considered and all other details would be covered at the reserved matters stage.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration reported that a landscaping scheme had been proposed that included replacement trees.  He acknowledged that substantial highway concerns had been raised, however, the proposals would not exceed the capacity of the highway and there was an opportunity to create a turning area.  A number of issues had been submitted in relation to the number of units served by the private drive, however, the road would be constructed to appropriate standards and service the proposed number of properties.  Traffic speeds in the area were low and would not change.  It was noted that the character of the cul de sac would alter, however, the site was allocated for housing and the local benefits of providing housing had to be balanced against the loss of the mature trees.  The application was then recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.   

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and made the following comments:

 

·        Seven houses were proposed but an application for five houses had been refused.

·        Many objections had been submitted.

·        Why build on a ‘postage stamp’ site?

·        The proposed houses were crammed into the site.

·        Small developments were acceptable, however, the proposal did not fit in with the surroundings.

·        The proposal was not acceptable.

 

In response the Strategic Director, Regeneration explained that there was a demand for housing in the District and increasing the density in the urban area had the least impact, therefore, the Council was encouraged to look for 50 dwellings per hectare.  He confirmed that the layout of the proposed dwellings would work and the properties would benefit from adequate front and rear gardens, off street parking and be comparable to existing housing.  In relation to concerns that the development had commenced, it was noted that the site was being cleared, which the owner was entitled to do, and the pile of materials would be removed.

 

A Parish Councillor was present at the meeting and outlined the following issues:

 

·        The newly formed Town Council had discussed the application and were against the development.

·        Beck Lane led up to Falcon Road and was narrow with no pavements.  It was used as access to Bingley Five Rise Locks and was dangerous for pedestrians.

·        Drainage was an issue in the Micklethwaite and Gilstead area.  The proposed dwellings would be located on land that was currently used for natural drainage.

·        Two trees on the site were subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and it would be negligent to approve the application without a tree survey.

 

In response to some of the comments made, the Strategic Director, Regeneration indicated that the wider highway network was more of a concern and acknowledged that Beck Lane did not have pavements.  He confirmed that a condition in respect of the drainage had been placed on the application and covered the issues raised.  A drainage system would have to be submitted to and approved by the Council prior to the Reserved Matters application and if not the work would not be approved.   In relation to the highways network, Members were informed that the infrastructure was adequate.  Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the impact would have to be classed as severe and the Council did not consider it to be.

 

An objector was present at the meeting and raised the following concerns:

 

·        The report was inaccurate as only part of the site was within the Bingley urban area and not allocated land.

·        The report was flawed and inadequate.

·        It was a sensitive site.

·        The proposal should only be considered as a full application.

·        The access road ran along the boundary of number 52.

·        Visibility splay information had not been provided.

·        A major structure wall would be required.

·        No mitigation measures had been submitted for the removal of the trees.

·        A balanced view should be taken.

 

Another objector was present at the meeting and stated that:

 

·        The proposal would compromise the area.

·        The proposal should protect and enhance the environment.

·        The scheme would change the environment.

·        Residents had bought properties due to the location and extended them.

·        It was an established stable area with desirable properties.

·        Residents had not expected a house to be demolished and others constructed.

·        Families lived in the area as it was safe.

·        The access had been moved as it had been unsafe before.

 

Another objector added that children played out on Falcon Road as it was a safe area.

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration explained that the land had been allocated and each application was considered on its own merits.  The implications and highway safety issues had been considered and there was no defensible reason for refusal.  He confirmed that the application was outline only and as the site was not in a conservation area, a full planning submission could not be required.   The access at the side of number 52 was required as part of a condition if the outline planning permission was granted and replacement trees would have to be planted on the site boundary.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration stated that any changes to the character of the area had to be considered on their own merits and there was sufficient distance between the development and the existing houses.  He indicated that he was unable to comment on child safety issues.

 

The applicant was present at the meeting and made the following points:

 

·        An initial scheme for five houses had been refused.

·        The land for the access was co-owned.

·        The new scheme now complied with policies.

·        The development was sympathetic to the existing landscape.

·        They had been informed that the trees were not protected and more houses could be constructed on the site.

·        They had been advised of the suggested alterations that could be made and a new proposal had been submitted.

·        The Council’s Tree Officer had commented and did not have any issues with the development.  He had then applied for a TPO.

·        The two trees in question were hidden by number 50.

·        Three replacement trees would be planted in public areas.

·        The tree planting could be conditioned on the application.

·        Quality materials would be used.

·        They wanted the site to be beneficial to residents and the area.

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration responded to Members’ questions and confirmed that the site was garden space which was classed as urban land and not agricultural or Green Belt.  The area was also subject to large scale housing schemes.  In relation to the previous application,  Members were informed that the scheme had been refused on highway safety grounds and that the position of the access road had now been moved to the left.  The density of the site was below the amount usually required by the Council and there was no assessment that stated that there would be constraints on the local road network.  It was a small scale scheme and had been considered by the Council’s Highways Department .

 

During the discussion a number of Members expressed their concern that the submitted application was an outline proposal and that there was a lack of information.  In response the City Solicitor explained that the Council could not insist on a full planning application, however, if Members were minded to approve the scheme all reserved matters could be requested to be submitted to the Panel for consideration.  A Member acknowledged the advice provided, but stated that a full decision could not be made in respect of highway safety.        

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the following reason:

 

There is a lack of information with the application to assess the impact of the development in terms of the standard of access, visibility splays and turning facilities.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies TM2 and TM19A of the Council’s Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

 

Action:  Strategic Director, Regeneration

 

 

(d)       6 Wheatley Rise, Ilkley                                                                  Ilkley

 

Construction of detached dwelling with access from High Wheatley, at 6 Wheatley Rise, Ilkley – 16/01922/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the application was for the construction of a detached dwelling located in a low density suburb with good screening to the adjacent properties.  The proposal was a renewal of a previous application that had been approved in 2013, the submitted plans were the same and all the details had been considered at that time.  A number of objections had been submitted that were similar to previous representations and the parish Council had recommended that the application be refused.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration reported that there were no material changes to the circumstances of the site or changes in policy.  He stated that there was a need for housing in the District and recommended the application for approval, subject to the same conditions as the previous application and an additional archaeology condition, as set out in the report.    

 

An objector was present at the meeting and commented that:

 

·        The location plan was misleading.

·        The plot was eight metres wide which was smaller than the neighbours and others in the vicinity. 

·        The plot was located on a low density balanced housing estate.

·        The proposed property was half the size of the local average and contrary to the NPPF. 

·        Sustainability required long term care of the environment.

·        One additional dwelling would not contribute to the area.

·        The application should be refused.

 

In response, the Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that the submitted plans were the same as those submitted in 2013.  He reported that the Planning Department were aware of properties that had not been constructed, however, this did not affect the scheme.  The plot size would not affect the planning considerations and there was a mixture of plots in the area.  The proposed dwelling would not affect the character of the area to a significant degree and there were no material changes in the application.

 

The applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and reported that:

 

·        The previous scheme had been approved in 2013 and this application was to renew the permission.

·        A number of concerns had been raised, however, the proposal would not affect the amenity of the neighbourhood.

·        The site was not significantly smaller than others in the area.

·        Some of the plots in the vicinity were close together.

·        There were no adverse changes.

·        The applicants had lived in the area for many years.

·        The proposal provided an opportunity for the applicants to downsize.

·        The proposed house would fit into the landscape.

 

In response to a Member’s query, it was explained that the line of the Roman Road could affect  Addingham and Ilkley applications , however, the route had not been identified as yet.    

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report.

 

Action:  Strategic Director, Regeneration

 

 

(e)       9-11 Rocklands Avenue, Baildon                                                 Baildon

 

Outline application for the construction of two three-bedroom houses with direct access from Saint Eloi Avenue including demolition of two old garages at land to the rear of 9?11 Rocklands Avenue, Baildon – 16/00891/OUT

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the proposal was for the construction of two three bedroom properties with access form St Eloi Avenue.  The application was outline, however, details had been provided and the layout, scale and access had been submitted for consideration.  Members were informed that the land currently formed part of the gardens of 9 and 11 Rocklands Avenue and was at a lower level.  It was noted that St Eloi Avenue was a cul de sac and was well screened.  A number of applications had been previously submitted on the site and an appeal had been dismissed.  A larger site had now been acquired that included the garden of 9 Rocklands Avenue and this provided a greater flexibility of the layout of the site and resolved previous problems.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that the proposed dwellings would face the garages and not the new house on St Eloi Avenue.  He reported that a number of objections including one from Baildon Parish Council had been received and the issues raised were covered in the officer’s report.   The site was unobtrusive and below the level of St Eloi Avenue.  The Planning Inspector’s comments on the previous appeal had been that there was a mix of properties in the vicinity and the proposal had not been out of context.  A revised layout had now been provided and the proposed scheme would face away from houses on St Eloi Avenue.  There would not be an adverse effect on privacy and no objections had been received from the Councils Highways Department.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration informed  the Panel that there was an oak tree with a Tree Protection Order on the adjoining land and a tree report had been undertaken, however, this was inconclusive in relation to the effects cause, therefore a condition requesting further investigations had been requested.  The application was then recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

In relation to a Member’s query regarding the construction of 11 St Eloi Avenue, the Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that he did not know when the application had been approved and that the proposed scheme would not over dominate the property, as it would be sited at a lower level.

 

The applicant was present at the meeting and made the following statements:

 

·        A tree report had been undertaken.

·        The orientation of the proposed houses had been altered.

·        The footprint of the proposed development was identical to the application that had been granted.

·        The houses in the area were all different.

·        The floor plans were similar to those of the house that had been approved.

·        The land was currently an eyesore.

·        One of the existing garages contained asbestos, was derelict and needed to be removed.

·        The proposed scheme  would improve the area.

 

During the discussion a Member acknowledged that there was a mix of houses in the area and agreed that the existing garages on the site were unsightly.  It was noted that the proposal would not be an overdevelopment of the site and the issues in respect of overlooking had now been resolved.  

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report.

 

Action:  Strategic Director, Regeneration

 

 

(f)        Oxenhope Station, Station Road, Oxenhope, Keighley

Worth Valley

 

Full application for construction of single storey station cafeteria and extension to existing car park at Oxenhope Railway Station, Station Road, Oxenhope – 16/01036/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the proposal was for the construction of a new café for the railway station, which brought visitors to the area and currently relied on ramshackle carriages.  In 2013 planning permission had been granted for a new café in the position of the carriages, however, it had not been viable to construct the replacement facility in the proposed position.  Members were informed that an alternative position had been proposed attached to the exhibition shed at the front of the building, however, this would result in the loss of car parking and the trees across the front of the exhibition shed.  Landscaping would be part of the conditions and a car park would be established on land that was linked to the railway.  It was noted that the houses across the road were set back and had adequate parking provision.  The proposal would provide more parking than the current facility and would not be significant in the street scene, due to it being sunk into the ground.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration reported that a number of objections had been received and a Ward Councillor had requested that the application be referred to the Panel.  He indicated that the site was being developed over time and the proposed café was a reflection of this.  There was no intention to use the facility late at night.  The Environment Agency had not raised any objections to the scheme and the trees that would be lost would be replaced elsewhere on the site.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration stated that the proposal would complement the facilities at the station and it was important that the Council supported the application.  It was then recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report.          

 

In response to Members’ questions, the Strategic Director, Regeneration clarified that:

 

·        There would have to be appropriate equipment.

·        The external changes would be dealt with separately.

·        Carriages were currently used as a cafeteria and this was unsatisfactory.

·        The operating hours were linked to the railway station and could be conditioned if required.

 

An objector was present at the meeting and raised the following points:

 

·        He had corresponded with applicant’s agent.

·        The concerns raised had been taken seriously.

·        The proposal would be an improvement to the existing facility.

·        The café was a daytime facility and not detrimental to residents.

·        Why were opening hours of 0800 to 2300 required?

·        Why was there a barrier to the car park?

·        Harry Lane car park was used as an overflow

·        A flood risk assessment had not been required for the previous application.

·        There was standing water on the proposed site and a flood risk assessment would be required.

·        He was opposed to the application due to the flood risk , noise and nuisance, the proposed building was unsuitable for the village and the hours of operation.

·        Conditions should be placed on the application to protect the neighbourhood.

·        The replacement trees should not be as tall as those on ‘Moorhouse Court’.

·        The proposal would harm residential amenity.

·        The previous application had not been built as it only provided 80 seats.

·        The new proposed development would provide 100 seats.

·        The building would not be soundproofed.

·        It was believed that the facility would be turned into a function room in the future.

 

In response to further queries, Members were informed that:

 

·        The Environment Agency had been consulted and had not raised any objections, however, additional details, surveys and further consultation could be requested.

·        There was no reason why the operating hours could not be limited or conditioned.

·        A licence would be required if the facility was to be used as a function room and it could not be used for such purposes until a proper licence had been acquired.

·        Conditions could be imposed on the application.

 

The applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and made the following comments:

 

·        He was pleased that the application was recommended for approval.

·        In 2018 it would be the 50^th reopening Anniversary.

·        Local people had saved the railway and it was the second most visited tourist attraction.

·        It cost money to overhaul and keep up to the station and railway.

·        In 2012 a University study had been undertaken which had concluded that the station contributed to the local economy.

·        The lack of proper catering facilities had been criticised.

·        The current proposal was aimed at providing catering facilities and not a late night venue.

·        A quality venue was required that would bring economic benefits.

·        The venue could be linked with other facilities and would hopefully bring benefits for the local community.

·        The proposed opening hours would be to 2300 hours, however, this was just in case the kitchens needed to be used.

·        The station was run by volunteers.

·        It was hoped  that the proposal could be supported.

 

A Member questioned the capacity of the new car park and whether trees would be replaced.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that the new car park would provide 23 spaces and the type of trees to be planted would be decided once the landscape scheme had been received.

 

During the discussion a Member indicated that they were familiar with the light railway and agreed that the existing facilities were poor.  It was acknowledged that the opening hours had been requested in order to facilitate special events and the proposed design was modern and complimented the exhibition building.  It was then suggested that the applicant worked with local residents in relation to the replacement trees    

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report.

 

Action:  Strategic Director, Regeneration

 

 

(g)       Rivendell, 49 Cemetery Lane, Keighley                    Keighley Central

 

Full planning application for construction of three dwellings on land at Rivendell, 49 Cemetery Lane, Keighley – 16/03273/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He reported that the application proposed the construction of three detached dwellings with access for two via Eelholme View Street and one from Cemetery Lane.  The dwellings would be split level in design with no habitable room windows facing the existing dwellings.  There had been a number of previous applications on the site and in 1997 a development  for six houses had been refused due to their effect on the existing houses.  Members were informed that the new scheme addressed the concerns raised by the previously refused application.  A number of objections including one from Keighley Town Council had been submitted and the issues were covered within the officer’s report.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that it was an unallocated site and the application would not have an adverse effect on the setting of the cemetery.  The trees on the land were not protected and the Council’s Tree Officer had not raised any objections.  A condition in relation to water courses had been placed on the application as a precaution, though the Council’s Drainage Team had not raised any concerns.  The three proposed dwellings would have parking provision and two of the plots would benefit from a garage.  The bollards would also remain on Cemetery Lane.  In conclusion the Strategic Director, Regeneration stated that it was a sympathetically designed scheme that provided a small contribution towards housing in the District.  He then recommended the application for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report. 

 

In response to a Member’s query, the Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that there was no proposal to install pathways, as it was a small scale scheme.  There was an existing footway on the opposite side of the road, however, it did not connect to existing footways in the area.

 

An objector was present at the meeting and raised the following concerns:

 

·        It was appreciated that the development was modest, however, it would be overbearing to the existing houses opposite.

·        It was acknowledged that there had been some attempt to set the proposed dwellings further back.

·        The proposal would alter the street scene.

·        The plans could be improved.

·        The scheme was believed to be too close to existing properties.

·        Additional houses would result in extra vehicles.

·        It was a narrow road with houses on one side only.

·        The road was narrow and would be congested.

·        The road should be widened.

·        The issue of the footpath/right of way had not been addressed and needed to be resolved.

 

In response to some of the comments made, the Strategic Director, Regeneration clarified that: 

 

·        The separation distances were from 14.6 – 15 metres.

·        The scheme had been designed to avoid windows facing.

·        The proposal had a low density and was a sympathetic development of the site.

·        The footpath/right of way was not within the applicants land and it was not a reasonable requirement for the applicant to resolve.

·        The existing houses did not have any off street parking provision, however, the proposed dwellings would.

·        The plans identified that a 1.8 metre footway was in place and this could be used in future developments.

·        There would be two driveways on Eelholme View Street and one on Cemetery Lane.

 

The applicant was present at the meeting and stated the following:

 

·        Rivendell had been a self build project.

·        The site had been derelict land which had been cleared over several years.

·        Circumstances had changed and the land was no longer being tended.

·        Maintained houses would provide a better outlook for residents.

·        Local residents had been considered.

·        The footpath/right of way had not been maintained or used for many years and an application would now be made for it to be closed.

·        A bungalow had been proposed as a neighbour wished to purchase the plot for a relative.

·        The footpath would not alter.

·        It was a sensitive proposal to the area.

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration informed Members that the plan was vague in respect of the footpath and the width of Eelholme View Street was not clear.  He reported that there was a reference to a turning head within the application and the proposed works would need to be conditioned. 

 

During the discussion Members acknowledged the issue regarding the footpath and requested that an appropriate condition be placed on the application.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report and subject to the amendment of condition 2 as follows:

 

Before any part of the development is brought into use, the proposed means of vehicular and pedestrian access hereby approved, including provision of the kerb radius improvement and footway along the frontage of the site, shall be laid out, hard surfaced, sealed and drained within the site in accordance with the approved plan 1426 - 02 Rev A and completed to a constructional specification approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that a suitable form of access is made available to serve the development in the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy TM19A of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

 

Action:  Strategic Director, Regeneration

 

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)