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

 

The sites concerned are:

 

(a)       14 Cross Lane, Oxenhope, Keighley (Approve)               Worth Valley

(b)       24 Clifton Road, Ilkley (Approve)                                         Ilkley

(c)        39 Millfields, Silsden (Approve)                                          Craven

(d)       82 Bolling Road, Ilkley (Approve)                                        Ilkley

(e)       Land at Turf Lane adjoining HFC Poultry Ltd,                    Bingley Rural

            Station Road, Cullingworth, Bradford (Approve)

(f)         Land West of 50 Falcon Road, Bingley (Approve)           Bingley

(g)       Office 3, First Floor, 2 Wellington Street/                           Bingley

            4 Park Road, Bingley (Approve)

 

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

           

The Strategic Director, Regeneration presented Document “I”. Plans and photographs were displayed and/or tabled in respect of each application and the representations summarised.

 

 (a)      14 Cross Lane, Oxenhope, Keighley                            Worth Valley

 

Full application for the construction of a new dwelling to include alterations to the existing dwelling – 16/06569/FUL.

 

A Ward Councillor addressed the Panel with the following concerns:

 

·         The new dwelling was to be located within the existing garden of a relatively large property.

·         The proposal was for a large four bedroom property. It would be squeezed onto the site and would not blend in with the surrounding properties.

·         The most recently developed properties in this locality had been constructed of stone and were not of a contemporary design, they fitted in with the traditional nature of the village.  The proposed materials for this development were contemporary and it would not fit in.

·         The proximity of the dwelling to the adjacent bungalow would affect the light to an existing bathroom and dining room, it would also cause overshadowing and loss of privacy.

·         Deep excavations would be required and there was concern about the potential for land slippage.

·         Parking was an issue in the area; there were currently three parking spaces; the width of the spaces proposed would not meet current standards for either the new or the existing property.

·         The application was not supported by the Parish Council.

 

A Parish Councillor addressed the Panel:

 

·         The Parish Council had received seven representations about the application.

·         The main issues of concerns had been the design and the impact on neighbours.

·         Although there was a variation in property types along Cross Lane on the side of the road that this development was placed the properties were pretty similar; it was considered that the new house as proposed would stand out.

·         All recent developments had been in keeping with the local character.

·         The dwelling would be extremely close to No.12 Cross Lane which had a habitable room that faced towards the site.

 

An objector spoke in opposition to the application:

 

·         The Architect’s Design and Access Statement wrongly identified his property as being No.16.  No.16 was located to the north and was a house.

·         His property (No.12) would be located 1.725 metres from the new gable elevation.

·         There would be a need to excavate  to a depth of 5 metres to construct the new house and this would have a serious impact on the foundations of his property.

·         There were two existing windows, to a bathroom and a dining room which faced the proposed new house.  Light to these rooms would be blocked or greatly reduced and the view would be of a rendered wall.

·         The proposed dwelling would be constructed forward of the building line, it would cause overshadowing and would be out of place.

·         The materials would be out of keeping.  The proposed material for the roof was not known.

·         Highways Development Control had indicated that off street parking was required.  Cross Lane was used as a drop off/pick up point for local schools. It was believed that there was insufficient space for the spaces as indicated and that, as proposed, it would be necessary to remove the boundary walls.

·         Permission had been granted for an annexe in 2008 but a condition had been imposed that it was not to be sold separately to the parent property in order to ‘prevent the undesirable establishment of individual residential units and protect amenity.’

·         Members should visit the site.

 

The Strategic Director responded to the issues raised and questions from Members as follows:

 

·         The standards relating to the width of parking places were guidelines and any deficiency was not considered sufficient reason to refuse the application. (An amended plan indicating three spaces was displayed).  The number of spaces requested in this case reflected the requirements set out in the new ‘Bradford Street Design Guide’.

·         The proposal reflected the continuing advancement in design ethos.  In considering the application, account had been taken of the existing properties on Cross Lane and their ages.  There was a mixture of stone, render and cladding in the locality. It was accepted that the new house would catch the eye however it was considered to be an interesting evolution of design.

·         The Local Planning Authority was keen to maintain locally distinctive design where necessary but this site was not within a Conservation Area and it was not considered that there was a consistency of design on Cross Lane.

·         The annexe had never been implemented and at the time that application had been determined the condition that it not be sold separately had been deemed appropriate.  The current proposal had been planned as a separate dwelling with its own services.  An annexe would not normally include any independent parking.

 

A Member commented that the design was quite innovative and it was not considered that it appeared dominant. It was considered to be a good use of the space and the officer’s recommendation was acceptable.

 

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)       24 Clifton Road, Ilkley                                                       Ilkley

 

Outline application for the construction of a detached 2.5 storey dwelling on garden – 16/06049/OUT.

 

In response to a Member’s question, the Strategic Director said that the permitted distance for development from a sewer was dependent in part on how deep it was sited.  The consultation response from Yorkshire Water stated that the agent had undertaken a survey of the sewers and this issue would be controlled by Building Regulations.  Any proposals to divert a sewer were covered by separate legislation.

 

An objector put forward the following points for the Panel’s consideration:

 

·         It was recognised that there had been a recent planning permission affecting this site.

·         The two main concerns were access and scale.  It was considered that the siting of a dwelling needed to be established before any approval was given.  The Panel was asked to refuse the application until this was clarified because of the lack of information about the position of the sewer.

·         There were established hedges and trees along the boundary that were two metres in width and of a significant height; it was not believed that the proposed conditions would save them if the sewer had to be re-sited.  If the sewer had to be re-directed it would go through the root system of a significant tree affecting its stability and health.  This tree made a positive contribution to the street scene.

·         The angle and siting of the proposal as indicated would cause overlooking of the neighbouring property.

 

The applicant’s agent was also in attendance at the meeting.

 

The Strategic Director explained that:

 

·         The planning process allowed for an outline application to be submitted (which did not have to include a fixed layout); this allowed a prospective developer to establish the principle of development prior to incurring any unnecessary costs.

·         Another option might be to have a narrower footprint for the proposed dwelling which may allow the sewer to be accommodated and avoid causing damage to the trees and shrubs along the boundary.

 

The City Solicitor advised that, although the layout was a concern for Members, it was probably premature to refuse the application on this issue.  It was noted that the house could not be built until the issue with the sewer was resolved to the satisfaction of Yorkshire Water. The layout, scale, appearance and landscaping were all Reserved Matters that could be submitted to this Panel for determination.

 

Members commented that:

 

·         If the existing vegetation did deteriorate this would be of significant detriment to the amenity of neighbouring residents.

·         Although not averse to the principle of development it was considered that there was a high probability of there being an issue with the sewers if the siting was not altered.

·         The scale of the present plans might be an issue if not the principle of development.

·         The property could potentially be  moved towards No.24.

·         If the details were submitted to the Panel there would be additional information available at that stage.

·         The height and size of the dwelling was not being approved.  The principle could be agreed so that the necessary surveys could be carried out.

·         When the Reserved Matters application was submitted this should include full details of the layout and the landscaping and include full approval from Yorkshire Water.

·         The line of the sewer was fundamental to the decision.

 

Resolved –

 

(1)       That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report together with an additional condition in respect of:

 

The Reserved Matters shall include the agreed line of the sewer if diversion is necessary.

 

(2)       That the application for Reserved Matters be submitted to this Panel for consideration.

 

ACTION:       Strategic Director, Regeneration

 

 

 

(c)        39 Millfields, Silsden                                                          Craven

 

Retrospective householder application for the construction of a summer house to the rear – 16/06391/HOU.

 

The applicant was in attendance at the meeting and explained that:

 

·         He had not realised that planning permission was required.

·         He considered that the objections were factually incorrect or were just opinion.

·         There were other structures along the rear boundary of the adjacent properties including larger sheds; this proposal made no difference.

 

In reply to Members’ questions he said that the structure was 2 metres high and 1.7 metres square and had been erected approximately 3 months previously.  He had intended to stain it (as suggested by the Conservation Officer) but was awaiting a decision on the application prior to doing so.

 

A Member commented that having regularly walked along the canal towpath, it was not considered that this stood out although it should definitely be stained as suggested.

 

Conversely, another Member stated that:

 

·         The site was within the Conservation Area and it was therefore considered surprising that it had been suggested that it was acceptable.

·         It was questioned what would happen if all the other residents wished to do the same and at what point would it be considered that the character of the area had been altered.

·         The colour and design could be changed but how would any further changes be prevented.

·         What was the point of having a Conservation Area in this case?

·         The Conservation Officer had expressed concerns about clutter.

 

The City Solicitor said that although any permission would not create a precedent there was a risk that other people applying for permission to erect a similar structure could use a planning approval as evidence in support.  In response to a question he said that the weight given to either a local or neighbourhood plan was dependent upon how far it had emerged.  He also pointed out that planning permission would not override a covenant.

 

The Strategic Director said that each application was considered on its merits; this was a small scale development and had been sensibly sited. He read out the comments made by the Conservation Officer who had considered the proposal in the wider context of the site.

 

Further comments were made as follows:

 

·         It was questioned what made a structure ‘of a temporary nature’.

·         It was considered that approval would weaken the nature of the Conservation Area.

·         It was appreciated that there were different individual opinions.

·         This could be considered temporary because it had no foundations.

·         On the basis of the circumstances for this particular application, subject to the colour being changed, it was acceptable.

 

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

 

 

(d)       82 Bolling Road, Ilkley                                                      Ilkley

 

Full application for the construction of a three-bedroom dwelling on garden land – 16/04831/FUL.

 

In response to a Member’s question the Strategic Director said that, in comparison with the 2008 application which had been refused, the distance either side of the proposed property had been increased slightly and the architect’s drawing indicated that the height had been lowered and the property was set back from the street.  It was considered that the dwelling would fit comfortably within the plot.

 

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)       Land at Turf Lane adjacent to HFC Poultry Ltd,        Bingley

            Station Road, Cullingworth, Bradford                          Rural

 

Full retrospective application for the retention of an industrial gas storage tank on a concrete base within a fenced compound – 16/05102/FUL.

 

The applicant’s agent made the following comments:

 

·         He had only become involved with this issue after the installation of the tank. The applicant company had been so focussed on compliance with the relevant industry regulations that the question of whether planning permission was required had been forgotten.

·         The company employed 125 people and was a major employer in this area.

·         There were strict regulations around animal welfare and the standards were constantly being strengthened. In August 2012 a report on the methods of stunning poultry prior to slaughter had been submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

·         The installation of the new equipment represented an investment of £2 million by the company.

·         The new system was approved by the RSPCA and met the procurement requirements of the company’s clients.

·         There was no possibility of locating the tank within the existing factory complex.

·         There were no objections from the Environmental Protection Officer.

·         Approval of the application would not prejudice the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and supported its economic aspirations.

·         Very special circumstances could include considerations of animal welfare.

·         This equipment would help to ‘future proof’ the business.

·         It had been suggested that the development would cause difficulties for other users of Turf Lane but it was believed that even if a tanker was in situ access for cyclists and other users would not be prejudiced.

·         Turf Lane was unadopted; there were a number of pot holes and many had been filled, this benefitted all users.

·         The company had been audited by two welfare bodies since the installation of the equipment and both had been successful as a result.

·         The company had made the necessary investment to ensure compliance with animal welfare legislation.

 

In response to a question from a Member about when the new legislation had been implemented, he explained that the requirements had been presaged in a 2012 report and although not immediately mandatory the company had considered that it should achieve compliance.

 

A Member of the Panel commented that although it was clear in terms of economic prosperity that very special circumstances applied in this case the detailed legal background to the need for such equipment was not as clear and it was considered to be inaccurate to say that it was required by legislation, albeit that it may well be required by retailers (who purchased from the company).

 

The applicant’s agent explained that the Farm Animal Welfare Committee’s recommendations to Defra made very clear their concerns in respect of the stress caused to animals pre-slaughter in relation to a number of practices. This equipment would eliminate the concerns expressed by the Committee.  Supervision of this factory rested with the Environment Agency and if it was not satisfied with standards it could be shut down.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Director said that:

 

·         If approved, a condition would be imposed, if approved, in respect of the implementation of an approved landscaping/screening scheme and the protection of the planting until it was well established.

·         If the tank was located on a roof this would present a safety issue as the gas could leak downwards into the building.  There may be other possibilities such as placing the equipment underground but the Local Planning Authority had to consider the application now before it.

 

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)        Land to the West of 50 Falcon Road, Bingley            Bingley

 

Previous reference:Minute 9(c) (2016/17)

 

Outline application for the demolition of the existing house and construction of seven two-storey detached houses – 16/06650/OUT.

 

The Strategic Director reminded Members that a previous application had been refused by the Panel in July on the basis of a lack of information on various matters.  He also reported on the substance of additional objections that had been received further to the publication of his technical report.

 

He explained that:

 

·         The statutory procedures had been followed in terms of publicity of the application.

·         Screening would be provided to the boundary.

·         Falcon Road was a cul-de-sac not a 30mph road so, in respect of the standards required for visibility splays, it was considered unlikely that there would be an issue of highway safety.

 

A Town Councillor attended the meeting and raised a number of issues:

 

·         Whilst it was acknowledged that housing was needed there were concerns in respect of the impact on Beck Lane; there were no footpaths along a considerable length and it provided access to Five Rise Locks.

·         On-street parking reduced access to one lane.

·         An increasing amount of traffic was travelling along this route, which was also used by a lot of children travelling to school this was of concern and it was considered that putting additional housing in this location was not a sensible proposition.

 

The Strategic Director said that Highways Development Control had taken account of the main access route and did not consider that there were any highway safety issues from the provision of this number of dwellings.

 

Representatives of objectors were present and spoke in opposition to the development:

 

·         A planning consultant’s report had been submitted to the Local Planning Authority which set out the deficiencies of the scheme and pointed out the conflicts with planning policy.

·         The previous application had been refused on the grounds of a lack of information in relation to the standard of access, visibility splays and turning facilities.  Further information had now been provided but this clearly demonstrated that the development was not deliverable.

·         The access road was to be adopted. It should therefore have proper visibility splays, this would not be possible as it would involve land in his ownership.

·         The road engineering structure was immediately on the boundary with his property and it could not be envisaged how this could be achieved without encroaching on his land.

·         The new access road would be adjacent to and two to three metres above the level of his property with vehicles travelling on top.  This would have a significant adverse impact on his property; a kitchen door and a bedroom window faced onto the site.

·         The plan that had been shown to the Panel was different to the one on the Council’s website.

·         It would make more sense to gain access through an adjacent housing development.

·         If Members were in any doubt they were urged to visit the site.

·         The whole process had been deeply distressing for residents.

·         Two applications had already been refused.

·         A large JCB had cleared the site and knocked down a garden wall.

·         It was alleged that two of the representations received expressing support for the proposal were fraudulent, a number were from individuals not recorded on the Electoral Roll and the rest were believed to be friends or colleagues of the applicant.

·         The Council’s website had been out of commission on a regular basis.

·         There were a number of reasons why the application should be refused; the access was inadequate and dangerous, there were already problems on Beck Lane, there were two protected trees and there would be a significant adverse impact on existing residents particularly those living at No.52.

·         The development would result in a change in amenity for all local residents.  Falcon Road would no longer be a cul de sac.

 

The applicant put forward the following points in support of the application:

 

·         Further to the refusal of the previous application he had consulted experts and made amendments to the scheme; the turning circle had been re-aligned; levels had been adjusted and a traffic calming ramp had been added to slow traffic leaving the new access onto the existing road.  White lines would be provided and there would be a clear view for drivers to make a safe and informed exit. No third party land was required, a hedge would need to be cut back.

·         In was considered that, in highway terms, this proposal would improve the situation for a number of residents as it would eliminate the need to reverse down the cul-de-sac.

·         Plot 1 had been reduced to move the retaining wall further away from the boundary with Number 52.

·         He had undertaken similar development work in the past and knew that it would work.

·         A continuous footpath would be provided.

·         The garage for Plot 1 had been relocated to facilitate better manoeuvring.

·         Three new mature indigenous trees would be planted in public areas and would be protected by a residents’ management plan; this would mitigate for the loss of the two existing trees which were in a background location and provided no visual amenity.

·         Plot 1 had been reduced in height and width in response to concerns expressed by the resident of No. 48.

·         A fence had been included in response to concern from No.54.

·         More space had been provided to No.52.

·         Details of the engineering works had been submitted.

·         The back wall had been moved by 250 mm.

·         There would be no encroachment onto adjoining land.

·         The site exceeded the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP) in terms of sustainability.

·         Additional housing was needed in the Bingley area.  It was considered that there would be no impact on services and no problems associated with Beck Lane which had thousands of visitors at weekends.

 

The Strategic Director responded to questions from Members:

 

·         The visibility splay standards depended on the speed of the highway; there was no legal requirement. Decisions took account of the guidelines and used engineering judgement.  In this case it was expected that speeds would not reach in excess of 20 mph at the top of the cul-de-sac.

·         The 2.4 metre by 33 metre splay guideline applied to the head of a minor road, for a private drive it would normally be 2.4 metres by 2.4 metres.

·         There was not considered to be any cause for concern in respect of highway safety.

·         A traffic calming ramp had been requested to ensure that the point of access was approached at a slow speed.

·         There was a recognised need for housing and if the Local Planning Authority could support development in the established urban area this would mean fewer houses had to be built on Green Belt land.

·         It was imperative that the issues of privacy and safety were addressed along the boundary; a landscaping scheme would have to be submitted at Reserved Matters stage. At present there was fairly dense planting and an equivalent level of privacy would be sought.

·         Once a site was developed changes would occur to the water run-off; the drainage scheme for the development would have to take account of that.  Condition 4 required that sustainable drainage techniques (SUDs) should be investigated. Detailed calculations would also be needed to show how the increased run-off would be addressed.  These details would also have to be determined at Reserved Matters stage.

 

A Member of the Panel said that although reasonably content with the information provided in terms of highway safety it was believed that there was insufficient  room for the provision of screening to ensure privacy for the adjoining dwelling.

 

The applicant stated that the front part of the garden was currently built up to a higher level and the level of the road would be brought down. At present there was a fence and the existing level of amenity would be mimicked by the retaining wall.

 

The objector said that a kitchen door and bedroom window faced the site; a road would be placed 2½ to 3 metres above the level of his land with vehicles on top of that.  There was no way that a fence would screen this and there was no room for substantial planting to take place.

 

A Member of the Panel stated that he was satisfied by the additional information presented.

 

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)       Office 3, First Floor, 2 Wellington Street/ 4 Park         Bingley

            Road, Bingley

 

Full application for the change of use of a 1^st floor office to use as a private vehicle hire office base – 16/06124/FUL.

 

Objectors to the application spoke in opposition to the proposal:

 

·         This was too close to an existing Hackney Carriage rank and it was believed that it would cause conflict and confuse customers.  This could lead to people using vehicles that did not have valid insurance.

·         There was concerns about gridlock and congestion in the locality.

·         Local businesses were concerned.

·         There were too many private hire vehicles in the area already.

·         This would lead to an increase in traffic in a small town with narrow streets.  It was considered that it would result in serious highway and safety issues and problems with parking.

·         A sign may be placed at the entrance to the premises to say it was not a booking office but an application to change this could be made later.

·         The Hackney Carriage rank had been there for a number of years.

·         This change of use should not be permitted.

 

The applicant said that:

 

·         The firm had been in business for two and a half years and had 13 cars.

·         It had already had an office base and this proposal would merely move it approximately 100 yards.

·         The move was necessary as a result of the present building being sold.

·         There was no intention to use it as a booking office.

·         There would be no impact from any additional cars.

·         This would not be a taxi rank just an office base.

·         The legitimacy of some of the objections was questioned.

 

In response to a question from a Member he said that the current office was located at 96 Main Street and had been in operation for 8¹/₂ years. This did not have a waiting room it was just a simple 15 metre by 12 metre office with computers and telephones.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

·         There had been a Hackney Carriage Rank in this location for over 50 years.

·         There was conflict between the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire providers in the district.  There was a wish to avoid any further tension.

·         This proposal would affect the business in the Bingley area. 

·         Had the Council’s Taxi Licensing Department been asked about the proposals?

·         It was noted that a significant number of the objections appeared to be based on commercial rather than material planning reasons.

·         There were problems in respect of the enforcement of offices used only to take and direct telephone bookings.

·         This would cause conflict with Hackney Carriage and Private Hire drivers attempting to take the same customers.  There were not enough officers to undertake enforcement.

·         This was an existing company, the cars were already there and the operator was just moving offices.  It was not the Local Planning Authority’s role to police such a situation.

·         It was not considered that there were any planning reasons to refuse the application.

 

The Strategic Director said that the Licensing Department had not been consulted on the proposal.

 

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