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

 

The sites concerned are:

 

(a)       13 Prod Lane, Baildon (Approve)                         Baildon

(b)       151 Main Street, Addingham (Approve)              Craven

(c)        20 Grange Park Road, Bingley (Approve)           Bingley Rural

(d)       Former Site of Bradford Hebrew Congregation,Shipley

Spring Hurst Road, Shipley (Approve)

(e)       Land at 10 Pink Street, Haworth, Keighley         Worth Valley

(Approve)

(f)        Land South East of 12 Haincliffe Road,              Keighley East

Keighley (Approve)

(g)       Low Croft Cottage, 23 Delph Hill, Baildon          Baildon

(Approve)

(h)       The Samuel Lister Academy,                                 Bingley Rural

Cottingley New Road, Bingley (Approve)

(i)         Brentroyd, Glenlyon Drive, Keighley                    Keighley Central

(Refuse)

(j)         Land at Halifax Road, Former Site of Wesley     Keighley East

Place Primary School, Keighley (Refuse)

 

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

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

 

(a)       13 Prod Lane, Baildon                                                                  Baildon

 

Householder application for construction of a single storey rear extension, a timber car port/garage and driveway gate at 13 Prod Lane, Baildon - 17/04743/HOU

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the application proposed the construction of an extension to the rear, a garage and gates to the driveway.  Members noted that two properties were built in the grounds of the host dwelling and all shared the private drive.  A couple of objections had been received, including one from a Ward Councillor, in relation to the proposed car port and the gate.  It was reported that the car port would be an open low rise structure with supporting columns and the adjacent hedge would be maintained.  It was also confirmed that a gate up to 2 metres in height could be installed without planning permission and any obstruction of access would be a private legal matter.  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 raised the following concerns:

 

·         She was representing the objector who resided at 13b Prod Lane.

·         The proposed extension was acceptable.

·         The proposed car port would block access to the objector’s property for maintenance.

·         The proposed gate could block access and could become locked.

·         The deeds stated that the access should be kept unobstructed and the gate would be an obstruction.

·         The driveway was shared access and a gate would not be compatible.

·         Many vehicles used the driveway.

 

In response to some of the comments made, the Chair stated that the gate and drive access were civil matters.  Another Member indicated that the car port would be open and not preclude access in relation to property maintenance.

 

Resolved –

 

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

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(b)       151 Main Street, Addingham                                                      Craven

 

A retrospective planning application for the change of use of part of the Addingham Memorial Hall from Community Hall use (D1) to use as a retail showroom (A1) at 151 Main Street, Addingham - 17/03061/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout. 

 

In addition to the information contained in his report, he stated that the Trustees of Addingham Memorial Hall had previously rented out the room to a small catering business; the Trustees had not sought a change of use for the hall at that time and therefore the catering business had not had planning permission to operate and an enforcement notice had been issued; it had subsequently moved out of the premises after approximately one year of occupation.  The current occupier was a business owner selling double glazed windows and there was one employee on site.  A number of representations had been received in support and in objection to the application.  Addingham Parish Council supported the application.   The application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

Photographs of the site submitted by an objector at least 24 hours prior to the meeting were tabled.

 

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

 

·         The site had received two enforcement orders within the last eight years.

·         Both the Addingham Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan for Bradford identified the need for community facilities in the village and the application represented a loss of a community facility.

·         The village did not have a room that could accommodate more than 120 people.  At a time when the population of the village was increasing, there was an expectation that community facilities within the village would expand.

·         The support for the application from the Parish Council was very controversial.

·         He considered the letters of support for the application to be weak as they argued that the hall could not survive without income while stating the need for a community facility.

·         He considered the community and community groups had been prevented from using the building for the last eight years due to it being let out commercially.

·         The area suffered from parking issues.

·         The current occupier was using the building to operate from, not solely as a showroom.

·         The owner of the building was Addingham Village Hall Charity and it had remained silent on this matter.

·         The Trustees of the hall had not consulted with residents on their vision.

·         He disagreed with the assessment in the officer’s report which defined the site as a village centre as he considered it to be a communal community area.

 

In response to a Member’s questions, it was stated that information was not available at the meeting in relation to how long the site had stood empty prior to its occupation by the applicant.

 

A representative of the applicant was present at the meeting and stated that:

 

·         The Memorial Hall was at the heart of the village centre and there were many community facilities there such as the library and theatre and residents’ forums, elections and pantomimes had been held there too.  The hall was also the venue for Parish Council meetings and had been a visitor centre during the Tour de France.

·         The Trustees of the Memorial Hall paid for the electricity for the temporary library on site.

·         The rent from this part of the Memorial Hall would help towards running costs.

·         There were three rooms; a large hall and two smaller rooms.  The large hall accommodated up to 120 people and remained unoccupied 90% of the time.

·         The application had received objections from people about the car park, which was being used illegally by people who were shopping in Addingham.

·         One objection stated that there should be a clause to remove the business if the library wanted to use the room; this was not practical.

·         The future of the hall would be put into jeopardy if part of it could not be used for commercial gain to support it.

 

During the discussion Members indicated that the use was acceptable and that there was adequate car parking available on site.  A Member commented that Trustees of halls should be made aware of the change of use regulations and asked that this be taken on board for future community asset transfers.

 

Resolved –

 

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

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(c)       20 Grange Park Road, Bingley                                       Bingley Rural

           

Householder planning application for first floor extension on top of existing flat roof bungalow at 20 Grange Park Road, Cottingley, Bingley - 17/03329/HOU

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He informed Members that the application was for a first floor extension to a flat roof property that would be inset, so that it would look like a box on top of a box and would remain flat roofed.  A number of representations had been submitted in support and objection to the development and the issues were covered in the report.  The building had a contemporary appearance and would match the presence of other properties in the vicinity.  There would not be any habitable windows in the side elevations and the distances to the rear and common boundaries would be adequate.  The parking provision of two spaces would be sufficient and the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Strategic Director, Place reported that the proposed extension would be in keeping with the existing building and there was another property nearby with a similar extension.  He confirmed that the house would not be any higher than the adjacent properties once extended.

 

Objectors were present at the meeting and raised the following points:

 

·         The design was inappropriate and would be overbearing.

·         The proposal had disregard for adjacent properties and would have a negative impact.

·         It would overlook four dwellings.

·         The proposed flat roof would create a detrimental feature.

·         It was not believed that the property would be the same height as neighbouring dwellings.

·         Why had the application not been refused?

·         The revised drawings were inaccurate and did not reflect the ridge heights.

·         A decision could not be made on incorrect details.

·         There was a privacy matter in relation to a neighbour’s hallway and landing.

·         The application was for an aggressive extension and it was believed that the applicant was using the Council to benefit from this.

·         A fair judgement was required.

 

In response to the comment made, the Chair stated that she refuted the accusations regarding the involvement of the Council to benefit the applicant and confirmed that all applications were considered on their own merit under planning law.  The objector then withdrew the comments made.

 

During the discussion a Member indicated that the building would be out of character with the street scene.  A Member stated that the property was already out of keeping with others and indicated that everyone was entitled to an outlook but not a view.  Another Member agreed that the proposal would not fit in as other properties in the vicinity had pitched roofs, however, others believed that the extension would be an improvement.

 

Resolved –

 

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

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(d)       Former Site of Bradford Hebrew Congregation,                   Shipley

Spring Hurst Road, Shipley

 

Planning permission for amendments comprising external works to the rear of the houses on Plots 4 to 7, which form part of an approved residential development at the site of the former Bradford Hebrew Congregation, Spring Hurst Road, Shipley - 17/04336/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He outlined the site history and stated that the Panel were considering departures from plans approved for 14 houses by the Regulatory and Appeals Committee in 2016.  Work to build the 14 houses had commenced on site and included the construction of raised platforms to the rear of the houses on Plots 4-7, which did not form part of the original planning approval.  The platforms presented opportunity for overlooking; particularly to no. 16 Spring Hurst Road and concerns had been raised by residents of neighbouring properties.  The applicant had agreed to modify Plot 4, which was closest to the back garden of no. 16 Spring Hurst Road, by proposing to remove its raised platform and replace it with a reduced raised platform approximately 1m x 1.2m and a flight of steps down to the garden.  The overlooking from platforms of Plots 5, 6 and 7 were less direct as they looked onto a rear access road, serving the rear of the properties off Spring Hurst Road and the roof of an outbuilding attached to no. 18  Spring Hurst Road which was used for storage.  The applicant’s proposal to add a 1.8m screen fence to the sides of platforms on Plots 5, 6 and 7 were considered to mitigate overlooking concerns and officers deemed the proposals to satisfy policy requirements.

 

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

 

·         She lived at no. 16 Spring Hurst Road and felt her property was very overlooked by Plots 5, 6 and 7.

·         Her property had suffered from a loss of light since the development had commenced.

·         Photographs were tabled from her living room showing the close proximity to the workmen on site, demonstrating their ability to see into her room.

·         She did not consider the proposed fencing to provide enough screening as people would still be able to see into her kitchen and living room.

·         She recommended the removal or reduction of the patio with adequate screening so that no overlooking could occur into her home.

·         The ground level had been raised at the bottom of the patio area and she raised concerns of damp.

·         She recommended a site visit be made by the Panel.

 

An objector’s representative was present at the meeting and raised the following issues:

 

·         He represented his client of no. 18 Spring Hurst Road.

·         That, if Members were minded to approve the application, a further condition in relation to surface water drainage should be added, as damp from additional surface water drainage was evident inside his client’s home.

 

In response the Strategic Director, Place stated that the proposed screen fence would run from the corner of Plot 5 to its edge and continue as a 1.8m fence at garden level. He understood that complaints had been made to the Enforcement Team who were not contemplating taking any further action.

 

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

 

·         The applicant was seeking to finalise arrangements relating to four previously approved dwellings.

·         The application was being presented to the Panel due to the objections relating to the loss of light, overlooking, inadequate information and lack of publicity.  The loss of light was not considered by officers to be relevant to this application and concerns relating to the lack of publicity were not for the applicant to address.  In relation to the other two concerns, a 1.8m fence would be erected and would be lower than the existing fence at no. 16 Spring Hurst Road.

·         There were no proposals to raise the ground level.

·         He agreed that there could be the potential for overlooking from the rear platform of Plot 4 into no. 16 Spring Hurst Road, therefore the removal of the raised platform at Plot 4 was proposed and would be replaced with steps leading down to a garden.

·         There were no habitable rooms to be overlooked from the platforms at Plots 5, 6 and 7.

·         The proposals were compliant with Policies DS1, DS3 and DS5 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·         If there were concerns about the proposed fencing being implemented, a condition could be imposed to ensure the fencing was put in before the houses were occupied and be imposed thereafter.

 

Members expressed concern that the developer had deviated from the approved plans and did not consider the mitigating measures to adequately compensate for the transgression.  Members considered the proposals would lead to overshadowing of neighbouring properties and impact on residents’ privacy.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the following reason:

 

The proposed measures are not considered to satisfactorily mitigate the impact of the development on the amenity of existing and future occupiers of adjoining dwellings due to the loss of privacy and overlooking of habitable room windows and outside areas. Therefore the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and policies DS1, DS3 and DS5 of the Local Plan for Bradford are not considered to be satisfied.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(e)       Land at 10 Pink Street, Haworth, Keighley                 Worth Valley

 

Outline planning application with all matters reserved for the development of a single detached family dwelling, including off road vehicle parking and gardens on land at 10 Pink Street, Haworth, Keighley - 17/02907/OUT

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the application was outline for the principle of the construction of a single detached dwelling with the design to be considered at the reserved matters stage.  It was noted that Pink Street was an unadopted highway and the site belonged to number 10.  The site was overgrown, had been used for storage and there were no significant trees on the site.  The Strategic Director, Place informed Members that the outline indicated a house on a large site, which would possible look towards the gable end of 10 Pink Street and it should be feasible to design a property.  There were no significant reasons to oppose the application, however, objections had been received in relation o access, safety and parking issues.  The Strategic Director, Place reported that a condition had been placed on the application in relation to the provision of parking for the proposed dwelling and 10 Pink Street.  He then recommended the application for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

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

 

·         Many objections had been raised in relation to the proposal.

·         Pink Street was an unmade road.

·         There were many springs in the area and flooding was an issue.

·         Children played in the area.

·         Haworth was already overrun with new properties.

·         Access would be difficult in bad weather.

·         He believed that people would build on any spare land.

 

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

 

·         The property would overlook her living room and bedroom.

·         The photographs displayed did not portray the correct view.

·         The proposal would overlook her land.

·         The property appeared to be large.

·         The site was on an incline and the house would be overbearing.

·         There were drainage issues in the area.

·         The proposal would create overshadowing.

·         The front of her property was north facing.

·          The proposal would block out light to her property.

·         Her main concerns were the loss of privacy and light.

 

The applicant’s representative was present at the meeting and stated:

 

·         The proposal was a self build project for a local family.

·         He had spoken to residents on Pink Street and they had not raised any objections.

·         He acknowledged that Pink Street was an unmade street with vehicular access.

·         The drainage would be connected to the mains as with all the utilities.

·         He had lived in the area for 32 years and was not aware of any springs or associated issues.

·         There was leeway to adjust the position of the proposed dwelling.

·         There would be minimal visual impact on neighbours.

·         Viaduct Street could be used for deliveries if required.

·         Photographs would be taken before, during and after the construction process and any damage to the street would be rectified.

·         There would be sufficient parking for several vehicles and a turning head.   

 

Resolved –

 

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

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(f)        Land South East of 12 Haincliffe Road, Keighley     Keighley East

 

Full application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of nine dwellings at land south-east of 12 Haincliffe Road, Keighley - 17/00036/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.

 

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

 

·         He was representing the objectors and the petitioners.

·         The purpose of the petition was not to object to the application but to have it presented to the Panel so it could be amended.  The officer’s report assumed that the petitioners did not support the development as no specific planning grounds had been specified, which was not the case.

·         The resident of no. 38 Hainworth Lane had raised concerns in relation to highway safety due to the bend in the road and suggested the application incorporate planning gain by taking back the boundary of his property in order to create a pavement which would improve road safety.

·         He requested the introduction of double yellow lines on the vehicular exit to Haincliffe Place as it was difficult to enter/exit and this would stop cars parking there.

 

In response the Strategic Director, Place stated that access had previously been approved and was not part of the application before the Panel.  He stated the petition had been submitted with the words “to refuse the application”. 

 

Resolved –

 

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

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(g)       Low Croft Cottage, 23 Delph Hill, Baildon                               Baildon

 

Full application for the construction of a detached dwelling and a pair of semi-detached dwellings and construction of a garage on land at 23 Delph Hill, Baildon - 17/04663/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He reported that historically there had been lock up garages on the land where it was proposed to construct three houses, one detached and two semi-detached.  The properties would be constructed from slate and natural stone, as the site was located in a Conservation Area and they would be designed to look like cottages, following the appearance of houses on Bank Walk.  Representations had been submitted, including a representation from a Ward Councillor and the issues raised were covered in the officer’s report.  The Strategic Director, Place confirmed that there would not be any windows facing across onto the existing properties that would invade their privacy and there would not be any windows in the gable end.  He explained that the main concern was the access to the site, which was around 2.9 metres wide.  The surface of the access track would be improved and the proposed layout showed the provision of a turning head and parking.  It was noted that the Council’s Highways Department had not objected to the three properties in principle.  In relation to the impact of the construction on Old Hall, which was a Grade II listed building, the Strategic Director, Place informed Members that the applicant had owned the land for many years and a builder presently used the site.  He stated that it was not envisaged that large vehicles would access the site and its use for business purposes would cease.  In conclusion the application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report and it was suggested that an additional condition could be placed on the application that required ground protection to be laid along the length of the access track next to the listed building.  

 

A Member acknowledged that the protection of Old Hall was vital.

 

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

 

·         Access was the main issue.

·         A strip of land along the wall did not have a registered title and was part of the public footpath.

·         Old Hall was fragile and did not have any foundations.

·         Cracks were appearing in the walls and without suitable stabilisation the wall of Old Hall would be at risk.

·         The applicant had stated that there would not be additional vehicles using the track, but service vehicles and cars would access it.

·         The vibrations from vehicles would damage Old Hall.

·         Stringent conditions would be required to stabilise Old Hall.

 

In response to a Member’s questions regarding Old Hall, the Strategic Director, Place confirmed that the issue had been discussed with the Building Inspector who had stated that matting could be placed on the track in order to mitigate the impact on the building and attempt to get vehicles to slow down, as it would be a different surface however, any damage caused would be a private legal matter.     

 

Resolved –

 

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:

 

(i)            That protective roadway matting be laid on the unmade track alongside Old Hall.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(h)       The Samuel Lister Academy, Cottingley New Road,   Bingley Rural

            Bingley

 

Full planning application for the construction of a green metal palisade fence 2.4 metres high along the perimeter of the sports field adjacent to the public footpath at The Samuel Lister Academy, Cottingley New Road, Cottingley, Bingley - 17/03677/FUL

 

The Panel noted that the application was put before them at the request of a Ward Councillor who was not in attendance at the meeting.  A Member commented that a 2.4 metre fence was a standard height for a school fence.

 

Resolved –

 

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

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(i)         Brentroyd, Glenlyon Drive, Keighley                         Keighley Central

 

A planning application for the construction of two-storey annex in place of existing detached garage to form games room/home office and ancillary accommodation at Brentroyd, Glenlyon Drive, Keighley - 17/03100/HOU

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He reported that two previous applications proposing a two storey annex in place of the existing detached garage had previously been refused and that the current application had received an objection from Keighley Town Council on the grounds that it was too similar to the previously refused applications.  The proposed development would have a games room, kitchen and office at ground floor level and a bathroom and two bedrooms on the first floor.  It was considered to offer a level of accommodation in excess of that which could be classed as ancillary to the parent dwelling, which was a key unlisted building in the conservation area of Devonshire Park.  It was explained that in order to be classed as an annex, the proposed development would need to demonstrate a high degree of interconnection with the host building, which this proposal did not and in essence could be used a separate dwelling.  The proposal was also considered to negatively impact on the appearance of the street scene and conservation area, whereas the current structure of the garage blended well into the surrounding area, with its roof just visible above the stone boundary wall.

 

In response to a Member’s query, the Strategic Director, Place confirmed that if the proposal did not include a kitchen it would show an interdependency on the host dwelling.

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and informed the Panel that there was another property on the street that had been granted permission to extend therefore he did not consider the proposal to be out of keeping with the street scene.  He stated that the proposal was to house the applicant’s mother-in-law’s sister who was elderly and had mobility issues and that the annex would include a stair lift for her.  He stated that medical evidence could be supplied if required. He explained that the applicant was willing to withdraw the application to amend the plans and remove the kitchen before resubmitting it in order for the proposal to be classed as an annex.

 

The Strategic Director, Place stated that the options available were for the Panel to determine the proposals as tabled or for the applicant to withdraw the application and re-submit amended plans for consideration; officers could advise on re-submitted plans at that time.

 

During the discussion a Member commented the he appreciated why the applicant would want to future-proof the proposal and having visited the site considered the proposal could be an improvement to the street scene subject to conditions being placed on the materials to be used i.e. stone.  He considered the distance of the proposed development to its host dwelling to be that of an annex.  A Member commented that the design of the development, which included a games room, did not appear to be tailored to the needs of a disabled person.  A Member raised concern that the proposed development was too close to the boundary wall and would be less prominent if it was set further away from the wall.

 

In light of the points raised, the Ward Councillor, on behalf of the applicant, requested that the application be withdrawn and was informed that written confirmation would be required within 10 days. 

 

Resolved –

 

(1)  That subject to written confirmation, this application be regarded as withdrawn and formal notification to be received by the Strategic Director, Place within 10 days.  If notification to withdraw is not received then the application be submitted back to the Panel for consideration.

 

(2)  That any new application in relation to this property be submitted to the Panel for consideration.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(j)         Land at Halifax Road, Former Site of Wesley             Keighley East

Place Primary School, Keighley

 

Full planning application for construction of seven terraced three-storey residential houses at the former site of Wesley Place Primary School, Halifax Road, Keighley - 17/02983/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  Members were reminded that the site was being redeveloped for five dwellings under a previous planning permission, which was against the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application due to highway concerns relating to unacceptable access and lack of parking.  The current application proposed the construction of an additional seven dwellings and although car parking arrangements were adequate, the proposal was considered unacceptable due to the means of access being from Halifax Road, a busy classified highway, and it therefore failed to comply with Policy TR2 of the Council’s adopted Local Plan for Bradford.  This assessment had been made due to the anticipated obstruction to the free-flow of traffic that would be caused by turning vehicles from the development onto Halifax Road.  A petition had been received containing eight signatures, but did not state why it was supporting the application and Keighley Town Council had recommended that the application be approved.

 

A representative of an objector to the application was present at the meeting and stated that:

 

·         There were highway concerns relating to the access on to the A629 road.

·         The access road was too steep to meet the adoptable standard.

·         The application lacked details about a drainage scheme.

·         Yorkshire Water had stated that the submitted drainage details were not acceptable.

·         The development required a safer means of access.

·         He recommended a tree line be added to provide screening.

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and made the following points in support of the application:

 

·         Knowle Close had been designed to allow access to a housing development of Skipton Properties who would not allow access via Knowle Close.

·         The applicant had been forced to propose access via Halifax Road.

·         He considered the consultation response from Highways Development Control, stating they could not support the application, to be retaliatory due to the previously approved application against their recommendation.

·         The Panel had previously accepted that the access was adequate when it approved the five dwellings on the site.

·         He did not consider there was a difference in the road safety risks whether there were five or 12 dwellings on the site.

 

In response to the objector’s representative’s comments, the Strategic Director, Place stated that the Panel could only consider the application before them.

 

In response to the Ward Councillor’s comments, the Strategic Director, Place stated that advice was provided to Members of the Panel in a professional capacity only.  Highways Development Control had not supported the previous application for reasons already stated and their concerns remained in relation to the current application.  The use of the road would also be intensified with the additional seven dwellings.

 

During the discussion, Members considered that an additional seven dwellings would not be prejudicial to highway safety.  They considered that the speed limit on Halifax Road was 30mph which was enforced with speed cameras.  A Member also stated that it was likely that the majority of traffic would be heading towards Keighley which was a left turn from the site. 

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the following reason:

 

The development is acceptable as the means of access onto Halifax Road had previously been granted for five properties and the manoeuvres in and out of the site would not obstruct the free flow of traffic or be prejudicial to highway safety.

 

And that the application be subject to the following conditions:

 

(1)  The development to which this notice relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this notice.

 

(2)  Before any part of the development is brought into use, the proposed means of vehicular and pedestrian access hereby approved shall be laid out, hard surfaced, sealed and drained within the site in accordance with the approved plan and completed to a constructional specification approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

(3)  Before the development is brought into use, the off street car parking facility shall be laid out, hard surfaced, sealed and drained within the curtilage of the site in accordance with the approved drawings. The gradient shall be no steeper than 1 in 15 except where otherwise approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority.

 

(4)  The western boundary of the site shall remain closed and no access for vehicles shall be formed to Knowle Close other than with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

 

(5)  Lighting to safeguard the safety of users of the proposed car parking area shall be provided and made available for use prior to the occupation of the dwellings. Details of the position, type and intensity of such lighting shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to its installation.

 

(6)  Before the car parking area is brought into use, a scheme of landscaping and screening shall be implemented between the parking spaces and the dwellings to the west. Notwithstanding details shown on the approved drawings, details of this screening and planting shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the car parking area is created.

 

(7)  Prior to the commencement of the development, arrangements shall be made with the Local Planning Authority for the inspection of samples of the external walling and roofing materials for the dwellings. These shall be approved in writing prior to the commencement of development, and the development shall be built in the materials so approved.

 

(8)  The development shall not begin until details of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme so approved shall thereafter be implemented prior to the commencement of the development.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place