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)       18 Mornington Street, Keighley (Approve)          Keighley Central

(b)       32 Coach Road, Baildon (Approve)                     Shipley

(c)        Coppice Cottage, Lee Lane, Wilsden (Approve)            Bingley Rural

(d)       48 Green Head Lane, Keighley (Refuse)                        Keighley Central

(e)       63 Saltaire Road, Shipley (Refuse)                      Shipley

 (f)       The Bungalow, Florist Street, Keighley              

(Refuse)                                                                   Keighley East

 

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

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

 

 

(a)       18 Mornington Street, Keighley                                  Keighley Central

 

Change of ground floor from C3 dwelling to A2 estate agent's office (upper floors to remain as a dwelling) at 18 Mornington Street, Keighley - 17/05853/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He reported that the application proposed a change of use from a dwelling to an A2 estate agent’s office that was located close to the town centre in an area that had a strong residential character along with a corner shop tradition.  Members noted that the original proposal to install a new door had received objections in relation to aesthetics and disturbance, therefore, the application had been amended.  The existing door would now be retained and a new door would be installed in the side wall to provide access to the flat upstairs.  Other representations received were covered in the report.  The Strategic Director, Place stated that the scheme would not cause significant highway safety issues and recommended the application for approval subject to conditions.

 

In response to a number of questions from Members, the Strategic Director, Place explained that vehicles could park on the opposite side of the road and there was a large car park in the vicinity.

 

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

 

·         The work should be carried out following the granting of planning permission.

·         Customers would not use the car park nearby.

·         Cars parking in the area caused issues.

·         The applicant was flouting regulations.

·         A complaint had been submitted in respect of work being undertaken prior to approval being granted.

 

In response the City Solicitor confirmed that it was perfectly legal for internal work to be undertaken.

 

Another objector was present and addressed the Panel stating that:

 

·         She lived next door to the property.

·         There was too much traffic in the vicinity.

·         Many cars parked in the area and accidents occurred.

·         Customers would not park in the car park.

·         Vehicles parked in front of her property on double yellow lines.

·         There was a school nearby.

·         Residents did not have anywhere to park their vehicles.

·         There was a doctor and dentist surgery opposite.

 

The Chair acknowledged the parking issues in the locality, but explained that the application submitted was for a change of use and this was the only aspect that could be considered by the Panel.

 

During the discussion a Member reiterated that it was understood there were issues in the area.  It was noted that there were already estate agent offices located in the town centre and a residential area should not be changed to a commercial zone.  Another Member agreed that the parking was an issue in the area and questioned why an estate agent’s office was required in that location.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

 

(1)  That the proposed change of use and introduction of commercial activity would be inappropriate in the residential area.

 

(2)  That the introduction of a new commercial activity into the vicinity would be detrimental to the area by aggravating the existing car parking issues.    

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(b)       32 Coach Road, Baildon                                                              Shipley

 

Householder application for construction of a front porch, a single storey side extension and a rear conservatory at 32 Coach Road, Baildon - 17/06007/HOU

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He indicated that the applicant was a relative of a Councillor and no representations had been received.

 

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)       Coppice Cottage, Lee Lane, Wilsden, Bradford        Bingley Rural

 

Full application for change of use of land for expansion of caravan storage – Land at Coppice Cottage, Lee Lane, Wilsden, Bradford - 17/02284/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  Members were informed that the application posed a Departure from the Development Plan as the site was located in the Green Belt.  The capacity of the established caravan storage business had been increased in 2013 and the proposed scheme would improve the existing business.  Many letters of support had been received, including one from a Ward Councillor.  The site was well screened and planning officers did not believe that it would impact on the Green Belt, however, the use was not an exception to policy.  It was noted that the caravans stored were not a permanent fixture and could not be seen from the road or long distance.  The Strategic Director, Place then recommended the application for approval, subject to the conditions set out in the report and with the proviso that if Members resolved to grant planning permission, the application would be submitted to the Regulatory and Appeals Committee for determination.

 

In response to a Member’s query, the Strategic Director, Place explained that the Parish Council had raised concerns in relation to the height of the flood lights around the site and a condition had been placed on the application that covered the matter. 

 

Resolved –

 

That the Panel endorse the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission and the application be referred to the Regulatory and Appeals Committee for final determination.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(d)       48 Green Head Lane, Keighley                               Keighley Central

 

Householder application for the construction of a detached garage in place of an existing garage on land to the rear of 48 Green Head Lane, Keighley - 17/05728/HOU

 

The Strategic Director, Place reported that the applicant had withdrawn the application during the week prior to the meeting.

 

 

Resolved –

 

That it be noted that the application had been withdrawn by the applicant.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(e)       63 Saltaire Road, Shipley                                                         Shipley

           

Alterations to install new oak bi-fold doors and a Victorian balcony to the front elevation at 1^st floor level, 63 Saltaire Road, Shipley - 17/05802/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  Members noted that the application proposed the construction of a balcony with double doors on a business premises that was located on Saltaire Road.  The property was not located within the World Heritage Site or a conservation area, however, it was on a main gateway in an important area.  The Strategic Director, Place reported that the public house had been subject to alterations in the past and a previous application to construct a glazed balcony had been refused in 2017.  A number of representations against, on the grounds of noise disturbance and in support of the development, including letters from Ward Councillors and the local MP, had been received.  It was explained that the balcony would extend across the full width of the frontage and provide an outside seating area.  The construction would be a strident feature and the front elevation would be different to the neighbouring building on an important approach to the World Heritage Site.  The Council’s Conservation Team and Environmental Health Unit had both raised concerns with the proposal.  In conclusion the application was recommended for refusal, as per the reason set out in the report.

 

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

 

·         The road was a key network and used by heavy freight and lorries.

·         The noise level was very high all day.

·         A normal conversation would register at 60 decibels, a bus street at 85 decibels and heavy traffic between 90 and 100 decibels.

·         The noise of a few people would be negligible.

·         No objections had been submitted by the police or neighbours.

·         The objector was renting the property and moved frequently.

·         The building was not within the World Heritage Site or a conservation area and it was not a listed building.

·         The property tried to be in keeping with Saltaire village.

·         The balcony would be policed by the applicant.

·         The applicant had been at the premises for 20 years and had a good reputation.

·         The business wanted to start serving coffee and sandwiches during the day in order to compete with other trades.

 

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

 

·         He had opened the business 20 years ago.

·         It was successful and had a good reputation.

·         It had been awarded many accolades.

·         The pub trade was changing and the coffee culture was becoming prominent.

·         The premises had not served food previously.

·         The balcony would only be open during the summer months.

·         It would be able to accommodate a maximum of nine people at three round tables.

·         Ward Councillor and the local MP were in support of the scheme.

·         The proposal would benefit the business.

 

The Strategic Director, Place stated that if the area beneath the balcony was deemed to be the highway, it would have to be licensed to the landlord.

 

During the discussion Members expressed concerns in relation to the location and traffic pollution. 

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused as per the reasons set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(f)        The Bungalow, Florist Street, Keighley                        Keighley East

           

Full application for construction of one detached house on land at The Bungalow, Florist Street, Keighley - 17/04602/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He stated that a new Flood Risk Assessment report had been submitted by the applicant that required careful consideration by officers, including those from the Council’s Drainage Team and the Environment Agency.  It was noted that the applicant could withdraw the application at no extra cost.

 

Resolved –

 

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.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place