Report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Culture to the Meeting of the Area Planning Panel (KEIGHLEY and SHIPLEY) to Be Held on 2 July 2014 A

Report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Culture to the meeting of the Area Planning Panel (KEIGHLEY AND SHIPLEY) to be held on 2 July 2014 A

Summary Statement - Part One

Applications recommended for Approval or Refusal

The sites concerned are:

Item No. Site Ward 1. 1 Berry Drive Baildon West Yorkshire BD17 7GA - Baildon 14/00726/VOC [Approve] – page 2 2. 44A Main Street Addingham West Yorkshire LS29 Craven 0PL - 14/01047/FUL [Approve] – page 8 3. 56 Nab Wood Crescent Shipley West Yorkshire BD18 Shipley 4HY- 14/01082/HOU [Approve] – page 16 4. 8-10 Richmond Street Keighley West Yorkshire BD21 Keighley Central 2HH - 14/00967/FUL [Approve] – page 24 5. Baildon Golf Club Moorgate Baildon West Yorkshire Baildon BD17 5PP - 14/00591/FUL [Approve] – page 29 6. Long Meadows Fyfe Lane Baildon West Yorkshire Baildon BD17 6DP - 13/01663/FUL [Approve] – page 41 7. Street House Farm The Street Addingham West Craven Yorkshire LS29 0JY - 13/03716/FUL [Approve] – page 50 8. Woodfield House Woodfield Road Cullingworth Bingley Rural Bingley West Yorkshire BD13 5JL - 14/01182/FUL [Approve] – page 66 9. 39 Southway Eldwick Bingley West Yorkshire BD16 Bingley 3EW - 14/00526/FUL [Refuse] – page 86

Julian Jackson Portfolio: Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Change Programme, Housing and Highways) Planning

Report Contact: Mohammed Yousuf Improvement Committee Area: Phone: 01274 434605 Regeneration and Economy

Email: mohammed.yousuf@bradford.gov.uk

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley) 14/00726/VOC 2 July 2014

LOCATION:

ITEM NO. : 1 1 Berry Drive Baildon

- 1 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

2 July 2014

Item Number: 1 Ward: BAILDON Recommendation: TO GRANT PERMISSION FOR VARIATION OF CONDITION

Application Number: 14/00726/VOC

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Variation of condition 15 of planning permission 09/00960/FUL to allow the store to be open for business an hour earlier in the morning.

Proposed condition: 'The retail premises hereby approved shall not be open for business between the hours of 2300 and 0600 and no customer shall be served or otherwise make use of the premises between these hours'.

Tesco Express Store 1 Berry Drive, Baildon, Shipley.

Applicant: Tesco Stores Limited

Agent: DPP1 Limited

Site Description: The site is the recently built Tesco Express convenience store located adjacent to Otley Road, Baildon, which is a busy “A” Classified Road. The new retail unit has a floor area of 379 sq metres and is set with its flank wall abutting Otley Road, slightly below its level. Adjacent, within the same building, is a dental practice. The building frontage faces across a small car park to a short service road leading down from Otley Road. This is known as Berry Drive and it also serves a small modern industrial / business estate. To the east of the site is the Greens Leisure complex, - a large gym and leisure facility, there is also a motorbike repair and sales garage opposite the site on Berry Drive. The nearest residential properties are on the opposite side of Otley Road.

Relevant Site History: 09/00960/FUL - Construction of retail building with revised design (amendments to planning permission 07/00464/FUL). Granted 2.4.2009

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation Employment allocation S/E6.3 on the RUDP.

Proposals and Policies UR3 – local planning considerations TM19A- traffic safety TM2 – transport impact mitigation

- 2 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): The National Planning Policy Framework is now a material planning consideration on any development proposal. The Framework highlights the fact that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which can deliver:- i) Planning for prosperity (an economic role) - by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type and in the right places is available to allow growth and innovation; ii) Planning for people (a social role) - by promotion of strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing an increase supply of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations and by creating a good quality built environment with accessible local services; iii) Planning for places (an environmental role) - by protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, adapting to climate change including moving to a low- carbon economy.

As such the Framework suggests local planning authorities should approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay.

Parish Council: Baildon Parish Council – objects to the proposal on the basis of nuisance through noise in the early morning to neighbours adjoining this property. The initial condition was limited to a 7am opening which the council believes is sufficient.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The proposal was publicised via neighbourhood notification letters and a site notice

Objections from 12 separate addresses have been received. The majority are residents living in Adelaide Rise across the other side of Otley Road.

There is one letter of support

Summary of Representations Received: Objections- Noise and disturbance will increase if the store is permitted to open earlier and there are concerns that deliveries will take place earlier in the morning at unsocial hours. Activity in the early morning causes sleep deprivation for nearby residents. Highway safety will be compromised. Residents refer to a perception that nothing has been done about the breach of the planning condition.

In support – The noise is minimal compared to general traffic noise.

A ward councillor has requested that the application be determined by the Area Planning Panel if approval is recommended and objects on the following basis

Other similar stores in the district open at 7am and there are other shops in the vicinity to cater for early morning customers. The deliveries cause disturbance and the earlier opening will increase this.

- 3 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The condition has been breached for some time so 7am should be the earliest allowed.

Consultations: Environmental Health Officer – No objections Highways DC – No objections

Summary of Main Issues: Impact on neighbours Highway Safety

Appraisal: The proposal and background The retail unit is a recently opened Tesco Express store with a floor area of 379 sq metres located on part of a mixed use development on the site of a former engineering works alongside Otley Road.

The application seeks a variation of condition 15 of planning approval 09/00960/FUL to allow the store to open to customers one hour earlier in the morning.

Condition 15 States "The retail premises hereby approved shall not be open for business between the hours of 2300 and 0700 and no customer shall be served or otherwise make use of the premises between these hours.”

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents and to accord with Policy UR3 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan."

The applicant requests that the condition 15 is amended to allow the store to open one hour earlier at the start of the day. The Condition would say :

"The retail premises hereby approved shall not be open for business between the hours of 2300 and 0600 and no customer shall be served or otherwise make use of the premises between these hours.”

Panel members should note that there is no condition restricting the hours of deliveries and this application is to solely consider whether opening the store for customers an hour earlier in the morning is acceptable.

The case for earlier opening is that there is demand for such earlier opening times and other Tesco Express stores do not have such a restriction on opening times for customers. The supporting information states that there is demand for the earlier opening hours due to staff from the surrounding businesses. It is likely that there is also a certain amount of passing trade given its location on a major route from Baildon and beyond, to Leeds and Bradford.

According to Tesco's Website the opening hours for other express stores within the district varies. For example, two branches in similar areas close to main roads but with surrounding residential property; Tesco Express on Haworth Road Heaton, opens at 6am whereas the Crossflatts branch opens at 7am.

Impact on the amenity of neighbours

- 4 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The neighbours’ objections have been fully considered and are discussed in the appraisal the applicant has submitted some suggestions to appease neighbours’ concerns about delivery traffic.

However, in assessing the impact of earlier visits to the premises by customers it has to be pointed out that the site lies on a main road, close to a busy junction; traffic levels on Otley Road are high for most of the day with vehicles often queuing close to the site. The ambient noise levels in this area will be generally quite high throughout the day starting in the early morning with commuters from traffic noise, vehicles accelerating and changing gear. The area is mixed use in character with business uses, retail and residential uses all in close proximity. The nearest residential properties are positioned across the main road from the store. Given the location of the nearest houses, it not considered that the proposal to open the store one hour earlier will have any material impact on neighbours in terms of noise and disturbance.

The Council’s Environmental Health officer has raised no objections to the proposal.

Highway Safety Provision for car parking and delivery turning was considered satisfactory when the store was given planning permission. There are no changes to these facilities which will be adequate to cater for customers arriving at the store between 6 am and 7 am.

The Council’s Highway Officer has stated that the proposal to open one hour earlier would have no material impact on the surrounding highway network or on road safety and has no objections.

Other points raised in the objections Objectors and the ward councillor are disappointed that the retail store has been opening at the earlier time of 6 am, in breach of the planning condition, for some time. However, the application to vary the condition must be considered on its planning merits and permission cannot be withheld simply to punish the applicant.

Concerns have also been raised regarding the effects of early morning deliveries to the store. It appears from the representations that it may be the deliveries that are causing concerns from local residents due to the noise of vehicles reversing and unloading. However, deliveries can take place at any time. There are no conditions on the planning permission that restrict times of deliveries and this proposal to permit customers to shop from 6.00 am will have no impact on delivery times for the store.

The agents have been made aware of residents’ comments about deliveries and, as a good will gesture, Tesco have agreed to voluntarily put in place the following measures in an attempt to be good neighbours. A statement expanding on this has been submitted as an additional part to the planning application.

• they will issue an instruction via their risk assessment that where safe, reversing sounds generated by vehicles will be switched off; • all deliveries will proceed to the rear door (as opposed to the front of the store); • that deliveries will take place at 06:30 as opposed to the self-imposed restriction of 06:00; and that

- 5 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

• staff will be briefed to be quiet when they arrive for work in the morning.

It must be stressed that these measures are offered in the interests of the store maintaining good relations with neighbours and compliance cannot be controlled under any retrospectively applied planning conditions. This is a voluntary arrangement that Tesco have proposed in an attempt to address problems reported by neighbours.

Community Safety Implications: None.

Level access was incorporated into the layout of the store when first approved and will not change s a result of this application. It is not considered that any issues with regard thereto are raised in relation to consideration of this particular application.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The proposed variation of condition will have no significant detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby occupiers, road safety or the character of the surrounding area. It is considered to accord with Policies TM19A and UR3 of the Bradford Replacement Unitary Development Plan and is compatible with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Conditions of Approval: That the condition be varied as requested in the application.

- 6 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley) 14/01047/FUL 2 July 2014

LOCATION:

ITEM NO. : 2 44A Main Street Addingham

- 7 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

2 July 2014

Item Number: 2 Ward: CRAVEN Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION WITH CONDITIONS

Application Number: 14/01047/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Full planning application for the construction of a detached dwelling at 44a Main Street, Addingham.

Applicant: Mr Chris Wynn

Agent: Mr Andrew Coates

Site Description: The site is garden land which steps up to the side elevation of a modern house. It is currently occupied by a single garage which is accessed by crossing a bus layby on Addingham Main Street. The site is covered with a lot of garden vegetation and is in a gap between other dwellings, it is in an attractive location in Addingham conservation area. There are grade II listed buildings in close proximity to the site namely 40, 42, 44 and 46 (High Bank)

Relevant Site History: 13/01303/FUL Demolition of existing garage and construction of detached dwelling with integral garage and parking WDN 09.05.2013

13/03201/FUL Demolition of existing garage and construction of detached dwelling and garage with improved access REFUSE 01.10.2013

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation Unallocated but in Addingham Conservation Area.

Proposals and Policies D1 – General design considerations UR3 – The local impact of development BH4A- setting of listed buildings BH7 – New Development in conservation areas TM19A – Traffic management and road safety

- 8 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

i) Planning for prosperity (an economic role) - by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type and in the right places is available to allow growth and innovation; ii) Planning for people (a social role) - by promotion of strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing an increase supply of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations and by creating a good quality built environment with accessible local services; iii) Planning for places (an environmental role) - by protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, adapting to climate change including moving to a low- carbon economy.

As such the Framework suggests local planning authorities should approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay.

Parish Council: Addingham Parish Council – Objects to the proposal It is too large for the plot size It would be detrimental to the character of the conservation area and street scene It will overshadow 44 Main Street Discrepancies on the plans The access is not safe and the development will add to congestion and parking problems in the village.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The proposal was publicised via neighbourhood notification letters and a site and press notice 10 objections in total including 8 objections from near neighbours 1 objection from a ward councillor 1 objection from the Addingham civic society

Summary of Representations Received: Discrepancies and inaccuracies on the plans and application form Concerns about choice of materials and detailing Loss of an attractive open space, trees, habitat and vegetation Impact on conservation area, listed buildings and not in keeping with surroundings Loss of trees and vegetation Impact on neighbours Highway safety / unsuitable access The proposal would set an unwelcome precedent

A Ward Councillor – is concerned that vehicles will be forced to reverse onto the main road and cause an accident black spot. Also concerned that the proposal is out of character with surrounding properties and the conservation area

The agent has submitted a supplementary statement rebutting the objectors comments.

Consultations: Drainage – previous comments apply

- 9 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Separate system required within the site boundary Porous materials should be used if possible to construct hard standing areas

Conservation Officer – The proposal will maintain the setting of the listed buildings and the character of the conservation area. It will provide a benefit in the removal of the incongruous garage and the proposed dwelling will demonstrate a complementary appearance to the context of the streetscape.

Highways DC – Whilst the site is not ideally located for a new dwelling in terms of access, on balance it is acceptable in highway terms, conditions are suggested.

Summary of Main Issues: Impact on neighbours Visual impact / conservation area Highway safety

Appraisal: The proposal and background The application is for the construction of a detached dwelling, there have been two previous applications on the site, one of which was withdrawn and one was refused on highway safety and conservation grounds Pre application discussions took place prior to a resubmission to try to address some of the issues raised by the development of the site. Any proposal needs to finely balance the issues of maintaining the character of the area whilst providing a suitable access to the site.

Impact on neighbours The proposed dwelling would be set at a lower level to number 44a with an intervening boundary wall which would provide additional screening and there are no side facing habitable room windows so it is not considered that there would be any loss of privacy to this or other surrounding properties.

The existing boundary wall is proposed to be demolished and rebuilt to provide a patio area for the new dwelling; this will also provide some privacy for the new dwelling which is below 44a. There have been some concerns raised by neighbours over the ownership of the site and 44a which appear to have been split since the previous applications.

This is a private matter between any interested landowners and not a planning matter. If revised plans are required as a result of private ownership issues these would be dealt with own their own merits at the time of submission.

Visual Impact and impact on conservation area character and listed buildings The site is currently occupied by a single garage which is accessed by crossing a bus layby on Addingham Main Street. The site is covered with a lot of garden vegetation and is in a gap between other dwellings. It provides an attractive contribution to the street scene and Addingham conservation area.

The site has not been previously developed other than by the garage which does not appear to be in regular use and the access to this is historic. The site appears to have been enclosed as garden originally associated with No.46, High Bank.

- 10 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The site is situated towards the west or ‘top’ end of Addingham village and conservation area. Much of the conservation area is linear, following the line of the turnpike road and a shallow valley. The street is typically lined with predominantly 2 storey vernacular buildings, mainly dating from the later 18 th century onwards. To the left of the site is a short row of Grade II listed houses, and to the right High Bank, a later 18 th century Grade II listed house of moderate status.

This part of Addingham is characterised by attractive traditional dwellings built in a linear form. The proposed dwelling has been amended and now reflects this pattern of development and has been designed with traditional features and detailing to respect and blend into its surroundings.

The garden between No.44A and the Main Street is identified as having a positive contribution to conservation area character, however it is not key open space. The site has several semi-mature trees but these are non-native species and are garden trees therefore it is not considered that their loss will be harmful to the area. The front boundary wall to Main Street has been adapted to serve the garage and in its current form does not make a positive contribution to character.

The Council’s Conservation Officer considers that previous objections have been overcome by the design amendments and now has no objection. In principle the site could accommodate a sympathetic traditional building and the Conservation Officer does not feel that the site needs to be left undeveloped. The Conservation Officer considers that the scale and linear form of the house and the proposed use of natural materials are such that the proposal would maintain the character of the conservation area. It is also felt that the removal of the incongruous garage and realignment of the boundary would improve the frontage and would provide a benefit to the street scene.

A new building would partially screen 44a which is an incongruous modern dwelling that is seen from Main Street. It is also considered that the design of the new dwelling which has a simple linear form with traditional fenestration would be complementary to the surroundings. The orientation and positioning are appropriate and the height and massing respectful to the surroundings. It is not felt that the proposal will detract from the adjacent listed buildings at 40-46 Main Street or the character of the Addingham Conservation Area

Materials must be tightly controlled to ensure that they match materials in the immediate surroundings, windows and external plumbing and rainwater goods should also be traditional in material and colour as should the surfacing used for the parking and turning area. These materials should be very carefully sourced. There are some discrepancies on the plans relating to the choice of materials and the use of imitation sash windows. However these can be controlled by a condition to ensure that appropriate materials and genuine sash windows are used.

The comments of objectors are noted, but given the refinement of the design now presented, officers do not share the view that the proposal will be detrimental to the surrounding environment or the conservation area.

Highway Safety The site is located on Main Street, Addingham which is a well used highway. There is a bus stop adjacent to the site, with a bus layby marked out on the carriageway across the site

- 11 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

frontage where no parking is permitted. There are no waiting restrictions on both sides of the bus layby where parking takes place. The speed limit on Main Street is 20mph.

The proposal provides sufficient space within the site to park a vehicle and turnaround to leave in forward gear. If a second car is parked on site this would, however, block the turning area and one vehicle would need to reverse out of the drive.

There is reasonable visibility in the critical direction to the right of around 25m which is acceptable where speed limit is 20mph. Also vehicles would be manoeuvring into the bus layby and not the main carriageway. Although visibility to the left is blocked by a wall, It is not considered that poor visibility to the left would cause highway safety issues at this location as traffic from that direction is travelling on the opposite carriageway. But adequate pedestrian / vehicle inter-visibility is important and the applicant has shown that 2.0m x 2.0m footway visibility splays can be achieved.

Although the proposed dwelling would generate more traffic than the existing garage, there is much less traffic along this road compared to when the road was a trunk road which would have carried significant levels of local and through traffic and the garage would have generated some vehicular trips at that time. Traffic speeds are generally low past the site due to the 20mph speed limit and narrowness of the road which results in one way traffic movement particularly where on street parking takes place.

While the site is not ideally located for a new dwelling in terms of access, on balance the proposal is acceptable in highway terms.

Several conditions have been suggested by the Council’s Highway Officer. There is a concern about the suitability of the access. However, on balance, it is considered that it is acceptable and that the scheme does not present significant highway safety that could be substantiated as reasons for refusal.

Conclusion It is considered that the proposal overcomes the previous concerns to the scheme and it will not detract from the surrounding area, have an adverse impact on neighbours or be detrimental to highway safety. For the reasons given in the appraisal, approval is recommended.

Community Safety Implications: None.

Equality Act 2010, Section 149: In writing this report due regard has been taken of the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance equality of opportunity between different groups and foster good relations between different groups. It is not however considered that any issues with regard thereto are raised in relation to consideration of this application.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The proposal will have no significant detrimental impact on neighbouring occupants, local amenity, road safety the setting of listed buildings or the character of the conservation area. It

- 12 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

is considered to accord with Policies BH4A, BH7, D1, TM19A and UR3 of the Bradford Replacement Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Conditions of Approval: 1. The development shall be constructed using natural materials. Before development commences on site, arrangements shall be made with the Local Planning Authority for the inspection of all facing and roofing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted. The samples shall then be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to safeguard the appearance of the Addingham Conservation Area in which it is located and to accord with Policies UR3, D1 and BH7 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

2. The parking turning and other hardsurfaced areas within the site shall be constructed using porous surfaces which are sympathetic to the character of the conservation area. Details of the proposed surfaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to development commencing and thereafter retained as such.

Reason: To ensure the proper drainage of the site whilst maintaining the character and appearance of the Addingham Conservation Area, to accord with policies D1, BH4A, BH7 and NR16 of the RUDP

3. All gutters, down pipes and other external plumbing shall be in black finish and so retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with policies BH4A and BH7 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

4. The window frames used in the development shall be none other than operating traditional sliding sash timber framed windows details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to development commencing, the windows shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained as such.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to safeguard the appearance of the Addingham Conservation Area in which it is located, the setting of adjacent listed buildings and to accord with Policies UR3, D1, BH4A and BH7 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

5. The development shall be drained using separate foul sewer and surface drainage systems.

Reason: In the interests of pollution prevention and to ensure a satisfactory drainage system is provided and to accord with Policies UR3 and NR16 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

6. Before any part of the development is brought into use, the proposed means of vehicular and pedestrian access and the vehicle turning area hereby approved shall be laid

- 13 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

out, hard surfaced, sealed and drained within the site in accordance with the approved plan and thereafter retained whilst ever the development is in use.

Reason: To ensure that a suitable form of access is made available to serve the development and to avoid the need for vehicles to reverse on to or from the highway, in the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy TM19A of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

7. 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.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy TM12 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

8. Any gates to be constructed as part of the development shall not open over the highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy TM19A of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

- 14 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley) 14/01082/HOU 2 July 2014

LOCATION:

ITEM NO. : 3 56 Nab Wood Crescent Shipley

- 15 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

2 July 2014

Item Number: 3 Ward: SHIPLEY Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION WITH CONDITIONS

Application Number: 14/01082/HOU

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Construction of a two storey side and rear extension with part single storey rear extension and detached garage in the rear garden of 56 Nab Wood Crescent, Shipley, BD18 4HY.

Applicant: Mr Sajid Khan.

Agent: Mr Richard Blenkiron.

Site Description: The existing dwelling is a rendered semi detached house with a concrete tiled roof and is sited in a residential area on a minor side road with similar residential property types along its length. There is a reasonably generous back garden which runs down to a public footpath running along the backs of the houses. Beyond it are the gardens of houses on Bankfield Drive. The house is presently unoccupied and has been subject to significant building work in recent years with the hipped roof having been converted to a gable, a dormer added to the rear and part built extensions to the side and rear. The garage in the back garden is also partially built.

Relevant Site History: 13/02938/HOU Two storey side and rear extension with part single storey rear extension. REFUSED 16.09.2013 13/03849/HOU Two storey side and rear extension with part single storey rear extension REFUSED 13.11.2013 13/04786/HOU Construction of two storey side and rear extension with part single storey rear extension REFUSED 04.02.2014

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation BH14 – Saltaire World Heritage Site Buffer Zone.

Proposals and Policies Householder Supplementary Planning Document UR3 – Local Impact of Development D1 – General Design Considerations BH14 – Saltaire World Heritage Site Buffer Zone

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

- 16 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The National Planning Policy Framework is now a material planning consideration on any development proposal. The Framework highlights the fact that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which can deliver:- i) Planning for prosperity (an economic role) - by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type and in the right places is available to allow growth and innovation; ii) Planning for people (a social role) - by promotion of strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing an increase supply of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations and by creating a good quality built environment with accessible local services; iii) Planning for places (an environmental role) - by protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, adapting to climate change including moving to a low- carbon economy.

As such the Framework suggests local planning authorities should approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay.

Parish Council: None for this area.

Publicity and Number of Representations: Advertised by neighbour notification letters with a 21 day deadline of 2.4.14. Five neighbour representations have been received all objecting to the development. Plus one Councillor representation objecting to the development.

Summary of Representations Received: Cllr comments; The scale of the new dormer and the so-called garage arguably go beyond the permitted development rights of a property of this sort. The garage is a substantial structure and has been constructed right up to the edge of the property to the rear.

The garage, in addition, has been built over a watercourse, raising serious concerns about potential drainage problems (these were an issue for the previous occupant of this property).

Although the application states that no hedges will be removed, he is in fact seeking to remove the hedging on the boundary between No.56 and No.58.

I am also deeply concerned that this applicant appears to have such a cavalier attitude to the planning process. The statement included in this application demonstrates quite clearly that the applicant blames the Council for the delays and has not reflected properly on his own responsibility for this mess.

In the event that officers are minded to recommend approval, I would ask that this application is considered by the planning panel and that the panel please make a site visit to help them appreciate what is going on here. – Cllr Warnes.

Neighbouring comments; The revisions to the roof do not make any material difference to the objections raised against the previous applications.

- 17 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The proposed extension of the original three-bedroom semi-detached house is vastly excessive and destroys the original character of the property and the surrounding area. This is a suburban area not the inner city and the space around the house is an important part of the look and feel of the area. The front garden is already being given over to parking and the size of both the garage and the extensions mean that the garden space associated with the house will be considerably reduced.

The house is being vastly overdeveloped for the size of plot and the box (dormer) that has been plonked on the roof continues to overlook neighbours’ houses.

There is inadequate parking for the 5 bedroom property being created.

The substantial garage built without planning permission at the back of the house further detracts from the character of the original house.

The garage is so positioned that it unlikely a vehicle could gain access. The very narrow drive and the way the garage door is offset to realise that no regular car will ever be able to access the garage.

Major damage has already been caused to a long-established hedge that spans the boundary between 58 and 56 Nab Wood Crescent and the applicant has also stated in a letter of his intention to replace the hedge with a wall. The neighbour expressly requested that the established privet hedge boundary should remain. Tons of earth have been removed and it is unlikely that the hedge will survive.

The construction was commenced before plans were submitted and has continued despite refusals. It is important that this application should not be accepted simply because of the advanced state of the development. A thorough inspection of the site is necessary to fully appreciate the situation.

People are objecting to the fact that this building work has been carried out with no regard for the law and planning permission. We all have to obey the law so why should he be any different.

Consultations: Rights of Way - Shipley Public Footpath 39 abuts the back of the site. These proposals do not appear to adversely affect this public right of way. If planning permission is granted please ensure that the applicant is made aware of the need to adhere to the standard requirements and avoid obstruction of the footpath during the works.

Summary of Main Issues: Design and Impact on Local Environment Impact on Neighbouring Occupants Parking and Highway Issues.

Appraisal: This is an application for the construction of a two storey side extension which also projects behind the back wall of the house. It also proposes a single storey rear extension at ground floor level projecting 3.0 metres from the back wall and a detached garage in the rear garden.

- 18 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

As will be noted from the objector and Councillor comments, the property has already been subject to alteration and extension work. The hipped roof has been converted to a gable under householder permitted development rights conveyed by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order. The large box dormer shown on the submitted drawings on the back elevation of the houses is already in existence, but has been lawfully constructed under householder permitted development rights. This has been verified by measurements taken by the Planning Enforcement Service. Therefore, although objections have been made about this large dormer being unsightly and causing overlooking, the Council cannot refuse this new feature of the house.

It will be observed that the applicant has submitted 3 previous applications for side and rear extensions to this property which have been refused on the grounds of the poor design – particularly the incongruous, clumsy appearance of the 1 st floor extensions. The last refusal was supported at planning appeal, the appeal being dismissed.

Design and Impact on Local Environment The proposed two storey extension would be situated to the south and south west of the parent dwelling occupying part of the side and rear garden areas.

Previous proposals have been refused on grounds of design. In considering an appeal in respect of application 13/04786/HOU, the Inspector agreed that the design of what was proposed under that application was wholly unsympathetic. This was specifically because the applicant was trying to add a flat roofed bathroom extension off the back wall of the house which had a very awkward junction with the large box dormer the applicants have constructed. The flat, stepped appearance of this part of the extension roof would have introduced a highly incongruous element to the street scene.

The Inspector agreed that, in relation to the gable end of the host property, the flat roof would give rise to an abrupt break in the built form when viewed from the front and side elevations. This break would not only lack integration with the gable end but also would be at odds with the hipped roof on the extension that projects from the side elevation of the host property. For these reasons the proposed roof would lead to a significant negative impact on both the host property and the local area.

In this latest application, the proposal has been amended from previous application drawings to omit the flat roofed bathroom element of the two storey extension. Also, the side extension is proposed with a conventional gabled roof reflecting the pitch and orientation of the main roof of the house. The plans also now show the rear dormer window.

The form of the extension is therefore greatly simplified. The new plans improve the roof design by keeping a clean break between the side extension and the existing back wall. There is less clutter between the existing dormer and the roof of the proposed extension. By omitting the previously proposed flat roofed bathroom, a better balance is achieved and the character of the existing property, whilst altered, is better maintained.

The materials to be used in the construction and finish of the proposal are render with a concrete tile roof. These materials are in keeping with the parent dwelling and surrounding area.

- 19 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The bulk of the proposed two storey extension is situated to the side of the parent dwelling and it achieves an appropriate degree of subordination because the front elevation is set back 1000mm from the front elevation with a corresponding lowering of the roof line. The extension thus follows guidance approved by the Council as part of the Householder Supplementary Planning Document.

The garage is situated to the rear of the parent dwelling, and so would only be partially visible from the street. It is already partially built and though built close to the boundary is a relatively unobtrusive structure set down at a lower level than the neighbouring garden which it abuts. Although adverse comments have been made by neighbours about its appearance it is not considered to be unduly intrusive or to have any significant harmful implications for the surrounding environment.

Comments that the garage has been built over a culvert have been referred to the Council’s Drainage Officers who have more relevant statutory powers to control development that affects watercourses.

Objections on grounds of loss of a hedge between the applicant’s garden and the neighbour have been made. However, this hedge is not a protected feature and issues regarding previous promises to maintain the hedge are private matters not anything for the Council to consider.

The development is now considered to be reasonably well related to the existing character of the locality in terms of design, scale and height. It is acknowledged that the applicant has a need to improve and enlarge the accommodation in the house and the revised scheme is considered to achieve an acceptable balance between this objective and maintaining the character of the existing semi and therefore the surrounding area.

As such, the proposal is considered to satisfactorily comply with policy D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and the Householder SPD.

Impact on Neighbouring Occupants The development is not considered to affect the adjoining neighbours' amenity to an unacceptable degree. Representations have been received from a number of neighbours relating to overlooking, overshadowing and loss of residential amenity.

It has been explained why overlooking from the new dormer cannot be considered.

The proposed extension is now largely to the side and situated to the south and south west of the parent dwelling. Therefore, any shade impact is over the applicant's own dwelling. Some shadow will be cast over the rear garden area of 58 Nab Wood Crescent in the early afternoon but the two storey component is set some way off the boundary and this impact is not significant enough to affect their amenity or enjoyment of their garden.

The proposed single storey extension abuts the boundary of No. 58 Nab Wood Crescent but the degree of projection is 3.0 metres, which accords with the standard recommended in the Council’s adopted Householder SPD and the sloping roof is orientated to have as little an impact on these neighbours as possible. There is no difference in levels. The single storey extension proposal is therefore not considered to overshadow the neighbouring garden to their detriment.

- 20 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

With regard to the degree of projection of the two storey extension, this does not encroach beyond a line drawn at 45 degrees from the windows in the neighbouring dwellings, therefore no loss of light is considered to occur.

There are two windows, ground and first floor, situated in the south elevation of the proposal that will look towards the neighbouring dwelling of 54 Nab Wood Crescent. However, these windows both serve WC’s and will be obscure glazed, a condition is included to assure this.

All other windows in the proposal look onto the applicants own rear garden area or the highway to the front of the property. The windows to the rear look onto the back garden which is shown to be 14.5 metres long and a public footpath runs to the rear. The two storey extension still maintains a separation of 11.5m to the back boundary and further to the gardens of houses on Bankfield Drive to the rear. There is sufficient separation between the extension and the properties on Bankfield Drive and refusal on grounds of harm to the amenity of occupants of these houses could not be substantiated.

The garage has attracted adverse comment from neighbours. It would be located towards the back boundary, but set at a lower level to the neighbouring garden and is proposed with a flat roof to keep down its height. It is therefore not considered to have any impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupants. No overlooking or overshadowing will occur in relation from the garage.

The proposal is considered acceptable and does not have a negative impact on the amenity of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy UR3 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained in the Householder SPD.

Impact on Highway Safety The existing means of access to and from the site is onto a straight section of Nab Wood Crescent which is a conventional residential street. Existing drive arrangements would remain and is not considered that the proposed extensions would be detrimental to highway safety. The inclusion of two parking spaces to the front of the proposed extension is not considered to have any detrimental effect and is considered an adequate parking arrangement for this type of dwelling.

Community Safety Implications: The proposal poses no apparent community safety implications and is considered to accord with Policy D4 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Equality Act 2010, Section 149: In writing this report due regard has been taken of the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance quality of opportunity between different groups and foster good relations between different groups. It is not however considered that any issues with regard thereto are raised in relation to consideration of this application.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The proposed development is considered to relate satisfactorily to the character of the existing dwelling and adjacent properties. The impact of the proposal upon the occupants of

- 21 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

neighbouring properties has been assessed and it is considered that it will not have a significant adverse effect upon their residential amenity. As such this proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies UR3 (The Local Impact of Development) and D1 (General Design Considerations) of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan 2005 and the Householder SPD.

Conditions of Approval: 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.

Reason: To accord with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed of facing and roofing materials to match the existing building as specified on the submitted application.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

3. The two side WC windows in the south elevation of the extension hereby permitted shall be glazed in obscure glass prior to the first occupation of the building/extension and thereafter retained.

Reason: To prevent overlooking or loss of privacy to adjacent occupiers and to accord with Policy UR3 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Footnotes: Standard Rights of Way advisory footnote.

- 22 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley) 14/00967/FUL 2 July 2014

LOCATION:

ITEM NO. : 4 8-10 Richmond Street Keighley

- 23 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

2 July 2014

Item Number: 4 Ward: WORTH VALLEY Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION SUBJECT TO A CONDITION

Application Number: 14/00967/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: An application for regularisation of deviations from approved plans for two dwellings referenced 11/02587/FUL comprising rear ground floor windows being changed to clear glass from obscured glass; retention of enlarged single storey rear kitchen projections; retention of amended first floor window proportions; retention of larger dormers than were approved and retention of enlarged footprint of dwellings leading to the dwellings being attached to a neighbouring garage building. The site is located at Richmond Street, Keighley

Applicant: S Hussain

Agent: S Hussain

Site Description: This site is occupied by two new newly constructed dwellings that form an extension of a terrace of three properties standing between Richmond Street to the south and Don Street to the north. Don Street is a short cul-de-sac that also serves the rear of terraced properties along Belgrave Road further to the north. The site of the new dwellings was originally occupied by an unused workshop building together with its service apron that fronted onto Richmond Street. A stone-built private garage stands to the immediate west of the new development.

Relevant Site History: 06/01678/FUL – 2 dwellings. Planning permission granted. 11/02587/FUL – 2 dwellings (renewal) Planning permission granted

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation The site is unallocated for any specific land-use. Policy UDP3 promotes acceptable forms of development that respect the urban and natural environments. Policy UR3 addresses the local impact of development. Policy D1 requires all development proposals to make a positive contribution to the environment and quality of life through high quality design, layout and landscaping.

- 24 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which can deliver:- i) Planning for prosperity (an economic role) - by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type and in the right places is available to allow growth and innovation; ii) Planning for people (a social role) - by promotion of strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing an increase supply of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations and by creating a good quality built environment with accessible local services; iii) Planning for places (an environmental role) - by protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, adapting to climate change including moving to a low- carbon economy.

As such the Framework suggests local planning authorities should approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was advertised by neighbour letters.

Summary of Representations Received: Two petitions have been received; one seeking a planning panel decision (six signatories) and one in support (17 signatories)

The petition seeking a planning panel decision does not set out any grounds of objection to the retention of the dwellings as constructed, but asks for a referral to panel.

The petition in support sets out the signatories’ views that they have no objections to the extensions, and that they are satisfied by the way the dwellings have been constructed.

Summary of Main Issues: Background Local amenity

Appraisal: Background Planning permission was first granted for the development in 2006 and this consent was renewed in 2011. The proposed dwellings replace a disused building whose apparent last use was as a workshop. It was at that time unclear what types of business ran from that building and there was no recorded planning history that might have applied controls over activities within it. Given its significant size the workshop building would have had the potential for local disturbance and significant traffic generation should its use recommence. A petition received in support of the proposal set out locally held concerns about any resumption of uses in the building that might have been incompatible with the residential nature of its surroundings. The proposed dwellings would resolve these concerns and would continue the alignment of an existing terrace, thus following the established pattern of development along the Richmond Street. Accordingly planning permission was granted.

As the development approached completion a complaint was received by the Council regarding alleged discrepancies between what was approved and the development then

- 25 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

taking shape. Subsequent investigations revealed the following deviations from the approved plans:

1. No obscure glazing had been installed in rear ground floor windows; 2. Front dormer windows were built wider than was approved; 3. Rear kitchens projection had been built larger than approved, resulting in incorrect rear 1st floor window dimensions; 4. The dwellings were built wider than approved so that there is no gap between the end- terrace dwelling and an adjacent stone garage building.

Local Amenity The implications of these deviations for local amenity and the street scene have been assessed.

Dealing with the issues in the order set out above, the obscured glazing that was annotated on the approved drawings was intended to preserve privacy between the new dwellings and the existing properties beyond Don Street to the north. The separation distance between the new development and the properties opposite is now slightly less than would have been the case had the development been carried out in accordance with the approved plans. It is considered therefore that the obscured glazing remains necessary and a condition to that effect is recommended should retrospective planning permission be granted here.

The dormer windows are slightly wider than approved but the difference is not significant and they are considered to be acceptable.

The proportions of rear 1st floor windows are clearly a result of the rear kitchen projection being built higher than was approved. In terms of harm however the visual implications are restricted to a relatively short section of Don Street at its terminus and in the circumstances it is not considered expedient to seek a substantial rebuilding of the rear projection to enable the remodelling of these two windows.

With regard to the footprint of the dwellings, the drawings clearly showed a gap between the dwelling gable and a neighbouring stone garage of approximately 300mm. The omission of this gap is not at all critical in streetscape terms and indeed it is highly likely that the 300mm gap that was to have been left would have resulted in the collection of debris and litter to the detriment of either party and the appearance of the area. This aspect of the development is considered to represent betterment and is therefore acceptable.

Overall, the changes to the development are not considered to be so significant that there is expediency for a refusal here, or for any enforcement action to be pursued as a consequence. However, as noted above it is recommended that obscured glazing be required in the rear kitchen projections on the Don Street elevation particularly having regard to the reduced intervening distance between the development and neighbouring properties beyond Don Street.

Community Safety Implications: There are no apparent community safety implications.

- 26 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Conditions of Approval: That planning permission be granted subject to the following condition:

1. The ground floor kitchen windows facing onto Don Street shall be glazed with a degree of obscuration that preserves privacy within the new properties and privacy for neighbouring occupiers beyond Don Street to the north.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and privacy for occupiers in accordance with Policy UR3 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan

- 27 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley) 14/00591/FUL 2 July 2014

LOCATION:

ITEM NO. : 5 Baildon Golf Club Moorgate Baildon

- 28 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

2 July 2014

Item Number: 5 Ward: BAILDON Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION WITH CONDITIONS

Application Number: 14/00591/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: A full planning application for the demolition of the existing clubhouse and construction of 5 dwellings and redevelopment of the existing waterworks building to form a new two storey clubhouse at Baildon Gold Club, Moorgate, Baildon.

Applicant: Mr John Cooley

Agent: Mr Richard Leach

Site Description: The site is in formed of two parts. Firstly, the existing Baildon golf club house, which is located in a primarily residential area, towards the northern edge of Baildon, with access taken from both Pennithorne Avenue and Brantcliffe Way. The second part of the site comprises an old waterworks building, currently used for the storage of grounds keeping equipment used by the golf club. It is a large single-storey building, which sits just outside the main built-up area of Baildon. Direct access is via Moorgate, although a network of paths connects it to Brantcliffe Way and Pennithorne Avenue. The site slopes gently down from north to south, with the waterworks building sitting in amongst relatively low level moorland. The waterworks building is set into the hill side, so that it is of little visibility when viewed from Moorland to the north. The existing clubhouse site is surrounded by residential properties, where there is no dominant house type or style.

Relevant Site History: 88/03789/FUL - Use of two temporary linked buildings for use as clubhouse - Granted 17.08.1988 88/04780/FUL - Toilet and amenity extensions to club house - Granted 17.08.1988 93/04156/COU - Change of use of old water works filter house to golf course green keepers store – Granted 30.03.1994 95/02974/FUL - Construction of a stone bridge - Granted 22.12.1995 98/00361/FUL - Construction of stewards bungalow - Granted 09.04.1998 98/01290/FUL - Edging and surfacing of car parking area and access roadway to serve golf club – Granted 09.12.1998 11/02757/VOC - Removal of condition 3 of planning approval 98/00361/FUL (Construction of stewards bungalow): to allow non employees to reside in the former golf steward's property - Granted 04.08.2011

- 29 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation The eastern part of the site (accommodating the car park and proposed club house) is designated on the RUDP as Green Belt. It is within the Rombalds Ridge Landscape Character Area and is a Site of Geological Importance.

Proposals and Policies UDP1 Promoting Sustainable Patterns of Development UR2 Promoting Sustainable Development UR3 The Local Impact of Development D1 General Design Considerations D5 Landscaping GB1 Green Belt GB4 Green Belt (changes of use) P7 Noise H7 Housing Density H8 Housing Density NE2 Countryside Recreation NE3 Landscape Character Areas NE3A Landscape Character Areas NE4 Trees and Woodlands NE5 Retention of Trees on Development Sites NE6 Protection of Trees during Development NE9 Sites of Geological Importance TM2 Impact of Traffic and its Mitigation TM11 Parking Standards for Non-Residential Developments TM12 Parking Standards for Residential Developments TM19A Traffic Management and Road Safety

As such the Framework suggests local planning authorities should approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay.

- 30 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Parish Council: Baildon Parish Council – No objections to redevelopment of existing water works building and construction of 5 new dwellings. Notes the concerns of residents regarding access from Brantcliffe Way and hopes these will be taken into consideration.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was advertised by neighbour notification letters, site notices and press adverts. Following the receipt of additional details and amended plans, the application was advertised again by neighbour notification letter and site notices. The publicity period expired on 6 th June 2014.

A total of 26 letters have been received, all objecting to the proposal from 13 separate addresses and one Baildon Ward Councillor has also objected to the proposal.

Summary of Representations Received: - Pedestrian safety on Brantcliffe Way - Traffic and highway safety on Brantcliffe Way, Brantcliffe Drive, Lens Drive and Merville Avenue - Unsuitable vehicular access on Brantcliffe Way - Inadequate parking provision - Pennithorne Avenue should be used for access to new houses - Pennithorne Avenue should not be used for access to new houses. It is already congested and access for new housing would exacerbate this situation and reduce number of parking spaces for golf club - Cumulative effect of residential and commercial developments causing an increase in traffic in Baildon. - Loss of privacy - Overshadowing - Loss of residential amenity - Precedent - Not in accordance with Development Plan - Impact on landscape and special landscape area - Loss of visual amenity - Visual intrusion - Inappropriate design and choice of materials - Design of clubhouse is not in keeping with existing building or local area and will alter the skyline - Telecommunications mast previously refused due to visual impact, this proposal is more obtrusive - No special circumstances in Green Belt - Insufficient notices posted in the area to enable all interested parties to submit their views - Adverse impact on property values - Affects character of conservation area - Noise and disturbance from the club – would they look to extend hours or increase amplified sounds if club is situated further away from properties - What control would they have on patrons using the car park - Family houses not required in Baildon. Should look at what the village needs not what profit it can bring - Houses will restrict views of Baildon Moor

- 31 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

- Waterworks building is on Common Land, therefore is clearly unacceptable. If building is no longer used or required it should be demolished and the land reverted to common land. Bradford Council continues to allow misuse of common land.

Consultations: Countryside & Rights of Way – Two footpaths cross the site. Foresee no issues with use of footpaths between car park and proposed club house, but raise concern that removal of footpaths on Brantcliffe Way could introduce conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.

Highways – Consider the additional submitted highways information is acceptable and will provide suitable access. Suggested condition for submission of construction details.

Drainage – Suggested conditions on approval for submission of drainage details and potential for sustainable drainage techniques prior to commencement of works. Any works affecting the watercourse will require separate consent.

Landscape Architect – Alterations to the Waterworks building would retain and enhance the structure and will help ensure long term viability of the club, which will offer positive landscape benefit for the wider Baildon Moor area. The alternative provision of access to housing via the club car park would be less well integrated into the urban edge. Development could provide opportunity to remove inappropriate species from the site boundary.

Summary of Main Issues: Principle of the development Impact on the local environment Impact on neighbouring occupants Impact on highway safety Outstanding matters raised by representations

Appraisal: Principle of the Development The NPPF sets out that local planning authorities should boost significantly the supply of new housing and goes on to state that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority (LPA) cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Where there has been a persistent under-delivery of housing the LPA should identify an additional 20%. The Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, 2011 (SHLAA) indicates that there is a substantial shortfall in housing land relative to these requirements.

In these circumstances, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 49, ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date.’ Consequently, the provisions of paragraph 14 of the NPPF should be applied, which indicates that where the development plan is out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF.

The site is situated in a sustainable location, close to local shops and services, and can be accessed by public transport in the form of regular bus routes. These factors weigh significantly in favour of the proposed housing and the development is unlikely to cause

- 32 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

demonstrable and significant harm to the aims and objectives of the RUDP or NPPF. Taking into account the above, the principle of the housing development on this site is considered acceptable.

The old waterworks building sits in the Green Belt, and therefore the alterations proposed to facilitate the creation of the new club house must be assessed against relevant local and national Green Belt policies. Therefore, paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF are relevant and form the basis of the assessment of the principle of development.

Developments that need not be considered inappropriate development within the Green Belt are detailed in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF. These include the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, the extension and alteration of a building provided it is not disproportionate to the original building, redevelopment of previously developed sites and the re-use of buildings provided that the building is of permanent and substantial construction.

The proposed development will reuse the existing redundant waterworks building, albeit with a modest extension to one side and a new roof-top structure to create a second floor. The submitted structural survey concludes that the building is of substantial construction and capable of conversion without any major rebuilding or other engineering works.

The building sits on moorland, which extends to the north of the site; elsewhere the site adjoins the built-up form of Baildon such that when viewed from the north, the building sits against a backdrop of this urban area. The position of the building, in such close proximity to the urban area, minimises its intrusion into wider views of the Green Belt and will not disrupt the overall openness of the Green Belt.

Further to the above, paragraph 19 of the NPPF states that: ‘planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.’ Paragraph 28 goes on to state that planning should ‘support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings’ and ‘support sustainable…leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside.’

It seems evident from the proposal and discussions with the agent and applicant that the proposed club house redevelopment will support the continued operation of the golf club with improved facilities for its customers, which will contribute towards its longer term vitality and viability. Not only will the proposed new club house benefit the golf club, it will create much needed housing development following the demolition of the existing club house.

Therefore, taking into account the aims and objectives of the NPPF, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle as it will support sustained economic growth and provide additional housing, whilst having a minimal impact on Green Belt. On this basis, the proposed development is considered acceptable, subject to its local impact, as assessed below.

- 33 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Impact on the Local Environment The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, with nearby properties varying in type, style and external finish. As such, the design and appearance of the proposed new dwellings would not be considered to result in any significant harm to the local character. The proposed dwellings will be two storeys in height and the plans indicate the use of stone and render finishes to the walls, with a slate roof and aluminium fenestration. It is considered that the scale, appearance and form of the dwellings will be well related to neighbouring properties, will maintain the character of the area and will not appear visually intrusive. The dwellings will be well designed and appropriately positioned within the site to ensure a suitable impact on the local environment.

The proposed replacement club house will require various alterations and extensions to the old waterworks building. The main external structure, including walls and windows will remain unchanged, to preserve the design and character of the building. A contemporary roof structure will create first floor space for additional club house facilities. The first floor addition will be mostly glazed, within aluminium frames. Timber boarding and rendered sections of walling will help break up the expanse of glass, without adding too much ‘visual weight’ to the roof structure. The design will maintain a clear distinction between the old and new parts of the building, thereby respecting the previous use and history of the waterworks building.

Although the extension is quite large, it impact on the Green Belt is considered limited. As discussed above, the building sits against the backdrop of the built-up urban area of Baildon. The Council’s Landscape Architect comments that although the proposed club house is within Green Belt and a Landscape Character Area, the existing building has been in situ ‘long enough to be a worthy although rather austere landmark’. The proposed works ‘would retain and enhance the structure and help to ensure long term viability’, therefore offering a positive landscape benefit. Furthermore, the building is set down at a lower level than the moorland directly to the north, which helps reduce its visual prominence.

Comment is also made by the Landscape Architect of an existing leylandii hedge alongside the public footpath. It is noted that the removal of this and replacement with a native species would be advantageous. A condition requiring submission of detailed landscaping works is considered appropriate in this instance.

Once again, the benefits of ensuring the viability of the golf club and the provision of housing are key considerations, but this should not be at the expense of poor design or considerable negative impact on the Landscape Character Area and local environment. The proposed works will present a contemporary addition, which will contrast well with the historic appearance of the waterworks building. The overall visual impact of the proposed housing and replacement clubhouse are acceptable and compliant with relevant planning policies in the RUDP and NPPF.

Impact on Neighbouring Occupants The size and position of the proposed new dwellings will not result in any significant adverse impact on neighbouring occupants. Distances between the proposed dwellings and existing neighbours is such that overshadowing, overbearing and a loss of outlook will not occur. There is existing screening along the north, west and south boundaries, which will help prevent overlooking of private amenity space and habitable room windows. However, the dwelling indicated on the site plan as ‘site 5’ includes two first floor bedroom windows in the rear elevation, which would be within close proximity of a neighbouring property. Views from

- 34 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

these windows would be across the rear-most part of the neighbour’s garden. Nevertheless, it is considered appropriate to attach a condition to an approval requiring the use of obscure glazing on these windows to avoid overlooking. Subject to this condition and the retention of appropriate boundary screening, the proposed dwellings will not adversely affect neighbouring occupants.

The relocation of the clubhouse to the waterworks building will increase the separation distances to residential properties. The distance between the windows and roof terrace of the clubhouse to neighbouring properties is such that no overlooking would occur. Additionally, the alterations to the size of the building will not cause undue overbearing or overshadowing impacts. Although a representation raises objection to additional noise and disturbance, this is considered unlikely, given the fact that the clubhouse will be sited further from neighbouring properties.

The overall impact of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring properties will be minimal and is therefore considered acceptable. The proposal complies with the requirements of policies UR3, D1 and P7 of the RUDP.

Impact on Highway Safety Representations made by local residents seem to object primarily on highway safety grounds. The Council’s Highways Engineer has been consulted and requested the submission of further details. Following receipt of additional details, further comments have been provided. The agent has submitted plans and details to clarify the works to Brantcliffe Way to create a shared surface for both vehicles and pedestrians. The Highways Engineer has confirmed that the proposed works are acceptable, subject to a condition requiring the submission of in-depth construction details.

The concerns of residents centre on the potential for conflict between vehicles using Brantcliffe Way to access the new housing development and pedestrians gaining access to the moor via the adjacent public footpath. At present there are two narrow footpaths running either side of a narrow road. Brantcliffe Way is a short cul-de-sac, currently serving six dwellings, with an additional five dwellings proposed. It is proposed to resurface Brantcliffe Way to form a single shared surface, which will provide a wider running surface. The surfacing is designed to slow vehicles and will afford sufficient width for vehicles and pedestrians to pass freely.

Turning facilities will be provided within the new development to allow service vehicles and residents sufficient turning space. Each new house will benefit from two parking spaces, which is in excess of the development-wide 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling required by the RUDP.

The clubhouse will no longer take any access via Brantcliffe Way, and the existing customer parking facilities will be retained, with access from Pennithorne Avenue. The existing car park provides ample parking for the golf club and has an informal overflow parking area for use during larger events.

The overall impact of the proposed housing and replacement clubhouse on highway and pedestrian safety is minimal. As such, the proposal is compliant with the requirements of policies TM2, TM12 and TM19A of the RUDP.

- 35 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Outstanding Matters Raised by Representations Insufficient notices posted in the area to enable all interested parties to submit their views The application was publicised in accordance with government regulations and the Council’s own Publicity Code of Conduct, with site notices, neighbour notification letters and press advertisement.

Adverse impact on property values Houses will restrict views of Baildon Moor These are not material planning considerations and cannot be taken into account in the assessment.

Affects character of conservation area The site is not within a conservation area.

Noise and disturbance from the club – would they look to extend hours or increase amplified sounds if club is situated further away from properties What control would they have on patrons using the car park Noise and disturbance has been discussed above, however, separate Environmental Health legislation can deal with additional or excess noise pollution. The car park is an existing facility, where no changes are proposed. Highways concerns are addressed above.

Family houses not required in Baildon. Should look at what the village needs not what profit it can bring The profitability of a particular development is not a planning consideration. However, the NPPF sets out that planning should provide a wide mix of housing, as discussed above

Waterworks building is on Common Land, therefore is clearly unacceptable. If building is no longer used or required it should be demolished and the land reverted to common land. Bradford Council continues to allow misuse of common land The site’s description as Common Land is not a material planning consideration and is subject to separate legislation, for which separate consent may be required

Community Safety Implications: There are no apparent community safety implications.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The proposed development is considered to relate satisfactorily with the existing local environment and is not considered to result in any significant loss of residential amenity or significant harm to highway safety. The impact on Green Belt is not inappropriate and the housing and economic gain is appropriate. Subject to relevant conditions, the proposal is considered to comply with Policies UDP1, UR3, D1, D5, GB1, GB4, P7, H7, H8, NE2, NE3, NE3A, NE4, NE5, NE6, NE9, TM2, TM11, TM12 and TM19A of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

- 36 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Conditions of Approval: 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.

Reason: To accord with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended).

2. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be carried out until arrangements have been made with the Local Planning Authority for the inspection of all facing and roofing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted. The samples shall then be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

3. The first floor windows serving bedrooms 3 and 4 in the rear elevation of the dwelling identified as ‘Site 5’ hereby permitted shall be glazed in obscure glass and be top opening only prior to the first occupation of the dwelling and thereafter retained.

Reason: To prevent overlooking or loss of privacy to adjacent occupiers and to accord with UR3 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) no further windows, including dormer windows, or other openings shall be formed in the hereby approved dwellings without prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties and to accord with Policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

5. Before any part of the development is brought into use, the proposed means of vehicular and pedestrian access, vehicular turning facilities and parking areas hereby approved shall be laid out, hard surfaced, sealed and drained within the site in accordance with the approved plans numbered LDT2081/300 Revision P1 and LDT2081/301 Revision P1 and completed to a constructional specification to be 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.

6. The access, parking and other surfaced areas within the site shall have permeable surfaces or alternatively to be drained via gullies to soakaways. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be carried out until details of the porous surfaces, drainage gullies and soakaways have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The access, parking and other surfaced areas shall be surfaced or drained in accordance with the approved details and these porous surfaces and/or drainage shall be retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

- 37 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Reason: To reduce the rate of surface water run-off from the development and to protect adjoining properties from flooding and to accord with Policies NR16 and UR3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

7. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be carried out 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 use being established on site.

Reason: To ensure proper drainage of the site and to accord with Policies UR3 and NR16 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

8. The development shall be drained using separate foul sewer and surface drainage systems.

Reason: In the interests of pollution prevention and to ensure a satisfactory drainage system is provided and to accord with Policies UR3 and NR16 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

9. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be carried out until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall show the following details: i) Position of trees to be felled, trees to be retained, proposed trees and defined limits of shrubs and grass areas. ii) Numbers of trees and shrubs in each position with size of stock, species and variety. iii) roposed topsoil depths for grass and shrub areas. iv) Types of enclosure (fences, railings, walls). v) Types of hard surfacing (pavings, tarmac, etc). vi) Regraded contours and details of changes in level

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Policies D1 and D5 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Footnote:

Records indicate a watercourse exists at the site boundary. Any works affecting the watercourse will require the consent of Bradford Land Drainage Section, contact Edward Norfolk on 01274 433905 or via email on [email protected]

Footnote:

- The affected public footpath must not be obstructed by any plant, materials or equipment. Any obstruction of the route constitutes an offence under the Highways Act 1980 and will be pursued accordingly.

- If essential works mean that the public right of way cannot be kept open because of safety hazards, a temporary diversion or closure order must be obtained. Please contact Mr David Greenwood on (01274) 432046 for details.

- 38 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

- Even if planning permission is granted, no new stiles, gates, barriers or other structures can be erected on or across a public right of way without prior approval from the Council's Rights of Way Section. The requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act must also be considered.

- If work alongside the public footpath presents a danger to path users the affected section should be fenced off with safety netting

- The surface of the footpath should not be disturbed, however, if damage to the public footpath is caused by development works it must be promptly repaired by the applicant at their expense. If any changes are proposed that would affect the surface in any way these must be approved, in advance, by the Rights of Way Section.

- Throughout the period of development, the line of the footpaths must be indicated on site. If building works remove features that would enable users to find the footpath the line of the footpath must be clearly indicated by some other means, as this will help to minimise conflict and difficulties on site.

- 39 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley) 13/01663/FUL 2 July 2014

LOCATION:

ITEM NO. : 6 Long Meadows Fyfe Lane Baildon

- 40 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

2 July 2014

Item Number: 6 Ward: BAILDON Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION WITH CONDITIONS

Application Number: 13/01663/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Construction of detached dwelling and car port in grounds of existing residence at Long Meadows, Fyfe Lane, Baildon, BD17 6DP.

Applicant: Mr Dean Wood

Agent: Mr David Williams

Site Description: The site comprises garden land associated with a detached property known as Long Meadows. This is a modern, rendered property with slate pitched roof. It is situated in a large plot set well back from Fyfe Lane and served by a level private drive that runs at a reasonably level gradient off Fyfe Lane. Levels slope from North West to South West.

The site of the application is the strip of garden to the north side of Long Meadows qnd is presently a lawned area. A row of mature, protected trees and high beech Hedge are located along the northern site boundary, beyond which lie the back elevation of residential properties on Park Mount Avenue. School playing fields are located beyond the eastern boundary and a detached property, Ivy Lea is away to the west.

Relevant Site History: 98/01281/OUT : Construction of detached dwelling. Granted. 01/00971/OUT - Renewal of permission for the construction of a detached dwelling – GRANT - 15.05.2001 02/02403/FUL - Single storey extension to rear of property and extension over garage – GRANT - 23.08.2002 05/00469/OUT - Construction of a detached dwelling – GRANT - 22.03.2005 08/01999/FUL - Construction of detached dwelling and garage on land to rear – REFUSE - 15.05.2008 08/07114/FUL - Construction of detached dwelling and garage – REFUSED - 22.01.2009 12/04208/FUL - Construction of detached dwelling and car port in grounds of existing residence – WITHDRAWN - 11.12.2012

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation Unallocated

- 41 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Proposals and Policies UR3 The Local Impact of Development D1 General Design Considerations NE4 Trees and Woodlands NE5 Retention of Trees on Development Sites NE6 Protection of Trees During Development TM2 Impact of Traffic and its Mitigation TM19A Traffic Management and Road Safety

As such the Framework suggests local planning authorities should approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay.

Parish Council: Baildon Parish Council objects to the application on the grounds that the new building would not be in keeping with the surrounding area as it would appear to be to large for its plot. A previous planning application was rejected on these grounds and the Council does not believe these plans substantially change.

Publicity and Number of Representations: Application publicised by neighbour notification letters and site notice. Letters of representation have been received from 13 separate addresses.

A local Councillor also requests referral to panel should the application be supported by officers.

A petition has also been received objecting to the application with 33 signatures.

The petition states that the proposal is a significant overdevelopment of the plot and the proposed property is out of keeping with surrounding property. That the proposed development is too close to the row of protected and mature sycamore trees and wildlife they might support. The proposed development if permitted could set a precedent.

Summary of Representations Received: The proposal does not overcome previous reasons for refusal

- 42 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

It is overdevelopment of the site Out of character Harmful to residential amenity of neighbouring properties, overlooking, noise and disturbance. There is insufficient parking provision Highway and traffic safety concerns relating to the site access Impact on protected trees Disturbance of wildlife – Impact on Bats Drainage concerns

Consultations: Drainage Section - No objections raised. Suggested that drainage design details to be reserved by planning condition.

Council’s Tree Officer – Initially unable to support this application because development was unacceptably close to protected trees and if approved would increase pressure to prune/remove trees due to lack of light, nuisance and perceived threat. Development was also within the Root Protection Area (R.P.A’s) of trees and tight to crown spread.

The scheme has been amended and a site meeting has established the position of the proposed excavations in relation to trees. The Tree officer now accepts that the development would be placed outside of root protection areas and construction methods would avoid any necessity for the excavations and storage of materials to affect the RPA’s and the scheme would allow suitable relationship with the protected trees.

Council Highway Officer - One more dwelling would not have any significant or serious highway implications and therefore no objections to the proposals from a highways point of view.

Summary of Main Issues: Principle of Development Impact on character and neighbouring residential amenity Highways and Parking issues Impact on Trees

Appraisal: The application seeks full planning permission for the construction of a single detached dwelling within a garden area at, Long Meadows, Baildon, BD17 6DP.

The site history records that this part of the garden has had previous outline permissions for development of a dwelling on the land. This was for the previous owner(s) and no details were shown. A more recent, detailed application was refused on the ground that the detailed proposals presented under those applications were poorly related in terms of height to surrounding properties, particularly the parent dwelling 'Long Meadows' which is set at a lower level, and because the proposed development would press close to protected trees along the boundary with the rear of properties on Park Mount Avenue. These trees were not accurately portrayed on the submitted drawings and there was a lack of information regarding their protection and retention as part of the proposed development.

- 43 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The application has been submitted following a withdrawn application with amendments having been made to the siting of the proposal in relation to trees.

Principle of development The site is unallocated on the Replacement Unitary Development Plan. It is currently used as garden. In the NPPF the government has not included gardens in the definition of "previously developed land". The effect of this is that, while there is no outright "ban" on building on gardens, there is no longer an automatic presumption in favour of doing so. The government's objectives are to maintain the quality of existing residential neighbourhoods whilst at the same time making more effective use of land for housing.

However, the site is hidden from public view so makes only a limited contribution to local character. An additional dwelling within this established residential area would conform to surrounding uses.

Outline planning permissions have existed on the site since 1986, having been renewed by the previous owners of the property from then up until 2005.

More recent refusals of detailed applications for a dwelling on the garden in 2008 have been refused on grounds of lack of information and the scale of the proposed dwelling in relation to the existing house rather than because an additional dwelling is unacceptable in principle.

The development would be in a reasonably sustainable location being within an established residential area and with access to existing facilities in Baildon and Shipley. As such, the principle of development is considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to the satisfaction of other RUDP Policies.

Impact on local character The key considerations in assessing a proposal for a house on this land are firstly, whether the garden a makes an appreciable contribution to the character of the surrounding residential neighbourhood. Secondly, if development for a house on the plot is acceptable, any new house must respect its surroundings, the scale and amenity of neighbouring properties and thirdly any existing features of merit such as trees and boundary hedges must be safeguarded.

The site is an unobtrusive plot accessed via a private drive, enclosed and sat below neighbouring residential properties and cannot be easily seen from outside the site. As the site slopes gently downwards, a two storey detached house could be accommodated on the land without appearing unduly intrusive and without any significant impact on the character of the area. The sections also show that adequate space is retained to boundaries.

It is proposed that materials would be a mix of natural stone and render for walls and dark blue tiles. The applicant intends that these would match the existing house but a condition can be imposed requiring agreement of roofing and walling materials.

Impact on neighbouring residential amenity The proposed siting meets the normally required distances from any adjoining properties. The house is designed with principal windows facing north west and south east and only secondary windows such as those to bathrooms are shown at 1 st floor level in the wall facing towards Park Mount Avenue.

- 44 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Adequate separation is maintained between the windows in the front and rear walls so as not to affect occupiers of any other neighbouring properties by virtue of loss of privacy, overlooking or overshadowing. There is screening to the plot boundaries which further safeguards the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Section detail drawings have been submitted which also demonstrate that the proposed dwelling would be set down within the site and below the level of the properties to the north. Whilst closely sited to the existing dwelling Long Meadows (2.5 metres), the corresponding gable of Long Meadows is blank with the exception of a solid door. The sections show that the new house would not be higher than the existing house. In this respect the revised proposal overcomes the first of the reasons for refusal of the 2008 application that it would have been poorly related in terms of height to surrounding properties, particularly the parent dwelling 'Long Meadows' which is set at a lower level.

It is proposed that a condition be imposed to ensure that no further windows can be inserted into the north west wall of the house facing properties on Park Mount Avenue, and to ensure that all first floor windows be installed and retained with obscure glass.

For the reasons noted above the proposed dwelling would not be considered to result in any significant harm with respect to local character or the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers and in this respect meets with the requirements of Policies UR3 and D1 of the RUDP.

Highways and Parking The Council’s Highways Officer has no objections to the proposed development. The new property would be served from the existing private drive off Fyfe Lane which currently serves 3 dwellings including the parent dwelling, Long Meadows. The Highway Officer advises that whilst the existing private drive is quite narrow, the provision of 1 additional dwelling would not have any serious highway implications.

The proposal includes the provision of a car port and so would provide at least two off street spaces. An existing tarmac turning area would be retained and shared with Long Meadows. This would meet the normal requirement and it is not anticipated that the proposal would lead to significant additional parking in Fyfe Lane.

Impact on Trees The site has a number of protected trees situated to the northern site boundary with the properties on Park Mount Avenue.

Outline permission has previously been granted on the site for residential development, but included no details of the siting of a dwelling. The more recent applications dating from 2008 were withdrawn or refused for reasons which including potential impact on protected trees. Discussions with Officers have taken place regarding impact on trees and the current application includes detailed arboricultural information required in order to make a proper assessment of the impact of the proposed dwelling on tree cover. The current application has been submitted with an Aboricultural Impact Assessment and a Development Report. In addition a number of foundation drawings have been submitted in attempt to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling can be constructed without significant impact on adjacent protected trees.

- 45 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

A further site meeting with the Councils Tree Officer has allowed a full assessment of the likely impact of the development on the protected trees to the northern site boundary. The Councils Tree Officer is satisfied that the position of development has now been located outside of the tree root protection areas (RPA’s). The construction of the new dwelling and the associated excavations would all take place from the south and so development would not need to encroach into the RPAs. With suitable protective fencing being installed, the development would not have a harmful impact upon the protected trees and meets with the requirements of Policies NE5 and NE6 of the RUDP.

Other issues Though objections have been lodged on grounds of drainage, the Council's Drainage Officer has no objections. It is recommended that as a standard condition, the drainage details for the site should be submitted to be agreed prior to commencement of development. Areas of hardstanding and driveway should be constructed using a permeable hard surface rather than tarmac given the large section of hard surfacing required and the development will also need to be constructed in a way to avoid changing the surface water run-off pattern in the area.

Reference to the presence of bats has been made within representation received. There are no records of bat roosts on the site and the proposal does not involve the demolition of any buildings. Whilst there is no evidence to suggest that the proposal would affect bats or other protected species at the site, the developer’s attention could be brought to their responsibilities under the Wildlife Act in any decision.

Community Safety Implications: None raised.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The development would provide new housing within this established residential area. Suitable layout and design is accommodated to reflect the prevailing character of housing in the surrounding area and the proposed residential use will have no significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and would not adversely impact upon mature protected trees to the site boundary. Appropriate and acceptable arrangements are made for parking, turning and servicing of the development and there will be no adverse impact on highway safety. The development would accord with Policies UR3, D1, NE5, NE6, TM12, TM19A and TM2 of the Bradford Replacement Unitary Development Plan and guidance in the NPPF.

Conditions of Approval: 1. Before development commences on site, arrangements shall be made with the Local Planning Authority for the inspection of all facing and roofing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted. The samples shall then be approved in writing by the Local

- 46 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Planning Authority and the development constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to safeguard the appearance of the area in which it is located and to accord with Policies UR3, D1 and BH7 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

2. No works of demolition, site preparation, groundworks, or development shall be begun on the site until temporary Tree Protective Fencing has been erected in accordance with the approved layout drawing. The temporary Tree Protective Fencing shall be to a minimum standard as indicated in BS 5837 (2005) "Trees In Relation To Construction", being at least 2.3m in height of scaffold type construction and secured by chipboard panels or similar and driven at least 0.6m into the ground. The position of the temporary Tree Protective Fencing will be outside Root Protection Areas or as shown on the approved layout plan. It shall remain in the location as shown on the approved plan and shall not move or be moved for the duration of the development. Before the development or any demolition commences on site, the Local Planning Authority must be notified in writing of the completion of erection of the temporary Tree Protective Fencing and have confirmed in writing that it is erected in accordance with the approved plan.

The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the submitted methodology. No development, excavations, engineering works and storage of materials or equipment shall take place within the protected areas for the duration of the development without written consent by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure trees are protected during the construction period and in the interests of visual amenity. To safeguard the visual amenity provided by the trees on the site and to accord with Policies NE5 and NE6 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

4. Before the dwelling 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 specifications shown on the approved plan.

5. Before the dwelling is brought into use, the off street car parking facilities for the existing and proposed dwellings 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.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy TM12 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

6. 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.

- 47 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The scheme so approved shall thereafter be implemented prior to the commencement of the development.

Reason: To ensure proper drainage of the site and to accord with Policies UR3 and NR16 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) no further windows, including dormer windows, or other openings shall be formed in the 1st floor of the property without prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties and to accord with Policy UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

8. The windows in the north west elevation of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be glazed in obscure glass prior to the first occupation of the building and thereafter retained in this obscure glazing.

Reason: To prevent overlooking or loss of privacy to adjacent occupiers and to accord with Policy UR3 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

- 48 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley) 13/03716/FUL 2 July 2014

LOCATION:

ITEM NO. : 7 Street House Farm The Street Addingham

- 49 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

2 July 2014

Item Number: 7 Ward: CRAVEN Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION WITH CONDITIONS

Application Number: 13/03716/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Full application for residential development of three dwellings (Plots 1, 2 and 3) (as amended). Land at Street House Farm, The Street, Addingham, Ilkley

Applicant: Mr and Mrs S. K. Hall

Agent: Allison and Macrae Architects

Site Description: The application is for development of an area of open, unallocated land between the existing built up area of Addingham and the Addingham By Pass. The embankment that retains the by-pass road is to the south of the site and is densely planted. In the south east corner, a new detached house granted under a 2007 planning permission is nearing completion. Away to the east is a pair of older houses (Dark Wood House and Dark Wood Cottage) standing in extensive grounds. To the west is a traditional group of converted farm buildings comprising two Grade II listed buildings known as Street House Farm and Street House Cottage. To the north, beyond the unmade access track and garden fences are the back gardens and rear elevations of bungalows on Stamp Hill Close. These are modern properties developed in the 1990's under permissions originally granted in the 1970's. Access to the land is via a narrow, unmade track known as The Street that passes between two of the modern dwellings on Stamp Hill Close.

Relevant Site History: 12/03681/FUL : Residential development of 7 dwellings. Withdrawn. 10/03245/FUL : Detached dwelling and garage. Granted 2010.

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation Unallocated

Proposals and Policies UR3 – Local Planning Considerations D1 – Design considerations TM2 – Transport mitigation TM19A – Traffic management and road safety TM12 – Car parking standards for residential developments BH4A - Setting of listed buildings

- 50 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

As such the Framework suggests local planning authorities should approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay.

Parish Council: Addingham Parish Council OBJECTS to this amended application. • Increase in traffic will lead to a potential safety issue • The access road has a natural bottleneck which does not allow two cars to pass each other. The increase in the number of cars entering and exiting the proposed development will lead to more incidences of vehicles having to reverse to allow other cars to pass. • The road will never be widened as the applicant does not own land and it is in the ownership of an objecting neighbour. There is no likelihood that this highway approach will ever meet the requirements for a safe access road. • There is insufficient width to allow a footpath to be formed next to the access road, with the above problems this will lead to real safety implications for pedestrians. • The development sits in an open area and is in very close proximity to grade II listed housing. • Houses are not in keeping with the surrounding properties, in particular the Grade II listed properties. • It will increase the density of housing in proximity to Grade II listed properties and as such will have a detrimental effect on the setting. • The Design & Access Statement also considers changes to the road junctions and road markings on Stamp Hill Close/ Broadfield Way which perceives that there is no problem due to the layout of the roads. However the Parish Council considers that local knowledge of the many residents regarding sightlines and traffic speed and flow would be more accurate than the perceptions of the agent. • The Parish Council has argued strongly against estimates of housing need in Addingham. The proposals are premature in advance of adoption of a Local Plan which considers land release in a more comprehensive way. • Impact on the South Pennine Moors habitat.

Publicity and Number of Representations:

- 51 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Objections have been received from occupiers of 16 addresses including from residents on Stamp Hill Close and Broadfield Way. Also from Addingham Civic Society.

1 representation is in support.

Summary of Representations Received: 1. The change from 6 dwellings to 3 has not resolved the original objections. This will only delay the inevitable - a further application will propose further houses being built at a later date.

2. The proposal will be detrimental to the setting of the Listed Buildings formerly comprising Street House Farm, because of the massing of the proposed dwellings and the related site works. The suburban character of the estate road, turning area and margins destroy the “green” open setting to the Listed Buildings. The five dwellings at Street House Farm within the original grade II listed farmhouse and associated traditional barns have stood harmoniously and balanced. The new proposal for three family houses would increase house density and congestion to an unacceptable level.

3. Loss of green space in the village will be detrimental to the environment and degrades the attractiveness of Addingham. Policy 0S8 of the Bradford RUDP states that 'proposals for the development on small areas of open land in Addingham (amongst other villages) will not be permitted where it would result in the loss of open space which is important to the character, visual amenity and local identity of the settlement. The proposed development would be on such a site.

4. The proposed 'Village Green' will do little to prevent the adverse affect on flora and fauna as well as disrupting the appearance and ambience of this area. A number of trees have been removed recently from the proposed site. It is important that the setting and surroundings of the Listed Buildings are maintained.

5. Impact on existing dwellings. Windows in the end elevation would overlook no's 23 and 25 Stamp Hill Close (which are bungalows) and the private amenity areas causing problems for privacy. The extra traffic will also impact on adjoining properties which the elderly residents adjoining can well do without.

6. Inadequate standard of access : The Street is a very narrow private access track with no passing places and the exit from The Street is already a potential hazard due to being so near to the junction with Broadfield Way. The new dwellings will increase the number of vehicles accessing the junction therefore adding to the hazard. The issue of the substandard access has not been addressed to a safe and satisfactory conclusion.

7. The junction of the proposed access from Stamp Hill Close is substandard and is too close to the junction with Broadfield Way. Such a narrow access is not adequate to cater for this traffic, parking, service and emergency vehicles.

8. The proposed amendments to road markings do not overcome the problems of traffic and will produce a serious danger to road users and pedestrians. The bend in Stamp Hill Close at is it approaches the junction with Broadfield Way is blind and cars turning into Broadfield Way from Stamp Hill Close often swing wide and have to avoid parked cars. The

- 52 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

proposal to give Broadfield Way priority over Stamp Hill Close defies all logic. Existing “Give Way” markings at the end of Broadfield Way act to reduce speed at the junction. Making the right of way the one that sweeps from Stamp Hill Close into Broadfield Way would encourage higher speeds and increase the chances of collisions.

9. Visibility along The Street : Dense screening along the inner side of the track means that visibility at the bend is restricted. Vehicles cannot pass each other and have to reverse. As there is no footpath, pedestrians including children will be at risk.

10. Intensification of traffic : A total of 11 properties would have vehicular access from The Street. The proposed road /access way is not adequate to cater for this traffic, parking, service and emergency vehicles. Refuse collection and delivery traffic already find using the access a problem and have to park on Stamp Hill Close.

11. Whilst the widening of The Street along the length of 15 Stamp Hill Close will give better access to vehicles, it will also encourage higher speeds around the curve of The Street along a section which is of reduced forward visibility. This can only increase the possibility of accidents.

12. The parking spaces proposed to replace the garage of 15 Stamp Hill Close would involve unsafe reversing movements into The Street very close to the exit from Darkwood Cottage and where forward visibility is poor. Darkwood Cottage is run as a holiday let for up to five adults, and served by a separate driveway not shown on the application plans.

13. There will be major disruption because of vehicles accessing the site during construction. The applicants have spent at least 2 years constructing the single detached house on the plot and residents dread to think how long it will take to put up 6 dwellings as proposed. The disruption that the building work will cause is unacceptable.

14. Need: As there are similar houses on the estate that are not selling readily, objectors question the necessity for further housing of this kind. Whilst there is undoubtedly a need for affordable housing in the village this proposed development is clearly for expensive, luxury, houses out of reach of local inhabitants wanting to get "on the housing ladder".

Consultations: Highways DC : The Council’s Highway Officer was unable to support the original application for 6 dwellings due to the amount of development served by the access and its narrow width.

However, the revised proposal for 3 new dwellings instead of six is now supported.

It is noted that the existing dwellings served off The Street, and the 3 proposed dwellings all have adequate curtilages to facilitate parking and turning of cars and small service vehicles. The applicant also proposes a new communal service vehicle turning provision.

The other proposed highway improvements comprise widening The Street to provide a 4.5m carriageway for the first 10m from Stamp Hill Close and provision of a 1.8m wide footway to the south side with a service margin of 600m on the north side. The carriageway narrows to 2.75m near the bend around 35m into the site, with narrow service margins on both sides; the access then becomes a 4.5m wide shared drive for the remainder of its length.

- 53 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Although the narrowing of the access road near the bend is below standard width as intimated in my previous response, forward visibility for both vehicles and pedestrians would be much improved with the proposed widening and provision of a footway. The pinch point should assist in reducing traffic speeds and people living in this locality would also be expected to take extra care in traversing this section of the access road.

Previously the applicant was advised to consider changing traffic priority at the Stamp Hill Close / Broadfield Way junction and this was shown on the plans. However, following further internal discussions with the local traffic unit, it is considered that changing traffic priorities at this junction could confuse drivers and lead to highway safety problems. Waiting restrictions on The Street and around its junction with Stamp Hill Close would be more appropriate. A S106 agreement may be required for a TRO.

Whilst the access road is substandard in places, particularly at the pinch point, the access already serves around 5/6 dwellings without any highway safety problems. The traffic generated by an additional three dwellings is unlikely to cause any significant highway safety problems. Moreover, the widening of the access road into the site and provision of footway in conjunction with a TRO would be a substantial improvement and bring wider community benefits to other residents with access off The Street.

Drainage Officer : No development shall take place until full details and calculations of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Surface water drainage - Initially the site must be investigated for its potential for the use of sustainable drainage techniques in disposing of surface water from the development. Consideration should be given to the discharge of surface water to a soakway, infiltration system and watercourse in that priority order.

The development must be undertaken in such a manner so as not to change the overland surface water flow patterns to the detriment of adjacent landowners. Particular attention should be paid to ensuring ground levels are not changed at the site boundary. To this end a drawing indicating a plan of proposed and existing levels is to be submitted to this council for comment.

Council Rights of Way Officer Public footpath No. 9 (Addingham) abuts the site. Any fencing adjacent to the public footpath should not be high close boarded fencing and should allow active observation over the path. Changes to the surface drainage must not exacerbate this drainage of the footpath. Standard footnotes to alert the developer to the need to prevent obstruction of the right of way during construction work are recommended.

Design and Conservation Officer The principle of development of the whole of the remaining open setting is unacceptable and in my opinion cannot be mitigated. It fails to accord with policies BH4A, UDP3, UR2 and D1. A compromise position in relation to plots 1-3 with more discrete access might have a less harmful impact.

- 54 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

West Yorkshire Archaeological Advisory Service The proposed development is around the suspected course of a Roman Road (No. 72a) which ran from the Roman Fort at Ilkley to the fort at Skipton. The name of 'Street' House Farm also offers further evidence for the likely nature of the road. The proposals will involve significant ground disturbance (particularly during site preparations and the construction of foundations) and there is potential for the proposals to disturb/destroy archaeological remains. Any ground works undertaken by this development may unearth evidence of the Roman road, and possibly associated remains that may have existed alongside it.

West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service advises that a more detailed evaluation needs to be made of this area. Therefore in accordance with Para 128 of the NPPF, and Policy BH18 of the RUDP, WYAAS recommend that the developer be required to provide the Planning Authority with an evaluation, based on appropriate analytical methods, of the full archaeological implications of the proposed development.

Summary of Main Issues: Principle of development Loss of the land as open space Design/character Impact on the setting of the listed buildings at Street House Farm Impact on the amenity of occupants of adjoining properties Adequacy of the access and highway safety issues. Archaeology South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area

Appraisal: The Proposal Following withdrawal of the 2012 application, the applicant has attempted to resolve problems with the means of access through proposals for the widening of The Street. This will be facilitated by demolition of the garage to the property at 15 Stamp Hill Close which the applicant now owns.

Also the scheme is now reduced to three houses. Originally, the applicant was proposing 6 houses, but as well as objections from the Council’s Highway officer and local residents, the Council's Conservation Officer has been strongly opposed to the applicant's proposal for 3 houses on the open land to the south of the site due to the manner in which these would crowd the listed buildings and diminish their open, rural setting.

After negotiation, the applicant has submitted a reduced scheme for only 3 houses - Plots 1, 2 and 3. Proposals for plots 4, 5 and 6 have been removed from the application and are not to be considered. The objectors and key consultees have been informed of this amendment and asked for further comments.

Principle of development This is open land that has not previously been developed and it is unallocated on the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP). However, the land is not in the Green Belt and is not specifically protected by any Open Space policy designations of the RUDP. As noted below in this report, the proposal requires appropriate assessment under the European Union’s Birds or Habitats Directives regarding its implications for the South Pennine Moors

- 55 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Special Protection Area. Accordingly, para. 119 of the NPPF qualifies its otherwise general presumption in favour of sustainable development. Given the acknowledged shortfalls of land for housing across the Metropolitan District, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF (subject to its para. 119), it would be difficult to resist housing on this unallocated land providing site specific constraints can be overcome and other policies of the RUDP can be satisfied.

Although Addingham Parish Council objects on grounds of prematurity pending adoption of a Local Plan for the area, it is not accepted that this would be a reason for refusal of the application given the general thrust of the NPPF (notwithstanding para. 119) in support of sustainable development and the need for housing. It is not agreed that a scheme for only 3 houses would prejudice long term planning for the village or overburden local infrastructure.

The main issues are the adequacy of the means of access to the land via the unmade access known as The Street and the impact of development on the setting of the group of listed buildings at Street House Farm. In other respects, the land is easy to develop. It is a relatively open, level and unobtrusive site, being concealed in views from the south by the raised Addingham By Pass and the dense planting along the By Pass embankments. A detached house in the south east corner of the land was approved in 2007 and is nearing completion. At the time it was considered that the means of access could only support this one additional house but improvements and highway mitigation are now proposed following the purchase of 15 Stamp hill Close by the applicant.

Loss of land as open space Local objectors have referred to a general policy of the RUDP (OS8) that seeks to protect small areas of open space within settlements like Addingham which are important to the character, amenity and local identity of the settlement. However, this land is a much larger tract of land than is normally protected by Policy OS8 and, whilst it does provide a separation and context to the listed buildings, it is an unobtrusive space at the back of the large modern residential estate to the north. The land has little visual amenity value in itself and is not intrinsically important to the identity or character of the village of Addingham. In any case, the submitted scheme does not propose development on all of the open land. It proposes retention of an area of “village green” which will provide an open break in the built up area and create an improvement to local amenity. It is not accepted that there is any breach of RUDP Policy OS8.

Though residents claim trees have been removed from the land in the past, these were not protected and there are no features of significant ecological value on the land at the moment.

Design The 3 dwellings now proposed are arranged as a row of cottages. A very traditional approach to their design has been adopted to reflect the character of the group of traditional buildings away to the west at Street House Farm. The row of 3 houses would be two storeys high and built using coursed natural stone to all elevations and artificial stone pitched roofs. The traditional elevation treatment of dwellings 1-3 is simple and complementary. The design, form and materials of the dwellings reflect the agricultural character of the Street House Farm group and would be complementary to the semi rural setting of the listed buildings within that group.

- 56 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The Conservation Officer advises on a requirement for full window and door sections, confirmation of set back into reveals and a painted finish, together with confirmation of a traditional eaves detail.

Impact on the setting of the listed buildings The buildings to the west of the site comprising Street House Farm, Street House Cottage and The Arches (barn) are all Grade II listed, being the original farm buildings of Street House Farm, historically situated in open pasture, accessed by The Street, a minor track with historic, possibly Roman origins.

Much of the land to the north of Street House Farm was presumably once in agricultural use but most was developed with a suburban residential development that originally received planning permission in the early 1970s. This estate development has eroded the historic context of the farm. However, land to the south of the listed buildings, previously gardens to the farmhouse, and a paddock to the east have remained open. The Council's Conservation Officer feels that these are important in providing relief from the suburban development on the final approach to the listed buildings, affording a more open setting appropriate to the historic rural functions of the buildings and site.

The Council’s Conservation Officer was especially opposed to the 3 dwellings to the south of Street House Farm which would have intruded into the space historically forming the garden of the farm. This aspect of the scheme has been withdrawn so that the listed buildings will not be surrounded by new development on all sides.

Permission was given in 2007 for the large single dwelling and garage now nearing completion to the south east of the land but this is set away from the listed buildings and so is considered to not so detrimentally compromise the spatial importance of the open setting of the listed buildings.

The revised proposal is solely for a row of 3 dwellings orientated north-east to south-west with an access road which would also serve the newly built detached property. A large proportion of the site nearest the listed buildings will be undeveloped and proposals for landscaping and retention of the open area between the site and Street House Farm as a "Green" will generally enhance the character of the site. The siting of the row of 3 dwellings to the east is agreed to achieve a respectful distance from the listed buildings and the traditional elevation treatment, in this instance, would be complementary to the context.

The Council’s Conservation Officer, whilst accepting the siting, scale and design of the 3 dwellings considers that the relationship of the development to open space is compromised by the circuitous drive and the new turning head intruding into the intervening open space. A service route is provided behind the dwellings to serve their garaging and considered that this could be extended south to serve the detached house, leaving most of the ‘green’ open and uninterrupted.

Alternative means of access to avoid the routing of the drive to the west of the new dwellings have been discussed with the agent. However, there are practical constraints to accommodating the turning head and the applicant is unwilling to propose further amendments.

- 57 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

It is acknowledged that the new built form, access roads, garages and formation of domestic curtilages will have some impact on the setting of the listed farm, but a wide, open break is retained between the new houses and the listed group. Part of this will form the new “green” area and part will be surfaced to provide access and turning. The open break retained between the new and old houses will ensure that Street House Farm is not entirely subsumed in the wider residential suburban sprawl. The siting of the row of 3 dwellings to the east achieves a respectful distance from the listed buildings, and while the estate road and turning head will intrude into the intervening open space, the impact on the character and setting of the listed group would not be unduly pronounced. The benefits of better access and turning are also acknowledged.

The reduction of the scheme to just Units 1-3 means that harm to the setting of the listed buildings is not substantial and this is offset by the need to find land for housing across the District. On balance, the reduced scheme for 3 dwellings provides public benefit that outweighs the harm caused to the designated asset. Subject to careful selection of materials for the surfaces of the access and parking areas, it is considered that a suitably sympathetic mix of green space and hard surface could be secured that would not harm the rural setting of the listed buildings or conflict with Policy BH4A of the RUDP.

Impact on the amenity of occupants of adjoining properties The 3 houses now proposed are in a linear arrangement with no overlooking between the new dwellings. Units 1-3 face east-west with a two storey gable facing the bungalows on Stamp Hill Close to the north. Although neighbouring occupants have referred to impact on amenity, there are generous separation distances to the existing properties around the site so that no issues of loss of privacy or daylight/sunlight in relation to any neighbouring dwellings. The gable is located between 18.5m and 15.8m from these existing bungalows which is a satisfactory separation and will not cause any overshadowing to those properties.

Three 1 st floor windows are shown in the north wall of the end dwelling. However, these windows would serve en suite bathrooms and a dressing room. A planning condition to ensure that they are installed and retained with obscure glass will ensure that privacy of adjoining dwellings is not harmed.

The houses are located 23 metres from the boundary to Darkwood with garaging forming an intervening screen to any overlooking in that direction. In any case the separation to the habitable room windows in the side wall of Darkwood is around 30 metres which is well in excess of normal standards of separation.

Each of the dwellings will have an adequate area of private open space, commensurate with the size of the property. The amenity spaces and the habitable room windows are well away from neighbouring properties and amenity standards will be good.

The proposal maintains the amenity of occupiers of existing dwellings around the site and will provide satisfactory standards of amenity for future occupiers in accordance with policies D1 and UR3 of the RUDP and the core objectives of the NPPF.

Adequacy of the means of access/traffic generation i. The means of access The only means of access to the site is through the adjoining residential estate from Stamp Hill Close and along an unadopted, unmade track known as The Street. The Street is around

- 58 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

3m in width and approximately 115m long with no passing places and can only accommodate one-way vehicle movement.

The Council’s Highway Officer was unable to support the original application for 6 dwellings due to the amount of development served by the access and its narrow width. However, the revised proposal for 3 new dwellings instead of six is now supported.

The existing houses served off The Street, and the 3 proposed dwellings all have adequate curtilages to facilitate parking and turning of cars and small service vehicles. The applicant also proposes a new communal service vehicle turning provision which is an important improvement and mitigation.

No. 15 Stamp Hill Close has been acquired to facilitate the necessary improvements to width. The garage to No.15 is to be demolished to enable localised widening. Two replacement car parking spaces will be constructed to the rear of the curtilage of No. 15 and the land occupied by the garage will be used to widen the access from Stamp Hill Close along the full length of No.15 to provide a 4.5 m wide carriageway with 1.8 m footpath with a service margin of 600m on the north side.

The carriageway narrows to 2.75 m near the bend at around 35 m into the site, with narrow service margins on both sides; the access then becomes a 4.5 m wide shared drive for the remainder of its length with design features such as localised narrowing and reduced forward visibility to encourage low vehicle speeds.

Although the narrowing of the access road near the bend is below standard width, forward visibility for both vehicles and pedestrians would be much improved with the proposed widening and provision of a footway. The pinch point should assist in reducing traffic speeds and people living in this locality would also be expected to take extra care in traversing this section of the access road.

The Council’s Highway Officer advises that, whilst the access road is substandard in places - particularly at the pinch point, and the junction of The Street with Stamp Hill Close is relatively close to the Broadfield Way junction, the access already serves around 5 - 6 dwellings without any significant highway safety problems. The Highway Officer advises that the traffic generated by an additional three dwellings of around 2 vehicles at peak times and 18 daily movements is unlikely to cause any significant highway safety problems at this location.

Account has also been taken of the position of the proposed replacement parking spaces for 15 Stamp Hill Close and the position of the access to the holiday cottage - Darkwood Cottage. Objectors have highlighted that the narrowing of the access road near the bend is below standard width, but the Highway Officer notes that forward visibility for vehicles and pedestrians would be much improved with the proposed widening and provision of a footway. The pinch point should assist in reducing traffic speeds and people living in this locality would also be expected to take extra care in traversing this section of the access road.

Moreover, provision of a turning head for service vehicles also forms an important part of the scheme. This and the widening of the access road into the site and provision of footway on one side as proposed (in conjunction with a TRO as recommended above) would be a substantial improvement and would also bring wider benefits to other residents in this locality,

- 59 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

particularly those with access off The Street. The means of access is considered to be capable of safely accommodating the 3 additional dwellings subject to the developer carrying out the proposed widening and formation of the turning head. This mitigation is in accordance with Policy TM2 of the RUDP and the means of access is satisfactory having regard to Policy TM19A. ii. Modifications to the junction of Broadfield Road/Stamp Hill Close The access to the site is located close to the junction of Broadfield Way with Stamp Hill Close. Previously the Council’s Highway Officer suggested that the applicant needed to change the traffic priority at the Stamp Hill Close / Broadfield Way junction to give priority to Broadfield Way. A plan was submitted showing this.

However, the objectors have generally opposed this change in junction priorities, describing how the proposal to give Broadfield Way priority over Stamp Hill Close “defies all logic” because residents say that making the right of way the one that sweeps from Stamp Hill Close into Broadfield Way would encourage higher speeds and increase the chances of collisions. The existing road markings act as a deterrent to speed. Following further internal discussions with the Council’s local traffic unit, it is considered that changing traffic priorities at this junction could confuse drivers and lead to highway safety problems.

Instead, the Council’s Highway Officer recommends that waiting restrictions around the junction of The Street with Stamp Hill Close would be more appropriate. A S106 agreement would be required for such a TRO. iii. Car parking Car parking will be provided on site at the rate of 2 spaces per dwelling and driveways will be surfaced with permeable block paving. This accords with Policy TM12 of the RUDP.

The Council’s Highway Officer accepts that, whilst the access road is substandard in places, particularly at the pinch point and although the junction of the site access with Stamp Hill Close is relatively close to the Broadfield Way junction, the access already serves around 6 dwellings without any notable highway safety problems. The traffic generated by an additional three dwellings with around 2 vehicles at peak times and 18 daily movements is unlikely to cause any significant highway safety problems at this location. Moreover, the widening of the access road into the site and provision of footway on one side as proposed, in conjunction with a TRO, would be a substantial improvement and would also bring benefits to other residents in this locality, particularly those with access off The Street. In this respect the proposal is considered acceptable having regard to Policies TM2 and TM19A of the RUDP.

Archaeology West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service advises that a more detailed evaluation needs to be made of this area to assess the possible impact of development on a suspected Roman Road. However, the exact route of the Roman Road is not certain so it is not certain that the development will have an impact on below ground remains.

Nevertheless, the archaeologist advises that the possibility of its presence justifies a need for investigation and evaluation which would be at the developer’s expense. The evaluation would involve the excavation of a number of archaeological evaluation trenches. WYAAS recommend that ideally the evaluation should be carried out pre-determination because this

- 60 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

will enable the applicant to take account of the full archaeological implications (in terms of cost and programme) of the project. Alternatively the requirement could be imposed by a planning application requiring evaluation prior to commencement of development.

The requirement is fully understood by the applicant and agent, but the applicant is not willing to commit to the expense of the evaluation without the certainty of a planning permission. In the circumstances, it is considered that the requirement for archaeological evaluation in relation to the route of the Roman Road and any associated remains be subject to a planning condition. The applicant is aware that the results of any post commencement evaluation may trigger further requirements for archaeological evaluation at the developer’s expense.

Implications for the South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC/SSSI Addingham Parish Council has raised the proximity of the site to Ilkley Moor - one of the major moorland tracts comprising the South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) /Special Area of Conservation (SCA) and SSSI. The Special Protection Area is a site of international importance for nature conservation, being classified in accordance with EC Directive. The particular interest of this site is its importance for several upland breeding birds and their supporting habitat. The conservation objectives for this SPA are, amongst other things, to avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, avoid significant disturbance of the qualifying features and ensure that the site is maintained and makes a full contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive.

RUDP Policy NE7 relates to European designated sites such as SPAs or SACs and indicates that proposals which may affect a European designated site will be subject to rigorous examination. Where proposals would be likely to give rise to a significant effect and where it cannot be ascertained that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the site they will not be permitted except in certain circumstances. RUDP Policy NE8 relates to SSSIs. Development within or likely to affect SSSIs will be subject to special scrutiny. Where such development may adversely affect the special interest of the site then it will not be permitted unless the reasons for the development clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site and the national policy of safeguarding such sites. The RUDP policy is reflective of the nature conservation policies and paragraphs 117– 119 of the NPPF.

In addition, a draft policy in the emerging LDF Core Strategy (Policy SC8) has attempted to resolve potential conflicts between future developments close to the SPA/SAC/SSSI and the nature conservation interests of the site. The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Draft Core Strategy identifies the potential for adverse effects with respect to new housing allocations close to the SPA. For sites between 400 metres and 2.5 km from the SPA, under Policy SC8, a precautionary approach will be taken to avoid degradation of areas important to the integrity of the European site and foraging resources that support the SPA bird populations.

This site is just over 2 km from the edge of the SPA/SSSI. Whilst it is important that adverse effects on the SPA site from urban edge effects are addressed by the planning system, this site is relatively remote from its edge and the development of relatively small scale. Addingham By Pass forms a particularly robust barrier between the site and the open countryside between it and the open moor. There are a number of other intervening roads, farms and existing developments between the site and the moor.

- 61 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The proposals will not result in the loss of any supporting moorland SPA habitat and even considering a number of possible “urban edge effects” that might arise from the additional housing - from increased risk of fire to predation by cats to increased pressure for recreational use, it is not considered that a scheme for just 3 houses would have any significant harmful effects on the SPA/SAC designated area or its qualifying interests.

The NPPF says that the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined. However, in this instance, the small scale of the development and degree of separation from the SPA/SAC is such that it will have no significant adverse effect on the nature conservation interest. It is not in conflict with Polices NE7 or NE8, nor would it conflict with the precautionary approach suggested by Policy SC8 of the emerging LDF Core Strategy either individually or in combination with other developments.

Nor is there likely, for the same reasons, to be an adverse effect on the Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments). No conflict with objectives to conserve and enhance biodiversity within the NPPF (para 118) is evident and there is not considered to be any conflict with duties on the Local Planning Authority laid down in the Habitats Directive and Habitats Regulations.

Community Safety Implications: There are no apparent community safety implications.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: This unallocated land does not have any significant value as open space important to the amenity, character or local identity of Addingham. Retention of a significant area of open break and the proposed village green area will achieve adequate separation to the group of listed buildings at Street House Farm. The 3 dwellings are of appropriate design and appearance, respecting the traditional scale and character of the se listed buildings and will have no significant adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining occupants. The means of access is acknowledged to be substandard but the traffic impact of the three dwellings now proposed is considered to be appropriately mitigated by proposed improvements to the width and alignment of the track and provision of a turning facility. Other issues are resolved by planning conditions. The development is considered to accord with Policies UR3, D1, BH4A, BH16, TM2, TM19A, TM12, NE7, NE9 and OS8 of the Replacement Development Plan.

Section 106 Agreement Required to ensure implementation of TRO restrictions around the site entrance.

Conditions of Approval: 1. Before development commences on site, arrangements shall be made with the Local Planning Authority for the inspection of all facing and roofing materials to be used

- 62 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

in the development hereby permitted. The samples shall then be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

2. Before any part of the development is brought into use, the proposed means of vehicular and pedestrian access, including the indicated improvements to the width and design of the existing access known as The Street, shall be laid out, hard surfaced, sealed and drained within the site in accordance with the approved plan numbered A- 076-20 Revision A.

3. Before any part of the development is brought into use, the vehicle turning area shall be laid out, hard surfaced, sealed and drained within the site, in accordance with details shown on the approved plan numbered A-076-20 Revision A and retained whilst ever the development is in use.

Reason: To avoid the need for vehicles to reverse on to or from the highway, in the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy TM19A of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

4. None of the new dwellings shall be brought into use until the off street car parking facility for the existing dwelling at 15 Stamp Hill Close have been shall be laid out, hard surfaced, sealed and drained within the curtilage of the site in accordance with the approved drawing A-076-20A. The gradient of the car parking spaces so created shall be no steeper than 1 in 15.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy TM12 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

5. Before the development is brought into use, the garaging and off street car parking facilities for the new dwellings shall be laid out, hard surfaced, sealed and drained within the curtilage of the site in accordance with the approved drawings. The gradient of any external car parking facilities shall be no steeper than 1 in 15 except where otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy TM12 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

6. All windows in the north east elevation of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be glazed in obscure glass prior to their first occupation and thereafter obscure glass shall be retained to to these window openings.

Reason: To prevent overlooking or loss of privacy to adjacent occupiers and to accord with Policy UR3 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

- 63 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

7. No development shall take place within the site, including works to the means of access, until the applicant or developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological investigation, evaluation and recording. This must be carried out by an appropriately qualified and experienced archaeological consultant or organisation, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation/evaluation which has first been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason : The site has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest. A requirement that the developer submits an appropriate investigation and/or evaluation is commensurate with Policy BH19 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 128.

8. All new windows in the development shall be timber framed with a painted finish and the frames set back within the openings in the manner traditional to the area. New doors shall be timber with a painted finish.

Reason : To ensure that replacement windows are appropriate to the character of the building, in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Policies D1 and BH4A of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

9. Prior to the commencement of development, details of all materials to be used in the surfacing of the new access tracks, turning area and parking spaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences, and the development shall be constructed in the approved materials.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any subsequent equivalent legislation), no development falling within Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the said Order shall be carried out to the dwellings hereby approved without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the character of the development from subsequent incongruous alterations and extensions and to safeguard the amenity of adjoining occupiers. In accordance with Policies D1 and UR3 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

- 64 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley) 14/01182/FUL 2 July 2014

LOCATION:

ITEM NO. : 8 Woodfield House Woodfield Road Cullingworth

- 65 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

2 July 2014

Item Number: 8 Ward: BINGLEY RURAL Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

Application Number: 14/01182/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Full planning application for construction of 4 dwellings with access road and turning head at ‘Woodfield House’, Woodfield Road, Cullingworth.

Applicant: Halton Homes

Agent: J O Steel Consulting

Site Description: This is a site of 0.24 hectares in area and forms part of the curtilage of ‘Woodfield House’; this stone-built Regency manor house on the south-east corner of the site has been excluded from the current planning application. The site is bound by Ellar Carr Beck along its north and west boundaries and is accessed from Woodfield Road which joins to the main Bingley Road to the west. Woodfield Road is hard surfaced up to the existing site access and then becomes a single unmade track. There are residential properties along Woodfield Road including a newly built bungalow immediately to the east of the site. The surrounding area however is mainly rural with limited development. The land rises very steeply away from the site to the north and also to the south. The site itself is relatively flat but falls away alongside the banks of the Beck. There is a line of mature trees of significant quality along the northern boundary of the site. Two of these trees are within the site and a number of trees which are situated on the opposite side of the beck overhang the site significantly. These trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

Relevant Site History: 09/05121/FUL - Construction of eight houses, access road and turning head. Withdrawn 21 December 2009 by the applicant in order to further address concerns about ecology, highway safety, flood risk, drainage and trees.

10/06023/FUL - Construction of four houses, access road, turning head and extension to existing house and new garage. Refused 31 January 2011 on the grounds that (1) the development is unsustainable, (2) the density of development does not make effective or efficient use of the land, (3) the development would adversely affect trees and bats, (4) lacks the land to make the highway improvements required, (5) the development does not satisfy flood risk assessment requirements, (6) there is a lack of information about materials to be imported onto the site to raise ground levels and (7) the proposed site layout and property types fail to reflect the character of this locality and fail to contribute to the promotion or reinforcement of local distinctiveness.

- 66 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

13/00417/FUL - Construction of 5 houses, access road, turning head and extension to existing house and new garage. Refused 26 March 2013 on the grounds of (1) adverse impact on residential amenities, (2) the height and position of proposed dwellings would result in a cramped and over-developed appearance, (3) lack of information on impact on bat roost, (4) a lack of information about materials to be imported onto the site to raise ground levels and (5) lack of information on trees.

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation Unallocated

Proposals and Policies UDP1 Promoting Sustainable Patterns of Development UR2 Promoting Sustainable Development UR3 The Local Impact of Development H7 Housing Density - Expectation H8 Housing Density - Efficient Use of Land TM12 Parking Standards for Residential Developments TM19A Traffic Management and Road Safety D1 General Design Considerations D4 Community Safety D5 Landscaping NE3 Landscape Character Areas NE3A Landscape Character Areas NE4 Trees and Woodlands NE5 Retention of Trees on Development Sites NE6 Protection of Trees During Development NE10 Protection of Natural Features and Species NE11 Ecological Appraisals NE13 Wildlife Corridor Network NR15B Flood Risk NR16 Surface Water Run Off and Sustainable Drainage Systems BH19 Development Affecting Class II or Class III Archaeological Areas

- 67 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

As such the Framework suggests local planning authorities should approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay.

Parish Council: Cullingworth Village Council has visited this site in relation to a previous similar application and has the following observations.

This is the fourth application regarding this site the last being in 2012/13. Previous applications have been refused by Bradford LPA and one application withdrawn by the applicant.

The Village Council acknowledges the applicant's efforts to address the areas of concern expressed by residents and Bradford LPA regarding previous applications. However, those concerns have not in our view been entirely satisfied. The length of this response reflects the complexities associated with this planning proposal. In the absence of a ratified LDF we rely upon the existing RUDP and current Draft Core Strategy for guidance.

DESIGN The design of the proposed houses is an improvement from the last application. However the proposed development is: ● not well related to the existing character of the locality in terms of layout, scale and massing. ● Do not retain or enhance important ecological and landscape features ● Do not relate to existing natural and built features or views that contribute to the area ● Will serve to harm the amenity of existing residents

PIPISTRELLE BATS Ideally two Bat Surveys should be undertaken during the optimum time. Upon this occasion only one bat survey has been completed. The previous time a bat survey was carried out was in 2008 by the West Yorkshire Bat Group (WYBG). The WYBG are very familiar with this area and have the advantage of having a great deal of local knowledge. Bats are a European Protected Species and have the highest level of conservation protection. The inevitable noise and vibration and light pollution during the proposed construction will have a negative impact upon the colony of bats.

Cullingworth Village has a high population of a variety of bat species of which ‘Woodfield House’ roosting numbers is the highest and has been for a number of years.

The Judicial Review in May 2009 clearly served to remind LPA's of their legal obligation under the Habitats Directive Regulations 1994 to rigorously ensure that the three 'Derogation Tests' are all satisfied, namely:

1) The activity to be licensed (i.e. development) must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety; AND 2) There must be no satisfactory alternative; AND 3) Favourable conservation status of the species must be maintained

- 68 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

There is no evidence to suggest that any of the three elements of the 'Derogation Test' has been met. There are numerous Brownfield sites within the District which it seems have not been considered.

The proposed transfer of this bat population into bat boxes is not without the risk of reducing the bat colony or losing it entirely. This would be contrary to the favourable conservation outcome required. A similar experiment at Manchester Airport post project monitoring did not prove successful. Furthermore the bat boxes proposed in this application are considerably smaller than those used at Manchester Airport which catered for 90 bats. Therefore the mitigation proposed is unlikely to have the desired outcome. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 119 states 'The presumption in favour of sustainable development (Para 14) does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined' The ‘Woodfield House’ site falls within this category. This proposal is contrary to the current RUDP Planning Policies NE10, NE11 and NE12

Following the decision to refuse the last application for this site, Bradford Council did confirm that the land level on this site had been raised without the benefit of a Licence.

FLOODING The proposed site is not identified within the RUDP or the Core Strategy as land for development. The water table within the Cullingworth area is rising at the rate of 1 metre each decade. Cullingworth is identified as a category 8 settlement which restricts development specifically to meet local needs and/or support local services. Priority is given to previously developed land. The proposed site does not have the benefit of easy access to essential and leisure facilities. This combined with existing poor transport links to and from Cullingworth will inevitably result in greater us of private motor vehicles, contrary to Planning Policies relating to sustainable development.

The ‘Woodfield House’ site has historically and continues to be a Flood Zone 2&3. Despite the unauthorised dumping of soil in order to raise the land level in excess of a metre.

Following the completion of the Ellar Carr Mill development in 2000-2002 many of the dwellings were seriously damaged by flooding within the site. Eller Carr Beck flows beneath the mill and emerges along Keighley Road flowing towards Cow House Bridge and along the adjacent land in Woodfield Road.

LPA's requirement to apply the Sequential Test to ‘assess-avoid-substitute-mitigate' is as important now as in the past. There are alternative sites within the district which do not pose this level of risk. Sir Michael Pitt's review in 2007 urged LPA's 'To rigorously apply the then PPS25.' The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 100 clearly discourages development within a high risk flood zones particularly if there are alternative sites available.

The applicant's proposed mitigation is unacceptable. Whilst widening Eller Carr Beck may reduce some flooding on the proposed development site it is the Village Councils' view that this would have a significant adverse impact upon the watercourse as it joins the Manywells Beck and flows downstream toward Goit Stock (SEG1) status. The topography of the Cullingworth, Harden and Wilsden Villages tends to exacerbate the sheer force of the watercourses especially during episodes of above average rainfall. Manywells Beck and the numerous underground water tributaries linked with it, continues to create ever increasing

- 69 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

incidents of flooding within the village particularly in and around ‘Woodfield House’. This development would clearly have a negative impact Cullingworth and the SEGI area some 30 metres from the ‘Woodfield House’ site. Placing grills upon culverts does prevent debris but at the same time it increases the risk of flooding upstream. Releasing the volume of the flow of the watercourse is likely to have a negative impact downstream.

There are number trees which have TPOs. The Village Council would oppose any unnecessary felling of those trees. The dwellings which are near to Eller Carr Beck should ideally have a stand off of 8 meters. The pressure to lop or fell trees nearest to the development in the future which would be contrary to Planning Policies aiming to preserve woodland areas. The proposed felling of 17 broadleaf trees would seriously compromise the foraging and nesting areas for bats, birds and other interdependent wildlife.

The converted Woodfield Mill is an excellent example of property conversion which also maintains the important character and history of Cullingworth. There is not a public footpath. The open space between the dwellings and their respective garages is also used by children as a play area. There is not a public footpath. The single access and egress to the Mill complex is not an obvious one from the busy B6429 as it is sandwiched between two dwellings and a sharp angle from right to left.

The proposed improvement along the B6429 is unlikely to have the desired reduction of risk to road users.

This small settlement was not intended to accommodate further development. The single track access from the terraced mill dwellings is owned and maintained by the residents. The individual paved areas in front of each garage are not intended to be used by vehicles other than those owned by the existing residents. This area forms a play space for children of the occupants of Woodfield Mill.

Large vehicles have great difficulty entering the site. Vehicles usually reverse along the single track is usually the means of negotiating access including the refuse collection vehicle.

Woodfield is a popular walking and cycling route which has the benefit of a public footpath route. Additional housing served by a single vehicle track would clearly compromise highway safety for pedestrians, cyclists and existing residents.

The access/egress from ‘Woodfield House’ site clearly has a negative impact upon 2 Woodfield Road which is opposite. In the absence of a pavement and accessing the garage to this property would be unacceptable

The proposed additional housing will serve to exacerbate existing highway safety issues regarding the Woodfield Road settlement. Clearly this application does not accord with Planning Policy TM2 and TM19A of the RUDP.

‘Woodfield House’ site is a nocturnal area and the light pollution would clearly have a negative affect upon the existing wildlife in addition to the light nuisance for the occupants of No. 2 Woodfield Road.

- 70 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The Village Council oppose this site as inappropriate. If the LPA consider granting this application the Village Council would request that it is considered by the Area Planning Panel - Recommend Refusal

Publicity and Number of Representations: This planning application has been publicised by means of a site notice and individual neighbour notification letters and the overall date for publicity expired on 27 May 2014. 25 representations have been received all objecting to the development.

Summary of Representations Received: The reasons given by the 25 representations of objection are summarised below:

A Ward Councillor has written to say that although the current application is a considerable improvement on previous applications she still feels that the following concerns have not been adequately addressed and if they are not resolved she must object to the application:

1) Despite the applicant stating that flooding is not a problem the site was regarded by the Environment Agency in 2006 as a flood risk area, which she believes has meant existing properties in the area have had difficulty obtaining flood insurance. 2) The single track could result in parking problems arising. 3) The construction will cause disturbance to the colony of bats in this area of high bat population.

A local MP objects to the application, which he considers unsound. Flooding is already an issue for residents who have difficulty obtaining house insurance and this development could see new owners experience similar problems and could exacerbate the problems for existing residents. He believes building on a highlighted area of flood risk is not only unsafe, but irresponsible. He also does not believe the issues raised on previous planning applications relating to traffic, parking and environmental concerns have been adequately addressed.

Summary objection grounds from other representations: 1) To build houses in a known flood risk area and where the houses built would not be able to access house insurance seems incredible. They are concerned at the submission reports the Environment Agency (EA) has no concerns, which does not appear to correlate with their discussions with the EA. The site is unsuitable due to the floodplain. Councils and EA are being taken to court in Wales due to people not being able to get house insurance. The development is contrary to Policies NR15A and NR15B of the RUDP and Planning Statement 25. 2) They do not believe the sequential tests in relation to flooding have properly been applied. 3) They consider the mitigation measures inadequate and consider the development will have a negative impact on Cullingworth and Goitstock SEGI. They are sceptical as to how the beck will be maintained to prevent it flooding. 4) Adverse impact on wildlife – badgers, bats, hedgehogs, foxes, deer, pheasants and owls can all be seen in the local area and the beck provides sustenance for birds including herons. The site is suitable for breeding birds. 5) Have the issues relating to the bat colony at ‘Woodfield House’ been addressed? The area around ‘Woodfield House’ acts as a dark wildlife corridor, which is important to the roosting and foraging bat and they fail to see even with the removal of ‘Woodfield House’ how this development both during construction work and post construction e.g.

- 71 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

lighting of dwellings and car head lights, cannot fail to have negative impact on this protected species. There is nothing in place to ensure their wellbeing or safety. The following legislation makes it an offence to injure or kill a bat and also to deliberately, recklessly or intentionally disturb a bat whilst in its roost or to destroy / obstruct a roost – The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended); Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Contrary to Policies NE10, NE11, NE13 and NE17a of the RUDP. 6) Negative impact on landscape – out of keeping with its surroundings. The development will create an unacceptable hard edge to the village, another development (06/07314/FUL) was refused for this reason and will clutter and alter existing building lines, significantly intrude on the skyline destroying the view from Harden Road through to Cullingworth and by building on private green space take away the feeling of spaciousness and views. 7) The proposed development will not blend with existing natural features, landmarks or views that contribute to the area. 8) Inadequate drainage and will contribute to flooding 9) Loss of trees contrary to Policies NE4, NE5 and NE6 of the RUDP. 10) Poor unsuitable vehicular access – the development would increase the dangers at the exit and entrance point of Woodfield Road with the B6429, which is already noted as being a dangerous junction and where a number of accidents have already occurred. The entrance is very narrow and parked cars inhibit sight lines. 11) The lane is too narrow for large construction or service vehicles to use it easily and safely. 12) Traffic and pedestrian safety from the increase in traffic 13) Inadequate parking provision, which will encourage on street parking to the detriment of highway safety and disruption of existing residents. It will cause neighbour friction. 14) Traffic congestion 15) Turning places are inadequate 16) The proposed developments traffic calming measures would interfere with the proposed pedestrian crossing planned to be installed on the B6429 by the junction with Woodfield Road, which is intended to assist children to walk to school and make the already busy and dangerous stretch of road worse. 17) Not in accordance with the Development Plan or approved policy. The application should be refused as being contrary to Policy UDP1 (Promoting sustainable patterns of development), UDP7 (Reducing the need to travel), UR2 (Promoting sustainable development), TM2 (Impact of traffic and its mitigation), TM19A (Traffic management and road safety) and TM9 (Protection of routes) of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan. 18) Inappropriate choice of materials 19) Affects the character of Cullingworth Conservation Area, which it abuts 20) Adverse affect on SSSI / SSI 21) Adverse affect on nearby Goitstock Woods, Harden SEGI, which it abuts 22) Abuts green belt 23) Garden grabbing in an area of outstanding natural beauty 24) Loss of privacy for immediate neighbours 25) Will cause overshadowing for some immediate neighbours 26) Loss of residential amenity – nuisance, noise, fumes, dirt, disturbance, highway safety both during and after construction phase 27) Pollution of watercourse – indirectly drainage and car washing water could lead to chemicals polluting the beck that is used for fresh water by horses.

- 72 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

28) Will interfere with people from Woodfield Mill accessing their garages safely, which are separated from their dwellings by an unadopted road. Their children play in this space and their safety and that of pets would also be adversely affected. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (Right to respect for private and family life) should be taken into consideration. This section of Woodfield Road is made up and owned by Cullingworth Management Ltd and whilst access has to be allowed over the land they do not believe it was meant to include access to a development such as this. There has been no consultation with Cullingworth Management Ltd regarding liability for damage to cars, property or persons by future residents. 29) There is no footpath on Woodfield Road for pedestrians, including dog walkers 30) Precedent – a similar, smaller development for 3 dwellings was refused in 2003 and the reasons are even more pertinent for this larger development, which although it preserves ‘Woodfield House’ (English Heritage commented that this contributes very positively to the local scene, as it stands harmoniously among a small group of detached stone houses in a rural setting) still has a disregard for the environment and those who live in it. 31) Not sustainable development as residents have to use their cars to access facilities and services similar to refusal 08/06823/FUL. Contrary to approach in UDP1, UDP7, advice in PPS3 and in conflict with objectives of PPG13. 32) Development is for profit as none of the housing meets any affordable or social requirements. 33) The need for the development is questioned in view of the 260 houses to be built at Manywells. Development contrary to Policies UDP3, UR3, D1 and BH10 of the RUDP and PPS1 and PPS3. 34) Concerns about the surfacing and on going maintenance of Woodfield Road – this has not been adequately addressed by the applicant. 35) May accept a smaller number of dwellings if the issues above are adequately addressed. 36) The site forms part of a wildlife corridor between the open countryside to the west of Cow House Bridge to the woodlands in the east and this will be lost with development.

Consultations: Highways Section: Originally could not provide comments due to a lack of information on access, parking and turning area.

Following the submission of further information they offer the following observations.

The proposal is to construct four new dwellings, access road, turning head and extension to existing house and a new garage. A similar proposal for five new dwellings was refused recently (13/00417/FUL).

The site is accessed from an unadopted public highway which is hard surfaced up to the existing site access and then becomes a single unmade track. It is proposed to serve one dwelling from the existing access and to create a new site entrance further along the track close to the host dwelling to serve the other dwellings. And the existing single track will be widened and hard surfaced leading in to the site.

The applicant has provided additional information showing the internal site layout more clearly and this layout is acceptable. The new site entrance and widened track will be used

- 73 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

as turning head for refuse vehicles. Each dwelling is being provided with two car parking spaces which would be adequate to serve this development.

The main highway concerns that were raised previously related to the operation of the junction of Woodfield Road with the B6429 Bingley Road and the speed of vehicles approaching this junction. Visibility to the left when exiting Woodfield Road is good at around 120m, but the existing pedestrian guard rail blocks part of the road. This can be improved by providing special guard railing (visirail). Visibility to the right is only around 15m and full visibility can only be achieved by looking across third party garden land. This land, however, forms part of the bridge over the beck and any obstruction to visibility can be controlled by enforcement if necessary. The existing garden boundary wall is no more than 1.0m in height and anything higher would require planning permission.

Traffic speed surveys carried out previously confirmed that speeding does take place on Bingley Road on the approach to Woodfield Road. Although this did not result in an accident problem at this location the applicant agreed to provide £5,000 for a vehicle activated sign (VAS) on the approach from Cullingworth and a pedestrian refuge with solar lighting on Bingley Road on the approach from Harden to address speeding problems on this stretch of Bingley Road. The plan included with the current application shows the pedestrian refuge but not the VAS sign that was agreed previously.

They consider that the proposed development is likely to have a minimal impact on the highway infrastructure with the proposed mitigation measures. A S278 agreement will be required to implement the off-site highway works.

Trees Section: Significant alterations to the scheme since it was first refused have been made and the proposed layout now satisfactorily relates to trees. The remaining areas of concern would be levels for flood alleviation and providing useable garden space and impact on tree roots. This issue could be agreed via condition.

Minerals Section: No landfills recorded within 250m, however noted that a contaminated report has been submitted which Environmental Health Colleagues are best placed to advise on. There are no other apparent minerals or waste legacy issues relevant to the proposed development.

Environmental Health: have been consulted but have provided no comments.

Drainage Section: have asked for conditions to be attached to any planning approval covering approval of means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, compliance with mitigation measures contained within the submitted flood risk assessment (FRA), no development to take place until a Land Drainage Consent is submitted and approved by the Local Authority and no development to commence until calculations are submitted and approved to show the proposed development provides the same flood storage volume upto a 1:100 year plus climate change critical storm event as the existing undeveloped site.

Environment Agency: The proposed development will only meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework if the following measures as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission (which they set out in their response).

- 74 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The Council must also satisfy itself that the flood risk Sequential Test has been undertaken in an open and transparent way, in full accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance, and that it has been passed. Evidence to support the Sequential Test should also be added to the planning file for the public record.

Informative Under the Land Drainage Act, consent must be sought from the Lead Local Flood Authority before works for the compensatory storage can be undertaken in Ellar Carr Beck (designated ordinary watercourse).

The West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service: The application site lies, in part, within a Class II Monument identified by the WY Historic Environment Record (PRN 2207) and associated with the medieval soke mill of Cullingworth. The site lies in a loop of the Ella Carr Beck and comprises ‘Woodfield House’ and a parcel of land on its northern and western side. Land nearest the beck has been raised by dumps of rubble and other material potentially concealing earlier remains.

The WY Archaeology Advisory service commented on application 09/05121/FUL and 10/06023/FUL. Our views of its significance have not changed and it is possible that remains related the medieval mill is present within the site. Any remains would be of regional significance.

It is proposed to construct 4 new dwellings with associated access. Ground disturbance may cause damage to archaeological remains and deposits.

Although the possibility of medieval remains is noted there is no definite evidence of their presence within the application site. With this in mind we recommend that the footprint of any new structures, and ground disturbance for access and services should be subject to an archaeological watching brief. This should be secured by a planning condition placed on any consent given.

The requirement to record surviving archaeological remains is supported by The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012). Paragraph 141 states that ‘Local planning authorities should … require developers to record and advance the understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publically accessible’. This is further supported by CBMDC policy.

This recommendation is supported by a general presumption in favour of the preservation of heritage sites within the terms of the CBMDC Unitary Development Plan (paragraph 10.5) and more specifically Policy BH19 which states that “Where proposals may adversely affect Class II and Class III Archaeological Areas, developers will be required to provide an independent archaeological evaluation”. This should assist in determining if the site merits preservation in situ, preservation by record (excavation) or if no action is necessary.

The WY Archaeology Advisory Service recommends that the record detailed above is secured by a condition placed on any planning permission granted by CBMDC.

- 75 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

West Yorkshire Ecology: have objected to this application in the past as it lies within Flood Zone 3 of the Ellar Carr Beck. There is a large common pipistrelle maternity roost (190 bats) in ‘Woodfield House’. The development is within the garden of this house within a meander of the beck. The flood risk assessment paragraph 7.2.3 mitigation claims that the bank can be reprofiled “without loss of habitat”. Even with the significant clearance of the site and tipping of material to raise land levels there is still a line of scrub and young trees along the river bank on aerial photographs. These will provide feeding habitat for the bats in the neighbouring maternity roost and will be lost when the bank is reprofiled. The ecology report also raises issues regarding disturbance to the roost during construction.

They do not consider that this site meets the requirements of paragraph 100 in the NPPF – “Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere”. The flood risk assessment argues that because there is no lower flood risk land in Cullingworth allocated for housing development of this site is necessary. They consider that the area of search used in this report is unacceptably restrictive and that other sites with lower flood risk within Bradford District are available.

They consider that this development will result in development which is too close to the beck which is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat. They do not consider that the current proposal meets the requirements of Policy NE13 Wildlife Corridors in the Bradford UDP, in particular houses and gardens should not come within 8m of the top of the bank of the beck.

They recommend this application is refused.

Biodiversity Officer: The Ecological Assessment BL Ecology has made a fair assessment of the ecological impact of the proposed development, summarised in Chapter 5 potential Impacts and Legislation. The only omission is the potential adverse impact on Ellar Carr Beck, the adjacent watercourse – Rivers and Streams are a UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat – which forms a small wildlife corridor as protected under Policy NE13 of the RUDP. The proposals include the widening and re-profiling of 60m of the beck.

However, most of the habitat that will be lost or adversely impacted as a result of the proposals are relatively common or have low biodiversity value, but there will be a loss of 17 broad-leaved trees. Other indirect impacts may include pollution and siltation and dust deposition on surrounding land.

There will be a potential adverse impact on fauna in respect of bats, badgers, breeding birds, small mammals and some invertebrates. The Ecological Assessment has made recommendations for protection the various faunal groups in Chapter 6 which should be included as conditions if the application is deemed for approval. A Method Statement has also been included, Appendix 5, which is key to protecting the important maternity bat roost in ‘Woodfield House’ itself, even though this has been excluded from the current development.

If the application is deemed for approval they layout the conditions that should be applied covering implementation of the Recommendations for Mitigation in the Ecological Assessment, a method statement to protect the bats as outlined in para. 6.2 of the assessment, detailed landscaping, tree/shrub planting and seeding

- 76 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

They recommend that both the Method Statement and the other mitigation works are submitted as a phased programme of works, which are signed by both BL Ecology and the applicant when completed, before the conditions can be discharged (including the monitoring).

An ‘Informative’ should also be included as part of the permission, if given, to ensure applicant is fully aware that any work to ‘Woodfield House’ itself in future will require an EPS (European Protected Species) Licence from Natural England.

In conclusion they comment that this application is an improvement on previous applications, for a greater number of houses, which have been refused. However, they are concerned that ‘Woodfield House’, with the maternity roost of 190 bats, has been excluded from this application. Therefore careful consideration will still be needed to ensure that the bat roost is not directly or indirectly affected by either the construction or occupation of the proposed houses. Whilst the layout is better from a visual point of view, with fewer houses forming a more coherent farmstead style grouping, they feel that the density is still too high with too little garden/parking provision, and potential for light spill on the adjacent vegetation where the bats from the maternity roost forage.

Summary of Main Issues: Principle of the Development Visual Amenity Residential Amenity Trees Bats and Biodiversity Highway Safety Flood Risk Contamination Archaeological Impact Other Matters

Appraisal: Principle of the Development The refusal for construction of four houses, access road, turning head and extension to existing house and new garage (10/06023/FUL) included the grounds that the development was unsustainable. It has however emerged since that the Council does not have a 5 year supply of housing land as required by the NPPF and so given that the site is located within the village of Cullingworth with reasonable access to Bingley Road and the services within Cullingworth Village this reason for refusal has been outweighed by a change in policy circumstances. It is considered that therefore there is no objection to the development of the land for residential purposes, which it is considered will accord with Policies UDP1 and UR2 of the RUDP.

With regard to housing density the development now yields a density approaching 30 dwellings per hectare as required by policies H7 and H8 of the RUDP to ensure the efficient and effective use of development land.

Visual Amenity Application 10/06023/FUL proposed large detached dwellings typical of suburban estates but which were not considered to be appropriate for this site given the quality of the buildings in

- 77 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

the immediate locality. The next application 13/00417/FUL incorporated modified elevations that would sit well in this area however the proposed dwellings were taller than ‘Woodfield House’ and due to the confined nature of the site the proposal appeared cramped with the proposed dwellings dominating the site and was therefore also rejected as being harmful to visual amenity.

The site is not located in an area of outstanding natural beauty, is located outside green belt and does not abut Cullingworth Conservation Area and is at a distance where it would not affect the setting of this conservation area. The site does however lie within a wooded valley landscape area as defined in the Wilsden volume of the Landscape SPD and this is a material consideration in determining this application.

The current submission shows a terrace of three properties, a detached dwelling and the existing ‘Woodfield House’ in a courtyard arrangement. The proposed dwellings are a mixture of single, 1½, and two storeys, which gives interest to the group and with the ridge and eaves heights that will be subservient to ‘Woodfield House’. The development will be set down from Bingley Road in a valley bottom and although open to views from Bingley Road the scale, massing, design, fenestration and architectural detailing of the proposed dwellings reflect that of this locality and give the appearance of converted farm buildings that have served ‘Woodfield House’ in the past. The use of semi coursed natural sand/grit stone with cut window and door surrounds and detailing on the walls and blue slate on the roofs will reflect the existing house and will fit in with other existing property in the area.

It is considered that in terms of the developments impact on the visual amenities of the area and wooded valley landscape for the reasoning given it will accord with Policies NE3, NE3A, D1 and UR3 of the RUDP.

Residential Amenity The proposed single, 1½, and two storey dwellings are sited more than 21metres away from the nearest existing properties outside the development i.e. 2 Woodfield Road and 23 Woodfield Mill and are sited at a lower level that 2 Woodfield Road and will therefore not cause their occupiers loss of residential amenity by reason of overshadowing or overbearing impact. Fenestration is arranged so that there will be no direct overlooking of the garden areas or habitable room windows of existing dwellings outside the development and therefore loss of privacy contrary to Policies D1 and UR3 of the RUDP.

With regard to the impact of the development on the residential amenities of the occupiers of ‘Woodfield House’ or the proposed dwellings the development has been designed to avoid undue overlooking / loss of privacy by the carefully arrangement of habitable room windows so they either do not look directly into each other or preserve 21metres between directly facing habitable room windows. Unlike planning application 13/00417/FUL the arrangement of the proposed dwellings and ‘Woodfield House’ will not give rise to residents suffering overbearing or overshadowing issues.

In conclusion it is considered that for the reasoning given above the proposal will accord with Policies D1 and UR3 of the RUDP in terms of its impact on residential amenity.

Trees Trees on the other side of the beck that overhang the site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The application provides an updated tree survey and root protection

- 78 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

plan. A surface water drain and footpath is shown as running through the root protection area but the Council’s Arboriculturalist in their response have not objected to this. From the response of the Council’s Arboriculturalist it is considered that the subject to further submission and approval of an arboricultural method statement the development can be built without an adverse impact on the existing protected trees contrary to Policies D5, NE4, NE5 and NE6 of the RUDP.

The proposal has indicated landscaping including a line of broad leaf trees and decorative trees within the site, which is acceptable and implementation of the scheme can be conditioned.

Bats and Biodiversity The existing house contains a significant maternity roost which according to a report by the West Yorkshire Bat Group contains around 190 bats. The original application 09/05121/FUL which was withdrawn proposed to demolish the existing house and create an artificial bat roost as mitigation. This was considered to be unacceptable and the applicant was advised that the most appropriate way forward would be to retain the existing house with the roost intact. This was subject to the applicant acquiring an European Protected Species (EPS) Licence to ensure any renovation work doesn't compromise the roost during the main bat activity period. Application 10/06023/FUL was refused as an up to date bat survey was not provided. Application 13/00417/FUL was refused as the application did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposal complied with the 'Three Tests' of the Ecological Assessment.

The current application does not involve ‘Woodfield House’ and therefore there is no need for a European Protected Species (EPS) Licence and therefore compliance with the three tests as there will be no works affecting the identified bat roost. There is still potential for the maternity roost to be disturbed through light, noise and vibration.

The built form of the development is at least 8metres from the channel of the beck and the site is not a formally designated wildlife corridor in the RUDP or within a SSSI or SSI or the required distances for this to be a material consideration in determination of this application. However, works to Ellar Carr Back, close proximity of houses and longer term light spill might adversely affect the wildlife value of the watercourse, which is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat. It is important therefore to ensure that the mitigation measures outlined in the ecological assessment and on drawing GH-09 are implemented through condition.

A comprehensive ecology assessment has been submitted with the application and does not object to the proposed development but provides recommendations to conserve habitats and protected species. The recommendations are deliverable through conditions so that the proposal accords with Policies NE10, NE11 and NE13 of the RUDP.

Highway Safety The application proposes to create a new access onto Woodfield Road and to close off the existing one. The Council’s Highway Section has assessed the application and considers the proposal raises no issues either with regard to the level of parking the development provides or despite representations from third parties adversely impacts on matters of highway safety and it is therefore considered that the proposal will accord with Policies TM12 and TM19A of the RUDP.

- 79 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The Council’s Highway Section commented that they consider the proposal is likely to have minimal impact on the highway infrastructure with the proposed mitigation measures and the outstanding measure i.e. the pedestrian refuge can be achieved by a ‘Grampian’ condition.

Flood Risk The previous application 10/06023/FUL raised concerns regarding the proposed measures to deal with flood risk on this site which is located in flood zones 2 and 3 in which there is a medium to high probability of flooding. The level of information contained within the previously submitted FRA was not considered adequate. Planning application 13/00417/FUL overcame the flood risk concerns.

The current application is accompanied by a FRA which includes applying the sequential approach and exception test and the Environment Agency have not raised any objection to the proposal subject to the recommendations of the FRA being implemented, which can be conditioned so the proposal accords with Policies NR15B and NR16 of the RUDP.

Contamination Updated contamination information concludes that the imported made ground is considered to be uncontaminated and suitable for use on a residential development. The tests indicate negligible risks to householders from contaminants within the soil.

Archaeological Impact The development site lies, in part, within a Class II Monument identified by the WY Historic Environment Record (PRN 2207) and associated with the medieval soke mill of Cullingworth, which is of regional significance. Consultees West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service advise that the development will have some impact due to ground disturbance but have not raised any objection to the development proceeding subject to conditioning of an archaeology watching brief so the development accords with Policy BH19 of the RUDP and paragraph 141 of the NPPF.

Other Matters The matters raised by third parties and the Parish Council relating to the principle of sustainable development, density of development, design, ecology, wildlife including bats, flooding, drainage, parking, highway safety, visual amenity, residential amenity and designation of the site have been addressed above. The outstanding planning-related issues are considered below:-

Street lighting for the development would be minimal and low level to minimise its impact on wildlife or the visual amenities of the area.

The level of development is below the threshold that would initiate the need to provide affordable housing.

The on-going maintenance of Woodfield Road is a private matter that falls outside the scope of determining this planning application.

Community Safety Implications: The proposed scheme provides for surveillance and defensible spaces and so does not raise community safety issues contrary to Policy D4 of the RUDP.

- 80 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: It is considered that the development of this site for four dwellings on the edge of Cullingworth will provide sustainable development at an acceptable density and is of a scale, massing, form and design that addresses issues of flooding, drainage, contamination, archaeology, protected species and habitats, will be visually compatible with its location in wooded valley landscape and which will have an acceptable impact archaeology, on residential amenity, parking, highway safety and community safety. As such it is considered that the proposal will accord with Policies UDP1, UR2, UR3, H7, H8, BH19, TM12, TM19A, D1, D4, D5, NE3, NE3A, NE4, NE5, NE6, NE10, NE11, NE13, NR15B, NR16 and P4 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and will form sustainable development compatible with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Conditions of Approval: 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.

Reason: To accord with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended).

2. No development shall be carried out until the proposed means of vehicular and pedestrian access hereby approved including the pedestrian refuge on Bingley Road shall be laid out, hard surfaced, sealed and drained within the site to base course level in accordance with the approved plans numbered 5723/005 and GH01 REV B and completed to a constructional specification approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

3. Before any part of the development is brought into use, the proposed car parking facilities shall be laid out, hard surfaced, sealed, marked out and drained within the artilage of the site in accordance with the approved car park plan. The car parking facilities so approved shall be kept available for use while ever the development is in use.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy TM12 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

4. No development shall be carried out until full details and calculations 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

- 81 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Reason: To ensure proper drainage of the site and to accord with Policies UR3 and NR16 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

5. No development shall be carried out until arrangements have been made with the Local Planning Authority for the inspection of all facing and roofing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted. The samples shall then be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

6. The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with Sanderson Associates (consulting engineers) Ltd. Flood Risk Assessment Reference: 6656/JMcK/001/03 Dated: 27 February 2014 (FRA) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: (i) Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the up to and including 1 in 100 year critical storm to 5 litres per second so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site. (ii) Provision of compensatory flood storage by way of terracing the watercourse Ellar Carr Beck along the site, as detailed in the FRA, must be implemented and working prior to occupation of the dwellings. (iii) Identification and provision of safe route(s) into and out of the site to an appropriate safe haven. (iv) Finished floor levels are set no lower than 160.6m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) (v) Minimum additional flood proofing of 100mm on top of agreed finish floor levels.

These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation of any of the approved dwellings and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the FRA, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site, to prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided, to ensure safe access and egress from and to the site and to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants and accord with Policies NR15B and NR16 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

7. Notwithstanding the method statement by Iain Taverdale submitted with the application the development shall not be carried out until an Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing how development is to proceed without interfering with tree root protection measures to BS5837 (2012) .

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement or in accordance with any variation first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

- 82 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Reason: To ensure tree damage is minimised and to safeguard the visual amenity provided by the trees on the site to accord with Policies NE4, NE5 and NE6 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

8. Notwithstanding the details shown on landscaping scheme shown on drawing GH-09 the development shall not begin until a further landscape scheme showing details of proposed new trees and details of new shrub and grass areas - including the extent of such areas and the numbers of trees and shrubs in each position with size of stock, species and variety - have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme so approved shall be implemented in its entirety to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority during the first available planting season following the completion of the dwellings hereby approved. Any trees or shrubs comprising the approved landscaping becoming diseased or dying within the first 5 years after the completion of planting shall be removed immediately after the disease/death and a replacement tree or shrub of the same species/specification shall be planted in the same position no later than the end of the first available planting season following the disease/death of the original tree or shrub.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure the species planted provide optimal habitat for the invertebrates which bats and other wildlife feed on and to accord with Policies NE10, NE13, UDP3, UR3, D1 and D5 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

9. All the recommendations for mitigation contained in Chapter 6 as summarised in Table 2 and detailed in paragraphs 6.1 - 6.5 (on the understanding that the Scattered broadleaf trees item in Table 2, should read 'east' of the site not 'west') of the BL Ecology Consultancy report reference 037_11/RE01 Version 005 dated 5th March 2014 shall be implemented in their entirety as set out in that report and approved drawing GH09. The Method Statement contained in Appendix 5 of the BL Ecology Consultancy report reference 037_11/RE01 Version 005 dated 5th March 2014 shall be implemented in its entirety. A timing programme for the ecological mitigation measures and method statement and a timing programme for their monitoring shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The ecological mitigation measures and method statement will then be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed timing programme of works and be monitored in accordance with the agreed monitoring timing programme. A document monitoring implementation of the mitigation works and the method statement signed by both the developer and BL Ecology shall be kept and shall be available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority. The monitoring document shall be lodged with the Local Planning Authority following completion of the development and monitoring of the mitigation measures and method statement

Reason: To ensure that the development conserves and preserves habitat and protected species and to accord with Policies NE10 and NE11 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

10. The street lighting shall be fully implemented in accordance with approved drawing GH09 prior to the first dwelling being occupied or the finish of the development, whichever comes first and thereafter be retained in its approved form.

- 83 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, visual amenity and ecology and to accord with Policies TM19A, D1, UR3, NE3, NE3A, NE10, NE11 and NE12 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) no development falling within Classes A to H of Part 1 and Classes A to C of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the said Order shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, flood prevention and ecology and to accord with Policies D1, UR3, NE3, NE3A, NE10, NE11 and NE12 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

12. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) no further windows, including dormer windows, or other openings shall be formed in the dwellings hereby permitted without prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties and the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policies D1, UR3, NE3 and NE3A of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

- 84 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley) 14/00526/FUL 2 July 2014

LOCATION:

ITEM NO. : 9 39 Southway Eldwick Bingley

- 85 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

2 July 2014

Item Number: 9 Ward: BINGLEY Recommendation: TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

Application Number: 14/00526/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Full planning application for the change of use to mixed use for the purpose of running a childminding business from a residential property at 39 Southway Eldwick.

Applicant: Mr Robson

Agent: N/A

Site Description: 39 Southway Eldwick is on a residential street located off Sherriff Lane. It is an extended semidetached dwelling on a corner plot, with a front and rear garden, an existing side extension extends almost up to the side boundary and there is a single storey extension to the rear. The rear of the property is surrounded by a 2 metre high close boarded timber fence and the applicant states that off street parking for 3 cars is available within the site boundary accessed from the road to the side.

Relevant Site History: No history.

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation Unallocated

Proposals and Policies D1 – General design considerations UR3 – The local impact of development TM19A – Traffic management and road safety TM2 Impact of Traffic and its Mitigation; TM11 Parking Standards for Non-Residential Developments; and

- 86 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

As such the Framework suggests local planning authorities should approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay.

Parish Council: None

Publicity and Number of Representations: The proposal was publicised with a site notice and neighbour notification letters. At the date of writing this report 1 st May 2014 the representations received were as follows. Please note that in some cases there are multiple letters from the same address and unique addresses have been counted as one representation for the purposes of the report.

25 objections - from individual named addresses 6 representations in support - from individual named addresses 1 general comment with comments on both sides - from a given name and address

1 MP objection 1 ward councillor objection.

2 anonymous supporters 3 anonymous objectors Anonymous letters can be given little weight but echo the other comments received

Summary of Representations Received: Summary of Objections: There are restrictions to boundary treatments and business uses in the deeds

There is a dog breeding business at the property which conflicts with the proposed use Concerns about the dogs at the property, noise and smell from them and their proximity to children have been expressed. no application for a dog breeding business is under consideration and the applicant states that they are family pets

Nuisance and disturbance from noise and smells from. Noise and disturbance from children's voices and play and from being dropped off and picked up.

Parked cars around the junction, careless and thoughtless driving and parking from customers leading to highway safety and intervisibility concerns. Poor visibility for road users and congestion and disturbance from parking and manoeuvring of customers cars close to a road junction, there is insufficient off street parking.

- 87 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

Support can be summarised as follows: If planning permission were refused it would result in the loss of a successful business and the loss of much needed high quality childcare provision.

The business is well run and there is no noise and disturbance

The issues around parking and highway safety could be overcome by users of the premises changing their habits.

Councillor comments A Ward Councillor has objected to the proposal for the following reasons Noise and disturbance due to the scale of the business in a residential area and lack of off street parking and highway safety issues around the junction. The proposal is contrary to policies P7 and UR3 of the RUDP and he requests a panel decision if approval is recommended.

MP comments A local MP has objected and urges refusal of the proposal for the following reasons;

The property is already in use for child minding. The applicant has stated that they will only have 2 part time staff, but the Ofsted report says there are 22 children on the roll.

It will be difficult to comply with OFSTED staff/children ratio requirements and space standards for caring for children in a domestic environment without additional staff and changing the nature of the property.

Any misgivings regarding car congestion and lack of parking will cause huge problems in the area due to its residential nature. There are no facilities for parents to drop off and collect children other than by parking on the streets. Extra congestion will be brought to the area.

The premises have been operating as a business for sometime and the Council should have taken enforcement action.

(Note : The Council have challenged the unauthorised use following receipt of a complaint, and this planning application has arisen from this, the applicant has the right to try to regularise the situation).

Consultations: Highways – Requested further information on child numbers.

Summary of Main Issues: Principle of development Suitability of the childminding use for the area given its scale and impact on neighbours and the residential character of the area Implications for highway safety – parking and traffic generation.

Appraisal: The application seeks to regularise the existing use of the property as a mixed use for the purposes of running a childminding business from the dwelling.

- 88 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The applicant is the occupier of the house and claims the child minding business first began in 2006/2007. The two occupants of the house (husband and wife) were joined in 2009 by a daughter who is also registered as a child minder.

The business is registered by OFSTED to care for 17 children under 8 years at any one time. The business operates between the hours of 0730 and 1800 Monday to Friday. There is no care at weekends.

Arguments from the applicant The applicant does not agree that the scale of the business is unsuitable for the area and argues that it provides a valuable service to the community (see representations in support) and gives the family a livelihood.

Although references are made in some objections to 22 children being on the roll, there will never be 22 children in the premises at any one time. Some children attend for only a few days a week, others may be there for 5 days. Some may be there all day, some for a few hours in the morning or afternoon.

Three people are involved in the business. The OFSTED registration allows only 6 children under 8 years to be cared for by one child minder. For example, the applicant can care for 6 children including 3 children under the age of five, of which not more than 1 should be under the age of twelve months, and 3 children under the age of eight. His wife is registered to mind the same number on a similar basis, the daughter is registered to mind 5 children. If the business were running to full capacity the maximum number of children under the age of 8 present at the property at any one time would be 17.

It is not clear whether children over the age of 8 are allowed, however guidelines suggest that an unlimited number of children over 8 can be cared for as long as it is not to the detriment of the younger children.

However, the applicant has stated that although 3 child minders are registered in relation to the premises, the business is not running to full capacity due to personal circumstances. The applicant has submitted a table which details the number of children and the hours they are cared for on a weekly basis.

The dwelling is an extended semi detached property on a corner plot within a wholly residential area. It does benefit from its corner position by having two road frontages. The plans show that 3 cars can be accommodated within the site in a tandem arrangement. The site can therefore accommodate the applicant’s own vehicles clear of the highway.

Impact on the amenity of occupants of adjoining and neighbouring residential properties Noise exposure can cause annoyance and sleep disturbance both of which impact on quality of life and in turn can give rise to adverse health effects. The National Planning Policy Framework recognises the adverse impacts noise can have on people and paragraph 123 advises that planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.

On residential streets (such as Southway) it is expected that ambient daytime noise levels would be low. Therefore any sounds that are noticeably above the ambient noise level that

- 89 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

occur for a prolonged period of time can cause nuisance that adversely impacts upon the well being of neighbouring occupiers.

If unrestricted planning permission is granted for the home based childminding use at No.39 Southway then up to 17 children under the age of 8 years could be lawfully cared for at the property at any one time between 0730 and 1800hrs five days a week.

If planning permission is granted the property would be able to be used to care for as many children as could be legally accommodated within the building. There would be no restriction at the number of children on the books. Should the owners of the property decide to operate the business differently or more intensively in the future the Council would not be able to prevent this from happening. If the business is operating at full capacity the disturbance generated by the use would be detrimental to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

While conditions could reasonably be attached to planning decisions restricting hours and days of operations it is not considered that a condition restricting the number of children would be enforceable, the numbers of children varies throughout the day and the Local Planning Authority would find it difficult to keep a head count on numbers of children present within the premises at any one time. Compliance with any condition would be very difficult to monitor so it is unenforceable and would not meet Circular 11/95 The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions.

Noise generated from the property from children being cared for/playing within the building, playing in the garden and from guardians, children and staff arriving and departing from the property for a prolonged period of time five days a week has the potential to harm neighbouring occupiers. For this reason it is not considered that the property is suitable to be used for childminding the use being contrary to policy UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Impact on highway safety The number of cars attending the property on a daily basis is a concern for local residents. However, the adjoining streets are adopted roads, with footways and of good width. It has been observed that cars dropping off children at the property are able to park on the street around the property without incident. There is plentiful on street parking available and cars can be left without affecting the flow of traffic or obstructing driveways. An important point is that the cars dropping off and pickling up the children do not all arrive at the same time of day and some children are walked to the site or are picked up and returned home by the applicant.

Drop off is staggered between 7.30 and 9.00 so there is rarely a significant amount of cars attending the site. The applicant says that, on average, between 11 and 16 children attend the premises at different times throughout the day and there are between 4 and 6 cars at dropping off and pick up times.

It is understood that local residents have been concerned about cars being parked around the road junction, but the applicant says that parents have been asked to avoid parking here and to exercise care and consideration.

- 90 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

The width and alignment of the roads around the site and the amount of traffic likely to be generated are such that objections made by neighbours on the grounds of traffic safety and congestion are unfounded.

It is noted that a garage at the site is not used for cars, but observations on site and the submitted plans show that 3 cars can be accommodated on the block paved drive within the site in a tandem arrangement. It is unlikely that customers will park off street to drop their children off and pick them up, but this amount of parking seems adequate for the use of the child minders.

In addition, it has been observed that most parents drop children off at the side of the premises and not outside any other residents’ properties. The houses across this street are some distance across the width of the street and it is not accepted that the amenity of occupants of these properties are significantly affected by the increased levels of comings and goings involving cars bringing and collecting children.

Other Issues Concerns have been raised about the conflict between the applicants’ dogs and children, but whether the applicant has pet dogs is not an issue for planning. It is for OFSTED to assess the suitability of the site for a childminding business.

The applicant and supporters make comments regarding the shortage of high quality childcare and the excellent service that is provided by the business. The NPPF stresses the need to support opportunities for small business and enterprise, but none of this outweighs the harm to amenity as a result of the disturbance the use causes in a residential area.

Several objectors have made references to covenants within the property deeds, but this is a private legal issue and not a material planning consideration for the Council.

Conclusion Whilst not accepting points made about highway safety issues, the use generates general noise and disturbance due to significant numbers of children being present, particularly given the small size and position of the rear amenity area in relation to the adjoining house and bungalow. The impacts on their amenity are such that the level of business being proposed is contrary to UDP policy UR3

Community Safety Implications: None.

Equality Act 2010, Section 149: In writing this report due regard has been taken of the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance quality of opportunity between different groups and foster good relations between different groups. It is not considered that any issues with regard thereto are raised in relation to consideration of this application. The proposal is considered to be contrary to the relevant development plan policies.

Reasons for Refusal: The use of the premises as a childminding business with 3 registered childminders operating from the premises, who could legally care for [UP TO]17 children under the age of 8 at anyone time, would be detrimental to the amenity of the occupants of nearby residential

- 91 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Keighley and Shipley)

property by reason of the noise and general disturbance it would create. The additional traffic movements and on street parking created by the lack of suitable off street parking provision would result in inconvenience for other occupiers of Southway and Mansfield Avenue.

As such the proposal would also be harmful to the character of the surrounding environment.

The introduction of a business use of this nature into a semidetached dwelling within a relatively small plot in a wholly residential area is inappropriate and would be contrary to Policies D1 and UR3 of the Council's replacement Unitary Development Plan.

- 92 -