Side extension at 13 Broadlands, Keighley

The site

The property is a 1970s semi-detached house with earlier rear and roof extensions, beside a neighbouring chalet bungalow at a higher level.

“Site Description: Broadlands is a semi-detached house constructed from a brown facing brick under a concrete tile roof dating from the 1970s. The property has been previously extended to the rear at single storey level and to the roof, with front and rear dormers recently added. Immediately to the west of the application site is number 1 The Chase.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A similar two-storey side extension was refused in 2025, while earlier rear and roof extension works were granted.

“Relevant Site History: 25/01377/HOU Two-storey side extension REFUSE 09.09.2025 06/03905/FUL Erection of single storey rear extension GRANT 15.09.2006”

“The following application is also of interest as it relates to both 11 and 13 Broadlands: 24/03495/HOU Joint application for front and rear dormers, raising of roof level and new windows to sides of each property GRANT 26.11.2024”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the extension would harm the neighbouring property and disrupt the character, balance and appearance of the semi-detached pair.

“Planning Balance and Reason for Refusal of Planning Permission: 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.”

“The current application is therefore recommended for refusal on the basis that the development will be detrimental to the amenities of existing and future occupants of No 1 The Chase and the character and appearance of the original dwelling and the balance and symmetry of the pair. For these reasons, the proposal is contrary to Policies DS1, DS3 and DS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and Design Principles 1 and 2 of the Householder SPD.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council raised no objection in principle subject to several matters, and the application received no neighbour objections.

“Parish Council: Keighley Town Council – No objection in principle subject to materials, character, neighbours’ amenity and access to rear.”

“Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was publicised with neighbour notification letters which expired on 18 February 2026.”

Officer report

Support for the proposal

Supporters said the revised design reduced the impact, added a front setback and was needed for three disabled residents’ long-term needs.

“One Councillor has made a representation in support of the proposal and requested a Panel determination if Officers are minded to recommend refusal.”

“The impact on No 1 The Chase has been lessened with the reduction in scale of the build. The introduced set back to the front elevation will ensure that the extension is proportionate. The extension is required to meet the long terms needs of disabled residents (3 No) within the household to enable them to work from home and form additional kitchen and bathroom facilities to aid independence.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s case and a Ward Councillor’s support referred to exceptional family circumstances, equality duties and the proposal’s necessity.

What members discussed

Members considered the family’s difficult circumstances alongside the extension’s proximity and potential effect on the neighbouring property.

“Members acknowledged that the situation was a challenge for the applicant which needed to be considered alongside the proximity and impact on the neighbour.”

Minutes

The decision

Members approved the application because exceptional family circumstances outweighed the harm to the neighbour and the departure from the Householder SPD.

“That the application be approved subject to the following conditions…”

“Members considered that the exceptional family circumstances outweighed the harm caused to the residential amenity of existing and future occupants of the property located at No1 The Chase. The non-compliance with the Householder SPD was also accepted for the same reason.”

Minutes