Councillor Warburton disclosed an interest in the item relating to the Former Wyke Library Site, Huddersfield Road, Bradford (Minute 42) as he had been involved with the scheme, in his capacity as a Ward Councillor, since its inception a number of years previously.  He therefore withdrew from the meeting during the consideration of this item in accordance with the requirements of the Members Code of Conduct (Part 4A of the Constitution) and the Members and Officer Planning Code of Conduct (Part 4B of the Constitution).

In the interests of transparency, Councillor Brown disclosed that he had attended a display for members of the public in respect of the item relating to the Former Bronte School, Keighley Road, Oakworth, Keighley (Minute 45) but had not expressed a view thereon.

In the interests of transparency, Councillor Watson disclosed that the item relating to the Former Wyke Library Site, Huddersfield Road, Bradford  (Minute 42) was within her Ward but she had not had any involvement with the application.

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meetings held on 16 and 26 May 2016 be signed as a correct record.

(Sheila Farnhill – 01274 432268)

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meetings held on 16 and 26 May 2016 be signed as a correct record.

(Access to Information Procedure Rules – Part 3B of the Constitution)

Reports and background papers for agenda items may be inspected by contacting the person shown after each agenda item.  Certain reports and background papers may be restricted. 

Any request to remove the restriction on a report or background paper should be made to the relevant Strategic or Assistant Director whose name is shown on the front page of the report. 

If that request is refused, there is a right of appeal to this meeting. 

Please contact the officer shown below in advance of the meeting if you wish to appeal. 

(Sheila Farnhill - 01274 432268)

There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents.

The Committee will be asked to consider recommendations, if any, to appoint Members to Sub-Committees of the Committee.

                                                            (Sheila Farnhill – 01274 432268)

No resolution was passed on this item.

NO ACTION

Resolved –

That, in the absence of the Chair and the Deputy Chair, Councillor Wainwright be elected Chair for the item relating to the Former Wyke Library Site, Huddersfield Road, Bradford (Minute 42).

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will submit a report (Document “V”) in relation to an outline application for the demolition of the Police Call-In Station and the erection of a new Police Call-In Station, 3 bungalows and a 64 bedroom Extra Care facility, including details of the layout and access arrangements – 16/03851/MAO.

Recommended –

That the application be referred to the Health and Safety Executive for further consideration and, subject to it deciding not to request that the application be called in for consideration by the Secretary of State, that authority be delegated to the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways to grant planning permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in his technical report.

(John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways submitted a report (Document “V”) in relation to an outline application for the demolition of the existing Police Call-In Station and the erection of a new Police Call-In Station, 3 bungalows and a 64 bedroom Extra Care Facility on the site of the former Wyke Library, Huddersfield Road, Bradford.  The application included details of the proposed layout and access arrangements – 16/03851/MAO.

It was noted that, if the Committee was minded to approve it, the application would have to be referred to the Health and Safety Executive for it to decide if it wished to ask the Secretary of State to ‘call-in’ the application for determination.  This was due to the site being within the consultation zone for two hazardous premises.

A Ward Councillor was in attendance at the meeting and made the following comments:

·         Apart from the footpath, the site had been unmaintained for a lengthy period; it had not been used since Wyke Middle School had closed and the library had relocated.

·         It was considered that this project was worthy of support. It would provide much needed facilities for the local community and would mean that local people would not have to move away from their family and friends in order to access such care.

·         The location was good in terms of access to public transport. It was also close to local amenities and shops and had access to recreational facilities and open space.

·         The roads either side had pedestrian crossing facilities.

·         Some concern had been expressed in respect of potential overlooking.  There was a change in land levels across the site but the existing trees and shrubs along the boundary were to be retained.

·         More on-street parking had taken place since the relocation of the library. The Police Contact Point was well used and the parking associated with this was normally short term.

·         There would be 30 parking spaces provided for the Extra-Care Facility with separate parking provision for the Police Contact Point and the bungalows.

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee she said that there was usually one vehicle, occasionally two, on the site associated with the Police Contact Point and most visits were of a short duration.

A local resident attended the meeting and raised concerns as follows:

·         He lived opposite the site.  Fellow residents held similar views.

·         The primary objection was the proposed extent and scale of development on the site.  The main Extra Care building was proposed to be three storeys high.  The proximity to existing houses and the numbers of units proposed meant that this scheme constituted overdevelopment of the site.

·         The officer’s report said that the majority of the existing trees would be retained and would screen the development; this was not considered to be the case on the Huddersfield Road side; some (to the northern boundary) had already been removed, others were proposed to be removed and a number were not very large.

·         The dwellings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

A report will be presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “W”) in relation to an application for the construction of 10 dwellings the design of which have been amended from the details approved under previous planning permissions for this site – 16/06365/MAF.

Recommended –

(1)       That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of:

(i)            The payment of a commuted sum of £49,237 for the purpose of the improvement of educational infrastructure in the area; £21,485 for primary level to be used at Heaton Primary School and £27,752 for secondary level to be used at Parkside Secondary School,

(ii)          The payment of a commuted sum of £14,048 for the purpose of enhancing recreational infrastructure in the area; to be used at Lister Park,

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Strategic Director, Regeneration (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

(John Eyles – 01274 434380)

A report was presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “W”) in relation to an application for the construction of 10 dwellings on land at Ashwell Farm, 47-49 Ashwell Road, Heaton, Bradford – 16/06365/MAF.

The Assistant Director made a correction to his report in respect of the description of the application which should have stated that the scheme comprised 10 units (not 27) and that the dwelling types were proposed to be of 2¹_/2 and 3 storeys.

He also clarified that the land ownership issues were not relevant to the application and that if an application came forward for the remainder of the site then the whole of the development would be taken into account in calculating any necessary affordable housing provision.

A representative of the objectors spoke in opposition to the proposal:

·         As a long term resident of Heaton he was speaking on behalf of a large number of objectors and also the Heaton Woods Trust.

·         Some of the objections had been partially addressed in the officer’s report and the proposed strict conditions in respect of drainage and contamination were welcomed.

·         The developer had failed to act on the conditions in respect of a previous application and had allowed the planning permission to lapse.  It was considered that there should be penalties if this happened again.

·         It was considered that the Section 106 sum for education should be spent at local schools but half was proposed to be directed to Cullingworth which was 7 miles away.

·         It had been believed that the requirement to pay for/provide affordable housing had been avoided by dividing the development/site into three phases, however this suggestion was now withdrawn (in light of the explanation given by the Assistant Director)

·         All the houses had five bedrooms so would only be for large or extended families and would cost around £400,000.  It was considered that they would therefore be socially exclusive and there was a strong possibility that they would be culturally exclusive; in effect a gated community within a socially and culturally diverse community.  This would not accord with the ethos of the village or the wishes of local people.

·         The application appeared to have been rushed through but a large number of people still opposed it.

·         The design had been described as relatively basic and as fitting in with its surroundings; this was an old Yorkshire village with its own special character and the site was adjacent to a Conservation Area; this development would not fit in.

In response the Assistant Director explained that:

·         An applicant did not have to provide an explanation for a permission being allowed to lapse.  If planning permission was granted it was up to the applicant whether or not they chose to implement it.  A developer could apply for planning permission as many times as he/she chose; applications were paid for by the applicant.

·         The site did not front onto any existing streetscene and the only public aspect of the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “X”) in respect of an application seeking outline permission for a residential development of 13 dwellings on land at Middleway, Silsden, Bradford – 16/03577/MAO.

The report explains that layout is the only matter for consideration at this stage and that details of access, appearance, landscaping and scale will be considered at Reserved Matters stage.

Recommended –

(1)       That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of:

(i)            The payment of a commuted sum of £13,795 to mitigate the effects of the development on biodiversity and to enhance the recreational infrastructure in the area; to be used at Silsden Park,

(ii)          The payment of a contribution of £11,261 towards the provision of Metrocards to encourage use of public transport,

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Strategic Director, Regeneration (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

(John Eyles – 01274 434380)

A report was submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “X”) in respect of an application seeking outline permission for a residential development of 13 dwellings on land at Middleway, Silsden, Bradford – 16/03577/MAO.

The report explained that layout was the only matter for consideration at this stage and that details of access, appearance, landscaping and scale would be considered at Reserved Matters stage.

The Assistant Director clarified that the site was not designated as open space or Green Belt nor had it been in the past.

He responded to questions from Members:

·         This was a separate parcel of land from the adjacent site that was currently being developed and it was not believed that it could be considered as one entity for the purposes of requiring the provision of affordable housing (the current application being below the threshold for such).

·         The consultation advice from both the Drainage Officers and Yorkshire Water had stated that the development was acceptable.

·         This site was not in a zone at risk of flooding and to his knowledge there had been no impact on this site from the Boxing Day 2015 flood event.

A Town Councillor outlined a number of issues as follows:

·         There was still concern about flooding, the impact on Howden Road and the extra load on Silsden Beck.

·         The existing residents of Middleway were unhappy about overlooking, particularly of the adjacent single storey dwellings, and the inclusion of external balconies on the new properties.  It was not believed that a 1.5 metre high fence would prevent overlooking.  No indication had been given of the sight line down from the proposed balcony level.  A solution would be to have the patio areas at existing ground level.

·         It was considered that Plots 4 and 5 should be moved closer to the access road and some of the other properties re-aligned.

·         It was questioned how far the nearest bus stop was; it was considered unlikely that residents from this site would use buses.

·         The proposed contribution for Metrocards should be put towards improving the footpaths to existing bus stops instead.

Objectors addressed the Committee:

·         Building work on the adjacent site to the one under consideration had caused considerable problems for the existing residents of Middleway with gardens and garages being flooded and in heavy rain the street flooded.

·         There were serious concerns about the infrastructure in Silsden particularly in respect of flooding issues.

·         Problems could be caused further downstream and the overall problem needed to be addressed. It was noted that the flood expert was not present at the meeting.

·         The mitigation measures on the adjacent site were not working.  It was only a small site but problems had already been caused with Silsden Beck and this proposal would make the situation worse.

·         If the road was moved up, the new houses put at an angle and the balconies removed from the plans this would alleviate some of the issues with the scheme.

·         It was appreciated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “Y”) in relation to a full application for the erection of 51 mixed tenure houses including associated infrastructure on land at the former Bronte School, Keighley Road, Oakworth – 15/02526/MAF.

Recommended –

(1)       That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the following obligations:

(i)            The scheme is to provide affordable housing units as part of the 2015-2018 Approved Housing programme, to deliver affordable housing across six sites in the District, that has received funding from the Homes and Communities Agency. (Note: Across the programme there will be 139 houses for rent and 49 for sale with the sales properties at full market value and at a cross subsidy to the whole programme.)

(ii)          Payment of a contribution of £10,000 to mitigate the impact on sensitive habitats by bringing forward improvements on routes leading to, and at, the Special Protection Areas where erosion of adjacent habitat caused by widening footpaths is an issue.

(John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “Y”) in relation to a full application for the erection of 51 mixed tenure houses including associated infrastructure on land at the former Bronte School, Keighley Road, Oakworth – 16/02526/MAF.

He reported that no further comments had been received from the Trees Officer on the revised plans and replied to questions from Members as follows:

·         Attempts would be made to moderate the levels across the site as much as possible; if the gradients of the highway fell within the requisite parameters then a contribution for winter maintenance measures would be requested from the developer. There was a maximum gradient that would be accepted.

The scheme architect explained that:

·         the gradients were quite level at the entrance to the site.

·         The steeper parts of the site were within the accepted tolerance for highways.

·         Most of the trees on the site were covered by a Tree Preservation Order and as many as possible had been preserved; a few would be lost but this had been agreed with the Trees Officer.

·         The design had taken account of the trees, the gradient and the character of the surrounding area.

·         The scheme would provide a mixture of dwellings using a range of materials.

In response to a Member’s question he said that water attenuation tanks would be provided.  He was aware that there had been local flooding and was confident that all the issues could be addressed by the detailed drainage scheme.  It was understood that a lot of drains in the area were broken and that was why water was backing up; this would be resolved.

Resolved –

(1)       That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the following obligations:

(i)            The scheme is to provide affordable housing units as part of the 2015-2018 Approved Housing programme, to deliver affordable housing across six sites in the District, that has received funding from the Homes and Communities Agency. (Note: Across the programme there will be 139 houses for rent and 49 for sale with the sales properties at full market value and at a cross subsidy to the whole programme.)

(ii)          Payment of a contribution of £10,000 to mitigate the impact on sensitive habitats by bringing forward improvements on routes leading to, and at, the Special Protection Areas where erosion of adjacent habitat caused by widening footpaths is an issue.

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

Previous reference:  Minute 90  (2015/16)

Members may recall that, at the meeting of the Committee held on 17 February 2016, consideration was given to a proposal to implement a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for the Bradford City Centre and it was resolved:

‘(1)       That the Strategic Director, Environment and Sport be authorised to undertake the required (minimum 6 week)consultation exercise to implement a  Public Space Protection Order for Bradford City Centre, in the area shown in Appendix A and subject to the terms set out in Paragraph 4.8 of the report. 

(2)       That, further to the completion of the necessary consultation process, the proposed Order be submitted to this Committee for approval.’

The Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods and Customer Services will now submit a report (Document “Z”) which provides a summary of the responses from the consultation and presents the final proposed Order for the Committee’s approval.

Recommended –

(1)       That, as a result of the consultation process, the Public Space Protection Order be amended as follows:

(a)  The boundary of the exclusion zone be extended to include the following streets and places:

Trinity Green Campus

University accommodation (close to the existing proposed boundary)

Dixon’s Trinity Academy, Trinity Road

Laisterdyke Lane towards All Saints’ Road (Dirkhill area)

Grantham Road

Grantham Place

Spring Place

Dirkhill Road

Rand Street

Rand Place

Alexandra Street

To the junction of All Saints’ Road with Great Horton Road

Retford Place,

St Luke’s Hospital

(b)  Under Section 63(5) of the Act an authorised person can dispose of any item that has been surrendered under Section 63(2) ie alcohol or a container for alcohol.

(c)  An authorised person in the context of this Public Space Protection Order is defined as being either a Police Constable, Police Community Support Officer or Council Officer.

(d)  An authorised person can decide when it is appropriate to either:

(i)            Impose a Fixed Penalty Notice,

(ii)          Waive the Fixed Penalty Notice in the event that a person who would have been issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice agrees to and attends an alcohol or substance misuse service, or

(iii)         If anti-social awareness sessions are made available locally, reduce the level of the Fixed Penalty Notice if the person who would have been issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice agrees to and attends an anti-social awareness session.

(2)       That the Strategic Director, Environment and Sport be requested to investigate and, if feasible, make available local anti-social awareness sessions.   

(3)       That the Strategic Director, Environment and Sport be authorised to take all the necessary action to implement the Public Space Protection Order, as amended, and to make it operational.

(4)       That the Bradford City Centre Anti-Social Behaviour Partnership review the Order in 12 months time, taking account of the comments and suggestions made by respondents during the consultation exercise and the evidence arising during the time the Order is in force.

(Rebecca Trueman – 01274 431364)

Previous reference: Minute 90 (2015/16)

Members recalled that, at the meeting of the Committee held on 17 February 2016, consideration had been given to a proposal to implement a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for the Bradford City Centre and it had been resolved:

‘(1)       That the Strategic Director, Environment and Sport be authorised to undertake the required (minimum 6 week)consultation exercise to implement a Public Space Protection Order for Bradford City Centre, in the area shown in Appendix A and subject to the terms set out in Paragraph 4.8 of the report.

(2)       That, further to the completion of the necessary consultation process, the proposed Order be submitted to this Committee for approval.’

The Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods and Customer Services therefore submitted a report (Document “Z”) which provided a summary of the responses from the consultation and presented the final proposed Order for the Committee’s approval.

He tabled the plans showing the extent of the Order, a copy of the consultation letter from West Yorkshire Police and proposed amended recommendations.

The following responses were given to Members’ questions:

·         The implementation of the PSPO was just one of the approaches being used to address the issues in the City Centre.

·         Enforcement would not be part of the role of the Council Wardens, the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Officers would deal with this. 

·         Joint training would be undertaken in respect of the issue of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) and officer safety.  Full kit would be provided for the relevant officers.

·         It was believed that the biggest impact would be from the seizure of alcohol rather than the number of FPNs issued.

·         A Licence would be needed if a street event involving alcohol was held within the area covered by the Order.

The Chair suggested that an update should be provided to the Committee after the twelve month review and requested that information be included on the number of offences committed against Council and Police staff.

Resolved –

(1)       That the proposed Public Space Protection Order, as set out in Appendices C and D to Document “Z”, be formally adopted; the Order having been amended, as a result of the consultation process, to extend the boundary of the exclusion zone to include the following streets and places:

Trinity Green Campus

University accommodation (close to the existing proposed boundary)

Dixon’s Trinity Academy, Trinity Road

Laisterdyke Lane towards All Saints’ Road (Dirkhill area)

Grantham Road

Grantham Place

Spring Place

Dirkhill Road

Rand Street

Rand Place

Alexandra Street

To the junction of All Saints’ Road with Great Horton Road

Retford Place,

St Luke’s Hospital

(2)       That it be noted that:

(a)  Under Section 63(5) of the Act an authorised person can dispose of any item that has been surrendered under Section 63(2) ie alcohol or a container for alcohol.

(b)  An authorised person in the context of this Public Space Protection Order is defined as being either a Police Constable, Police Community Support Officer or Council Officer.

(c)  An authorised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.