A report will be presented by the Assistant Director – Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “T”) in relation to an application for the construction of 14 dwellings on land at 407 Little Horton Lane, Bradford – 15/06447/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:

Payment of all costs associated with the implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order(s) to reduce on-street parking on Stowell Mill Street, Park Lane and Little Horton Lane,

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 “T”) in relation to an application for the construction of 14 dwellings on land at 407 Little Horton Lane, Bradford – 15/06447/MAF.

The Assistant Director responded to questions from Members, as follows:

·        Each property would have a driveway. The Development Plan recommended the provision of an average of 1.5 parking spaces per unit across a development so this met that requirement.  In addition, the site was considered to be very sustainable as it was close to a good public transport route, the hospital and local shops. Some on-street parking was also available on Parkinson Street.

·        The properties would have basements which would primarily be for storage purposes.

·        This was a low risk area in terms of flooding.  Yorkshire Water had commented in respect of the use of sustainable drainage techniques. Details for how drainage would be addressed, including any discharge of water from the site, would have to be submitted for approval. Any potential flooding issues would be addressed at this point.

·        The basements would have to be constructed to prevent water ingress; this was a matter for Building Control.  The basements were not habitable rooms and had no windows.  If a homeowner wished to convert them to a habitable room in future they would have to make an application under Building Regulations.

·        The local Community Council had raised concerns in respect of traffic generation and overshadowing.

An objector put forward the following concerns:

·        This was not a disused building, people were living there.

·        The proposal was for a three storey development.

·        There was no footway on one side of Parkinson Street.

·        Parking was required. There were four businesses located in one building at the end of the road and people associated with these businesses parked on Parkinson Street.  This affected residents’ access.

·        This development would increase the problems for existing residents and would decrease the number of parking spaces available.

·        Parkinson Street was very narrow and there were already problems with access.  Stowell Mill Street was also narrow.

·        This was a very busy area and was used as a ‘rat-run’. It was dangerous for children.

·        When it rained it caused standing water in residents’ gardens; it was believed that water would go into the proposed basements. Drainage was insufficient.

·        The new three storey properties would stop daylight reaching the existing dwellings on Parkinson Street.

The Assistant Director responded with the following information:

·        Parkinson Street would be widened.

·        The development would generate only a low level of vehicle movement and it was considered that it would not cause congestion.

·        There would be more than one point of access to the site.

·        There would be sufficient parking provided for the needs of the development.  Any issues with the existing businesses and parking were a separate matter to this application.

·        The highway improvements would mitigate the effect of any increase in traffic.

·        Conditions would be imposed in respect of the control of drainage and a Construction Plan would be required

·        There was an extant permission for residential development of this site.

·        The height of the proposed properties would not be significantly different to existing properties. It was not considered that any overshadowing would have an undue detrimental impact; adequate separation distances would be achieved and the majority of the residential properties were to the east of the site.

In response to further questions from Members he confirmed that;

·        Parkinson Street was to be widened to 5.5 metres and a footway would be created.

·        If the present building was occupied and this use was unauthorised then enforcement action could be considered but it seemed unlikely that it would be considered expedient to pursue in the circumstances of this case.

·        The applicant was required to serve notice on the freeholder and any tenants.

·        This issue did not prevent the Committee making a decision on the application.

The City Solicitor confirmed that the Committee was able to make a decision on the principle of development and the planning officers would have to check that the notices had been correctly served prior to issuing a decision.

The Assistant Director explained that a ‘Certificate A’ had been submitted with the application and this declared that the applicant owned all the land concerned.  No mention was made of any tenants, however this was not a material planning consideration.

The applicant’s agent made the following comments in support of the application:

·        The applicant was the sole owner of all the land.

·        A previous application for the same number of units had been approved and was still extant.

·        The scheme had been revised to provide a more affordable development as the previous design had been very modern and would have been too costly to build.

·        The site was located within a residential area.  There was a lack of suitable housing in the area and there was a need for large family homes with a lot of habitable space.

·        The applicant’s aim was to give something back to the community.

·        The applicant had worked closely with officers to revise the scheme.

·        There was space within each plot for two medium-sized cars to park off street.

·        The road would be widened and a footway provided.

·        The separation distances to existing properties had been clearly demonstrated; 17 metres was achieved at the closest point, widening to 18/19 metres.

·        The site had accommodated back to back houses with basements in the past so the engineering works would have to be undertaken to that depth anyway.

·        The applicant was not present at the meeting so he was unable to answer the question about whether people were living in the existing building on the site.

Members commented that:

·        Further to the clarification from officers he was satisfied that the Committee was in a position to make a decision.

·        There was an extant permission for 14 units.

·        This scheme was better than that previously approved.

·        The condition of the site had been deteriorating for a number of years.

·        The viability concerns in this case were accepted.

·        The decision had to be taken on planning grounds; if people had to vacate the site before building took place this was a matter for the applicant.

 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 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:

Payment of all costs associated with the implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order(s) to reduce on-street parking on Stowell Mill Street, Park Lane and Little Horton Lane,

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

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

                        City Solicitor