The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “U”) considers an outline application, with all matters reserved other than access, for the residential development of land to the rear of 589 Leeds Road, Thackley, Bradford – 16/00543/MAO.

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 contribution of £42,815 for the purpose of educational infrastructure improvements; £18,686 for primary level to be used at Greengates, Idle CE, Parkland, St Anthony’s Catholic, Thackley and Thorpe Primary Schools and £24,132 for secondary level to be used at Immanuel College and Titus Salt School.

(ii)          The payment of a contribution of £14,048 for the enhancement of existing recreational facilities and/or infrastructure within Buck Wood,

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)

The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “U”) considered an outline application, with all matters reserved other than access, for the residential development of land to the rear of 589 Leeds Road, Thackley, Bradford – 16/00543/MAO.

In response to Members’ questions the Assistant Director clarified that:

·        It was anticipated that roughly half the total of the existing off-street parking would be lost.

·        Details for the closure of the existing point of access would be required under the submission for reserved matters.

·        If it was considered necessary, a condition could be imposed to require the removal of all the parking spaces adjacent to the highway due to the impact on the access visibility splay and potential conflict with pedestrians.

It was noted that the tabled plan excluded the land that would be necessary to form the new access to the site; amended plans would therefore need to be submitted.

The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application:

·        This former public house had originally been purchased in 2013 and the owner had been told at that time that the site included the car park.

·        A planning application had subsequently been submitted to change the use to residential.

·        The owner had then been informed that the land to the rear was also included but not registered.  This had now been done.

·        There had been a neighbour dispute about land ownership and the applicant’s car had been vandalised.

·        Only a small number of flats overlooked this piece of land and the other properties were at a higher level than the site.

·        It was proposed to use sustainable drainage techniques to deal with surface water.

·        There was a sewer in the top corner of the site which could accommodate the needs of the development.

It was clarified that any conflict about the ownership of the land was not a material consideration to be taken into account when determining the application.

The Assistant Director responded to an additional question in respect of the local schools already being at capacity and it not being possible to extend them:

·        The Education Department was consulted in respect of places at schools and had to specify where infrastructure contributions would be spent. 

·        In this case they had no immediate plans to expand the nearest school so had identified a number of possible schools where the money might be spent. 

·        The money would have to be spent on infrastructure projects.

·        Constant dialogue was undertaken with schools about the potential for expansion and increasing the numbers of spaces available.

Members made the following comments:

·        This appeared to be a good scheme.

·        The application for Reserved Matters should be submitted to this Committee for consideration and to allow, in particular, the access/egress to be looked at.

·        Subject to the receipt of amended plans the proposal was acceptable.

Resolved –

(1)       That, subject to the receipt of plans amended to include the land necessary to provide the new access to the site within the red line boundary, 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 contribution of £42,815 for the purpose of educational infrastructure improvements; £18,686 for primary level to be used at Greengates, Idle CE, Parkland, St Anthony’s Catholic, Thackley and Thorpe Primary Schools and £24,132 for secondary level to be used at Immanuel College and Titus Salt School.

(ii)          The payment of a contribution of £14,048 for the enhancement of existing recreational facilities and/or infrastructure within Buck Wood,

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

(3)       That the application for Reserved Matters be submitted to this Committee for determination.

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

City Solicitor