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 would be from the Heaton Woods Trust site.  It was separate to the rest of the village.

·         The Conservation Officer had raised a number of issues and relevant conditions were proposed to be included if permission was granted to ensure that features and materials blended in.

·         The application had not been ‘rushed through’ but had been dealt with in exactly the same manner as any other application. A public consultation had been undertaken and had finished on 26 August 2016.

·         The Section 106 infrastructure monies were directed towards the schools that needed/were able to expand.  Individual schools could only be the recipient of a maximum number of such payments. The Education Department were consulted for their professional assessment as part of an overall school planning process.

·         Conditions would be imposed in respect of drainage and dealing with any contamination.

A Member of the Committee expressed a wish for further information to be provided by the Education Department to explain clearly why particular schools were identified as recipients in each case; it was questioned why the monies were to be directed towards a school in Cullingworth in this instance.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee:

·         The officers had presented a thorough report.

·         The principle of development had already been established.  The position in respect of planning policy was effectively the same as when the previous planning permission had been granted.

·         The development was appropriate and would contribute to meeting the district’s housing needs.

·         This scheme was, in effect, Phase One of the previous scheme for 27 dwellings.  It had not been done this way to avoid affordable housing contributions; these would be addressed at a later date.

·         The design was very similar to that previously approved and was considered to be appropriate to the context of the site using a mix of stone, render and natural slate.

·         There would be no harm to existing residents, highway safety, the Conservation Area or existing trees.

·         The requirements of the Section 106 legal obligation had been accepted.

·         There had been no objections from the statutory consultees.

·         The representations had been taken into consideration but it was believed that the concerns were unsubstantiated and the issues had just been repeated from the previous application.

·         A Phase 2 site investigation report had already been undertaken.

·         The suggestion that the existing allotments adjacent to the site would be subject to incursion/theft by occupiers of the new dwellings was unreasonable.  It was considered that the proposed development would actually provide a further level of security for the allotments.

Members commented that there was now a gap between the development and the disputed boundary with the adjacent land and that the recommendation as proposed was acceptable.

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:

(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.

(3)       That the Strategic Director – Children’s Services be requested to provide a clear written statement for each consultation response for all future planning applications for housing, explaining why a particular school/s has been chosen for expansion by virtue of the allocation of Section 106 education infrastructure contributions and that this information be included in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ reports to the Committee.

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

                        City Solicitor