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 that regard had been paid to the Tree Preservation Order and that the scheme was of a low density.

·         It was considered to be highly unlikely that the residents of this development would use buses.

·         This was not believed to be the best design for the site, the lower section should be used for bungalows.

 

The Assistant Director made the following response:

 

·         The site fed down to Howden Beck but the attenuation measures could improve the run-off from the existing site.

·         In respect of overlooking; details of the layout would be determined at Reserved Matters stage. However, the indicative layout did meet the necessary requirements in terms of distance.

·         No indication had been given of the level of the patios.

·         A 1.8 metre boundary fence would normally be required.

·         It was accepted that it was some distance to the nearest bus route which went along Kirkgate.  He was uncertain which footpaths could be improved to facilitate access.

·         If the positions of plots 4 and 5 were re-aligned then he considered that this could cause overlooking.

·         The Flood Risk Assessment and the Drainage Appraisal had been considered by the Council’s officers in their capacity as the Lead Flood Authority and were considered acceptable.  They were very well aware of the issues in respect of Silsden Beck.

·         He had no knowledge of the mitigation measures associated with the adjacent site.

·         He was satisfied that the layout, as proposed, achieved more than the usually required separation distances.

·         Details of heights and windows etc would be carefully considered when a Reserved Matters application was submitted.

 

Further to additional questions from Members he said that:

 

·         In terms of groundwater emergence and existing land drains he had to rely on the consultation responses received. The submission of a Surface Water Maintenance and Management document would be required by condition. The relevant consultees had stated that they believed that the site could be developed as proposed without causing undue impact or making the existing situation worse.

·         It was not known if there were any reports of flooding affecting the adjacent site.

·         A complete new drainage system would be implemented which would include attenuation of water run-off.  The details of the drainage scheme would have to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and would be vetted by the Council’s specialist officers.

 

A Member commented that groundwater emergence was not addressed in the technical report; this appeared to be a new issue and should be taken into account in the future.

 

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

 

·         The officer recommendation was supported.

·         This site had been identified in the Council’s  SHLAA (Strategic Housing and Land Availability Assessment) as suitable for residential use.

·         There was a significant  need for new housing in the district. This assertion was supported by the Council’s local plan which specified the provision of 1200 new homes in Silsden.

·         The Flood Risk Assessment had not identified any issues affecting this site.

·         The site was unallocated in the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and was not within the Green Belt.

·         The principle of development in the area was established.

·         The site would make a contribution to the Authority’s five year housing land supply.

·         The scheme met sustainability requirements and the density reflected local circumstances.

·         The development would utilise natural stone and the layout respected the amenities of existing local residents.

·         All healthy trees would be retained and there would be a net increase in the number of trees across the site.

·         The pre-application process had been used to try and ensure that all issues were resolved.  The submission of any additional information considered necessary could be secured by the use of relevant conditions.

·         The scheme included Section 106 infrastructure contributions and the development would provide local employment.

 

In reply to questions from Members of the Committee, the agent and the applicant said that:

 

·         Although not expert in relation to drainage matters they were aware of the issue of groundwater emergence being raised as part of flood risk reports.  The Flood Risk Assessment in this case stated that there was no history of flooding of any kind on this site.

·         It would not be a problem to liaise with local residents to ascertain if there was a problem although there were no records of any flooding issues.  Liaison would normally take place with Yorkshire Water and the Council’s Drainage Officers.

·         The usual run-off rate was 5 litres per second.  Attenuation tanks would be installed and these would be set to release the water at this rate.  The scheme would be designed to 1 in 100 year storm plus 30% specification and would be designed in consultation with Yorkshire Water prior to submission to the Local Planning Authority.

·         Yorkshire Water would undertake inspection of the installation of the attenuation tanks at every stage. Twelve months maintenance would be undertaken by the developer and, further to this and subject to there being no problems, Yorkshire Water would adopt them.  There was a very thorough process to be followed in getting the tanks signed off.

 

Members commented as follows:

 

·         Allocation of monies towards Metrocards was not considered to be useful.  This money would be better spent on other infrastructure issues.

·         The money should be directed towards the improvement of local footpaths close to the development and/or local recreational amenities in consultation with the Town Council and Ward Councillors.

·         The further information given by the applicant and the liaison with local residents had provided some reassurance.

 

Further to which it was

 

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 subject to the amendment of Condition 10 as follows:

 

            The development shall not commence until full details and calculations of the proposed means of disposal of surface water drainage, based on sustainable drainage principles and including details of any balancing works and off-site works, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and these details shall be submitted in conjunction with the Reserved Matters application. Furthermore, there shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works.

 

            Reason: To ensure proper drainage of the site and to accord with Policies UR3 and NR16 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

 

(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 to be spent on improvements to local footpaths that provide linkages to Silsden Town Centre, bus routes or local amenities. (Authority being delegated to the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways to determine and specify the appropriate footpath improvements, in consultation with the Town Council and the Ward Councillors, and to incorporate these into the legal planning obligation). In the event that the Assistant Director is unable to identify suitable footpaths for improvement then these monies shall be added to the recreation contribution to be used at Silsden Park, as in (i) above,

 

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 consideration.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

                        City Solicitor