There were no disclosures of interest in matters under consideration.

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meetings held on 29 September and 6 October 2016 be signed as a correct record.

(Sheila Farnhill – 01274 432268)

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meetings held on 29 September and 6 October 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

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “AI”) in relation to a full planning application for the construction of a residential development of 41 dwellings including infrastructure, landscape, access and all associated external works on land at Arthur Street, Bradford – 16/08854/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:

The payment of a commuted sum to allow compensatory tree planting to be undertaken in the vicinity of the site,

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

(John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “AI”) in relation to a full planning application for the construction of a residential development of 41 dwellings including infrastructure, landscape, access and all associated external works on land at Arthur Street, Bradford – 16/08854/MAF.

The Assistant Director reported that:

·         The Council’s Trees Officer considered that a commuted sum of £48,540 would be required to compensate for the loss of the protected trees.  This figure had been calculated using the CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees) method which was a nationally recognised system that took account of the age and size of each tree, its amenity value and its anticipated lifespan.  The figure did not include the costs of planting the new trees. 

·         The applicant had made an offer of £5,000 due to viability issues.

·         Although New Homes Bonus monies might be used to make up the shortfall in terms of recreation and education infrastructure contributions it could not be used for replacement trees.

·         Condition 2 in his report should refer to a 6 metre protected strip width, associated with the sewers that traversed the site, rather than 3.

He responded to questions from Members as follows:

·         The applicant could be requested to provide trees within the gardens of the dwellings on the site but the Local Planning Authority would not have any control over their retention.

·         If the trees were not removed it would mean that it would not be possible to develop a large part of the site and the scheme would therefore become unviable.

·         There were no concerns in respect of access for emergency vehicles.

·         Four parking spaces were proposed to be included for residents of Arthur Street and there was some off-street parking available.

·         There were no proposals to restrict speed on Arthur Street; it was not considered that the access would lend itself to excessive speeds.

·         The existing residential dwelling on the site would be demolished.

·         The scheme was under the threshold of number of units for a formal traffic impact assessment to be required.

·         The calculations for the proposed development indicated one journey in or out every three minutes during the a.m. peak.  The total number of trips per day would be similar to that generated by the existing commercial uses on the site and there was not considered to be a cause for concern.

·         It was accepted that if inconsiderate parking took place then this could cause problems with access but anyone causing an obstruction would be liable to prosecution.

·         Conditions were proposed to address any potential contamination of the site.

·         No guarantees had been given by the Government in respect of the continued availability of New Homes Bonus although it was understood that a commitment had been given to a further three years.

An objector to the application put forward the following concerns:

·         In the early morning and the evening the area was extremely congested with parked cars. What time had the photograph shown to Members been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.