In the interests of transparency, Councillors Brown, Griffiths, Wainwright, Warburton and Watson disclosed, in respect of the item relating to Arthur Street, Bradford (Minute 35), that they had been Members of the Committee when this application had been considered previously.  They stated that they would approach the issue with an open mind and consider all the relevant material planning issues before making a decision.

ACTION: City Solicitor

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 May and 22 June 2017 be signed as a correct record.

(Sheila Farnhill – 01274 432268)

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 May and 22 June 2017 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)

Resolved –

That Councillor Senior replace Councillor Townend as a Member of the Social Services Appeals Panel.

ACTION:       City Solicitor

Bolton and Undercliffe

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “S”) in relation to a full planning application for the construction of a residential development of 145 dwellings and associated works on land at Poplars Park Road, Bradford – 17/04666/MAF

Recommended –

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.

(John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented Document “S” in relation to a full planning application for the construction of a residential development of 145 dwellings and associated works on land at Poplars Park Road, Bradford – 17/04666/MAF.  He reported that the site sloped to the south towards a woodland area and was of differing levels.  There was a mix of house types and planting in the area.  Members were informed that the site was included in the Bolton Woods Masterplan and was a key site for the regeneration of the District.  A number of representations and additional objections had been received and the issues raised were covered in the report.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that the site was located in a zone that did not benefit from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and affordable housing would not be provided as part of the scheme, however, overage monies would be placed in an enhancement fund and this could be utilised for affordable housing.  He explained that 145 dwellings were required for the development to be viable and it would be dependant upon funding from the Leeds City Region Enterprise Partnership.  In conclusion the application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report and also subject to five additional conditions.

In response to Members’ queries, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that:

·         The woodland area to be lost would equate to approximately a quarter of the trees on the site, however, it was difficult to surmise as it would be a slice of trees due to the sloping site.  Trees would be replanted to replace those lost.

·         It was a nil CIL zone and the Council was a shareholder of the Enterprise Partnership, so could not enter into a Section 106 Agreement.  A Supplemental Agreement to the Development Agreement had been established and the Council would retain control of where the funds were allocated.

·         The Supplemental Agreement required information to be provided to detail the monies made and this would be verified by other parties.

·         Usually a developer would buy land with constraints of CIL or a Section 106 Agreement, however, this site was extremely challenging in respect of viability.  The Enterprise Partnership received reports on an annual basis and the focus was about developing a sustainable community.  Any profits would be placed in the regeneration fund and it was the Board’s decision as to how the money was spent.  The Council’s representative on the Board had 51% of the share.

·         The Supplemental Agreement covered the costs in detail and the Council had to be informed of any monies that were placed in the Overage Fund.

·         The approved application would affect the woodland.

·         There would be a large attenuation tank, however, a number of issues raised by the Council’s drainage officer had not yet been addressed.

·         The three year expiration notice was a default condition and if this was not required on the application then  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Eccleshill

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “T”) in relation to a full planning application for the construction of a residential development of 41 dwellings (comprising 19 open market and 22 for social rent) 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:

(i)            On-site affordable housing provision of 22 units,

(ii)          The payment of a commuted sum of £25,000 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 “T”) in respect of a full planning application for the construction of a residential development scheme including infrastructure, landscape, access and all associated external works on land at Arthur Street, Bradford – 17/04224/MAF.  He informed Members that the scheme proposed the construction of 41 dwellings, consisting of 19 that would be placed on the open market and 22 to be socially rented.  A previous application had been refused in March 2017 on the grounds of restricted access to the site, no education or recreation contribution and the loss of trees.  The new application retained access to the site via Arthur Street and provided a contribution of £25,000 as a compensatory payment for the loss of protected trees on the site.  It was noted that the sum calculated to allow replacement planting equated to £48,540, however, the Council’s Economic Development Unit had accepted the offer.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that the junction of Arthur Street and Bradford Road achieved the visibility standard in both directions, but the width of the access was the issue and one of the reasons for the previous refusal.  He stated that ideally the Council would want a full width road, however, the applicant had confirmed that the road and pathways would be made up to the Council’s adopted standards.  It was acknowledged that wheelie bins placed on the road and pathway outside houses on Arthur Street caused issues.  In order to try and alleviate some of the problems the applicant had proposed to create four formal parking spaces for the terraced housing occupants and two vehicles would be able to pass safely on the road within the site.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways stated that site had previously been used as a scrap yard and the existing buildings would be demolished.  There were no concerns in relation to the layout or design of the houses and the parking provision adhered to the Council’s standards.  He then recommended the application for approval, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing provision and the compensatory payment for the loss of the trees and that discussions be undertaken with Ward Councillors regarding a replanting scheme.

In response to Members’ questions, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that:

·         The width of the access was the same as the previous application.

·         No Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) had been proposed.

·         The 4 parking spaces had been proposed for the use by the residents of the six terraced properties at the bottom of Arthur Street.  There would still be on-street parking, but the proposal would move parked vehicles away from a pinch point.

·         There were no TROs on the road at the moment.

·         Refuse collection would not alter, except the vehicle would have to travel further down the site.

·         The Council’s Economic Development Unit had concurred that the contribution of £25,000 was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

In 2014 the Council adopted two Local Development Orders (LDO) covering parts of the City Centre.  These granted specified types of development. The first LDO allowed businesses in selected streets between the Broadway Shopping Centre and City Park to change the use of their premises to any use within Use Classes A1, A2, A3, and A4.  The second LDO allowed the creation of nine residential units or fewer in the upper floors of buildings in certain parts of the City Centre.

These LDOs were adopted by the Council on 21 September 2014 for a three year period which expires on 21 September 2017.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “U”) that provides an update on the success of these Orders and makes a recommendation to renew the orders for a further three year period.

Recommended –

Following the consultation period it is proposed that both of these Orders be extended for a further period of three years, if no significant responses are made against these Orders and in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and the Chair of Regulatory and Appeals Committee.

(Chris Eaton – 01274 434605)

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “U”) which explained that in 2014 the Council adopted two Local Development Orders (LDO) that covered parts of the City Centre, which granted specified types of development.  The first allowed businesses in selected streets between the Broadway Shopping Centre and City Park to change the use of their premises and the second permitted the creation of up to nine residential units in the upper floors of buildings in certain parts of the City Centre.  The LDOs were adopted by the Council on 21 September 2014 for three years and it was recommended that the orders be renewed for a further three years.

Resolved –

That following the consultation period, Local Development Order 1 and 2 be extended for a further period of three years, if no significant responses are made against these Orders and in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and the Chair of Regulatory and Appeals Committee.

ACTION: Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways