In the interests of transparency, Councillor Ellis disclosed that he was a member of the Yorkshire Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and the Airedale Drainage Commissioners.

In the interests of transparency, Councillor Rickard disclosed that he was a member of the Airedale Drainage Commissioners.

NO ACTION

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meetings held on 10 August 2017, am and pm, and 28 September 2017 be signed as a correct record.

(Sheila Farnhill – 01274 432268)

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meetings held on 10 August 2017, am and pm, and 28 September 2017 be signed as a correct record.

ACTION:       City Solicitor

(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 “X”) in relation to a full planning application for a residential scheme of 99 dwellings, with associated works, on land at Holts Lane, Bradford – 17/05251/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:

On-site affordable housing provision of 20 two bed houses,

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 “X”) in relation to a full planning application for a residential scheme of 99 dwellings, with associated works, on land at Holts Lane, Bradford – 17/05251/MAF. Various plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director made a correction to his written report explaining that the site was located within the Clayton and Fairweather Green Ward.  He also reported on the matters raised by two additional representations received since the publication of his report; one of which was from the Keep Clayton Green Action Group (KCGAG) and one from a consultancy, on behalf of local residents, in relation to drainage and flood risk issues.

In response to the issues raised he explained:

·         In respect of public consultation and the level of information available; the relevant information had been available to the local community and a meeting had taken place with a representative of KCGAG to discuss and explain various issues.

·         In relation to the concerns expressed about the construction of an embankment and the potential diversion of a Right of Way; these proposals related to land which was outside the red line boundary of the site and therefore not part of the application under consideration.  The drainage works in the adjacent field were proposed to be located underground and would be classified as permitted development.

·         The highway implications had been assessed and it was considered that the network could safely accommodate the additional traffic from the development.

·         Conditions were proposed to secure the use of appropriate materials and the recommended bio-diversity enhancements.

·         In terms of surface water and a concern that this would be diverted; his professional opinion was that the development, as proposed, would not alter the direction of flow and this water would leave the site along the same path as it had prior to development; to the north onto the Green Belt land.

·         Waste water would be discharged to the public sewer by pump into the existing Yorkshire Water network.  Yorkshire Water had agreed to a rate of 5 litres per second of surface water and it was their responsibility to assess capacity.

·         The pumping arrangements would include an underground attenuation tank and retaining well located in an adjacent field.  Yorkshire Water would adopt this equipment and would implement a system of regular maintenance. It was considered that there was a low likelihood of failure but they would have contingency arrangements in this eventuality. Even if the new drainage systems became blocked the water would drain to the Green Belt land to the North as previously.

·         The water storage/pumping system would have to be designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant regulations and to accord with rules on the generation of noise.

He responded to questions from Members as follows:

·         The proposed surface water attenuation tank of approximately 1000 cubic metres and wet well for foul water were still subject to detailed design but would be located in a compound below the ground  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “Y”) in respect of a full application for the demolition of existing buildings and infill of an existing mill pond and the construction of seven retail units including a discount food store (Class A1), five retail units (Class A1) and one sub-divisible unit (Class A1, A3, A5), with access, car parking, landscaping and associated works, at Union Mills, Harrogate Road, Bradford – 17/04007/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)

A report was submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “Y”) in respect of a full application for the demolition of existing buildings and infill of an existing mill pond and the construction of seven retail units including a discount food store (Class A1), five retail units (Class A1) and one sub-divisible unit (Class A1, A3, A5), with access, car parking, landscaping and associated works, at Union Mills, Harrogate Road, Bradford – 17/04007/MAF. Various plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported on the substance of two additional representations received since the publication of his written report. In response to issues raised he explained that:

·         West Yorkshire Ecology had been consulted and had raised no objections.

·         The moving of the fish would need to be addressed with the Environment Agency.

He also clarified that the site was located within the Eccleshill Ward and reported a request from the applicants that the proposed conditions in respect of the permitted opening hours and delivery times be amended to align the hours for Unit 7 with those of Units 2,3,4,5 and 6.

The Assistant Director responded to questions from Members:

·         These units were of a different scale to those proposed as part of the adjacent residential development which were just intended to be a parade of small shops.

·         It would be difficult to undertake a stability assessment on the mill pond whilst it was full.

A Ward Councillor addressed the Committee in objection to the application:

·         As Ward Councillor issues relating to Harrogate Road were raised with him on a very regular basis. On the photographs shown by the planning officer it looked particularly quiet.

·         Local opinion was divided on the proposals; some people thought that the provision of a new budget retail store would be positive whilst others were concerned about the impact on Harrogate Road.

·         The development threatened the livelihood of the existing businesses located on the site.

·         Policy CR1A required a demonstration of need; it was considered that the submitted information actually demonstrated the level of threat to other retailers, which was not the same thing.  He believed that there was no obvious need for this development, there were already a lot of empty retail units in the area.

·         The location of retail units adjacent to housing did not always encourage people to walk and were not an antidote to anti-social behaviour.

·         There was concern about the impact on residents of Wharncliffe Drive and Ashington Close.

·         Yorkshire Water considered the conclusions of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment to be unacceptable but believed that the issues could be addressed through the use of relevant conditions. There was uncertainty in relation to where the water came from and went to. 

·         Ecological surveys had been undertaken but local people had seen crayfish on the site.

·         There was a petition to retain the pond.

·         There was a proposal to build 550 homes on the Fagley Quarry site but this scheme would rule  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “Z”) considers an outline planning application for the construction of an employment development scheme comprising B1, B2 and B8 uses and including means of access on land at Gain Lane and Woodhall Road, Bradford – 17/02463/MAO.

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 report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “Z”) considered an outline planning application for the construction of an employment development scheme comprising B1, B2 and B8 uses, including means of access, on land at Gain Lane and Woodhall Road, Bradford – 17/02463/MAO. Various plans and photographs were displayed.

He explained that the application for the access road necessary for this development was being determined by Leeds City Council as the required land was located within its boundary.

He proposed that, if Members were minded to approve the application, Condition 26, in respect of permitted hours of use of the buildings, be replaced with one to ensure that levels of noise at the boundary of the site were controlled to ensure that they were no worse than would normally be expected within an urban area such as this.

He gave the following responses to Members’ questions:

·         The land required for the access road was located within Leeds City Council’s Green Belt. It was not known what this Authority’s intentions were in respect of Green Belt changes; it was currently progressing its site allocations process.

·         He indicated, on the plan, the area of informal recreation ground that was part of the site but not designated for employment use. The details of the proposed layout for the development had not been submitted at this stage and would be considered as part of the Reserved Matters application.

A local resident put forward the following arguments in opposition to the development:

·         He strongly objected to the development on behalf of his family.

·         A business should not be permitted to operate storage and distribution during the night time when located so near to residential properties.

·         His property was located near to the junction of the proposed access road with Gain Lane and would be affected by noise from vehicles accessing the site; this was potentially a statutory nuisance and would interfere with their human rights.

·         HGVs already passed very close to properties on Woodhall Lane causing problems with noise; damage had been caused to the foundations of buildings.

·         Over the preceding eighteen months the situation on Gain Lane had worsened and this was having a detrimental impact on the physical and mental health of local residents. The traffic was at standstill during the rush hour and this proposal would exacerbate the situation.

·         A local bakery was operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and using forklift trucks during the night which affected residents’ ability to sleep.

·         The proposed widening of Gain Lane was of concern as the ‘residents only’ parking provision would be lost.

·         There were many empty industrial or brownfield sites in the district and it was questioned why could these not be used instead of this green space.

The Assistant Director explained that:

·         The site had been allocated for employment use since 2005.

·         The potential widening of Gain Lane was an issue for Leeds City Council and was not part of the application now before  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

A report will be presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AA”) in respect of a full planning application for a material change of use of Unit 3A at the Sapper Jordan Rossi Park, Otley Road, Baildon from Use Class B1 (Business) to Use Class B2 (General Industrial) in order to allow the chemical treatment of metal parts and the storage of associated chemicals – 17/04012/FUL.

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)

A report was presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AA”) in respect of a full planning application for a material change of use of Unit 3A at the Sapper Jordan Rossi Park, Otley Road, Baildon from Use Class B1 (Business) to Use Class B2 (General Industrial) in order to allow the chemical treatment of metal parts and the storage of associated chemicals – 17/04012/FUL. Various plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of additional representations received further to the publication of his technical report; one in objection, which raised concerns in respect of toxicity and safety risks, and one in support.

Further to questions from Members he confirmed that:

·         Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should not duplicate processes that were governed by other agencies (such as the control of emissions or health and safety) and this was an application to amend the use class from B1 to B2. It was noted that an Environmental Permit would be needed if the size of the chemical bunds were increased.

·         The development area had been raised above flood level and compensatory storage provided when the units had been constructed.

A Ward Councillor addressed the Committee as follows:

·         When this business park had been developed it had been promoted as a clean, modern development to fulfil a need for such accommodation in the district.

·         The applicant’s business was just the sort of company that the district needed but the objectors to the proposal had significant and relevant concerns that the planning process was unable to address.

·         There were a number of uncertainties in respect of the application; within the Assistant Director’s report it stated that ‘….it was not possible to make a judgement as to whether there is likely to be a statutory nuisance at the application stage. It is unlikely that any damage to buildings or stored stock, were it to occur, would be classed as a statutory nuisance and if there were to be an escape of fumes or chemicals that had the potential to compromise staff health, the resolution would be secured under health and safety legislation’; this appeared to be suggesting shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted.

·         It also said that ‘…If the anodisation line were to be implemented or the treatment vats exceed 30 cubic metres then this would require review and a permit to operate may be required.’; but the volumes of toxic chemicals permitted had not been addressed.

·         The applicant had confirmed that he would not object to conditions to make the permission personal and to restrict the chemical treatment use in line with the details of chemical quantities submitted with the application but the letter referred to did not specify the quantities and did not state how many tanks were in the series.

·         The application should therefore be refused.

The Assistant Director clarified that the letter from the applicant included a schedule which stated the quantities of chemicals that would be stored  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will submit a report in relation to a full planning application for the extension of Keighley Industrial Park through the formation of eight structures housing nine commercial units (B8 and B2 uses), with associated car parking, highways connection, drainage and landscaping, on land to the north of Royd Ings Avenue, Keighley – 17/05255/MAF (Document “AB”).

Recommended –

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways submitted a report in relation to a full planning application for the extension of Keighley Industrial Park through the formation of eight structures housing nine commercial units (B8 and B2 uses), with associated car parking, highways connection, drainage and landscaping, on land to the north of Royd Ings Avenue, Keighley – 17/05255/MAF (Document “AB”). Various plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director reported the receipt of an additional representation, from the local Member of Parliament, since the publication of his written report.

He replied to questions as follows:

·         No discussion had taken place with the applicant prior to submission of the application.

·         The reference to Core Strategy Policy EC3 in his report concerned plans for the distribution of 30 hectares of new employment land in the Aire Valley Corridor. An Employment Land Review had been undertaken as part of the Core Strategy to determine how much would be needed over the life of the strategy.  There was no equivalent of the five year housing supply requirements for employment land.

·         An Inspector would be unlikely to support the development of any sites within the functional flood plain.

·         It was not possible to conclude, prior to the completion of the allocation process, that the target of 30 hectares could not be accommodated outside the flood plain.

·         There was a requirement for a Sequential Test in respect of development proposals on land at risk of flooding, to show that no other land was available with a lower risk, and an Exceptions Test and Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate that the development would not be at unacceptable risk of flooding, would not increase off-site flood risk and that the development would result in overriding sustainability benefits. There were no Sequential Test or Exceptions Test reports provided by the applicant in this case.

·         Although the applicant had submitted an assessment of land in Keighley and said that none could accommodate this development this information did not meet the requirements for a full Sequential Test.  Sites that could potentially be released from other designations had not been considered.

Representatives of the applicant put forward the following points:

·         The land had previously been designated as employment land but had been removed due to concerns about flooding.

·         A Flood Risk Assessment had been submitted which showed the mitigation measures proposed.  Yorkshire Water’s comments had been taken on board.

·         The site was adjacent to an existing large industrial estate.

·         The project would provide much needed economic development and would allow optimum use of this site.

·         A plan had been presented in respect of ecological enhancement.

·         The existing footpath could be re-directed and it was considered that this provision could be improved.

·         A split of B2 and B8 uses was proposed.

·         It was considered that there were no reasonable grounds to refuse the application; the highway impacts were not severe; air quality would not be significantly affected; the site had good transport links; only nine objections had been received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.