In the interests of transparency, Councillor Warburton disclosed that he owned a property in the same ward as the site at Holme Mill Lane, Keighley (Minute 90) but it was not in close proximity to the site and he had not discussed the application with anyone.

In the interests of transparency, Councillor Griffiths disclosed that he owned a property in the same ward as the site at Land to the South of Thornton Road, Bradford (Minute 93) but it was not in close proximity to the site and he had not discussed the application with anyone or had any involvement with the application.

In the interests of transparency, Councillor Rickard disclosed that he was a Trustee of the Moorlands Learning Trust, which encompassed Ilkley Grammar School, he lived in the locality and he had also been in receipt of communication from several parties in relation to the application concerning Land at Sun Lane and Ilkley Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale (Minute 89). He had not entered into dialogue with anyone nor expressed an opinion and stated that he would consider the application with an open mind and on its merits.

In the interests of transparency, the other Members of the Committee disclosed that they had also been in receipt of communications from several parties in relation to the application concerning Land at Sun Lane and Ilkley Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale (Minute 89). They had not entered into dialogue with any individual nor expressed an opinion and stated that they would consider the application with an open mind and on its merits.

During the meeting, and in the interests of transparency, Councillor Brown disclosed that he was acquainted with one of the interested parties in attendance in respect of the application concerning Land at Holme Mill Lane, Keighley (Minute 90) but he had not discussed the matter with this individual.

ACTION:       City Solicitor

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2018 be signed as a correct record.

(Sheila Farnhill – 01274 432268)

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2018 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.

NO ACTION

Previous reference:Minute 56 (2017/18)

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “AT”) in relation to an outline planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and permission (all matters reserved other than points of vehicular access into the site) for residential development (Use Class C3); education facility (Use Class D1); public spaces; landscaping; car/cycle parking; access routes within the site; drainage and other associated works (Supplementary Environmental Statement relating to the provision of an up to two-form entry primary school) on land at Sun Lane and Ilkley Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 16/07870/MAO.

Members will recall that this application was considered at the meeting of the Committee held on 11 January 2018 when it was resolved:

‘(1)       That consideration of the application be deferred until a local referendum on the Burley Neighbourhood Plan has taken place in May 2018; this being subject to the prior approval of the Executive, or, if approval is not given to the undertaking of the referendum in May that it be re-submitted to the next appropriate meeting of this Committee.

(2)       That the applicant be requested to provide a more defined strategy to show how a school can be delivered on the site, including consideration of how this will fit within the overall phasing of the development.’

Recommended –

(1)       That the application be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009 and, subject to him deciding not to call-in the application for determination, it 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)         Affordable housing provision of 30% of the total units on site (or equivalent value); these units to be prioritised for people living in, working in or having close family links to the Burley-in-Wharfedale Parish and secondly the wider Wharfedale area.

(ii)        The safeguarding of an area of land within the site for the provision of an up to two form entry Primary School and to offer this land to the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, if requested, in order to deliver the school. The area of land identified for the school will be reserved for a minimum period of 10 years and will be transferred to the Council at the appropriate time at a cost of £1. Also, the establishment of a Primary School Delivery Partnership whose remit and terms of reference will be to seek to deliver the new school in the most appropriate manner and at the most appropriate time.

(iii)       Payment of commuted  ...  view the full agenda text for item 89.

Previous reference:Minute 56 (2017/18)

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “AT”) in relation to an outline planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and permission (all matters reserved other than points of vehicular access into the site) for residential development (Use Class C3); education facility (Use Class D1); public spaces; landscaping; car/cycle parking; access routes within the site; drainage and other associated works (Supplementary Environmental Statement relating to the provision of an up to two-form entry primary school) on land at Sun Lane and Ilkley Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale - 16/07870/MAO. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

Members were reminded that this application had been considered at the meeting of the Committee held on 11 January 2018 when it was resolved:

‘(1)       That consideration of the application be deferred until a local referendum on the Burley Neighbourhood Plan has taken place in May 2018; this being subject to the prior approval of the Executive, or, if approval is not given to the undertaking of the referendum in May that it be re-submitted to the next appropriate meeting of this Committee.

(2)       That the applicant be requested to provide a more defined strategy to show how a school can be delivered on the site, including consideration of how this will fit within the overall phasing of the development.’

The Assistant Director went through the report, which detailed the developments since the meeting in January, and explained that:

·         The referendum in respect of the Neighbourhood Plan had resulted in a ‘yes’ vote of 82%.  The plan was therefore endorsed and in force and was thus a material planning consideration. The plan included a series of policies, a large proportion of which would be relevant for the issues that would be considered at Reserved Matters stage.  There had been a suggestion that policies within the plan would mean that the present scheme was inappropriate but this was not the case. A previous version had referred to the use of small sites but as this had not been compliant with the Core Strategy it had been removed.

·         This was a mixed use application and if planning permission was granted it would include consent for a primary school. The 1.78 hectares proposed to be reserved was sufficient space for a two-form entry primary school.  The applicant had provided justification for the location of the school as indicated. Three options in terms of the provision of a school were set out in his report; there was also the opportunity to include the facility for some community use. Under the terms of the Section 106 legal obligation the land would be transferred to the Council at a cost of £1; the land would be reserved for a minimum of 10 years and would be provided fully serviced with roads and utilities. The CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) Regulations would not permit the developer to build the school and pay the CIL contribution. The site was within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AU”) in relation to an outline planning application for a residential development of up to 102 dwellings and a 90 bed nursing home, including means of access and the relocation of a Scout Hut, on land at Holme Mill Lane, Keighley – 16/08233/MAO.

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 Interim City Solicitor, in respect of:

The payment of a financial contribution of £25,000 towards measures to mitigate against potential impacts on habitats from increased recreational pressures on the South Pennines Special Protection Area,

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

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

A report was submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AU”) in relation to an outline planning application for a residential development of up to 102 dwellings and a 90 bed nursing home, including means of access and the relocation of a Scout Hut, on land at Holme Mill Lane, Keighley – 16/08422/MAO. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of additional representations, received since the publication of his written report, from two of the Ward Councillors and a local resident. He also made a correction to his report in terms of the application number which should read 16/08422/MAO.

In response to questions from Members he indicated the location of the pumping station and explained that:

·         The station pumped water to a number of premises and would be unaffected by the development.

·         The development would be connected to the existing mains water supply.

·         A number of the trees on the site were covered by Tree Protection Orders, including some as part of a Group Order.

·         The numbers on the plan indicated spot heights to give an indication of the topography of the site; the land sloped down towards the beck.

·         A section of the site furthest north was within Flood Zone 3; all the proposed development area was within Flood Zone 1.

A representative of the Friends of North Beck Valley addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposals and tabled photographs to illustrate his points:

·         More housing was needed but this was the wrong place.

·         There had been no assessment of the harm to the listed building. The presumption in favour of development was removed if there was harm.

·         The officer’s report was considered to be misleading in terms of the land allocation. There was no evidence in respect of the original allocation so this could be given no significant weight.

·         The report ignored the large scale concern expressed by objectors in relation to the impact on the recreational area, this asset was not even mentioned.

·         The site was adjacent to Tinker; a much loved area of countryside and the  number 1 beauty spot in Keighley. It contained footpaths, a play and picnic area, bridge and waterfall. It was very peaceful and could receive 150 to 200 visitors on a nice day. It provided amenities for swimming, boating, fishing, ramblers and school groups studying nature. It supported a wide range of wildlife including kingfishers and curlews. It was an uplifting place to be and was beneficial to health and wellbeing.

·         This development would affect long distance views across the valley which included wildflower meadows and lambs.

·         The main footpath passed through a farmyard; the farm had been there since the 1600s and a visit here was akin to going back in time, this was part of the special character of the area.

·         In comparing the tabled photographs (Photo 2 included a representation of the massing of the development) the harm that would be caused to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

A report will be presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AV”) in respect of a  full planning application for the construction of 128 traditional two storey 2, 3 and 4 bed semi-detached and detached homes including garages, access roads and general infrastructure on land at Fagley Youth and Community Centre, Fagley Road, Bradford – 17/05678/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 presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AV”) in respect of a  full planning application for the construction of 128 traditional two storey 2, 3 and 4 bed semi-detached and detached homes including garages, access roads and general infrastructure on land at Fagley Youth and Community Centre, Fagley Road, Bradford – 17/05678/MAF. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director explained, in relation to the covenant affecting the site, that the applicant had been in communication with the Council’s Asset Management Team in respect of its removal but that this had no bearing on the determination of the application; regardless of planning permission being granted if the covenant was not removed the development could not proceed.

A Ward Councillor put forward the following concerns:

·        A covenant affected the site and the spirit of this had not been adhered to.

·        Alternative facilities could have been organised in the area.

·        A former Leader of the Council had stated that the land should be protected for the local community.

·        The property had been sold to developers after the facility had been allowed to become run-down.

·        The way the situation was being dealt with was ‘adding insult to injury’ for local people.

·        Residents had been locked out of the centre that they had contributed towards building in the first place.

·        Perhaps the building was not fit for purpose but there was still a need in the community both currently and for the future.

·        Ward Councillors were unhappy with the present situation and the chain of events leading up to it.

The Interim City Solicitor reiterated that a planning permission would not overcome any legal impediment to development such as a covenant.

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee, in respect of such facilities being taken over by the community in other parts of the district, it was stated that it was approximately two years since the building had been used and, to the Assistant Director’s knowledge, no community group had asked to assume responsibility.

The applicant made the following comments in support of the application:

·        The company was a specialist provider of low cost housing and currently had 63 sites across the north of England.

·        This scheme would provide 128 low cost homes. There was a desire to make these as affordable as possible for the local market, accessible to at least 90% of working couples. Prices would start at £102,000 for a two bedroom property and with the ‘Help to Buy’ scheme this would mean a mortgage of £76,000 which was affordable for a couple on the minimum wage.

·        Buying was more cost effective than renting.

·        The company provided sponsorship for junior sports clubs in the area. They also provided employment for local people, supported apprenticeships and made provision for suitable accommodation for people with disabilities.

·        The applicant’s developments provided ‘Your Watch’ a version of Neighbourhood Watch.

·        The company did not sell to landlords; there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will submit a report (Document “AW”) in relation to an outline planning application for a residential development of up to 700 dwellings, with part means of access, and including demolition of buildings and fixed-surface infrastructure associated with the existing use, at Bolton Woods Quarry, Bolton Hall Road, Bradford – 15/06249/MAO.

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 Interim City Solicitor, in respect of:

(i)            A financial contribution of £245,000 towards car charging points per household,

(ii)          A financial contribution of £35,000 towards personalised Travel Plans,

(iii)         A financial contribution of £220,000 towards site specific emission reduction measures,

(iv)         A financial contribution of £49,000 towards mitigating recreational impacts on protected habitats,

(v)          A financial contribution of £441,000 towards on-site affordable housing provision,

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

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways submitted a report (Document “AW”) in relation to an outline planning application for a residential development of up to 700 dwellings, with part means of access, and including demolition of buildings and fixed-surface infrastructure associated with the existing use, at Bolton Woods Quarry, Bolton Hall Road, Bradford – 15/06249/MAO. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of a further representation received from the local MP. He also reported that:

·         Historic England had confirmed their objection in that one of the points of access may compromise the setting of listed buildings (Grade II* Bolton Old Hall and Cottage). He reminded Members of the relevant policy considerations.

·         The site was within a nil Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) zone but £1 million had been offered towards air quality mitigation measures along the Canal Road Corridor and for measures to mitigate any impact on the South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area (SPA)/Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

·         This site was part of a key regeneration area for the Council and a priority area for the delivery of housing.

He responded to questions from Members as follows:

·         All the obligations, totalling £1 million, would be secured by a Section 106 Legal Obligation.

·         The Parish Council had been consulted on two occasions.

An objector to the application put forward the following points of concern:

·         It was considered that the Masterplan was not up to standard.

·         The solution to omissions appeared to be to put in Conditions, the application should be refused on that basis.

·         This was a massive site with, potentially, many developers and there was a need for guidance.

·         The traffic study was 3 years out of date but had identified a number of local roads as being over capacity.

·         The impact on 5 Lane Ends had not been studied but this was a main artery route which regularly seized up due to the level of traffic.

·         There were already problems on Brookwater Drive and Bolton Hall Road with traffic having to travel in single file.

·         There would be access problems for the emergency services and buses. The development would cause chaos and further congestion.

·         It was proposed that Poplars Farm Road be opened up to Canal Road. This would lead to rat running and serious congestion. There were no traffic lights at the Kings Road/Swain House Road junction.

·         Motorists were prevented from reaching the City Centre due to the traffic.

·         Mitigation measures had been offered in terms of the provision of Electric Vehicle Charging (EVC) points but these were only useful if one had an electric car.

·         There was a proposed connection to Brookwater Drive as emergency road for 400 houses; this was a small side road and totally inadequate for such use.

·         No technical report had been submitted in respect of flooding

·         No information had been provided in respect of land contamination.

·         There were concerns about land stability; tipping had taken place in 2005/06.

·         25 houses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AX”) considers an outline application for a development of up to 250 dwellings, including means of access, on land to the South of Thornton Road, Bradford – 17/06423/MAO.

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 Interim City Solicitor, in respect of:

(i)            On site affordable housing provision of up to 20% of the total number of units to be offered at an affordable rent by a Registered Provider,

(ii)          Relocation of the bus stop on Thornton Road and the implementation of Traffic Regulation Orders for the extension of the 30mph speed limit and double yellow line ‘no waiting at any time’ parking restrictions across the site frontage at the expense of the applicant,

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

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AX”) considered an outline application for a development of up to 250 dwellings, including means of access, on land to the South of Thornton Road, Bradford – 17/06423/MAO. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of additional representations received since the publication of his technical report and explained that:

·         In relation to the planning permission granted in February 2009 for a hybrid development; conditions associated with this development had been discharged so in theory it was live rather than expired.

·         Should the Committee be minded to approve the application, revisions were proposed to conditions in respect of timescales and reserved matters along with the imposition of an additional condition in relation to approved plans.

·         The applicant had agreed to meet the full contribution for affordable housing and there was also a need for a Traffic Regulation Order to be funded. Taking this, as well as the distance and relationship of the Great Northern Railway Trail to the site, into account it was not considered appropriate to seek an additional contribution from the developer in this regard.

A Ward Councillor made the following comments:

·         He was representing the views of the vast majority of the residents of Thornton Village.

·         It was appreciated that the main issue for consideration at this point was the proposed means of access to the site.

·         Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that key amenities should be within walking distance. It was considered that this application had not given due consideration to this issue; there was already considerable pressure on local infrastructure.

·         A two metre wide footway was proposed along the frontage of the site but the land in the middle was not owned by the applicant, this gap was potentially dangerous.

·         It was questioned what the impact would be if public footpath numbers 32 and 34 were not diverted.

·         The assertion in relation to the level of traffic accidents was of concern; Thornton Road was a busy through route with schools at either end. This proposal would lead to the introduction of 250+ additional cars which would exacerbate existing safety concerns and increase emissions.

·         The pylons were a cause for concern, no details had been submitted in this respect.

·         It was clear that officers could not guarantee that there was no contamination so detailed tests should take place across the site before any work commenced.

·         It was not true to say, as in the officer’s report, that there were no significant implications for the ward.

·         The Committee was urged to refuse the application.

The Assistant Director commented that:

·         As this was an outline application details of the layout had not been submitted and the pylons would be taken into account at Reserved Matters stage. He did not believe that there were any particular standards that restricted development adjacent to pylons.

·         Numerous conditions were proposed to be imposed in relation to potential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

The Assistant Director – Planning, Transportation and Highways will present the latest monitoring report in respect of Section 106 Agreements signed in the financial year 2017/18 and the income received since the appointment of the Planning Obligations Monitoring Officer (Document “AY”).

Recommended –

That Document “AY” be noted.

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director – Planning, Transportation and Highways presented the latest monitoring report in respect of Section 106 Agreements signed in the financial year 2017/18 and the income received since the appointment of the Planning Obligations Monitoring Officer (Document “AY”).

It was noted that a combined report in respect of Section 106 contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding would be submitted in 12 months time.

Resolved –

That Document “AY” be noted and that the officers involved be thanked for their work over the last twelve months.

NO ACTION

Previous references:  Minute 90 (2015/16) and 46 (2016/17)

The Strategic Director, Place will submit a report (Document “AZ”) which details the main findings of a recent review of the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for Bradford City Centre and Surrounding Area 2016, for Member’s consideration.

The PSPO was implemented further to the decision of this Committee on 29 September 2016 and enforcement commenced in April 2017. The Committee requested that a review of the Order be undertaken after a period of 12 months.

Recommended –

(1)       That no changes be made to the current Public Space Protection Order (PSPO)  Bradford City Centre and Surrounding Area 2016.

(2)       That the Strategic Director, Place be asked to give consideration to:

(i)            Increasing the number of officers patrolling this and other areas protected by PSPOs.

(ii)          Enforcing the PSPO during evenings and weekends.

(3)       That referral to Alcohol Awareness Sessions be discontinued with signposting to Drug and Alcohol Services continuing.

(4)       That the impact of the use of Community Protection Notices (CPNs), Community Protection Warnings (CPWs) in conjunction with PSPOs be monitored.

(5)       That the impact of the ‘Bradford Cares’ initiative be monitored.

(6)       That the Strategic Director, Place be requested to undertake a further review of the effectiveness of the PSPO with particular regard to the impact of the use of Community Protection Notices (CPNs), Community Protection Warnings (CPWs) and ‘Bradford Cares’ in 12 months time, and prior to September 2019 when the Council will be required to consider its renewal.

                                                            (Rebecca Trueman – 01274 431364)

Previous references:  Minute 90 (2015/16) and 46 (2016/17)

The Strategic Director, Place submitted a report (Document “AZ”) which detailed the main findings of a recent review of the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for Bradford City Centre and Surrounding Area 2016, for Member’s consideration.

The PSPO had been implemented further to the decision of this Committee on 29 September 2016 and enforcement had commenced in April 2017. The Committee had requested that a review of the Order be undertaken after a period of 12 months.

It was noted that the PSPO had made a positive impact and that enforcement would continue, alongside other interventions to try and change behaviour, in order to reinforce its effect.

In response to questions from Members it was explained that:

·         5 Fixed Penalty Notices, which carried a fine of £100, had been issued to date.

·         In excess of 446 cans of alcohol had been seized.

Members welcomed the report and expressed their thanks to those involved in implementing and enforcing the requirements of the PSPO.

Resolved –

(1)       That no changes be made to the current Public Space Protection Order (PSPO)  Bradford City Centre and Surrounding Area 2016.

(2)       That the Strategic Director, Place be asked to give consideration to:

(i)            Increasing the number of officers patrolling this and other areas protected by PSPOs.

(ii)          Enforcing the PSPO during evenings and weekends.

(3)       That referral to Alcohol Awareness Sessions be discontinued and signposting to Drug and Alcohol Services continue.

(4)       That the impact of the use of Community Protection Notices (CPNs), Community Protection Warnings (CPWs) in conjunction with PSPOs be monitored.

(5)       That the impact of the ‘Bradford Cares’ initiative be monitored.

(6)       That the Strategic Director, Place be requested to undertake a further review of the effectiveness of the PSPO with particular regard to the impact of the use of Community Protection Notices (CPNs), Community Protection Warnings (CPWs) and ‘Bradford Cares’ in 12 months time, and prior to September 2019 when the Council will be required to consider its renewal.

ACTION:       Strategic Director, Place