The following disclosures of interest were received in the interest of clarity:

Councillor Amran disclosed that the item relating to Ashwell Farm, Ashwell Road, Heaton, Bradford (Minute 72) was within his Ward and he knew a number of people associated with the application but he had not discussed the matter now before the Panel for determination with any interested parties.

Councillor Ellis disclosed that he was a member of the Yorkshire Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and the Airedale Drainage Commissioners, who had objected to the application concerning Land North of Royd Ings Avenue, Keighley (Minute 71), however, he had not been party to the discussion regarding the objection.

Councillor Lee disclosed that she had been present at a meeting held a number of years ago regarding the regeneration of Keighley when the item concerning Land to the North of Royd Ings Avenue, Keighley (Minute 71) had been discussed, however, she was not aware of the applicant and had not discussed the matter now before the Panel for determination with any interested parties.

Councillor Miller disclosed that he may know people associated with any of the applications but he had not discussed any of the matters now before the Panel for determination with any interested parties.

Councillors Amran, Ellis, Griffiths and Warburton disclosed that they had been present at the meeting held on 2 December 2017 when the application concerning Land to the North of Royd Ings Avenue, Keighley (Minute 71) had previously been considered.  They undertook to approach the issue with an open mind and to consider all the relevant material planning issues before making a decision.

ACTION:       City Solicitor

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2017 be signed as a correct record.

There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents. 

Resolved –

That Councillor Stubbs replace Councillor Stelling as a full Member of the Area Planning Panel (Bradford).

ACTION:       City Solicitor

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways submitted a report (Document “AI”) in relation to an application for 166 one and two bed flats, with a retail/professional services/food & drink, non-residential institution/ assembly or leisure use at ground floor level, and 21 basement parking spaces on land at Grammar School Street, Bradford - 16/03564/MAF.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways informed Members that the development would consist of 166 flats with a retail or commercial use element on a two level site, which was in a prominent position at the top end of the City Centre.  He reported that access to the site was via Grammar School Street, which was an unadopted road that was used for on-street parking and the entrance to Carlton House would remain unhindered.  The Committee noted the variety of constructions in the vicinity and the proposed scheme would have a contemporary design on seven levels.  The development would have two buildings, the larger would face onto Hamm Strasse and the smaller onto Grammar School Street.  Lengthy discussions had been undertaken and the proposal had been subject to external Design Review due to the site’s location.  In conclusion the scale and massing had been considered appropriate and the design and appearance was acceptable in the location in order to preserve the character of the conservation area.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that there had not been any objections to the application, however, a representation had been submitted in relation to the access of the adjoining building.  He explained that a one-way system would be introduced and Grammar School Street would be brought up to an adoptable standard.  The access to Carlton House would remain unhindered and be improved.  The site was located in a nil CIL zone and, therefore, not viable for affordable housing.  The application was then recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report and also subject to an additional condition in relation to the upgrading of Grammar School Street.

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

·         The residential flats would have a balcony.

·         The link between the two buildings would be at an upper level and there would be two points of access with a bridge across.

·         The retail element would be double level with residential units above.  Conditions in relation to noise attenuation had been placed on the application.

·         The applicant had contended that the scheme would not be viable with affordable housing and this had not been challenged.  The Council had taken into account the negative land value and the inability to obtain obligations.  The New Homes Bonus would be available for the 166 units, however, assurances could not be given that the scheme would still be operative, though the properties would be subject to Council Tax. 

An objector was present at the meeting and stated that he represented the business that was located in Carlton House.  He informed Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AL) considered a reserved matters application for 30 dwellings (Outline permission reference: 14/04045/MAO), concerning appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, on the site of Flockton House, Flockton Road, Bradford -17/06960/MAR.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that the proposal was a reserved matters application for the consideration of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of 30 dwellings previously approved under outline permission.  He explained that following the publication of the report a number of consultation responses had been received.  The Council’s Drainage Team had requested that the scheme be subject to the conditions, which were already covered on the outline planning permission and the Council’s Conservation Team had recommended conditions in respect of windows, boundary treatments and gable end materials due to the location of the site next to Bolling Hall, which was a listed building.  Members were informed that Council offices had previously occupied the site, the building had been demolished and it was now a vacant site.  Access had previously been approved in 2015 as part of the outline planning permission and 30 dwellings had been proposed.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that the Council was the applicant and the parking provision met the requirements of the Council’s policy.  He stated that the site had formerly been used as offices, with a car park and any vehicle overspill had parked on the road.  The Council’s Highways Department had not objected to the proposal and the point of access had been approved at the outline planning stage and was not for consideration with this application.  The impact of social housing was also not a planning consideration.  The application was then recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report and three additional conditions requested by the Council’s Conservation Team. 

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

·         If another developer purchased the site and wanted to change the plans they would have to submit an application in order to amend the house types.

·         The construction and retention of the wall would be covered by a condition.

·         The windows would be recessed to reflect those on Bolling Hall.

An objector was present at the meeting and made the following points:

·         He lived on Brompton Avenue and objected to the access to the site being on this road.

·         Flockton Road would provide a more suitable access as it was wider than Brompton Avenue.

·         Other streets in the area were used as a rat run by Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) from Wakefield Road.

·         The affordable housing provision should be part rented and part owned, not all rented.

In response to some of the comments made, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that the access to the site had been agreed at the outline planning stage and the Council’s Highways Department had not been asked to comment on an alternative  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “AJ”) 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.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reminded Members that the application had been deferred from the meeting held on 7 December 2017 in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit further information and full determination of the proposal was now required.  He explained that the application was for the construction of nine commercial units with associated car parking on a site that was within a flood zone area, the Green Belt and partly designated as a wildlife area.  It was noted that access would be gained through the existing industrial development and this was at a higher level than the proposed site.  The officer’s report detailed the reasons for deferral and the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that the application had been re-advertised as it was subject to amendments.  As a consequence further objections had been received and many were from people that had previously submitted representations.  Members were informed that the Council’s Rights of Way Team had initially raised concerns, however, the footpaths could be amended and this was no longer a reason for refusal.  The site was located in designated Green Belt and was subject to national and local planning policies, therefore, the Committee would need to conclude that there were very special circumstances to warrant approval of the scheme.  The applicant’s case indicated that there was a shortage of employment units in the area and the proposal would meet the demand.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that the site had been designated as employment but this had been removed on the advice of the Environment Agency in light of flood zone mapping that had been undertaken during the early 2000s.  He explained that it was a flood risk site and was meant to flood in order to relieve pressure.  In relation to the sequential approach, the site covered 10 hectares, which would provide a third of the future employment area for Airedale and assessments had been undertaken in order to identify the likely need for extra employment sites in the area.  The Council had looked at sites and acknowledged that 10 hectares was a substantial area, however, it needed to consider the entire District and there were two sites approved for residential and employment use in Silsden.  The applicant had disagreed with the Council stating that there was a need for units in the Keighley area. 

Concerns had been raised by the Council’s Principle Drainage Engineer in relation to the operation of the site and the applicant had proposed to raise the buildings on stilts, as part of the site would flood.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

A report was submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AK”) in respect of an application for the construction of 27 dwellings at Ashwell Farm, Ashwell Road, Heaton, Bradford - 17/06647/MAF.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that the proposal was to construct 27 houses on a site that could accommodate three storey houses due to the levels, with access from Ashwell Road.  He confirmed that a number of representations had been received that raised concerns in relation to the additional traffic in the area, amongst others.  The site had previously been allocated as Phase 2 housing and the Council supported the housing allocation.  It was situated in an appropriate locality and would not harm residential amenity.  Highway safety would not be compromised as visibility splays would be created at the access point and electric vehicle charging points had been recommended.  Members were informed that full assessments had been undertaken.  There were protected trees in the vicinity, but not on the site and a condition to protect the trees would be applicable during the construction period.  A Phase 1 and 2 contamination study had been undertaken and a verification report would need to be submitted.  Construction traffic would also be subject to a condition.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that five affordable homes would be provided and then recommended that the application be approved, subject to the conditions as set out in the report and also subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal Agreement.

In response to a Member’s query, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that the site was located in a nil CIL area, however, money would be spent on mitigating measures across the District.

An objector was present at the meeting and raised the following points:

·         Why had it taken nine years to get the certification correct?

·         Why did the site description contain errors, as buildings had been removed?

·         Had the protocols for missing buildings been followed?

·         Officers had visited the site in relation to fly tipping.

·         There was contaminated spoil along the North West boundary of the site.

·         How did the removal of trees on the boundary improve the area?

·         The decision made in 2012 not to prosecute the applicant should be revisited.

In response the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that the issue regarding certification related to a situation that had occurred with a previous planning permission, which had now expired.  An area of land had been disputed as part of the signed certificate, however, it was not the role of the Committee to become involved in such matters.  The applicant had then altered the area of the site at the reserve matters stage.  It was noted that the proposed scheme did not go beyond the red line boundary.  Members were informed that a full Phase 1 and 2 contamination study, which considered both the site in question and those adjoining, had been undertaken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.