In the interests of transparency, Councillor Warburton disclosed, in relation to the item concerning Lockwood Farm, 3 Spen View Lane, Bradford (Minute 33) that he was acquainted with a number of people living in the area due to his family having lived in the area, in the past, for a considerable period of time. He had not discussed the application with anyone or expressed a view.

In the interests of transparency, Councillor Wainwright disclosed, in relation to the item concerning Lockwood Farm, 3 Spen View Lane, Bradford (Minute 33) that he was a Ward Councillor and was thus acquainted with a number of people living in this area and the local Member of Parliament. He had been clear with constituents that he was unable to discuss or pass comment on the proposals and had not expressed a view.

During the meeting, in the interests of transparency, and further to mention of the Bradford South Area Committee during the consideration of the item concerning Lockwood Farm, 3 Spen View Lane, Bradford (Minute 33), Councillors Wainwright and Warburton noted that they were members of that Committee.

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

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 submit a report (Document “Q”) in respect of a full application for a residential development comprising 113 dwellings on land at Lockwood Farm, 3 Spen View Lane, Bradford – 17/06074/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

            20% affordable housing provision, on site, to be transferred to a Registered Provider,

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 submitted a report (Document “Q”) in respect of a full application for a residential development comprising 113 dwellings on land at Lockwood Farm, 3 Spen View Lane, Bradford – 17/06074/MAF. Plans and photographs were displayed and/or tabled.

He reported on the substance of additional correspondence received since the publication of his technical report, which suggested that the content of the report was inaccurate. A specific example of this, as stated by the objector, related to what other land in the locality was for sale or had been changed from Green Belt to safeguarded, or was land with potential to be built on. The response had been that no sites had been changed from Green Belt to safeguarded land and this could not be done without the preparation of the new Allocations Development Plan Document that was currently being prepared but would not be adopted for a number of years. The objector had referred to a planning application for another site, approximately 1/3 of a mile from this site, but an objection to the principle of development had been received from Sport England and it was not an allocated housing site so at the present time it was not available for housing. The Assistant Director explained that, in effect, the answer to the question were limitless as anyone could submit an application to develop any piece of open land at any time. He was satisfied that the report was not inaccurate.

In response to questions from Members he explained that:

·         The proposed traffic calming measures would be fully funded by the developer. The Council’s Traffic Department had assessed the proposals and suggested amendments but the detail would be submitted to the relevant Area Committee for determination.

·         The forecast of additional vehicular movements in the a.m. peak was 94; 28 into the site and 66 out split across the two points of access. In the p.m. peak the figures were 63 in (an average of 1 per minute) and 40 out. These figures had been considered in terms of the capacity of the local roads and junctions, which were not near to their maximum, and the accident record, which did not suggest any deficiencies in the network. He was satisfied that the highway network would function post-development.

·         Education provision was a material planning consideration as it was part of essential infrastructure. Developer’s contributions towards infrastructure, including education, were now determined by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) scheme which was designed to take account of the viability of development and to consider infrastructure needs strategically across the whole district. This site was within an area where the required contribution was zero but developments in other areas would contribute to a central pot of funding that would be allocated by the Council according to need. It was accepted that this development would generate additional children but the Council had an obligation to provide school places for the children in the district.

·         A turning head  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

A report will be presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “R”) in relation to an outline application, with all matters reserved, for the construction of 12 dwellings on land at Highgate, Queensbury, Bradford, with access proposed from Woodlands Grove – 18/01604/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)

A report was presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “R”) in relation to an outline application, with all matters reserved, for the construction of 12 dwellings on land at Highgate, Queensbury, Bradford, with access proposed from Woodlands Grove – 18/01604/MAO. Plans and photographs were displayed and/or tabled.

The Assistant Director proposed that, if Members were minded to approve the application, two further conditions should be imposed in relation to the provision of protective measures for existing trees.

In response to questions from Members, he explained that:

·         The indicative layout showed that refuse vehicles would be able to turn within the site. Although intermittent on-street parking did take place along Woodlands Grove it tended to be staggered and it was considered that the access was achievable. Refuse vehicles already went down Woodlands Grove and parking was less prevalent during the day. A turning head had been required to facilitate servicing of the development. 

·         Appropriate measures would have to be taken in respect of construction traffic; a Dilapidation Survey could perhaps be undertaken so that there would be a record of any damage caused which could then be made good by the developer.

·         The design would not prejudice the remaining part of the Phase 2 allocated housing site but any plans to develop this area in the future would have to be considered, on their merits, at that time. The Committee was just required to consider the proposal for 12 dwellings now before it.

·         It was considered that the provision of charging points for electric vehicles was a better use of funding in the long term in terms of encouraging sustainable travel than the issue of 1 year Metrocards. The provision of both measures might be considered in locations that were not sustainable but this site was considered to be so and it would therefore be unreasonable to require both; in addition to which there was no specific planning policy to support this. The initiative for the introduction of electric vehicle charging points had started approximately 4 years ago arising from the adoption of a Low Emissions Strategy by the Council. The cost of this provision was actually higher than that of the 1 year Metrocards.

·         The premise of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) scheme was that contributions were made by developments with a higher commercial value and better viability. Funding for educational infrastructure implications in nil CIL areas would come from the central pot generated by other developments in the district. The Government Inspector had required the Local Planning Authority to place this locality within the nil CIL zone.

Members commented that:

·         It was considered that the electric vehicle charging points would almost certainly be used and have a greater practical outcome than the Metrocard provisions and this meant a better impact in terms of sustainability.

·         One of the local schools was currently being expanded.

Objectors were present at the meeting. They tabled a number of photographs and and put forward the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will report upon a Reserved Matters Application for the construction of 311 dwellings, approved under outline permission 14/00208/MAO on land at Fagley Quarry, Fagley Lane, Bradford which requires consideration of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (Document “S”) – 18/00897/MAR.

The report explains that this application relates to the western half of the larger site and there is a second Reserved Matters application for the eastern part of the site (ref: 18/01127/MAR – see Agenda Item 9).

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 reported upon a Reserved Matters Application for the construction of 311 dwellings, approved under outline permission 14/00208/MAO on land at Fagley Quarry, Fagley Lane, Bradford, which required consideration of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (Document “S”) – 18/00897/MAR.

The report explained that this application related to the western half of a larger site and there was a second Reserved Matters application for the eastern part of the site (ref: 18/01127/MAR – see Minute 36).

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of a further objection received after the publication of his written report.

In response to questions from Members he said that node points would be provided along the access road from Moorside Road, to break up the free run of the road and discourage speeding. Ramps and visual differences would be used to indicate the shared surface areas further into the development.

An objector spoke in opposition to the application:

·         She lived on Whitaker Close and had concerns about the public footpath along the back of these properties. It was unclear on the plans if this was to be incorporated into the development and, if not, what would happen to that 2 metre wide strip of land?

·         There were already problems exiting Whitaker Avenue onto Moorside Road and an increase in traffic as a result of this development would exacerbate the situation; it would also have an impact on the junction of Moorside Road and Harrogate Road.

·         Public transport provision was inadequate; it was not possible to park at Apperley Bridge Railway Station after 8.00 in the morning and there were only 4 buses a day; it was a long way to walk to local facilities.

·         There was already a lack of health and educational provision; it was questioned where residents would go to see a doctor.

·         The access down Whitaker Avenue was also a concern; the development would be to the rear and side of her property. Additional traffic would be generated on a relatively narrow road and people needed to park their vehicles.

·         The proposed height of the houses was also an issue; existing residents did not want to be overlooked and the land sloped. Conditions in winter weather could be difficult.

The Assistant Director explained that funding for junction improvements, including traffic signals at Moorside Road/Harrogate Road had been secured under the outline planning permission and stated that:

·         It was acknowledged that the station car park was busy but there was the potential to extend this in future.

·         At the outline planning stage £1 million had been secured for the improvement of the Greengates Junction or education infrastructure. The junction improvement scheme had subsequently been funded by another development so this funding could now be used to extend existing school provision.

·         The area around the site was to be left as open space and would be maintained as part of the open space agreement; it was accepted that there was a difference in land levels  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “T”) in relation to a Reserved Matters Application for the construction of 278 dwellings, approved under outline permission 14/00208/MAO, on land at Fagley Quarry, Fagley Lane, Bradford and which requires consideration of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale – 18/01127/MAR.

The report explains that this application relates to the eastern half of the site and there is a second Reserved Matters application for the western part of the larger site (ref: 18/00897/MAR – see Agenda Item 8).

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 “T”) in relation to a Reserved Matters Application for the construction of 278 dwellings, approved under outline permission 14/00208/MAO, on land at Fagley Quarry, Fagley Lane, Bradford and which requires consideration of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale – 18/01127/MAR.

The report explained that this application related to the eastern half of the site and there was a second Reserved Matters application for the western part of the larger site (ref: 18/00897/MAR – see Minute 35).

The Assistant Director clarified that the name of the applicant in this case was Barratts. In response to a Member’s question he said that the access from Harrogate Road had been approved under the outline permission.

A local resident raised concerns in respect to the access/egress and potential issues associated with the boundary of his land and existing trees.

The City Solicitor said that the grant of planning permission would not permit the developers to use land that was not within their ownership but this was a private legal matter. The resident was advised to discuss this matter with the developer direct.

A Ward Councillor said that:

·         He had concerns about the buffer to the houses on Wharncliffe Drive and Martindale Close but the planning officer had explained the proposed green edge around the development.

·         There was a need to mitigate disturbance to existing residents during construction.

·         No assurance had been provided that construction traffic would not try to access the site via numerous points of access.

·         Work should be undertaken to ensure that as far as possible residents’ lives were not disrupted any more than was necessary.

·         It was questioned whether the green space at the bottom part of the site would be protected and maintained; this was a place for surface water to run off.

In response, the Assistant Director explained that:

·         The southern section of the site was allocated Urban Green Space; it would be difficult to build on and an application would be required to do so.

·         A condition was proposed in respect of a landscape maintenance agreement.

·         A condition in relation to the submission of a Construction Plan had been included within the Outline Planning Permission and it was known that this developer had worked with local residents in other areas to minimise disruption.

The applicant’s agent said that:

·         He was happy to speak to the local resident in respect of the land/boundary issues raised.

·         He was aware of the impact on existing residents and was happy to maintain a dialogue with them and to abide by the Construction Plan condition.

·         A management company would maintain the open space provision. All residents would normally contribute towards the costs of this through an annual, marginal fee and efforts would be made to use a company for this work which included involvement/management by local residents.

Resolved –

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “U”) which updates the Committee on Development Management performance against the national assessment criteria and local performance targets between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2018.

Recommended –

That Document “U” be noted.

                                                            (Jenny Seaman – 01274 434195)

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “U”) which updated the Committee on Development Management performance against the national assessment criteria and local performance targets between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2018. He explained that the targets, both national and local, had been either met or exceeded in all cases.

In response to questions he outlined the enforcement process and the amount of time that this could take; there was a strict process that had to be correctly followed. He assured Members that a decision that it was not expedient to pursue would only be taken in de minimis cases and if there was a significant breach the Local Planning Authority would continue to pursue enforcement action.

A Member commented that it was important that the Local Plan was completed as soon as possible.

Members expressed their thanks to the officers involved in achieving these performance results.

Resolved –

That Document “U” be noted and that thanks be expressed to officers for their work over the last twelve months.

NO ACTION