In the interests of transparency, Councillors Wainwright and Warburton disclosed, in relation to the item concerning Unit 2, Prologis Park, Newhall Way, Bradford (Minute 51), that they had been Members of the Committee when the planning application for the existing building (14/05041/MAR) had been determined in 2015. They undertook to approach the current application with an open mind and to consider all the relevant material planning issues before making a decision.

In the interests of transparency, Councillor Griffiths disclosed, in relation to the item concerning Land to the South East of 55 Westfield Lane, Idle, Bradford (Minute 50), that the site was within his ward but he had not discussed the application with anyone nor expressed an opinion.

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 present a report (Document “Y”) which relates to a full planning application for the construction of 26 residential dwellings on land to the south east of 55 Westfield Lane, Idle, Bradford - 18/02325/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 securing the provision of the affordable housing.

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 “Y”) which related to a full planning application for the construction of 26 residential dwellings on land to the south east of 55 Westfield Lane, Idle, Bradford - 18/02325/MAF.  A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

He reported on the substance and detail of three further representations received, in objection to the application, following the publication of his technical report; one from a resident of 16 Back Lane and two from the residents of 18 Back Lane in addition to the objections received from them during the consultation period.  The representations also included a number of measures that the residents of No. 18 considered would improve the impact upon these two properties. The issues raised included; overbearing, overshadowing, loss of light, loss of privacy and concerns in relation to drainage, contamination levels, increased traffic, noise and disturbance, and the  impact due to the difference in land levels, the density of the adjacent plots and the separation distances.

In response to the issues raised, he corrected an error in the report in respect of the fourth paragraph of the section relating to residential amenity which should refer to the relationship between Plot 24 and 18 Back Lane (rather than 10 Back Lane) and said that:

·         The separation distance from the gable end of plot 24 to the rear elevation of 18 Back Lane was 12 metres.  The occupiers of 18 Back Lane had claimed that this figure was incorrect as it should be measured to the end of the extension to the back of their property, which they said equated to 8 metres.  A distance of 8 metres was still considered acceptable to a blank wall gable elevation. 

·         The applicant’s representative may wish to comment on the suggestion for a landscaped area along the boundary with these properties.

He also explained that the strip of undeveloped land adjoining the site (which had been included within the original allocated site and was in different ownership) had not been included in this application as it would not permit an increase in the number of dwellings and would have no beneficial impact on the scheme.

The following information was provided in response to Members’ questions:

·         It was estimated that the likely volume of additional traffic would be 18 vehicle movements per hour in the morning peak on Westfield Lane in both directions, This equated to less than one additional vehicle every three minutes and was considered to be easily incorporated into the daily flow of traffic.

·         No problems had been indicated in relation to the road junctions.

·         There had been three slight car accidents recorded on Wrose Road and this was not a cause for concern.

·         No plans to indicate any overshadowing had been submitted. (He indicated the path of the sun on the displayed plan). It was accepted that there may be some impact on these properties.

A Member queried the Highways Department’s response to information contained in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will submit a report (Document “Z”) relating to the construction of a warehouse extension at Unit 2, ProLogis Park, Newhall Way, Bradford- 18/02325/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 submitted a report (Document “Z”) relating to the construction of a warehouse extension at Unit 2, ProLogis Park, Newhall Way, Bradford- 18/02325/MAF

Resolved -

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.

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

The Strategic Director - Place will present a report (Document “AA”) which outlines proposals, and seeks approval to begin the required public consultation exercise, to implement a Public Space Protection Order for the Bradford District relating to antisocial behaviour arising from misuse of vehicles.

Recommended –

(1)       That the Strategic Director, Place be authorised to undertake the required (minimum 6 week)consultation exercise to implement a Public Space Protection Order for Bradford District relating to antisocial behaviour arising from the misuse of vehicles. 

(2)       That further to the completion of the necessary consultation process, the proposed Order be submitted to this Committee for approval.

                                                            (Rebecca Trueman – 01274 431364)

The Strategic Director, Place presented a report (Document “AA”) which outlined proposals, and sought approval to begin the required public consultation exercise in relation to proposals to implement a Public Space Protection Order for the Bradford District relating to antisocial behaviour arising from the misuse of vehicles.

The report explained that, in March 2014, the Government had enacted new powers, contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, relevant to tackling anti-social behaviour.  Amongst other things, these powers allowed local authorities to implement Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) which could prohibit certain types of anti-social behaviour within an established area and make breaches subject to fixed penalties and prosecution before the Magistrates Court.

In response to Members’ questions, the Strategic Director and City Solicitor stated that:

·         Costs associated with the PSPO would be in relation to the consultation, officer time, legal costs and signage.

·         The PSPO was a proposal at this stage and, following the consultation process, a report on the findings would be submitted to the Committee which would also outline options in relation to the implementation and extent of the PSPO for Members to make a final decision.

·         Following the implementation of the Bradford City Centre PSPO, officers had some experience of the process.

·         The PSPO was not proposed to tackle issues for which there were already enforcement powers in place, such as illegally parked vehicles. 

·         The proposed PSPO was to tackle antisocial behaviour arising from the misuse of vehicles only.

·         The way in which enforcement would take place depended on feedback from the consultation process and could not be specified at this early stage. 

·         The PSPO would allow the process for seizing vehicles or proceeding to prosecution to be speeded up.

·         There would be a joint approach by the Council and the police to resourcing and enforcement.

Members made the following comments:

·         Pavement parking was banned by legislation in London which would also be a good way forward for the Bradford district.

·         Reassurances were required that the benefits of imposing the PSPO would outweigh its cost and make a significant difference to peoples lives.

A Member spoke of the recent success of the Police’s ‘Operation Steerside’ to crackdown on dangerous driving in Bradford and questioned whether the PSPO would be effective enough or be a good use of resources as there were already legal steps the Police could take to prosecute some antisocial behaviour arising from the misuse of vehicles.

In response, the City Solicitor and the Strategic Director  stated that:

·         As an example, a vehicle travelling at the appropriate speed but causing a noise nuisance would not be considered illegal and therefore would not be a priority for the Police. However the PSPO would make it possible to address nuisance, as well as obstructions, caused by the misuse of vehicles which could be detrimental to the quality of life of people in the locality.

·         The PSPO would allow flexibility for the Council in addressing, and being seen to address, this type  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.