In the interest of transparency the following disclosures of interest were made:

(i)            Councillor Warburton disclosed an interest in the item relating to land south of Rooley Crescent (Minute 52) as he had been a former resident of the area and that he was also a Ward Councillor, however he had not had involvement in any aspect of this application. Councillor Watson also declared that she was a Ward Councillor and that she also had not had any involvement in the application.

(ii)          Councillors Ellis, Wainwright and Warburton declared an interest in relation to Otto House (Minute 54) as they were members of the Regulatory and Appeals Committee, when the outline planning application was considered, however they stated that they would be considering this application with a fresh mind.

(iii)         Councillor Ellis also declared that he was a member of a number of profession drainage bodies and that he was a Council appointed Member on the West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

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. 

(Yusuf Patel - 01274 434579)

There were no appeals submitted 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.

                                                            (Yusuf Patel – 01274 434579)

There were no changes to Membership of Sub-Committees.

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “T”) which seeks to inform the Regulatory & Appeals Committee about Development Management performance and key activities undertaken over the last year (1 April 2018 – 31 March 2019). The Service can report that it exceeds or meets all the targets set by Government or in regard to its own measures such as stated in the Council Plan.

Recommended –

That the report be noted.

(Jenny Seaman - 01274 434195)

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) submitted a report (Document “T”) which sought to inform the Regulatory & Appeals Committee about development management performance and key activities undertaken over the last year (1 April 2018 – 31 March 2019). The Service reported that it had exceeded and met all the targets set by Government or in regard to its own measures such as stated in the Council Plan.

Resolved –

That the report be noted.

ACTION:       NO ACTION 

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways) will submit a report (Document “U”) which informs Members of progress with Section 106 Agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy since its adoption and implementation on 1st July 2017 to the end of the financial year 2018/2019.

Recommended –

That the report be noted.

(Andrew Marshall - 01274 434050)

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways) submitted a report (Document “U”) which informed Members of progress with Section 106 Agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy since its adoption and implementation on 1st July 2017 to the end of the financial year 2018/2019.

Resolved –

That the report be noted.

ACTION:       NO ACTION 

The Assistant Director (Planning Transportation and Highways) will submit a report (Document “V”) which sets out a full application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of 150 dwellings with associated engineering, landscaping and access works, at land to the south of Rooley Crescent, Staithgate Lane, Bradford.

Recommended –

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in Appendix 1 to Document “V”.

(John Eyles - 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director (Planning Transportation and Highways) submitted a report (Document “V”) which set out a full application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of 150 dwellings with associated engineering, landscaping and access works, at land to the south of Rooley Crescent, Staithgate Lane, Bradford.

The Assistant Director stated that amended plans had recently been received from the applicant, and it would therefore be prudent to undertake a full consultation on the amended plans with all interested parties, and he therefore urged that the application be deferred to a future meeting.

Although Members commented on the late submission of the amended plans, it was felt that a full consultation was the only sensible way forward and it was therefore:

Resolved –

That the application be deferred to allow for a full consultation to be undertaken on the amended plans.

ACTION: Assistant Director (Planning Transportation and Highways)

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “W”) which sets out a full planning application for the construction of 11 dwellings on land at Holly Fold, Steeton with Eastburn, Bradford.

Recommended –

That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to Document “W”.

(John Eyles - 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) submitted a report (Document “W”) which set out a full planning application for the construction of 11 dwellings on land at Holly Fold, Steeton with Eastburn, Bradford.

The Assistant Director provided an overview of the proposed development, showing photographs of the site, plans and drawings and summarising the representations that had been received.

The Assistant Director also reported on three further representations that had been received.  The Local Member of Parliament had raised concerns regarding wear and tear of the private road from the additional traffic that will now use it in order to access the new development, and that no maintenance plan was being proposed; he also cited biodiversity loss and that the need for new homes in the Steeton area was around 150, which was a lower figure in comparison to the 700 stipulated in the Core Strategy.  The Parish Council had also objected to the proposals on the grounds that the proposal was on greenbelt land; concerns around the water drainage and the electricity pylons running across the site.

A lengthy submission was also submitted by a Ward Councillor and the Assistant Director paraphrased the comments,  which raised the following issues:

·         That although the land in question was classed as greenfield, the proposed development would be visible from the Aire Valley.

·         That the development would result in the loss of village character and identity and that the existing infrastructure would not be able to sustain additional development.

·         That the proposed CIL contribution was insufficient and an additional levy should be imposed to cover education provision.

·         That the development would add additional congestion to the area.

·         That the proposed housing numbers for Steeton with Eastburn had been amended from 750 to 150 in the recent partial review of the Core Strategy.

·         That residents concerns around overshadowing, loss of light, loss of privacy and loss of amenity had to be taken into consideration.

·         That there would an increase in surface water flooding.

·         That there were maintenance issue concerns and liability regarding the new road and the existing private road serving the current residents.

·         That the power line diversion should be conditioned as part of any planning application.

In response to some of the issues raised by the additional representations, the Assistant Director confirmed that the 150 housing figure was incorrect with 700 still the number identified in the Core Strategy;  that the proposed development was in a sustainable location; that there would be no overlooking issues given the separation distances were adequate and that no adverse highways issues were perceived given the modest number of houses proposed.  In relation to the issue of CIL payment, the proposed amount was based on the number of houses proposed and an additional levy could not be imposed on the developer, and finally Highways Development Control were satisfied with the highway arrangements on the site.

In response to a question whether the new road would be adopted post development, it was stated that although the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “X”) which sets out a full application for the construction of 167 two, three and four bedroomed, 2 storey traditional residential homes on the former site of Otto House, Ingleby Road, Bradford.

Recommended –

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to Document “X”.

(John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) submitted a report (Document “X”) which set out a full application for the construction of 167 two, three and four bedroomed, 2 storey traditional residential homes on the former site of Otto House, Ingleby Road, Bradford.

The Assistant Director provided an overview of the proposed development, showing photographs of the site, plans and drawings and summarising the representations that had been received.  The Assistant Director also stated that conditions 26 and 27 would have to amended following further assessment and discussions. 

A Member questioned the drainage arrangements on site and it was confirmed that there was no water course on the site, but a requisition sewer, which Yorkshire Water would continue to maintain.

In response to a question regarding the installation of car charging points, it was stated that this would be covered by way of condition.

Representatives from a company which occupied a position near to the site were present at the meeting and expressed concerns that noise arising from their operations could impact on people living in the new dwellings, and they suggested that if noise attenuation measures were not stipulated for the whole site, the company could become liable for causing a statutory noise nuisance.

A representative for the applicant was also present at the meeting and stated that he was happy to discuss the noise issue further with the company in question, and he went to set out the company’s ethos in providing low cost starter homes which enabled young families to take their first step on the housing ladder, he also explained how the company was committed to using local labour and apprenticeships..

During the discussion Members expressed broad support for the proposals and the affordability of the new houses, however Members were keen to ensure that the developer protected the whole site from the potential noise impact emanating from the industrial premises and it was therefore:

Resolved –

That the application be approved in accordance with officers recommendations with an additional condition for a noise attenuation scheme for the whole site plus amendments to two drainage conditions that reflect the drainage concerns expressed in the discussion by members.

ACTION: Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways)

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “Y”) which sets out reserved matters application requesting consideration of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for a residential development of 12 dwellings (pursuant to outline approval reference 18/01604/MAO).

Recommended –

That the reserved matters application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to Document “Y”.

(John Eyles - 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) submitted a report (Document “Y”) which set out a reserved matters application requesting consideration of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for a residential development of 12 dwellings (pursuant to outline approval reference 18/01604/MAO).

The Assistant Director provided an overview of the proposed development, showing photographs of the site, plans and drawings and summarising the representations that had been received.

Resolved –

That the reserved matters application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to Document “Y” and subject to the following amendments:

(i)         That the approved ‘Layout Plan’ is revision D not revision C as set       out in Document “Y”.

(ii)        That the approved ‘Landscaping’ plan is revision B not revision A        as set out in Document “Y”.

ACTION: Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways)