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 71) 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.

(ii)          Councillor Ellis also declared that he was a member of a number of            professional drainage bodies.

(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 to review decisions to restrict documents.

Recommended –

That Councillor Knox replace Councillor Humphreys as a Member of the Corporate Parenting Panel for the remainder of the Municipal Year.

                                                            (Yusuf Patel – 01274 434579)

Resolved –

That Councillor Knox replaces Councillor Humphreys as a Member of the Corporate Parenting Panel for the remainder of the Municipal Year.

ACTION: City Solicitor                                         

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report(Document “AF”) which sets out an application to seek the change of use of land and buildings from mixed B1, B2 and B8 use to B8 (storage & distribution) use with ancillary offices and associated car parking at Robert McBride Limited, Rook Lane, Bradford.

Recommended –

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions included in Appendix 1 to Document “AF”.

(John Eyles - 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director Planning, Transportation & Highways submitted a report (Document “AF”) which set out an application to seek the change of use of land and buildings from mixed B1, B2 and B8 use to B8 (storage & distribution) use with ancillary offices and associated car parking at Robert McBride Limited, Rook Lane, Bradford.

The Assistant Director tabled a site layout plan, showing access and the internal layout of the buildings, photographs and floor plans were also alluded to.  The application had resulted in a number of objections from local residents, in particular concerns around the parking of HGVs on Rook Lane during the early hours of the morning, and it was therefore being proposed that to mitigate the impact on the existing residents, a Section 106 agreement would be imposed which would inhibit HGVs parking on the length of Rook Lane, as well as implementation of a residents only permit parking scheme.  Suggestions by residents that HGVs exiting the site should turn right only had not been considered a viable option on the grounds that it would not be enforceable.

A Member stated that a resident’s only permit parking scheme may inhibit family and friends from parking on Rook Lane, and he suggested that a 3.5 /7.5 tonne vehicle weight limit may be a more appropriate way to deal with the issue of HGVs parking on Rook Lane, rather than an all encompassing parking ban.

A Tong Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and she questioned the cost implications of the residents only parking; whether double yellow lines would only be implemented on the factory side and whether there will be ample parking for all employees.  In response the Assistant Director stated that a Traffic Regulation Order would have to be a matter for the relevant Area Committee and that it will have to go through a process of consultation; however a direction could be given by this Committee on the premise which the TRO would be advertised.  The Assistant Director stated that the number of employees would actually decrease as a result of the proposed change of use.

Members suggested that in devising a TRO, a best solution for residents should be at the forefront, which may include a weight limit on the vehicles that could park on Rook Lane or a permit parking scheme, and it was therefore:

Resolved –

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions included in Appendix 1 to Document “AF” with a proviso that the Traffic Regulation Order offers the best solution for local residents.

ACTION: Assistant Director Transportation Design and Planning

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “AE”) which sets out a full application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of 146 dwellings with associated engineering, landscaping and access works, at land to the south of Rooley Crescent, Staithgate Lane, Bradford.

Recommended –

That the application be approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to Document “AE”.

(John Eyles - 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) submitted a report (Document “AE”) which set out a full application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of 146 dwellings with associated engineering, landscaping and access works, at land to the south of Rooley Crescent, Staithgate Lane, Bradford.

The Assistant Director gave a detailed overview of the planning application, showing plans, photographs of the proposed site, layout and proposed house types and summarising the representations that had been received.  He updated Members on additional comments that had been received from Network Rail suggesting that works be undertaken to ensure safety in the vicinity of Bolling tunnel and that this would be addressed by way of an additional condition.  A transport planner had raised concerns that no travel plan had been submitted and that the site was far away from a viable bus route, as well as details around the proposed park and ride scheme and electric vehicle charging points, again a condition would be added stipulating the submission of a travel plan.  The Environment Agency had been contacted about the proposed development but had made no comments on the application.

Four additional objections had also been received, which raised no new issues.  An objection from the local Member of Parliament was alluded to raising a number of concerns regarding the 1972 designation of the land which had since been superseded by a number of policy changes and it was confirmed that Network Rail, Yorkshire Water and the Coal Board had all been consulted.  The factors relating to the Odsal tip had also been considered and as a consequence gas protection measures would be stipulated by way of condition.

A number of heads of terms were suggested as well as amended /revised conditions relating to the development which were reflected in the resolution.

In response to a question regarding timescales for delivery of the park and ride scheme, it was explained that the proposals were currently in the process of being assessed. 

In relation to a question regarding contamination, it was explained that the Council’s Environmental Protection Team had assessed the site, and they were happy with the proposals, subject to the imposition of a condition relating to gas protection measures.

The Chair stated he had had sight of a memo from an officer in the Environmental protection team which stated that they were a number of contaminants present on the site, including arsenic and in his opinion the level of contamination was setting off alarm bells.  In addition the GEO Leeds report had also expressed concerns about the suitability of this site for residential use. Furthermore the site was not served well by public transport and any bus services that did operate, were infrequent. Concerns were also expressed on the potential for leachate to seep onto the site from the Odsal tip and that this was a matter of real concern.

In response to some of the issues raised, the Assistant Director acknowledged that although Environmental Protection had raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

The Assistant Director Planning, Transportation & Highways will submit  a report (Document “AG”) which sets out a full application for mixed-use development comprising of event/exhibition venue (D2) and ten B1 (Business), B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage or Distribution) units.

Recommended –

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report of the Assistant Director Transportation, Design and Planning.

(John Eyles - 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director Planning, Transportation & Highways submitted  a report (Document “AG”) which set out a full application for mixed-use development comprising of event/exhibition venue (D2) and ten B1 (Business), B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage or Distribution) units.

The Assistant Director gave a detailed overview of the planning application, showing plans, photographs of the proposed site, and artistic impression of the proposed event/exhibition venue.  The Assistant Director advised that the site had been vacant for decades, however the site had been designated as waste management site and therefore this application was considered unsuitable and thus contrary to the Core Strategy.  The applicant was proposing significant investment on the site, however the sequential test promoted main town centre uses with the town centre first, and this development  did not satisfy the sequential test and as a consequence there would be an impact on the viability of existing city centre facilities, and it was therefore recommended for refusal.

A Member questioned the viability of the site for a waste management use and that a permit would have to be sought from DEFRA, however given the constraints and proximity to existing properties it was difficult to see how the site would be viable in this regard.  In response it was stressed that any waste management use would be principally around processing activity, rather than an intensive use.

In response to a question on how the site had been marketed, it was explained that the current owner had purchased the site in 2016 and that in submitting his application he had been aware of the sites designated use.  The Council had worked with the applicant over a number of months, however no exceptions could be found to overcome the site designation.

A Member questioned whether the sequential test had been met in refusing the application, as this was not in close proximity to the city centre, nor was it within walking distance.

A City Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and stated that this site had been vacant for a number of years and that the applicant had already invested significant sums of money in clearing up the site, which had been fly tipped for a number of years as well as incidents of anti social behaviour.  The local residents were glad to finally see the site being developed and the applicant was injecting a significant amount of investment in developing the site, which would result in the creation of over 100 jobs. She questioned the logic of designating the site as a waste site and despite it being marketed, no operator had come forward, and she urged Members to approve the application.

The applicant’s representative was present at the meeting and stated that there were ample alternative superior waste sites and despite the marketing of this site, no waste operator had expressed an interest, which led you to question its suitability; that the applicant was intending to inject £5-6m into the project and create over 100 new jobs and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

The Director of Corporate Resources will submit a report (Document “AI”)

which seeks the approval of this Committee to implement a change to

the process for appeals currently considered by the panels appointed by

the Regulatory and Appeals Committee. In essence, it is recommended

that 5 appeal panels be replaced by one panel.

Recommended –

(1)       That the option to replace the Housing and Non-Domestic Rates           Appeal Panel, Miscellaneous Licences Panel, Hackney Carriage   and Private Hire Panel, Education Appeals Panel and Social    Services Appeals Panel with a single appeals panel to be called            the Bradford District Appeals Panel for the remaining appeals           processes be approved subject to Council approval.

(2)       That the City Solicitor be requested to place this report (if            approved) before the Independent Remuneration Panel with a        view to a recommendation regarding the Chair’s and Deputy          Chair’s SRA.

(3)       That the City Solicitor be asked to draft amendments to the                     Constitution, particularly Article 8, to implement this decision and           the proposed amendments be recommended to the Governance         and Audit Committee to then be forwarded to Council for             approval.

(Michael Bowness Phone - 01274 435928)

The Director of Corporate Resources submitted a report (Document “AI”)

which sought the approval of the Committee to implement a change to

the process for appeals currently considered by the panels appointed by

the Regulatory and Appeals Committee. In essence, it is recommended

that 5 appeal panels be replaced by one panel.

Resolved–

(1)       That the option to replace the Housing and Non-Domestic Rates           Appeal Panel, Miscellaneous Licences Panel, Hackney Carriage   and Private Hire Panel, Education Appeals Panel and Social    Services Appeals   Panel with a single appeals panel to be called          the Bradford District Appeals Panel for the remaining appeals           processes be approved subject to Council approval.

(2)       That the City Solicitor be requested to place this report (if            approved) before the Independent Remuneration Panel with a        view to a recommendation regarding the Chair’s and Deputy          Chair’s SRA.

(3)       That the City Solicitor be asked to draft amendments to the                     Constitution, particularly Article 8, to implement this decision and           the proposed amendments be recommended to the Governance         and Audit Committee to then be forwarded to Council for             approval.

ACTION: City Solicitor