Venue: the Council Chamber
DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
(Members Code of Conduct - Part 4A of the Constitution)
To receive disclosures of interests from Members and co-opted members on matters to be considered at the meeting. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.
An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the Member during the meeting.
(1) Members may remain in the meeting and take part fully in discussion and voting unless the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an interest which the Member feels would call into question their compliance with the wider principles set out in the Code of Conduct. Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member concerned or their spouse/partner.
(2) Members in arrears of Council Tax by more than two months must not vote in decisions on, or which might affect, budget calculations, and must disclose at the meeting that this restriction applies to them. A failure to comply with these requirements is a criminal offence under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
(3) Members are also welcome to disclose interests which are not disclosable pecuniary interests but which they consider should be made in the interest of clarity.
(4) Officers must disclose interests in accordance with Council Standing Order 44.
In the interest of transparency, Councillors Wainwright and Warburton declared an interest in respect of item relating to Land at Westminster Drive (Minute 28) as they were Members at the time when a planning application was considered on an adjacent site, however they stated that they would consider this application with an open mind.
In the interest of transparency, Councillors Ali, Goodwin, Shafiq, Wainwright and Warburton declared an interest in respect of item relating to Land at Westminster Drive (Minute 28) as they were Members at the last Committee on 19th August, 2021 when this application was deferred. However, they stated that they would consider this application with an open mind.
ACTION: City Solicitor
That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 August 2021 be signed as a correct record.
(Yusuf Patel – 07970 411923)
That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 August 2021, be signed as a correct record.
INSPECTION OF REPORTS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
(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 – 07970 411923)
There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents.
MEMBERSHIP OF SUB-COMMITTEES
The Committee will be asked to consider recommendations, if any, to appoint Members to Sub-Committees of the Committee.
(Yusuf Patel – 07970 411923)
There were no changes to Membership of Sub-Committees.
The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “H”) which sets out a full application for the construction of a residential development on land at Westminster Drive, Bradford.
That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to Document “H”.
(Hannah Lucitt - 01274 434605)
Further to Minute No. 23 on 19th August 2021, the Committee noted that the Flood Risk Assessment commissioned by the Keep Clayton Green Action Group had been received and had be assessed by the Lead Local Flood Authority.
The Assistant Director Planning, Transportation and Highways submitted a report (Document “H”) which set out a full application for the construction of a residential scheme of 69 dwellings on land at Westminster Drive, Bradford, of which 14 were to be provided as affordable dwellings.
The Senior Planning Officer provided a comprehensive presentation of the report and plans to the Committee. The Committee also noted the Council’s Flood Risk Assessment Report and no concerns had been expressed by the Flood Risk Officer.
A number of objectors were present at the meeting including Ward Councillors, a Parish Councillor and a representative from the Keep Clayton Green Group, and at the request of the Chair, raised a number of points, including;
· the scheme was not fit for purpose, there were inadequate amenities provided in the area, including local schools and GPs, as well as children play area;
· concerns regarding street paving along residential roads and the need to construct a two entrance points for vehicle access in order to reduce traffic congestion;
· the proposed development raised ecological concerns;
· the area and the surrounding areas was risk of surface water flooding; which previously caused damage to residential’ gardens and driveways. The proposed development would increase the current flood and drainage issues;
· the development was not sustainable and due to the climate changes would be detrimental to Spring Vale;
· the scheme did not comply with the Council’s Green Spaces policy;
· local residents had not been consulted on the pipe work that would be carried out;
· there was traffic issues and number of parking issues arising from the narrow road, the development would only add to the existing problems.
During the debate Members’ raised a number of questions and comments. The Senior Planning Officer addressed the following points including:
· clarity was sought that public footpath along Westminster Drive and Westminster Gardens was a public footpath and the responsibility of maintenance would be on the landowners and occupiers;
· a Member proposed if the applicant would provide both EV charging point and Residential MetroCards for the occupiers of the development which the community would benefit from. It was explained that EV charging point would be installed with the property;
· highways had not raised any concerns;
· the proposed development would not increase flood risk to the area;
· the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the amenity to the area, flooding, drainage and ecology;
· in terms of flood risk and drainage, a Flood Risk and Surface Water Assessment had been submitted, which details the strategies that could be adopted to mitigate flood and drainage risks.
The applicant and agent were present at the meeting, and at the request of the Chair, addressed the Committee with the following points:
· the site was located within close proximity to a ... view the full minutes text for item 28.
The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “I”) which sets out an outline planning application for a redevelopment of a site of 2.85 hectares for commercial and business units (use classes E, B2, and B8), requesting consideration of access only at the Aire Valley Business Centre, Lawkholme Lane, Keighley.
That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to Document “I”.
(Richard Holliday – 01274 434605)
The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways) submitted a report (Document “I”) which set out the proposed development comprising commercial and business units in use classes E, B2, and B8, at the Aire Valley Business Centre, Lawkholme Lane, Keighley.
The Senior Planning Officer provided an overview of the proposed development, showing photographs of the site, plans and drawings and summarising the representations that had been received.
Members raised concern with regards to the left-turn only sign along North Street was disregarded by some drivers and stressed that the junction along Alice Street and North Street be improved.
The applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and addressed that the current site was not fit for onsite commercial use. The proposed scheme would be a benefit to Keighley and would create 250 jobs in the Town Centre.
Furthermore, Members welcomed the scheme and recognised that the development was a reduction in factory space, nonetheless, stated that this was a good asset to Keighley and it was therefore:
(1) That the application be approved, subject to conditions set out in Appendix 1 to Document “I” and also subject to the following additional informative:
(2) That it be recommended that the Keighley Area Committee review the left-turn-only signs at the junction along North Street, Keighley in order to improve the junction.
ACTION: Assistant Director Transportation Design and Planning
The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “J”) which sets out a Hybrid planning application comprising of full planning application to demolish and redevelop the redundant primary tanks with a residential development of 150 dwellings and ancillary community hub, vehicular access, public open space and outline planning application to demolish and redevelop the redundant filter beds for up to 100,000m2 of employment development including means of vehicular access, with all other matters reserved.
The application also includes an Environmental Statement.
That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to Document “J”.
(Hannah Lucitt - 01274 434605)
The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways) submitted a report (Document “J”) which set out the proposal for a Hybrid planning application comprising of full planning application to demolish and redevelop the redundant primary tanks with a residential development of 150 dwellings and ancillary community hub, vehicular access, public open space and outline planning application to demolish and redevelop the redundant filter beds for up to 100,000 square metres of business space in Esholt.
The Principal Planning Officer provided a comprehensive overview of the proposed development, showing photographs of the site, plans and drawings and summarising the representations that had been received. The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee of the following amendments:
· The reference to Affordable Housing to include Idle and Thackley and Baildon area;
· Page 175 (condition 46) to also include use class A1.
The Principal Planning Officer also reported that a petition had been received with approximately 800 signatures requesting the disused primary tanks be used for a nature reserve rather than housing.
It was noted that the entire Esholt Site was within Green Belt. The Committee also noted that West Police had objected in relation to the design of the housing estate, in that it was not ideal for preventing crime and that the number/layout of footpaths would create issues for potential crime and anti-social behaviour and would not create a safe and secure environment.
A Member expressed concern and stated the proposed scheme conflicted with a number of Council plans, including the Housing Strategy Plan. There was also lack of amenities close to this development and the proposed scheme was not deemed to be sustainable in Esholt.
A number of objectors were present at the meeting including Ward Councillors, and had raised a number of points, including:
· the proposal did not comply with the planning documents and current plans;
· West Yorkshire Police had raised concerns with regards to security and crime prevention measures issues and stated that the design and layout does not address any of the security issues;
· there was already traffic issues on Old Hollins Hill. The proposed development would potentially bring extra traffic to Esholt;
· there was lack of amenities for the new residents; in particular, schools and GPs;
· the scale of the development was excessive and would have an impact on the Green Belt.
In response to Members questions and comments, the Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that legislation to permit Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) was not in place yet and therefore it was not currently possible. Members asked if consideration could be given to ANPR in the future. The Principal Planning Officer advised that it would be possible to attach a requirement through the s106 Legal Agreement for a review by the applicant of the feasibility of ANPR, to be in 6 months and if so required in 12 months, and if ANPR was not feasible, then it would revert to the Traffic Regulation Order and ‘Access Only’ sign outlined in the ... view the full minutes text for item 30.