In the interests of transparency, disclosures of interest were received in relation to agenda item 8, Land to the south of Rooley Crescent, Staithgate Lane, Bradford reference number: 21/05737/VOC (minute number 7)

(i)            Councillor M Edwards declared that he had commented on the original plan and recused himself from the item

(ii)          Councillor S Engel declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she had worked with Friends of Bradford Becks in her Ward

Action: Interim City Solicitor

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meetings held on 24 March and 21 April 2022 be signed as a correct record.

(Yusuf Patel – 07970 411923)

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meetings held on 24 March and 21 April 2022 be signed as a correct record.

(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 –

(1)  That the Panels set out in (Document “A”) (TO BE TABLED AT THE MEETING) be appointed with memberships as shown and with the role and functions as contained in the Articles of the Council’s Constitution and subject to the Rules of Procedure contained in Part 3 of the Constitution.

(2)  That the Chairs and Deputy Chairs be appointed to the Panels as indicated in (Document “A”).

                                                                           (Yusuf Patel – 07970 411923)

Resolved –

(1)  That the Panels set out in (Document “A”) be appointed with memberships as shown and with the role and functions as contained in the Articles of the Council’s Constitution and subject to the Rules of Procedure contained in Part 3 of the Constitution.

(2)  That the Chairs and Deputy Chairs be appointed to the Panels as indicated in (Document “A”).

Action: Interim City Solicitor

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “B”) which sets out an outline application for residential development of land for up to 103 dwellings requesting consideration of access, land off Moss Carr Road, Long Lee, Keighley.

Recommended –

That the application be approved subject to the completion of the Section 106 and conditions set out in (Document “B”).

(Hannah Lucitt – 07811503622)

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) submitted a report (Document “B”) which set out an outline application for residential development of land for up to 103 dwellings requesting consideration of access, land off Moss Carr Road, Long Lee, Keighley

Resolved –

That the application be deferred again to a future meeting, to allow for further information/clarification to be provided on the following issue:

The Village Green application and assessment of its impact on Moss Carr Road.

Action – Assistant Director, Planning, Transportation and Highways

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “C”) which sets out an outline application for residential development of land (site area 0.82 ha) for 30 houses requesting consideration of access and scale on land south of 63 To 77 Westfield Lane, Shipley, Bradford

Recommended –

The application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions included with Appendix 1 set out in (Document “C”).

(Hannah Lucitt – 07811503622)

The report of the Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways) (Document “C”) was submitted to the Committee requesting approval for an outline planning application relating to a residential development for 30 houses for consideration of access and scale on land south of 63 to 77 Westfield Lane, Shipley.

The application related only to the principle of residential development on the site and would consider details including access and scale. When applying for the scale of the development this contained information on the size of the development, including the height, width and length of each proposed building.  A considerable number of representations were received objecting to the application, details of which were included in the report circulated prior to the meeting.

Officers presented details of the proposed access routes including plans and photos and the indicative layout of the site, stressing that only access and scale were under consideration.  Details of an S106 agreement were provided indicating proposed speed limits.

The application was recommended for approval subject to the legal agreement and the terms of this were hi-lighted including the percentage of social housing proposed.

Members were then given the opportunity to comment and ask questions, the details of which and the responses given are as below.

Reference was made to the Transport Planner paragraph relating to funding for a real-time display and residents Metrocards.  Officers advised that Metrocards could be offered by the developer if they so chose to but the inclusion of EV charging points was considered a satisfactory alternative.  The provision of Metrocards could be requested if deemed necessary.  It was further confirmed that these would only be given for the first 12 months and inclusion of EV points were not part of a policy but had been adopted by Bradford Planning Officers.

The issue of EV charging points was again raised as not all residents would be driving and there was a question around what a reliable bus service would be.  EV charging points were not considered sufficient to discharge the requirement of access to sustainable transport.  In addition, would there be access via a footpath from the new development to which Officers advised that an existing access would be maintained and improved.

Officers were asked if ongoing development in relation to traffic flow and levels were factored in to consider the cumulative effect and were able to confirm that they were and the area was still well under the threshold for this.

There were no drainage objections raised by the relevant team, subject to the usual requirements being met.

A member asked about visual amenity and the impact on neighbouring bungalows and Officers explained the floor levels of both these and the proposed development which were considered acceptable.

There were two objectors present at the meeting who addressed the Committee to express their concerns relating to the application which partly focused on access and parking during construction.

Officers responded regarding highways and access queries and the public consultation exercises that were undertaken as well as the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “D”) which sets out an outline application for the variation of conditions 2 and 5 and the removal of condition 9 of planning permission 21/01137/MAF (construction of a residential development scheme) on land to the south of Rooley Crescent, Staithgate Lane, Bradford.

Recommended –

The application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions included with Appendix 1 set out in (Document “D”).

(Hannah Lucitt – 07811503622)

The report of the Assistant Director, Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document "D") was submitted to the Panel for a full application for the variation of conditions 2 and 5 and the removal of condition 9 of planning permission reference 21/01137/MAF (this related to the construction of a residential development) on land south of Rooley Crescent, Staithgate Lane, Bradford.

The initial application relating to the alteration of condition 2 proposed to reduce the overall number of units.  The description was subsequently altered to include the amendment to condition 5 and the removal of condition 9.  The amended description was advertised via neighbour notification letters following the initial application that was advertised by press notice, site notice and neighbour notification letters.

The publicity exercises resulted in 101 representations of objection being received by 76 individual objectors.

Officers gave a presentation including a summary of the history relating to the site for the benefit of new panel members, including a previous appeal that had been dismissed but not on the same grounds.  In 2021, permission was granted subject to a S106 legal agreement.  Details of the changes proposed were summarised with the removal of 1 bed units in favour of 2 and 3 but a reduction in overall numbers.  The number of units requested had gone down but there would be resultant traffic and site layout changes.

The Chair raised the surface water drainage figures and clarified that they were appropriate and had been agreed by the drainage team. 

Members were then given the opportunity to comment and ask questions, the details of which and the responses given are as below.

A Member asked about the water course that ran through the site and if it was a tributary of Bradford Beck but unfortunately, despite the request being made there was no representative at the meeting from the drainage team.

A Member queried the definition of a reliable bus service as the timetable did not reflect the reality of the service.  It was confirmed by Officers that it had been looked at by the Planning Inspector who judged it as adequate.

There were 2 objectors present who addressed the Panel with a number of concerns, specifically water discharge and insufficient drainage.  They also summarised the history of the site and the queries previously submitted.  They were also able to provide additional information on the bus service.

Officers advised that the reason for the reduction in units was not a planning consideration and that the S106 legal agreement from previous permission reference 21/01137/MAF secured affordable housing units, was still applicable.  The drainage issues were assessed as acceptable by the drainage team and other points raised by the objectors had already been considered as acceptable.  The road would be an acceptable standard to serve the development and the park & ride provision nearby.

Members were again, given the opportunity to comment or ask questions, the details of which and the responses given are as below.

In light of protection in the future and the increasing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.