The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “AF”) in respect of an outline planning application for the construction of a residential development with public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure, and including consideration of access, on land to the south of Leaventhorpe Lane, Bradford – 17/06897/MAO.

 

The report explains that the scheme is considered to be unacceptable due to concern in relation to the potential for flooding to take place on land outside the site.

 

Recommended –

 

That the application be refused for the reason set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

 

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented Document “AF” in respect of an outline planning application for the construction of a residential development with public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure, and including consideration of access, on land to the south of Leaventhorpe Lane, Bradford – 17/06897/MAO.

 

Members were informed that the site was unallocated land that formed part of an area of green space and sloped upwards from north to south.  The proposed access would be from Leaventhorpe Lane and the applicant had indicated that the site could accommodate 150 dwellings, with 100 constructed as affordable housing along with an area of green space.  A number of additional representations had been submitted since the report had published, however, no new issues had been raised.  The Council’s Highways Department had not objected to the proposed access and the applicant had agreed to a contribution for off site highway works on Leaventhorpe Lane to help alleviate traffic.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that the main concern related to drainage and flooding.  The applicant was aware of the drainage problems and had submitted several mitigation measures, however, the impact of flooding had not been satisfactorily resolved.

 

The Council’s Principal Drainage Engineer informed Members that the site was located within an existing 1 in 100 year flood zone with two existing becks, Pitty and Clayton.  He explained that modelling by Bradford Council undertaken in 2013 had been adopted by the Environment Agency and developers must mitigate against the risk of flooding.  The existing culvert beneath Leaventhorpe Lane was undersized and would cause the road to flood, therefore, it had to be ensured that the development had safe access and egress.  The applicant had proposed the installation of a new culvert under Leaventhorpe Lane, however, it would alter the flood range and flood risk within the site needed to be considered.  The latest submission had suggested that the road be raised and a large retaining wall against the boundary be constructed.  It also included the provision of new culverts under Leaventhorpe Lane for Pitty and Clayton Becks and would excavate the flood plain.  The Council’s Principal Drainage Engineer confirmed that their objection still applied as the developer had not demonstrated how the over land flows would be managed and information had not been submitted so could not be assessed.  He stated that complex mitigating measures would be required and insufficient documentation had been provided.  The proposal was contrary to National and local policies and was recommended for refusal.

 

In response to queries Members were informed that:

 

·         Urban Green Spaces were areas of open land not within the Green Belt but important to break up areas of urban development.  The area to the East of the site was Green Belt and was seen to be a key area to break up the developments.  Policy OS1 allowed the scheme but ensured that it maintained a reflection of the Green Belt.

·         Hard standing areas would have a surface drainage system that mimicked green land, however, the main issue was the watercourses that flowed through the site.

·         Generated traffic had been considered and more trips were anticipated.  Further impact would be created on Thornton Road and the developer would mitigate these problems.  It was acknowledged that Leaventhorpe Lane was a busy road and would be at school and peak times.

·         Proposed schemes within a flood zone had to have safe access and the houses had to be a sufficient distance from the zone.

·         The application was outline with access details only submitted for consideration.  No information had been provided in relation to the types of houses and only the principle of development could be deliberated.  All the other aspects would be submitted at the Reserved Matters stage. 

·         Traffic numbers at peak times had been counted, however, it was not known how many trips would be generated by the proposed scheme.  A National database covering a similar area had been used and this had provided an approximate figure.  The capacity and movement at junctions had also been considered. 

·         The traffic data had been collected at peak times in the morning and afternoon.

·         The junction at Thornton Road would exceed capacity and amendments to the right turn lane had been proposed, however, other schemes that would be affected would require consideration.

·         The access road would have to be raised by up to four metres more than the current level at certain points.

·         The Council’s Drainage Team had objected to the application as it was not known where the additional water would flow.

·         A drainage strategy had been submitted by the applicant, however, as the application was outline the scheme did not have to be detailed.  The flood risk and drainage system were separate issues.

·         It was not known whether the applicant had assessed the possibility of another access that would provide a safe access and egress.

·         The Council had identified a scheme that would provide a more permanent solution to the Four Lane Ends junction and a contribution would be sought from the developer rather than them working on an unsuitable scheme.

·         It would be difficult to refuse the application in respect of the issues at the junction if the scheme was only adding to the problems and not creating them.

 

A number of objectors and Ward Councillors were present at the meeting and made the following points:

 

·         Hundreds of local residents were distressed by the plan, which would have a considerable impact on the community.

·         Reports had been submitted to the Planning Department, but very little had been acknowledged in the officer’s report.

·         The proposed access would be built on land categorised as 3b, which was a functional floodplain.

·         The entire area flooded roughly every three years.

·         It was the only area in West Bradford where houses were at this level of risk from flooding.

·         Four major floods had taken place between 2008 and 2018.

·         Significant floods had occurred following the snow and heavy rain this year.

·         A 4 metre high wall had been proposed which would restrict the water flow.

·         The proposed mitigations were inadequate.

·         The models used massively underestimated the risks.

·         The Environment Agency had not objected.

·         The development would increase the flood risk, which was against National policy.

·         The concept of development on the site should be rejected.

·         Sewage was a major issue and the sewers were inadequate.

·         An attenuation solution would only be as good as the measures.

·         The scheme would have a massive impact on the community.

·         Noise from the site would be amplified due to its elevation. 

·         The land was unstable and at risk of land slips and run off.

·         The application should be rejected.

 

·         Many new developments were planned in the area.

·         The houses would be between 600 to 920 metres from the nearest bus stop.

·         Despite attempts to encourage public transport use in the area, the difficulties would mean that residents would use their cars.

·         Leaventhorpe Lane was steep and narrow with limited footpaths and a secondary school at one end.

·         Accidents occurred regularly and Thornton Road had been closed on occasions.

·         Traffic calming had been suggested but would not resolve the issues.

·         The applicant had not considered a recent traffic survey.

·         The design of the access road had significantly changed since the original submission but did not address the original criticisms.

·         The access road would create a race track at a higher lever and destroy the open nature of the area.

·         The road surface would be at first floor window level and eradicate privacy.

·         The retaining wall would run 100 metres across the valley and rise to 4 metres in height.

·         Traffic was a major issue in the area.

·         The access to a large recreation centre was on Thornton Road.

·         How would the traffic flow against the Fire Station be mitigated?

 

·         The land should be designated as Green Belt.

 

·         It was a critical resource for the City of Bradford.

·         The land satisfied all the criteria within Strategic Core Policy SC6.

·         The proposed scheme would work against Strategic Core Policy SC4.

·         The green corridor was the closest green space to the City Centre.

·         Bradford was an impoverished city in relation to green space.

·         The Core Strategy stated that “Land identified as recreation open space will be protected from development”.

·         Pathways had criss-crossed the land for generations, however, not all were formerly marked as rights of way.

·         The land was a visual resource for thousands of people.

·         The proposed houses would block the view down the valley for many.

·         A previous consultation response from the Council’s Landscape Architect had stated that “The proposal constitutes inappropriate development on a greenfield site”.

·         The land attracted various species of wildlife and the access road would close the wildlife corridor.

·         The development would turn Clayton from semi-rural into an urban area.   

·         The land was a buffer between communities and allowed them to remain separate.

·         The social dynamic of the area would change.

·         A key local resource would be destroyed and Policy SC9 contravened.

 

In relation to the public footpaths across the land, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that the recorded public rights of way were a bridleway and two public footpaths, however, the other paths across the land may not be registered and evidence would be required.

 

The objectors then continued to address the Members stating that:

 

·         Secondary school places in the area were in short supply and additional houses would exacerbate the issue.

·         It was not a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) area and this would have a huge financial implication for the Council.

·         The demand for services in the area outstripped the supply.

·         The highways surveys should have been undertaken from 2.30pm onwards.

 

·         The proposal contravened the Core Strategy and failed to meet policies SC1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9; TR1; EN1, 4, 7 and 8; and DS1, 2, 4 and 5.

·         The application was full of mistakes, so what other errors had been made?

·         The land to be traversed had not been surveyed.

·         Large parts of the land had been subject to mining and would be unstable.

·         There was the potential for contaminants to leak into the river.

·         Pollution and catastrophic flooding could occur.

·         Barratt Homes withdrew their application for the site as there were too many issues.

·         The bed rock was a long way down.

·         The viability of the plan was questionable.

·         Bradford was the cheapest city to purchase a house in the UK.

·         Bradford needed houses in locations near to businesses and transport.

·         The application should be refused.

 

Members were informed that the Coal Authority had been consulted, however, as the application was only outline detailed investigations were not required.

 

The final objector reported that:

 

·         The site could only be accessed via the community.

·         The elevated site had an amphitheatre effect and the construction noise would blight the lives of many people.

·         HGVs would use unsuitable roads.

·         There would be a risk of land slip and run off which could lead to flooding.

·         It was a sensitive and high risk site.

·         It was amazing that the application had been taken so far when it should be refused.

·         Little heed had been taken of the importance of the land.

·         The access road should not be permitted to be built.

·         An important local area should be retained.

·         The application should be rejected on the grounds of flooding, amongst others.

·         Education and Recreation Departments expected CIL money but it was not a CIL area.

·         The traffic junction of Thornton Road and Cemetery Road was far from the site, however, the junction at Leaventhorpe Lane raised more concerns.

·         A planning application had been approved at Greenside Mills and would affect the area.

·         What impact would the application have on other developments and the location if approved?

·         Serious consideration of the report was required.

 

In response to some of the points raised, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that it was the Full Council’s responsibility to allocate any CIL money that was generated and a Section 106 Agreement could not be secured for the scheme.  He acknowledged that there was a need for schools in Bradford to expand and funds were slow in coming forward.  With regards to highways issues, Members noted that extant planning permissions and their impact on the roads were take into consideration.

 

The applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and made the following comments:

 

·         Yorkshire Housing had been engaged to deliver the affordable housing provision.

·         The majority of their work was in Bradford and they had delivered 400 new homes in the District.

·         Houses would not be developed on the flood plain.

·         The access road would be raised and located a significant distance from existing properties.

·         Phase two site investigations had been undertaken.  It would be feasible, viable and full funding would be available.

·         The application was outline and met all relevant policies.

·         There were no concerns in relation to highways matters.

·         The only outstanding issue was the design solution for the drainage.

·         An exemplary Masterplan had been submitted.

·         44% of the site would be greenspace, which would be located on the boundary and adjacent to the beck.

·         The site was in private ownership and not accessible except for the rights of way.

·         A design solution was available to overcome the issue of flooding.

·         The Environment Agency had not objected to the proposal.

·         The properties constructed would not be detrimental to the existing houses.

·         Two thirds of the dwellings would be affordable housing, which was above the required 20%.

·         Yorkshire Housing was a local provider with a strong track record.

·         50% of the houses would be affordable rent for those on low income and 50% would be rent to buy.

·         The scheme would provide a great opportunity for people to secure homes.

·         £200,000 had been generated through the New Homes Bonus.

·         The scheme would reduce the backlog in the housing supply.

 

During the discussion a Member acknowledged the significance of the Council’s Principal Drainage Engineer’s report and proposed that the officer recommendation to refuse the application be accepted.  Another Member concurred and expressed concern in relation to traffic and visual impact.  The Chair outlined his reservations with regard to the proposed retaining wall and the mitigating measures submitted in order to alleviate the problems.  He stated that further work needed to be undertaken to support the development.  A Member applauded the work undertaken by Yorkshire Housing and suggested that the Council should work harder with such organisations, however, he agreed that the proposal could not be supported.  

 

Resolved -

 

That the application be refused for the reason set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways