The Panel is asked to consider the planning applications which are set out in Document “M” relating to items recommended for approval or refusal.

The sites concerned are:

(a)     38 Manningham Lane, Bradford (Approve)           City    

(b)     Knowle Farm, Knowle Lane, Bradford (Approve)Wyke

(c)     Land at Apperley Lane, Apperley Bridge,               Idle & Thackley

          Bradford (Refuse)                                                    

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

A retrospective change of use from restaurant/café (A3) to banqueting facilities (sui generis) at 38 Manningham Lane, Bradford, BD1 3EA - 19/00934/FUL

The Strategic Director Place in setting out the application referred to the site history, stating that a change of use application from a restaurant to banqueting facilities was refused in December 2018 on the grounds of noise and disturbance being detrimental to neighbouring amenity.  Previous to this the application was refused in September 2018 on the grounds that there was a lack of off-street parking, leading to indiscriminate parking, which would be detrimental to highway safety as well as noise and disturbance.

It was pointed out that this was a retrospective application and that the applicant had been operating the banqueting suite without planning permission for a number of years and that an enforcement notice had been served, hence the retrospective planning application before the Panel today.

The Strategic Director referred to the site plan, photographs of the site and the adjoining area, although a recent application had been refused partly on highway grounds relating to insufficient parking, the current application had been accompanied by a Transport Statement which the Council’s Highways Officers had accepted the findings of, albeit that the banqueting facilities was likely to generate more usage than a restaurant.  On site parking would only be for 18 vehicles and officers had discounted the assertion on the submitted plan of an additional 20 places to the rear of the site, as this land was shared with other uses within the building.

Following advertising of the application, 18 representations had been received, 17 were objecting and one was in support, the principle objections were detailed in the report, with parking and noise being the main grounds of objection.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had confirmed that they did not object to the proposal, subject to the installation of sound insulation measures detailed in the noise impact assessment.

In view of the above and the lack of objection from the Council’s Highway officer, on balance the application was recommended for approval.

An objector was present at the meeting and stated the following points:

• That the venue operated on a 24/7 basis and residents life had been blighted by this continuous use.
• That although there was a residents only permit parking scheme in place, there was a complete disregard for this, as guests parked indiscriminately, causing a huge inconvenience to residents.
• That whilst the venue was operating, congestion in the area was intolerable.
• That the setting off of fireworks, loud music from cars, car horns being sounded and people loitering in the vicinity of the venue, sometimes into the early hours, was making life unbearable for families and creating an intimidating atmosphere for families who had young children.
• In addition to the noise and parking issues, rubbish from the venue was left on the street causing additional inconvenience to residents.
• That the owner had shown a complete disregard for the impact his venue was having on residents and that he failed to meet residents to discuss the issues.

In response to some of the issues raised the Strategic Director Place clarified that if Members were minded to approve the application, the hours of operation would be 11am to 11pm, Monday to Sunday.  In relation to parking in a resident’s only zone, this was an issue of enforcement and not a material planning consideration.

The applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and made the following comments in support of the application:

• That this was a commercially viable business supporting the local community, which employed two full time staff and 20 on a part time basis, which was a popular venue with the community and the surrounding area.
• That given the venue already had permission to operate as a restaurant; the proposed use would not be dissimilar.
• That a Transport Statement had been commissioned by the applicant to assess the parking demand in the area and there were 500 parking spaces available within a 400 metre radius of the application and that the Council’s own Highways officer had raised no highway safety concerns on the application.
• That a noise impact assessment had also been submitted with the application and given the measures proposed for sound proofing, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer was happy and had raised no specific concerns,  there was unlikely to be noise spillage from the venue, whereas noise traffic was more prominent given the proximity to Manningham Lane.
• That he agreed with the planning officer’s recommendation to approve the application and he urged Members that given the mitigation measures in place to deal with the noise issue, this mixed use proposal, in a sustainable location, which accorded with local and national planning policy should be approved.

In response to the points raised by the applicant’s agent, the Strategic Director Place clarified that banqueting use in comparison to restaurant use for which approval was already in situ, would generate a higher number of guests.

During the discussion Members made the following comments in relation to the proposed application:

That the venue had been operating five years without the requisite planning approval and that the applicant had shown a complete disregard for planning policy.  In addition the applicant asserts that there are 500 parking spaces within the vicinity of the venue, however given how busy this area is it was difficult to pinpoint where these parking places were located.

That there was already congestion on Manningham Lane as it was one of the arterial routes in to the City and that as vehicles were turning to access the venue, additional congestion was being caused.

That guests arriving at the venue were unlikely to park any great distance away from the venue or use public transport for that matter; therefore the adjoining streets would have to accommodate the bulk of the parking.

That the current parking arrangements on the site were already very limited and constrained and not really viable for the number of guests that attend the venue for any given function.

That noise and disturbance and parking issues emanating from the use of this venue were real and that residents concerns had to be taken into account.

That the additional 20 parking spaces identified by the applicant to the rear of the site were misleading.

In response to Members’ comments the Strategic Director Place stated that although this was a retrospective application, Members should consider this application on its merit and that enforcement issues affecting the site should be viewed separately.

In response to a question on the 500 parking spaces that had been identified in the Transport Statement, the streets that had been identified within 400 metres of the application site included Eldon Place and North Parade.

In conclusion Members were in agreement that the impact the application would have on highway safety and residents parking would be significant and it was therefore:

Resolved –

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

(i)         The proposed development fails to provide sufficient and suitable        provision within the site for the accommodation of motor   vehicles. As such the proposed development would result in             greater on-street car parking to the detriment of the safe and free          flow of traffic on the highway. For this reason the proposed           development is unacceptable when measured against Policies         TR2 and DS4 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document           and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(ii)        It is not considered the proposed development would be able to           provide adequate parking for events within the car park as such          this would lead to additional vehicles parking on nearby     residential streets including Brearton Street and Hallfield Place which are the closest streets on which vehicles associated with     the proposed use could park. This level of comings and goings   combined with vehicles picking up and dropping off visitors close       to the site, particularly during unsociable hours would lead to             noise and general disturbance for neighbouring residential properties contrary to policies DS5 and EN8 of the Core Strategy             Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place

(b)       Knowle Farm, Knowle Lane, Bradford                                     Wyke

A planning application for a proposed metal sliding gate to control access to Knowle Farm, Knowle Lane, Wyke - 19/00465/HOU

Resolved –

That the application be withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place

(c)        Land at Apperley Lane, Apperley Bridge,                    Idle & Thackley

            Bradford

A outline application for residential development of up to 9 dwellings requesting consideration of access on land at Apperley Lane, Apperley Bridge, Bradford - 18/05446/OUT

Resolved –

That the application be deferred to the next meeting at the request of the applicant.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place