The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “W”) which sets out a full planning application for the construction of 11 dwellings on land at Holly Fold, Steeton with Eastburn, Bradford.

Recommended –

That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to Document “W”.

(John Eyles - 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) submitted a report (Document “W”) which set out a full planning application for the construction of 11 dwellings on land at Holly Fold, Steeton with Eastburn, Bradford.

The Assistant Director provided an overview of the proposed development, showing photographs of the site, plans and drawings and summarising the representations that had been received.

The Assistant Director also reported on three further representations that had been received.  The Local Member of Parliament had raised concerns regarding wear and tear of the private road from the additional traffic that will now use it in order to access the new development, and that no maintenance plan was being proposed; he also cited biodiversity loss and that the need for new homes in the Steeton area was around 150, which was a lower figure in comparison to the 700 stipulated in the Core Strategy.  The Parish Council had also objected to the proposals on the grounds that the proposal was on greenbelt land; concerns around the water drainage and the electricity pylons running across the site.

A lengthy submission was also submitted by a Ward Councillor and the Assistant Director paraphrased the comments,  which raised the following issues:

·         That although the land in question was classed as greenfield, the proposed development would be visible from the Aire Valley.

·         That the development would result in the loss of village character and identity and that the existing infrastructure would not be able to sustain additional development.

·         That the proposed CIL contribution was insufficient and an additional levy should be imposed to cover education provision.

·         That the development would add additional congestion to the area.

·         That the proposed housing numbers for Steeton with Eastburn had been amended from 750 to 150 in the recent partial review of the Core Strategy.

·         That residents concerns around overshadowing, loss of light, loss of privacy and loss of amenity had to be taken into consideration.

·         That there would an increase in surface water flooding.

·         That there were maintenance issue concerns and liability regarding the new road and the existing private road serving the current residents.

·         That the power line diversion should be conditioned as part of any planning application.

In response to some of the issues raised by the additional representations, the Assistant Director confirmed that the 150 housing figure was incorrect with 700 still the number identified in the Core Strategy;  that the proposed development was in a sustainable location; that there would be no overlooking issues given the separation distances were adequate and that no adverse highways issues were perceived given the modest number of houses proposed.  In relation to the issue of CIL payment, the proposed amount was based on the number of houses proposed and an additional levy could not be imposed on the developer, and finally Highways Development Control were satisfied with the highway arrangements on the site.

In response to a question whether the new road would be adopted post development, it was stated that although the road would be constructed to adoptable highway standards, the road would remain private.

In relation to a question on drainage it was stated that no concerns had been submitted regarding drainage issues on the site.

An objector was present at the meeting and stated that the residents of Holly Fold  had objected to the proposals and that the concerns expressed by the Ward Councillor, MP and the Parish Council should be taken into account; that no mitigation measures had been proposed following the loss of biodiversity; that West Yorkshire Police had raised concerns around safety and that in terms of the design, the development would be out of character with Holly Fold and that residents had concerns about the power line and the damage that would be caused to Holly Fold by both the additional traffic as well as  construction vehicles.

In response the Assistant Director stated that the Yorkshire Water comments regarding easement, pre dated the site layout and there was a recommendation for the protection of the easement by way of condition.  In relation to the issue of biodiversity loss, the proposal was to plant new trees on the site as well as install bat and bird boxes, and therefore these mitigation measures would compensate for any loss.  The comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer had been taken into account, however officers felt that the layout was deemed to be safe and in terms of visual amenity, the proposal was considered acceptable.

There was a lengthy discussion regarding the private road and access rights during the construction phase as well as repair/maintenance issues pre and post development.  In response it was stated that although a Section 106 obligation could be imposed to make good any damage to Holy Fold caused by construction traffic,  the private road meant that many of the issues raised about the road were outside of the planning arena, and subject to a suitable condition it was therefore:

Resolved –

That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to Document “W” and also subject to an additional S106 obligation  relating to making good any damage to Holy Fold caused by construction traffic following completion of the development.

ACTION: Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways)