The Assistant Director (Planning Transportation and Highways) will submit a report (Document “AK”) which sets out a full planning application for construction of a bungalow and car space and new Bitmac surfacing and drainage to parts of unadopted back and side streets on land at Bolton Road, Silsden.

 

Recommended –

 

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

(Mark Hutchinson - 01274 434605)

 

The Assistant Director Planning, Transportation & Highways submitted a report (Document “AK”) which set out an application for the construction of a bungalow,  car space and new Bitmac surfacing and drainage to parts of unadopted back and side streets on land at Bolton Road, Silsden.

 

It was reported that the application proposed a bungalow on a garden plot located on the other side of an unmade rear access behind 81-85 Bolton Road. The plot was owned by No 81. This application was similar to the application approved by Shipley/Keighley Area Planning Panel in March 2015.

 

That permission was not acted upon and this application sought a fresh permission. A number of objections had been received and the proposal was debated at the Shipley/Keighley Area Planning Panel meeting on 26th February 2020.

 

In response to the representations made to the meeting by neighbours and a ward councillor the panel resolved that :

“the application be deferred for further investigation to establish the position and extent of culverts or watercourses under or near the site, and to require amendments to the parking space layout.”

 

Members were informed that further discussions had been held with Yorkshire Water and the Council’s Drainage Section. It had been confirmed by the Principal Drainage Officer that there were no records of culverts or watercourses below the site known to the Council’s Drainage Section. The watercourse which may be shown on an historic Ordinance Survey map presented by an objector had been diverted.

 

It was reported that, however, it was accepted that knowledge of historic culverts may be incomplete so, as a precaution, the Principal Engineer advised that it would be reasonable to add an additional condition that required an intrusive ground investigation to determine the extent of any land drainage network and submit it to the Council along with proposals for dealing with any watercourses, culverts or land drains that might be found to exist within the site boundary.

 

Members were informed that a ‘pre-commencement’ condition had been agreed with the applicant’s agent that required that the condition of the land was determined before any building work could start on the site.

 

It was reported that additional alterations had been made to the application concerning the extent of the red line boundary which had also been queried by objectors. This red line had been amended to follow the boundary of line of the plot to the south west which ran parallel to the front of number 9 Townhead. This meant that the proposed resurfacing of this part of the unadopted highway abutting the site was no longer proposed as part of the application.

 

 

Members were informed that the car parking space for the bungalow had been amended in response to Area Panel Member’s concerns that it would be awkward to use.  The Highways Officer’s comments on the proposed development had remained unaltered.

 

It was reported that although the plot was restricted, the land was suitable for the modest bungalow being proposed. The development had been approved previously in 2015 and, as before, the Officer recommendation was to grant permission subject to the conditions listed in Appendix A.

 

It was suggested that Condition 2 could be amended to in include the words “before the development was brought into use” at the end of it.

 

In response to a Member’s enquiry it was reported that the new housing development in the area would not generate traffic on Back Bolton Road as it would have the requisite number of parking spaces. 

 

A Ward Councillor in attendance at the meeting stated that she was speaking on behalf of a number of local residents who had requested her support with their objections to this application. Unfortunately, they could be seen 'remotely' but under normal circumstances would have attended in person  and made the following representation:

 

·         the main concerns were regarding the culverted watercourse which was running down Back Bolton Road. The comments within the Summary Statement from Yorkshire Water and the Drainage Officer stated that because there was no record of the culvert and watercourse being shown below the site, it therefore had been diverted. These comments appeared unfounded as they also stated that they accepted, that the knowledge of any historic culvert, may be incomplete, so the fact that it was unable to be seen on their maps was insufficient proof that it had been diverted. The watercourse was clearly documented on the historic maps so where was the documentary evidence to show the culvert had been diverted? Unable to find any such document on the planning portal?

·         the natural line of the watercourse remained exactly the same now as it had always been; it was evident, when it flooded, as to where the culvert was situated, as seen in the Boxing Day Floods of 2015, the more recent floods from February this year and after any significant flooding. It was also apparent that the culvert was no longer fit for purpose as it had insufficient capacity to deal with the sheer amount of water which ran off the steep sided hillside. There had been significantly more flooding since this previous application was granted in 2015.

·         Place names from the historic maps, such as Water Lane, Ford and Well, clearly denote this was land which was saturated in water.

·         It was also evident that the culvert required a lot of maintenance. If a bungalow was built over the top of the culvert there was danger the whole thing would collapse and would result in even more nuisance flooding for existing residents.

·         nearby residents recently built a new garage in close proximity to the site they also encountered digging into the culvert when they were laying the footing for their garage structure. This was a much lighter structure than that of a bungalow.

·         It was indicated that, in any event, an intrusive ground investigation report would be required - it would be far more logical to have sight of this report before the Planning Panel made their decision; suggest refusing or deferring the application until this crucial document had been provided.

·         With regard to highway safety, the first application was initially refused on highway safety grounds back in 2014. The position was now worse. The site was in the middle of several narrow, unmade,unadopted, back lanes which were already difficult to negotiate and to add a further home into the mix was nonsensical and would only add further to the highway safety concerns.

·         In addition highway safety had become an ever increasing problem on Bolton Road. Collectively there were a number of new homes being built off this very busy road and a further 57 homes had planning permission just up above. There were a significant number of regular near misses and accidents. Sadly, a life changing injury was the result of one such accident which was recorded and Bradford Council were aware of it.

·         Bradford's Highway Safety Team had already started a programme of works to improve the safety on Bolton Road. This included the junction at Townhead which was identified as one that was very difficult to safely get in and out of. It was odd that there were conflicting views on the highway safety of this junction within the Council's own Highways Department.

·         In conclusion I would reiterate the need for an independent report to be requested regarding the watercourse and culvert in relation to this site and that it be submitted prior to any planning permission being granted.

In response the Senior Planning Officer reiterated that there was no objection to the proposed development from the Council’s Highway Development Control, there were no significant safety issues, congestion was caused by residents parking; neither Yorkshire Water nor the Council’s Drainage Section had raised any objections to the proposal. Proposal could be approved with the necessary conditions attached rather than being refused which could not be justified.

An objector representing the Bolton Road Neighbourhood Group made the following comments:

• Danger from traffic at the site entrance which was at the junction of three un-surfaced, unlit roads.
• Only one small parking place was proposed on-site, generating street parking in the vicinity
• Given 1 and 2 above, restriction of access for emergency vehicles.
• The risk of causing the culvert which runs under the site to collapse causing flooding.
• The much higher impermeability of the site (currently garden) if developed causing flooding from run-off.

A further written representation had been received from the resident of 9 Town Head objecting to the application on safety grounds.

In response to the comments raised the Senior Planning Officer reported that Condition 2 made it clear that an intrusive investigation of the site was undertaken to determine the extent of any land drainage and that it be submitted to the planning authority before any work commenced.

The Principle Engineer Highways Development reported that a two bedroom dwelling was unlikely to result in a significant uplift in vehicle movements to and from the site; he was not aware of any incidents.

In response to a Members question it was reported that there were two access points to the site with Bolton Road being the quickest.

In response to Members concerns regarding the culvert the Senior Planning Officer suggested that Condition 2 needed to state that should the investigation reveal the presence of any land drainage network features, detailed proposals for dealing with any watercourses, culverts or land drains existing within the site boundary should be submitted to the local planning authority for approval and the measures should be carried out before the development was brought into use.

 

The applicant was in attendance and made the following comments:

 

·         He understand that it was raised that the entrance to the site looked busy, this was pure chance that they had arrived home in the motorhome that could be seen in the picture. The gate to the garden was opened so the officer could take photos prior to him driving the motorhome into the parking space in the site.

·         They owned and lived at no 81 so access was never a problem and even with a vehicle outside their property no obstruction was caused by them.

·         He understood that to object to a proposal there must be a valid reason for objection?

·         He had read that the objections were the same as when they first applied and received planning permission unanimously passed.

·         Tawny Owls and Bats were regularly seen in the garden by the objectors? Same answer as last time the area was not suitable habitat so there were no bats and no owls.

·         One objector had stated as a fact that there was a watercourse either directly under the site or definitely to the side of the site; map from Yorkshire Water of local water courses showed no water course within 100 meters.

·         Objectors stated there was a hidden underground void underneath the whole area and any building work would be perilous. Just to the North of the site were 2 large double garages built of stone with tiled roof. To the south 4 three storey town houses built in 2011and directly south a large bungalow built in 2015 and there had been no problems with any of the buildings, no voids shown on any plans or maps.

·         The question of the plans indicating that the site outline was incorrect was a simple misunderstanding as the outline was the extent of proposed Bit Mac to be laid.

·         Queries had all been dealt with and the slight alterations to parking had been addressed.

·         Could not see any reason to hinder the passing of the planning permission

 

Resolved-

 

(1)                  That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report subject to Conditions 2 and 4 being amended as follows:

 

Condition 2:

 

Prior to the commencement of the development, hereby approved, an intrusive investigation of the site in order to determine the extent of any land drainage network shall be carried out and submitted to the local planning authority. Should the investigation reveal the presence of any land drainage network features, detailed proposals for dealing with any watercourses, culverts or land drains existing within the site boundary shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval and the measures so approved shall be carried out before the development is brought into use.

 

 

Reason: In order to ensure the site can be safely developed and to reduce the risk of flooding so as to comply with policies DS5 and EN7

 

Condition 4:

 

Before the development is brought into use, the off street car parking facility for the dwelling shall be laid out, hard surfaced, sealed and drained within the curtilage of the site in accordance with the approved drawings and retained while the development is in use. The gradient shall be no steeper than 1 in 15.

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy TR2 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

 

(2)                  That the precise wording of the above resolution be delegated to the Assistant Director, Transportation and Planning.

 

Action:  Strategic Director, Place