The Assistant Director (Planning Transportation and Highways) will submit a report (Document “AL”) which sets out a full planning application for the construction of single-storey private hire vehicle booking office on land to rear of 19 Northgate Baildon BD17 6JZ

Recommended –

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

 (Mark Hutchinson - 01274 434605)

The Assistant Director Planning, Transportation & Highways submitted a report (Document “AL”) which set out an application to seek the, construction of single-storey private hire vehicle booking office on land to rear of 19 Northgate Baildon BD17 6JZ.

 The Assistant Director reported that the application was first approved by the Shipley/Keighley Area Planning Panel at its meeting in July 2019. The applicant acted in good faith on that grant of permission and built the single storey office, though not in full compliance with the approved plans as detailed in the report at Appendix A.  The operator had the appropriate private hire operating licence and had been using the office to operate the private hire fleet since September 2019.

Following the grant of planning permission, a 3rd party commenced Judicial Review (JR) proceedings to challenge the Council’s decision. In accordance with the Judicial Review Pre Action Protocol the Council agreed that it would quash its decision. A signed order was issued by the High Court in January 2020 putting that into effect. Accordingly, the Area Planning Panel’s decision is quashed and planning application 19/01605/FUL is brought to this meeting to be re-considered on its planning merits.

It was reported that the main planning issues which were debated at the July 2019 Panel meeting concerned the lack of off street car parking at the site and the implications for local highway safety. In addition, the site was in Baildon Conservation Area.

Members were informed that the private hire office had now been built and its appearance was slightly different to the plans considered at the Area Planning Panel. Amended plans including those design variations had been received and publicised. The visual appearance of the office and the manner of its operation and implications for local amenity and road safety were now more readily understood than they were in July 2019 given that the development was now built and the use had been operating since September 2019.

It was reported that t he main points of difference to the original design werethat the building was no longer detached – it was attached to an adjacent garage building; the customer booking window had been deleted as had the external covered customer waiting area; the applicant had advised that the majority of bookings were made remotely through dedicated phone lines and/or online;  the building had been built with a mono-pitched roof as opposed to the previously shown gabled structure with a dual-pitched roof; the external door to provide access to the toilet facilities had been deleted.

It was reported that the business had been in operation since its approval for 8 months now and had not caused any problems. It was acknowledged that the business provided a valuable service.

Members were informed that the amended scheme sought to address this concern by limiting the nature of the business in that by operating as a purely telephone/remote booking facility, customers would no longer need to call in-person to the site and wait for a vehicle. Vehicles would therefore no longer need to park along, manoeuvre or make otherwise use of the restricted access road alongside the unit. The removal of the welfare facility would also serve to discourage vehicle drivers from parking up and making use of the facilities in between fares. The Council’s Highway Engineer was satisfied that the implementation of these measures would be sufficient to overcome their previous concerns.

It was considered that the development would enhance the character and appearance of Baildon Conservation Area in that it would effectively screen the adjacent dilapidated garage building and improve wider range views when seen from Northgate.

Officers were recommending that planning permission be granted.

It was reported that a petition with over 30 signatories had been received against the proposal together with 21 letters of objection. In support, around 90 representations had been received including one from a local Ward Councillor.

An additional representation in support of the application had been received from another Ward Councillor which was read out to Members and stated:

·         Baildon Taxis was a long established, well respected local business that had relocated just a few yards from its previous location; the new location was in a safer position off the main road on the edge of the conservation area.  The taxi office had been built from natural stone and was in keeping with the local area; it was a vast improvement as it hid a dilapidated old garage from view.

·         The revised plans removed the external waiting area which made it more acceptable to people living nearby; and the vast majority of business was done by telephone so there was no need for people to visit the booking office; Baildon Taxis had done a fantastic job in marketing their phone number across Baildon including installing a Freephone in the nearby Co-op and Copper Beech Club.

·         The business had been successfully trading in the exiting location for 8 months on top of over 30 years in the previous location.

The Baildon Town Councillor spoke in support of the application and made the following comments:

·         Baildon Taxis was a valuable asset to the Community, they were trusted by many in the community, which was vitally important to the elderly. 

·         They were 100% supportive of Baildon Neighbourhood Watch, attending the meetings with Shipley Neighbourhood Police Team, sending out alerts to their drivers to ‘look out’ for suspicious vehicles etc- on one occasion a staff Member rang 999 about a stolen car and the car was apprehended.

·         They had helped by putting NHW signs on lampposts in the village etc, they gave support to Baildon’s charity events, providing free taxi services to the elderly & their drivers were always of the highest standards.

·         The office they had built was of local stone, sat perfectly in its location and did not impede on any residential properties. It certainly was a vast improvement to how the land was previously, which was basically a dumping ground for what appeared to be household rubbish?

·         It would  be a sad day if Baildon Taxis were no longer able to operate from the centre of Baildon.

A representative of the objector made the following comments:

·         The officer recommendation to the July 2019 Area planning panel was to refuse. There were two grounds, access and highway safety, and nuisance to neighbouring residents . Members came to a contrary conclusion  and granted permission.

·         The report now recommended the granting of permission but what had changed?

·         The access was the same, and the relationship of dwellings to the site remained the same .The highway comment simply say that as there were no walk in customer facilities or welfare for drivers the application could be supported.

·         The application drawing showed desks for the staff and two lots of benches. Who would use them if it was not drivers and customers?  The report at the top of page 52 acknowledges that customers would use the benches.  That being the case, drivers would bring vehicles into the access. So the highway comments were based on a misconception.

·         A series of photographs  demonstrated the difficulties of vehicles using what the report described correctly as a restricted access road. Note how the Co-op delivery vehicle had to use all the carriageway and even the foot path to egress onto Northgate. It was no surprise that the manager of the CO-OP , Baildon’s major food store had lodged a robust objection

·         The report stated that the toilet was now only accessible to the three staff who operated the 24/7use.  It did stretch the imagination to think that any of the 25 drivers who had a pressing need would be denied access to that toilet .

·         At the bottom page 49, the report advised that permission had been given to use a nearby car park and a letter had been received apparently authorising this arrangement. However, this car park was subject to  restrictions  and at some times of day is very well used. This begs the question would there always be the capacity and the time available for the taxis?

·         At the top of page 49 there was a space for the comments by Baildon Town Council – no comments appeared in the report. Why? Because they were made and posted on the Portal on 17^th March. I quote in full: “The planning committee would request that the original objections from Bradford Council’s Highways officer regarding the number of parking spaces available for taxi drivers were considered. Also the committee would like to highlight the close proximity of the new taxi office to a residential dwelling 19a Northgate.”

·         The report for the July Panel cited as reason for refusal the increase in noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents. 19a Northgate was specifically named, and that applied to the flat that was occupied by the Malt Shovel‘s manger which faced the application building and the occupiers of 4 East Parade. The relationship of these properties to the application building could be seen on the report map. The justification for the change in view was given on page 51. There was no external waiting area, whilst acknowledging that there was an internal one. This was a 24/7 operation. Given the concerns expressed in the July report it was surprising that this one did not contain the consultation by the Environmental Health department.  That contained a clear recommendation that customers should have  “a waiting area away from any noise sensitive premises”. This was a 24/7 operation no restrictions on operating hours were proposed to be conditioned nor were any of the amenity safeguards suggested by the Environment Health officer. 

·         What had been built had little resemblance to that which the members at the July Panel  decided to approve . It clearly caused harm to the character of the conservation area as the officer consultation stated, but not significant harm. Contrast this with the consultation relating to the drawing before the July Panel which stated, having made detailed requests for amendments that “ the proposed  structure itself subject to the points noted, could be constructed whilst maintaining the character of the area”.

·         The current comment concluded : The building did not cause significant harm to the character of the conservation area, but could with proper attention  to detail made a more complementary contribution”. The original design with amendments suggested would not have caused harm – that word did not appear in the first consultation from the conservation officer. Furthermore, that consultation expressed concerns about the use “ the principle of locating this use on the site must be subject to further clarification, to ensure the level of activity would not be harmful to the amenity and character of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.”

·         In conclusion the evidence showed that the original assessment by officers in 2019 remained valid, with the added issue that the building which the Panel Members agreed at that time, was not the building being considered by the Committee today. An unrestricted 24/7 operation as recommended offered no safeguards to residential amenity, and its continuation perpetuates congestion which in itself was harmful to the amenity and character of the conservation area.

Members considered the comments raised and acknowledged the amount of support the proposal had received.

Resolved-

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

Action:  Strategic Director, Place