The Assistant Director Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “D”) which outlines a full application for the construction of four industrial buildings and the refurbishment of existing industrial buildings at Bulmer & Lamb Ltd, Bulmer’s Mill, Royds Hall Lane, Bradford (21/00842/MAF).
That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in appendix 1 to Document “D”.
(Mark Hutchinson – 01274 434741)
The Assistant Director Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “D”) which outlined a full application for the construction of four industrial buildings and the refurbishment of existing industrial buildings at Bulmer & Lamb Ltd, Bulmer’s Mill, Royds Hall Lane, Bradford (21/00842/MAF).
The Assistant Director gave a presentation setting out the details of the application. The application comprised two parts, firstly the refurbishment of part of the existing industrial building and secondly the construction of 4 new industrial units, three of which are subdivided into two or four smaller units. The development would create an additional 2,340 square metres of floor space for B2, B8 and other E(g) uses. Access would be taken via the existing access from Royds Hall Lane.
The layout of the development was such that all future operations, such as deliveries and servicing of the units, would be satisfactorily accommodated within the site and would not therefore impact on highway safety. The level of traffic likely to be generated by the proposal would be satisfactorily accommodated within the surrounding highway network.
The trees along the northern boundary (Halifax Road) of the site would be retained and would provide a screen to the site when viewed from the north. The site would be visible from the east (Royds Hall Lane) but some additional landscaping was proposed and the difference in land levels would further reduce the impact of the buildings. It was considered that the siting of the buildings results in a sufficient separation distance from the adjacent residential dwellings and the design incorporates minimal openings on the elevation facing onto the dwellings. It was not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual character of the immediate locality or on the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings.
Environmental Health had however expressed some concerns around the previous operations on the site and therefore a condition regarding noise would be added and subject to this addition, the application was recommended for approval.
An objector was present at the meeting and stated that he lived in close proximity to the site and had reservations around noise, pollution, safety of traffic, and that the development would result in a significant number of HGVs entering and exiting the site. He suggested that the possibility of a new access road should be looked at, as well as that of additional planting to improve the aesthetics and at the same time creating a natural noise barrier.
In response to the concerns raised regarding the traffic movements generated from the new development, the Highways Engineer stressed that the traffics impact would be minimal, and that no traffic movement modelling was possible from this marginal increase. In terms of the noise issue, the Assistant Director added that again the new units would be small in scale and were not intended to create an additional noise issue.
A Ward Councillors written representations were read out at the meeting as follows:
I acknowledge the proposed plans submitted by Bulmer and Lumb and I welcome any potential business development and job opportunities this might bring to the district.
I do share concerns raised by some of the local residents. I must however express my great concern at the extra vehicles this will bring to the area – both due to employees working at the site and due to the HGV’s and vans that will be wishing to make ingress and egress at the site.
The junction of Royds Hall Lane with Halifax Road and the junction of Abb Scott Lane with Huddersfield Road are already problematic, with significant queues at peak periods.
I note the highways consultation response but wish to add to this regarding two aspects that have not been considered.
Due to the queues that build up at the junctions, drivers use rat runs instead.
One of these rat runs is along Fenwick drive up to Halifax Road, a road which is supposedly “access only”. We have already received a petition to full council asking for this road to be blocked off at some point to prevent drivers from using this rat run.
The other rat run is turning off Abb Scott Lane into Cemetery Road, driving past Harold Park and Horsfall Stadium to turn onto Halifax Road. There are current significant issues with both parking and speeding along this road that need to be addressed as it is.
The “rat run” routes can ill afford any additional traffic that may result from additional drivers resorting to use these routes due to any potential negative impacts on the main junctions.
I have concerns over the parking at the site. I acknowledge the plans do allow for some creation of parking spaces and the completion of these is a recommended condition of approval stated in the highways response. My query remains as to whether or not there would be sufficient spaces. The units have been advertised for lease, but we do not yet know what type of businesses will be using the space and how many spaces would be required.
I have concerns that some drivers may resort to parking on the highway and there is nowhere that this can easily and safely be facilitated.
As it is there is occasionally a car that legally parks on Royds Hall Lane, just slightly further up from the Bulmer and Lumb entrance, even this sole car parking there causes issues very close to the main junction as when a queue develops. If drivers are not considerate, this causes a road blockage which could quite easily impact onto Halifax Road.
There is a sign stating “no access” to HGV’s going from Royds Hall Lane into Abb Scott Lane but many HGV drivers take no notice of this. This has proved problematic also.
I ask you to consider all the matters raised in consideration of this application.
The applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and stated that the site in question had been operating for over a hundred years, and that the proposed units would create much needed business /employment opportunities in the area. In addition the location was a sustainable one in terms of its layout and the existing operations as well as its links to the existing highway network.
During the discussion Members expressed broad support for the proposals and it was therefore:
That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in appendix 1 to Document “D”, together with the following additional condition:
No additional plant/machinery
Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) no further plant or machinery shall be placed or erected on the site without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To restrict the impact of noise emitted from the site on neighbouring noise sensitive locations and to accord with Policy D5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.
ACTION: Assistant Director Transportation Design and Planning
(Mark Hutchinson – 01274 434741)