The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “C”) which sets out an outline application for residential development of land (site area 0.82 ha) for 30 houses requesting consideration of access and scale on land south of 63 To 77 Westfield Lane, Shipley, Bradford

Recommended –

The application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions included with Appendix 1 set out in (Document “C”).

(Hannah Lucitt – 07811503622)

The report of the Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways) (Document “C”) was submitted to the Committee requesting approval for an outline planning application relating to a residential development for 30 houses for consideration of access and scale on land south of 63 to 77 Westfield Lane, Shipley.

The application related only to the principle of residential development on the site and would consider details including access and scale. When applying for the scale of the development this contained information on the size of the development, including the height, width and length of each proposed building.  A considerable number of representations were received objecting to the application, details of which were included in the report circulated prior to the meeting.

Officers presented details of the proposed access routes including plans and photos and the indicative layout of the site, stressing that only access and scale were under consideration.  Details of an S106 agreement were provided indicating proposed speed limits.

The application was recommended for approval subject to the legal agreement and the terms of this were hi-lighted including the percentage of social housing proposed.

Members were then given the opportunity to comment and ask questions, the details of which and the responses given are as below.

Reference was made to the Transport Planner paragraph relating to funding for a real-time display and residents Metrocards.  Officers advised that Metrocards could be offered by the developer if they so chose to but the inclusion of EV charging points was considered a satisfactory alternative.  The provision of Metrocards could be requested if deemed necessary.  It was further confirmed that these would only be given for the first 12 months and inclusion of EV points were not part of a policy but had been adopted by Bradford Planning Officers.

The issue of EV charging points was again raised as not all residents would be driving and there was a question around what a reliable bus service would be.  EV charging points were not considered sufficient to discharge the requirement of access to sustainable transport.  In addition, would there be access via a footpath from the new development to which Officers advised that an existing access would be maintained and improved.

Officers were asked if ongoing development in relation to traffic flow and levels were factored in to consider the cumulative effect and were able to confirm that they were and the area was still well under the threshold for this.

There were no drainage objections raised by the relevant team, subject to the usual requirements being met.

A member asked about visual amenity and the impact on neighbouring bungalows and Officers explained the floor levels of both these and the proposed development which were considered acceptable.

There were two objectors present at the meeting who addressed the Committee to express their concerns relating to the application which partly focused on access and parking during construction.

Officers responded regarding highways and access queries and the public consultation exercises that were undertaken as well as the TRO proposed to mitigate possible problems.  They also confirmed that there was no accident data to suggest any concerns.  They did confirm that there would be some disruption but had included conditions in the application to mitigate these.  Parking would be available when services were installed.

Members were again given the opportunity to ask questions and comment.  A Member queried the fact that objections had been received from Parish and Ward Councillors but did not seem to be included in the report.  Officers advised that comments and objections from Councillors were not listed separately in the report and therefore were included in the list provided unspecified.

The issue of construction traffic was raised and Members were advised that conditions would be implemented as part of the Construction Plan but workers’ vehicles would not be included.

A meeting had been requested with the developers in relation to collaborative working and a response was still outstanding.

Officers also confirmed that the adjacent bungalows did not have vehicular access via the main road

The issue of maintaining and enforcing access was raised and Officers stated that access could be controlled during construction (condition 12) by enforcement.  When the road is closed for services to be installed, the length of time that the road is closed would be down to the contractors with primary access being Westfield Lane.

A Member noted that it would not be responsible or moral to restrict access for an unspecified time as it would have a significant impact on those with limited mobility.  It was also stated that the inclusion of washroom facilities on site should be specifically included.  Officers stated that it could be added to the site management plan.

A Ward Councillor attended the meeting and addressed the Panel with concerns relating to access.  A second meeting had been requested to address concerns before the Planning meeting but this had been declined pending the outcome of the application.  A request was made that the developers commit to working with the residents.

A Ward Councillor for the applicant also attended the meeting and addressed the Panel and stated that access would not be unavailable even when services were being installed.  He also stated that Health and Safety would be observed on site and any conditions added to the site management plan would be adhered to.

A brief discussion then took place to clarify how access was to be widened to allow 2- way flow and that when services were being installed the trench would be covered to allow vehicles to pass over it and not restrict access.  He further stated that construction traffic would be contained within the site.

The agent for the applicant then addressed the Panel.  They were able to confirm that there would be short term disruption for a longer term benefit and summarised the measures agreed with the Highways team. 

The meeting was adjourned at 11.12am to allow Members to take further legal advice.

The meeting was re-convened at 11.35am –

Members sought clarification regarding road closure when services were being laid and it was confirmed that the road would have to be closed occasionally.  In the event of additional closures, notice would be provided, with the developer endeavouring to keep closures to a minimum.  Pedestrian access would be maintained throughout.

A Member asked if there would be pedestrian access maintained when the access was being constructed and was advised that there was an existing footpath and that additional land had been purchased to widen the new access road.

The issue of the second meeting between the applicant and residents was raised again and the agent stated that they were happy to meet to discuss.  In response to a request by a Member, Officers confirmed that operating hours were included in the conditions contained in the technical report.  Members also requested the inclusion of bus passes in conditions to which the applicant agreed to fund for the first 12 months.  This would be part of the S106 legal agreement,

Details of road closures would be submitted to Planning Officers who would inform Ward Councillors and residents.  This was also added as a condition, with a stated minimum notice period (other than emergency closure).

Resolved –

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director, Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report (Document “C”) and subject to the amendments and additions to those conditions and S106 legal agreement as below:

1.    amendment to Condition 12 point ii to read: location of site management offices (including wc’s) and/or sales office.

2.    addition to Condition 12 – point vii how both pedestrian and vehicular access to the rears of numbers 63-77 (odd only) Westfield Lane will be retained during the construction phase of the development and what procedures will be in place to advise the residents when the closure of the access road will be necessary and will take place (minimum 7 days’ written notice to both the Council and the Residents).

3.    The Section 106 Legal Agreement to be amended to include the following clause: The Developer shall provide a discounted Residential MetroCard Scheme for the future residents of the site for a period of 1 year. The cost of the Scheme shall be £15,345.00.

4.    Addition of condition number 24 to read “The development shall not be occupied until a scheme of highway traffic measures designed to protect visibility splays and to introduce a 20mph speed limit on the access road to the Development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council and thereafter has been implemented as approved by the Council including the completion or making of any necessary legal procedures and orders”.

Action: Assistant Director, Planning, Transportation and Highways