The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “D”) which sets out an outline application for the variation of conditions 2 and 5 and the removal of condition 9 of planning permission 21/01137/MAF (construction of a residential development scheme) on land to the south of Rooley Crescent, Staithgate Lane, Bradford.

Recommended –

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

(Hannah Lucitt – 07811503622)

The report of the Assistant Director, Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document "D") was submitted to the Panel for a full application for the variation of conditions 2 and 5 and the removal of condition 9 of planning permission reference 21/01137/MAF (this related to the construction of a residential development) on land south of Rooley Crescent, Staithgate Lane, Bradford.

The initial application relating to the alteration of condition 2 proposed to reduce the overall number of units.  The description was subsequently altered to include the amendment to condition 5 and the removal of condition 9.  The amended description was advertised via neighbour notification letters following the initial application that was advertised by press notice, site notice and neighbour notification letters.

The publicity exercises resulted in 101 representations of objection being received by 76 individual objectors.

Officers gave a presentation including a summary of the history relating to the site for the benefit of new panel members, including a previous appeal that had been dismissed but not on the same grounds.  In 2021, permission was granted subject to a S106 legal agreement.  Details of the changes proposed were summarised with the removal of 1 bed units in favour of 2 and 3 but a reduction in overall numbers.  The number of units requested had gone down but there would be resultant traffic and site layout changes.

The Chair raised the surface water drainage figures and clarified that they were appropriate and had been agreed by the drainage team. 

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

A Member asked about the water course that ran through the site and if it was a tributary of Bradford Beck but unfortunately, despite the request being made there was no representative at the meeting from the drainage team.

A Member queried the definition of a reliable bus service as the timetable did not reflect the reality of the service.  It was confirmed by Officers that it had been looked at by the Planning Inspector who judged it as adequate.

There were 2 objectors present who addressed the Panel with a number of concerns, specifically water discharge and insufficient drainage.  They also summarised the history of the site and the queries previously submitted.  They were also able to provide additional information on the bus service.

Officers advised that the reason for the reduction in units was not a planning consideration and that the S106 legal agreement from previous permission reference 21/01137/MAF secured affordable housing units, was still applicable.  The drainage issues were assessed as acceptable by the drainage team and other points raised by the objectors had already been considered as acceptable.  The road would be an acceptable standard to serve the development and the park & ride provision nearby.

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

In light of protection in the future and the increasing number of extreme weather incidents, a Member asked if there would be any changes to the physical capability of the water course or what was deemed acceptable.  Members also wanted to know if there were any measures in place to protect bio-diversity during construction.

Officers advised that Bio-diversity Officers were satisfied with the proposal and increases to the maximum flow rate capacity could be made in the future if they became necessary.

The applicant and agent were present at the meeting and addressed the panel stating that whilst transport did not form part of the variations under discussion, the development would be next to the park and ride scheme and would, therefore, be serviced by frequent public transport.  The amendment requested by the flood authority had not taken existing flows plus flows from the development into account and that the discharge rates were in accordance with the flood authority's acceptable limits.

The agent stated the following: that condition 2 related to the removal of 1 bed properties and inclusion of additional 2 and 3 bed properties, condition 5 related to the changes in water discharge rates in line with advice given, he also stated that on confirmation that Bradford Beck did not run through the site, that condition 9 should be removed, in line with LA requirements.  They would endeavour to minimise disruption to local residents throughout.

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

In relation to the loss of the 1 bed properties, a Member stated his assumption that the remaining properties would be for sale on the open market and asked whether it was possible to retain some for rental only.  Officers responded to say that whilst the S106 legal agreement fulfilled the requirement for social housing, it would not be possible to include conditions to prevent properties being sold and not kept as rental properties.

Another question relating to flooding was raised and asked where the attenuation tanks would empty and was advised that it would discharge into a water course off site at the agreed rates.

A Member asked if there was a provision to ensure that surfacing around dwellings could be grass or of porous materials and was advised that an existing condition (5) could be amended.

One Member commented that they were unsure of the reasons for the withdrawal of the 1 bed properties which was attributed to rising costs and was surprised that there was no Drainage Officer present at the meeting.

Officers again re-iterated that amendments had been made in accordance with the request from the drainage team and had also expected an Engineer to be present.

Was the dam feature for drainage a risk to children in any way?  Officers advised that it would be dry for most of the time but the matter could be discussed with the applicant.

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 “D”)

Action – Assistant Director, Planning, Transportation and Highways