The Panel is asked to consider the planning applications which are set out in Document “G” relating to items recommended for approval or refusal:

 

The sites concerned are:

 

(a)       Poplars, 521 Harrogate Road, Bradford                         Eccleshill

(b)       228 Parkside Road, Bradford                                      Little Horton

(c)        40 Brackendale Avenue, Bradford             Idle & Thackley

(d)       Lime Tree Farm, 8 Tong Lane, Tong, Bradford                      Tong

 

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

The Strategic Director, Regeneration presented Document “G”.  Plans and photographs were displayed in respect of each application and representations summarised.

 

(a)       Poplars, 521 Harrogate Road, Bradford                                Eccleshill

 

A householder application for the construction of a boundary wall, detached garage and new gated access onto Harrogate Road and Beckwith Drive at 521 Harrogate Road, Bradford - 16/07250/HOU

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the application was for the construction of a boundary wall, garage and new access. It was noted that the new wall would be stone faced and would replace a previous wall and hedge.  The garage would be largely screened from public view due to the ground levels on the site.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration then recommended the application for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.  

 

Resolved –

 

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

 

Action: Strategic Director, Regeneration

 

 

(b)       228 Parkside Road, Bradford                                              Little Horton

 

Demolition of existing derelict bungalow and construction of new two-storey place of worship (D1) at 228 Parkside Road, West Bowling, Bradford - 16/04818/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  Members were informed that the application was for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the construction of a two storey place of worship with eight parking spaces provided.  The site was unallocated and the principle of development was accepted.  A large number of representations had been submitted against and in support of the scheme and the issues were detailed in the officer’s report.  Consultations had been undertaken with Council Departments and the Environmental Health Team had raised objections to the use outside of the hours 0730 to 2000.  The scale and form of the proposed building would look unusual in the street scene, though the materials would match those in the area.  Members noted that the car parking provision was adequate, however, the issue was in relation to residential amenity.  It was a quiet area and the proposed use would attract people early mornings and late evenings.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration reported that the applicant had provided a calendar of prayer times, which commenced prior to 0700 hours and finished after 2300 hours.  He stated that if the use was restricted via a condition, then it would be nullified, however, the potential for large numbers of visitors to the site early or late would disturb residents.  The application was then recommended for refusal as per the reason set out in the report.       

 

In response to Members’ questions, the Strategic Director, Regeneration stated that:

 

·         On balance it was considered that there would be sufficient on-street parking to cope with the peak demand.

·         The other facility in the area operated similar hours to those proposed.

·         The hours of operation could be controlled by a condition but it may be unreasonable if the condition was unduly restrictive and nullified the benefit of the development.  If the facility was unable to function before 0700 hours and after 2300 hours, then the condition would be unreasonable as these hours were part of the function of a Mosque.

·         There was no requirement in relation to the control of numbers inside the building, as this was covered by Fire Regulations.

·         No details had been submitted in relation to speakers on the building and they would require planning permission.     

 

An objector was present at the meeting and raised the following concerns:

 

·         He lived adjacent to the site.

·         There were no parking facilities in the area and cars were parked indiscriminately which caused chaos.

·         The Council’s Parking Enforcement Team had been contacted.

·         A land search had been undertaken and not more than one storey building should be constructed.

·         He had requested that a bat survey be undertaken, as there were bat colonies in his garden.

 

In response to some of the comments made the Strategic Director, Regeneration indicated that there may be a covenant on the land restricting building, however, this was a private matter and added that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) placed a duty on developers to ensure that land was safe and stable.  With regard to the undertaking of a bat survey, the only issue was the demolition of the existing bungalow and unless bats were found to roost on the site the Planning Department was unable to progress the matter.  There was other legislation that covered the issue and the developer must ensure that bats would not be endangered. 

 

A supporter of the application was present at the meeting and made the following points:

 

·         A significant number of Muslims lived in the area and there was no place of worship that was fit for purpose.

·         The community had purchased the land with the aim to build a Mosque.

·         Over 200 families were in support of the proposal.

·         The site had been derelict for many years.

·         It was in the best interest of the community to work with residents to ensure that the inconvenience was limited.

·         There were no major issues, only the hours of operation.

·         The first and final prayer times were out of the specified times requested, but would not always be and equated to less than 5% of the use of the building.

·         Prayers were important.

·         The development would provide many opportunities for employment, the local economy and would not create an inconvenience to local residents.  

·         Conditions could be placed on the application.

·         Speakers would not be required outside the building.

·         The education centre in the vicinity was not fit for purpose, therefore, the aim was to close it and move the facility to the new building.

 

A Member queried whether the applicant’s suggested hours of use were acceptable and could be conditioned.  In response the Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that the proposed hours of 0700 to2300 hours conflicted with previous information provided that stated the first prayer would be prior to 0700 hours.  The Council’s Environmental Health Team had also  requested that the hours of operation be restricted to 0730 to 2000 hours.         

 

During the discussion Members acknowledged that the development would be a place of worship, however, the hours of use were not acceptable in a residential area.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the reason set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Regeneration

 

 

(c)       40 Brackendale Avenue, Thackley, Bradford        Idle and Thackley

 

A full planning application for the construction of one dwelling within the garden area of 40 Brackendale Avenue, Thackley, Bradford - 16/04378/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He informed Members that the application proposed the construction of a dwelling within the garden area that backed onto an area of woodland that was covered by tree protection orders (TPOs).  A number of representations in support and against, including a petition, the scheme  had been submitted and the issues were noted in the officer’s report.  Consultations had been undertaken with various Council Departments and the Trees Team had objected to the development due to the proximity to the protected trees.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration stated that there was a lack of housing in the District and, therefore, the principle of development was accepted.  He confirmed that the dwelling would be single storey and not impact on neighbouring properties, however, it would be in close proximity to three of the protected trees in the woodland to the rear.   The windows at the back would overlook the trees and the rooms would be dark, which could warrant pruning or removal and, therefore, have a significant impact.  The application was then recommended for refusal for the reason as set out in the report.

 

In response to Members questions, the Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that objectors to the proposal lived in the vicinity, whereas those in support resided some distance away.  He explained that the trees affected were part of a wider wooded area on a separate site and owned by a different person.

 

The applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and made the following comments:

 

·         The issues with the protected trees were acknowledged and they could not be pruned without permission.

·         The trees were not within the application site boundary.

·         The Council’s Trees Team had been consulted and the applicant had submitted a full tree survey, which stated that they would not affect the principle of development.

·         Only one tree would require pruning by 2 metres and the applicant was entitled to do this.

·         The applicant had provided the required full tree survey over 11 weeks ago, however, the Local Authority had not responded.

·         The trees were the only issue.

 

In response to some of the comments made, the Strategic Director, Regeneration  stated that the Council’s Tree officer had responded on 31 October 2016.  He explained that there was conflict between the trees and the proposed development and one of the trees would require pruning.  This would be an ongoing burden for the future occupants and the trees would overshadow the house.   

 

During the discussion Members acknowledged that the trees would cause issues for the proposed dwelling.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the reason set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Regeneration

 

 

 

(d)       Lime Tree Farm, 8 Tong Lane, Tong, Bradford                     Tong

 

Planning permission is sought, for the construction of a side extension to form a swimming pool with self-contained accommodation above at Lime Tree Farm, 8 Tong Lane, Tong, Bradford - 16/04200/HOU

 

The Strategic Director, Regeneration gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He informed the Panel that the application was for the construction of a two storey side extension to a property within the Green Belt and, therefore, was subject to constricted development.  Members noted that within the limited exceptions to the policies an extension of up to 30% of the property’s original cubic volume was permitted and the applicant’s agent had stated that the proposal would be a 46% increase, however, officers had checked the information and believed that the extension would result in a volume increase of 70%.  The Strategic Director, Regeneration explained that the extension would provide facilities for the special needs of a disabled occupant, however, the scheme was deemed to be excessive and the Council’s Occupational Therapy Unit had recommended internal amendments.  He indicated that a revised reduced scheme would be supported, however, a compromise had not been reached.  Local Authorities had to give substantial weight to the Green Belt and the proposed extension was too large, therefore, the application was recommended for refusal.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Strategic Director, Regeneration clarified that the permitted increase was to the cubic mass of the building and not the footprint.  He stated that the extension must not result in a disproportionate addition to the dwelling and had to maintain the openness of the Green Belt.  Members were informed that extensions over 30% had been supported previously and that officers had some sympathy towards the scheme as the justification was that it would benefit a disabled person. 

 

The applicant was present at the meeting and explained that his youngest son was a paraplegic whose condition was slowly improving, however, he had muscular problems and was having hydrotherapy treatment.  He informed the Panel that he also attended local swimming pools but it was becoming more difficult to get there and the proposed scheme would benefit all the family.  It was noted that his son was due to commence school this year and would still require physiotherapy when there, therefore, it would be advantageous if he could undertake this at home before and after school.

 

In response to Members’ concerns about the size of the proposed scheme, the Strategic Director, Regeneration confirmed that the agent had been asked to address the issue and had not done so, therefore, the Panel would need to consider the submitted plans. 

 

During the discussion Members’ indicated that they had sympathy with the circumstances, however, the development was against Green Belt policy and a compromise had not been resolved.  

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the reason set out in the Strategic Director, Regeneration’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Regeneration