Great Horton

 

(i)         17/02462/MAF

 

A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “O”) in respect of a full planning application for the construction of three individual retail units (Use Class A1) and a family pub restaurant (Use Class A3) with associated car parking, landscaping and associated works at Scott Works, Hollingwood Lane, Bradford.

 

Recommended –

 

(1)       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.

 

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of:

           

The implementation of off site highway works/Traffic Regulation Orders as set out below:

 

·         Installation of a Pelican Crossing on Clayton Road and an inductive loop detector on Hollingwood Lane.

·         Extension of the waiting restrictions across the site frontage on Clayton Road.

·         Provision of residents’ parking on Clayton Road.

·         Conversion of the existing parking bays across the site frontage on Hollingwood Lane to a combination of residents’ permit parking and limited waiting.

·         Provision of yellow box markings at the new access on Clayton Road and at the Hollingwood Lane and Scholemoor Lane junctions,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

(ii)        17/02466/OUT

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “P”) in relation to an outline planning application, with appearance and scale reserved, for the construction of a retail unit (Use Class A1), landscaping and associated works at Scott Works, Hollingwood Lane, Bradford.

 

Recommended –

 

(1)       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.

 

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of:

           

The implementation of off site highway works/Traffic Regulation Orders as set out below:

 

·         Installation of a Pelican Crossing on Clayton Road and an inductive loop detector on Hollingwood Lane.

·         Extension of the waiting restrictions across the site frontage on Clayton Road.

·         Provision of residents’ parking on Clayton Road.

·         Conversion of the existing parking bays across the site frontage on Hollingwood Lane to a combination of residents’ permit parking and limited waiting.

·         Provision of yellow box markings at the new access on Clayton Road and at the Hollingwood Lane and Scholemoor Lane junctions,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

(iii)       17/02473/OUT

 

The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “Q”) considers an outline planning application, with appearance and scale reserved, for the construction of a café/drive-through (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5), landscaping and associated works at Scott Works, Hollingwood Lane, Bradford.

 

Recommended –

 

(1)       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.

 

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of:

           

The implementation of off site highway works/Traffic Regulation Orders as set out below:

 

·         Installation of a Pelican Crossing on Clayton Road and an inductive loop detector on Hollingwood Lane.

·         Extension of the waiting restrictions across the site frontage on Clayton Road.

·         Provision of residents’ parking on Clayton Road.

·         Conversion of the existing parking bays across the site frontage on Hollingwood Lane to a combination of residents’ permit parking and limited waiting.

·         Provision of yellow box markings at the new access on Clayton Road and at the Hollingwood Lane and Scholemoor Lane junctions,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

Reports were submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways, in respect of a site at Scott Works, Hollingwood Lane, Bradford, as follows:

 

(i)         (Document “O”) in respect of a full planning application for the construction of three individual retail units (Use Class A1) and a family pub restaurant (Use Class A3) with associated car parking, landscaping and associated works – 17/02462/MAF.

 

(ii)        (Document “P”) in relation to an outline planning application, with appearance and scale reserved, for the construction of a retail unit (Use Class A1), landscaping and associated works – 17/02466/OUT.

 

(iii)       (Document “Q”) relating to an outline planning application, with appearance and scale reserved, for the construction of a café/drive-through (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5), landscaping and associated works – 17/02473/OUT.

 

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of two additional representations received further to the publication of his technical report; one was from a local resident and the other from an agent acting on behalf of a major supermarket. He also responded to the points therein explaining that:

 

·         The Local Planning Authority’s view remained that Scott Works was the most sequentially preferable site.

·         The Council’s Retail Consultant’s view was that both this scheme and a development on the site at Thornton Road were viable.

·         There was only one duplication of identified end users across both schemes.

·         Whilst it was accepted that there may be some impact on trade for the supermarket located on Cemetery Road this store was located outside the defined retail centre which meant that it had less protection.

·         The submitted Noise Impact Assessment was considered to be acceptable.

 

He also reported that the applicant had requested the amendment of three of the proposed conditions in his report; 30 for 17/02473/OUT (relating to a restriction on the use of the drive through/café element of the scheme to prevent its use as a hot food takeaway); 35 (relating to the amalgamation/sub-division of the units) and 36 for 17/02462/MAF (relating to the levels of convenience and comparison goods floorspace). He recommended that an amendment to permit the sale of sandwiches be accepted in the case of Condition 30 but that Conditions 35 and 36 should remain as proposed as the application had been assessed on the basis of the details submitted.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Assistant Director said that:

 

·         The position of existing nearby businesses would always be considered  in the assessment of the amendment/imposition of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) to control parking and a business would be able to make representations about any proposed TROs but it was necessary to protect visibility splays.

·         He was not aware of the existence of a railway tunnel under the site but would take this issue up with the relevant Council officers.

·         The Service Yard would be blocked off and not allow pedestrian access through to the retail units. (He referred to the displayed plans to give an indication of the various pedestrian routes to access the site).

·         There was little protection offered to existing small retail units as they were not located within a defined retail centre however experience showed that they usually continued to trade post such development.

 

An objector to the development expressed the following concerns:

 

·         It should be taken into account that the A1 retail use would not necessarily have to be occupied by the quoted retailer and could be any retailer.

·         The site was located within an Employment Zone and it was considered that no need for an exception had been demonstrated.

·         The highway safety issues were not known.

·         The proposed parking provision was significantly below the standard requirements and would lead to on-street parking in the vicinity.

·         The surrounding junctions were already operating over capacity.

·         Planning permission should be refused.

 

The Assistant Director said that:

 

·         The application had been assessed in terms of the level of convenience and comparison goods and was considered acceptable by the Authority’s Retail Consultants. Conditions were proposed to restrict changes to these levels.

·         This site was within an allocated Employment Zone but had a previous permission for residential use (2007) so the principle of the change of use had already been accepted. Residential use would provide no employment whereas retail use would include some employment; there was currently no employment provision on site.

·         A comprehensive Transport Assessment had been submitted and reviewed.

·         Parking standards were maximum rather than minimum requirements.

·         The development included proposals to protect the surrounding areas from inconsiderate parking.

 

The applicant’s agent made the following comments in support of the development:

 

·         All relevant issues had been assessed and addressed.

·         The proposal was supported by the local community and Ward Councillors.

·         The applicant had considered all concerns raised and tried to address them where possible.

·         The scheme represented a multi million pound investment which would provide local jobs and highway improvements.

·         Other supermarket retailers had submitted objections but these were considered to be based on commercial reasons; all the points raised had been addressed by the applicant, the Local Planning Authority and the Council’s appointed retail consultants.

·         This development would be of great benefit to the local community; it would provide a good selection of retailers, a pub and a coffee shop.

·         Conditions had been discussed with the planning officers and whilst the applicant was happy to accept most of them some amendments were requested. Condition 36 (17/02462/MAF) concerned the ratio of convenience to comparison goods for one of the units and this needed to be changed to match the terms of a legal contract with an operator; there were concerns that the delivery of this could be jeopardised if this was not done. It was requested that authority be delegated to the Assistant Director to negotiate further on the final wording of this condition.

·         One of the Ward Councillors had written in support of the development; thanking the applicant for the consultation that had been undertaken and welcoming the investment in the area. She had stated that; the site was in a good location and the development would be beneficial for the area; the site was currently derelict and unattractive and this development would enhance the locality; the development would create number of jobs for the local community and that local residents were looking forward to the new facilities.

·         A Ward Councillor from an adjoining ward had also commented that there was a lot of positive feeling towards the proposed development and local people were keen to see it go ahead.  It was considered that it would add value to the local area and provide local employment opportunities.

 

In response to a Member’s question he said that the proposal had been submitted as three applications in order to assist with marketing and delivery, allowing each element to be undertaken independently.

 

The Assistant Director pointed out that the applicant could submit an application for the variation of conditions in the future.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

·         The Committee was in a position to make a considered decision.

·         All three applications were supported.

·         There was a reason for Condition 36 being framed as it was; the impact of alternative unit sizes had not been considered by the Local Planning Authority and the opportunity to submit an application to amend this was open to the applicant; authority could be delegated to officers to deal with this matter as it was not considered necessary for this to come back to the Committee for determination.

 

(i)         17/02462/MAF

 

Resolved –

 

(1)       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 and that authority be delegated to the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways, in consultation with the Chair, to determine any submission made by the applicant in respect of the amendment of the wording of Condition 36.

 

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of:

           

The implementation of off site highway works/Traffic Regulation Orders as set out below:

 

·         Installation of a Pelican Crossing on Clayton Road and an inductive loop detector on Hollingwood Lane.

·         Extension of the waiting restrictions across the site frontage on Clayton Road.

·         Provision of residents’ parking on Clayton Road.

·         Conversion of the existing parking bays across the site frontage on Hollingwood Lane to a combination of residents’ permit parking and limited waiting.

·         Provision of yellow box markings at the new access on Clayton Road and at the Hollingwood Lane and Scholemoor Lane junctions,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

(ii)        17/02466/OUT

 

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.

 

(iii)       17/02473/OUT

 

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, subject to the amendment of Condition 30 as set out below:

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or any subsequent equivalent legislation, the premises shall be used for a drive through coffee retail and sandwich shop only and for no other purpose (including any other activity within Class A3 of the Order).

 

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority retains control over future changes of use with particular regard to car parking provision and impact on adjacent occupiers and to accord with Policy EC5 of the Local Plan for Bradford.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways