Eccleshill

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “T”) in relation to a full planning application for the construction of a residential development of 41 dwellings (comprising 19 open market and 22 for social rent) including infrastructure, landscape, access and all associated external works on land at Arthur Street, Bradford – 16/08854/MAF.

 

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:

 

(i)            On-site affordable housing provision of 22 units,

(ii)          The payment of a commuted sum of £25,000 to allow compensatory tree planting to be undertaken in the vicinity of the site,

 

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)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “T”) in respect of a full planning application for the construction of a residential development scheme including infrastructure, landscape, access and all associated external works on land at Arthur Street, Bradford – 17/04224/MAF.  He informed Members that the scheme proposed the construction of 41 dwellings, consisting of 19 that would be placed on the open market and 22 to be socially rented.  A previous application had been refused in March 2017 on the grounds of restricted access to the site, no education or recreation contribution and the loss of trees.  The new application retained access to the site via Arthur Street and provided a contribution of £25,000 as a compensatory payment for the loss of protected trees on the site.  It was noted that the sum calculated to allow replacement planting equated to £48,540, however, the Council’s Economic Development Unit had accepted the offer.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that the junction of Arthur Street and Bradford Road achieved the visibility standard in both directions, but the width of the access was the issue and one of the reasons for the previous refusal.  He stated that ideally the Council would want a full width road, however, the applicant had confirmed that the road and pathways would be made up to the Council’s adopted standards.  It was acknowledged that wheelie bins placed on the road and pathway outside houses on Arthur Street caused issues.  In order to try and alleviate some of the problems the applicant had proposed to create four formal parking spaces for the terraced housing occupants and two vehicles would be able to pass safely on the road within the site.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways stated that site had previously been used as a scrap yard and the existing buildings would be demolished.  There were no concerns in relation to the layout or design of the houses and the parking provision adhered to the Council’s standards.  He then recommended the application for approval, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing provision and the compensatory payment for the loss of the trees and that discussions be undertaken with Ward Councillors regarding a replanting scheme.

 

In response to Members’ questions, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that:

 

·         The width of the access was the same as the previous application.

·         No Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) had been proposed.

·         The 4 parking spaces had been proposed for the use by the residents of the six terraced properties at the bottom of Arthur Street.  There would still be on-street parking, but the proposal would move parked vehicles away from a pinch point.

·         There were no TROs on the road at the moment.

·         Refuse collection would not alter, except the vehicle would have to travel further down the site.

·         The Council’s Economic Development Unit had concurred that the contribution of £25,000 was correct.

·         The Council’s Education and Sport and Leisure Teams had been consulted, but they could not request contributions.  Departments would need to keep a note of the contributions that they had lost and place a request for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) money when it was divided.

 

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

 

·         Access was the main concern.

·         Trees, access and amenity were issues.

·         Which school would the children attend?

·         He lived on Arthur Street.

·         A parked car had stopped the refuse collection vehicle from accessing the street, so the bins had not been emptied for a month.

·         Many residents had two vehicles.

·         Vehicles had to use the footpath to pass parked cars.

·         Children used the footpath, so how would vehicles pass.

·         Children played on the road as it was quiet.

·         Wheelie bins were always outside houses.

·         The access issues would never change.

·         The tree offer had improved on the last application.

·         The school situation had not changed.

·         If the access route was altered there wouldn’t be any objections.

·         Arthur Street was not a suitable access route for 41 properties.

 

In light of a comment made, the Assistant Director – Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that the CIL was applicable now and it was the Council’s responsibility to resolve education matters from CIL funds.  The access issues were acknowledged and Members were informed that Traffic Regulation Orders could be considered, however, residents could submit objections.  Other traffic calming measures could be installed and alternative parking could be provided for the dwellings at the end of Arthur Street.

 

In response to further questions from Members, the Assistant Director – Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that:

 

·         It was acknowledged that the access road was narrow and that vehicles would be parked on Arthur Street. 

·         Two parking spaces per dwelling would be provided.

·         Existing residents parking may be able to be accommodated on the site.

 

In response to a Member’s question, the objector stated that the developers had not contacted the local residents.

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and commented that:

 

·         Established trees would be lost.

·         It would cost more money and time to replant similar trees.

·         The road was not adequate for the proposal.

·         The residents would be greatly inconvenienced and the developer would not make any money from the site.

·         The scheme would have a huge impact on the local residents and contributions would not be received for education and recreation purposes.

·         He had supported other developments within the Ward and had not just objected to the scheme on principle.

·         Why build houses down a road that was not suitable?

·         The development would be inappropriate.

·         Suitable access would be required to the site.

·         The development should be safe and sustainable in order to meet resident’s future needs.

·         Ward Councillors would like to be involved in discussions if the Panel was minded to approve the application.

 

In response to a Member’s query regarding schools in the vicinity, the Ward Councillor reported that the primary schools were over subscribed and some residents had to take their children to schools that were a substantial distance from their home.

 

The applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and informed the Panel that:

 

·         No objections had ever been received from the Council’s Highways Department.

·         Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) would be welcomed.

·         Consideration could be given to increasing the provision of parking spaces from four to six.

·         A contractor and Incommunities were involved in the development.

·         The scheme could be delivered.

·         54% of the units would be affordable housing.

·         30% of the units would be two bedroom properties.

·         Incommunities would vet all the tenants.

·         A contribution of £25,000 would be provided for trees and it would normally be 20%.

·         The margin would be 5 to 5.5%

·         A Section 106 Agreement would be entered into in relation to the contribution of £25,000.

 

In response to a Member’s queries, the applicant’s agent clarified that Incommunities had taken the lead in relation to the consultation process and he could not comment on the matter. 

 

In light of questions regarding the viability of the scheme, the Assistant Director – Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that the Council would consider the possibility of the proposals and consult an expert.  He stated that a trawl of the area would be undertaken and new houses usually cost 15% more than existing properties, however, only comparable prices in the area could be taken into account.  The cost to the developer was increasing in relation to the price of houses in Bradford, whereas the majority of other areas remained at a constant price.

 

During the discussion Members expressed concerns in regard to highway safety issues and indicated that the application had not changed from the previous refusal.   

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

 

(i)         The proposed development would, by reason of the restricted width of the entrance to the site from Arthur Street and the insufficient replacement parking provision for existing residents, give rise to serious highway safety implications thereby being detrimental to the free flow of traffic and pedestrian safety and would therefore be contrary to Policies TR2, DS4 and DS5 of the Local Plan for Bradford.

 

(ii)        The proposed development would lead to the loss of a significant number of protected trees, without adequate compensatory provision, to the detriment of visual amenity and would therefore be contrary to Policy EN5 of the Local Plan for Bradford.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways