The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “X”) in relation to a full planning application for a residential scheme of 99 dwellings, with associated works, on land at Holts Lane, Bradford – 17/05251/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:

 

On-site affordable housing provision of 20 two bed houses,

 

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 “X”) in relation to a full planning application for a residential scheme of 99 dwellings, with associated works, on land at Holts Lane, Bradford – 17/05251/MAF. Various plans and photographs were displayed.

 

The Assistant Director made a correction to his written report explaining that the site was located within the Clayton and Fairweather Green Ward.  He also reported on the matters raised by two additional representations received since the publication of his report; one of which was from the Keep Clayton Green Action Group (KCGAG) and one from a consultancy, on behalf of local residents, in relation to drainage and flood risk issues.

 

In response to the issues raised he explained:

 

·         In respect of public consultation and the level of information available; the relevant information had been available to the local community and a meeting had taken place with a representative of KCGAG to discuss and explain various issues.

·         In relation to the concerns expressed about the construction of an embankment and the potential diversion of a Right of Way; these proposals related to land which was outside the red line boundary of the site and therefore not part of the application under consideration.  The drainage works in the adjacent field were proposed to be located underground and would be classified as permitted development.

·         The highway implications had been assessed and it was considered that the network could safely accommodate the additional traffic from the development.

·         Conditions were proposed to secure the use of appropriate materials and the recommended bio-diversity enhancements.

·         In terms of surface water and a concern that this would be diverted; his professional opinion was that the development, as proposed, would not alter the direction of flow and this water would leave the site along the same path as it had prior to development; to the north onto the Green Belt land.

·         Waste water would be discharged to the public sewer by pump into the existing Yorkshire Water network.  Yorkshire Water had agreed to a rate of 5 litres per second of surface water and it was their responsibility to assess capacity.

·         The pumping arrangements would include an underground attenuation tank and retaining well located in an adjacent field.  Yorkshire Water would adopt this equipment and would implement a system of regular maintenance. It was considered that there was a low likelihood of failure but they would have contingency arrangements in this eventuality. Even if the new drainage systems became blocked the water would drain to the Green Belt land to the North as previously.

·         The water storage/pumping system would have to be designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant regulations and to accord with rules on the generation of noise.

 

He responded to questions from Members as follows:

 

·         The proposed surface water attenuation tank of approximately 1000 cubic metres and wet well for foul water were still subject to detailed design but would be located in a compound below the ground on land to the east of the development site.

·         When the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP) had been adopted in 2005 land allocations had been made for various uses. Phase 1 and 2 housing sites were those expected to come forward for development within the period of the plan with ‘safeguarded’ sites being, in effect, Phase 3 residential sites.  The RUDP was now 12 years old and the majority of the Phase 1 and 2 sites had been developed; the principle of development of this ‘safeguarded’ site was therefore acceptable. He indicated the land allocations in the immediate vicinity of the site, which included some ‘greenfield’ and some Green Belt land.

·         This site was not within the Green Belt. It may have been so prior to the adoption of the RUDP in 2005 but had been allocated as ‘safeguarded’ at this point, further to scrutiny by an Inspector.  The boundaries of the Green Belt could only be changed when a new Local Plan came into force.  A wholesale review of the district’s Green Belt would be undertaken over the next three years as part of this process.  Building was only permitted in the Green Belt in very special circumstances.

·         A minimum density of 30 houses per hectare was required in order to ensure the most efficient use of the site and to avoid more pressure being brought to bear on other land such as that within the Green Belt. Although it was accepted that the existing houses in this locality had quite large gardens this was not expected to be the case for newer dwellings.

·         The majority of housing in the area was two storey and there was a mix of detached, semi detached and terraced units; it was considered that the proposed layout was in keeping with the local character. A condition was proposed in respect of the use of appropriate materials to ensure that these were in keeping with surrounding properties.

·         The separation distances met the relevant policy requirements with the exception of a couple of instances within the development, but the buyers of these properties would be aware of this relationship when purchasing the property concerned.

·         The existence of the railway tunnel would have been identified as part of the Phase 1 and 2 Site Investigation Reports and had not been raised as an issue of concern.

·         A condition was proposed in respect of remediation to address any contamination identified to ensure that it was dealt with in an appropriate manner.

·         The Highways Development Control Section had considered both the existing and the forecast traffic conditions in detail, including those figures submitted on behalf of KCGAG. A full Transport Assessment had also been submitted with the application; this had not given rise to any concerns in respect of impact on highway safety. The calculations to predict the number of vehicle movements that would be generated had been done in accordance with the accepted industry standards and he was satisfied that the conclusions were robust. The accident database had been checked and there had been 4 accidents in the vicinity since 2009; 1 serious and 3 slight. There were no patterns that might indicate a failure of the network. The Avenue was well within its capacity.

·         The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) had been introduced on 1 July 2017 and certain areas of the district, such as this one, had been deemed to generate nil levy. In developing the CIL scheme, the Council had been required to take account of the viability of development and the final proposals had been reviewed by an Inspector appointed by the Government. Educational infrastructure needs across the district would now be addressed with money paid into a central CIL account.  The Education Department did monitor planning consents to inform their planning for new or expanded schools, but it should be noted that it was not always the nearest school to a development that would be expanded.

 

A Ward Councillor put forward the following concerns:

 

·         Hundreds of local people had objected to the proposals. She had the full backing of the other Ward Councillors in asking the Committee to reject the application.

·         Clayton was a welcoming community and the need for new housing was understood but this was not the right location.

·         The development of this site would lead to a loss of part of the village’s heritage.

·         There was a single track road when travelling in the direction of Thornton and no footpath along the main route to the high school that many children from this area attended.

·         There would be an impact on the Conservation Area.

·         The local roads were already gridlocked; the route between Thornton, Clayton and Bradford had very high levels of traffic and the amount of traffic would be increased by this development.

·         There were concerns about the availability of health facilities; residents already had to wait two weeks to get an appointment and there were queues outside the surgery on a daily basis.

·         Both residential and visual amenity would be detrimentally affected by the proposals.

·         The wildlife survey had been undertaken in February. There were a number of species of bird that were known to use the site.

·         Local residents were concerned that amendments to the adjacent Green Belt site for the drainage equipment would have a detrimental impact on their amenity.

·         The public footpaths were used on a daily basis for recreational activities including by dog walkers and horse riders; they also linked to the Bronte Way.

·         The three local primary schools were all full; some children from Clayton were travelling as far as Denholme to school.

·         The access and egress for the development were restricted and were not considered to be suitable.  There had been four relatively severe accidents on The Avenue.

·         There was no open space provision and there would be nowhere for local children to play; the amenities at the local park were outdated.

·         There were already problems with anti-social behaviour in the village.

·         No mention had been made of the new housing being made accessible for people with disabilities; there were no such properties in Clayton.

 

The Assistant Director explained that:

 

·         The footpath was not a bridleway. The section of the footpath that crossed the top of Westminster Avenue would be affected but signs would be provided to indicate the route.

·         No significant wildlife features had been identified on the site and although birds might feed on the site they were unlikely to nest there. Bio-diversity enhancements were proposed and these would be secured through the imposition of a relevant condition.

·         The provision of play space within residential sites was not now generally encouraged due to past associations with anti-social behaviour. Money would be available through the CIL scheme to improve recreational facilities in this area if the Council decided to allocate funding for this purpose.

·         The new dwellings would be required to comply with Part M of the Building Regulations (in terms of accessibility).

·         Access to health facilities was a concern across the district but this was not an issue upon which refusal of an application could be substantiated.

·         The Council did not have a five year supply of housing land and there was a significant need for new houses. This was an allocated, safeguarded site.

·         In respect of the narrow section of Town End Road, the forecast indicated 10 vehicle movements down this road during the a.m. peak hour and 5 during the p.m. peak hour with a return flow of 4 an hour. The Westminster Avenue junction had visibility in excess of what was considered to be acceptable. A ‘traditional estate road’ was considered to be able to accommodate 200 properties; Westminster Avenue had grass verges and would serve approximately 130.

 

In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Ward Councillor explained that the Conservation Area was adjacent to the roundabout heading out of Clayton towards Thornton and there were two or three listed buildings in the village.

 

A Parish Councillor addressed the Committee as follows:

 

·         The development would cause severe traffic issues.

·         Proposals for similar developments had been refused in the past, in part due to issues in respect of congestion and traffic.

·         An independent traffic survey had been undertaken.  The Avenue was the main thoroughfare connecting this site, the village and the City Centre; over half the traffic heading towards the City Centre originated from The Avenue and drove down Bradford Road.  The current proposals would add a further 149 vehicles.

·         The access to the village was via a single track road with a chicane coming from Thornton and a narrow road from the City Centre. Although it was accepted that The Avenue was a wide road these features further away from the site caused a ‘bottleneck’ for traffic that could not be overcome.

·         Westminster Avenue would be the sole access and there would be problems with congestion and parking.

·         None of the traffic studies took account of new developments in Thornton.

·         Clayton St John’s Primary School was located on the opposite side of Bradford Road. It was understood that a Council study had shown that a school crossing patrol was necessary due to the volume of traffic using this road, but these proposals would increase the amount of traffic.

·         Encouraging the use of electric vehicles would not resolve the issue of congestion. The Council had deviated from its policy in respect of the provision of a charging point for each dwelling in this development as the affordable properties had been excluded.

·         Travel to school was already problematic for local children as there was no continuous footpath to the high school.

·         It would be a long walk to the nearest bus stop to access the City Centre.

·         The Parish Council could not support the application.

 

In response and further to additional questions from Members, the Assistant Director explained that:

 

·         A condition was proposed in respect of the provision of Electric Vehicle Charging points (EVCs) and the Local Planning Authority would endeavour to ensure that as many as possible were installed. Robust negotiations were undertaken with developers on this issue and the majority of new developments now had these facilities installed on a very high percentage of properties. In some instances, however, there could be practical issues with installation.

·         Vehicles would not all leave/return to the site at the same time so the impact had been calculated on the basis of the average movements in the locality at the present time and using the busiest peak hours. This had forecast roughly one vehicle movement a minute. It was not considered that the limited number of vehicles that would be using Town End Road would give rise to highway safety concerns.  In terms of congestion, people would adapt their pattern of travel if they considered that they were being delayed for too long.

·         Government advice was that capacity on roads was there to be used; there would be cases where development would take the network over capacity and in those cases highway improvements would be required or the application concerned would be refused.  In this case the capacity was there.

·         The use of the busiest peak hours for the basis of calculating the future impact was the accepted industry standard.

·         An average of 1¹/₂  parking spaces per dwelling would be provided.

·         Key highway issues and main routes were addressed through a programme of works in conjunction with the West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

 

A representative of KCGAG and local residents spoke in opposition to the proposed development:

 

·         The argument had been put forward that the Bradford district had to meet housing delivery targets but this site was not appropriate for development.

·         A 1300 signature petition and 300 letters of representation had been submitted in objection to the proposals and these figures could have been trebled.

·         There were considered to be inaccuracies in the Assistant Director’s report; there were objections from the Rights of Way Officer and it also stated that there were no objections by Education but letters had been submitted by local schools about overcrowding and being filled to capacity.

·         Clayton was a unique historic village and its layout could not be changed.

·         Residents’ concerns about the proposals had been made clear.

·         Although it had been said that the ‘safeguarded’ allocation led towards approval in principle the evidence against development should not be ignored.

·         Westminster Avenue was not wide enough to accommodate the additional traffic.  Photos had been provided to illustrate the issues.

·         There were poor sight lines at the access onto The Avenue.

·         This development would add significantly to existing congestion; again photos had been provided to illustrate the present problems.  Local residents had to sit in queuing traffic on a daily basis.

·         There was a flooding risk and a report had been submitted on behalf of the action group to highlight the issues.

·         Wildlife was present on the site; at the correct time of year skylarks nested there.

·         In 2004 a report had stated that development should not go ahead on this site as the local infrastructure could not cope, nothing had changed since that time.

·         The application should be refused or at least deferred until all the evidence, including that provided by KCGAG, had been properly assessed and work undertaken with the local community to develop sustainable solutions.

 

The Committee agreed that they had sufficient information to determine the application and that there was no need to defer the decision.

 

In response to the issues raised and further questions from Members the Assistant Director said that:

 

·         The Education Department had not objected to the application but had stated that it would increase pressure on local schools.

·         The Right of Way was on adjacent land and was therefore not part of the application.

·         There had been no previous planning applications affecting this site; the allocation of the land had been discussed as part of the 2004 Inquiry for the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP) which had resulted in an allocation as ‘safeguarded’.

·         Any proposals to divert the Right of Way would be dealt with through a separate procedure.

·         In terms of any proposals to construct an embankment (on the adjacent site) planning consent would not be required if no material was being imported to the site. As far as he was aware there were no plans to undertake any such works.

·         The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) clearly stated that any highway impact had to be serious to sustain refusal of an application.

·         The Parish Council was undertaking consultation in respect of raising funds for the production of a Neighbourhood Plan.

 

The applicant’s representative spoke in support of the application:

 

·         The applicant was the UK’s largest house builder with a good track record, including a number of schemes in the Bradford district.

·         This was a safeguarded site and the Council did not have a five year supply of housing land.

·         The scheme would provide 99 dwellings with a good mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms and detached, semi-detached and terraced units and 20% of which would be affordable.

·         There would be one access to the site and a Highway Impact Assessment had been submitted alongside the application.

·         Although it was not a standard requirement a CCTV traffic survey had been undertaken due to residents’ concerns and it was therefore considered that the figures were very robust.  The Action Group’s independent survey aligned with these numbers.

·         Public consultation had been undertaken.

·         The site was in a sustainable location and funding would be provided to undertake improvements to bus stops.

·         No Registered Provider (for the affordable housing) had been identified at this stage.

·         There were proposed to be a number of two and a half storey properties and these would be located centrally within the site.

·         Clayton had a mix of densities and the character of the locality had been taken into consideration in developing the scheme.

·         A detailed Phase 2 (contamination) investigation had been undertaken and no radon detected but protection measures were included as a matter of course.

·         The schools in the village may be oversubscribed but were taking children from over 2 kilometres away. There were 5 or 6 schools within a 2 kilometre radius and 2 out of the 6 were not oversubscribed.

·         The Right of Way would be retained and connections provided to/from the site.

·         The Phase 1 Ecology Report had deemed the proposals acceptable.

·         EVCs were always provided on the applicant’s developments but there were health and safety implications to be borne in mind in some circumstances.

·         The application was in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and local policy and would provide much needed housing for the district.  Approval would be subject to a number of conditions.

 

He responded to questions from Members:

 

·         The applicant’s designers and architects had determined the number of units to be provided on site taking account of the Council’s requirements in terms of adequate separation distances, the road network and the wish to provide a range of dwellings.

·         He was not able to say if the scheme would be unviable with fewer dwellings but pointed out that the applicant had a duty to the landowner to bring forward the optimum scheme.

·         Although there could be no absolute guarantees he was confident at this point that the scheme would be viable with the proposed affordable housing provision.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

·         The scheme met all the requirements of the NPPF.

·         Highways Development Control had explained the traffic implications.

·         Despite the information provided it was considered that on a day to day basis; the traffic conditions would be exacerbated and there would be a detrimental impact on the local community.

·         The traffic would feed onto a main highway artery and would certainly have an impact.

·         The highway issues were a concern; inadequate consideration had been given to the impact of the narrow roads.

·         There had been no justification for the proposed density which was double that of the surrounding area.

·         The amount of housing proposed and the removal of this open space would have an impact on the local community with no mitigation provided.

·         Although it was felt that the resultant increase in traffic would cause issues, the highways officer had confirmed that the development met the current requirements. In addition, this was a safeguarded site and there was the potential for costs to be awarded against the Council in the event of an appeal. There would be a detrimental impact on residents of Westminster Avenue but the Committee had to make a judgement under planning law.

·         It would be difficult to substantiate any reasons for refusal.

·         There was sympathy for the local community but there was no legitimate planning reason to refuse the application.

·         Reassurance had been provided that the more remote impact of additional traffic had been taken into account.

·         An additional condition should be imposed to ensure that the integral garages were retained for parking purposes and not converted to extra accommodation.

 

Further to which it was:

 

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 together with an additional condition relating to:

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) the integral garages within the dwelling(s) hereby permitted shall remain available for the purposes of garaging and no subsequent alterations to convert these garages to primary residential accommodation addition shall be carried out without the express written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

           

(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:

 

On-site affordable housing provision of 20 two bed houses,

 

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.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways