A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “Y”) in respect of a full application for the demolition of existing buildings and infill of an existing mill pond and the construction of seven retail units including a discount food store (Class A1), five retail units (Class A1) and one sub-divisible unit (Class A1, A3, A5), with access, car parking, landscaping and associated works, at Union Mills, Harrogate Road, Bradford – 17/04007/MAF.

 

Recommended –

 

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.

 

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

A report was submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “Y”) in respect of a full application for the demolition of existing buildings and infill of an existing mill pond and the construction of seven retail units including a discount food store (Class A1), five retail units (Class A1) and one sub-divisible unit (Class A1, A3, A5), with access, car parking, landscaping and associated works, at Union Mills, Harrogate Road, Bradford – 17/04007/MAF. Various plans and photographs were displayed.

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported on the substance of two additional representations received since the publication of his written report. In response to issues raised he explained that:

 

·         West Yorkshire Ecology had been consulted and had raised no objections.

·         The moving of the fish would need to be addressed with the Environment Agency.

 

He also clarified that the site was located within the Eccleshill Ward and reported a request from the applicants that the proposed conditions in respect of the permitted opening hours and delivery times be amended to align the hours for Unit 7 with those of Units 2,3,4,5 and 6.

 

The Assistant Director responded to questions from Members:

 

·         These units were of a different scale to those proposed as part of the adjacent residential development which were just intended to be a parade of small shops.

·         It would be difficult to undertake a stability assessment on the mill pond whilst it was full.

 

A Ward Councillor addressed the Committee in objection to the application:

 

·         As Ward Councillor issues relating to Harrogate Road were raised with him on a very regular basis. On the photographs shown by the planning officer it looked particularly quiet.

·         Local opinion was divided on the proposals; some people thought that the provision of a new budget retail store would be positive whilst others were concerned about the impact on Harrogate Road.

·         The development threatened the livelihood of the existing businesses located on the site.

·         Policy CR1A required a demonstration of need; it was considered that the submitted information actually demonstrated the level of threat to other retailers, which was not the same thing.  He believed that there was no obvious need for this development, there were already a lot of empty retail units in the area.

·         The location of retail units adjacent to housing did not always encourage people to walk and were not an antidote to anti-social behaviour.

·         There was concern about the impact on residents of Wharncliffe Drive and Ashington Close.

·         Yorkshire Water considered the conclusions of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment to be unacceptable but believed that the issues could be addressed through the use of relevant conditions. There was uncertainty in relation to where the water came from and went to. 

·         Ecological surveys had been undertaken but local people had seen crayfish on the site.

·         There was a petition to retain the pond.

·         There was a proposal to build 550 homes on the Fagley Quarry site but this scheme would rule out the option of a purpose built access road through this site, which was a much better solution to the issue of access.

·         A scheme to improve the site and to improve the situation for the local community would be welcomed but there was no need for a development such as this and no account had been taken of the needs of the local community.

 

The Assistant Director said that:

 

·         Although there may be empty retail units either they were not of sufficient size to accommodate this development or would not be made available for this proposal.

·         The Retail Impact Assessment had been reviewed by independent consultants and it had been concluded that the development would have some impact but that this would not be significant or lead to closure of existing units.  A number of stores in the area were currently trading above expected levels.

·         Although the potential loss of jobs was a concern the owner of the buildings could close them at any point and this issue was not a material planning consideration.

·         The principle of the need for additional retail space had been accepted.

·         Anti-social behaviour could take place on the site in its current format; a barrier to restrict access outside opening hours would be sought.

·         Yorkshire Water had raised concerns about the proposals but were happy that the issues could be overcome through the imposition of appropriate conditions.

·         It had not been possible to achieve an agreement in respect of the provision of a single access point to this development and the proposed development on the Fagley Quarry site and a ‘ransom strip’ had been retained around this site. However, Highway Development Control officers were satisfied that Harrogate Road could safely accommodate both potential accesses.

 

A local resident spoke in opposition to the development and, with the agreement of the Chair, tabled 4 photographs:

 

·         He had lived on Wharncliffe Drive for 31 years.

·         The operation of diesel pumps, to drain the mill pond, 24 hours a day would be a major source of nuisance and it was questioned where the pumps would be located.

·         No statement had been made about what would happen to the fish.

·         Other wildlife including ducks and geese also used this site.

·         Adjoining neighbours were concerned about potential subsidence resulting from the land drying out and it was questioned who would indemnify neighbours in respect of damage; at present the cellar of his property was constantly damp and there was concern about the impact on foundations.

·         There had been a lot of revisions to the plans and it was not clear where the proposed buildings would be placed.

·         There was a substantial dry stone wall along the rear boundary of properties on Wharncliffe Drive adjoining the site.

·         The proposals would not fit in with the surrounding development. Properties on Wharncliffe Drive would face onto a significant existing boundary wall plus another 7 metres of the new buildings.

·         The photographs displayed by the planning officer did not illustrate the view from the eastern boundary and the visual impact that the proposed development would have.

·         Who would compensate residents for damage to the mature plants along the adjoining boundary?

·         Headlights from vehicles on the site would shine into the bedrooms of adjacent properties.

·         The premises were proposed to be in use until 23.00 resulting in constant disturbance from traffic.

·         There was a problem at the ‘Enterprise 5’ retail complex with anti-social behaviour taking place in the car park; this site would be subject to similar problems.

·         The cross-sections along Wharncliffe Drive needed to be considered and the Committee should undertake a site visit to see the blight the proposal would cause.

·         A number of local retail units had already closed and it was questioned why this development was necessary if there was insufficient trade to support those businesses already in the area.

·         There would be a detrimental impact on the major supermarket at Greengates.

·         TV reception would be affected for adjacent properties.

·         The local highway network was already under pressure.

 

The Assistant Director said that:

 

·         Details of the siting of the diesel pump would have to be submitted to the Council, for approval in writing, and would be placed as far away from residential properties as possible. Noise attenuation measures would also be implemented to minimise the impact.

·         Any impact on the foundations of existing properties would be a private legal matter between the developer and the residents concerned, as would any impact on the existing boundary treatments.

·         A condition was proposed in respect of the submission of details of boundary treatments and the impact of the use of the car park, including glare from headlights, would be considered in determining the appropriate provision.

·         It was not considered that the impact on the supermarket at Greengates would be significant.

·         TV reception was not a material planning consideration.

·         The Local Planning Authority did have a duty to consider habitat issues but how and where the fish might be relocated would be dealt with by the Environment Agency. Ducks and geese were not afforded the same level of protection as some other species

 

The applicant’s agent put forward the following arguments in support of the proposed development:

 

·         The development would provide 7 new units on the site, the existing buildings would be demolished and the millpond drained.

·         The site would accommodate A1, A3 and A5 uses including a well known discount supermarket.

·         The access would be achieved from Harrogate Road.

·         221 parking spaces would be provided.

·         Careful consideration had been given to the development of this site and its relationship with the surrounding area.  The Local Planning Authority considered that there would be no significant impact and that the loss of the pond would not have a significant impact on the local ecology.

·         Removal of the fish would be agreed with the Environment Agency.

·         Ecological mitigation measures would be undertaken.

·         There had been no objections to the proposal from the statutory consultees.

·         There were no sequentially better sites and there would be no significant adverse impact on defined retail centres.

·         There would be no loss of residential amenity

·         There had been no objections from the Highway Officer.

·         A pedestrian crossing would be provided on Harrogate Road.

·         The flood risk and drainage measures proposed had been considered acceptable.

·         The scheme would create over 100 jobs and represented a significant investment into the area.

·         The application satisfied both national and local planning policy and would regenerate a brownfield site.

·         The scale, form and design had been deemed acceptable and the permission would be subject to a number of conditions.

 

Members expressed the following views:

 

·         Although it was appreciated that this particular development could not be accommodated within existing retail space, it was not considered that this meant that there was a need for additional retail floor space; not all the units in the area were fully occupied and a number of the proposed new units did not have an identified end user at this stage.

·         There were biodiversity issues as a result of the loss of a large body of open water and it was not considered that the proposed mitigation was adequate.

·         There would be overlooking and the use of the car park in the evening/night would affect existing residents, particularly those on Wharncliffe Drive.

·         It was questioned what would happen with the 1 metre ‘ransom strip’ around the edge of the site, would this just become neglected and overgrown?

·         Whilst the advantages of the mill pond were appreciated, the potential serious consequences of a breach of this large body of water, which had not been surveyed in terms of its stability, were a significant concern.

 

The Assistant Director explained the policy requirements in respect of need for retail floor space; the focus being on the demonstration of there being no significant impact on existing centres. In addition, in this case, there was an expectation of significant additional residential development in this area in the near future.

 

Further to which it was:

 

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 Conditions 16 and 17 to read as follows:

 

16. Opening times – retail units

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the use of the premises shall be restricted to the following hours:

 

Units 1A and 1B: 05:00 to 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 18:00 on Sundays

Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7: 05:00 to 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 18:00 on Sundays

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring residents and to accord with policies SC9, DS1, DS2, DS3, DS4, and, DS5  of the Local Plan for Bradford.

 

17. Delivery times – retail units

No deliveries/servicing shall be taken in or dispatched from the site outside the hours of:

 

Units 1A and 1B: 05:00 to 23:00 hours

Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7: 05:00 to 23:00 hours

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the neighbouring properties and to accord with policies SC9, DS1, DS2, DS3, DS4, and, DS5 of the Local Plan for Bradford.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways