A report was submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AK”) in respect of an application for the construction of 27 dwellings at Ashwell Farm, Ashwell Road, Heaton, Bradford - 17/06647/MAF.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that the proposal was to construct 27 houses on a site that could accommodate three storey houses due to the levels, with access from Ashwell Road.  He confirmed that a number of representations had been received that raised concerns in relation to the additional traffic in the area, amongst others.  The site had previously been allocated as Phase 2 housing and the Council supported the housing allocation.  It was situated in an appropriate locality and would not harm residential amenity.  Highway safety would not be compromised as visibility splays would be created at the access point and electric vehicle charging points had been recommended.  Members were informed that full assessments had been undertaken.  There were protected trees in the vicinity, but not on the site and a condition to protect the trees would be applicable during the construction period.  A Phase 1 and 2 contamination study had been undertaken and a verification report would need to be submitted.  Construction traffic would also be subject to a condition.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that five affordable homes would be provided and then recommended that the application be approved, subject to the conditions as set out in the report and also subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal Agreement.

In response to a Member’s query, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that the site was located in a nil CIL area, however, money would be spent on mitigating measures across the District.

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

·         Why had it taken nine years to get the certification correct?

·         Why did the site description contain errors, as buildings had been removed?

·         Had the protocols for missing buildings been followed?

·         Officers had visited the site in relation to fly tipping.

·         There was contaminated spoil along the North West boundary of the site.

·         How did the removal of trees on the boundary improve the area?

·         The decision made in 2012 not to prosecute the applicant should be revisited.

In response the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that the issue regarding certification related to a situation that had occurred with a previous planning permission, which had now expired.  An area of land had been disputed as part of the signed certificate, however, it was not the role of the Committee to become involved in such matters.  The applicant had then altered the area of the site at the reserve matters stage.  It was noted that the proposed scheme did not go beyond the red line boundary.  Members were informed that a full Phase 1 and 2 contamination study, which considered both the site in question and those adjoining, had been undertaken and assessed by the Council’s Environmental Health Unit.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways stated that he was not aware of any protected trees that had been felled and a condition had been placed on the application in relation to tree protection.

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

·         It was a comprehensive report.

·         A great deal of work had been undertaken on the development.

·         Much needed housing would be delivered on the site.

·         It was a previous employment site in a sustainable location.

·         Residential amenity would not be harmed.

·         There would not be any technical difficulties to deliver the houses on the site.

·         The applicant was happy to accept the Section 106 Agreement.

The Chair queried whether the provision of 1.5 spaces per dwelling included the integral garages and if permitted development rights had been removed from those houses with them in order to prevent the garage from becoming part of the property.  In response the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that some of the dwellings did have integral garages, however, they all had two off street parking spaces and a condition had been placed on the application in relation to future development rights. 

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.

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways