The report of the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AL) considered a reserved matters application for 30 dwellings (Outline permission reference: 14/04045/MAO), concerning appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, on the site of Flockton House, Flockton Road, Bradford -17/06960/MAR.

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that the proposal was a reserved matters application for the consideration of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of 30 dwellings previously approved under outline permission.  He explained that following the publication of the report a number of consultation responses had been received.  The Council’s Drainage Team had requested that the scheme be subject to the conditions, which were already covered on the outline planning permission and the Council’s Conservation Team had recommended conditions in respect of windows, boundary treatments and gable end materials due to the location of the site next to Bolling Hall, which was a listed building.  Members were informed that Council offices had previously occupied the site, the building had been demolished and it was now a vacant site.  Access had previously been approved in 2015 as part of the outline planning permission and 30 dwellings had been proposed.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that the Council was the applicant and the parking provision met the requirements of the Council’s policy.  He stated that the site had formerly been used as offices, with a car park and any vehicle overspill had parked on the road.  The Council’s Highways Department had not objected to the proposal and the point of access had been approved at the outline planning stage and was not for consideration with this application.  The impact of social housing was also not a planning consideration.  The application was then recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report and three additional conditions requested by the Council’s Conservation Team. 

 

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

 

·         If another developer purchased the site and wanted to change the plans they would have to submit an application in order to amend the house types.

·         The construction and retention of the wall would be covered by a condition.

·         The windows would be recessed to reflect those on Bolling Hall.

 

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

 

·         He lived on Brompton Avenue and objected to the access to the site being on this road.

·         Flockton Road would provide a more suitable access as it was wider than Brompton Avenue.

·         Other streets in the area were used as a rat run by Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) from Wakefield Road.

·         The affordable housing provision should be part rented and part owned, not all rented.

 

In response to some of the comments made, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that the access to the site had been agreed at the outline planning stage and the Council’s Highways Department had not been asked to comment on an alternative entrance.  He stated that the direct access from driveways onto Brompton Avenue and Flockton Road was acceptable and those roads would not be any less safe than others.  With regard to the type of housing, Members were informed that this was dependant upon the demand in the area, there were various types of affordable housing and it had been identified that there was a need for rentable homes. 

 

Members posed further questions and were informed that:

 

·         Weight restrictions could be placed on the road if the use was an impact of the development.  If there was a safety concern for residents, a restriction could be attempted to be promoted. 

·         The access had been approved as part of the outline planning permission and the only way it could be changed was if it was not proper.  The application could not be refused on the grounds of access.

·         If the access was moved, it would create further issues.

·         The applicant had previously confirmed that the access was safe and acceptable and it was not included in the application for consideration.  No queries had been raised in relation to the safety of the access.

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and stated that the access to the site should be taken from Flockton Road, as it was wider and the majority of houses in the vicinity were owner occupied.  He noted that it had taken two years for the reserved matters application to be submitted and then proceeded to read out a statement from local residents, which included the following points:

 

·         It had been believed that the development would be privately owned houses.

·         Why were rented properties being built next to a listed building?

·         Policy DS1 stated that good design came first.

·         The preservation of the listed building and setting should be considered.

·         The design and setting was bland and unimaginative.

·         The proposal was out of place in the area and did not enhance the listed building.

·         The application should be refused.

·         The proposed layout was poor.

·         Only one access had been used for Flockton House.

·         The pathway would have to be used to access the proposed houses.

·         The existing houses opposite the entrance would be overlooked.

·         The layout would be harmful to the amenity of Brompton Avenue residents.

·         Rented houses would change the existing community.

·         The area would benefit from privately owned houses.

·         A petition had been submitted.

·         The density of 47 dwellings per hectare on a small site would be overdevelopment.

 

In response to some of the comments made, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that:

 

·         The access issues had been covered.

·         The Council’s Conservation Team had stated that the development would not impact on the listed building, however, the materials used would need to be of the highest quality and additional conditions had been requested to cover the issue.

·         Flockton House used to occupy the majority of the site. 

·         The houses had gardens, which would break up the view and Bolling Hall would be visible through the site.

·         The houses would be two storey semi-detached properties and in keeping with others in the area.

·         The need for affordable housing was not being considered, just the design of the properties.

·         The layout was acceptable with the Council’s Highways Department.

·         Flockton House had been accessed via Brompton Avenue.

 

Additional queries were then raised in respect of the parking provision and the density.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that the scheme met the requirement of two parking spaces per dwelling and indicated that a higher density was encouraged in sustainable location sites, therefore, the density was acceptable.

 

Another Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and addressed the Panel stating that:

 

·         Representations and a petition had been previously submitted.

·         The layout and entrance to the site had raised concerns.

·         Brompton Avenue was a highly populated narrow street.

·         Residents’ vehicles caused congestion on Brompton Avenue.

·         The development would be an unfair burden on residents.

·         There were parking issues in the area.

·         The scheme raised community safety implications due to the entrance on Brompton Avenue and the increase in traffic.

·         Car headlights would shine into the houses opposite the site entrance.

·         There was only one point of access.

·         Blind corners could be created, which was dangerous for pedestrians.

·         The development would have a detrimental affect on the amenity of the area.

·         The density was overdevelopment.

·         An alternative access was required in the interest of safety.

·         The application should be refused.

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways replied that the number of units proposed was not excessive and acknowledged that there would be an increase in noise and vehicle movements, however, it would not be significant or detrimental to residents.  He confirmed that the front boundary treatments of the properties on Brompton Avenue and Flockton Road would be less than a metre high.  Houses were often located opposite access roads and the existing properties were located at a higher level.  Vehicle movements would be infrequent, therefore, it could not be justified as a reason to refuse the application. 

 

During the discussion, the Chair queried whether a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) restricting the weight would be feasible on Brompton Avenue.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that a condition had been placed on the application in respect of TROs along the site frontage.  The Interim City Solicitor clarified that a condition could be requested, however, it would only be valid if enforceable and best endeavours to implement the TRO were applied.  If the Area Committee refused the TRO, the condition would not be binding.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways stated that construction traffic could be taken into consideration, though the applicant would need to be asked whether the development would create HGV use.  Any TRO for weight restriction would have to be considered as a whole for the area. 

 

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 and subject to the following additional conditions:

 

(i)            Notwithstanding the details submitted, within 3 months of the development hereby permitted commencing on site, plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing all window frames contained within the proposed dwellings to be recessed by at least 100mm. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In the interests of the character and visual amenity of the area, to protect the setting of the adjacent heritage asset to accord with policies DS1 and EN3 of the Core Strategy.

 

(ii)          Notwithstanding the details submitted the proposed wall running along the western boundary shall be constructed on natural stone. Within 3 months of the development commencing on site arrangements shall be made with the Local Planning Authority for the inspection of the materials to be used in the construction of the boundary wall. The samples shall then be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development constructed in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In the interests of the character and visual amenity of the area, to protect the setting of the adjacent heritage asset to accord with policies DS1 and EN3 of the Core Strategy.

 

(iii)         Notwithstanding the details submitted the gable ends of plots 16, 17, and, 30 facing onto Bolling Hall shall be constructed on natural stone. Within 3 months of the development commencing on site arrangements shall be made with the Local Planning Authority for the inspection of the materials to be used in the construction of these dwellings. The samples shall then be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development constructed in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In the interests of the character and visual amenity of the area, to protect the setting of the adjacent heritage asset to accord with policies DS1 and EN3 of the Core Strategy.

 

Action: Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways