The Panel is asked to consider the planning applications which are set out in Document “O” relating to items recommended for approval or refusal.

 

The sites concerned are:

 

(a)     110 Manningham Lane, Bradford (Approve)        Manningham

(b)     27 Ambleside Avenue, Bradford (Approve)           Toller

(c)     29 Ambleside Avenue, Bradford (Approve)         Toller

(d)     5 Huddersfield Road, Bradford (Approve)            Wyke

(e)     9 Meadowcroft Close, Bradford (Approve)           Idle & Thackley      

(f)      Cavell House, 1-2 Eldon Terrace, Bradford         City

          (Approve)

(g)     145 Toller Lane, Bradford (Refuse)                       Toller

(h)     151 Toller Lane, Bradford (Refuse)                       Toller

(i)      77-79 Girlington Road, Bradford (Refuse)           Toller

 

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 434605)

The Strategic Director, Place presented Document “O”.  Plans and photographs were displayed in respect of each application and representations summarised.

 

(a)     110 Manningham Lane, Bradford                                     Manningham

 

A full planning application to change the use of the former Maestros Nightclub, 110 Manningham Lane to a D2 assembly and leisure facility - 18/00338/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He informed the Panel that the application proposed a change of use of a vacant building on Manningham Lane to class D2.  Residential properties were located on neighbouring Thurnscoe Road and there was a children’s play area on Springfield Place.  The building was single storey to the front and three at the rear and had a 69 space car park on Springfield Place, with 12 extra spaces to be created within the rear yard.  The Strategic Director, Place explained that the area contained residential and commercial premises and no external or internal alterations would be made to the building.  The property had previously been a nightclub, but had not been used for many years, however, it would be possible to reintroduce that use.  Approximately 500 to 600 guests would be accommodated and wedding venues could be noisy, so it had been suggested that the operating hours be curtailed to 2300 hours.  Members noted that the Council’s Environmental Health Unit had requested that a condition be placed on the application in relation to the provision of a noise report.  The Strategic Director, Place the recommended the application for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report.       

 

The applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and confirmed that he was satisfied with the comments made.  He stated that the building had been closed for over eight years and the proposal would benefit the community and provide employment.

 

During the discussion Members acknowledged that the building was located on a gateway to the City and the development would create jobs which would be beneficial to the regeneration of Bradford.    

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(b)     27 Ambleside Avenue, Bradford                                                   Toller

 

Single storey rear extension and front dormer window at 27 Ambleside Avenue, Bradford - 18/01340/HOU

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the application was for the construction of a single storey rear extension and a front dormer at a property situated in a residential area.  Members noted that the adjacent property had an existing three metre rear extension, therefore, the proposed four metre extension would not cause an impact and the dormer window complied with Council policy.  It was reported that the applicant was related to an officer within the Council’s Planning Department and the application was then recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report. 

 

In response to a Member’s query the Strategic Director, Place confirmed that the Council’s policy gave a guideline of three metres for rear extensions.  He reiterated that it would be difficult to refuse the application for a four metre extension as there was an existing extension on the adjoining property and it would not create a significant impact.    

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(c)       29 Ambleside Avenue, Bradford                                                Toller

 

A householder application for the construction of dormer windows to the front and rear of 29 Ambleside Avenue, Bradford - 18/00221/HOU

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He reported that the application proposed the construction of dormer windows to the front and rear of the property.  The rear dormer could be built under Permitted Development Rights and the front dormers complied with the Council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Document.  Members noted that the applicant was related to an officer within the Council’s Planning Department and the proposal was then recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report. 

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(d)     5 Huddersfield Road, Bradford                                                     Wyke

 

An outline planning application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of pair of detached dwellings at 5 Huddersfield Road, Bradford - 17/06803/OUT

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He informed Members that the application was for the demolition of an existing house and the construction of two properties.  Access to the dwellings would be via Glenfield Mount, with a turning area on the site and the provision of two parking spaces per property.  The Strategic Director, Place reported that a letter of objection from a Ward Councillor on behalf of local residents had been submitted which raised issues in relation to access, overdevelopment of the site and overlooking.  Members noted that the site could accommodate both dwellings and the distance between them was sufficient.  Access to the site was a private matter and the Council’s parking standards had been met.  The application was then recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The Strategic Director, Place in response to Members’ queries clarified that the access would remain unchanged and it was a private matter.  Only one additional property would be built on the site, therefore, it would be unreasonable of the Council to request that the developer improved the unadopted road to adoptable standards.         

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(e)     9 Meadowcroft Close, Bradford                                         Idle & Thackley

                                                                                                           

A full application for the construction of two dwellings on land to the East of 9 Meadowcroft Close, Bradford - 18/00142/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He explained that the application was a resubmission of a previously approved application, as permission had been granted by Yorkshire Water to build over the sewer.  The position of one of the proposed houses had been amended and the distance between properties was sufficient.  The Strategic Director, Place then recommended the application for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(f)        Cavell House, 1-2 Eldon Terrace, Bradford                            City    

 

A full planning application for a change of use from office (B1 use) to an educational centre (D1 use) at Cavell House, 1-2 Eldon Terrace, Bradford - 18/00986/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He reported that the application was for a change of use from office, B1, to an educational centre, D1 that was located near to residential properties on Hallfield Road.  Substantial car parking provision was available and no alterations to the building, which was listed, had been proposed.  The Strategic Director, Place then recommended the application for approval, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

 

The applicant was present at the meeting and informed Members that the organisation was a registered charity and the girls’ school would be its first project in the United Kingdom.  The facility would serve the local community, provide a hub for other projects and would be open to the public.     

 

In response to questions from the Chair, the applicant and agent confirmed that:

 

·         Approximately 150 to 200 people would use the facility over the whole day.

·         The proposed hours of operation were 0900 to 2000 hours Monday to Friday and 090 to 1600 hours on a Saturday.

·         The building would be used as a Madrassa, but would be open to all the community.

·         It was expected that local residents and people from other areas would use the facility.

·         18 car parking spaces would be provided.

 

In relation to some of the points made, the Strategic Director, Place clarified that the operating hours had been recommended by officers, as the building was not close to residential properties and the parking provision complied with the Council’s standards based upon the likely number of attendees.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Place’s technical report.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(g)       145 Toller Lane, Bradford                                    Toller

 

A retrospective application for the installation of an extractor flue to the rear elevation of 145 Toller Lane, Bradford - 18/00707/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  Members were informed that the application was retrospective for the installation of an extractor flue to the rear of the building and noted that approval had been granted for an internal flue in 2013.  The Council’s policy sought to minimise the impact of extraction systems and internal flues were preferred.  The external flue contrasted with the traditional terraced row and was harmful to the street scene.  The Strategic Director, Place indicated that painting the flue black would reduce the impact, however, it would not overcome the harm to the visual amenity.  He stated that no explanation had been provided as to why an internal flue had not been installed and noise impact studies had not been submitted.  It was noted that the flue pointed downwards when it should be upwards in order to discharge the odour.  In conclusion the application was recommended for refusal as per the reasons set out in the report.

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and made the following points:

 

·         The owners had built the external flue and it would be costly to install an internal flue.

·         The applicant would be willing to paint the flue black in order to reduce the visual impact.

·         He knew the area well and was aware of other similar flues in the vicinity.

·         It did not have a significant impact on the street scene.

 

During the discussion a Member proposed that the flue would be acceptable if it was painted black and faced upwards.  The Strategic Director, Place confirmed that suitable drawings would be required and suggested that the application be deferred and the decision delegated to officers.  Another Member requested that more information was provided in respect of the noise impact and the Strategic Director, Place stated that specifications could be requested in order to overcome the reasons for refusal.   

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be deferred and delegated to officers in order for further negotiations in relation to the colour and shape of the flue to be undertaken with the applicant and relevant information regarding noise and odour assessments to be submitted and that if a decision is not made within three months then the application be referred back to the Panel for consideration. 

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(h)       151 Toller Lane, Bradford                                    Toller

 

A retrospective application for the installation of a black coloured extractor flue to the rear elevation of 151 Toller Lane, Bradford - 18/00416/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He stated that the application was retrospective for the installation of a black finished extractor flue to the rear of the building that covered the windows of the first floor flat.  In 2016 an internal flue had been granted permission, however, an external one had been constructed instead and there was a lack of information in relation to noise attenuation and odour mitigation.  With regard to the siting of the flue directly outside habitable room windows, the Strategic Director, Place confirmed that this was unacceptable in terms of residential amenity.  The application was then recommended for refusal, as per the reasons set out in the report.

 

The Chair queried whether anyone lived in the flat and was informed that it was not known whether it was occupied, however, the siting of the flue would be detrimental to any current and future inhabitant.

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the property and indicated that the flue was positioned further away from the wall than it appeared on the photographs and the windows could be opened and closed.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Strategic Director, Place explained that:

 

·         The flue was sited approximately half a metre away from the wall but directly in front of the windows, which was the main issue.

·         A new application would be required if Members wanted the position of the flue altered.

·         The Council’s policy required the installation of internal flues and a 12 metre separation distance would be required for an external flue.

·         A new application would be required if a significant move of the external flue was proposed and officers would be satisfied if it was positioned away from the flat’s windows.

 

During the discussion a number of Members acknowledged that the location of the flue was not acceptable.       

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.         The siting of the flue directly outside a habitable room window harms the outlook from habitable room windows of the first floor flat to the detriment of current and future occupants and as such the development is unacceptable in terms of residential amenity and contrary to policy DS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.         The application as submitted provides insufficient information to enable its proper consideration by the Local Planning Authority.  In particular, there is inadequate information on what noise attenuation measures have been incorporated into the flue to prevent a noise disturbance being caused to the occupants of noise-sensitive premises in the immediate vicinity.  The application therefore fails to satisfy policies DS5 and EN8 of the Core Strategy Development Plan and policy contained within the Council’s adopted "Hot Food Takeaways Supplementary Planning Document".

 

3.         The application as submitted provides insufficient information to enable its proper consideration by the Local Planning Authority.  In particular, there is inadequate information on what filters have been incorporated into the flue to ensure odour from the use is adequately dispersed.  The application therefore fails to satisfy policies DS5 and EN8 of the Core Strategy Development Plan and policy contained within the adopted "Hot Food Takeaways Supplementary Planning Document".

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place

 

 

(i)      77-79 Girlington Road, Bradford                                       Toller

                                                                                                           

Full planning application for the change of use from A1 retail to A3 restaurant/café at 77-79 Girlington Road, Bradford - 18/00018/FUL

 

The Strategic Director, Place gave a presentation setting out the proposals and tabled plans detailing the layout.  He reported that the application was for a change of use from A1 retail to A3 restaurant within a residential area, which would provide 32 seats.  It also proposed the installation of a large external extraction flue to the rear of the property that would be located between dormer windows.  Concerns had been raised in relation to the impact on neighbours and disturbances to residential properties.  The Strategic Director, Place confirmed that 16 car parking spaces would be required, as per the Council’s policy, however, none had been provided and the application relied upon on-street parking.  He stated that the external flue would be prominent, was of a poor design and the Council’s policy required an internal flue.  The application was then recommended for refusal, as per the reasons set out in the report.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Strategic Director, Place confirmed that:

 

·         The position of the flue would be between the rear dormers.

·         There were no parking schemes in the vicinity, however, there were traffic calming humps.

·         Residents had not objected to the application.

·         There was parking at the Community Centre nearby.

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and made the following statements:

 

·         On-street parking was available nearby.

·         The Council’s Highways Department had stated that they would have welcomed the use of the ground floor only but had now changed their stance.

·         A traffic survey had not been undertaken.

·         The parking on Birch Street had not been taken into consideration.

·         An external flue had been proposed as an internal flue was not possible due to the dormers.

·         There was another restaurant on Willow Street.

·         The proposal would not have a significant impact on residents.

·         The scheme met some of the points set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·         The community wanted to open a restaurant that served their community.

 

In response to further queries, Members were informed that:

 

·         The Council’s Highways Department had decided, on balance, not to oppose the application.  However, the residential amenity concerns remained as people could not be forced to park on a particular side of the road.

·         If the proposal was restricted to the ground floor only there would still be a demand for parking, therefore the decision had been balanced against the on-street parking available.

·         If it was found that the external flue could not be constructed, another application would be required.

·         The external flue mentioned by the Ward Councillor was located on Willow Street, which was a different area and there were no external flues in the immediate vicinity.

·         The property was not a typical terraced house, it was two properties and one extended to the rear.

·         No objections had been received, however, this did not mean that there weren’t any concerns, as people were not always aware of policies.

·         Notification letters had been circulated in line with the minimum statutory requirement.

·         The premises had proposed to close at 2300 hours.

·         The mini market was open later, but it was a different use and created less noise.

 

During the discussion the Chair reiterated that no car parking spaces had been provided, however, there were streets where vehicles could park.  He acknowledged the poor design of the external flue and queried whether the applicant should be requested to submit a revised proposal.  Another Member agreed that an amended design of the flue was required.  The Strategic Director, Place explained that, if Members were minded, they could accept that the proposal would not be detrimental to residential amenity and refuse the flue only.  A separate application, with justification, for a revised flue would then need to be submitted.     

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be refused for the following reason:

 

The proposed external extraction system would be a discordant and dominant feature on the rear elevation and roof of the property, detrimental to the appearance of the property and the street scene.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies DS1 and DS3 of the Core Strategy DPD. 

 

And that the applicant be advised to submit a further application in relation to the extraction system.

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place