A report will be presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AV”) in respect of a  full planning application for the construction of 128 traditional two storey 2, 3 and 4 bed semi-detached and detached homes including garages, access roads and general infrastructure on land at Fagley Youth and Community Centre, Fagley Road, Bradford – 17/05678/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 presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AV”) in respect of a  full planning application for the construction of 128 traditional two storey 2, 3 and 4 bed semi-detached and detached homes including garages, access roads and general infrastructure on land at Fagley Youth and Community Centre, Fagley Road, Bradford – 17/05678/MAF. A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

The Assistant Director explained, in relation to the covenant affecting the site, that the applicant had been in communication with the Council’s Asset Management Team in respect of its removal but that this had no bearing on the determination of the application; regardless of planning permission being granted if the covenant was not removed the development could not proceed.

A Ward Councillor put forward the following concerns:

·        A covenant affected the site and the spirit of this had not been adhered to.

·        Alternative facilities could have been organised in the area.

·        A former Leader of the Council had stated that the land should be protected for the local community.

·        The property had been sold to developers after the facility had been allowed to become run-down.

·        The way the situation was being dealt with was ‘adding insult to injury’ for local people.

·        Residents had been locked out of the centre that they had contributed towards building in the first place.

·        Perhaps the building was not fit for purpose but there was still a need in the community both currently and for the future.

·        Ward Councillors were unhappy with the present situation and the chain of events leading up to it.

The Interim City Solicitor reiterated that a planning permission would not overcome any legal impediment to development such as a covenant.

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee, in respect of such facilities being taken over by the community in other parts of the district, it was stated that it was approximately two years since the building had been used and, to the Assistant Director’s knowledge, no community group had asked to assume responsibility.

The applicant made the following comments in support of the application:

·        The company was a specialist provider of low cost housing and currently had 63 sites across the north of England.

·        This scheme would provide 128 low cost homes. There was a desire to make these as affordable as possible for the local market, accessible to at least 90% of working couples. Prices would start at £102,000 for a two bedroom property and with the ‘Help to Buy’ scheme this would mean a mortgage of £76,000 which was affordable for a couple on the minimum wage.

·        Buying was more cost effective than renting.

·        The company provided sponsorship for junior sports clubs in the area. They also provided employment for local people, supported apprenticeships and made provision for suitable accommodation for people with disabilities.

·        The applicant’s developments provided ‘Your Watch’ a version of Neighbourhood Watch.

·        The company did not sell to landlords; there was a no rental covenant on properties.

·        The proposed Section 106 Legal Agreement was acceptable and the intention would be to start work on site within approximately 6 months.

·        The scheme represented an investment of £10.5 million and would regenerate a tired area and increase the local choice of housing.

·        The planning officers were thanked for dealing with the application in an efficient and diligent manner.

In response to a comment from a Member he accepted the suggestion that the provisions of proposed Condition 18, which would remove permitted development rights in relation to the conversion of garages, could be highlighted in sales packs to ensure that buyers and conveyancers were aware of this restriction.

The Assistant Director responded to further questions from Members:

·        In respect of the allocation as recreation land; Sport England had been consulted and had not raised any objection. The land was basically an informal space with a poor quality MUGA (Multi Use Games Area). If this was replaced it would mean that fewer residential units could be provided and there were also concerns about the placement of play areas within residential areas due to the potential for problems with anti-social behaviour.

·        Planning policy did not protect the current use of the site for a community centre. The building had exceeded its useful life and there were issues in respect of maintenance and security.  This was a brownfield site and the application would provide much needed housing for the district.

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.

(2)       That the Assistant Director – Sport and Culture be requested to approach the Applicant in respect of accessing their Community Sports Development Funding and working in consultation with the Ward Councillors to support appropriate clubs in this area.

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

                        Assistant Director – Sport and Culture