Previous reference: Minute 47 (2017/18)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “H”) in relation to a full application for off-site enabling works for a neighbouring residential development (planning permission reference 17/05251/MAF) on land to the rear of Delph Terrace, Holts Lane, Bradford – 18/01745/MAF.

 

The works include a drainage compound comprising a concrete base and 2 kiosks above ground and 6 manholes/inspection chambers set into the surface, a 1.5  metre high retaining wall in stone, a fence around the compound and a grasscrete road to serve it. It also includes the provision of an embankment along the western boundary of the site.

 

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)

 

 

Previous reference: Minute 47 (2017/18)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “H”) in relation to a full application for off-site enabling works for a neighbouring residential development (planning permission reference 17/05251/MAF) on land to the rear of Delph Terrace, Holts Lane, Bradford – 18/01745/MAF. Plans and photographs were displayed.

 

The works included a drainage compound comprising a concrete base, two kiosks above ground and 6 manholes/inspection chambers set into the surface, a 1.5 metre high retaining wall in stone, a fence around the compound and a grasscrete road to serve it. It also included the provision of an embankment along the western boundary of the site.

 

The Assistant Director explained that the developer had applied for planning permission so that they could undertake necessary works (associated with drainage for the adjacent housing development). If Yorkshire Water were to undertake this work it would be classed as permitted development, planning permission would not be required and the Local Planning Authority would have no control over issues such as the use of grasscrete and the finish used for the kiosk and the fencing; this may mean that the visual impact was greater. The earth mound did require planning permission; it would be grassed and would help to hide a significant part of the retaining wall associated with the adjacent development, it was considered that this would be beneficial in terms of visual impact.

 

The Chair said that he had received a request for a site visit to be made; he considered that the information presented was sufficient and that the benefit of a visit was neither clear nor substantial and was not necessary in this case. He noted that he had made an independent visit to the site prior to the application being considered by the Committee.

 

In response to a question, the Assistant Director said that if Members considered that the fencing was not sufficient to screen the development then additional landscaping could be required.

 

A Ward Councillor made the following comments:

 

·         ‘Keep Clayton Green’ had submitted photographs to illustrate the encroachment into the Green Belt and the impact on the local community.

·         It was considered that information given to the Committee previously, in respect of the embankment and the drainage works being below ground and permitted development had been wrong and Members had been misled.

·         These proposals should have been included within the original scheme.

·         The site was within the Green Belt and the National Planning Policy Framework stated that development was only permitted in very special circumstances; this was not very special circumstances nor was it permitted development.

·         The development would mean the introduction of grasscrete across the bridleway and for the full length of the field.

·         Equipment (two kiosks) would be located above ground.

·         It was queried what size was allowed under permitted development rights. Yorkshire Water had stated that the size permitted was not greater than 29 cubic metres; this proposal was 447 cubic metres. Clarification was needed about this and the rules in respect of the use of the Green Belt.

·         The NPPF gave Local Authorities a duty to protect the Green Belt and to ensure that substantial weight was given to harm to it.

·         In May 2018 a planning application, for a dog walking compound, adjacent to this site and using the same access as this proposal, had been rejected on the grounds that would affect openness, cause noise and disturbance and affect highway safety.

·         This proposal could not be approved. It would have an impact on neighbouring properties in terms of noise and would be intrusive and harmful. The nearest property was only 15 feet away; this was a peaceful area.

·         The development would cause significant harm and damage to the Green Belt and have an adverse impact on the community; it should be refused and an alternative resolution found.

 

The Assistant Director responded to the points raised, and additional questions, as follows:

 

·         It had been explained at the last Committee that the works were permitted development because Yorkshire Water were going to undertake them. The applicant had then decided that they preferred to do this work themselves hence the submission of this planning application.

·         Schedule 2 Part 13 Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 covered development on behalf of sewerage undertakers consisting of… the provision of a building, plant, machinery or apparatus in, on, over or under land for the purpose of survey or investigation… as long as it did not exceed 29 cubic metres in capacity.

·         In this case each kiosk would be 1.9 metres in height, 1 metre in depth and 2.75 metres in width equalling 5.225 cubic metres; significantly below 29 cubic metres.

·         The 447 cubic metres referred to included the whole compound. The wall and fence came under the definition of… any other development in, on, over or under their operational land… which was also classed as permitted development.

·         In respect of impact on the Green Belt; policy did allow development that would not have an impact; the earth mound would change the contours of the land but would not impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

·         The fence would be 1.99 metres in height and the  kiosks 1.9 metres. These were fairly small structures and the finish and colour could be controlled by condition, the use of grasscrete for the access road would minimise the impact.  Overall it was not considered that the development would impact on the Green Belt.

·         Some earth had been moved from the adjacent field associated with the residential development on that site. Permitted development rights allowed the temporary storage of material but the developer had been asked to stop work until this application was determined and had done so.  The mound as it currently existed would need to be levelled out. Whether the work that had taken place would be deemed to be retrospective was a matter of interpretation.

 

The City Solicitor clarified that Class B development involving the installation of a station or house did not include the size of the compound so this could be larger than proposed; nothing in the Order referred to the size of the compound. Class B Section (f) referred to any development other than provision of a building, thus the fence, wall and access road, which were in association with the kiosks that were under 29 cubic metres.

 

A Parish Councillor put forward the following concerns:

 

·         The Committee had been told that if planning permission was not given the work could be done under permitted development rights but the objectors had sought advice and been told that what was proposed was not permitted development.

·         This was Green Belt land and the visualisations showed the impact that the work would have; this included the installation of 2 metre high palisade fencing.

·         This site had the same access route as the adjacent field. A Planning Inspector had refused permission for its use for the exercise of dogs.

·         The Planning Inspector had said that the access/egress was not suitable.

·         Residents were concerned about the footpath access, it had been closed previously without permission, and liability in relation to the earth mound which lifted the levels on the site including Plot 100. If the retaining wall failed it was questioned who had long term responsibility.

·         A number of protected species used the site including skylark and deer.

·         These works were excessive and unnecessary.

·         It was questioned why such significant attenuation/storage was required and why were normal drainage/sewerage works not suitable? The application should be refused and proper sewerage installed.

·         There were no special circumstances to allow this in the Green Belt.

·         The earth mound would increase levels and create overlooking.

·         After work had started, asbestos had been found but residents had not been notified.

 

The Assistant Director responded:

 

·         Further to the discovery of asbestos being reported to the Council the Council had contacted the applicant and this had been confirmed. The Ward Councillor had been contacted in respect of removal and it had been suggested that it should be left until this application had been determined.

·         The fence was covered within permitted development rights. A fence could be constructed up to 1 metre in height adjacent to a highway and 2 metres elsewhere without planning permission.

·         Large HGVs would not use the access to the compound. Tankers would attend the site once or twice a year at most. Yorkshire Water would use vans to undertake their checks.

·         The applicant had undertaken a Protected Species Survey in respect of the adjacent site and one could also be requested for this site. Any such creatures were protected so it would be a criminal offence if not treated properly.

·         In respect of the questions raised about the attenuation tank; numerous objections had been received in respect of drainage issues related to the application for the residential development. The tank was to be provided to ensure that surface water run-off from the site was no worse than the situation pre-development it would allow the discharge of surface water to be controlled.

 

The Ward Councillor clarified that, she had received a phone call from a neighbour to the site in respect of potential hazardous material being discovered. People had attended on-site in hazmat suits but had not let the neighbour know what it was. She had been contacted but was not experienced in such matters; it had been suggested that it be dealt with later.

 

A representative of the objectors said that:

 

·         She was concerned about the Authority’s interpretation of the statute in respect of permitted development rights. The planning officer had said that Schedule 2 Class B permitted this development because it was below 29 cubic metres. It was considered that this was a restricted interpretation. There was nothing within the statute in respect of whether this related to the whole compound. Case law suggested that it was the entire site.

·         In respect of Section B general sub-section (f) relating to …to any other development in, on, over or under their operational land. Her understanding was that this land was owned by someone else and was not part of the building site and was not included in original application.

·         This was a development by a leading UK housebuilder with a professional  claim to be leaders in the field. Although not intended as personal criticism it was considered that this situation represented a glaring error and if the Committee had been aware of it in December a different decision could have been made.

·         The Committee had to consider if there were special circumstances to allow this on Green Belt land and, if it accepted that there were, how did it fit with the statute? The answer being that it didn’t.

·         It was questioned why this had not been applied for previously.

·         Members were urged to scrutinise this matter properly.

·         This leading housebuilder was circumventing an error by now asking for permission for development in the Green Belt.

·         No evidence had been put forward on how the statute had been interpreted.

·         The decision should be approached with extra caution and permission either refused or the matter deferred to allow a legal interpretation of the statute.

 

The Assistant Director stated that:

 

·         Class B was clear in that the volume related to the buildings not the compound. It referred to development involving the installation of a station or house exceeding 29 cubic metres in capacity. He considered the interpretation to be correct.

·         The Order also covered any other development in, on, over or under operational land. These works were being undertaken on behalf of statutory undertakers. Operational land was that required to undertake these works. His understanding was that they fell within permitted development rights.

 

He also answered additional questions:

 

·         The rules in respect of the installation of fences and the permitted height also applied in the Green Belt.

·         His interpretation of the regulations were that if Yorkshire Water undertook the works it constituted permitted development if it was not Yorkshire Water then planning permission was required.

·         If Yorkshire Water were undertaking the works then no permission would be required and the Local Planning Authority would have no control over what was done.

·         These works had been shown on the plans submitted with the original application but were outside the red line boundary as it had been thought that the works were to be undertaken by Yorkshire Water.

 

The City Solicitor clarified that planning permission did not give someone permission to go on to a site if it was not in their ownership and this would have to be done through agreement. He noted that different regulations applied to the Utilities.

 

The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application:

 

·         The land would be surrounded on 3 sides by housing development.

·         This issue had caused a delay in the developer’s structural programme.

·         Attempts had been made to deal with the site levels to reduce the retaining wall and at the point of the determination of the original application it had not been clear who would be undertaking the drainage works.

·         The drainage compound would comprise two kiosks, six manholes and inspection chambers, fencing and an access track. It was still very small scale and minor development which could be undertaken as permitted development by Yorkshire Water.

·         The developer wished to maintain control in respect of the detail and the timing of the work.

·         If Yorkshire Water undertook the works then the Council would not have the opportunity to impose conditions. It was considered that this proposal was beneficial for the developer and local residents; it would be completed more quickly and using more sensitive materials for example Yorkshire Water would use tarmac for the hard surfacing whereas the applicant proposed to use grasscrete.

·         The engineering works resulting in the earth mound had meant a significant reduction in the retaining wall along the eastern boundary of the site; this was within the safeguarded site allocation not the Green Belt and was a much softer option in visual terms.

·         There was no conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt set out in Paragraph 80 of the NPPF.

·         Paragraph 90 of the NPPF said that such development was not inappropriate if it did not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.

·         This was a small scale development which would have a limited impact on the openness of the Green Belt and this was outweighed by the need for the works. The special circumstances were that the compound needed to be in lower lying land to facilitate the flow of water downwards.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

·         The developer had started significant preparatory earthworks on the housing site without an appropriate plan for enabling works in respect of drainage; the work was considered to be inappropriate because it entailed breaching the Green Belt.

·         Planning permission had been granted for the housing development and it was clear that as part of that these works (related to drainage) were an expected development and were included in the permission granted in December 2017. This application recognised that the developer now wished to take control of works that would have otherwise been undertaken by a statutory undertaker. The reasons given in relation to the siting in the Green Belt and the compound needing to be at a lower lying point were understood. He was satisfied with the officers’ explanation of what constituted permitted development. The fence was not part of building and fences could be erected up to 2 metres in height.

·         It was considered that there was no alternative but to approve the drainage infrastructure.

·         Given the situation the reluctant conclusion was that planning permission should be granted but with a condition requiring additional planting/landscaping to provide better screening.

·         This issue should have been considered in December (alongside the application for housing) but Yorkshire Water could undertake the work without any control by the Council such as the provision of additional screening.

·         The Green Belt should be preserved. It appeared that the developer was trying to maximise the amount of housing by putting this in a different field.

·         A Construction Plan and conditions covering permitted hours of work, wheel washing facilities, landscaping proposals and the undertaking of a Protected Species Survey should be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority prior to the work commencing.

 

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, together with further conditions in respect of:

 

(i)         The submission of a Construction Plan, for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the implementation of this plan,

(ii)        Permitted hours of construction,

(iii)       Implementation of wheel washing measures, in accordance with details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

(ii)        The submission of a detailed landscaping scheme, for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of the development, and the implementation of this scheme, and

(iii)       The submission of a Protected Species Survey report to the Local Planning Authority.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways