Previous reference: 5 April 2018

 

Members may recall that, at the meeting of the Committee held on 5 April 2018, consideration was given to an outline planning application for the provision of a school car park for Woodlands CE Primary School (linked to an application within the Kirklees district for the redevelopment of a former waste water treatment works off Cliff Hollins Lane to provide employment uses Classes B1(C), B2 and B8) on land to the south of Woodlands CE Primary School, Mill Carr Hill Road, Oakenshaw, Bradford – 16/06146/MAO.

 

It was resolved:

 

“That consideration of the application be deferred for a period of 3 months from the date of this meeting and that the applicant be requested to consult Woodlands CE Primary School/Diocese of Leeds in respect of all the concerns raised in respect of the provision of the car park and pedestrian crossing as proposed; to include consideration of the possibilities for the use of an alternative site.”

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will now submit Document “I” which updates the Committee on the discussions that have since taken place and requests that the application be determined.

 

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 80 (2017/18)

 

Members were reminded that, at the meeting of the Committee held on 5 April 2018, consideration had been given to an outline planning application for the provision of a school car park for Woodlands CE Primary School (linked to an application within the Kirklees Metropolitan District for the redevelopment of a former waste water treatment works off Cliff Hollins Lane to provide employment uses Classes B1(C), B2 and B8) on land to the south of Woodlands CE Primary School, Mill Carr Hill Road, Oakenshaw, Bradford – 16/06146/MAO. Plans and photographs were displayed.

 

At that meeting it had been resolved:

 

“That consideration of the application be deferred for a period of 3 months from the date of this meeting and that the applicant be requested to consult Woodlands CE Primary School/Diocese of Leeds in respect of all the concerns raised in respect of the provision of the car park and pedestrian crossing as proposed; to include consideration of the possibilities for the use of an alternative site.”

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways therefore submitted Document “I” which also included updated information for the Committee on the discussions that had taken place since this point, which had included dialogue in respect of the potential use of an alternative site (as preferred by the school and the Diocese). The applicants had stated that the landowner of this site was not willing to sell the necessary land and that they considered that the original site was safer as the alternative access point would be closer to the bend in the road. They noted that, if the Committee was not satisfied with the proposal as submitted, they could proceed with the linked development without the school car park provision. The Assistant Director also pointed out that any proposal to provide the facility on an alternative site would require the submission of a new planning application.

 

A Councillor from an adjoining ward spoke briefly to put forward the following points:

 

·         The Committee was only able to make a decision on this element of the larger development scheme; the linked application (located within the adjoining Local Authority area) had already been approved.

·         Traffic Regulation Orders were proposed to prevent on-street parking in the vicinity of the school.

·         The matter had been deferred at the last meeting so that the issues could be further discussed.

·         The reasons for the School’s preferred option were understood.

·         Consideration had to be given to the children’s safety.

·         Taking everything into account it was considered that the scheme should be approved subject to the upgrade of the pedestrian crossing to a ‘pelican’ crossing, a contribution towards on going maintenance costs and a review being undertaken of the point of access.

 

A Ward Councillor said that:

 

·         The Ward Councillors recognised that the main development was located in the adjoining Local Authority area, but the School was within the Tong Ward.

·         There would be significantly reduced on-street parking as a result of this application which would lead to problems.

·         It was appreciated that the school preferred an alternative site but a car park was needed.

·         It was considered that the entrance should be moved nearer to Cliff Hollins Lane and he requested that this be given due consideration.

 

A local resident showed a short video to illustrate his concerns in respect of the impact on his garden and issues with flooding. He said that:

 

·         His property and two others had not been indicated on the plans.

·         His garden would be below the level of the car park. He was concerned that the surface water would go through his garden.

·         A neighbour was already having to pump water out from their cellar.

·         There would be an impact on the local community from this scheme, not just the school.

·         There was concern about the environmental impact of an increase in HGVs using Mill Carr Hill Road.

·         It was considered that a full, independent road safety audit should be undertaken.

·         The change of priorities would impact upon Mill Carr Hill Road.

·         Traffic would queue back as far as Woodlands School and parents would be unable to exit the car park.

·         It was questioned where local residents would park.

·         He was concerned about the information presented at Committee meetings; there was no longer a roundabout and this was not a brownfield site; 50% was in the Green Belt.

 

The Assistant Director explained that:

 

·         Conditions were proposed in relation to measures to deal with surface water drainage, implementation of the measures required by the Flood Risk Assessment and foul and surface water management. These would ensure that surface water run-off was less than current greenfield run-off rates. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required that development should not make a situation worse.

·         Any increase in HGV movements would not be associated with this car park development

·         All designs were subject to numerous road safety audits to ensure that they were fit for purpose and that they would not cause any unacceptable risks.

·         Drainage schemes were now expected to be able to deal with a 1 in 30 years excessive storm event.

·         This area was not identified as a flood zone by the Environment Agency. Flood zones were generally near to watercourses. It was accepted that in times of excessive rain many areas that were not designated flood zones did flood. The installation of a surface water drainage system on the site would limit the flow and could improve the situation.

·         Any drainage proposals would have to be submitted for consideration by the Council’s Drainage officers and Yorkshire Water.

 

The Headteacher of the school made the following comments:

 

·         There was a need for assurance that the car park was large enough to cope with demand in order to ensure the safety of the children.

·         No updated plans had been received that addressed the concerns raised in respect of various issues including gating, security and the surface treatment.

·         The location of the pedestrian crossing had not been reviewed. There were concerns about speeding traffic being unable to stop in time.

·         Vehicles did speed along this road. She was aware of the prevailing conditions on a day to day basis.

·         It was not considered to be adequate to predict highway conditions just using calculations done on a computer rather than on site.

·         The proposed car park was too small and some parents would be unable to park, this should be taken into account.

·         An additional 20 spaces was needed.

·         The zebra crossing should be upgraded to a pelican and re-sited.

·         Separate access should be provided for the field and the car park.

·         There were outstanding concerns in relation to lighting maintenance, security, level access, drainage, financial impact, signage and road markings, and CCTV.

·         The Council had to take responsibility for the children from the Bradford district who attended this school.

 

The Assistant Director responded with the following information:

 

·         Condition 15 concerned a legal agreement to secure off-site highway works to install a raised platform or crossing on Mill Carr Hill Road.  This could be amended to specify a pelican crossing if this was considered to be more suitable.

·         The application was in outline and the details of the fencing, gates, lighting and the position of the access would be determined at the Reserved Matters stage.

·         The proposed condition relating to lighting and the installation of gates across the access addressed some of the issues raised.

·         Funding for future maintenance was outside the remit of the planning system; this would be a matter for the school to agree with the developer; it was recognised that this could be a burden for the school if not addressed.

·         All the details in respect of the access and pedestrian crossing would be designed to ensure the best possible safety conditions.

 

He also responded to questions from Members:

 

·         The detailed layout of the car park was still to be determined but the indicative plan showed approximately 33 to 36 spaces.

·         The school would determine how it was run and maintained and whether staff would be able to use it.

·         The trees indicated on the plan were new rather than existing.

·         There would a slope down towards the centre of the car park; the access arrangements would be designed at Reserved Matters stage and his officers would ensure that the gradient of the access was acceptable.

·         Yorkshire Water had stated that both 900mm and 600mm sewers crossed the site; the site would need to be surveyed and the developer would have to ensure that these were not damaged. The development as proposed would not require any significant foundations and it was not believed that these would be a major constraint.

 

The Headteacher explained that the School had its own car park that held 6 cars and there were 4 teachers.  The proposed car park was considered to be 20 short in terms of spaces to accommodate parents.

 

A representative of the Diocesan Trust made the following comments:

 

·         They were appreciative of the meeting that had taken place with the developers. This had meant that it had been possible for the concerns in respect of location and road safety to be considered. The Trust had been able to explain the impact of the development and the proposed parking restrictions and to discuss the pros and cons of locating the car park on the opposite side of the road.

·         Safety was the prime concern.

·         The developers had subsequently said that the original proposal was the best that they could do.

·         The information obtained by the Diocese suggested that there had not been any negotiation with the landowner of the site adjacent to the school by the applicants.

·         It was considered that the alternative provided a safer solution. However, it was agreed that off street parking was needed and the Trust therefore had to advise that the offer of the developer be accepted with a request that the zebra crossing be upgraded to a pelican.

·         Concern remained that the related legalities had not yet been discussed.

 

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee:

 

·         After the application had first been considered by the Committee in April they had met with the School’s representatives and had agreed to look at the alternatives to the proposal.

·         The alternative access was not considered to be suitable as it was closer to the bend in the road. The advice from the Highway’s Department was that this would not be considered safe.

·         The advantage in children not having to cross the road was acknowledged but there would be a higher risk of collision.

·         It was therefore considered that the original proposal was the better option; it had been subject to safety checks and the details that remained to be resolved could be done through the Reserved Matters process and secured by a legal agreement.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

·         This site was within the Green Belt where development was only permitted in very special circumstances; it was conceded that these did apply in this case although the situation whereby the proposed end user did not want to use the facility was considered somewhat bizarre.

·         There was a need for off street parking provision and although there were issues with this scheme there were no reasons to refuse planning permission.  Assurances had been given in respect of the drainage issues and there were clearly very special circumstances.

·         The developers did not have to provide this car park for the other element of the larger scheme to go ahead. If it was not approved the school may be left without any provision.

·         The pedestrian crossing should be changed from a zebra to a pelican.

·         These circumstances had arisen due to the decision of a neighbouring Local Authority which had put the Committee in a difficult position.

 

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 subject to the amendment of Conditions 3 and 15 as set out below:

 

3. Reserved Matters

Before any development is begun plans showing the:

i)   access;

ii)  appearance;

iii) landscaping (including boundary treatments);

iv)  layout;

 v)   and scale

must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To accord with the requirements of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

 

15. Section 278 Agreement

Notwithstanding the details submitted, within 3 months of the development hereby permitted commencing on site, the Applicant shall enter into an Agreement with the Local Planning Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act to secure the off-site highway improvements in the form of a pelican crossing on Mill Carr Hill Road.

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with policies TR1, TR3, DS4, and, DS5 of the Local Plan for Bradford.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways