Local democracy

Agenda item

LAND AT HOLTS LANE, BRADFORD

Previous reference:Minute 47 (2017/18)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will submit a report (Document G”) in relation to a full application for the substitution of 76 dwellings, approved under reference 17/05251/MAF, together with the construction of an additional dwelling (making 100 in total) and associated works on land at Holts Lane, Bradford - 18/01540/MAF.

 

Recommended –

 

(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 authority be delegated to the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (in consultation with the Interim City Solicitor) to enter into a Deed of Variation in respect of the original Section 106 legal obligation attached to Planning Permission 17/05251/MAF to secure the on-site affordable housing provision of 20 dwellings.

 

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

Minutes:

Previous reference:Minute 47 (2017/18)

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways submitted a report (Document G”) in relation to a full application for the substitution of 76 dwellings, approved under reference 17/05251/MAF, together with the construction of an additional dwelling (making 100 in total) and associated works on land at Holts Lane, Bradford - 18/01540/MAF. Plans and photographs were displayed.

 

The Chair said that he had received a request for a site visit to be made; however, in light of all the information presented, the benefit of this was not clear and substantial and he did not consider it to be necessary in this case. He noted that he had made independent visits to the site on both occasions that applications had been considered by the Committee.

 

The Assistant Director responded to questions from Members:

 

·         The Council’s requirements in respect of parking provision were the same for a 4 bed property as a 3 bed property.

·         Garages would have to be of a minimum size and it would be preferable, from the point of view of the Highways Department, for them to be retained as such and not converted to additional accommodation without permission. A condition could be imposed to secure this should Members consider that this was appropriate.

·         The Police Architectural Liaison Officer had commented on all aspects of the development; some of these issues were within the planning remit, such as boundary treatments, but a number of the issues, for example security measures, would be addressed under Building Regulations and a number were a matter for the developer to consider.

·         The application was for 100 dwellings in total.

·         Registered Social Housing Providers preferred their housing units to be group as this made management of them more straightforward. From a planning point of view consideration was given to the visual impact of the proposals and the overall streetscene regardless of the proposed end use. In this case the proposed terraced dwellings were considered acceptable in terms of materials, design and layout. If the applicant was required to spread the affordable housing units more widely across the development this would necessitate a redrafting of the plans. (The City Solicitor noted that Members had to consider the acceptability of the plans now before them)

 

and, further to a query from a Member, indicated the location of Falls Farm and 8-10 Harry Lane on the plans and their relationship with the nearest new dwellings.

 

Two of the Ward Councillors were in attendance at the meeting and made the following comments:

 

·         The following item, in relation to Land to the Rear of Delph Terrace (which was also related to application reference 17/05251/MAF), had a significant bearing on this application.

·         A condition had been imposed on the original application (considered by the Committee at its meeting on 7 December 2017) in respect of permission being required for the conversion of garages.

·         The application should be refused.

·         The site layout was detrimental in a number of respects. The number of dwellings may only have increased by one but where would this stop?

·         Larger properties with additional bedrooms would mean more children and traffic.

·         Although purchasers of the new properties would be aware of the proximity of their dwelling to others and take this into account in their decision, what about the occupiers of existing properties? The existing community would have new houses placed a few feet away from their homes on land that had been fields for the previous 50 years.

·         The Police required changes to be made to the layout.

·         It was considered that the original application had been flawed. Bradford needed new homes but this was not the right location.

·         The increase in the number of 4 bed properties altered the layout and would impact on the local community.

·         There were already issues arising with the construction works; residents felt that the contractors did what they wanted when they wanted, this included generators being in constant use, litter, obstruction of roads and anti social behaviour.

 

·         One of the local residents was a criminal law barrister who vehemently disagreed with the dismissal of the Police recommendations in respect of security issues.

·         There were issues concerning inclusion and social isolation in respect of the siting of the affordable housing. She was aware of groups of 3 or 4 social housing units located alongside private owners and private landlords and the Registered Providers were able to operate these effectively.

·         The affordable housing that was needed was not small 2 bedroom units but accessible homes for people with disabilities and family properties such as those built by Manningham Housing.  Affordable homes were only a bonus for the Council if they met the actual need.

·         It was believed that if the current proposals (in terms of size, layout and number of houses) had been submitted originally and the Local Authority had been aware of the intention to tear up a Green Belt field then planning permission may not have been granted. The approach taken to the planning process was considered to be both disingenuous and disrespectful.

 

The Assistant Director responded to the issues raised and commented as follows:

 

·         The affordable housing units had been grouped together in the same corner of the site in the scheme previously granted planning permission.

·         There was a need in the district for 2 bed starter homes as well as larger 3 and 4 bed properties.

·         Twenty 2 bed houses had been secured as part of the original planning permission and this could not be changed. The Council’s 20% requirement had been met.

·         Asbestos had been found on the site and it had been suggested to the developer that this should be removed immediately; it was understood that the Ward Councillor had requested that this be left until these applications had been determined. A relevant condition was proposed in relation to the treatment of unexpected contamination.

·         There were also conditions in relation to drainage details.

·         This had been an allocated ‘safeguarded’ site and had planning permission for 99 houses; the application had been fully considered and approved.

·         Separation distances had been considered and judged to be acceptable.

·         There had been an increase of 1 unit. It would not be possible to fit many more, if any, units onto the site but if this was proposed the proposal would have to be reassessed.

·         It was considered that the development would still provide a good mix of units. Core Strategy Policy HO8 required this.

·         In respect of places at local schools, prior to the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) scheme a contribution towards education facilities would have been secured under a Section 106 Legal Obligation. This site, however, was subject to CIL which meant that monies went into a central pot and the Council made a decision on where this should be spent.

·         The developer had been approached in respect of the use of the generators and the other issues raised by existing residents.

 

He also replied to additional questions from Members:

 

·         The site was not Green Belt; it had been allocated as ‘safeguarded’.

·         Secure by Design issues were covered by Approved Document Q and Building Regulations.

·         The previous application had included permitted hours of construction and Environmental Health had the power to address any concerns in respect of noise.

·         Condition 6 on this application required the submission of a Construction Plan but a separate condition to limit hours could be imposed if Members considered this to be necessary.

 

A local resident raised the following concerns;

 

·         Their property was in close proximity to Plot 100.

·         They had a dining area in the conservatory that would be directly overlooked by the new property and the garden would be overshadowed.

·         The level of the land rose towards the southern end of the site.

·         The distance between the properties was 15 metres, but the recommended distance was 22 metres on level ground. It was considered that the difference in levels this case warranted an additional 5 to 6 metres in distance.

·         This situation was considered to be a serious error; they would feel like they were in a goldfish bowl. The new development faced directly onto four windows and some French doors.

 

The Assistant Director pointed out that:

 

·         There was a public footpath around the boundary of the site which already permitted views into existing rear gardens.

·         The siting had been approved as part of the previous application; the separation distances and location were the same and were considered to be acceptable.

 

He responded to further Members’ questions by showing a plan of the rear elevation on screen and explained that:

 

·         In the past the minimum separation distance had been 21 metres between habitable rooms but this had been reduced to a minimum of 14 metres, although there was no specific written policy within the Core Strategy or the RUDP (Replacement Unitary Development Plan). The basis for this was Permitted Development Rights.

·         These relationships were as previously agreed; the only change to the layout (from the application approved in December) related to the turning circle.

·         The land to the south west was also a safeguarded site and although there were no applications/permissions it was expected that there could be in the future; the land to the north was Green Belt at this point in time.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

·         He would not have knowingly agreed to allow housing to look down onto another property as described.

·         Each application had to be dealt with on its own merits and it did appear that the objectors had a compelling case.

·         It was not seen how an increase from 99 units to 100 could be objected to. It came down to whether the way in which the scheme had been amended caused significant problems. Although the concerns of the local resident were acknowledged nothing had changed and the Committee could not change what had already been approved.

·         The layout was untidy and was not considered to represent good urban design but this was too flimsy a reason to refuse the application.

·         The concept of affordable housing provision was to facilitate integration, not as proposed by this development.

·         The Committee could not undo what had been done previously. The creation of the earth mound should have been factored into the previous decision. Both applications should be looked at together.

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 together with additional conditions relating to:

 

(i)            Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) the integral garages within the dwelling(s) hereby permitted shall remain available for the purposes of garaging and no subsequent alterations to convert these garages to primary residential accommodation addition shall be carried out without the express written permission of the Local Planning Authority,

(ii)          Permitted hours of construction to be 0730 - 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 – 1300 on Saturday only.

 

(2)       That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (in consultation with the Interim City Solicitor) to enter into a Deed of Variation in respect of the original Section 106 legal obligation attached to Planning Permission 17/05251/MAF to secure the on-site affordable housing provision of 20 dwellings.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

 

 

Supporting documents: