The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will submit a report (Document “Q”) in respect of a full application for a residential development comprising 113 dwellings on land at Lockwood Farm, 3 Spen View Lane, Bradford – 17/06074/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 the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of

 

            20% affordable housing provision, on site, to be transferred to a Registered Provider,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director – Planning, Transportation and Highways submitted a report (Document “Q”) in respect of a full application for a residential development comprising 113 dwellings on land at Lockwood Farm, 3 Spen View Lane, Bradford – 17/06074/MAF. Plans and photographs were displayed and/or tabled.

 

He reported on the substance of additional correspondence received since the publication of his technical report, which suggested that the content of the report was inaccurate. A specific example of this, as stated by the objector, related to what other land in the locality was for sale or had been changed from Green Belt to safeguarded, or was land with potential to be built on. The response had been that no sites had been changed from Green Belt to safeguarded land and this could not be done without the preparation of the new Allocations Development Plan Document that was currently being prepared but would not be adopted for a number of years. The objector had referred to a planning application for another site, approximately 1/3 of a mile from this site, but an objection to the principle of development had been received from Sport England and it was not an allocated housing site so at the present time it was not available for housing. The Assistant Director explained that, in effect, the answer to the question were limitless as anyone could submit an application to develop any piece of open land at any time. He was satisfied that the report was not inaccurate.

 

In response to questions from Members he explained that:

 

·         The proposed traffic calming measures would be fully funded by the developer. The Council’s Traffic Department had assessed the proposals and suggested amendments but the detail would be submitted to the relevant Area Committee for determination.

·         The forecast of additional vehicular movements in the a.m. peak was 94; 28 into the site and 66 out split across the two points of access. In the p.m. peak the figures were 63 in (an average of 1 per minute) and 40 out. These figures had been considered in terms of the capacity of the local roads and junctions, which were not near to their maximum, and the accident record, which did not suggest any deficiencies in the network. He was satisfied that the highway network would function post-development.

·         Education provision was a material planning consideration as it was part of essential infrastructure. Developer’s contributions towards infrastructure, including education, were now determined by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) scheme which was designed to take account of the viability of development and to consider infrastructure needs strategically across the whole district. This site was within an area where the required contribution was zero but developments in other areas would contribute to a central pot of funding that would be allocated by the Council according to need. It was accepted that this development would generate additional children but the Council had an obligation to provide school places for the children in the district.

·         A turning head was to be provided (the position of which was indicated on the displayed plan) and the majority of the length of Spen View Lane was to be widened.

·         It was always a possibility that a developer could approach the Local Planning Authority about viability and reductions in Section 106 contributions at a later stage (particularly when an application was submitted by a landowner rather than a developer). In light of the amount of interest from local residents in this case any such request would probably be submitted to this Committee for consideration and it would have to be supported by a Viability Appraisal that would be assessed on behalf of the Council.

·         The highway works proposed as part of this application were necessary for the development to proceed.

 

A representative of the Council’s Pupil Planning Section was in attendance at the meeting. She explained that:

 

·         The service was consulted, in respect of capacity in local schools, on all planning applications for residential development. In most instances, large developments would mean a significant increase in the number of children to be accommodated.

·         The Department for Education guidelines said that it was reasonable for a primary child to travel up to 2 miles to school and a secondary age child to travel up to 3 miles. Officers looked at what places were available in the locality and if there wasn’t sufficient capacity where others might be provided.

·         In this case, the nearest primary level school (Woodlands) was at capacity. This school was an academy and was not controlled by the Council.

·         In terms of secondary level education there was a school within a 3 mile radius of the site with sufficient spaces.

·         When school places were allocated certain criteria were followed which included distance to the school from the home address. This meant that some children from this new development may be closer to Woodlands than children from areas that had traditionally attended this school and thus a ripple effect may be created whereby the children from further away would then be allocated a different school. Eight schools in this area had been looked at and there were sufficient places available to meet demand. It was noted that if a child moved to the area and there was no place available at the nearest school they would be allocated the next nearest school with a place available.

·         Information was shared with adjoining local authorities in respect of places to ensure that there was sufficient local capacity, particularly if sites were close to a border, such as this one. If there were insufficient existing spaces in a particular area then the Council would do what it could to ensure that the shortfall was addressed.

 

In response to a question from a Member she said that:

 

·         Academies, whilst not within the control of the Local Authority, still had to co-ordinate with it and abide by allocation criteria.

·         The Education Department would work to place children in the nearest school with places. In terms of new developments there was time to plan for these additional pupils.

·         Information was also received from the NHS to allow forecasts to be undertaken.

·         Not all schools in the district were full in Reception this year.

·         Where possible children from the same family were placed at the same school.

·         If there was a need for additional places in the district the DfE could award basic needs funding.

·         Expansion plans were already in place with two free schools due to open in 2019 accommodating 1200 additional children.

 

In response to a question about the highway impact in the direction of Boy Lane and Mill Carr Hill Road towards Woodlands (which included single track roads and a bridge across a disused railway line), the Assistant Director said that vehicle movements were less able to be accurately predicted the further away one moved from the site but the Traffic Assessment submitted with the application was satisfactory for the scale of the development. Responsibility for addressing any issues further afield could not be reasonably placed on the developer. He had looked at the accident record for the locality and no issues of concern had been identified. He considered that the highway improvement works proposed were relevant and appropriate for this development.

 

He also responded to further questions:

 

·         In considering what could be required of a developer to address the potential impact of their development guidance was taken from case law on betterment. In respect of highways, the National Planning Policy Framework stated that a decision maker would have to conclude that the highway safety implications were severe to justify refusal of an application.

·         The highway works proposed in this case were essential and the scheme would not have been supported without these being implemented.

·         Restrictions on visibility around the junction of Spen View Lane with Boy Lane and Greenfield Lane and associated with the bend in the road and the bridge over the disused railway track had not been identified under the Transport Assessment and he undertook to double check this issue.

·         The Core Strategy stated that affordable housing provision was ‘up to’ 20%; a specific number was not specified. This phrasing gave officers the flexibility to reduce the number of units but increase the percentage discount if a Registered Provider was unable to take all the units.

·         The NPPF placed the onus on developers in respect of land contamination and stability. A condition was proposed in relation to the submission of a remediation strategy for contamination; this could include a specific reference to mining works, or a separate condition could be imposed. The Coal Authority did not have a record of the precise location for the mine shaft and having an identified zone made an allowance for this; all the houses would be built outside this zone. The Coal Authority had not requested a specific condition but had required that the rock head be at a depth of 2 metres or less in this location.

·         The records in respect of mine shafts and workings were not 100% accurate and this was one of the reasons why site investigation reports were undertaken.

·         Building Control would also consult the Coal Authority.

 

A Member commented that there was a need for assurance that there was no risk of significant land subsidence in future so a specific condition would be preferable.

 

A representative of the objectors tabled a number of photos and detailed the following concerns:

 

·         The report referred to the Human Rights Act and stated that the Council must ensure that all those affected by the proposal had their views taken into account. He was not satisfied that this was the case; it was considered that very few of the views expressed by the 136 objectors, including those of the local Member of Parliament and the petitioners, had had any effect on the proposals and appeared to have been disregarded.

·         No Statement of Community Involvement had been submitted. There had been no engagement between the developer and the public.

·         In terms of sustainability, this was clearly not achieved, particularly in terms of education. There would clearly be an increase in numbers and the Council had a responsibility to accommodate additional children but the application made no provision for this. CIL was not applicable to this development but the report stated that CIL funding could be used to extend local provision, this was misleading.

·         No account had been taken of the planned development of 106 houses, off Shetcliffe Lane near to the school.

·         Ofsted reports for a number of schools in the locality said that they required improvement. One of the reasons people chose to live in an area was the local schools; this did not bode well for this development. This proposal was unsustainable.

·         It was clear to anyone living in the area that the roads were inadequate. There were four main access roads with dangerous bends and problems with obstructions from parking.

·         The proposal was considered to be contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF; the tabled photographs illustrated the issues.

·         The junctions of Bierley Lane, Spen View Lane and Greenfield Lane all had severe visibility issues which it was not possible to rectify.

·         In respect of public transport the West Yorkshire Combined Authority had recommended the installation of a bus shelter and the provision of Metrocards at a cost of £70,000 but the officer’s report dispensed with this without proper justification. There was no guarantee that electric vehicle charging points would be used; the requested provision should be reinstated.

·         The plans conflicted with the requirements of paragraph 110 of the NPPF in relation to priority for pedestrians.

·         The Coal Authority had asked for a condition to confirm the exact position and nature of the mine shaft/workings and the remedial action necessary.

 

The Assistant Director responded with the following information:

 

·         In terms of the Human Rights Act; the objections were set out in the technical report and were fully addressed within various sections throughout the report.

·         The issues raised in respect of education infrastructure had been addressed earlier.

·         There would be no CIL charge on these dwellings but any necessary expansion to schools could be done through an allocation from the central CIL pot.

·         A separate condition in respect of the mine shaft/workings had already been suggested.

·         The Metrocards would only cover a period of one year and were allocated to an individual rather than a property whereas the electric vehicle charging points would be a permanent fixture. Electric vehicles were increasing in popularity and it was the Planning Department’s view that this provision was more sustainable in the longer term.

·         In terms of the priority afforded to pedestrians and cyclists; a new footpath was to be created along the site frontage which would provide safer conditions than currently existed.

·         The issues raised in respect of highway conditions were heard but he did not agree that there were safety concerns associated with this application.

 

Members discussed a request for a site visit and agreed that, in view of the information provided, this would not assist in their consideration of the application. A number of Members noted that they had visited the site independently or were very familiar with the area already.

 

In response to a request from a Member the Assistant Director displayed an aerial view of the site and the locality and indicated various points of interest.  He also confirmed that:

 

·         He was satisfied with the visibility at junctions in light of the relevant speeds and stopping distances.

·         He agreed that it would be appropriate for a ‘stop’ sign to be provided at the junction of Spen View Lane rather than a ‘give way’ sign and this could be included within the Section 278 legal agreement.

·         A condition was proposed in relation to boundary with the listed property at Lockwood Farm and the use of dry stone walling and he was satisfied that there would not be a detrimental impact on any other listed buildings. The Conservation Officer had not raised any concerns in relation to buildings off-site.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

·         With a large development such as this it was always to be expected that there would be am impact on the local community and their concerns were understood. However, this was a safeguarded site for housing; the Council had accepted development of this site in principle some time ago and this could not be revisited.

·         The Highways Development Control Officer had provided reassurance in that the highway works were critical in this case and the necessary work could be undertaken, with the Area Committee considering the detailed design in due course.

·         The junction of Spen View Lane was acceptable, but better signing and lining could be provided to reflect the change to a more urban area; the Traffic Engineers should give consideration to this.

·         Conditions were necessary in relation to the mine shafts and remediation works to ensure that the site was safe and, subject to this, there was no reason to refuse the application.

·         An additional condition should be included in respect of the removal of permitted development rights to ensure that garages were not converted to additional living accommodation without the benefit of planning permission.

·         Some concerns remained in respect of the traffic conditions but there were a number of access/egress points.

·         It would be nice if open land could be protected forever but this was a safeguarded site.

·         It was disappointing that the applicant (or a representative) was not in attendance to answer Members’ questions.

·         There were still concerns about the impact on education infrastructure in the locality. A journey of 2 miles to school from this site was not straightforward; there was no bus from Bierley to Holmewood.

·         It was understood that people did not like new houses but if an appeal was submitted it would be difficult to substantiate refusal.

·         The Traffic Engineers would be asked to submit detailed proposals to the Area Committee for consideration.

·         On balance he was minded to approve this application but it was considered that a strategic view was necessary in terms of the impact on infrastructure from the cumulative impact of developments in an area.

·         Reservations remained in relation to the junction of Shetcliffe Lane and Bierley Lane, the roundabout, the narrow nature of the roads in the area and the situation in respect of primary school places.

·         Core Strategy Policy DS1 related to design stated that decisions should take: (a) a holistic, collaborative approach to design putting the quality of the place first, it was uncertain what this meant, and (c) work with local communities and key stakeholders to develop shared visions for the future of their areas; these was no evidence to suggest this had been done, all the boxes had not been ticked in this case.

·         There were many different styles of property in the area from different eras which could make it difficult to achieve a satisfactory design but there were no reasons to refuse the application.

 

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)            Details of how the mine shaft on the site and the immediate surrounding area is to be treated to ensure that it is safe, to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for submission to the Coal Authority for approval in writing and implementation and verification of the agreed works thereafter.

 

(ii)          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,

 

            and the amendment of Condition 18 to include specific reference to Shetcliffe Lane, Spen View Lane and the junction of Spen View Lane and Boy Lane in respect of the Section 278 Agreement associated with highway improvements.

 

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of

 

            Up to 20% affordable housing provision, on site, to be transferred to a Registered Provider,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

                        City Solicitor