A report will be presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “R”) in relation to an outline application, with all matters reserved, for the construction of 12 dwellings on land at Highgate, Queensbury, Bradford, with access proposed from Woodlands Grove – 18/01604/MAO.

 

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 “R”) in relation to an outline application, with all matters reserved, for the construction of 12 dwellings on land at Highgate, Queensbury, Bradford, with access proposed from Woodlands Grove – 18/01604/MAO. Plans and photographs were displayed and/or tabled.

 

The Assistant Director proposed that, if Members were minded to approve the application, two further conditions should be imposed in relation to the provision of protective measures for existing trees.

 

In response to questions from Members, he explained that:

 

·         The indicative layout showed that refuse vehicles would be able to turn within the site. Although intermittent on-street parking did take place along Woodlands Grove it tended to be staggered and it was considered that the access was achievable. Refuse vehicles already went down Woodlands Grove and parking was less prevalent during the day. A turning head had been required to facilitate servicing of the development. 

·         Appropriate measures would have to be taken in respect of construction traffic; a Dilapidation Survey could perhaps be undertaken so that there would be a record of any damage caused which could then be made good by the developer.

·         The design would not prejudice the remaining part of the Phase 2 allocated housing site but any plans to develop this area in the future would have to be considered, on their merits, at that time. The Committee was just required to consider the proposal for 12 dwellings now before it.

·         It was considered that the provision of charging points for electric vehicles was a better use of funding in the long term in terms of encouraging sustainable travel than the issue of 1 year Metrocards. The provision of both measures might be considered in locations that were not sustainable but this site was considered to be so and it would therefore be unreasonable to require both; in addition to which there was no specific planning policy to support this. The initiative for the introduction of electric vehicle charging points had started approximately 4 years ago arising from the adoption of a Low Emissions Strategy by the Council. The cost of this provision was actually higher than that of the 1 year Metrocards.

·         The premise of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) scheme was that contributions were made by developments with a higher commercial value and better viability. Funding for educational infrastructure implications in nil CIL areas would come from the central pot generated by other developments in the district. The Government Inspector had required the Local Planning Authority to place this locality within the nil CIL zone.

 

Members commented that:

 

·         It was considered that the electric vehicle charging points would almost certainly be used and have a greater practical outcome than the Metrocard provisions and this meant a better impact in terms of sustainability.

·         One of the local schools was currently being expanded.

 

Objectors were present at the meeting. They tabled a number of photographs and and put forward the following concerns:

 

·         The proposal was to access the site via Woodlands Road and Woodlands Grove which were very narrow roads of approximately 5 metres in width.

·         The majority of the properties had little or no off-street parking.

·         There were currently 16 properties with 25 vehicles and residents relied on on-street parking.

·         Two way traffic was not possible and vehicles often had to reverse along the road.

·         Residents already had to walk on the highway due to the footway being obstructed.

·         There were problems with access by refuse vehicles.

·         The garages at the top were privately owned, not by local residents.

·         The turn into Woodlands Grove was sharper than 90⁰ and cars often cut across the corner causing damage to the surface.

·         The proposed development would add 12 properties with each having the potential to have two cars; this equated to an additional 40 vehicle movements plus visitors every day.

·         In 1998 the Council itself had considered the access to be unsuitable.

 

·         There were problems with the local drainage.  Woodlands Road was on a slope and the junction of the three roads: Woodlands Road, Avenue and Grove was at the lowest point where water from all three was directed. It did not drain away quickly enough and flooded frequently.  It also froze in winter.

·         The bungalows on Woodlands Grove had been build on an embankment to prevent them flooding and the builder had stated that development could not take place on this field.

·         The pooled/standing water was cloudy and had a foul odour; it was believed to be contaminated with water from the drains.

·         It was recognised that this was an outline application but considered that this issue should be resolved prior to permission being granted. Members were asked to refuse the application and to require any future application to include effective proposals to deal with drainage and the disposal of foul water.

 

The Assistant Director said that:

 

·         The Manual for Streets had updated the relevant design standards for highways and 4.8 metres was now the minimum quoted width, but this could be reduced to 4.1 metres in certain circumstances; this would still allow two cars to pass.

·         It was accepted that there may not be a lot of room for a refuse vehicle to access but if there was an obstruction the fault lay with the driver of the parked vehicle.

·         The road already functioned as highway albeit had to be navigated with care. The increase in vehicular movements as a result of the introduction of an additional 12 dwellings would not be noticeable on a day to day basis.

·         All matter were reserved in respect of drainage. The Drainage Unit had not objected or raised any concern that it would not be possible to design an engineering solution for the site.

·         It was not possible for the Local Planning Authority to require the submission of a full planning application (rather than an outline application); it had to determine what was submitted in accordance with the relevant considerations.

 

In response to further questions from Members he explained that:

 

·         The Manual for Streets was the relevant national guidance document and had been used as the basis for the successful design of numerous residential estates.

·         If a refuse vehicle could not gain access due to a parked vehicle the vehicle should move.

·         It was not believed that residents would want parking restrictions to be introduced.

·         There was no right to park on a public highway other than when an individual had been granted a designated space due to a disability.

·         The refuse vehicle did currently access this road.

 

Members commented that:

 

·         A Local Planning Authority could not require that a full application be submitted.

·         The inclusion of a parking layby in the scheme would help to resolve the issue with residents’ parking.

·         It was noted that all the new properties would have a garage or a driveway.

 

The Assistant Director said that:

 

·         Consideration would need to be given to whether the provision of a parking layby would be considered a reasonable requirement on the developer. There may also be an issue in terms of the management of any additional unallocated spaces. The internal layout of the development was reserved for future consideration.

·         The new NPPF repeated the guidance that highway safety grounds for refusal had to be of a severe nature. Officers’ judgement was that this was an existing issue; service vehicles attended on a regular basis at the moment and would continue to do so. The new development would not make the situation significantly worse and had its own parking provision. It could be deemed a betterment of the existing situation as a turning head would be provided.

·         A width of 4.8 metres would allow a service vehicle to pass a parked car.

 

Members said that:

 

·         The photographs appeared to indicate that there was already a problem with parking; a small development was currently proposed but further development may be put forward at some point in the future. Some households could have 3 or 4 cars which compounded the problem. This was a narrow road.

·         It was a difficult decision but as it stood there were no reasons to refuse the application.

·         He was minded to approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation but requested that the Assistant Director speak to the developer about the possibility of altering the proposed road layout and including some additional parking provision due to the development causing significant inconvenience to existing local residents.

·         There was concern about the cumulative effects of additional development in the area and that this proposal could potentially facilitate further development to the south west but each application had to be considered it its own right and on its merits.

·         It was agreed that there were issues in the locality but they would still exist even if the development did not go ahead. This scheme would have the advantage of the provision of a turning head.

·         If approved the additional conditions in relation to tree protection measures and a dilapidation survey should be included and the Reserved Matters should be submitted to this Committee for consideration.

·         Any design of the internal layout must allow refuse vehicles to turn within the site.

 

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 in respect of:

 

Tree Protection: Implementation

 

The development shall not begin, nor shall there be any demolition, site preparation or ground works, nor shall any materials or machinery be brought on to the site, nor any works carried out to any trees that are to be retained on the site until the tree protection fencing and other tree protection measures have been installed in the locations and in strict accordance with the specifications and details shown on the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement and associated drawing "Appendix 4 Tree Protection Plan".

 

No ground works, development or demolition shall begin until the Local Planning Authority has inspected and given its written confirmation that the agreed tree protection measures have been installed in accordance with those details.

 

Reason: To ensure that trees are adequately protected prior to development activity beginning on the site in the interests of amenity and to accord with Policy EN5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

 

Tree Protection Retention

 

The agreed tree protection measures, shall remain in place, and shall not be moved, removed or altered for the duration of the development without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. There shall be no excavations or alteration of ground levels within the tree protection areas/construction exclusion zones created on the site, and no engineering or landscaping works, service runs, or installations shall take place and no materials shall be stored within them without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that trees are adequately protected for the duration of development activity on the site, in the interests of amenity and to accord with Policy EN5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

 

Dilapidation Survey

The completion of a dilapidation survey addressing Woodlands Road and Woodlands Grove, with any defects and deterioration arising from the development work being remedied at the cost of the developer.

 

(2)       That the Reserved Matters application be submitted to this Committee for determination and that the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways be instructed to request that the applicant explore all possible opportunities for the provision of parking for existing residents within the layout.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways