The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will submit a report (Document “W”) in relation to a full application for the demolition of a public house and the creation of specialist accommodation comprising apartments with care, communal facilities, parking and associated private amenity space for persons aged 60 and over at the Hare and Hounds, 47 Bradford Road, Menston – 18/01556/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

 

            Occupancy of the apartments being restricted to a C2 use for people over the age of 60 only,

           

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 presented a report (Document “W”) that proposed the demolition of the Hare and Hounds public house and creation of specialist accommodation with care, communal facilities, parking and associated private amenity space for persons aged 60 and over.  He explained that the site was located in a residential area with a car showroom and ambulance station opposite.  The proposed development would be a large substantial building providing 71 flats with on care facilities and the verge area adjoining the site would be used in a future highways scheme.  The boundary treatments to the residential properties were trees and bushes and the landscape condition would not alter the privacy provision.  The use of the site would be less intensive and the car park would be reduced to 41 spaces.  The building would be contemporary in design in order to break the line of the building and be three storeys high, which was one more than the current building. 

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that a number of representations had been submitted and in response confirmed that the culvert on the site would be diverted; the ambulance station would not be impinged; and the use of the site would be less intensive.  He confirmed that the proposal met a specific type of tenure as all 71 flats would have on site care.  The application would be exempt from Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and affordable housing, however, the applicant had agreed to the provision of a Section 106 Agreement to ensure the occupancy of the apartments was restricted to the over 60s.  The application was then recommended for approval, subject to the Section 106 Agreement and conditions as set out in the officer’s report.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that:

 

·         The proposed balconies did not face onto habitable windows and the distance to the boundaries was 20 metres at the closest point, which was appropriate.

·         The third floor would be at a similar height to that of the trees and the balconies only provided standing room.  The distance was adequate and there were no issues of overlooking.

·         There was provision within the CIL Regulation 123 List for CIL money to be used, however, it was new and there was not a great deal of funds available.  The Council would have to take a view of what to spend the CIL money on in the future.

·         The previous parking provision was not known, however, it had been a large car park and probably double the proposed provision.

·         The parking restrictions on Bradford Road would be retained and nothing had been proposed that gave cause for concern. 

·         42 car parking spaces would be provided for 71 flats with a mix of bedrooms, which equated to less than one space per flat and fell within the guideline coverage.

·         If the proposal was not viable the developer would have to apply to change the use to ‘open market’.

·         A single parking space was required for one to two bedrooms and 1.5 spaces were requested for a standard housing scheme and there were maximum figures.  A transport statement had been submitted and a lesser need for parking had been demonstrated.  The scheme had over provided compared to other similar developments.

·         Residential institutions had less of a requirement for parking and the number proposed was acceptable.

·         The guidelines for parking provision were based on one space per five residents and one space per two employees.

·         The application had been submitted in part by the care company and it was a commercial decision as to whether there was a need to provide parking or issues were caused.

 

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and commented that:

 

·         He was a Ward and Parish Councillor and a trustee director of Abbeyfield the Dales.

·         The car showroom opposite leased car parking space.  They had generous parking provision now, but where would vehicles park when the use was removed?

·         The Parish Council wanted some control over the double yellow lines.

·         Traffic control at the junction was required in order to ease the flow.

·         The road was a well established route across the Aire Valley to Leeds.

·         There was an ambulance station opposite the site.

·         There was a pedestrian crossing for the secondary school further down the road.

·         Shipley Area Committee had approved funding for a traffic table on Bingley Road.

·         Why was the development exempt from CIL and funding should be sought.

 

In response to some of the points made the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that the forecast trips for the current use was over 400, however, the proposed use would be approximately 140, therefore, funding could not be requested.  He confirmed that peak flow traffic had been studied and the scheme would not affect the junction.  The developer could not be held responsible as no issues would be created.  Members were informed that officers were not aware of any lease permissions and when the use ceased the car showroom would have to park elsewhere.  With regards to CIL, a charging schedule had been established and this type of provision was excluded.  The developer had to make the scheme viable and it would have been exempt from any education, recreation or affordable housing contribution.

 

The applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and stated that:

 

·         He supported the proposed recommendation.

·         High quality accommodation would be provided for people needing care.

·         The facility would allow people to remain independent.

·         The developer already had award winning schemes in Otley and Portishead.

·         Great pride was taken in the building and services provided.

·         The scheme would develop a brownfield site.

·         The proposal was in accordance with the Council’s adopted development plan.

·         A number of representations had been submitted in relation to scale, parking and drainage.

·         The scale, massing and design had been reviewed and amended.

·         It was an acceptable proposal and development.

·         It would sit well within the street scene.

·         Parking provision was acceptable.

·         Surveys had been undertaken on the Otley and Portishead developments.

·         It would be ensured that the flood risk would not be increased.

·         Statutory consultees had not objected to the proposal.

·         Elderly residents of Menston were in support of the scheme.

·         The significant benefits of the scheme should be weighed against others.

·         Specialist elderly accommodation was required in Bradford.

·         The development would make family accommodation available.

·         The development provided care for the elderly but allowed them to retain their independence.

·         The proposal would develop brownfield land.

·         A Section 106 Agreement would be entered into.

·         There would be 14 staff at the site.

·         The parking provision would be adequate based on the occupancy per apartment of 1.3 people.  

·         The application should be approved.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the applicant’s agent explained that:

 

·         extra care facilities provided for residents who had the potential to have care requirements.

·         generally two people occupied the apartments and the number of bedrooms per apartment would be adjusted to the demographic of the area. 

·         larger one and two bedroom properties were popular with fewer three bedroom apartments being required.

·         the apartments were marketed as they had to be sold.

·         the car parking provision was adequate for the occupancy levels of 1.3 persons per dwelling.

 

During the discussion a Member raised concerns in respect of overlooking, but welcomed the development and acknowledged the need within the District.  He noted the benefit of family properties being released and that the scheme was attractive with adequate parking. 

The Chair then questioned whether the scheme would count towards the allocation for housing in the area and be eligible for the new homes bonus.  In response, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways stated that he believed the development would not qualify for the new houses provision but would verify this, however, it should count in the overall residential accommodation.      

  

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.

 

(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

 

            Occupancy of the apartments being restricted to a C2 use for people over the age of 60 only,

           

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

 

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)