Local democracy

Agenda item

LAND TO THE SOUTH EAST OF 55 WESTFIELD LANE, IDLE, BRADFORD

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “Y”) which relates to a full planning application for the construction of 26 residential dwellings on land to the south east of 55 Westfield Lane, Idle, Bradford - 18/02325/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 securing the provision of the affordable housing.

 

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)

 

Minutes:

The Assistant Director, Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “Y”) which related to a full planning application for the construction of 26 residential dwellings on land to the south east of 55 Westfield Lane, Idle, Bradford - 18/02325/MAF.  A range of plans and photographs were displayed.

 

He reported on the substance and detail of three further representations received, in objection to the application, following the publication of his technical report; one from a resident of 16 Back Lane and two from the residents of 18 Back Lane in addition to the objections received from them during the consultation period.  The representations also included a number of measures that the residents of No. 18 considered would improve the impact upon these two properties. The issues raised included; overbearing, overshadowing, loss of light, loss of privacy and concerns in relation to drainage, contamination levels, increased traffic, noise and disturbance, and the  impact due to the difference in land levels, the density of the adjacent plots and the separation distances.

 

In response to the issues raised, he corrected an error in the report in respect of the fourth paragraph of the section relating to residential amenity which should refer to the relationship between Plot 24 and 18 Back Lane (rather than 10 Back Lane) and said that:

 

·         The separation distance from the gable end of plot 24 to the rear elevation of 18 Back Lane was 12 metres.  The occupiers of 18 Back Lane had claimed that this figure was incorrect as it should be measured to the end of the extension to the back of their property, which they said equated to 8 metres.  A distance of 8 metres was still considered acceptable to a blank wall gable elevation. 

·         The applicant’s representative may wish to comment on the suggestion for a landscaped area along the boundary with these properties.

 

He also explained that the strip of undeveloped land adjoining the site (which had been included within the original allocated site and was in different ownership) had not been included in this application as it would not permit an increase in the number of dwellings and would have no beneficial impact on the scheme.

 

The following information was provided in response to Members’ questions:

 

·         It was estimated that the likely volume of additional traffic would be 18 vehicle movements per hour in the morning peak on Westfield Lane in both directions, This equated to less than one additional vehicle every three minutes and was considered to be easily incorporated into the daily flow of traffic.

·         No problems had been indicated in relation to the road junctions.

·         There had been three slight car accidents recorded on Wrose Road and this was not a cause for concern.

·         No plans to indicate any overshadowing had been submitted. (He indicated the path of the sun on the displayed plan). It was accepted that there may be some impact on these properties.

 

A Member queried the Highways Department’s response to information contained in the RUDP (Replacement Unitary Development Plan) which stated that “development of the site cannot take place unless substantial improvements to Westfield Lane and its junction with Town Lane are undertaken’’.  It was explained that the National Planning Policy Framework stated that the highway impact needed to be considered ‘severe’ for measures to be requested and he did not consider this to be the case.  He also highlighted general highway improvements which had been implemented in the area and pointed out that standards had changed since the RUDP was written.

 

An objector was present at the meeting. Photos, which he had submitted prior to the meeting, were circulated.  He raised the following concerns:

 

·         He lived at 18 Back Lane and the footprint of his home on the drawings was incorrect as it gave separation distances from his home prior to its extension this meant that more of his living space was exposed to the proposed development.

·         He lived a few metres away from Westfield Lane which was a busy road often used by drivers as a rat run from Wrose to Idle. 

·         He saw and heard the daily traffic on Westfield Lane.

·         The bend on Westfield Lane was extremely dangerous for pedestrians and drivers.

·         He considered the estimated increase in traffic on Westfield Lane to be grossly underestimated for the 26 additional homes. 

·         Four bedroom homes were very likely to have more than one vehicle and there were also the vehicles of visitors, deliveries and construction workers to take into account.

·         An application for a development on the site had been rejected in 2003 as Westfield Lane had been considered inadequate for the proposal.  The traffic on Westfield Lane was now much worse than in 2003.

·         He had undertaken research and considered there should be a minimum separation distance of 12.5 metres from his home to the gable end of plot 24 if the land was level. The officer’s report stated that the distance was 12 metres. The proposed houses would be at an elevated level in comparison to his home and it was considered that they should be treated as three storey dwellings when separation distances were calculated.

·         The gable end roof should be amended to a hipped design.

·         Plot 24 of the proposed development would obscure the view from his home, block sunlight and cause overlooking and should be removed or moved six to eight metres further away from his home to overcome this issue.

·         The impact on highway safety, the separation distances and loss of sunlight had not been properly considered.

 

The Assistant Director stated that:

 

·         The guidance in the Householder Supplementary Planning Document suggested a separation distance of nine metres from a main elevation to a gable end.  He therefore considered that 12 metres was still an acceptable separation distance from the rear elevation of 18 Back Lane to the gable end of plot 24. 

·         The proposal put forward by an objector for a landscape buffer would result in the loss of some garden space for plots 24 to 26 but would alleviate some of their concerns.  If Members wished, he could consult with the applicant on this matter.

·         The additional traffic was estimated using an industry standarddatabase for calculating traffic movements.  It had estimated that there would be approximately 12 movements out of the site and six in in the peak a.m hour..  It was acknowledged that Westfield Lane was a busy route but the additional traffic was not a cause for concern and it was not considered that highway safety would be compromised as a result.

 

In response to a Member’s question, he explained that the 2003 application, which the objector had referred to, was an outline application and reiterated that the standards differed from that time.

 

The applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and made the following points:

 

·         The officer’s report was comprehensive and had no objections had been raised by statutory bodies.

·         His organisation always appointed their own Highway Consultant and worked closely with the local authority’s officers.

·         In 2003 the RUDP had required residential sites to achieve a density of 30 dwellings per hectare but this was only 25.

·         The separation distances proposed were compliant with policy and guidelines.

·         He was happy to consider a landscape buffer but would be hesitant to transfer land to the residents of 16 and 18 Back Lane. That area would be transferred to a Registered Social Landlord and they would have a maintenance regime in place.

·         This was a good residential site and the proposed scheme was sustainable.

 

A Member commented that, whilst the separation distances were in excess of the policy requirement, he considered that they failed in meeting the requirements of Policy DS5 of the Core Strategy which stated that “development proposals should make a positive contribution to people’s lives through high quality, inclusive design by, amongst other things, not harming the amenity of existing or prospective users and residents.”

 

In response to a Member’s question, the City Solicitor stated that whilst a condition could be included to ensure an agreement in relation to the maintenance of the proposed landscaping strip, it would be difficult to specify a particular height.

 

A Member commented that he did not consider fair weighting was being given to the RUDP in all instances by officers and he was unable to support the application due to highway safety concerns on Westfield Lane.

 

Resolved -

 

(1)       That the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways be instructed to consult the applicant in respect of the inclusion of a landscaped buffer strip along the joint boundary with 16 and 18 Back Lane and that the applicant be requested to submit appropriate details to the Local Planning Authority.

 

(2)       That the Committee is minded to approve the application and that authority be delegated to the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (in consultation with the Chair) to grant planning permission, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in his technical report, together with an additional condition to secure the implementation and future maintenance of the landscaped buffer strip as set out in (1) above.

 

(3)       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, to secure the provision of five affordable housing units on site. 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

 

 

 

Supporting documents: