A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AE”) in respect of an outline planning application (18/00861/MAO) and an associated application for Listed Building Consent (18/01396/LBC) for the demolition of the existing school buildings and school house (Grade II Listed) and the erection of a three storey residential building for up to 90 students, a two storey educational teaching building and the construction of a car park at the former Wapping First School, Wapping Road, Bradford.

 

Recommended –

 

(i)         18/00861/MAO

 

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

 

(ii)        18/01396/LBC

 

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

 

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

A report was submitted by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AE”) in respect of an outline planning application (18/00861/MAO) and an associated application for Listed Building Consent (18/01396/LBC) for the demolition of the existing school buildings and school house (Grade II Listed) and the erection of a three storey residential building for up to 90 students, a two storey educational teaching building and the construction of a car park at the former Wapping First School, Wapping Road, Bradford.

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways informed Members that a letter from the applicant’s representative had been received following the publication of the report which covered the recent history of the school; the background to the ownership, criminal activity in the area and the work of the applicant.  It was explained that the outline application proposed the construction of educational buildings, accommodation and a car park and the associated Listed Building Consent was for the demolition of the existing school buildings.  There were residential properties in the area and land under the ownership of the applicant.  It was a sloped site and the proposed access would be via Prospect Road.  It was noted that limited information had been submitted as the application was outline, however, the footprint of the proposed scheme would be more or less the same as the existing buildings. 

 

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reported that the principle of construction for educational and student accommodation was supported, however, objections had been received from all the heritage consultees.  Bats had been found on the site, surveys had been undertaken and the mitigation proposals were acceptable.  Representations had been submitted in support of the application, including Ward Councillors and against the proposal and the details were included in the officer’s report.  A substantial amount of history was associated with the listed buildings and due regard had to be given to Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.  The application proposed the demolition of the buildings with the possible retention of the boundary wall and steps, however, concerns had been raised that this alone would not represent the history.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways stated that a number of meetings had taken place in order to try to resolve the issues and look at possible options. Elements of the façade could be retained, but the heritage consultees and the applicant had reached an impasse and insufficient information had been received.  Members were informed that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that when considering applications that involved listed buildings “clear and convincing justification” was required.  The work of the applicant had significant merit, however, the tests to be met were for the benefit of the public at large and the scheme would be for the private use of the applicant.  The heritage consultees had significant concerns that no detailed proposals had been submitted in respect of the substitute buildings.

 

A fence had been erected in 2015 around the perimeter and West Yorkshire Police had no details of crime occurring on the site since the construction of the fence , however, it did take place in the area.  The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways informed Members that the construction of new buildings on the site would not guarantee a reduction in crime levels and it was reiterated that all four of the tests within Paragraph 195 of the NPPF had to be met.

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Landscape, Design and Conservation addressed the Committee and explained that the Council had a duty under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which exceeded other matters.  He stated that a substantial amount of public concern had been raised in relation to the loss of the heritage.  It was acknowledged that the buildings required a significant amount of work, however, it was not believed that sufficient effort had been made to incorporate the existing buildings.  The Council would be willing to engage with the applicant on this matter, as the lack of definitive plans and proper evaluation meant that the development could not be accurately assessed against the NPPF.

 

In conclusion the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways reiterated that the applications were contrary to the NPPF and the Council’s Core Strategy in light of the insufficient information regarding the retention of the heritage asset and the proposed replacement buildings.  Both applications were then recommended for refusal as per the reasons set out in the officer’s report.    

 

In response to questions Members’ were informed that:

 

·         Listed Building consent applied to the entire structure.  The Local Planning Authority had to identify its significance and the former school buildings were a heritage asset.

·         The structural report was based upon the state of the buildings from the outside only, as it was too dangerous inside, however, the inside could be assessed by other means.  It was accepted that the buildings were in a poor condition, but this would not prevent the retention of the façade and this aspect had not been given adequate consideration.

·         If reasons as to why the façade was not safe, or proposals to incorporate the façade, were to be submitted then they would be considered with an open mind.

·         The previously approved application for housing on the site had proposed the retention and conversion of the majority of the listed buildings.

·         It had been demonstrated that grant funding was unlikely to be available.  The applicant had requested funding in order to retain the buildings and had confirmed it would not be possible.

·         All four of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) tests had to be demonstrated.

 

A representative of the applicant was present at the meeting and addressed Members stating that:

 

·         Life Church had started many years ago in Bradford and was now over 2500 strong within the Yorkshire Region.

·         The Church had used the school for its Children’s Church and had placed a bid for the building in 2000 when the school had been closed by the Council.

·         The Council had been warned by the Church that the building could be vandalised and destroyed if left unoccupied.

·         Two attacks of arson and 20 fires had been recorded at the property.

·         In 2015 the North East Region Asset Recovery Team informed the Church that the school building had been seized by the Crown Prosecution Service.

·         A closed bid to buy the property had been submitted by the Church and was successful.

·         Since 2015 the Church had tried to keep the buildings safe, but they had and still were deteriorating.

·         Crimes had occurred in the vicinity.

·         The application proposed the expansion of the Church’s current leadership college and would meet the needs of students.

·         Spending millions on the property would push the charity to its limits.

·         The Church had promised a Senior Magistrate of the Crown Court that the school buildings would be used to help people.

 

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

 

·         The proposal provided the best opportunity to restore the area.

·         The Life Church was a Charity.

·         The application aimed to establish the principle of development on the site.

·         It was too late to protect the buildings.

·         Why had the heritage societies not been interested in the site before the application?

·         Crimes had taken place on the site.

·         The site was close to Bradford Cathedral and was an important part of the Bradford District.

·         The Council had not taken responsibility for the site.

·         The Life Church should be supported and their application provided an opportunity to bring the area back into good use.

·         The proposal met all the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) criteria.

·         The proposal would create a safe environment.

·         The development would not be open to the wider public, but it would make the area safer for the public.

·         If the façade had been closer to the road it would have been demolished as it was unsafe.

·         The buildings were not safe in their current form and were ready to collapse.

·         It was frustrating that the Council was placing barriers in the way of an organisation was willing to improve the area.

·         Members should consider the proposal fairly.

 

The applicant’s agent then made the following points:

 

·         The report focussed on the demolition of a heritage asset.

·         No other objections had been submitted.

·         The principle of the development of the site was acceptable but overridden by the heritage issues raised.

·         The heritage consultees had acknowledged the issues faced.

·         The applicant owned the land and it could be used for housing.

·         In 2007 the previous applicant had not pursued a housing scheme as  it had not been deemed viable.

·         Drones could be utilised to assess the buildings internally.

·         Over 20 records of fires had been logged at the site from April 2009 to May 2017.

·         Slates had blown off the roof onto adjoining buildings.

·         The historic relevance of the buildings would be acknowledged and displayed within the new development.

·         The buildings had deteriorated beyond the point of no return and were a hazard.

·         There was extensive local support for the scheme.

·         Retention of the buildings had not been viable in 2007 and was not now due to the effect of the fires and further deterioration over the last 11 years.

 

In response to some of the comments made, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways stated that the many of the points had been covered in her presentation to the Committee.  West Yorkshire Police had confirmed that crime levels on the site had significantly reduced since the erection of the fence, however, it was accepted that crime did occur in the area. The tests required by the NPPF were at a high level and it had been acknowledged that the buildings were in a state of disrepair, however, Historic England and the other historical societies were looking for the retention of some of the façade and  they believed that insufficient investigations had been undertaken into the feasibility.

 

In relation to the undertaking of a site visit, the Chair confirmed that the Committee had viewed the site on two previous occasions and nothing new had come to light, therefore, it would not be required. 

 

During the discussion a Member indicated that due to the required Listed Building Consent, the applications would have to be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval and, therefore, there was a need to be confident in respect of the replacement scheme.  He stated that it was a significant site which was visible from around the City and insufficient information had been provided as to why the buildings had to be demolished, what could be retained and what would replace them.  The Member acknowledged that the applicant’s intention was not in dispute and that the principle of the use was accepted, however, he explained that under planning law he had little choice but to agree with the officer’s recommendation. 

 

In response to a Member’s further queries, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways explained that it was accepted that the buildings were in a poor state of repair, however, the issues needed to be addressed.  It was confirmed that the photographs shown had been taken within the last 6 months and visits had been made to the site recently.  Crime was not always reported and Members had been informed of the comments made by the police.  With regard to the application, the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways confirmed that it was outline only for a specific use, but no information had been submitted in respect of the replacement buildings.  If an understanding of the design of the replacement buildings had been provided it could be taken into consideration against the NPPF requirements.

 

A Member recognised the good work of the applicant but agreed that the proposal did not provide any information in relation to the retention of the listed buildings or any assurances for the Secretary of State.  Another Member concurred with the previous views.  In conclusion the Chair explained an innovative plan and the use of the façade would have been welcomed, or a clear report as to why the buildings could not be retained.  He then suggested that, if minded, the applicant could withdraw both applications and submit an improved proposal.                

 

Resolved -

 

Applications 18/00861/MAO and 18/01396/LBC:

 

That subject to written confirmation, these applications be regarded as withdrawn and formal notification to be received by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways within 7 days and that if notification is not received then the applications be refused by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways under delegated powers.

 

ACTION: Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways