Bradford) to Be Held on 19 February 2009 AF

Report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration to the meeting of the Area Planning Panel (Bradford) to be held on 19 February 2009 AF

Summary Statement – Part Two

Applications Recommended for Approval

The sites concerned are:

28. Land to the South East and South of 869 Thornton Thornton & Road, Thornton, Bradford (page 37) Allerton 29. 23 Hutton Road, Bradford, BD5 9DT (page 44) Wibsey 30. Ernest Adams and Son, Slack Bottom Road, Bradford, BD6 3RH (page 47) Royds 31. Land West of Stadium Mills, Pearson Road, Bradford (page 52) Wyke 32. Land at Grid Ref 419402 436322, Roundwood Glen, Bradford (page 56) Eccleshill

Mike Cowlam Portfolio: Assistant Director Environment and Culture (Economic Development Service) Report Contact: Mohammed Yousuf Improvement Committee Area: Phone: (01274) 434402 Regeneration and Economy

E-mail: [email protected]

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

19 February 2009

Item Number: 28 Ward: THORNTON AND ALLERTON Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION APPLICATION INVOLVING DEVELOPMENT OF OVER 5,000M2 GROSS FLOOR SPACE

Application Number: 08/02420/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: A combined full and outline (hybrid) planning application for the construction of a mix of office, light industrial, general industrial and storage or distribution employment uses (B1(a), B1(c), B2 and B8), access and landscaping at land to the south of 869 Thornton Road, Thornton, Bradford.

Site Description: This 6.68-hectare site comprises undulating agricultural grassland that is enclosed and sub-divided by dry-stone walling and crossed by public rights of way. A high- voltage electricity pylon and a derelict agricultural storage building occupy different parts of the site. To the north, west, south and south-east is similar, generally open countryside with isolated buildings. The site envelopes a currently unused detached restaurant and its car park off Thornton Road. To the north-east the site abuts a builder’s yard and a modern industrial estate. Access is available via the site frontage to Thornton Road, which has a 40mph speed limit.

Relevant Site History: 05/02160/FUL: Mixed use development of A1, C1, B1, B2 and B8 comprising 13 units, withdrawn 21 September 2005. 79/3/02808: High voltage power line, granted 30 May 1979.

The adjoining unused restaurant site to the north is subject to a full planning application, still under consideration (ref. 08/03778/FUL) for the demolition of the restaurant and construction of 18 dwellings with access, parking and landscaping.

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Proposals and Policies The land is allocated as an employment site, BW/E1.9. Taking account of policies saved for the purposes of formulating the Local Development Framework, the following RUDP policies are applicable to the proposal:-

UR2 Promoting Sustainable Development UR3 Local Impact of Development E1 Protecting Allocated Employment Sites E2 Protecting Large Employment Sites TM2 Impact of Traffic and its Mitigation TM11 Parking Standards for Non-Residential Developments TM18 Parking for People with Disabilities

- 37 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

TM19 Cycle Parking TM19A Traffic Management and Road Safety D1 General Design Considerations D2 Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Design D3 Access for People with Disabilities D4 Community Safety D5 Landscaping D6 Meeting the Needs of Pedestrians D7 Meeting the Needs of Cyclists NR15B Flood Risk NR16 Surface Water Run Off and Sustainable Drainage Systems NR17 Ground Water Protection NR17A Water Course and Water Bodies P1 Air Quality P5 Development Close to Former Landfill Sites P7 Noise

Other Relevant Policies and Guidance: Planning Policy Statement 1 Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Guidance Note 4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 Transport Planning Policy Statement 23 Pollution (PPS23) Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk (PPS25)

Parish Council: Not applicable.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was publicised by a notice in the local press, the display of site notices and individual neighbour notification letters. The publicity period expired on 20 June 2008. No objections have been received.

Summary of Representations Received: Not applicable.

Consultations: Highways Development Control - initial response: No objections to principle of development though a number of detailed modifications or additional information requested relating to the access road, visibility splays, gradients, bus stops, street lighting, speed restraint measures, footpath diversions, vehicle turning areas, pedestrian facilities and bin storage. Also, a shortfall of 79 car parking spaces is identified. Second response: Proposed traffic calming measures to the access road are workable and, subject to all initial points being addressed, no further issues regarding the scheme itself are raised. It is noted that the traffic lights at Keelham will need to be upgraded at a cost of £50,000, which would be controlled by an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act. Transport Planning: The amended site-wide Travel Plan for future employees, visitors, etc. of the development is comprehensive and properly structured.

- 38 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Yorkshire Water: No objections subject to six conditions to control foul and surface water drainage and prevent pollution. Drainage Services Unit: No objections subject to six conditions to control foul and surface drainage and adequate pollution prevention. British Horse Society: No comments received. Minerals and Waste Team: The site is adjacent to two former landfill sites and close to two others; the infilling of these sites has been controlled through the planning system and all are now restored or revegetated. Rights of Way Section: The site affects two public rights of way the diversion of which requires amendment. West Yorkshire Police: No objections to the principle of the development subject to the re-routed right of way being integrated in to the development and inclusion throughout the scheme of adequate security fencing, CCTV, external lighting and landscaping. Yorkshire Forward: No comments required.

Summary of Main Issues: 1. Background and principle of development. 2. Visual amenity. 3. Residential amenity. 4. Highway safety. 5. Other planning matters.

Appraisal: Background and Principle of Development This hybrid outline/full planning application proposes a new industrial estate comprising twelve buildings for B1(a) office, B1(c) light industry, B2 general industry and B8 storage or distribution with associated access and landscaping. Buildings 1 to 6, 11 and 12 are subject of the outline element of the application with scale, appearance and landscaping applied for consideration; full details have been submitted for buildings 7, 8, 9 and 10 plus the access road off Thornton Road and landscaping to the southern boundary. The extent of the outline and full details is identified by green and red lines respectively on the applicant’s Drawing No. D627/33 Revision B. A range of suitably worded conditions will be required to control these two aspects of the future development.

The buildings are specified for the following uses:- • Building 1: Managed B1(a) office space/business incubator unit; • Buildings 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6: B1(c) light industrial and B2 general business starter units; • Building 7: B8 warehouse/logistics operation with administrative offices; • Buildings 8, 11 and 12: B2 general industrial units with ancillary offices; and • Buildings 9 and 10: B8 warehouse/logistics units with ancillary offices.

The gross floor space for each use amounts to 3,855m2 for B1(a), 3,417m2 for B1(c), 5110m2 for B2 and 13,450m2 for B8, a total of 25,832m2. For comparison purposes the Grattan warehouse building at Thornton Road, Listerhills has a footprint of approximately 70,000m2. Taking reference from information supplied by English Partnerships and other research, it is estimated that the proposed floor space could provide in the order of 650 jobs once fully occupied.

- 39 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

The site has a long-term allocation for employment purposes being included in the RUDP (reference BW/E1.9) and in the preceding Unitary Development Plan adopted in 1998. There have been no significant changes in site circumstances and the updating of some government planning guidance does not undermine this approval such that the development remains acceptable in principle.

Visual Amenity The new units (as amended) would be of a simple layout off the access road that runs centrally through the site. The buildings are of a large scale as required in part by RUDP Policy E2 and operational needs of modern-day employment functions: Building 7 being the largest at a length of 185 metres and a height to eaves of 13 metres. The design of the units has been enhanced to include vertical banding and colour variations to add visual interest the elevations and to emphasise the entrance points and the external windows and doors of the administrative office elements. Whilst the appearance of units 1 and 12 are reserved matters they, along with Unit 10, have a prominent presence at the junction of, and/or fronting on to, Thornton Road. The details submitted for Building 10 include strong design elements that if mirrored in buildings 1 and 12 at reserved matters stage plus provision of suitable boundary features would make a positive contribution to the street scene.

The development would be constructed of artificial stone to the plinth of the buildings with glazing elements and colour-coated cladding to the upper sections of the elevations and the roofs details of which can be suitably controlled by condition to ensure a good quality finish is achieved.

A landscaping strip of between five and ten metres width is proposed along the long sweep of the southern boundary and that to the east; other significant areas of landscaping are also proposed to the Thornton Road frontage. Whilst the strip to the south and east should be of a greater depth, ideally a minimum of 15 metres, it is recognised that a development of this scale can not be wholly screened by tree- planting and the proposal does offer scope for inclusion of larger native woodland species at a number of points that would help to break up the mass of the buildings and visually soften the development when seen from long-range views across open land.

The development will make a clear design statement relating to the function of the site that, for these reasons above, is considered to be acceptable in visual amenity terms.

Residential and Neighbouring Occupiers’ Amenity The nearest dwellings are isolated properties set within the surrounding open countryside at some distance from the site or on the opposite side of Thornton Road. It is also noted that the adjoining site to the north, The Imperial Chinese restaurant, is the subject of a current planning application that is still under consideration for residential development of 18 dwellings. It is recognised that the site is acceptable for employment uses by its allocation for such purposes in the RUDP and that similar neighbouring uses affect the area generally. It is also considered that adequate distance separates the site from existing residential properties and that the development at The Imperial includes a wide landscaped

- 40 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

buffer of mounded earth and tree-planting to the common boundaries with the site, which will limit the impact of the proposal particularly in terms of the generation of noise, dust, vibration, smoke, etc. The buildings would be of a siting, scale and design that would prevent any harm from excessive over-dominance or overlooking. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in amenity terms.

Highway Safety The development is of a size and use that would not overwhelm the carrying capacity of Thornton Road from which the means of access for all heavy goods vehicle deliveries, employees and visitors would be taken. The proposed 24-hour operation of the development would require a three, eight-hour, shift pattern, which would spread out the arrival/departure times of the staff employed in these buildings and so reduce any potential congestion. The dimensions, geometry, sight lines, alignment, etc. of the proposed access road and its junction with Thornton Road, has been amended in accordance with advice from the Council’s Highways Engineer to provide sufficient space and visibility to ensure proper access arrangements to serve the development. Similarly, within the site the proposal includes appropriately dimensioned manoeuvring areas and parking provision for HGV’s and, separately, for cars.

The applicant has submitted computer modelling information projecting forwards to the vehicular traffic demands of 2013 and 2018, which concludes that the Keelham light-controlled crossroads and the Thornton Road/James Street junction would both operate satisfactorily with queues and delays to vehicles being minimal. It is also noted that the Keelham crossroads is in a relatively isolated location with only limited pedestrian movement across it, with or without the proposed development, which severely limits the link between the desired £50,000 upgrade and the development in planning terms.

The amended scheme includes 333 car parking spaces, which compared with the Council’s standards, represents an over provision of 21 spaces or about 6%. Building 7 is of a particularly large scale to comply with the requirements of Policy E2 for a single large user on site, which is likely to operate as a head office or regional distribution centre with a proportionately higher staffing level and hence a need for increased car parking.

The site is accessible by buses routed along Thornton Road but is some 700 metres from the Thornton Cemetery terminus of ten-minute frequency services, which will offer employees and customers visiting the development only a limited alternative to reliance on the private car for transport. To counter the limitations of public transport provision the applicant has proposed a site-wide Travel Plan, which promotes use of public transport, walking, cycling, car-share clubs and working from home where applicable. The implementation and continued promotion and use of travel plans can be suitably conditioned, as can the need for a S.278 agreement to ensure improvements to existing bus stops, and street lighting, to Thornton Road.

- 41 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

A number of other standard conditions are required to ensure the development is constructed and maintained in a proper manner and, subject to these controls the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regard to highways issues.

Other Planning Matters Rights Of Way: The site is crossed by a right of way and abuts a second, which have been suitably re-routed, widened and illuminated to improve pedestrian access to the development and maintain links with the locally extensive network of footpaths.

Security: As noted above, the proposal would upgrade the footpath linking the site to Thornton Road and includes measures to improve its attractiveness and security. Other matters relating to natural surveillance, defensible space and access within the site can be adequately improved by provision of CCTV, lighting, boundary treatments and landscaping, all of which can be properly controlled by suitably worded conditions.

Contamination: The site is undeveloped, apart from an agricultural storage building to its eastern side, and there is no suspicion of it being contaminated from any previous uses. As there are landfill sites close by the applicant has submitted an intrusive ground investigation report that concludes the development would not result in significant risks to human health or contamination of controlled waters, though some gas protection measures and monitoring is required. Though the great majority of the development would be covered by the development it does also include some elements of landscaping appropriate remediation of which can be adequately controlled by use of a precautionary condition. Under these circumstances the proposal complies with RUDP Policy P5 and PPS23, and so is considered to be acceptable in these terms.

Drainage: The development raises no insurmountable drainage issues and, subject to a number of conditions including investigation of sustainable drainage techniques, use of oil/petrol interceptors, provision of bunds for liquid storage tanks, etc., the proposal complies with PPS25 and Policy NR16 of the RUDP.

Inclusive Design: The proposal includes a minimum of 5% of the car parking spaces dedicated to disabled drivers, which meets local and national standards. Level entrances and internal lifts also aid accessibility.

Conclusion For these reasons, the proposal is considered to be acceptable when judged against the relevant policies in the RUDP and so is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Community Safety Implications: The proposal raises no community safety implications.

- 42 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The proposal would relate satisfactorily to the character of the surrounding area and would have no adverse impact on residential amenity or highway safety. As such the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policies UR2, UR3, E1, E2, TM2, TM11, TM18, TM19, TM19A, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, NR15B, NR16, NR17, NR17A, P1, P5 and P7 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Conditions of Approval: 1. Standard limits on commencement; three years of full approval or two years of last reserved matters. 2. Application for reserved matters made within two years. 3. The development of the Red Zone shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted amended plans. 4. Reserved matters of scale, appearance and landscaping submitted for the Green Zone. 5. Details of existing and proposed levels, cross sections, retaining walls, etc. to be submitted as part of reserved matters for the Green Zone. 6. Timing of phased development to be approved. 7. Materials for Red Zone to be approved. 8. Boundary treatments for Red Zone to be approved. 9. Details of Green Zone internal highway works, car parking and service arrangements to be approved before commencement; all such highway works throughout the whole of the development to be laid out, hard surfaced, sealed and drained within the site. 10. Visibility splays of the Red Zone to be provided before occupation. 11. No development to commence until S.278 for off-site highway works including upgrading street lighting and bus stops. 12. Turning areas of the Red Zone to be provided before occupation. 13. Car parking of the Red Zone to be provided before occupation. 14. Service/loading areas of the Red Zone to be provided before occupation. 15. No outdoor storage of goods. 16. CCTV scheme to be approved. 17. External lighting to be approved. 18. Construction site plan to be approved. 19. Travel Plan to be implemented. 20. Any contamination not previously identified is found then no development in that part of the site shall be carried out until its remediation is approved. 21. Sustainable urban drainage to be investigated, including separate foul and surface water drainage systems, off-site balancing works, existing water courses, culverts and land drains. 22. No piped discharges until outfalls completed. 23. Oil and petrol interceptors and road type gullies: installed prior to use. 24. Bunded liquid stores. 25. Landscaping scheme and management for the Red Zone to be approved and implemented.

Footnotes: Rights of Way standard advice.

- 43 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

19 February 2009

Item Number: 29 Ward: WIBSEY Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

Application Number: 08/03848/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Full application for the construction of a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension at 23 Hutton Road, Bradford.

Site Description: The application property is a brick built end terraced dwelling with a blue slate and rosemary tile roof located in a predominantly residential area.

Relevant Site History: None.

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Proposals and Policies UR3 - The Local Impact of Development D1 - General Design Considerations D4 - Community Safety

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Bradford Council’s Revised House Extensions Policy

Parish Council: Not applicable.

Publicity and Number of Representations: Neighbour notification expiry date for representations 18 July 2008. One representation received and a local Ward Councillor has requested that the application be determined by the Planning Panel.

Summary of Representations Received: 1. The proposed development will result in the overshadowing of the dining room window of 21 Hutton Road.

2. Street lighting at the end of the snicket adjoining the properties would be blocked off resulting in a lack of lighting servicing the snicket at night.

3. The construction of the proposed extension would block access and prevent the servicing of drains at 21 Hutton Road.

Consultations: None.

- 44 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Summary of Main Issues: 1. Impact on neighbouring occupants. 2. Impact on the local environment. 3. Community Safety.

Appraisal: Impact on Residential Amenity The two storey side extension is to be constructed, to the same depth as the existing dwelling and up to the south-west boundary of 23 Hutton Road. It will be separated from the curtilage of 25 Hutton Road by a footpath of approximately 1 metre in width. There are no side facing windows in the proposed side extension or at No 25 Hutton Road and as such the development will not adversely affect the residential amenity of the occupants of this neighbouring property.

The single storey rear extension is to have a depth of 3 metres and will not have any side facing windows. Whilst it is acknowledged that the single storey rear extension will result in some overshadowing of the neighbouring property, No 21 Hutton Road, as a result of the position of the extension in relation to the sun and this neighbouring property it is not considered that the level of overshadowing will be so significant as to warrant refusal. It is worth noting that an extension of this depth is permitted by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2008 and is recommended as the maximum acceptable depth for a rear extension on a semi detached property in the Council’s House Extension’s Policy.

The maintenance of private drains is not a planning consideration.

In terms of residential amenity the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and will accord with Policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Impact on the Local Environment The proposed extensions will be in keeping with the existing dwelling in terms of size, design and materials. The side extension is to have a 150mm setback at ground floor level and a 1 metre setback at first floor level which will result in the extension being subordinate to the application property.

The extensions accord with policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and the Revised House Extensions Policy.

Community Safety Implications: A concern has been raised that the proposed extensions will reduce the level of light reaching the footpath that runs between No 23 Hutton Road and No 25 Hutton Road from the street light on Hutton Road. However, in view of the distance of the streetlights on Hutton Road from the front of the dwellings it appears that the streetlights afford the footpath, in the vicinity of the extension, very little light at present. It is not considered, therefore, that the proposed extension will have any significant impact on community safety in this location and as such the proposal will not conflict with Policy D4 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

- 45 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The proposed extension is considered to relate satisfactorily to the character of the existing dwelling and adjacent properties. The impact of the proposal upon the occupants of neighbouring properties has been assessed and it is considered that they will not have a significantly adverse effect upon their residential amenity. As such this proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and supplementary planning guidance contained within the Revised House Extensions Policy.

Conditions of Approval: 1. Time limit: 3 Years. 2. Materials: To match. 3. Permitted Development Rights removed: Side windows.

- 46 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

19 February 2009

Item Number: 30 Ward: ROYDS Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

Application Number: 08/06663/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: A full planning application for the demolition of the existing joiner’s workshop and construction of three dwellings and associated parking. This application is a resubmission of application 08/04269/FUL.

Site Description: The site is located within a mainly residential area close to the centre of Wibsey. The site is currently occupied by a workshop with associated access from the unadopted road. A public house is located opposite the site. Vehicular access to the site is taken from Slack Bottom Road (unadopted) which in turn leads to St Helena Road and Harbour Road. The surrounding area is mainly residential.

Relevant Site History: 08/04269/FUL: Demolition of workshop and construction of three affordable houses (withdrawn 22 August 2008)

01/03316/COU: Change of use and extension of workshop to house (granted 20 December 2001)

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): The site is unallocated on the RUDP.

Proposals and Policies UDP1 Promoting Sustainable Patterns of Development UDP3 Restraining Development UR2 Promoting Sustainable Development UR3 The Local Impact of Development H7 Density H8 Density TM2 Impact of Traffic and its mitigation TM12 Parking standards for residential developments TM19A Traffic management and road safety D1 General Design considerations P4 Contaminated land

National planning policy Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering sustainable development through the planning system Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing

- 47 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Parish Council: Not applicable.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was publicised by individual notification letters and site and press notice. Expiry date of the publicity period was 7 November 2008. A total of four letters of objection were received in addition to a written communication from a local ward councillor requesting that the application be referred to the Area Planning Panel.

Summary of Representations Received: 1. Poor access on the unadopted road. 2. Loss of privacy. 3. The proposed properties are out of keeping with the surrounding street scene. 4. General highway safety implications. 5. Flooding risk.

Consultations: Highways: not supportive of additional development on Slack Bottom Road without improvements to the road

Minerals & Waste: suggest standard condition for dealing with contamination at the site

Drainage: conditions suggested if approving

Summary of Main Issues: 1. Principle of development 2. Residential amenity 3. Visual impact 4. Highway safety 5. Contamination 6. Comments on representation received

Appraisal: 1. Principle of development The site is considered to be previously developed land as defined in PPS 3 owing to the existence of a permanent structure on the site (the workshop building). The principle of residential development at this site is therefore considered acceptable. A density equivalent of approximately 32 dph is achieved with the scale of development proposed; this again achieves the minimum threshold in PPS 3 and policy H7.

- 48 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

2. Residential amenity The proposed units are not considered to adversely impact on the surrounding properties. The largest potential impact will be on the property at 7 Harbour Road, however, the line of the proposed dwelling does not adversely affect the outlook from this property and no direct overlooking will result. All other space about building requirements are met – overlooking to the southeast is to the public house and 5 Harbour Road has no significant habitable room windows to the side elevation thus protecting its outlook adequately. The dwellings will have limited amenity areas, however, given their scale, the amenity areas proposed are considered acceptable.

3. Visual impact The design, scale and materials of the dwellings proposed are considered acceptable in the street scene. There is a transition from modern properties to more traditional semi-detached dwellings and it is considered that this proposal does not harm the character of this street scene. The use of render is not considered inappropriate in this location where such a material is found in the immediate street scene.

4. Highway safety The proposed development will be accessed from Slack Bottom Road (unadopted). This road is substandard in terms of its drainage, width and lighting and it would not be desirable to access any further development from it without some improvements being effected. It is, however, considered that the existing use of the site as a joiners workshop would result in more traffic using Slack Bottom Road and the frequency and size of vehicles is likely to be higher as compared with a residential use. Nevertheless, it is considered that there is opportunity to improve the condition of Slack Bottom Road and as the red line of the application covers the access road, it is considered appropriate that a condition requiring details of an improvement scheme to the road to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of development.

In terms of off-street parking, a total of 5 spaces are provided which would comply with the requirements of the RUDP and is considered to be a reasonable level of provision taking account of the scale of the dwellings and the location of the site close to Wibsey centre.

5. Contamination Due to the use of the site as a joiner’s workshop, there is the potential for some contamination to be affecting the site. However, it is considered that the past use is not a high risk use in terms of contamination potential, as defined in PPS 23 and that it is unlikely that levels of contamination at the site would be significant enough to pose a risk to end users. However, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition to ensure the developer reports any suspicious materials found during construction to the LPA and that appropriate remediation strategies are implemented to deal with this.

- 49 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

6. Comments on representation received Four letters of objection were received in addition to a written communication from a local Ward Councillor. These issues raised are listed and appraised below:

Poor access on the unadopted road See ‘highway safety’

Loss of privacy There is not considered to be any significant adverse implications for residential amenity, as detailed in the main report

The proposed properties are out of keeping with the surrounding street scene See ‘visual amenity’

General highway safety implications See ‘highway safety’

Flooding risk The site is located within flood zone 1 and therefore it is considered appropriate to require full details of the drainage of foul and surface water drainage through an appropriate condition

Community Safety Implications: There are no apparent community safety implications.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The principle of residential development on this previously developed site is considered acceptable in line with guidance contained in PPS 3. No significant adverse implications for highway safety are foreseen provided improvements are made to Slack Bottom Road, this being ensured by an appropriate condition. No additional significant implications are foreseen in terms of visual amenity or impact on the surrounding dwellings. Contamination and flood risk are considered low at the site and can be addressed by appropriate conditions. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policies UR2, UR3, D1, H7, H8, TM2, TM12, TM19A, P4 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Conditions of Approval: 1. 3 years time limit. 2. Samples of materials. 3. Permitted development rights removed: no windows to the side elevations of the dwellings without permission. 4. Separate drainage system within the site boundary. 5. Car parking areas to be drained using road type gullies. 6. Full details of means of foul and surface water drainage to be submitted. 7. Full details of any measures employed to deal with the water course at the site. 8. No changes to boundary site levels unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.

- 50 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

9. Prior to commencement of development a scheme for the carrying out of highway improvements to the unadopted Slack Bottom Road shall have been submitted and secured the approval of the local planning authority in writing. The scheme as approved shall be implemented prior to the commencement of development. 10. Laying out of off-street parking prior to first occupation. 11. Contamination: standard condition.

Footnote: The consent of the owners of properties fronting Slack Bottom Road must be obtained in order to comply with the requirement to carry out necessary highway improvements to the road.

- 51 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

19 February 2009

Item Number: 31 Ward: WYKE Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

Application Number: 08/06663/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: A full planning application for the construction of a detached office building and integral store at Stadium Mills, Pearson Road, Odsal, Bradford. This application is a resubmission of application 07/10194/FUL.

Site Description: The site forms part of the curtilage of the mill building and closely adjoins residential properties on Pearson Road. Stadium Mills itself is a two-storey building, much improved from its previous condition and currently consists of a snooker club, offices and a catering kitchen. Access to the site is via a shared private drive. A number of residential properties exist to the north and east of the building and the large complex of Odsal stadium is located to the east. The proposed building will replace the existing portacabin building on the site.

Relevant Site History: 07/10194/FUL: Construction of new detached office building with integral store, refused 7 August 2008, adverse impact on residential amenity. 07/09727/COU: Change of use of part of the ground floor from offices to a catering kitchen and associated installation of extractor flues (refused 14 January 2008; adverse impact on residential amenity; insufficient information on waste storage provision and noise generation). 07/10062/FUL: Variation of Planning Application No 07/02305/COU to construct amended integral layout, disabled ramp, office entrance and basement access (granted 21 February 2008). 07/02305/COU: Change of use and conversion of first floor offices to three residential apartments (granted 17 July 2007). 06/00375/COU: Change of use of existing mill building into snooker club with American pool lounge bar and function facilities (granted 10 March 2006).

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Proposals and Policies UR3 The Local Impact of Development D1 General Design considerations TM2 Impact of traffic and its mitigation TM11 Parking standards for non-residential developments TM19A Traffic management and road safety D3 Access for disabled people

Parish Council: Not applicable.

- 52 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was publicised by site notice and individual notification letters. The publicity period expired on 23 December 2008. Five letters of representation were received (circular letters, individually signed) and a written communication from a local Ward Councillor requesting the application is referred to the Area Planning Panel.

Summary of Representations Received: 1. Parking problems and traffic congestion 2. Insufficient turning provision within the site 3. Overshadowing of adjacent properties 4. Previous application for a portacabin refused – why should this project be approved?

Consultations: Highways: No objections subject to the reduction in height of the close boarded fence to 1m within 2m of the entrance to the site. Drainage: No objection subject to condition. Minerals & Waste: No objections subject to conditions.

Summary of Main Issues: 1. Principle 2. Visual amenity 3. Residential amenity 4. Highway safety 5. Contamination 6. Drainage

Appraisal: The previous application (07/10194/FUL) was refused on the following grounds (on 7 August 2008):

1. By virtue of its size and close proximity to the habitable room windows of adjacent dwellings, the development would be detrimental to the residential amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of over-dominance and overbearing, and would therefore be contrary to policies D1 and UR3 of the Council's adopted Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Principle The site is unallocated and as such, the main policy considerations are UR3 and D1. The principle of the development is considered to be acceptable, subject to the limitations of these policies and all other material considerations.

- 53 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Visual amenity The proposed building has now been reduced in scale and also moved further from the nearest property (9 Taylor Road). The appearance of the building is in keeping with its intended use and although its design is different from the surrounding residential properties, it is seen in the context of the mill building and is set back from public view which helps to reduce its visual impact. The small flat roof element of the building is somewhat out of keeping with the surroundings, however, its small scale is considered to reduce its overall impact. All materials are acceptable, include the timber cladding. Approval of samples of all materials will assist in allowing a good quality appearance once constructed.

Residential amenity There are two main considerations in this respect, as follows:

(a) Impact of the proposed building Due to the fairly modest height of the building (from 6.5m maximum to ridge height), it is considered that it would have a limited impact on the surrounding properties. The building has now been moved some 3 metres further from the property at 9 Taylor Road and is now located some 7.5 metres from the conservatory associated with this dwelling. The proposed building is 5.5 m in height at this point and it is considered that this is sufficient to prevent unacceptable overshadowing or overbearing of the amenity area of this property and its conservatory.

In terms of overlooking, views to 36 Pearson Road are not direct; only ground floor windows are proposed which look onto an existing hedge and fence. High-level first floor windows are proposed to the same elevation and obscure glass to windows at eye level. It is therefore considered that no direct overlooking would result to no. 36. To the rear of the building, given that only one small office ground floor window is proposed to this elevation, no direct overlooking is considered to result.

(b) Impact of the proposed use As previously proposed, the building will be occupied as a small office and limited plant store for a construction company. It is considered that the limited scope of the use and that operating hours are only likely during normal working hours, is not likely to significantly compromise residential amenity. With the imposition of conditions restricting operating hours and to prevent any outside storage of materials, it is considered that the amenities of the surrounding properties can be adequately safeguarded.

Highway safety A total of two off-street parking spaces will be available within the site. Access will be via the existing private drive, which will be divided up by way of a fence to ensure that the existing residents have a dedicated private access. Limited turning space is available within the site to allow vehicles to turn and enter Pearson Road in a forward gear, however, it is considered that sufficient space in front of the plant store exists to allow a turning manoeuvre. The proposed fence will be required to be reduced to 1m in height within 2m of the access point; however, this can be enforced via a planning condition.

- 54 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Contamination An appropriate planning condition is considered acceptable to address any possible contamination issues at the site.

Drainage All drainage issues at the site can be addressed by planning conditions

Community Safety Implications: There are no apparent community safety implications.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The proposed office building is acceptable in principle at this site and would not lead to any unacceptable impacts upon residential amenity, visual amenity or highway safety. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policies UR3, D1, D3, TM2, TM11 and TM19A of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Conditions of Approval: 1, Three year time limit. 2. Limited operation hours; 0800 to 1800 daily. 3. No outside storage of materials. 4. Samples of facing and roofing materials to be approved prior to commencement. 5. Details of the colour of the render to be approved prior to commencement. 6. Provision of off-street parking prior to use. 7. Full details of intervisibility splays to be provided at the access point onto Pearson Road to be approved prior to commencement. 8. No further windows in the side (western) and rear (southern) elevation of the building. 9. The windows shown as obscure glazed on plan 168/03/103 shall be glazed in obscure glass prior to first occupation of the building. 10. Car parking areas to be drained using road type gulleys. 11. Separate drainage system within the site boundary. 12. No changes to ground levels at the site boundaries, unless otherwise agreed. 13. Contamination: any suspicious materials to be reported to the local planning authority during construction and remediation agreed if appropriate.

- 55 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

19 February 2009

Item Number: 32 Ward: ECCLESHILL Recommendation: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION SUBJECT TO OWNER ENTERING INTO AN APPROPRIATE PLANNING OBLIGATION BY AGREEMENT

Heads of terms of the Agreement: The provision of 132 affordable housing units.

Application Number: 08/07223/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: This is a hybrid application comprising a full application for the construction of 80 residential units and an outline application for the construction of a maximum of a further 360 residential units with all matters reserved for consideration at a later stage. The site is located within the Ravenscliffe residential estate and comprises a strip of land running along the eastern boundary of the estate.

Site Description: The majority of the site is currently vacant although a number of existing dwellings are scattered throughout. The site was formerly occupied by residential units but these were demolished relatively recently (2000 onwards). The roads that formerly served the dwellings still exist whilst the site has become grassed over. To the north, south and west of the site are existing residential units whilst to the east is an open woodland area together with Fagley Beck.

Relevant Site History: There is no relevant planning history on the site. Various prior notification approvals have been granted since 1999 in relation to the demolition of the dwellings that formerly occupied the site.

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Proposals and Policies Sections of the site are allocated as Phase 1 Housing Sites (BN/H1.36 & BN/H1.15) whilst the remainder of the site is unallocated. Policies UR2 (sustainable development) and UR3 (Local Impact of development) are relevant policies to the principle of the use. Policies H7 and H8 refer to housing densities. Policies TM2 and TM19A refer to the impact of traffic and its mitigation, traffic management and road safety. Policy TM12 deals with car parking standards for the development. Policy D1 deals with general design considerations. Affordable housing (H9), provision of recreation open space and playing fields (OS5), community safety (D4), education (CF2), drainage (NR16), trees (NE4 and NE5) and NE10 (Protection of Natural Features and Species) are also considered to be relevant. Policy UR6 refers to planning obligations and conditions.

- 56 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Other relevant guidance includes PPS1 (Delivering sustainable development), PPS3 (Housing), PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control) and PPG13 (Transport). Bradford Councils own Supplementary Planning Guidance on Planning Obligations and Crime Prevention are also relevant.

Parish Council: Not applicable in this instance.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was publicised by site notices, press notice and neighbour notification letters. The expiry date for the publicity period was 14 January 2009.

As a result of the publicity period 7 letters have been received objecting to the proposal.

The Applicant did undertake 2 community consultation events in October 2008 with key stakeholders and the local community in the form of open forums. As part of this exercise problems, dreams and solutions were identified. Issues considered during discussion groups at these forums included the perception of Ravenscliffe, anti-social behaviour, youth provision, local employment, crime and vandalism, security, environment, and housing provision.

Summary of Representations Received: • Concerns about the clientele that any flats will be offered to. • It will change the character of the area. • The proposal would be on land that is well maintained and provides access to the neighbouring woodland. • Impact on wildlife. • Replacing homes knocked down in Ravenscliffe should be the priority. • There is a high level of deprivation in Ravenscliffe such as lack of jobs, policing problems, social problems and anti-social behaviour – these issues should be tackled as part of the proposal. • Building on this site will create 1 huge estate and remove the border between the estate and the adjacent open woodland. • Excessive building work will make life unbearable due to dust, noise etc. • Significant increase in traffic will result. • Loss of views. • Loss of privacy/overlooking. • The local infrastructure cannot cope with the development. • There is no on-site recreation provision – where will the children play? • Loss of greenbelt land.

Consultations: Parks and Landscape Services – No objection, seek payment of commuted sum of £290,000 in lieu of on-site provision. Housing Services – No objection as 45 out of the 80 units as part of the Phase 1 development are to be socially rented. Rights of Way – Objection to the impact on the existing public footpaths throughout the site.

- 57 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Education Services – No objection, seek a financial contribution of £1,349,603 to improve existing educational facilities in the locality. Minerals Section – No objection, the site abuts 2 landfill sites and is within an outcrop area of coal measures, seeks the submission of a Ground Investigation Report. Yorkshire Water – No objection, conditions sought. Drainage Services – No objection, conditions sought. West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive – No objection, conditions sought to encourage the use of public transport. Environmental Health – No objection, conditions sought re working hours and noise controls. Environment Agency – No objection. West Yorkshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Objection on the grounds that the proposal doesn’t meet secured by design standards in an area where crime levels and anti-social behaviour are high. Highways – No objection in principle, some amendments sought. Ramblers Association – Objection to the impact on a number of footpaths throughout the site. Countryside Section – No comments received. Design Enabler – No objections. Landscape Design Unit – No comments received. Leeds City Council – No comments received. Trees Section – Concerns regarding lack of detail submitted, tree loss and lack of tree protection. Yorkshire and Humber Assembly – No comments received

Summary of Main Issues: 1. Principle of development. 2. Visual amenity. 3. Residential amenity. 4. Highway safety. 5. Drainage. 6. Recreation open space. 7. Trees. 8. Affordable housing. 9. Education. 10. Secure by design. 11. Contaminated land. 12. Ecological issues.

Appraisal: The proposal relates to the construction of up to 440 dwellings of which 80 units are the subject of a full application and a maximum of 360 units are subject to an outline application with all matters reserved for consideration at a future stage. The development comprising Phase 1 comprises a mix of 35 open market residential units and 45 social rented residential units. There is a mix of 2 (25 units), 3 (53 units) and 4 (2 units) bedroomed dwellings.

- 58 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

1. Principle of development PPS3 (Housing) states that a key objective is that Local Planning Authorities should continue to make effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed. The definition of previously-developed land as included within Annex B of the Statement states that ‘previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure’.

The site was occupied by 278 dwellings until they were demolished post 2000 and as such the site would be defined as a previously-developed site. A comment raised by an objector suggests that the land is Green belt. This is not the case and it does not benefit from such an allocation.

Parts of the site are allocated as Phase 1 Housing Sites (BN/H1.15 and BN/H1.36) and were formerly occupied by residential units. The site is therefore defined as a previously-developed site and this, together with the site’s allocation implies that the principle of residential development on this land is considered to be acceptable.

PPS3 also states that Local Planning Authorities may wish to set a range of densities across the plan area rather than one broad density range although 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) net should be used as a national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision making. Policy H7 of the RUDP reiterates this advice and allows for a greater density where the site is located in good quality transport corridors.

The site measures 8.8 hectares in size and proposes a maximum of 440 units thus equating to a density of 50 dwellings per hectare. The site is located within a high frequency bus service route thus making it a sustainable location. As such it is considered that the proposed density is acceptable.

2. Visual amenity Policy D1 of the RUDP states that all development proposals should make a positive contribution to the environment and quality of life through high quality design, layout and landscaping. It contains a number of criteria against which development proposals are assessed and includes, amongst others, proposals should be well related to the existing character of the locality in terms of design, scale, massing, height and materials.

The estate in general is characterised by pairs of large traditionally designed semi- detached dwellings constructed of red brick and render/pebble dashing with concrete tiles on the roofs. The dwellings benefit from unusually large gardens and are well spaced out. The proposed dwellings are generally 2 storeys in height and are principally in the form of semi-detached dwellings although there are a number of detached dwellings scattered throughout the proposal. There are also some bungalows incorporated within the scheme. It is intended to incorporate a mix of materials on the elevations including buff facing brick, ivory coloured render and stained timber boarding with dark grey concrete tiles on the roof. The mixture of these materials will add visual character to the appearance of the dwellings and streetscene. Overall it is considered that the design of the dwellings is considered

- 59 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

acceptable and will not have a detrimental impact on the visual character and appearance of either the streetscene or the wider locality.

3. Residential amenity Policy D1 of the RUDP states that all development proposals should make a positive contribution to the environment and quality of life through high quality design, layout and landscaping. It contains a number of criteria against which development proposals are assessed and includes, amongst others, proposals should not harm the amenity of prospective or existing users and residents.

With regard to the outline aspect of the application no details of the siting of the dwellings or the proposed layout have been submitted for consideration at this stage and therefore the impact of the proposal on residential amenity cannot be assessed at this stage.

However, details of Phase 1 of the proposal have been submitted and can be fully considered. The site is bounded by existing residential development to the north (Hawley Terrace), east (Roundwood Avenue), west (Ravenscliffe Avenue) and south (Langdale Road). The existing dwellings immediately adjacent to the site benefit from long rear gardens and as such the relationship between the proposed dwellings and those to the east and west is in excess of 21 metres thereby complying with policy guidance. To the south the relationship is gable to gable with a distance of 4½ metres and as no habitable room windows are incorporated within the gables the relationship is acceptable. To the north of the site numbers 11 and 13 Hawley Terrace have their rear elevations overlooking the site and have relatively short rear garden lengths of approximately 6 metres. Plot 19 has been designed such that the northern gable end, which has no windows incorporated within it, faces onto the existing properties at a distance of 12 metres which is considered an acceptable distance. As such therefore it is not considered that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of the existing neighbouring properties.

Within the site the relationships between the proposed dwellings generally comply with policy guidance. However the relationships between plots A01-A02 and A13- A12 is 18 metres (rear elevation to rear elevation). Whilst this relationship does not meet the 21 metre policy guidance it is generally considered that a distance of 18 metres is acceptable as it will not harm existing residents.

The proposed dwellings have good sized gardens thus allowing them adequate amenity space in line with the requirements of PPS3.

An objection has been raised to the proposal on the grounds of the loss of views for the existing residents. Unfortunately this is not a material planning consideration and cannot be taken into account in the assessment of this application.

- 60 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

4. Highway safety Policies TM2 and TM19A of the RUDP support proposals for new development providing that, amongst other things, the Council is satisfied that the proposal does not adversely affect existing and proposed transport infrastructure or services, including public transport and walking and cycling facilities, in the vicinity of the site or the local environment. Policy TM12 requires the provision of parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards.

The Highways Department have no objection in principle to the development and sought some minor amendments to the plans. These have now been incorporated into the scheme and the highway layout for the Phase 1 development is considered acceptable. With regard to the outline phase of development no details have been submitted for consideration at this stage in relation to either access or layout and therefore no detailed comments can be made of the proposal.

An objection has been raised on the grounds that there will be a significant increase in the level of traffic. The site was previously occupied by dwellings and as such part of the development is simply replacing what previously existed. A Transport Assessment has been submitted with the application which concludes that the development will not have any adverse impact on the local highway network.

There are a number of public footpaths both within and adjacent to the site that will be affected by the proposal. Whilst both the Council’s Rights of Way officer and the Ramblers Association have objected to the outline stage of the development in relation to the impact on the public footpaths at this stage the layout of the development has not been submitted for consideration. As such these footpaths can therefore be incorporated within the layout or applications can be submitted in relation to their closure. In consideration of the outline application these objections are therefore noted.

More pertinent to the proposal are two public footpaths that currently link the neighbouring residential units to the application site. Part of Bradford North Public Footpath 207 onto Roundwood Avenue will be blocked by plots 19-22 and will therefore be lost to use. There are two spokes of this footpath that run between existing dwellings on Roundwood Avenue. These will need to be either blocked up or transferred to the adjacent residents to be incorporated within their gardens. No objections are raised to this. Bradford North Public Footpath 208 links Larwood Avenue to Hawley Terrace and the southernmost section of it will need to be diverted because of the alteration to Hawley Terrace. Both the Rights of Way Officer and Ramblers Association have objected to the diversion unless it is either legally diverted or the plans amended to incorporate it on its existing route. Improvements are being sought to the existing stretch of footpath immediately adjacent to the site to improve both the surfacing and the lighting to encourage its use and improve the safety of its users. These improvements will involve approximately 1 metre of land within the application site being used as footpath and robust boundary treatment provided to separate the footpath form the driveway serving the adjacent properties.

- 61 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

5. Drainage Policy NR16 of the RUDP relates specifically to the provision of adequate surface water drainage systems whilst policy UR3 states that proposals should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding environment.

It is proposed to connect to the existing drainage and sewer system in relation to the disposal of both foul and surface water. Neither the Council’s Drainage Services nor Yorkshire Water have an objection to this subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. One such condition relates to the site being investigated for its potential for the use of sustainable drainage techniques in disposing of surface water from the development.

6. Recreation open space Policy OS5 of the RUDP states that new residential development will be required to make appropriate provision of, or equivalent commuted payment for, recreation open space and playing fields.

Within the development there is limited on-site recreation provision with only 3 relatively small areas being identified. These areas are not considered to be of an adequate size to meet the recreational needs of the future occupiers of the development. As a result of this Parks and Landscape Services are seeking the payment of a commuted sum of £290,000 to go towards improving existing recreational facilities in the locality. This type of requirement in relation to social contributions is normally accepted as part of the determination of a planning application.

Policy UR6 requires the provision of conditions or a planning obligation to be attached to a permission where developments would not be acceptable without the provision of, amongst other things, social infrastructure and allows them to be used in a variety of ways to mitigate the impact of development or increase capacities for services, facilities or infrastructure. This advice has been carried forward into the Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to Planning Obligations which was adopted in October 2007. This Guidance recognises that sometimes the requirements of a Planning Obligation may compromise the viability, and ultimately the delivery, of a scheme and are a relevant consideration in the determination of a proposal. In reaching a decision on a scheme the Local Planning Authority will need to balance the impact of the development on services and infrastructure with the importance of the scheme to regeneration and other corporate and big plan objectives.

In this particular instance it is considered that there are extenuating circumstances which suggest that this contribution should be waived. The development will provide much needed regeneration of the Ravenscliffe estate which in the past has suffered numerous social problems, such as crime and anti-social behaviour. The scheme, particularly in relation to the affordable units, is the subject of Housing Corporation funding and this gives some certainty that the residential units will be built which, in these uncertain times of the credit crunch, cannot always be guaranteed. The development also provides significantly more affordable housing than would normally be requested on such a development. As such it is considered

- 62 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

that the benefits to be gained by the development through the increased affordable housing provision mean that it would be unreasonable to ask for the recreation contribution.

7. Trees Policy NE4 of the RUDP seeks to preserve and enhance the contribution that trees make to the landscape character of the district whilst policy NE5 seeks to retain those trees which are healthy and which have or would have a clear public amenity benefit. The Council will require the protection during construction of trees to be retained and, where appropriate, replacement tree planting for trees lost or damaged during construction.

The Councils Arboricultural Officer has raised concerns in relation to the development, particularly Phase 1. There is a lack of information submitted with regard to the landscape plan, trees that should be retained are being removed and vice versa, and no details have been submitted with regard to tree protection. Within the Phase 1 area of development there are a number of trees scattered throughout the site which, generally, do not add to the visual character of the area. The bulk of the trees in the Phase 1 area will be lost although these will be recompensed by replacement planting throughout the development. However, no plan showing the tree protection for the retained trees has been submitted nor has a schedule of trees to be planted and as such appropriate conditions are attached.

With regard to the Phase 2 development the issues raised can be considered at Reserved Matters Stage when a detailed layout for the development is submitted.

8. Affordable housing Policy H9 of the RUDP states that the Council will negotiate for a proportion of affordable housing based on, amongst other things, the extent and type of need, and, the economics of provision.

The site is owned by InCommunities and the development is a joint development between them and Keepmoat Homes. As such there are a large proportion of the units (132 in total) being provided as affordable housing with the remainder for private sale. This number of units equates to approximately 30% of the total number of units which is above the Councils normal requirement of 15%. Within Phase 1 of the development there is a mix of housing types to be provided as affordable units including 2 bed bungalows and 2, 3 and 4 bed dwellings. As such Housing Services have not raised an objection to the proposal. The affordable housing provision can be secured by the Owner entering into a legal agreement.

9. Education Policy CF2 of the RUDP states that where new housing proposals would result in an increased demand for educational facilities which cannot be met by existing schools and colleges, the Council will seek to enter into a planning obligation in order to secure the provision of, or contribution towards, new or extended facilities.

- 63 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Education Services are seeking the provision of a commuted sum payment of £1,349,603 in order to improve existing educational facilities in the locality due to existing schools in the area at both primary and secondary sector level either being full or having a limited number of places available. This type of requirement in relation to social contributions is normally accepted as part of the determination of a planning application.

Policy UR6 requires the provision of conditions or a planning obligation to be attached to a permission where developments would not be acceptable without the provision of, amongst other things, social infrastructure and allows them to be used in a variety of ways to mitigate the impact of development or increase capacities for services, facilities or infrastructure. This advice has been carried forward into the Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to Planning Obligations which was adopted in October 2007. This Guidance recognises that sometimes the requirements of a Planning Obligation may compromise the viability, and ultimately the delivery of a scheme and are a relevant consideration in the determination of a proposal. In reaching a decision on a scheme the Local Planning Authority will need to balance the impact of the development on services and infrastructure with the importance of the scheme to regeneration and other corporate and big plan objectives.

10. Secure by Design Policy D4 of the RUDP states that development proposals should be designed to ensure a safe and secure environment and reduce the opportunities for crime. The issue of security is borne out in paragraphs 9.33 and 9.34 which state that (9.33) ‘crime and the fear of crime affect the way people use and enjoy the places where they live, work and use for recreation. The design of the built environment can play a very significant part in reducing crime and disorder and cutting down the fear of crime’ and (9.34) ‘Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes it a duty for Local Authorities to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area’.

- 64 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

The issue of creating a safe and secure environment is an important issue with regard to this development. The proposal is subject to receiving Housing Corporation funding towards the development of the affordable housing units and as such it is a requirement that all affordable units MUST be designed and built to Secured by Design standards and MUST receive Secured by Design accreditation standards. The West Yorkshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer has submitted detailed comments in relation to the scheme and has highlighted some important issues relating to the perception of the estate from the residents and the current types and levels of crime. He states that due to the site’s location within an area where the past and current levels of crime and disorder have for some time and in fact still are well above the national average. Issues such as burglary dwelling, vehicle crime, violent crime, criminal damage and anti-social behaviour feature highly within the Ravenscliffe estate with other issues such as the inappropriate gathering of youths, drink and drug related offences and unlawful/reckless use of motorcycles also feature at a noticeable rate. All this has had and continues to have a detrimental impact within the local community. This had led to an underlying fear of crime within the residents of the estate resulting in residents being too frightened to leave their homes during the hours of darkness.

In obtaining Secured by Design accreditation there is a list of minimum standards which must be met but there is scope within these requirements to go above and beyond the minimum where local circumstances dictate it. In the circumstances outlined above it is considered that there is a need to go above and beyond the minimum requirements to make sure that all dwellings comply with Secured by Design standards. Should it be only the affordable units that meet these standards then it will only result in crimes, such as burglary, being directed towards the non- Secured by Design dwellings. This instance has been taken into account in the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance – Planning for Crime Prevention – which states that ‘the level of security across development should be uniform regardless of housing type, level of affordability, or indeed tenure’.

A document provided by the Association of British Insurers – ‘Securing the Nation – The Case for Safer Homes’ – states that ‘the Home Office value the cost of the average burglary, in social and economic cost terms, at nearly £3,300 – a calculation which not only takes into account the economic costs to the individual and wider economy (e.g. value of the property stolen and criminal justice costs), but also the economic impact of the victims of burglary’. If goes onto state that ‘implementing target-hardening measures costing £630 per home would yield benefits of £1,170 per household – a net saving of £540’. It concludes that ‘the effect on an individual household will vary depending on location and the situation of the householders. Households suffering high rates of crime or fear of crime will benefit to a greater degree’.

The Applicant has agreed that all units throughout the development will comply with Secured by Design standards thus complying with the policy guidance outlined above and satisfying the West Yorkshire Police concerns.

- 65 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

11. Contaminated land Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning and Pollution Control – states that Contamination of land may threaten public health and safety, the natural environment, the built environment and economic activities, through its impacts on the users of the land, and on neighbouring users. Land contamination, or the possibility of it, is therefore a material planning consideration in the preparation of development plan documents and in taking decisions on individual planning applications. It remains the responsibility of the landowner/developer to identify land affected by contamination and to ensure that remediation is undertaken to secure a safe development.

The site was previously occupied by residential development and as such it is unlikely that there will be any contamination of the site that will have a detrimental impact on the end use of the site for residential purposes.

12. Ecological issues Policy NE10 of the RUDP states that planning permission will not be granted for development which would have an adverse impact on species protected by Schedules 1, 5 or 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, or European Birds and Habitat Directives.

Whilst the site is not identified as a wildlife area there are several non-statutory locally designated sites within 1km of the site, these include Bill, Round and Ravenscliffe Woods and Fagley Beck. An Ecological Assessment has been submitted with the application which concludes that there is limited evidence of wildlife within the area. Sightings of bats, toads and snakes have been recorded but these have been infrequent and few in number. There are few buildings within the site and only limited landscaping and as such the potential habitat for wildlife is significantly reduced. It has been raised in the comments received that wildlife has been seen on the site but this is likely to have come from the adjacent open woodland area where it is likely that there will be extensive wildlife habitats. It is unlikely that the redevelopment of the site will have a detrimental impact on local wildlife. Protected species are, of course, afforded further protection under the provisions of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Community Safety Implications: There are no further community safety implications other than those referred to in this report.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The scheme provides a residential scheme on allocated Phase 1 Housing Sites together with previously-developed land. The density, scale, form, layout and design of the proposal are acceptable and present no concerns with regard to residential amenity and highway safety. The proposal is considered acceptable and, with the attached conditions and legal agreement to secure a contribution towards recreational provision and affordable housing, satisfies the requirements of policies UR2, UR3, UR6, H7, H8, H9, TM2, TM12, TM19A, D1, D4, CF2, OS5, NE4, NE5, NE10 and NR16 of the adopted Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

- 66 -

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Conditions of Approval: 1. Time limit. 2. Reserved Matters approval. 3. Amended plans. 4. Boundary treatment. 5. Provision of a 4 metre sewer easement. 6. Provision of a 3 metre sewer easement. 7. Separate systems of foul/surface water. 8. Proposed means of disposal foul/surface water. 9. No piped discharge of surface water (SUDS). 10. Use of road type gullies. 11. Domestic parking provision before occupation. 12. Provision of access road before commencement. 13. Gates not to open over highway. 14. Construction Plan. 15. Wheel washing facilities. 16. Development to Secured by Design standards. 17. Details of footpath closures. 18. No trees to be planted in highway. 19. Tree Protection Plan. 20. Tree schedule to be submitted.

- 67 -