Report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration to the meeting of the Area Planning Panel () to be held on Tuesday 9 June 2009 A

Summary Statement - Part One

Applications recommended for Approval or Refusal

The sites concerned are:

Item No. Site Ward 1. 1 Woodlands Terrace Bradford West BD8 9JP [Approve] (page 2) 2. 266 Allerton Road Bradford BD15 7QX [Approve] (page 8) 3. 40 Lane Bradford West Yorkshire BD6 2DD [Approve] (page 14) 4. 79 Bradford Road Idle Bradford BD10 9LB [Approve] Idle And (page 22) 5. Former Sandy Lane Garage Road Bradford Thornton And Allerton West Yorkshire BD15 9AD [Approve] (page 28) 6. Land At Black Dyke Mills Brighouse Road Queensbury Queensbury Bradford West Yorkshire [Approve] (page 34) 7. Land East Of Northside Terrace Bradford West Yorkshire [Approve] (page 48) 8. Land South Of Bulmer And Lumb Limited Royds Lane Bradford [Approve] (page 56)

Julian Jackson Portfolio: Assistant Director (Planning) Environment and Culture

Report Contact: Mohammed Yousuf Improvement Committee Area: Phone: 01274 434402 Regeneration and Economy

Email: [email protected]

- 1 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

- 2 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

9 June 2009

Item Number: 1 Ward: TOLLER Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION WITH CONDITIONS

Application Number: 09/01147/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: This is a full planning application for alterations to a previously approved application for extensions to 1 Woodlands Terrace, Girlington. The application proposes an additional first floor extension to the Whitby Road elevation of the building. Work on the previously approved extensions has started on site.

This application is referred to the Planning Panel as the applicant is a local Ward Councillor.

Site Description: The site is a rectangular plot occupying the area at the end of Fairbank Road and Whitby Road and is currently occupied by a part single storey and part two storey building constructed of brick and stone facing and blue slate roofing materials. Construction work has begun on the extension to the property. The main frontage of the building is to Woodlands Terrace to the North and the last use of the site was an A1 Cash and Carry. The site and the surrounding area slopes steeply to the south. The surrounding area is dominated by residential uses consisting mainly of stone built terraced properties. There are no parking restrictions on the roads in the surrounding area.

Relevant Site History: 07/08399/SUB01 – Submission of details of proposed boundary treatment, samples of facing and roofing and full details of the bin storage area to comply with conditions 7, 8, 9 of permission 07/08399/FUL – Granted

07/08399/FUL – New A1 retail units (2) plus refurbishment of existing cash and carry to add additional first floor and A1 retail space – Granted (construction work has started)

95/01505/FUL – Erection of front and side ground floor extensions, first floor roof extensions and formation of side hardstanding – Granted (implemented by the construction of front extension)

93/03211/FUL – Front, side and roof extensions to retail unit – Granted

90/07443/FUL – Installation of new shopfront and security shutters – Granted

- 3 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation The site is not allocated for a specific land use but within a Community Priority Area. This designation has no specific bearing on the current application.

Proposals and Policies Policy UR3 The Local Impact of Development Policy D1 General Design Considerations Policy D3 Access for People with Disabilities Policy CR3A Small Shops Policy CR4A Retail Development Outside Centres Policy TM2 Impact of Traffic and its Mitigation Policy TM11 Parking Standards for Non-Residential Developments Policy TM19A Traffic Management & Road Safety Policy CF6 Community Priority Areas

Parish Council: Not in a Parish.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was advertised by neighbour notification letters and a site notice. The publicity period expired on the 21st April 2009. Two representations have been received.

Summary of Representations Received: y First floor extension will overshadow and be overbearing to neighbouring occupiers. y The proposal will result in additional traffic congestion y The resultant building would be out of character with the surrounding area. y The proposed business would cause harm to neighbours through the generation of noise and general nuisance. Response – These issues are considered in the appraisal below.

Consultations: Highways Development Control – No comments received.

Summary of Main Issues: y Principle of the Development y Visual amenity y Residential amenity y Highway Safety and Access Issues y Community Safety Implications

Appraisal: This is a full planning application for alterations to a previously approved application for extensions to 1 Woodlands Terrace, Girlington. The application proposes an additional first floor extension to the Whitby Road elevation of the building. Work on the previously approved extensions has started on site.

- 4 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Principle of the Development The site is unallocated on the RUDP and so is not protected for any uses other than those which accord with the general policies of RUDP. The previous application permitted the extension of the premises to total floorspace of around 1300sqm. The current application would add a further 45sqm. The principle of the development and its impact on the designated retail centres was considered to be acceptable in the consideration of the previous application. The addition of this relatively modest amount of floorspace is not considered to significantly alter the situation from that which has been previously approved. Consequently the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable subject to its local impact.

Visual Amenity The original building which occupied the site was in poor condition and the redevelopment of the site was considered to be of significant benefit to the streetscene. The previous approval substantially increased the massing of the building and in that context the addition of a further first floor extension is unlikely to have a significantly adverse impact. The proposed extension raises the height of the part of the Whitby Road elevation by around 3m with a sheet metal roof hidden behind a parapet. The section of the Whitby Road elevation closest to the boundary with 45 Whitby Road remains the same height as the previous approval with a hipped roof clad in slates matching those of the original roof. All the facing and roofing materials have been approved as part of the original application and so subject to conditions requiring the use of materials matching those previously approved the proposal is not considered to be harmful to visual amenity.

Residential Amenity The previous approval included a single storey extension to the Whitby Road elevation which was around 6m to the eaves height. This was based on an identical extension which was approved in 1995 which could still be constructed as the permission had been partially implemented. The current application retains a 6m eaves height for around 5m with a hipped roof along the boundary with 45 Whitby Road. Consequently the impact of the proposal on this neighbour is no different to that previously approved.

The proposed extension is more than 20m from the properties opposite the site (to the west) on Whitby Road, which is considered to be sufficiently distant to avoid any significant loss of amenity to the occupiers.

Objections have been received regarding noise and general nuisance that may be generated from the commercial use of the premises. The site carries a long history of commercial use and the proposed extension is not of a scale which would contribute to any significant further detriment in light of previous planning approvals on the site.

Overall the proposal is not considered to be harmful to residential amenity.

Highway Safety and Access Issues The application does not alter the previous car parking layout and the relatively modest increase in the floorspace is unlikely to generate any significant increase in the number of vehicles visiting the site. The proposal is not therefore considered to cause any significant harm to highway safety.

- 5 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Access for People with Disabilities The proposal does not alter the layout from that previously approved with provision of level access and a lift to the first floor. The proposal is considered to provide equal access for people with disabilities in accordance with Policy D3 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Community Safety Implications: The proposal does not present any community safety implications

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The proposed development is not considered to be harmful to the vitality or viability of the designated centres, residential amenity, visual amenity or highway safety and would accord with the requirements of Policies UR3, D1, D3, CR3A, CR4A, TM2, TM11, TM19A and CF6 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Conditions of Approval: 1. Three year time limit 2. Materials to be in accordance with those approved on previous application

- 6 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

- 7 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

- 8 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

9 June 2009

Item Number: 2 Ward: THORNTON AND ALLERTON Recommendation: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

Application Number: 09/01023/COU

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: A resubmission of a full application for change of use of retail unit (former post office) to hot food take-away at 266 Allerton Road, Allerton, Bradford.

Site Description: This is part of a substantial detached stone built property planned on ground and two upper floors. The property is located at the back of pavement facing onto Allerton Road, the main frontage within the local centre. The application is for solely the front ground floor shop of these premises together with two parking spaces accessed from Dene Mount, a residential street with 8 terraced dwellings, to the side. The remainder of the property is in residential use. To the south is the parish church, a listed church building with a garden area between. Opposite at the front is a parade of three shops that includes two takeaways, and the business for sale. Close by are other shops pub and club and a number of other takeaways.

Relevant Site History: 09/01024/ADV Fascia sign with name of shop on front elevation doors and windows Refused 19 May 2009 Lack of information and visual amenity

08/03904/COU Change of use of retail unit (former post office) to hot food take- away Refused 8 December 2008 Reasons 1, Res amenity, 2, intrusive flue, 3, intrusive ramp

97/03138/COU Use of former post office as administration offices together with demolition of garages to form ancillary parking provision Granted 21 November 1997

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation The Bradford West Constituency Proposals Plan includes the site within the Allerton Local Centre and fronting the cycle network. Policies CR1A and TM10 apply respectively

- 9 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Proposals and Policies The Replacement Unitary Development Plan was adopted in October 2005.

By letter dated 30 September 2008 the Secretary of State directed that paragraph 1(2)(a) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 does not apply and that specified policies within the Replacement Unitary Development Plan will continue in force after 31 October 2008. These include policies relied upon for this assessment.

RUDP Policies General policies UR3 (impact on neighbours and the environment), BH4A (Setting of a Listed Building), TM19A (Highway safety), P7 (Noise problems), D1(general design matters) and D3(accessibility) apply to this proposal.

NB Supplementary Planning Guidance “A policy for Cafes Restaurants and Takeaways” will help determine applications for such development.

Parish Council: Not applicable.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The proposal has been publicised by letters sent to near neighbours with a site notice and press notice. The publicity period expired on 17 April 2009. Two comments and a petition against the proposal have been received.

Summary of Representations Received: y No need for another takeaway (12 within 300 yards) y Parking restrictions in Allerton Road already ignored by customers to the post box outside the property, nearby takeaways and pubs/clubs y Bus stop frequent service throughout the day y Telephone kiosk attracts vandals y Adjoining residential street is likely to be use for parking y Access blocked with cars lock in or out y Private property may be used for parking y Noise, litter and smells y Part of residential property y Magnet for unsociable behaviour

The petition signed by 79 people, raises issues of 1) highway safety from parking problems, 2) noise and disturbance on the solemnity and quietness required for worship and prayer throughout the week, 3) litter problems especially within the church garden and 4) the visual impact on the listed church building.

One further objection letter has been received but as this was submitted anonymously its contents can be afforded little weight.

Consultations: Environmental Protection No objections Design& Conservation No Objections

- 10 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Summary of Main Issues: 1, Principle of Development 2. Detailing of the scheme 3. Public Comment

Appraisal: The resubmitted application includes alterations to the flue and the public ramped access to the shop to address two reasons for the previous refusal.

The following appraisal considers the provisions of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan within the context of the wider Development Plan and other considerations material to the proposal.

The applicant is seeking permission for a hot food take-away with operating hours of 11.00 to 23.00 seven days per week. Two parking spaces are identified, behind the property and accessed via Dene Mount to the side.

Principle of development There are two main RUDP policy considerations for this proposal: policies CR1A and UR3 with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance in the Policy for Cafes, Restaurants and Takeaways (the SPG) being relevant.

Policy CR1A states that retailing compatible with the role of the centre would be acceptable within the retailing hierarchy. This would support the proposal.

Policy UR3 states that development would be acceptable provided there were no unacceptable impacts on neighbours or on the local environment.

The hot food SPG encourages the location of such premises within established commercial frontages (policy 2) to avoid unacceptable impact on residential neighbours. But in all cases, the SPG requires the effect on nearby homes to be taken into account.

The main concern for the impact in this case is on the residents within the adjoining residential part of the property and whilst this is currently occupied by the applicant, the premises are arranged so that shop and dwelling can be independently occupied thereby allowing separate and independent use. It is considered appropriate to require a sound-proofing scheme to be submitted to prevent noise disturbance of the residential flat.

There are parking restrictions in the street which would encourage customers to seek alternative and more appropriate parking. Two parking spaces are proposed for the proposal which can accommodate these customers.

Detailing The previous proposal for a ramped access within the street has been omitted thereby overcoming a reason for refusal of the previous application. Access to the shop is existing, includes a small step to the front and would remain unchanged.

- 11 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

The proposal includes an internal flue. This responds to a previous reason for refusal. Sound insulation has not been specified and would be required.

External storage of waste bins is specified but no details of design/appearance are included in the application. A condition is required to overcome the omission.

Public Comment The poor parking arrangements within the centre exist for all traders and there is an established retail use at the premises which will attract parking pressures. The abuse of the parking restrictions is not a planning matter but an issue for the police and the civil parking wardens. Two off street parking spaces can accommodate customers.

It is not the role of the planning system to prevent commercial competition between traders and so, per se, the number of takeaways in the locality is not of immediate concern to the local planning authority.

The question of anti-social behaviour attracted to take-aways is perhaps localised and in that, is not solely a planning problem but one of policing. Nevertheless the gathering of people particularly late after clubs and pubs close for business, would be part of the general disturbance that would impact on nearby residential properties.

The impact of noise and disturbance on the operation of the adjoining church is unlikely to generate intolerable nuisance. The primary hours of worship would not clash with the takeaway use when it is most likely to create a noise and disturbance problem, unlike the impact on residential neighbours. The visual impact refers to the side flue of the first application.

Community Safety Implications: Other than those mentioned above, it is considered the proposal raises no specific problems for safety and security within the community.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission The proposed change of use to Hot Food Takeaway would be compatible with the role of the Allerton local centre and is unlikely to generate unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residents, given the presence of other similar uses within the locality. Detailing of the internal flue and sound proofing and the appearance of the external bin store has not been specified but conditions can address these omissions. The changes made to the proposal following a refusal have dealt with previous concerns for pedestrian safety and the adjoining listed church. Consequently, Replacement Unitary Development Plan policies CR1A, TM19A, D3, BH4A, UR3, P7 and D1 can be satisfied.

- 12 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Conditions of Approval: 1. 3 yrs 2. Sound proofing flue to be submitted and have been approved prior to commencement of development and implemented as approved prior to change of use commencing 3. Scheme for sound proofing the shop to be submitted and have been approved prior to commencement of development and implemented as approved prior to change of use commencing 4. Flue to be finished in a dark, neutral colour 5. Submit details of bin store to be submitted and have been approved prior to commencement of development and implemented as approved

- 13 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

- 14 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

9 June 2009

Item Number: 3 Ward: WIBSEY Recommendation: TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

Application Number: 09/01234/OUT

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: A resubmitted outline planning application for the construction of seven dwellings at 40 Buttershaw Lane, Wibsey, Bradford.

Site Description: The site consists of a large, detached bungalow set in fairly extensive grounds. The surrounding area is mostly residential, although to the south of the site is a medical centre. The surrounding properties vary in type from stone built terraced dwellings to semi-detached and detached properties of more recent construction. At present, the site has access directly off Buttershaw Lane leading to a private drive with provision for many vehicles. The frontage of the site is marked by a stone wall with a hedge line located behind. The site is characterised as a domestic garden with some tree cover, although the only tree of high value is located with the grounds of the medical centre to the south.

Relevant Site History: 08/07398/OUT - Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 7 dwellings, new vehicular access and associated car parking and landscaping – refused 16/02/2009 for reasons of: Adverse overlooking Result in a weak frontage to the detriment of the character of the street scene. No phase II report

08/05375/OUT – Demolition of existing detached house and medical centre and construction of 3 storey medical centre and A1 retail pharmacy with associated car parking and landscaping – approved 17/11/2008

07/00224/OUT – Demolition of existing property and construction of 8 linked town houses – refused 07/03/2007 for reasons of: Inadequate turning facilities; Inadequate information on achievability of visibility splays; Inadequate tree survey Prejudice future development Overlooking and overshadowing

07/03375/OUT – Demolition of existing property and construction of 7. No linked town houses – withdrawn 13/02/2009

- 15 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation The site is not allocated for a specific land-use in the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and therefore the following policies are applicable to the proposal:

Proposals and Policies UDP1 Promoting sustainable patterns of development UDP3 Quality of the built and natural environment UR3 The local impact of development D1 General design considerations D4 Community safety H7 Density expectation H8 Density efficient use of land TM2 Impact of traffic and its mitigation TM12 Parking standards for residential developments TM19A Traffic management and road safety P7 Noise NR16 Surface water run off and sustainable drainage systems

Supplementary Planning Guidance The ‘House Extensions Policy’, adopted in a revised form in February 2003 and offers advice on facing distances normally accepted in residential situations.

Other relevant policies and guidance Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering sustainable development Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing Planning Policy Statement 23: contaminated land Planning Policy Guide note 25: Flood risk

Parish Council: Not applicable.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was publicised by site notice and neighbour notification letters. Expiry date of the publicity period was 22 April 2009. The local planning authority has received six letters of objections.

Summary of Representations Received: The proposal would result in an overcrowded development. Future residents would have insufficient amenity space. Exacerbate existing traffic and parking congestion. The bin store is inappropriately placed adjacent to the highway, appearing Incongruous and would become a target to vandalism. There is no market demand for the dwellings. The proposal will exacerbate existing drainage and flooding problems. Inappropriate density of development. The development will result in overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing of both accommodation and gardens. The development will result in noise disturbance.

- 16 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Consultations: Environmental Protection: Recommended conditions. Drainage Services: suggest suitable conditions and raise some concern over the effect on the watercourse at the boundary of the site. Environment Agency: This application has a low environmental risk. Minerals and Waste: No comments received. Highway Development control: No objections subject to recommended conditions.

Summary of Main Issues: Principle of development Impact upon the local environment Impact upon neighbouring occupants Impact upon highway and pedestrian safety Biodiversity Drainage Community safety Contaminated land Consideration of representations received

Appraisal: The application is made in outline the layout of the buildings, their scale, landscaping and means of access being the matters for consideration and matters of external appearance are reserved for a later stage only. The indicative plans submitted with the application show that the dwellings are arranged in a terrace of six to the rear of the site and a detached “gatehouse” is located to the site frontage. The terraced dwellings are 2.5 storey with the second floor accommodation within the roof space and the detached dwelling is two storey with a monopitch roof. Access is proposed off Buttershaw Lane with parking to the front of the terraced properties. Garden space is provided to the rear of the terraces and side of the detached property. Planning policy for the proposal is outlined in the aforementioned policies of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Principle of development: This is a previously-developed site being residential curtilage within the urban core of Bradford surrounded by other residential development and with good access to a range of local services, facilities and public transport links. The density achieved (59dph) is considered acceptable being higher than 30 dph a minimum set out in PPS3. The site is also unallocated and in a residential area and therefore further residential development is considered to be compatible with the present form of development and would not conflict with advice set out within the Replacement Unitary Development Plan or Government guidance.

Impact upon the local environment: The previous application was refused because it was considered that ‘the proposed layout with the terrace row set to the back of the site behind the detached dwelling would result in a development with a weak frontage and consequently the layout of the buildings would not provide a quality setting to the detriment of the present street scene’.

- 17 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

The layout of the proposed buildings has not been revised since the previous application. The layout indicates that plot 1 will be built flush with Buttershaw Lane and will be integrated with the dry stone boundary wall. The spaces between plot 1, Ivy Terrace and the adjacent medical centre will compliment the contemporary design and the traditional terrace row to the rear will help to create a sympathetic and positive contrast. This the applicant has demonstrated through innovative design that the previous reason for refusal has been overcome. Consequently, the proposed development will make a positive contribution to the areas character and would add interest to the present street scene (policy UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Furthermore, the two storey form with accommodation in the roof space, details of which are to be submitted at a later stage in the planning process, would complement the scale of the surrounding buildings as demonstrated by the sections provided with the applications.

The proposal will result in the removal of a number of trees from the site, none of which are affected by a tree preservation order. A substantial proportion of the trees are in a poor state of health. Although the site contains no protected trees, a tree of relatively high amenity value is located on the site to the south. The large Sycamore is not in good condition and the other trees to the frontage are being removed and replaced as a condition to the Medical Centre application. Consequently no adverse implications are foreseen that are within the remit of determining this application.

Impact upon neighbouring occupants: The previous application was refused because it was considered that the development would result in adverse overlooking. The application is in outline and therefore the position of habitable room windows is yet to be detailed. Nethertheless, the indicative floor plans show that the use of roof lights could ensure that overlooking is designed out and the applicant has therefore demonstrated that the previous reason for refusal has been overcome.

While it is not ideal to have habitable rooms without windows the previous scheme which was approved subject to a 106 agreement showed dwellings with amenity space of approximately 7.5m2 located at the front of the dwelling with no privacy and this situation is not considered to be ideal either. In this case the amenity space is private and covers an area of approximately 36m2 which is considered to be appropriate and reasonable for a family dwelling. On balance, in terms of the quality of living space that the dwelling would provide the proposed scheme is considered to be no worse than the previous scheme.

The dwellings would be sufficiently distant from neighbouring properties to prevent over dominance or overshadowing to a degree that would be harmful to residential amenity surrounding residential properties being in excess of 12 metres to existing dwellings and 9 metres to garden areas (UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan). The site does adjoin garden areas to the north and due to the close proximity there may be some overshadowing. However, the impact of the dwellings is unlikely to be materially worse than the recently approved medical centre, the proposed dwellings being closer but height and massing being significantly smaller. The application would therefore not warrant refusal for this reason.

- 18 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Further residential development is also considered to be compatible with the predominant land use within the vicinity and will not result in disturbance beyond that of the present situation.

Impact upon pedestrian and highway safety: The development achieves adequate visibility splays, sufficient off street parking accommodation and adequate services and it is therefore considered that the layout does not compromise either the free-flow of traffic or road safety (TM2, TM12 and TM19A of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan).

Biodiversity: There is no particular evidence that any protected wildlife will be affected by the proposal though the developer’s attention should be drawn to ‘best practice’ in dealing with such species by an appropriate footnote.

Drainage: An established watercourse runs along the eastern boundary of the site – no details are provided as to how this will be affected by the development. It is, however, considered that a full flood risk assessment is not justified, given that the site falls within a flood risk zone 1 (low risk), and the site occupies less than 1 hectare in area. In consideration of this, only surface water drainage information is required to assess the risk to the water course and that in terms of drainage capacity calculations, this falls within the remit of building control regulations. It is therefore considered appropriate to request full details of the system for surface water drainage to assess the impact on the watercourse.

Community Safety Implications: No undue implications for community safety are foreseen (Replacement Unitary Development Plan policy D4).

Contaminated land: The desk top report has identified that there may be some risk of contamination from former land uses at the site, although given that Environment Agency and Environmental Protection have not objected to the proposal it is considered that standard planning conditions could be attached to the decision notice to pick up any issues during and post construction work.

Consideration of representations received: The objectors concerns have been covered in the appraisal above. However, the issue relating to there being no market demand for the dwellings is not a matter for planning consideration and the matter relating to the appearance of the bin storage will be dealt with as part of the reserved matter application.

- 19 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Reason for Granting Planning Permission The development is considered to be an efficient use of previously developed land, which will not adversely affect residential amenity, visual amenity, highway safety or the free flow of traffic in the locality to a material degree. No insurmountable problems with regard to foul and surface water drainage, community safety or land contamination are likely. Consequently the development subject to conditions is considered to comply with policies UDP1, UDP3, UR3, H7, H8, D1, D4, TM2, TM12, TM19A, NE5, NR16 and P7 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan, national guidance in PPS1 and PPS3 and supplementary planning guidance contained within the revised House Extensions Policy Document.

Conditions of Approval: Submission of details: three year limit; Time limits on commencement of work; Reserved matters to be approved; Construct access before occupation; Visibility splays to be provided; Turning area provided before use; Provision of domestic parking before use; There shall be no outside storage of materials; Drainage to be on separate systems; Trapped gullies: installed prior to use; Details of a scheme for separate foul and surface water drainage, including any balancing works or off-site works. If watercourse, culvert or land drain is encountered details for maintaining the integrity of that watercourse, culvert or land drain is required. Ground levels at the boundary of the site shall not be changed unless agreed in writing. A phase II investigation and risk assessment required to be submitted and approved in writing by LPA prior to commencement of development. Remediation scheme to be approved in writing by LPA prior to commencement of development. Remediation scheme as approved must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development. Gas protection measures for the residential properties shall be submitted to and approved in writing by LPA prior to commencement of development and implemented as approved during construction phase. A landfill gas monitoring scheme shall be submitted and approved in writing by LPA prior to commencement of development and implemented as approved during construction phase. A groundwater monitoring scheme shall be submitted and approved in writing by LPA prior to commencement of development and implemented as approved during construction phase. PD rights removed general. Details of boundary treatments to be submitted and approved in writing by LPA prior to commencement of development and implemented as approved prior to first occupation. Approved landscaping to be implemented.

- 20 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

- 21 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

- 22 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

9 June 2009

Item Number: 4 Ward: IDLE & THACKLEY Recommendation: TO DELGATE BACK TO OFFICERS TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION TO ANY FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED BEFORE EXPIRATION OF PUBLICITY PERIOD

Application Number: 09/01855/OUT

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Outline planning application for the construction of one dwelling at land to the south of 79 Bradford Road, Idle, Bradford.

Site Description: The application site is triangular in shape and covers an area of approximately 413m2 it is undeveloped and grassed over, a large maple tree is located within the southern corner. The site slopes from east to west and southeast to west. The predominant land use is residential with high density Victorian terraced housing featuring heavily. To the north of the site is a short parade of commercial properties and 79 Bradford Road is presently occupied as a restaurant/takeaway.

Relevant Site History: 08/04206/OUT Construction of one dwelling house – withdrawn 18/02/2009

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation The site is not allocated for a specific land-use in the Replacement Unitary Development Plan but is located alongside a national and local cycle network and therefore the following policies are applicable to the proposal:

Proposals and Policies UDP1 Promoting Sustainable Patterns of Development; UDP3 Quality of Built and Natural Environment; UR3 The Local Impact of Development; H7 Housing Density – Expectation; H8 Housing Density – Efficient Use of Land; TM2 Impact of Traffic and its Mitigation; TM10 National & Local Cycle Network; TM12 Parking Standards for Residential Developments; TM19A Traffic Management and Road Safety; D1 General Design Considerations; D4 Community Safety; D5 Landscaping; NE5 Retention of Trees on Development Sites; NE6 Protection of Trees During Development; NR16 Surface Water Run Off and Sustainable Drainage Systems; and P7 Noise

- 23 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Supplementary Planning Guidance The ‘House Extensions Policy’, adopted in a revised form in February 2003 and offers advice on facing distances normally accepted in residential situations.

Other Relevant Policies and Guidance Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering sustainable development Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing

Parish Council: Not applicable.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was publicised by press, site notice and neighbour notification letters. Expiry date 12/06/2009. To date the local planning authority has received two letters of objection.

Summary of Representations Received: The dwelling would obstruct the restaurant’s sign from public view and as a result would harm the business. The land is currently used for recreational purposes. The restaurant has the potential to cause disturbance to future occupants particularly at unsociable hours. The development will result in overlooking. Exacerbate traffic congestion. Harmful to children playing in the road. It will not be in keeping with the architectural styles of other buildings within close proximity. Result in overshadowing

Consultations: Rights of Way Section: The Rights of Way Section has concerns regarding the impact of this development on Bradford North Public Footpath 123 which abuts the site and object to the development. The submitted plans show insufficient detail as to boundary treatments, measurements, proposed path improvements etc to fully assess the impact of the development on the public footpath. Highways Development Control: No comments received to date. Drainage Services: No objection subject to recommended conditions. Design and Conservation: No comments received to date. Trees Section: The proposal meets the minimum distances to trees and therefore no objection subject to recommended condition. Minerals Section: No comment

Summary of Main Issues: 1. Principle of development 2. Reserved matters 3. Access 4. Layout

- 24 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

5. Scale 6. Appearance 7. Landscaping 8. Community safety 9. Consideration of representations received

Appraisal: The application is made in outline with all matters being reserved for a later stage. The indicative plans submitted indicate that a detached two storey dwelling will be built parallel and abutting to 79 Bradford Road and will have a floor area of 55m2. A large garden area will be located to the south of the dwelling (extending approximately 21 metres alongside Bradford Road) and a hard surfaced area for parking is proposed to the east of the dwelling that will be accessed from Back Cavendish Road an unmade service road. Planning policy for the proposal is outlined in the aforementioned policies of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Decision Route The application has been referred to planning committee as the applicant is, and site is owned by, The of Bradford Metropolitan District Council.

Principle of development The site is unallocated in the Replacement Unitary Development Plan but is not previously developed. The grassed area is of limited size and the recreational and visual value of the space is limited. Thus, the development would, if done sensitively, potentially improve the areas appearance and character and provide further housing to meet local and national targets.

The site is located within the urban core of Bradford surrounded by other residential and commercial development and with good access to a range of local services, facilities and public transport links. The proposal represents a density of less than 22 dwellings per hectare that, though under government minimum targets, is considered acceptable given constraints imposed by trees such that is could not accommodate additional units. Furthermore, due to the small scale of development and type of unit no social contributions are sought. Consequently, the principle of development is considered acceptable subject to its local impact (policy UDP1, UDP3, UR3, H7, H8 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan).

Reserved matters Although the application is in the form of a basic outline plan, with all matters reserved, it is considered appropriate and prudent to assess the main reserved matters with this submission in order to assess the viability of the scheme.

Access The indicative development will be accessed from Back Cavendish Road (unadopted). The access road is substandard but it currently serves approximately 30 dwellings and it is not considered that one further dwelling will significantly exacerbate the current situation. Furthermore, two off street parking spaces have been provided which is above the maximum standards required by the local planning authority and therefore it is not considered that the development would significantly add to congestion (policy TM2, TM12 and TM19A of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan).

- 25 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Layout The indicative dwelling is detached and though the dwellings immediately adjoining the site are terraces it would be of similar dimensions in terms of footprint and would respect existing building lines particularly those of Bradford Road which provide a strong street scene. A mature protected tree is located to the south of the site and the dwelling would be located five metres from its root protection areas. This distance is sufficient to prevent any adverse impacts to its health (policies NE5 and NE6 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan).

The dwellings would be sufficiently distant from neighbouring property to prevent over dominance or overshadowing of a degree that would be harmful to residential amenity. No significant habitable room windows being located within the side elevation of either 79 Bradford Road or 1 The Grove. Overlooking is an issue for consideration as part of a submission for the design of the dwellings as a ‘reserved matter’. However, no insurmountable problems are foreseen the most likely primary elevations (east and west) being in excess of 21 metres from neighbouring dwellings.

The plans illustrate that two off street car parking spaces would be provided and the development is therefore in accordance with the Council’s recommended parking standards. Thus, the development is unlikely to adversely affect the free flow of traffic (policies TM2, TM12 and TM19A of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan).

The development and residential land use once complete is not considered to be likely to give rise to unreasonable levels of noise, general disturbance or light pollution over levels to be expected in a residential area (policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan).

While it is not ideal to site dwellings adjacent to takeaways/restaurants, due to the constraints caused by the tree there are no other feasible locations for the dwelling. Furthermore buyers will be aware of the situation when purchasing the property (policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan).

Scale The indicative two-storey form, details of which are to be submitted at a later stage in the planning process, would complement the scale of the adjacent buildings (policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan).

Appearance It is considered that the design of the development subject to appropriate detailing and use of materials would have a positive contribution on the areas character and would complement its context without harming the setting of the nearest listed buildings which are approximately 35 metres from the application site (policies UR3 and D1 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan).

Landscaping No details are supplied in this respect, however, it is considered that appropriate boundary treatment and soft landscaping would be possible in this location (policy D5 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan). The concerns raised by the Rights of Way Section can be ameliorated at reserved matters stage when boundary treatments will be a consideration.

- 26 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Drainage The Drainage Service Team has raised no concerns regarding potential surface water flooding and therefore the development is considered to be in accordance with policies UR3 and NR16 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan. Furthermore, the developer/land owner is under an obligation not to affect watercourses or overland drainage to the detriment of adjacent landowners as part of legislation separate to the planning Acts.

Community Safety Implications: No undue security implications are foreseen and the proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policy D4 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Consideration of representations received The objectors concerns have been covered in the appraisal above. However, issues relating to adverse impact on trade are not an issue for planning consideration. Harm to children playing in the road is not a material planning consideration the road being public highway and not intended as a play area.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission The development is considered to be an efficient use of previously developed land, which will not adversely affect residential amenity, mature trees, visual amenity, highway safety or the free flow of traffic in the locality to a material degree. No insurmountable problems with regard to foul and surface water drainage or community safety are foreseen. Consequently the development subject to conditions is considered to comply with policies UDP1, UDP3, UR3, H7, H8, TM2, TM10, TM12, TM19A, D1, D4, D5, NE5, NE6, NR16 and P7 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan, national guidance in PPS1 and PPS3.

Conditions of Approval: 1. Submission of details: three year limit 2. Time limit on commencement of work 3. Reserved matters to be approved 4. Separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water 5. Investigation for the potential to use sustainable drainage techniques 6. Tree protective fencing

- 27 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

- 28 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

9 June 2009

Item Number: 5 Ward: THORNTON AND ALLERTON Recommendation: THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED

Application Number: 09/01094/COU

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Proposed change of use of vacant ground floor office to private hire taxi office and amended layout at the former Sandy Lane Garage, Wilsden Road, Bradford.

Site Description: The site is wholly commercial in character and consists of a hand car wash in addition to a car repair garage and car valeting garage and a former taxi office. The site fronts onto Wilsden Road where access to the site is gained via two separate entrances with dropped kerbs. Railings front onto Wilsden Road and are currently covered with banners advertising various uses at the site including the car wash use and adverts for other uses off site. The surrounding area consists of residential properties and a park is located opposite the site.

Relevant Site History: 08/07367/COU: Change of use vacant ground floor office to taxi office. Refused planning permission for the following reason: The proposal when added to the other developments on the same site would lead to an over intensification of use and subsequently fails to provide sufficient and suitable provision within the site for taxis in accordance with the parking standards contained within Appendix C of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan. As such the proposed development would result in greater on-street car parking along Wilsden Road to the detriment of the safe and free flow of traffic on the highway and would restrict visibility at access and egress points. For this reason the proposed development is unacceptable when measured against policies TM2 and TM19A of the Council's Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

08/03067/COU: Retention of change of use from car sales to hand car wash and office Granted 08/00410/COU: Change of use from sales garage to hand car wash including the construction of a detached valeting bay to the front of the building. Refused on the grounds of insufficient information regarding highways and drainage. 96/01954/COU: Change of use of vacant office to private hire booking office Granted.

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Proposals and Policies

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

- 29 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Proposals and Policies Relevant policies are: UDP1: Promoting sustainable patterns of development UDP3: Restraining Development UR2: Promoting sustainable development UR3: The local impact of the development TM2: Impact of traffic and its mitigation TM12: Parking Standards TM19A: Traffic management and road safety D1: General design considerations

Parish Council: Sandy Lane Parish Council: No comments received.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was publicised by neighbour notification letter and site notice, with representations being requested by 01/05/2009. Nine letters of objection have been received from six different properties.

Summary of Representations Received: The tyre fitting bay is located where the taxi parking is proposed: Response: The parking bays can be conditioned to be kept available for parking of taxis.

Cars are for sale where the car wash spaces are proposed: Response; A condition could be attached that the parking spaces are kept available for parking of vehicles in connection with the approved uses.

Movement through the site: Response: This has been addressed in the amended layout.

On-street parking: Response: Whilst a concern the amended layout provides sufficient usable parking within the site.

Vehicles reversing and turning in the road and using private drives

Signage: Response: Currently being addressed under separate legislation

Advertisement of the application: Response: This has been addressed by re-advertising the application closer to the neighbouring residential properties.

A school bus stop directly outside the site Noise pollution/ Radio noise particularly during unsociable hours. Response: Whilst a concern the potential noise along is not considered enough to warrant a refusal.

- 30 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Advertisements exist showing what is opening soon. Is the taxi office going to be 24hrs. Response: It is considered a time limit restriction in this location would not be necessary.

Consultations: Highways DC: A case conference was carried out with the main concern being the access to the taxi and car wash customer parking. It was concluded that amendments defining a keep clear area so that vehicles could travel through the site to the parking spaces would be required.

Summary of Main Issues: The main issues relate to: i) the principle of the development, ii) highway safety, iii) residential amenity, iv) visual amenity.

Appraisal: Each of the main issues will now be considered.

Principle of the development The site is unallocated within the RUDP and the area is itself commercial in character. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle subject to impact on residential amenity, highway safety and visual amenity.

Highway safety The site is currently used for a number of businesses including a car garage and a hand car wash which have planning permission. There is also an empty taxi office at first floor level which got planning permission in 1996 under application 96/01954/COU. These uses are within the red outline as shown on the submitted plans. The hand car wash was granted planning permission with attached conditions one of which stated the parking shall be marked out within four weeks to ensure that car parking is properly provided on site in the interests of highway safety and to prevent cars queuing on Wilsden Road whilst waiting to be cleaned. A footnote was also attached to the permission for the car wash explaining that re-use of the vacant taxi office would result in highway safety concerns. The previous taxi office was approved on the basis that the cars on the forecourt which were on sale would be removed to allow sufficient space for parking of taxis. To date, the parking bays hadn’t been laid out in accordance with the approved plans. Should approval be given for the taxi office a condition is recommended that the bays are laid out as shown on the approved plans.

- 31 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

The amended layout of the site provides 5 parking spaces for the taxi use which complies with parking standards contained within Appendix C of the replacement Unitary Development Plan. These spaces are accessible through the amended layout of the site which shows a keep clear area which was previously shown as part of the car wash area. This area will be conditioned to be painted out as a keep clear area and maintained as such thereafter to ensure access to parking area is maintained. The amended plan provides sufficient off street parking for all the uses on the site therefore is considered to be acceptable in terms of highway safety as it will not add further pressure in terms of on-street parking and will stop cars backing up onto Wilsden Road. Further the taxis can turn round within the site rather than turning in the road and using adjacent streets addressing concerns of local residents. The proposed change of use and amended layout is considered to be acceptable in terms of policies TM19A and TM2 of the RUDP.

Residential amenity The proposed relates to a site which is set back from the street frontage. The site is not located immediately adjacent to housing although neighbouring gardens abut the south site of the site. The compound itself is set into the hillside. There will be no adverse effects from headlights when taxis are moving around the site. Noise generated from engines car doors shutting will largely be contained within the site. Although noise from car radios is a concern of planning excessive noise would be controlled via separate legislation. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity and is considered to accord with policies UR3 and D1 of the RUDP.

Visual amenity It is not considered that the private hire will be detrimental to the appearance of the premises. Whilst there are a number of advertisements on the site these are being addressed by the planning department under separate legislation.

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

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The proposed change of use of an existing office to a taxi office with an amended layout to the site subject to the attached conditions is considered to be acceptable in terms of visual and residential amenity and is not considered to raise any highway safety implications. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of policies UR3, D1, TM2, TM19A and TM12 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Conditions of Approval/Reasons for Refusal: 1. Standard time limit on commencement 2. Provision of dedicated parking spaces. 3. Number of taxis operating from the site limited to ten. 4. Separate foul and surface water drainage. 5. Complianced with amended plans. 6. Provision of “Keep Clear Area”. 7. Provision of spray screen panels to car wash area,

- 32 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

- 33 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

- 34 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

9 June 2009

Item Number: 6 Ward: QUEENSBURY Recommendation: TO BE MINDED TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION SUBJECT TO A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT DELEGATED TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PLANNING

Heads of Terms of the Section 106 Legal Agreement:

1. Payment of £65,250 towards off-site tree planting and landscaping 2. The Applicant to carry out the works to upgrade the pedestrian footpath connecting Sand Beds to the site in relation to both surfacing and lighting

Application Number: 09/01355/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: This is a full planning application for the construction of a foodstore with associated access, car parking, landscaping, ancillary plant and equipment on land at Brighouse Road, Queensbury. The purpose of this duplicate application has been to negotiate a number of significant improvements to the original application 08/03991/FUL which was refused on 23/12/08 and is currently subject to an appeal.

These improvements relate to the access to the site, the retaining wall to the north west of the site, the treatment and the retaining wall to the north east of the site and improvements to the design of the building itself. The application is for the construction of a food store with associated access, car parking, landscaping, ancillary plant and equipment at land at Brighouse Road, Queensbury, Bradford.

Site Description: A site of 1.2 hectares to the north-east of Brighouse Road comprising overgrown grassland with a number of mature trees and, at a lower level, an area of flat, hard- surfacing part of which is now being re-colonised by trees. Generally, stone boundary walls enclose the land, notably along Brighouse Road, with a public footpath along a section of the north-eastern boundary. The site is surrounded by a mix of land uses: traditional commercial premises fronting Sand Beds, 19th and 20th century residential properties to the north, east and south plus a restaurant to the south-east. To the south-west, on the opposite side of Brighouse Road, is the main body of the grade II listed multi-storey Black Dyke Mill that remains in employment generating uses. Access to the site is taken directly from the A644 Brighouse Road, almost opposite one of two main vehicular routes into Black Dyke Mills.

Relevant Site History: 08/03991/FUL: Construction of a food store with associated access, car parking, landscaping, ancillary plant and equipment, refused on the 23rd December 2008 on the grounds that it would have a detrimental impact on the economic vitality and viability of the defined Queensbury local centre, and, it would fail to enhance the character of the Queensbury Conservation Area in light of its close proximity to a grade II Listed Building within the conservation area.

- 35 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

03/01531/VOC: Variation of condition 14 on approval number 02/01213/OUT to permit unrestricted trading hours and 24 hour servicing with the exception that servicing on a Sunday be restricted to the hours of 10.00 - 17.00, refused 12 June 2003 due to harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents.

02/01490/VOC and 02/01493/VOC: Variations of condition 15 of planning permission 94/03491/FUL, both granted 26 July 2002.

02/01412/FUL and 02/01500/FUL: Construction of retail development, both granted 5 July 2002.

02/01213/OUT: Class A1 food store with associated parking and servicing facilities, granted 11 February 2003. 02/00656/FUL and 02/01127/FUL: Variation and discharge respectively of conditions 3, 11, 12, and 13 of planning permission 94/03491/FUL, both granted 21 May 2002.

01/03166/VOC: Variation of conditions 5 and 15 of planning approval 94/03491/FUL relating to construction of building, refused 8 November 2001 due to lack of justification.

94/03522/FUL: Construction of 81 space car park also improvement of mill access by realigning Brighouse Road and forming new single point access to car park, granted 16 December 1997.

94/03491/FUL: Mixed food and non-food retail development, granted 16 December 1997.

94/00240/FUL: Construction of mill car park, refused 17 March 1994.

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation The site is not allocated for a particular land use in the RUDP though part of it is included within the Queensbury Conservation Area.

Proposals and Policies 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 UR6 Planning Obligations and Conditions CR1A Retail Development within Centres CR4A Other Retail Development TM1 Transport Assessment TM2 Impact of Traffic and its Mitigation TM6 Bus Priority TM8 New Pedestrian and Cycle Links TM10 The National and Local Cycle Network TM11 Parking Standards for Non-Residential Developments TM19 Cycle Parking TM19A Traffic Management and Road Safety

- 36 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

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 D13 Shop Fronts D14 External Lighting D15 Advertisements BH4A Setting of Listed Buildings BH7 New Development in Conservation Areas BH10 Open Space Within or Adjacent to Conservation Areas BH11 Space about Buildings in Conservation Areas NE4 Trees and Woodlands NE5 Retention of Trees on Development Sites NE6 Protection of Trees during Development NE10 Protection of Natural Features and Species NE11 Ecological Appraisals NR16 Surface Water Run-off and Sustainable Drainage Systems P5 Development Close to Former Landfill Sites P7 Noise

Other policy guidance includes: Planning Policy Statement 6 Planning for Town Centres (PPS6) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 Transport Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 Planning and the Historic Environment Planning Policy Statement 23 Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23) Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk

Sustainable Design Guide Planning for Crime Prevention

Parish Council: Not applicable in this instance.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The proposal was publicised by press notice, site notice and neighbour notification letters. The expiry date for the publicity period was the 27th May 2009. This report has been written prior to the end date for the publicity period and as such contains the comments received to date. Members will be verbally updated at the Panel Meeting with regard to any further comments received as part of the publicity exercise.

As a result of the publicity period 33 letters have been received supporting the proposal whilst 8 letters have been received objecting to the proposal.

- 37 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Summary of Representations Received: Objectors comments: The plans are identical to the ones refused as part of application 08/03991/FUL Increase in traffic Increase in emissions from increase in vehicles The Traffic Survey only looks at fatalities in the last 5 years, the last fatality was in excess of 5 years ago Queensbury is a village, not a town as referred to by Tesco’s Designation of the site would be reconsidered either for housing or leisure, not for retail Impact on the Conservation Area Tesco expansion in Bradford needs to be stemmed – it is a well known fact that they have a deliberate tactic of squeezing out other supermarkets in an anti-competitive fashion The information provided at the exhibition was misleading in relation to the size of the store The stretch of road is unsuitable for exit and egress from adjacent sites The positioning of the service yard will impact on neighbours through noise Lighting masts will result in light nuisance to neighbours The proposed opening hours of the store are unacceptable and will harm the neighbours Pedestrian access via Sand Beds would lead to greater use of the crossroads by pedestrians There is no need for a new supermarket in this location Impact of the store on existing uses The car park will not genuinely serve the needs of the villagers The store could blight the village for decades to come The site is on the former Queensbury Gas Works and any work on the site will disturb toxic materials

Supporters comments: The existing shops are overpriced and poor quality The store will ensure high quality foods that are easily accessible to all residents in the area The regeneration of the site will make the entrance to Queensbury more aesthetically pleasing Public transport to the local Co-op is virtually non-existent It will provide jobs The type of shops that exist on the High Street will not be affected by the proposed supermarket A lot of the residents no longer shop in Queensbury Retention of the trees It will compliment the adjacent listed building

- 38 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Consultations: Trees Section – No objection subject to the retention of the trees along the Brighouse Road frontage Highways – No objection subject to amended footpath arrangements Drainage Services – No objection, conditions sought Design and Conservation – The impact on the conservation area, its setting and the Listed Building is now acceptable with the benefits derived from the development of an unsightly site off-setting the loss of trees and open green space Environment Agency – No objection, conditions sought Environmental Protection – No objection, conditions sought Minerals Section – The site is located in close proximity to land fill sites as well as including a gas works and bricks works within its confines. There is therefore a high risk that the uses could have left a significant legacy of land contamination West Yorkshire Police – No objection, appropriate conditions sought West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive – No objection in principle, account should be taken of the existing bus stops along Brighouse Road and if they need moving this should be included within the costs. A Travel Plan should also be adopted by Tesco’s. Design Enabler – Fully supportive of the proposal Landscape Section – The submission is insufficient in relation to outlining the details of the boundary wall to Brighouse Road. Objection to the loss of trees along the Brighouse Road frontage Planning and Highways Access Forum – No objection

Summary of Main Issues: Background Principle of retail development Sequential approach and accessibility Quantitative and qualitative need Impact on vitality and viability Residential amenity Visual amenity and historic context Trees Highway safety and access Other planning matters Remaining matters raised by representations

Appraisal: Background The proposal relates to the construction of a food store with a gross internal floor area of approximately 2391 square metres. This area does include external cage marshalling area (130 square metres) and an entrance lobby (61 square metres). The net tradable sales area equates to 1800 square metres. Ancillary car parking, service areas and landscaping are also included within the proposal. The applicant states that 90% (1,620m2) of the sales area will be used for convenience goods, the remaining 10% (180m2) for comparison (non-food) goods. In order to put this into scale, the recently built Co-Op store at Clayton has a gross floor area of 1,528m2 with a sales area conditioned to a maximum of 1,072m2 of which comparison goods shall not be greater than 10%.

- 39 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

The site has a planning history that includes the full permission for a food store of 1,394m2 (gross) and a non-food retail unit of 929m2 (gross) approved in December 1997 and subject to variations of conditions that effectively renewed the permission in 2002. Detailed permissions have also been granted under 02/01412/FUL and 02/01500/FUL to deal with drainage issues conditioned as part of the 1997 approval. It is understood that the conditions precedent have been satisfied and development has been started on site. Subsequently, a 3,251m2 (gross) supermarket submitted by Morbaine Ltd on the site was granted outline planning permission in February 2003; the sales area was conditioned to a maximum of 2,276m2, of which no more than 20% (455m2) could be used for the sale of non-food items. Whilst this approved the principle of a food retail store on the site no follow-up detailed application was submitted and this permission has now lapsed. The proposal for a Tesco store (Application 08/03991/FUL) was received on the 17/06/08 and refused on the 23/12/08 and is currently subject to an Appeal.

Principle of retail development The RUDP sets out a hierarchy of centres and a strategy for them to meet the different needs of shoppers as required by government retail planning policy. The hierarchy comprises (1) Bradford city centre and below that (2) a number of district centres and (3) local centres. Queensbury is designated in the third tier local centre in this hierarchy, the area of which is tightly drawn around the premises flanking High Street, Chapel Street and Sand Beds the nearest second tier (district) centre is Great Horton.

Sequential Approach and Accessibility Whilst the site is outside the RUDP-defined local centre, the boundary of which is tightly drawn around the commercial uses arranged along Sand Beds and High Street, it immediately abuts the north-western edge of the site. The store would have an ‘edge-of-centre’ location, which would be the same classification as the two other approvals on the site. The proposal requires a site area that can not be accommodated elsewhere within the local centre without a substantial level of clearance work as no alternative site is available. As the local centre is almost wholly included within the Queensbury Conservation Area, such demolition would be unlikely to preserve and enhance the historic core of the settlement. The site is adjacent to public transport routes along Sand Beds and to a lesser extent Brighouse Road and the proposed pedestrian link to Sand Beds would facilitate access from the existing local centre.

The distance of the store’s entrance from the nearest point of the Queensbury local centre would be 105 metres via a proposed dedicated pedestrian walkway with steps up to Sand Beds; via the less attractive Brighouse Road footway, this distance would be 130 metres. PPS6 advises that a distance of up to 300 metres is an easy walking distance but also notes that local circumstances should be taken into account, which includes topography, attractiveness and perceived safety of the route and the strength of attraction by, and size of, the centre. The store would not be significantly separated either physically or and visually from the existing Queensbury local centre and is considered to be reasonably attractive to those wishing to make linked shopping trips. In sequential terms, the proposal is considered acceptable.

- 40 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Quantitative and Qualitative Need The applicant has submitted a detailed retail statement using data from a District-wide Retail Study published in June 2008 that includes qualitative and quantitative assessments to support the proposal. Since the ‘Co-Op’ store was constructed in the 1970’s, there has been no significant increase in convenience goods floorspace in Queensbury resulting in an outflow of expenditure from the area and a quantitative need for some additional floorspace to be created.

The Applicant has submitted further justification in the form of a Supplementary Retail Impact Assessment which states that since 2005 ‘the convenience sector has experienced limited investment with there being only the addition of a bakers shop locating in High Street. The centre still continues to lack a full range and choice of convenience goods outlets as there is no butcher, fishmonger or greengrocer. The Co-op store remains the only general grocery store and is too small to provide a full main food shopping offer’. There has been no investment in foodstore shopping in Queensbury for over 35 years.

With regard to vacant units the Report suggests that ‘vacancies have reduced since 2005 from 10 to 7 representing an 11.9% vacancy rate compared with the national average of 11.69%. There is evidence of new investment in the centre since 2005 particularly in the service sector with the number of estate agents increasing from 2 to 5. However, this type of use has a more limited positive effect in terms of generating customer footfall than convenience and comparison goods shops’. It goes onto conclude that ‘given the competition that the centre faces from larger stores and centres elsewhere it appears to be generally maintaining its position but there is an overall reduction in its Class A1 shopping function and a shift in the balance between shops to service uses’.

Having assessed the applicants study it is considered at a that a robust justification has been made to demonstrate that there is a “need” to provide the additional retail floorspace proposed and as such the proposal would comply with this important retail planning policy test.

Impact on Vitality and Viability The applicant’s retail assessment suggests that the store is primarily intended to perform a main food shopping role, which is currently met by existing larger stores that divert spending away from Queensbury. As these larger stores are trading at or above their benchmark levels, the proposal raises no implications for other retail centres in the District. In terms of the Queensbury local centre, the RUDP and a recent Council Retail Study indicate that there is a need for additional albeit limited retail provision in the settlement to retain spending in Queensbury, promote linked trips and minimise the distance needed for convenience shopping.

- 41 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

The Supplementary Retail Impact Assessment predicts in paragraph 3.7 that ‘only 7 of the 59 units within the centre will experience any direct competition from the Tesco store due to the overlap of goods. This relates to the 5 convenience goods outlets and 2 comparison goods outlets (i.e. the florist and chemist). This means that 52 of the units in the centre (i.e. 88% of the total number of units) will not experience any direct competitive effect from the proposed store’. It goes onto state in paragraph 3.9 that ‘the most direct impact will be on the Co-op store which does provide a limited main food shopping offer at present. However, experience suggests that the Co-op store should be capable of withstanding this competition and it is not anticipated that the Co-op will close as a result of the additional competition’. Finally it states in paragraph 3.11 that ‘the overall effect of the proposal on the convenience goods shopping function of the centre will be positive. It is anticipated that existing competitive convenience goods retailers within the centre will continue to provide the complementary offer that allows them to attract customers who currently choose not to shop in larger food stores or who supplement their main food shopping with top up shopping in local stores’.

For these reasons, it is considered that the development is of a scale commensurate with previously approved proposals on the site, will not have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the existing local centre, is reasonably accessible by a range of transport modes and no alternative site is practically available. The principle of the development therefore complies with national and local retailing policies.

Residential Amenity Given that the principle of retailing is acceptable in this location, the detailed impact of such a use on adjacent housing must be weighed. The proposed hours of operation are from 7am to 11pm on Mondays to Saturdays, and in accordance with statutory Sunday trading restrictions. It is not anticipated that the supermarket would be busy from 7am and whilst deliveries are likely at this time, they would be made via the service yard to the south-eastern side of the building, away from the main group of residential properties that bound the site to the north-east. The adjoining boundary would be protected by acoustic fencing to minimise noise transfer and delivery hours could be controlled by a condition. Similarly, a condition to provide noise attenuation to any air-conditioning or refrigeration units and to minimise glare from lighting can be imposed. The main focus of activity around the access point off Brighouse Road, the car park and store entrance is not considered to lead to noise or other disturbance of neighbouring residents.

The building is of a scale, height and distance from adjacent dwellings to prevent any adverse impact through over dominance or overshadowing. The lack of windows facing neighbouring properties and the provision of high fencing as appropriate will prevent overlooking being increased. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to comply with policies UR3 and D1 in terms of its effects on residential amenity.

- 42 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Visual Amenity and Historic Context The proposal would effectively clear, level and re-develop the whole of the site in a single co-ordinated manner. As the site has been the subject of previous development across a significant area, all of which is now cleared, the new building will not harm the setting of the nearby listed buildings, particularly as adequate separation exists. The proposed position, scale and size of the building is a response to a number of functional requirements such as means of access, servicing, car parking, floor space needs of the supermarket and landscaping. Within these constraints, the proposed development has been improved to ensure it makes a more positive contribution to its prominent location on Brighouse Road partially within the Queensbury Conservation Area. These improvements relate to four elements of the scheme namely, the access to the site, details of the retaining wall to the car park, details of the treatment to the rear of the store and improvements to the proposed store itself.

Access to the site The impact of this scheme on the conservation area has been reduced considerably by a reappraisal of the access. By not building out the pavement opposite and by reassessing the need for a left hand slip road it has been found to be possible to retain the majority of the original stone wall and the mature trees on the south western boundary. The numbers retained by the original scheme was four and the numbers retained by the improved scheme is twenty. It is considered that this measure will substantially reduce the impact that this proposal will have on visual amenity and the conservation area.

Retaining Wall The retaining wall which screens the car parking to the west of the site will be built of natural stone rather than the brick/stone combination shown in the original scheme. This part of the site is within the conservation area. It is considered that this measure will also reduce the impact that this proposal will have on visual amenity and the conservation area.

Treatment to the rear of the store The treatment to the rear of the store was unresolved in the original scheme. The boundary of the site is also, in part, the boundary of the conservation area. The submitted drawing shows how this area is to be constructed and landscaped and how the impact of the proposed scheme will be reduced in terms of visual amenity and the conservation area.

Treatment to the store itself It was felt that the design of the store itself could be improved in order to reduce the impact on visual amenity and the conservation area. The most significant improvement is the incorporation of the roof to the main entrance to be integrated into the roof or the store itself. The result is that the design has a more integrated and well designed appearance that reduces its impact in terms of visual amenity and the conservation area.

- 43 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

It is considered appropriate that all materials be subject to a condition to ensure their quality. Control of advertising would be exercised through the necessity to submit an application for express advertisement consent to the Local Planning Authority. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of visual amenity and its impact on the historic character of the surroundings.

Trees The revised scheme incorporates the trees along the frontage to Brighouse Road. The Trees Officer has not objected to the proposal subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. One such condition relates to the requirement to submit a Method Statement in relation to any works carried out around the retained trees to ensure their retention.

Whilst it is regrettable that trees of such clear amenity value are to be lost there is no viable alternative to providing access, which in practical terms, is the crux of developing the site.

Highway safety and access As noted briefly above, the proposal includes alterations to the alignment and width of Brighouse Road along the site frontage that would provide suitable and safe vehicular access into the site. These works would also make provision for vehicular access to land allocated for significant development opportunities at Black Dyke Mills to the south-west of Brighouse Road, which could not otherwise be achieved without the demolition of a substantial section of an important elevation of the grade II listed building. The proposal would require a number of other off-site highway works namely, provision of a pedestrian refuge, traffic regulation orders and white lining to Brighouse Road and a light-controlled pedestrian crossing to Sand Beds that will be linked to an upgraded MOVA traffic light system at the A644/A647 cross roads. It is not a practical proposition to re-engineer this crossroads to provide increased carriageway width as the land involved it outside the applicant’s ownership/control. In any case, there is insufficient land available due to the presence of buildings that contribute to the character of the conservation area stand to the back edge of the existing footway significantly constraining this junction. Access into the site follows that of previously approved schemes with a standard junction arrangement of an appropriate geometry to cater for delivery vehicles as well as the private cars of customers.

The proposal incorporates a pedestrian access which links Sand Beds with the application site. The positioning of the footpath was to the immediate east of Prospect House. However it was considered that this would lead to conflict between pedestrians visiting the application site and pedestrians/vehicles using the car park serving Prospect House. Comments were received from the occupier of that property expressing these concerns. A revised pedestrian access scheme has now been proposed which utilises the existing pedestrian footpath connecting Sand Beds and Regent Street, to the north east of the site. The footpath is in a relatively poor state of repair at present and the Applicant has agreed to upgrade this footpath in terms of both surfacing and lighting. These improvements will be included within the Section 106 Legal Agreement.

- 44 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

It is noted that this current proposal is about 10% smaller than that previously approved, which would reduce the traffic generated by the development. Taking account of the different types of trips made by drivers (i.e. new, pass-by, transferred and diverted) the submitted TA suggests the store would result in seven and four new arrival and departure trips respectively during the weekday morning peak. These figures for the evening peak rise to 22 and 23 and for the Saturday peak they would be 12 and 13. Considering the generally accepted forecasts for increased traffic over the foreseeable future these predicted additional trip rates are considered to be acceptable and would not in themselves overwhelm the local highway network.

Provision of improved pedestrian facilities leading to the development would, it is anticipated, lead to a reduction in the likelihood of accidents. The accident record of the local roads shows that 23 accidents occurred over the past five years, which are mainly focussed around the A644/A647 crossroads, on High Street and close to the Vale Grove/Brighouse Road junction. Three of these accidents resulted in serious injuries and two in fatalities however analysis of the records show that pedestrian and driver error played a significant role in the incidents. Given the highway improvements proposed as part of the development, it is not considered that the accident record would justify refusal of the scheme on highway safety grounds.

Within the site the proposal includes adequate provision for servicing, which is separated from the car park of 153 parking spaces including eleven dedicated to disabled drivers. It is the case that the site is reasonably close to public transport services along Sand Beds/High Street and Brighouse Road, and 14 cycle spaces are proposed, which offers customers and staff some alternative to reliance on the private car for transport.

A number of standard conditions are required to ensure the development is constructed and maintained in a proper manner along with a S278 agreement to ensure provision of the off-site highways works and, subject to these, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regard to highways issues.

Other planning matters Contamination: Historic land uses of the site include a gas works, its associated brick kiln and tramway, cleared during the mid-20th century. Extensive ground investigation works have been undertaken to assess contamination issues and remediation, the findings of which have been accepted by the Environment Agency and the Council’s own Environmental Protection Department, subject to a number of conditions to ensure remediation is properly carried out. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in light of pollution prevention and the guidance of PPS23.

Drainage: There are no issues relating to drainage of foul or surface water that cannot be adequately controlled by suitably worded conditions.

Security: Matters of security relating to lighting, fencing and CCTV on site can also be addressed by conditions.

- 45 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Wildlife: In biodiversity terms, the site is not defined as being of regional ecological importance or of local nature conservation value. An Ecology Survey was carried out in July 2008, which generally found habitats of only low/minor botanical interest, no evidence of use by bats apart from low numbers foraging or commuting across the site and no evidence of reptiles. As noted above the development will require the loss of trees and whilst the submitted survey concludes that none has any significant ecological importance, their removal should be timed to ensure the nesting season for birds is not affected.

Remaining matters raised by representations Concerns that Tesco will seek to expand the size and/or operating hours once the store is established: Extensions to increase the store’s floor area and/or changes to conditions imposed to control operating hours would require planning permission.

The proposed store is more than twice the 15,000ft2 (1,394m2) floor space of that presented at their public consultation. It is alleged that the numbers of people approving of the scheme registered at the public consultation is misleading if not untruthful as they were encouraged and objectors were not recorded: The details of the proposal have clearly identified as part of the application under consideration. The Local Planning Authority has no control over the practical operation of a public exhibition. On receipt of the application by the Local Planning Authority it was widely publicised in a manner that exceeds government regulations and an accurate count and summary of the comments made is given in this report.

The land should be re-designated either for housing or leisure facilities. Other land in Queensbury allocated for housing is better suited for a large supermarket: The consideration of a planning application is not the correct mechanism for challenging RUDP land allocations.

Queensbury is a village, not a town as referred to by Tesco’s: This issue is not material to the determination of this application.

Community Safety Implications: There are no other community safety issues raised except those considered in the main body of the report.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission The proposal would relate satisfactorily to the character of the surrounding area, including the historic context, 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, UR6, CR1A, CR4A, TM1, TM2, TM6, TM8, TM10, TM11, TM19, TM19A, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D13, D14, D15, BH4A, BH7, BH10, BH11, NE4, NE5, NE6, NE10, NE11, NR16, P5 and P7 of the adopted Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

- 46 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Conditions of Approval: Standard three year limit on commencement Amended plans Restriction on size of the total development Restriction on the total sales area Restriction on the size of the area used for the sale of comparison goods Opening times to be restricted Delivery times to be restricted Materials to be approved Lighting scheme to be submitted for approval Scheme for noise attenuation to be submitted Construct access before occupation Standard visibility splays to be formed Turning area to be provided before occupation Service vehicle loading area to be provided before occupation Car parking to be provided before occupation Construction plan details to be submitted Additional ground investigation to be carried out at certain trial pits and boreholes Remediation and verification of contamination details to be approved Gas monitoring scheme to be approved Any unidentified contaminants found shall be dealt with in accordance with an agreed strategy Asbestos survey to be approved Any infill material to be clean and uncontaminated No piling of foundations unless otherwise agreed No burning of materials on site No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground No discharge of foul or surface water during construction Investigation of sustainable drainage system to be carried out and approved Car parking to be drained via road-type gullies Drainage of car parking and hard standings to go through interceptors Protective tree fencing scheme to be approved Landscaping scheme, including schedule of management to be approved and implemented Submission of a Method Statement in relation to any works around the retained trees to ensure their retention

- 47 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

- 48 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

9 June 2009

Item Number: 7 Ward: GREAT HORTON Recommendation: THAT THE APPLICATION BE REFERRED TO THE REGULATORY AND APPEALS COMMITTEE WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND SECTION 106 AGREEMENT (APPLICATION IS A DEPARTURE)

Application Number: 08/06843/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: A full planning application for the construction of 21 dwellings (14 semi-detached houses and 7 townhouses) on land to the east of Northside Terrace, Lidget Green, Bradford. This application is a resubmission of application 08/00327/FUL.

Site Description: The site consists of a narrow strip of land running along the boundary of an industrial unit to the east. The site also extends towards Legrams Lane and encompasses an area of land to the east of Northside Terrace. The site is located within an employment zone as defined on the Replacement Unitary Development Plan. The site currently consists of a grassed area, with a number of small trees. To the west of the site the land use is mainly residential.

Relevant Site History: 08/00327/FUL: Residential development comprising eight townhouses and 14 semi-detached dwellings (refused 17/04/2008 – reasons given in appraisal section).

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation The site is not allocated for any specific land use in the RUDP but is partly within an Employment Zone, ref BW/E6.2 “Thornton” and accordingly the following policies are applicable to the proposal:-

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 H9 Affordable housing TM2 Impact of Traffic and its mitigation TM8 New pedestrian and Cycle Links TM10 The National and Local Cycleway Network TM12 Parking standards for residential developments TM19A Traffic management and road safety

- 49 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

D1 General Design considerations D3 Inclusive access D4 Community safety OS5 Provision of Recreation open space in new development CF2 Education contributions in new residential development NE5 Protection of trees on development sites E6 Employment zones BH4A Setting of listed buildings

National policy PPS 1: Delivering sustainable development through the planning system PPS 3: Housing PPG 13: Transport PPG 15: Planning and the historic environment

Parish Council: None

Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was publicised by individual notification letters and site/press notice. The publicity period expired on 15 May 2009. One petition has been received in objection to the proposal with a total of 40 signatures. In addition to this, an individual letter of objection has been received.

Summary of Representations Received: 1. the area is overdeveloped with housing 2. parking/highway safety problems 3. loss of trees 4. loss of green space 5. adverse impact on the street scene

Consultations: Highways DC: minor issues raised, resolved by amendments Drainage: conditions suggested Design and conservation: no objections, subject to appropriate materials Bradford Urban Regeneration: No comments received Education client team: contribution required Parks and Landscape: contribution towards recreation open space required Minerals and waste: no comments received West Yorkshire Police: Minor issues raised Environmental Protection: No comments received

Summary of Main Issues: Principle Residential amenity Visual amenity Trees Highway Safety Social Contributions Comments on representation received

- 50 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Appraisal: The previous planning application (08/06843/FUL) was refused for the following four reasons:

1. The proposed residential development fails to comply with any of the individual criteria of Policy E6, which seek to protect land within the site fronting Northfield Terrace for potential employment use, and no persuasive evidence has been submitted as part of the proposal to indicate why this policy should be set aside. For this reason, the proposal fails to comply with Policy E6 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

2. Notwithstanding reason number one above, the proposed development would introduce a new dwelling at Plot 1 in very close proximity to the sole private amenity space of neighbouring property to the immediate west, which would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the occupants of 8, 12, 14 and 20 Northfield Terrace Lane by reason of direct overshadowing and over- dominance. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies UR3 and D1(8) of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

3. Notwithstanding reason number one above, the proposal is of a type and scale that would normally require social contributions to be made due to the additional pressures placed on local infrastructure such as affordable housing, education and recreation open space. The developer has offered no commitment to such contributions or given justification as to why they should not be made. For this reason, the proposal fails to comply with the relevant policies H9, CF2 and OS5 respectively of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

4. That section of the site fronting Northfield Terrace is safeguarded for highways improvements to form part of the national and local cycle network throughout the District, however the proposal fails to make any contribution towards such facilities as part of the development. Furthermore, the proposal at this part of the site provides a pedestrian footway of inadequate width. For these reasons, the proposal would prejudice the safe movement of vulnerable road uses such as cyclists and pedestrians and is therefore unacceptable when measured against policies TM2, TM8, TM10, TM19A and TM20 of the Council's Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

This current re-submitted application is considered to address these reasons as detailed below;

- 51 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Principle That part of the site fronting Northside Terrace is located within an employment zone and would therefore exclude uses which do not support the function of the zone; residential use falls within this category and would be contrary to policy E6. However, the applicant has justified the use by suggesting that the site is located on the edge of the employment zone and would not be viable for employment use, mainly due to the increase in heavy goods traffic and resultant impacts on residential amenity. The justification also suggests that good quality housing is required in this location. In consideration of this, it is considered that the sites release to residential use is unlikely to significantly affect the viability and function of the employment zone and that housing would provide a buffer between the dwellings on Northside Terrace and the employment land to the east. It is therefore considered that an exception to policy E6 could be made in this case, the proposed not significantly prejudicing this policy.

In view of the above, the application is considered to be a departure from the RUDP under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultations) (Departure) Directions 1999 and, therefore the application must be referred to the Bradford Area Planning Panel, then to the Regulatory and Appeals Committee and the Secretary of State for consideration.

Residential amenity The proposed use of the site for residential development is not considered to have any significant adverse implications for amenity – the use will be less intrusive than an employment use. In terms of privacy and outlook, a distance in excess of 22 metres is achieved to the properties to the west on Northside Terrace, this being considered sufficient to prevent significant impacts on residential amenity. The crescent of properties fronting onto Legrams Lane are considered to maintain sufficient distances from the nearest residential properties to protect outlook (a distance of 15 metres is achieved to the two-storey element of plot 1).

In terms of future amenity of potential occupants of the units, there are two issues which may be applicable to policy D1; the proximity of the dwellings to the employment zone and the existence of the high coniferous hedge close to the rear gardens of the properties proposed. It is considered, whilst not presenting an ideal situation, that both of these issues fall largely within the ‘buyer beware’ principle whereby prospective occupants would be fully aware of the situation of the dwellings prior to purchase and that no significant harm to amenity would result from these issues.

Visual amenity The proposed dwellings present a design which varies somewhat from the prevailing design and appearance of dwellings in the locality. However, it is considered that the scheme adds interest to the street scene, particularly the crescent of properties closer to Legram Lane. The use of render and stone is considered acceptable and assists in adding further interests to the buildings. The scale and layout of the scheme are also considered sympathetic to the street scene.

Trees There are a number of immature trees on the site, however, their loss to allow the development to take place is not considered to be a significant issue and would not prejudice policy NE5. The site offers very limited opportunities for replanting, however, the high hedge will remain at the boundaries of the proposed rear gardens.

- 52 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Highway safety Parking provision (as per the amended scheme) provides a level of parking of 200% (2 spaces to each unit). In addition, there are 2 visitor spaces provided, bringing total parking provision for the scheme to 44 spaces. This is considered more than sufficient to serve the development. Vehicles will be required to reverse onto Northside Terrace from the private driveways of plots 8-21 inclusive, however, this is not considered to be significant highway safety implications as Northside Terrace is not heavily used by traffic. Additional access is proposed to the 7 dwellings on the land fronting Legrams Lane – this access is considered acceptable with a 5.5 metre width and provision for additional visitor parking for the dwellings. It is considered that the scheme would not raise any significant highway safety considerations, as the amended plans received on 26 May 2009 address minor highway safety issues relating to off-street parking and cycleway improvements in relation to reason for refusal 4 in application 08/00327/FUL.

Social contributions With a total of 21 dwellings proposed, the development falls within the thresholds for the provision of affordable housing and recreation open space provision.

Affordable Housing A contribution towards affordable housing has been agreed (two units will be provided, as identified on the submitted plans).

Recreation Open Space A contribution towards recreation open space is required, in line with policy OS5. The site is too constrained to allow adequate provision on the site (an area of open space of 420 sq. metres would be required under the requirements of policy OS5). As such, a contribution of £16,250 is required towards the maintenance and provision of open space within the vicinity of the site.

As the development is below 25 units, no monies towards education provision can be requested.

The above social contributions will be secured by way of a section 106 agreement, to be completed prior to the formal issue of planning permission.

Comments on representation received Issues raised in representations received are summarised below and appraised accordingly:

The area is overdeveloped with housing The density of development is appropriate and much of the surrounding housing is long-established

Parking/highway safety problems See ‘highway safety’

Loss of trees See appraisal under ‘trees’

- 53 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Loss of green space The site is not protected for this purpose and is allocated as employment use

Adverse impact on the street scene See appraisal under ‘visual amenity’

Community Safety Implications: All issues can be addressed by conditions

Reason for Granting Planning Permission: The proposal represents a departure from the Replacement Unitary Development Plan, being in conflict with policy E6. However, the land has limited potential for use in line with policy E6 and, being on the boundary of the employment zone, is not considered essential to its function. It is therefore considered that residential use would be appropriate and an exception to policy E6 could be justified without significant harm to the objectives of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan. Notwithstanding the above, no significant adverse implications are foreseen in terms of highway safety, visual amenity, and residential amenity, secure by design issues and loss of trees on the site. The proposal is therefore considered to justify an exception to policy E6 and complies with policies UR2, UR3, D1, D4, D5, TM2, TM8, TM12, TM19A, CF2, OS5, H7, H8, H9, NE5 and BH4A of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and national planning policy contained in PPS 1, PPS 3 and PPG 13.

Conditions of Approval: 1. 3 year time limit 2. Approval as per amended plans – P/07/06-02,RevP8, P/07/06-02, Rev P6 and P/07/06-03, RevP6, all received on 26/5/09 3. Samples of all materials required 4, Laying out of car parking prior to occupation 5. Laying out of access prior to first occupation 6. Permitted development rights removed; no windows to the northern elevation of plot 1 7. Provision of visibility splays prior to first occupation 8. Street lighting scheme: details to be submitted and have been approved prior to development commencing 9. Full details of all proposed boundary treatments to be submitted and approved prior to development commencing 10. separate drainage system within the site boundary 11. Full details of the means of foul and surface water drainage to be submitted and have been approved prior to commencement of development 12. Car parking areas to be drained using road type gullies 13. Site to be investigated for the use of sustainable drainage techniques 14. No changes to levels at the site boundary, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA

- 54 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Section 106 agreement – draft heads of terms Affordable housing: provision of 2 affordable units on site (plots 20/21) Recreation Open Space: commuted sum of £16250 in lieu of on site provision Provision of cycleway as per amended plans

- 55 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

- 56 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

9 June 2009

Item Number: 8 Ward: ROYDS Recommendation: THAT THE APPLICATION BE REFERRED TO THE REGULATORY AND APPEALS COMMITTEE WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT APPLICATION WITH OBJECTIONS

Application Number: 08/02281/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address: A full planning application for the construction of 8,124m2 of B1 light industrial, B2 general industrial, B8 warehouse units and B1 offices, 123 dwellings, new access, egress and associated car parking and landscaping at land to the south of Bulmer & Lumb Ltd., Royds Hall Lane, Woodside, Bradford.

Site Description: A roughly rectangular shaped site covering 4.65 hectares that comprises of open grassland crossed by drainage ditches and sloping down to the south with locally steep falls. A small, covered reservoir, its associated utility buildings and an access route to Bulmer & Lumb’s works are located to the north-eastern corner of the site. A number of mature and semi-mature trees grow sporadically throughout the site and to the eastern boundary. The site is enclosed by a mix of palisade, post/wire and timber fencing. Employment uses stand to the north and west; to the south and east is modern semi-detached, two storey housing. Access is only currently available via the driveway into Bulmer & Lumb’s works; Royds Hall Lane to the eastern boundary is narrow with no lighting or separate pedestrian facilities.

Relevant Site History: None.

Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP): Allocation The site is allocated as an Employment Site, detailed under BS/E1.31 ‘Royds Hall Lane, Woodside’ in the RUDP and the proposal is specifically affected by the following policies.

Proposals and Policies UR2 Promoting Sustainable Development UR3 Local Impact of Development E1 Protecting Allocated Employment Sites E2 Protecting Larger Employment Sites E7 Storage and Distribution Warehouse Development H7 and H8 Housing Density H9 Affordable Housing

- 57 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

TM2 Impact of Traffic and its Mitigation TM11 Parking Standards for Non-Residential Developments TM12 Parking Standards for Residential Developments TM18 Parking for People with Disabilities 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 CF2 Education Contributions in New Residential Development OS5 Provision of Recreation Open Space and Playing Fields in New Development NE4 Trees and Woodlands NE5 Retention of Trees on Development Sites NE6 Protection of Trees During Development NR16 Surface Water Run-off and Sustainable Drainage Systems NR17 Groundwater Protection P7 Noise

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Sustainable Design Guide Planning for Crime Prevention

National Planning Policy Guidance: Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing (PPS3) Planning Policy Guidance Note 4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 Transport Planning Policy Statement 23 Planning and Pollution Control Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk

Parish Council: Not applicable.

Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was publicised by press and site notices and individual neighbour notification letters; the publicity period expired on 23 May 2008. Nine objections were received; one letter from a local ward councillor requesting additional information regarding social contributions and highway improvement works was also received.

These publicity measures were repeated to inform all those originally notified, and all subsequent objectors, of the receipt of amended plans; this publicity period expired on 19 December 2008. Four additional objections were received.

- 58 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Summary of Representations Received: 1. Proposed three-storey dwellings would overshadow and overlook existing properties. 2. The proposal would exacerbate road congestion and harm road safety. 3. The proposal would place additional pressures on local amenities such as children’s play areas. 4. Loss of trees. 5. Increase existing flood risk. 6. The site cannot be built upon due to previous usage for mining. 7. The proposal contradicts the site’s employment allocation. 8. Loss of habitat and wildlife it supports that includes bats and merlin, the latter having ‘amber’ (i.e. second most critical) conservation status. 9. The development will place additional pressures on already overcrowded schools. 10. Increased noise and environmental pollution, and general inconvenience during the construction phase. 11. The development would increase local population densities that will bring security concerns.

Consultations: Highways Development Control: No major concerns with the re-advertised amended scheme. The proposal has a number of design issues chiefly relating to car parking, pedestrian safety measures around watercourses, extent of the adoptable road and footways, visibility over boundary treatments and the submitted Travel Plan, each of which has been addressed by subsequent modifications. Ten standard conditions relating to provision of access, visibility splays, service areas, car parking, storage areas and compliance with a Travel Plan are suggested. : No objections subject to five conditions to ensure proper drainage of the development. Drainage Services Unit: No objections subject to four conditions to provide suitable drainage and flood prevention of the site and prevent pollution of watercourses. Environment Agency: No objections subject to four conditions to control potential contamination and provide adequate drainage and flood prevention. Environmental Protection: No objections subject to three conditions to control potential contamination. Development and Enabling: The affordable housing quota for this location is 15% of the dwellings to which a discount of 35% on the open market value should be applied. There is a local need for three- and four-bed family housing. Education Client Team: There are only limited places available at local primary and secondary schools though reduced pupil intake and planned developments in the area will effectively mean they have no additional capacity. Therefore, a commuted sum of £289,748 is required to support local education provision to be secured by a legal agreement. Parks and Landscape: A commuted sum of £123,000 in lieu of on-site play space and playing pitches to be secured by a legal agreement. Economic Development Service: Financial and economic appraisals submitted in support of the suitability and viability of the scheme are acceptable.

- 59 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

West Yorkshire Police: The area suffers from higher than regional average crime levels on a number of indicators. Concerns relating to natural surveillance, defensible space and layout have been addressed where possible by amended plans though some issues remain. Matters such as boundaries and landscaping can be controlled by suitably worded conditions. West Yorkshire Public Transport Executive: Improvements to local bus stops is suggested. Public transport information packs and free travel cards should be made available to new residents

Summary of Main Issues: 1. Principle of development and exception to policy justification. 2. Visual amenity and landscaping. 3. Residential amenity. 4. Highway safety and access. 5. Other planning matters. 6. Outstanding issues raised by objectors.

Appraisal: Principle of Development and Exception to Policy Justification The proposal is for a combination of housing and employment development comprising 123 residential units (including 13 apartments) and 23 industrial units ranging between about 90m2 and 725m2 floor space. The associated means of access, parking, servicing and landscaping also forms part of the proposal.

The application site is allocated as an Employment Site by RUDP and is described as follows:-

‘BS/E1.31: ROYDS HALL LANE, WOODSIDE 4.65 ha Existing site carried forward from the 1998 adopted UDP. The site is level and open scrubby grassland to the south of an established factory. Site access may need to be developed through the adjacent site. Policy E2 applies. Core employment uses only.’

Policy E1 states: ‘Proposals for employment development on sites shown on the proposals maps as employment sites will be permitted subject to Policy E7. Proposals for other uses on these sites will not be permitted unless: (1) the site is below 1.0 ha in size; and (2) it is within the urban areas of Bradford/Shipley//; and (3) it is not within an Employment Zone; or (4) there has been a material change in circumstances which has arisen since the date of adoption of the plan or during the life of the plan, or, (5) the site is no longer appropriate for employment use because of possible adverse effects on surrounding land uses.’

Furthermore, the site is over three hectares in size such that Policy E2 also applies, which states:- ‘For those larger employment sites identified in the proposals reports to be developed in accordance with Policy E2, the layout and development shall ensure that a significant part of the land shall be made available for single-user business or industrial purposes.’

- 60 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

The applicant has made the case that the site has been marketed for an extended period of time, i.e. since its first allocation for employment purposes under the 1998 UDP, but to no avail. It is argued that sites with direct links to motorway junctions, visible from major arterial routes and distant from residential development are the overriding criteria for companies to seek new premises of a significant scale, i.e. in excess of 20,000ft2 (1,858m2). The applicant’s own employment land study indicates that recent demand for smaller premises (under 10,000 ft2, or 929m2) has been strong.

A detailed financial viability study has been submitted with the planning application to demonstrate that the residential element of the proposal would act as enabling development to provide the employment floor space. The report balances the industrial investment values and residential sale receipts against a wide range of development costs (e.g. land purchase, construction costs, professional fees, ‘abnormal’ costs, etc.) to show the profitability of the scheme. Whilst the details of these matters are commercially sensitive and not for publication as part of this report, they have been verified as accurate by the Council’s Economic Development Service.

In light of this information it is considered that the principle of the combined residential and employment scheme is acceptable (subject to a legal agreement to ensure construction of the ‘enabled’ employment units) and provides the special circumstances to justify the exception to policy to allow the development. As such the application is a departure from the development plan under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultations) (Departure) Directions 1999 but does not significantly prejudice the implementation of the RUDP’s policies. As the proposal is a departure it must be referred to the Planning Panel, Regulatory and Appeals Committee and then to the Secretary of State to consider whether the application should be ‘called in’.

It is the case that the site has been the subject of historic mining activity and currently there is a covered reservoir and associated utility buildings to the extreme north- eastern corner. However, apart from this small enclave of existing structures, with the passage of time the site has regenerated back to grassland and self-seeded trees such that it is considered to be not previously developed when compared with definitions in Annex B of PPS3. Though no formal sustainability appraisal has been carried out, the site is close to a range of local facilities, other services, employment opportunities, high-frequency public transport links, etc. Other RUDP allocated housing sites within the urban form of this area of Bradford were all ‘phase one’ releases for development so it is considered likely that, had this site been allocated for residential purposes, it would also have attracted the same phasing.

Taking the net developable area of the residential section of the site the proposal achieves a density of 56 dwellings/ha, which accords with local and national targets.

Visual Amenity and Landscaping Whilst the proposal shares a common access point off Royds Hall Lane, within 50 metres of the site entrance it splits into two distinct sections of residential and employment development separated landscaping.

- 61 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Residential Portion of the Development. The proposed, amended, mix of 90 semi- detached or terraced dwellings, plus 33 flats, is arranged in a standard fashion around a series of estate roads and mews courts that would visually complement the local street patterns. The site has no significant public frontage such that its relatively unobtrusive nature, combined with the proposed layout and scale of the development, would enable the dwellings to sit well with the surrounding properties without overwhelming them and, from more distant views, the buildings would be set within an established, mixed urban form such that the proposal would match the variable scale and grain of the existing streets.

The buildings would be of two-, three- or four-storeys, their detailed design being based on European styling rather than traditional British dwellings, incorporating tall, narrow frontages punctuated by simple openings, some with matching dormer windows, constructed of brick and render with concrete roof tiles. In summary, the form, scale and detailed design of the new dwellings clearly reflects their function with use of varying construction elements adding visual interest that would give the development visual interest and make a positive contribution to the character of the locality.

The proposal provides for adequate separation between the dwellings to existing trees to the boundaries, particularly that along Royds Hall Lane, to enable retention of the trees that grow around the site. In order to ensure that the development would not jeopardise the long-term health of the trees it is considered prudent to impose conditions that require landscaping details to be approved and protective fencing to be installed.

Employment Portion of the Development. The new units (as amended) would be of a simple layout, two-storey scale and design that would complement the modern industrial buildings that are characteristic of the built form to the north and west of the site and adjacent to which the units would be constructed. The proposed use of brick and metal cladding would match the character of the surrounding area. The proposal includes some areas of landscaping to visually ‘soften’ the built form, particularly to the Royds Hall Lane frontage, though it is noted that the development is not particularly prominent from this or any other viewpoint.

For these reasons, the proposal accords with the relevant RUDP policies and so is considered to be acceptable in terms of visual amenity and impact on trees.

Residential Amenity The proposed residential development is a use that would be consistent with the existing adjacent housing in terms of noise generation and general disturbance. Generally, the siting, height and window positions of the proposed dwellings would prevent excessive overshadowing, over dominance or overlooking of the existing housing around the site, particularly those to the east where Royds Hall Lane provides additional separation. In relation to the existing dwellings at Alderholt Drive and Maidwell Way to the south, the proposal provides at least the minimum 21-metre separating distance to prevent overlooking and, being to the north of the existing properties, the new houses would not increase overshadowing or over dominance.

- 62 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Within the development adequate distances are generally achieved within established norms. Those dwellings at plots 95 to 108 abut employment uses to the west however the existing buildings are offices rather than of a general industrial character. Otherwise the development provides clear separation between the residential and employment units to prevent excessive adverse impacts especially as future occupants would be aware of the close proximity of the neighbouring uses (i.e. ‘buyer beware’).

The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in residential amenity terms.

Highway Safety and Access It is clearly the case that the development will increase traffic generated by the site however based on the data supplied it is calculated that this would amount to about 83/68 trips to/from the site respectively during the morning peak period and 57/92 trips to/from the site in the evening peak period. It is considered that this would not constitute an excessive increase and that Royds Hall Lane/Abb Scott Lane, and the wider local highway network, have adequate geometry, width and capacity to cope with the additional traffic. It is noted that the Abb Scott Lane/Huddersfield Road junction is subject of improvements in the form of traffic control signals as part of a residential development of 276 dwellings at Fenwick Drive recently approved by the Council. The cumulative effect of the Fenwick Road and Royds Hall Lane developments has been assessed in terms of its impact on the operational effectiveness of the Royds Hall Lane/Halifax Road junction, concluding that it has adequate capacity to cope with the anticipated morning and evening peaks.

Within the site, access and circulation space for pedestrians, cars and larger service and delivery/goods vehicles is adequate for both the residential and employment elements of the development.

The residential element of proposal would provide parking for 229 cars in garaging, driveways and dedicated spaces plus a further 13 identified for casual visitors to serve the 123 dwellings, which exceeds current local and national standards of 1.5 spaces per dwelling across the development. Many of the additional spaces are on driveways needed to allow the dwellings to be sited away from the highway to achieve suitable privacy distances and that over a third of the houses have four bedrooms. The employment units would provide 153 parking spaces plus a further 20 dedicated for disabled drivers, which is satisfactory when judged against the Council’s adopted parking standards.

It is not expected that any increased on-street parking would be generated and that the level of parking provision is appropriate for this type of development.

For these reasons and subject to a number of conditions the proposal is considered to be acceptable when judged against the highway-related policies of the RUDP.

- 63 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Other Planning Matters 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 located within an area where the affordable housing quota is 15% of the units to be provided to a Registered Social Landlord at a 35% discount on the open market value. Based on the total development comprising 123 units there will be a requirement for the provision of 18 units as the affordable housing element. However, it is unlikely that a Registered Social Landlord could afford the individual units based on the discount and as such it may be that the provision is for a fewer number of units at a greater discount. This can only be calculated however when the open market values of the dwellings are known. The provision of the affordable housing units will be sought through the provision of a Section 106 Legal Agreement. However, in this instance, as the application is for enabling development to allow the construction of employment premises, an economic statement has been prepared by the applicant in relation to the viability of the scheme that justifies why the required affordable housing contribution can not be made.

Education Infrastructure. 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. Education Services have not objected to the proposal but state that the only a few places are currently available at one of the nearest secondary schools and that primary schools have only a very limited number of places remaining. It has also been noted that as the site is allocated for employment purposes and accordingly, it was not anticipated any future development would affect education provision in the locality and so not factored into future projections. The payment of a commuted sum of £289,748 is sought to improve the existing educational facilities within the vicinity of the site, which would normally be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement. As noted above, as the application is for enabling development to allow the construction of employment premises, an economic statement has been prepared by the applicant in relation to the viability of the scheme that justifies why the required education contribution can not be made in this instance.

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. There is no formal recreation provision within the site and whilst Parks and Landscape Services have not raised an objection to the proposal they are seeking the payment of a commuted sum of £123,000 towards improving existing recreational facilities within the vicinity of the site. This money would normally be sought through the provision of a Section 106 legal agreement. Again, as noted above, this application is for enabling development to allow the construction of employment premises, and an economic statement has been prepared by the applicant in relation to the viability of the scheme that justifies why the required affordable housing contribution cannot be made in this instance.

- 64 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Security. 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 West Yorkshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no objection to the principle of the development but has raised a number of concerns regarding specific aspects of the layout of the scheme. The most recently submitted amended plan has attempted to overcome the majority of the issues raised in the consultation response but there are a number of areas where it is not possible to fully satisfy the concerns. Such instances include the design of the employment units as their metal-clad elevations are vulnerable to forced entry and should be replaced by a brick facing from ground level to two metres in height. Some car parking spaces are remote from the curtilage of the dwellings they serve, e.g. plots 25-28, 87 and 105-108. Access to a number of the properties is reliant on rear alleyways, which are synonymous with crime, fear of crime, litter and anti-social behaviour and are generally unacceptable in terms of crime and the personal safety of users. However, the applicant has offered the justification that alleyways are necessary for the proper servicing of the dwellings (e.g. carrying of household waste to the front of the property) and that access can be suitably controlled by secure lockable gates. Other concerns, such as boundary treatments and landscaping can be covered by condition.

Contamination and Land Stability. The site has been the subject of historic industrial activity; whilst the site has regenerated to a ‘greenfield’ state the presence of three mine shafts and identification of certain contaminants associated with past mining activity confirm past use. However, contamination has been suitably addressed through submission of an intrusive ground investigation report and conditions to ensure a remediation strategy, its implementation and treatment of unexpected contamination can be controlled through conditions.

Biodiversity: The site is not defined as being of regional ecological importance or of local nature conservation value; furthermore a detailed ecological survey has been carried out that concludes the site is unlikely to support any protected species. It is considered appropriate to alert the developer’s attention to his duty of care to any protected species through a footnote on the decision notice.

Drainage. There is no evidence of flooding from any of the statutory drainage undertakers. Matters relating to ensuring that surface and foul water from the development would be properly drained can be adequately controlled by conditions.

Outstanding Issue Raised by Objectors General inconvenience during the construction phase. It is inevitable that construction would bring disruption but this would be for a temporary period only and any adverse effects can be minimised by conditions to control hours of working, etc.

The development would increase local population densities that will bring security concerns. Security matters in relation to general planning considerations have been discussed elsewhere in this report; it is not considered that population densities do not in themselves introduce security issues that can be controlled through the current planning legislation.

- 65 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

Conclusion For these reasons, the proposal is considered to be acceptable when judged against the relevant policies in the RUDP. Some of the points raised in objection have been addressed by the submission of amended plans and remaining matters, though mainly valid, are not considered to be sufficiently substantive to overturn these policies and so the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Community Safety Implications: These issues are addressed in the body of the report above. Officers consider that the proposal as amended, subject to imposition of appropriate conditions, raises no insurmountable community safety concerns of sufficient weight to warrant refusal as security concerns.

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, E7, H7, H8, H9, TM2, TM11, TM12, TM18, TM19, TM19A, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, CF2, OS5, NE4, NE5, NE6, NR16, NR17 and P7 of the adopted Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Conditions of Approval: 1. Time limit. 2. Amended plans. 3. Construct access before occupation. 4. Visibility splays to be provided before use. 5. Closure of existing access points with full-height kerbing. 6. Turning areas provided before use. 7. Service areas to be provided before use. 8. Car parking provided before use. 9. Gates not to open over the highway. 10. No outdoor storage. 11. Construction plan details to be approved. 12. Materials: samples to be approved. 13. Two-metre high brickwork to elevations of employment units. 14. Scheme to secure rear alleyways to be approved. 15. Lighting scheme to be approved. 16. No development within five metres of sewer. 17. Drainage to include separate foul and surface water systems, balancing, off-site works and surface run-off limitations to be approved. 18. No piped discharges. 19. Finished floor levels to be set no lower than 205.35m above Ordnance datum. 20. Parking areas drained by petrol/oil interceptors and road-type gullies. 21. Details of facilities for treatment and disposal of waste, including trade waste. 22. Submission of contamination remediation scheme. 23. Implementation of approved remediation scheme. 24. Report any unexpected contamination.

- 66 - Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

25. Trees protect by fencing during works. 26. Landscaping plan to be approved and implemented. 27. Landscape maintenance to be approved and implemented.

Footnotes:

1. S106 agreement heads of terms: y Construction of employment units prior to occupation of dwellings 2. Duty of care towards protected wildlife 3. Additional security measures 4. Coal Authority standing advice 5. Separate planning permission required for on-site pumping station.

- 67 -