11 july 2019 the area planning panel (bradford) to be held on … · 2019-07-03 · allan...

Report of the Strategic Director of Place to the meeting of the Area Planning Panel (BRADFORD) to be held on 11 July 2019

ASummary Statement - Part OneApplications recommended for Approval or Refusal

The sites concerned are:

Item Site Warda. 2 Markfield Avenue Bradford BD12 0UH -

19/01352/OUT [Approve]Wyke

b. Former Broadway Avenue Unitarian Church Hall Broadway Avenue Bradford BD5 9NX - 19/01879/FUL [Approve]

Little Horton

c. Land at Grid Ref. 412521 433021 Blackburn Close Bradford BD8 0EY - 18/05381/OUT [Approve]

Clayton And Fairweather Green

d. 18 High Park Crescent Bradford BD9 6HT - 19/01686/HOU [Refuse]

Heaton

e. 72 Toller Lane Bradford BD8 9DA - 19/01445/FUL [Refuse]

Toller

f. Land at Apperley Lane Apperley Bridge Bradford - 18/05446/OUT [Refuse]

Idle And Thackley

Portfolio:Julian JacksonAssistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways)

Regeneration, Planning & Transport

Overview & Scrutiny Committee Area:

Report Contact: Mohammed YousufPhone: 01274 434605

Email: [email protected] and Environment

Report to the Area Planning Panel (Bradford)

19/01352/OUT

2 Markfield AvenueBradfordBD12 0UH


11 July 2019

Item: AWard: WYKERecommendation:TO GRANT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

Application Number:19/01352/OUT

Type of Application/Proposal and Address:Outline application for residential development of land (0.1ha) for two dormer bungalows with all matters reserved at 2 Markfield Avenue, Wyke.

Applicant:Mr Gary Priestley

Agent:Allan Holdsworth

Site Description:The application site is a domestic curtilage to the side of No 2 Markfield Avenue at the junction of Markfield Avenue and New Works Road. The application site is mainly lawn with a level topology. No 2 Markfield Avenue itself is a rendered dormer bungalow and the properties adjacent to the application site along New Works Road are lined with a two-storey stone terrace.

Relevant Site History:19/00013/OUT Outline application for residential development of garden plot for 3 dwellings with all matters reserved REFUSE 18.02.2019.

Reason for refusal:1. Access/egress is considered from the details of the submitted indicative site plan.

On that basis the proposal would result in traffic movement on a bend at the junction of Markfield Avenue with New Works Road and this is likely to result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety contrary to policy DS5 of the Councils Core Strategy.

2. Notwithstanding the outline nature of the submitted application it has been identified that a water course and sewer runs through the application site. Given these site constraints further details are required at this stage, particularly scale and siting, to ascertain whether the principle of a house or houses can be accepted. In the absence of this information this application cannot be assessed with respect to policy EN7 and EN8 of the Councils Core Strategy.


3. The submitted indicative plans fail to demonstrate that the site can be developed for residential purposes without affecting the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. In particular the indicative plans fail to demonstrate that the three residential properties indicated on the plans would retain sufficient distance to the boundary with 2 Markfield Avenue to avoid any significant overlooking issues or that the position of the houses behind the rear wall of 360 New Works Road would not result in significant overshadowing or loss of outlook to the garden area and rear habitable room windows of this property. Currently the proposal is not therefore considered to comply with Policy DS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):The NPPF is a material planning consideration on any development proposal. The NPPF highlights the fact that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which can deliver:-

i) Planning for prosperity (an economic role) - by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type and in the right places is available to allow growth and innovation;

ii) Planning for people (a social role) - by promotion of strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing an increase supply of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations and by creating a good quality built environment with accessible local services;

iii) Planning for places (an environmental role) - by protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, adapting to climate change including moving to a low-carbon economy.

As such the NPPF suggests local planning authorities should approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay.

Local Plan for Bradford:The Core Strategy for Bradford was adopted on 18 July 2017 though some of the policies contained within the preceding Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP), saved for the purposes of formulating the Local Plan for Bradford, remain applicable until adoption of Allocations and Area Action Plan development plan documents. The site is unallocated within the RUDP. Accordingly, the following adopted Core Strategy policies are applicable to this proposal.

Core Strategy PoliciesDS1 – Achieving good designDS3 – Urban characterSC9 – Making great placesTR2 – Parking PolicyEN7 – Flood risk

Householder Supplementary Planning Document

Parish Council:Not applicable.


Publicity and Number of Representations:Application publicised by way of neighbour notification letters and site notice. The overall expiry for the publicity was 27 April 2019.

Letters from 5 residents and a Ward Councillor (request application be determined at Panel if Officers minded to Approve) have been received expressing objections.

Summary of Representations Received:- Add to congestion at New Works Road/Markfield Avenue both commercial and

domestic vehicles. Commercial vehicles use junction as a turning junction. On-street parking issues. Access/egrees issues junction of New Works Road/ Markfield Avenue.

- Communication box and lamppost inhibit access.- Applicant seeking sale of property.- No changes to previous refused application.- Overlooking onto nearby properties.- Overbearing/overshadowing/loss of light.- Overdevelopment of site.- Scheme lack details. No garaging facility.- Proximity to 600mm public sewer and watercourse which acts as an overflow system

serving nearby reservoir.- Area outlined in blue may not be owned by applicant.- Disruption during building works.

Consultations:Yorkshire Water: No objections subject of conditions.Drainage: No objections subject to conditions.Highways: No objections subject to conditions at a reserved matters stage.

Summary of Main Issues:1. Principle of development.2. History.3. Highway safety.4. Residential amenity.5. Drainage.6. Address representations.

Appraisal:1. Principle of developmentParagraph 59 of the Revised NPPF stress the need for Local Planning Authorities to boost significantly the supply of new housing. The Core Strategy reiterates this strong policy support for delivering new housing and emphasises that housing delivery is one of the key issues facing the district.

The Council's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Update Report 2015 (SHLAA) indicates that there is a substantial shortfall in housing land relative to these requirements, with supply amounting to approximately 2.3 years. This proposal would make a modest contribution towards meeting that need.


The indicative outline plan would provide two dwellings on a site of 0.1 hectares, providing a housing density of approximately 20 dwellings per hectare. Core Strategy Policy HO5 advises that densities should normally achieve a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare, with higher densities possible in areas well served by public transport and/or close to the city centre and principal town centres. The site occupies a relatively sustainable location within an established residential area. However there is an acknowledgement, as detailed in other sections of this report, that the density falls below the minimum requirement and this can be justified by the constraints (local aquatic environment and Yorkshire Water infrastructure) which limit the opportunities to provide a higher density.

The NPPF has introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The site is unallocated on the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and is therefore not protected for any uses other than those that accord with the general policies of the RUDP.

The site is situated in a sustainable location, relatively close to services and facilities and there are good public transport links in the form of regular bus routes on nearby Woodside Road A641. These factors weigh significantly in favour of the proposed residential development and it is therefore unlikely to cause demonstrable and significant harm to the aims and objectives of the RUDP, Core Strategy DPD, and NPPF. Taking into account the above, the principle of housing development on this site is considered acceptable.

2. HistoryThe current application under consideration is an attempt to reconcile the reasons for refusal issued under an earlier outline application (19/00013/OUT) for 3 dwelling on this site. In order to do so the new application makes the following amendments:

a) Access/egress has be shown to be moved away from the junction of Markfield Avenue with New Works Road to being just north of No 2 Markfield Avenue

b) The new application shows the line of water course and sewer through the application site.

c) The submitted indicative plans show 2 dormers bungalows in relation to the adjacent properties and the impact upon these neighbouring properties can be assessed.

3. Highway SafetyOverall, it is considered that the provision of highway access/egress in the position shown is satisfactory and will not comprise highway safety and will accord with established highway standards. Whilst off-street parking is not specified the indicative plan show there is adequate area to achieve the required levels of off-street parking provision. As such there are no highway safety concerns.

4. Residential amenityThe indicative plan show that the nearest dormer bungalow proposed to No 360 New Works Road would be staggered behind at a distance of approximately 6m. However regard is given to their separation distance shown to be approximately 4.5m. Such a juxtaposition is not considered to create an due loss of amenities to the residents of 360 New Works Road particularly considering the householder SPD permits 3m single-storey extension immediately adjacent to other dwellings.


The rear of the proposed bungalows indicate a ground floor only and overlooking towards the reduced curtilage of No 2 Markfield Avenue varies at a distance between 5m and 9.5m. Overlooking from ground floor level can be prevented by a boundary fence. Such a fence is shown on the plans. Permitted development rights can then be removed for additions to the roof which could result in overlooking of neighbouring properties.

It is considered that based on the indicative position and scale of the proposed residential properties there is sufficient stand-off distance to neighbouring properties so as not to cause undue loss of amenities through overshadowing and loss of privacy.

5. DrainageThe application has been assessed by both Yorkshire Water and the Council’s own specialist drainage team with regards to the local aquatic environment and Yorkshire Water infrastructure. Both Consultees have raised no objections to the proposal. They are satisfied the building stand-off from the public sewer centre-line, is acceptable as shown on the submitted plan. The safeguards protecting the public combined sewer would be secured by way of planning conditions.

6. Address representationsAdd to congestion at New Works Road/Markfield Avenue both commercial and domestic vehicles. Commercial vehicles use junction as a turning junction. on-street parking issues. access/egrees issues junction of New Works Road/Markfield Avenue. Response: The demands on the highway infrastructure is noted however the access/egress is considered to be satisfactory to safely accommodate 2 new residential properties.

Communication box and lamppost inhibit access. Response - The proposed access/egress appear to be away from this infrastructure.

Applicant seeking sale of property. Response – this is not material planning consideration.

No changes to previous refused application. Response – the changes to the previously refused application have been outlined in the body of the report.

Overlooking onto nearby properties. Overbearing/overshadowing/loss of light. Response - This has been addressed in the body of the report.

Overdevelopment of site. Response - The indicative plans demonstrate the proposed houses can be accommodated on the application site without undue harm to the environment.

Scheme lack details. No garaging facility. Response - Full details will need to be submitted under a subsequent reserved matters application.

Proximity to 600mm public sewer and watercourse which acts as an overflow system serving nearby reservoir. Response - This issue has been addressed in the body of the report.


Area outlined in blue may not be owned by applicant. Response - The area of consideration is limited to the red line boundary.

Disruption during building works. Response - This is enviable with building works however is limited to a temporary period.

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

Equality Act 2010, Section 149:In writing this report due regard has been taken of the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance equality of opportunity between different groups and foster good relations between different groups. It is not however considered that any issues with regard thereto are raised in relation to consideration of this application.

Reason for Granting Planning Permission:The development is considered to be an efficient use of land, with an appropriate use and would have no significant adverse implications for, neighbouring occupiers’ amenities and highway safety. Furthermore, no drainage implications are foreseen subject to conditions. Consequently the development is considered to comply with the Council’s Core Strategy Development Plan policies DS1, DS3, SC9, TR2, DS5 and EN7 and the NPPF.

Conditions of Approval:1. Application for approval of the matters reserved by this permission for subsequent

approval by the Local Planning Authority shall be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this notice.

Reason: To accord with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. (as amended)

2. The development to which this notice relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the date of the approval of the matters reserved by this permission for subsequent approval by the Local Planning Authority, or in the case of approval of such matters on different dates, the date of the final approval of the last of such matters to be approved.

Reason: To accord with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended).


4. Before any development is begun plans showing the:-

i) access,ii) appearance,iii) landscaping,iv) layout, andv) scale

must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To accord with the requirements of Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

5. Before development above damp proof course commences on site, arrangements shall be made with the Local Planning Authority for the inspection of all external facing and roofing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted. The samples shall then be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

6. No construction works in the relevant area (s) of the site shall commence until measures to protect the public combined sewer that is laid within the site boundary have been implemented in full accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include but not be exclusive to the foundation design of the properties to be constructed and the means of ensuring that access to the pipe for the purposes of repair and maintenance by the statutory undertaker shall be retained at all times.

Reason: In the interest of public health and maintaining the public sewerage and to accord with Policy EN8 of the Councils Core Strategy.

7. There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of surface water drainage works, details of which will have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. If discharge to public sewer is proposed, the information shall include, but not be exclusive to:

i) evidence that other means of surface water drainage have been properly considered and why they have been discounted ; and

ii) the means by which the discharge rate shall be restricted to a maximum rate to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the statutory sewerage undertaker.

Reason: To ensure that no surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for its disposal and to accord with Policy EN8 of the Councils Core Strategy.


8. The development should not begin until details of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage, including any balancing and off site works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme shall include proposals for the disposal of surface water from the development using sustainable drainage techniques or, proof that such techniques are impracticable in this instance. Only in the event of sustainable drainage techniques proving impracticable will disposal of surface water to an alternative outlet be considered.

Reason: To ensure that no surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for its disposal and to accord with Policy EN8 of the Councils Core Strategy.

9. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the building materials for the hardstanding areas (parking and driveway) shall be of a porous nature to allow water percolation for drainage and retain thereafter.

Reason: To ensure proper provision has been made for the disposal of surface water and to accord with Policies EN7 of the Councils Core Strategy.

10. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling (s) the allocated car parking space associated with that dwelling shall be provided with an electric vehicle changing point.

Reason: To ensure the development is constructed in an appropriate sustainable manner which takes into consideration air quality with in the District, and takes into consideration paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework and polices SC9 of the Councils Core Strategy.

Footnotes:1. On the Statutory Sewer Map, there is a 600 mm diameter public combined sewer

recorded to cross the site. It is essential that the presence of this infrastructure is taken into account in the design of the scheme. The proposed building stand-off from public sewer centre-line, submitted on drawing 005 dated February 2019, prepared by Technique Drawing and Design Service, is acceptable subject to sufficiently deep foundation design being provided before construction commences in the relevant area of the site. For further information, the developer should contact our Developer Services Team: telephone 0345 120 84 82 (option 1) or email [email protected]

2. If the developer is proposing to discharge surface water to public sewer sustainable development requires appropriate surface water disposal and Yorkshire Water promotes the surface water disposal hierarchy. The developer must provide evidence to demonstrate that surface water disposal via infiltration or watercourse are not reasonably practical before considering disposal to public sewer.


19/01879/FUL

Former Broadway Avenue Unitarian Church HallBroadway AvenueBradford BD5 9NX


11 July 2019

Item: BWard: LITTLE HORTONRecommendation:TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSIONAPPLICATION WITH A PETITION

Application Number:19/01879/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address:Full application for the construction of five three-storey dwellings at Broadway Avenue, Bradford, BD4 8RD. Planning permission was granted at this site in 2016 for the demolition of the church hall and the construction of five dwellings. In 2018 the church hall was destroyed by fire and the site cleared.

Applicant:Mr Nadeem Bhutt

Agent:Mr Zeshan Khawaja

Site Description:The application plot comprises a triangular shaped piece of sloping land. Until recently the Broadway Avenue Unitarian Church Hall stood on the site. Since the demolition of the church hall the plot has become overgrown with scrubby plants/weeds. Broadway Avenue runs to the north of the site and Hastings Street to the east and a back lane to the west that runs behind the properties on Smiddles Lane.

The site is in a residential area and is surrounded to all sides by dwellings, characterised by terraced properties.

Relevant Site History:06/05366/OUT- Proposal: Demolition of church, outline application to erect block of 15 flats (9 two bed, 6 one bed). Withdrawn 10.10.2006.

15/00903/OUT - Demolition of church hall and construction of five, three-storey dwellings in two blocks. Granted 17.12.2015.

16/05002/REM - Reserved matters of landscaping following outline approval 15/00903/OUT: Demolition of church hall and construction of five, three-storey dwellings in two blocks. Granted 07.09.2016.







Local Plan for Bradford:The Core Strategy Development Plan Document was adopted on 18 July 2017 though some of the policies contained within the preceding Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP), saved for the purposes of formulating the Local Plan for Bradford, remain applicable until adoption of Allocations and Area Action Plan development plan documents. The site is unallocated in the RUDP.

Core Strategy PoliciesPolicy HO1: The District’s Housing RequirementPolicy HO3: Distribution of Housing DevelopmentPolicy HO5: Density of Housing SchemesPolicy HO6: Maximising the Use of Previously Developed Land (PDL)Policy HO9: Housing QualityPolicy DS1: Achieving Good DesignPolicy DS3: Urban CharacterPolicy DS5: Safe and Inclusive PlacesPolicy TR2: Parking Policy

Parish Council:Bradford Trident Community Council - No comments received.

Publicity and Number of Representations:The application was publicised by the Council through a site notice and neighbour notification letters. The expiry date for comments in connection with the application was 11 June 2019.

A petition has been received in objection to the proposal containing 41 signatures.

5 letters of objection have been received in respect of the application.


Summary of Representations Received:Objection

- High density development squeezed onto the site.- Lack of parking is a serious issue around the site.- The proposed houses would overlook the surrounding properties.- Lack of publicity of the application.

Consultations:Highways: No objection subject to conditions.Planning and Highways Access Forum: Rear step shown requires level access

Summary of Main Issues:1. Principle of Development.2. Visual Amenity.3. Amenities of Occupiers of Adjacent Land.4. Further Issues Raised by Representations.

Appraisal:1. Principle of DevelopmentPermission was granted in 2016 to erect 5 dwellings on this plot. In 2018 the church hall that formerly stood on this side was destroyed by fire and the site was then cleared. Work to construct the houses has not commenced and the site now is overgrown. The plans proposed in this application are the same as those approved in 2016.

The removal of the building from the site constitutes a material change in the assessment of this application. The adoption of the Core Strategy in 2017 is a material consideration in the assessment of this application.

As of March 2019 the 5 year supply of housing land is 2.06 years. The NPPF paragraph 11 states that ‘Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.’ For decision-taking this means: ‘where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date’. This includes applications for housing where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

Since the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites there is a presumption in favour of this development.

Policy HO1 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise, wherever possible, the use and recycling of previously developed land and make the most efficient use of land. Policy HO6 develops this further and states “In order to meet both the objectives of delivering housing growth and managing that growth in a sustainable way, the plans, programmes and strategies of the Council will give priority to the development of previously developed land and buildings.”

This is consistent with paragraph 117 of the NPPF which promotes the use of previously development land (also known as brownfield sites).


Criterion A of policy HO5 states: “In order to meet both the objectives of delivering housing growth and managing that growth in a sustainable way, developers will be expected to make the best and most efficient use of land.

The adopted planning policies in relation to housing development, the re-use of brownfield sites and the planning history of this plot means that there is a presumption in support for this application.

2. Visual AmenityPolicy HO9 of the Core Strategy states “New housing development should be high quality and achieve good design.” Policy DS1 also seeks to achieve good design.

The proposed five houses are laid out in two blocks, one of 3 x 5 bedroomed houses (Block A) and a pair of semi-detached houses comprising 1 x 2 bed house and 1 x 3 bed house (Block B). The houses are laid out over three floors, with bedrooms in the loft space served by dormer windows and rooflights. The proposed construction materials of stone/render and blue slate roof are reflective of the local vernacular.

The buildings surrounding the site comprises, primarily, terraced houses which are laid out over three storeys and are constructed of stone and blue slate. In terms of the design of the proposed houses they are reflective of the established vernacular found in and around Broadway Avenue and the neighbouring streets. As such the development complies with polices HO9 and DS1.

The proposed landscaping scheme of lawns, paved patios and tarmac driveways enclosed by 1 metre high stone walling and 2 metre high close-boarded timber fencing would provide domestic planting, surfacing and boundary treatments commensurate with the character of the approved residential development. The site is relatively unobtrusive and so the landscaping will have little wider impact on the appearance of the surrounding area.

3. Amenities of Occupiers of Adjacent LandThe application site sits in a mixed use area. Hastings Street. Broadway Avenue and Smiddles Lane are predominately residential around the development plot. The application plot is triangular shaped with residential properties to all sides.

The houses are designed with their principle elevations facing Hasting Street. The triangular shape of the site means that the proposed 5 houses are not in a single row of houses but rather comprises two blocks. Block A, comprising 3 houses, is located approximately 25m from the houses on Hastings Street and Block B, comprising 2 houses, is approximately 19m away. In an area characterised by a tight grain of development, these separation distances are considered to be adequate to protect the living conditions and amenity of existing residents and of the future occupants of the proposed dwellings.

The rear elevations of the proposed dwellings are designed to face towards the rear of the terraced properties on Smiddles Lane. The distance between the rear elevations of the proposed houses and those on Smiddles Lane varies from 14.5m to 12m at the nearest point. This separation distance is considered to be acceptable in order to provide a suitable level of amenity from the existing residents and for the future residents of the proposed dwellings.


The domestic scale of the landscaping would not overshadow or over-dominate neighbouring property. The fencing proposed would adequately screen the site from adjoining housing thus preventing overlooking.

4. Parking and Highway SafetyThe plans show that four of the houses have 2 allocated off street parking spaces each and the 2 bedroomed house would have one off street parking space. At present Hastings Street is typically double parked. The majority of houses surrounding the site do not have any off street parking available and so residents tend to park on the highway.

The nearby mosque, primary school and shops generate traffic and an increase in on street parking on the surrounding roads. The proposed development provides off street parking for the future residents of the dwellings. However, the proposed parking is taken from Hastings Road, meaning that cars would no longer be able to park on this side of the carriageway.

In relation to the impact of development on the highway network, the NPPF paragraph 109 states “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulativeImpacts on the road network would be severe.”

In order to facilitate the provision of the off-street parking for this development a dropped kerb will need to be provided onto Hastings Street. The provision of a suitable dropped kerb can be ensured through the imposition of a planning condition requiring that the dropped crossing shall be constructed to a specification approved by the Council.

It is accepted that the provision of a dropped crossing onto Hastings Street would result in the loss of the on street parking which currently occurs on the West side of Hastings Street. However it is considered that there is sufficient on street parking availability on the East side of Hastings Street and within the surrounding area to ensure that this would not result in any significantly adverse highway or pedestrian safety implications.

Whilst the development may displace existing on street parking to elsewhere it is not considered that the impact of the development on the road network would be severe.

5. Further Issues Raised by RepresentationsA representation has raised a concern relating to the publicity of the application. Surrounding residents received neighbour notification letters and a site notice was displayed at the site in accordance with the Council’s procedure for applications of this nature.

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



Reason for Granting Planning Permission:The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle and would not be harmful to visual amenity, residential amenity or highway safety. It would therefore accord with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and policies HO1, HO3, HO5, HO6, HO9, DS1, DS3 and DS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

Conditions of Approval:1. The development to which this notice relates must be begun not later than the

expiration of three years beginning with the date of this notice.


2. Prior to the commencement of development a report setting out the findings of an investigation and risk assessment to assess the nature and extent of any land stability risks affecting the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report should include:

(i) findings of intrusive site investigation works;(ii) an assessment of the potential land stability risk relevant to the

development;(iii) an appraisal of remedial options to address any identified land stability risk;(iv) identification of the preferred remedial option (if required).

Reason: To ensure that risks from potential mining hazards relevant to the site are appropriately investigated, in accordance with Policy EN8 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The dwellings to which this decision notice relates shall not be brought into occupation until either the Local Planning Authority has approved a site investigation report which concludes that no site remediation works are necessary to make the site suitable for development or a remediation verification report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A remediation verification report must include:-

(i) a description of the remediation works which have been carried out,(ii) evidence to demonstrate that any land stability hazards relevant to the site

have been appropriately addressed, and(iii) any necessary provisions for future monitoring and maintenance of remediation

works.

Reason: To ensure that land stability risks associated with historic mining are appropriately remediated, in accordance with Policy EN8 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


4. Prior to the erection of the external walls of the development hereby approved, arrangements shall be made with the Local Planning Authority for the inspection of all facing and roofing materials and all materials to be used for the construction of boundary treatments in the development hereby permitted. The samples shall then be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to safeguard the appearance of the area in which it is located and to accord with policies DS1 and DS3 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

5. Before any part of the residential development is brought into use, the proposed means of vehicular and pedestrian access hereby approved shall be laid out, hard surfaced and drained within the site in accordance with the approved plan numbered 15/1720/NB5 and completed to a constructional specification first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the site is connected to existing street and path networks, public transport and places and that a safe and suitable form of access is made available to serve the development in accordance with Policy DS4 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. Before the development is brought into use, the associated off street car parking facility shall be laid out, hard surfaced and drained within the curtilage of the site in accordance with the approved drawings. The gradient shall be no steeper than 1 in 15 except where otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To support the effective regulation of car parking provision serving the development, in the interests of amenity and highway safety, and in accordance with Policy TR2 and Appendix 4 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

7. Any gates to be constructed as part of the development shall not open over the highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy DS4 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any subsequent equivalent legislation) no development falling within Classes A, B, C, E and F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the said Order shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To accord with Policy UR3 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.


18/05381/OUT

Land At Blackburn CloseBradfordBD8 0EY


11 July 2019

Item: CWard: CLAYTON AND FAIRWEATHER GREENRecommendation:TO GRANT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION


Type of Application/Proposal and Address:Outline planning application for residential development of two dwellings requesting consideration of Access, Layout and Scale on land off Blackburn Close, Bradford, BD8 0EY.

Applicant:Miss S Zeb

Agent:SR Design

Site Description:The site is accessed via Blackburn Close in between an end terrace house and a row of detached garages. The main section of the site is currently overgrown with vegetation and a number of self-seeded trees, with some larger specimens to the northern boundary. The land slopes upwards from south to north. To the north of the site is a row of houses which are located on Leaventhorpe Avenue and a public footpath runs adjacent to the western boundary of the site.

Relevant Site History:13/04264/OUT: Residential development of two dwellings. Granted 09.12.2013.18/04363/OUT: Construction of six apartments with parking. Refused 04.12.2018.18/00063/OUT: Construction of eight apartments with parking. Refused 03.04.2018.12/02293/OUT: Residential development of two dwellings. Withdrawn 11.12.2012.09/03424/OUT: Residential development construction of two dwellings. Refused 09.04.2010.07/07025/OUT: Construction of residential development of 3 dwellings. Refused 23.07.2008.







Local Plan for Bradford:The Core Strategy Development Plan Document was adopted on 18 July 2017 though some of the policies contained within the preceding Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP), saved for the purposes of formulating the Local Plan for Bradford, remain applicable until adoption of Allocations and Area Action Plan development plan documents. The site is unallocated in the Replacement Unitary Development Plan but is located in an area designated as a conservation area. Accordingly, the following adopted Core Strategy policies are applicable to this proposal.

Core Strategy PoliciesHO5 Density of Housing SchemesDS1 Achieving Good DesignDS3 Urban CharacterDS4 Streets and MovementDS5 Safe and Inclusive PlacesEN5 Trees and WoodlandsEN7 Flood RiskEN2 Biodiversity and GeodiveristyEN8 Environmental Protection Policy


Publicity and Number of Representations:A site notice, press advert and neighbour notification letters advertised the applications. The publicity period expired on the 15th April 2019. Eight letters of objections and one letter of support has been received.

Summary of Representations Received:Objection:Many comments relay the frustration experienced by the local residents at the number of applications for development submitted for this site.No direct access and access width too narrow.Concerns over damage to highway during works and concerns of maintenance of unadopted section of road.Harm to wildlife. Trees already felled in this extension of the woodland.Overlooking.Pressure on the drainage system and concerns over surface water drainage.Increase in crime.Impact on house prices.


Support:Application is identical to one previously approved.Boundaries of the site are clearly set out in the Land Registry and do not affect the public footpath.Fencing erected for safety of children, animals and the community and to stop fly tipping.Housing need.Will help local land values.No parking issues.Sufficient space to provide access for HGVs.

Consultations:Rights of Way: Public footpath 196 Bradford West abuts the site. The recorded line of the footpath as shown below must be kept clear and free from obstruction. To add footnote to an approval.Highways: Raise no objections. The proposal is a resubmission of a previous approval (13/04264/OUT) which has now lapsed. The site plan previously approved has been resubmitted in this application and shows no material changes to the previous approval. Minerals: Raise no objection. A landfill site is situated approximately 150m from the proposal, but as the records show that the material deposited was inert and through a planning permission granted in the 1980's, the impacts from this former landfill would not be adverse. Environmental Health: Based on historical maps, raise concerns on potential contamination at the site. However, the Council’s minerals team are satisfied that the risk is extremely low as per the comments above. A precautionary condition is suggested in the event that contamination becomes evident during works.

Summary of Main Issues:1. Principle of development.2. Visual amenity.3. Impact on residential amenity.4. Highway issues.5. Drainage.6. Biodiversity.7. Trees.8. Other matters raised in representations.

Appraisal:1. Principle of developmentThis is an identical application to a previously approved outline application in 2013 (13/04264/OUT) for which permission has lapsed.

The application seeks outline consent for a residential development consisting of two dwellings on land to the rear of a block of detached garages, off Blackburn Close. Specifically, the application seeks approval of access, layout and scale with the appearance and landscaping reserved for later consideration.

Paragraph 59 of the Revised NPPF continues to stress the need for Local Planning Authorities to boost significantly the supply of new housing. The Core Strategy reiterates this strong policy support for delivering new housing and emphasises that housing delivery is one of the key issues facing the district.


Paragraph 73 of the NPPF directs that Local Planning Authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years' worth of housing against the identified housing requirement as set out in adopted strategic policies, or against the local housing need where strategic policies are more than five years old. Where there has been a record of persistent under-delivery of housing the LPA should identify an additional 20%.

The Council's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Update Report 2015 (SHLAA) indicates that there is a substantial shortfall in housing land relative to these requirements, with supply amounting to approximately 2.3 years. This proposal would make a modest but valuable contribution towards meeting that need.

The proposed development would provide 2 dwellings (4-bed) on a site of 0.09 hectares, providing a housing density of approximately 22 dwellings per hectare. Core Strategy Policy HO5 advises that densities should normally achieve a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare, with higher densities possible in areas well served by public transport and/or close to the city centre and principal town centres. The site occupies a relatively sustainable location within an established residential area, where shops and services are accessible on foot or public transport. There is an acknowledgement that the density falls below the minimum requirement; however, this can be justified by constraints both on and off site which limit the opportunities to provide a higher density.

The NPPF has introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The site is located in a primarily residential area, where there is a mix of semi-detached and terraced dwellings. The site is unallocated on the Replacement Unitary Development Plan and is therefore not protected for any uses other than those that accord with the general policies of the RUDP.

The site is situated in a sustainable location, relatively close to services and facilities which could be accessed on foot and there are good public transport links in the form of regular bus routes on Thornton Road. These factors weigh significantly in favour of the proposed residential development and it is therefore unlikely to cause demonstrable and significant harm to the aims and objectives of the RUDP, Core Strategy DPD, and NPPF. Taking into account the above, the principle of housing development on this site is considered acceptable.

2. Visual amenityWhilst the appearance of the dwellings is not for consideration at this stage, the layout and scale are. The proposal is for a pair of semi-detached dwellings set at 90 degrees to the adjacent row of terraced houses. The gable of the dwellings would be viewed from the garage lock up area but wouldn't be overly visible within the street scene of Blackburn Close.

The cross sections show that the proposed dwellings would be slightly higher at eaves level than the existing properties of Blackburn Close but they would be clearly separate and due to the distance away from the existing properties, the scale of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable. Whilst the layout does not provide for a street frontage, due to the location and the lack of building uniformity on Blackburn Close it is not considered that this forms a reason to refuse the application.


The landscaping has been indicatively shown and would include the removal of the material on site and the insertion of retaining walls. These are not considered to be so high as to cause an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the area. The removal of the end garage to provide access to the rear of the site is considered to be acceptable in visual amenity terms and would not in itself require planning permission.

The development is not considered to be harmful to the character of the area and the scale and layout are deemed acceptable to comply with policies DS1 and DS3 of the Core Strategy Development Plan.

3. Impact on residential amenityThe development proposes access for two dwellings adjacent to an end terrace (22 Blackburn Close) and whilst this will increase general disturbance to the occupants of this property it is not considered it would result in a significantly harmful impact from vehicles and residents passing since it is a small development proposal and there is a degree of activity already taken place by the garages. Furthermore this end property is within the blue outline and as such some consideration can be given to this as the applicants are happy for this access to go ahead.

In terms of overbearing impacts, loss of light and overshadowing, the dwellings are proposed to be sited sufficiently away from neighbouring dwellings on Blackburn Close to not cause any harmful impacts. The dwellings to the north of the site on Leaventhorpe Avenue are located at a higher level and therefore will not be affected by the proposal.

In terms of facing distances, the layout again is considered acceptable in that the facing distances accord with the Council’s recommendations. There are no dwellings to the rear (west) and to the front (east). A distance of 12 metres is achieved to the rear garden of the 22 Blackburn Close and 17metres to the garden of the property beyond that. There would be no direct overlooking between habitable room windows. The development is considered to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity. Whilst there will be some disturbance during the excavation and construction this will be a relatively short period for two dwellings and would not constitute a reasonable reason for refusal.

There is no identified conflict with policy DS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan.

4. Impact on Highway SafetyThe application aims to agree access at this outline stage. The access is proposed between an end terrace, 22 Blackburn Close and a row of garages. To provide the access the applicant proposes to demolish the garage associated with No 22 Blackburn Close and provide a separate off-street parking spot to the front of the host property. The garage could be demolished at any time by the applicant without requiring planning permission.


The resulting access would be 3.4 metres in width which is considered to be acceptable for the short length and due to the fact it only provides access to two dwellings and visibility is clear. Each dwelling would be provided with two parking spaces creating 4 in total across the development, 1 more than the current parking standards within Appendix 4 of the Core Strategy Development Plan which requires 1.5 spaces per dwelling. A turning area is proposed which would allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear and on this basis the access is considered to provide adequate visibility particularly in terms of pedestrians using the garages.

It is worth noting access beyond No 7 Blackburn Close is unadopted consequently there are currently 6 dwellings served off an unadopted road with the proposal bringing this total up to 8. However the limit is due to servicing requirements and it is considered the site could be adequately served.

Subject to the conditions requested by highways officer the development is considered to be acceptable in terms of policies TR2 and DS4 of the Core Strategy Development Plan.

5. DrainageThere are no insurmountable drainage concerns with the development. A condition will be attached to cover foul and surface water drainage to ensure that there would be no conflict with policy EN7 of the Core Strategy Development Plan.

6. BiodiversityA preliminary Ecological Appraisal by Whitcher Wildlife Ltd – Ecological Consultants accompanies the application. The report concludes that there were no records of protected species within the site. Taking the above into consideration the development would not result in harm in terms of wildlife or conflict with policy EN2 of the Core Strategy Development Plan.

7. TreesThe plans show a root protection area which sections off part of the site to the north. Whilst the trees are not protected, the trees offer some public amenity value. A condition is recommended that details that tree protection fencing is installed as per plan SR-1357-1A prior to works commencing. With this in place, there is no conflict with policy EN5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan.

8. Other matters raised in representations:A number of comments received raised concerns about the increase in crime as a result of the development and impact on house prices. These are not planning constraints.

The introduction of two new dwellings on this site is not thought to lead to increased criminal activity, with the residential use an appropriate use within this residential area.

Matters of access rights are legal matters which are dealt with separately to the planning process.

Damage to private land during construction is a civil matter and not a planning constraint.


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


Reason for Granting Planning Permission:The application presents a re-submission of an approved outline application for a pair of semi-detached dwellings under application 13/04264/OUT, granted on the 9th December 2013. The site makes effective use of this sustainably located site for housing purposes and achieves a safe and satisfactory means of access, with no adverse effects on highway safety. The layout will maintain good standards of amenity for existing and future occupiers, including those of adjoining properties, and the indicated scale parameters are appropriate to the character of the area. The proposals achieve sustainable development of a site that has had previous planning permissions for housing and accords with objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant Policies in the Core Strategy Development Plan.

Conditions of Approval:1. Application for approval of the matters reserved by this permission for subsequent

approval by the Local Planning Authority shall be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this notice.


2. The development to which this notice relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the date of the approval of the matters reserved by this permission for subsequent approval by the Local Planning Authority, or in the case of approval of such matters on different dates, the date of the final approval of the last of such matters to be approved.


3. Before any development is begun, plans showing the:-

i) Appearance, andii) Landscaping

of the development (the reserved matters) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To accord with the requirements of Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.


4. The development shall not begin until the tree protection measures have been installed around the trees to be retained as shown on plan SR-1357-1a, dated July 2012.

Reason: To ensure that trees are adequately protected prior to development activity beginning on the site in the interests of amenity and to accord with Policy EN5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

5. The development shall not begin until details of a scheme for separate systems of foul and surface water drainage, including any balancing or off site works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Surface water should be disposed of using sustainable drainage techniques unless site conditions are demonstrated to be unsuitable. The details approved shall thereafter be implemented prior to the occupation of the development.

Reason: To ensure proper drainage of the site and to accord with Policy EN7 of the Core Strategy Development Plan.

6. Before the development is brought into use the off street car parking facility shall be constructed of porous materials, or made to direct run-off water from a hard surface to a permeable or porous area within the curtilage of the site, and shall be laid out with a gradient no steeper than 1 in 15 unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the site is properly drained and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policies TR2 and DS4 of the Core Strategy Development Plan.

7. If, during the course of development, contamination is found to be present, no further works shall be undertaken in the affected area and the contamination shall be reported to the Local Planning Authority as soon as reasonably practicable (but within a maximum of 5 days from the find). Prior to further works being carried out in the identified area, a further assessment shall be made and appropriate remediation implemented in accordance with a scheme also agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the site is remediated appropriately for its intended use and to comply with policy with policy EN8 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.


19/01686/HOU

18 High Park CrescentBradfordBD9 6HT


11 July 2019

Item: DWard: HEATONRecommendation:TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

Application Number:19/01686/HOU

Type of Application/Proposal and Address:This is a retrospective application for single storey rear and side extension, hip to gable, front and rear dormer windows at 18 High Park Crescent, Bradford, BD9 6HT.

Applicant:Mr and Mrs Shabbir Ali Khan

Agent:Not applicable.

Site Description:The property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling situated in a quiet residential area. There are various types and sizes of dormer windows and extensions in the street scene.

Relevant Site History:15/03386/HOU - Construction of two storey side and single storey rear extension -Refused 01.10.2015 15/06254/HOU - Two storey side extension and demolition of existing garage - Granted 18.01.2016 16/02493/HOU - Single storey rear extension - Granted 20.07.2016







Local Plan for Bradford:The Core Strategy for Bradford was adopted on 18 July 2017 though some of the policies contained within the preceding Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP), saved for the purposes of formulating the Local Plan for Bradford, remain applicable until adoption of Allocations Development Plan Documents. The site is unallocated on the RUDP.

Core Strategy PoliciesDS1 Achieving Good DesignDS3 Urban CharacterDS4 Streets and MovementDS5 Safe and Inclusive Places

Householder Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)


Publicity and Number of Representations:The application was publicised with neighbour notification letters. The publicity period expired on 7 May 2019. One supporting comment and one objection to the scheme have been received. The supporting comment is from a local Ward Councillor in support of the application which includes a request for referral to the Planning Committee if the application is recommended for refusal.

Summary of Representations Received:Support:Single storey rear extension in keeping with other extensions.Supporting the extension and request to be referred to panel if viewed as a refusal.

Objection:Overdevelopment.Loss of outlook.Scale of extension.Noise.Rubbish.

Consultations:None.

Summary of Main Issues:1. Visual amenity.2. Residential Amenity.


Appraisal:The proposal is for a single storey rear and side extension, hip to gable, front and rear dormer windows (retrospective). The proposal is for a domestic extension within the curtilage of a dwelling-house that is neither a listed building nor within a conservation area and so is not statutorily protected from such works. The principle of development is therefore acceptable.

1. Visual Amenity The proposal seeks permission for a flat roof dormer to the front and rear elevations. The front and rear dormers are unacceptable as they incorporate excessive cladding to their front elevations. This harm is compounded by the use of blue slate cladding tiles that clash with red tiled roof of the main house. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of this property and the wider streetscene.

The single storey side and rear extensions and hip-to-gable conversion will not cause any adverse impact to visual amenity. For the above reasons however the proposal does not accord with Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document together with the Council's adopted Householder SPD.

2. Residential Amenity The objection comment has been taken into consideration when assessing this application. The extension will protrude 6 metres from the original rear wall of the host dwelling and approximately 3.8 metres from the rear wall of the adjoining dwelling. The scale and position of the single storey rear extension will result in overbearing and overshadowing to the rear amenity area of the adjoining dwelling No 20 High Park Crescent.

The size and position of the proposed dormer windows and single storey side extension are not considered to pose a threat of overlooking, overbearing or overshadowing of any neighbouring properties.

Therefore, the application is unacceptable and not compliant with policy DS5 of the Core Strategy and the Householder SPD.

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



Reasons for Refusal:1. The proposed front and rear dormer windows would, by reason of the incorporation of

excessive cladding to their front elevations and the use of cladding materials which does not match or appear similar to the existing roof, result in inappropriate and incongruous features which would harm the character and visual amenity of the existing dwelling and the street scene contrary to Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the Council's adopted Householder Supplementary Planning Document.

2. The proposed single storey rear element of the extension, by reason of its large scale and close proximity to the common boundary with 22 High Park Crescent, would cause excessive overbearing and overshadowing to the detriment of residential amenity of the occupiers of this property, contrary to Policy DS5 of the Council's Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the adopted Householder Supplementary Planning Document.


19/01445/FUL

72 Toller LaneBradfordBD8 9DA


11 July 2019

Item: EWard: TOLLERRecommendation:TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

Application Number:19/01445/FUL

Type of Application/Proposal and Address:Two storey side extension with office at ground floor and residential use on first floor linked to the existing dwelling and dormer windows to the front and rear of 72 Toller Lane, Bradford.

Applicant:Mr Kamran

Agent:Mr Parvez, Unique AD

Site Description:The application site is positioned at the end of a terrace fronting onto an unadopted road. The terrace is lined with two-storey stone houses. The side curtilage of the application site tapers in at the junction of this unadopted road down a steep slope meeting Toller Lane.

Relevant Site History:No relevant planning History.







Local Plan for Bradford:The Core Strategy for Bradford was adopted on 18 July 2017 though some of the policies contained within the preceding Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP), saved for the purposes of formulating the Local Plan for Bradford, remain applicable until adoption of Allocations and Area Action Plan development plan documents. The site is unallocated on the RUDP but is within a Community Priority Area. Accordingly, the following adopted Core Strategy and saved RUDP policies are applicable to this proposal.

Proposals and PoliciesDS1 – Achieving good designDS3 – Urban characterEN8 - Environmental Protection PolicyDS5 - Safe and Inclusive Places

Householder Supplementary Planning Document


Publicity and Number of Representations:The application was publicised by way of site notices and neighbour notification letters. The overall expiry date has now expired. Eight supporting letters have been received including one from a Ward Councillor.

Summary of Representations Received:- Provide benefit to growing family.- Improve corner which looks run down.- Support other business in this commercial area.

Consultations:Highways: The application would result in the loss of the only off-street parking space and would result in additional parking demand from the proposed Office. Unable to support the proposed development due to the highway safety concerns it would raise close to a junction with Toller Lane, a busy classified road.

Summary of Main Issues:1. Principle of the Development.2. Highway Safety.3. Visual Amenity.4. Residential Amenity.5. Level access.6. Other Issues Raised in Representations.


Appraisal:1. Principle of the DevelopmentThe site is unallocated on the RUDP but is close to the Duckworth Lane Local Centre. The proposed extension would provide a B1 office use at ground floor and extended living space for the host residential dwelling at upper floor level. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle subject to its local impact.

2. Highway safetyThe space next to the property is used as off street parking and the proposal would lead to the loss of this space. The proposal would lead to a four bed dwelling which should have a minimum of two off street parking spaces and a B1 office which should have an additional off street parking space. The proposal provides no off street parking in an area already experiencing significant demand for on-street parking. As such the proposal would be unacceptable in terms of its impact on highway safety.

Access to this property is from an unadopted highway to the rear which has no turning area where this back street is suitable for one way traffic only. The proposal would be likely to intensify the use of this unadopted highway to the detriment of highway safety. Furthermore, the site is located at the junction of this unadopted highway with Lower Westfield Road and Toller Lane. Overspill parking close to this junction would be likely to lead to conditions prejudicial to highway safety where Toller Lane is a busy classified road.

3. Visual AmenityTo the rear an integrated approach is considered to be acceptable and the incorporation of a slight set back to the front elevation is also considered to be acceptable given the constraints of the redline boundary. The front and rear dormer windows are also considered to be appropriately designed in relation to the Council’s Householder SPD. No harm to visual amenity is likely to occur.

4. Residential amenityGiven the position of the proposed structure it would not unduly overlook, overshadow or result in an overbearing impact on nearby residential properties. The B1 office use accommodation is small and is unlikely to be a significant generator of noise or general disturbance to nearby residential properties. As such, no significant harm to residential amenity is anticipated.

5. Level AccessAccess to the ground floor B1 use is almost level where the raised threshold is small and would meet the objectives of policy DS5 of the Council’s Core Strategy.

Community Safety Implications:There are no apparent community safety implications. The safety implications expressed via representations have been addressed.

Equality Act 2010, Section 149:In writing this report due regard has been taken of the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance quality of opportunity between different groups and foster good relations between different groups. It is not however considered that any issues with regard thereto are raised in relation to consideration of this application.


Reasons for Refusal:1. The proposed development which includes a B1 office and additional bedrooms

for the host dwelling would lead to the loss of informal off street parking space and intensify the use of the site, likely to lead to an intensification of use of a substandard unadopted highway and overspill parking at or close to a junction in an area already experiencing high demand for the limited available on-street parking with a busy classified road. These circumstances would lead to conditions prejudicial to pedestrian and highway safety contrary to policy TR2 of the Council’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.


18/05446/OUT

Land At Apperley LaneApperley BridgeBradford


11 July 2019

Item: FWard: IDLE AND THACKLEYRecommendation:TO REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION


Type of Application/Proposal and Address:Outline application for residential development of up to 9 dwellings requesting consideration of access on land at Apperley Lane, Apperley Bridge, Bradford.

This application was deferred from the Area Planning Panel meeting held on 15 May 2019.

Applicant:AL Properties Yorkshire

Agent:Mr Sam Dewar, DPA Planning Ltd

Site Description:The application site, an open grassy field, is an area of agricultural land (grade 3), covering 0.5 hectares and forming part of a larger area of approximately 1.7 hectares. Sloping downwards from the road, it is bounded on one side by a low stone wall and on other sides by hedges. Previously used for agricultural purposes, the site contains a large tree, with single houses immediately to the north and south. The site is located approximately 830 metres north of Apperley Bridge railway station, with the Leeds City Council boundary located adjacent to the site to the east, running along Apperley Lane (A658). Opposite the site is Bronte House School. Rawdon, a centre within the Leeds City Council District is located around 2.2km to the north of the site, with the shops and amenities of Greengates about 2.0 kilometres to the south.

Relevant Site History:None.







Local Plan for Bradford:The Core Strategy Development Plan Document was adopted on 18 July 2017 though some of the policies contained within the preceding Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP), saved for the purposes of formulating the Local Plan for Bradford, remain applicable until adoption of Allocations and Area Action Plan development plan documents. The site is within the allocated Green Belt and the Esholt Landscape Character Area. Accordingly, the following adopted Core Strategy policies and saved RUDP policies are applicable to this proposal.

Core Strategy PoliciesBD1 – City of Bradford including Shipley DS2 - Working with the landscape DS4 – Streets and movement DS5 – Safe and inclusive placesEN4 – LandscapeSC7 – Green Belt

Saved RUDP PoliciesGB1 – New building in the greenbeltGB3 - Infill

Parish Council:Not in a Parish.

Publicity and Number of Representations:Advertised by neighbour notification letters, site notice and in the press as a departure to the local plan. Expiry date 12 April. Forty three representations received: nine support the application and thirty eight object to it.

Summary of Representations Received:Objections:1. There has been an increase in traffic as well as a current lack of facilities. More

facilities such as schools and doctors are required before new property developments.2. No element of affordable housing has been included in the plans.3. The development will add to already overloaded highways, created by new

development in the area.4. Air quality is already poor and further development will add to it.5. The site is ideal habitat for local wildlife and birds of prey such as buzzards, kites and

owls.6. The land was sold as agricultural land and should not be built on.7. Too many houses are causing traffic congestion and environmental problems.8. Current pavements are narrow and inadequate.9. Speed limits are ignored.


10. An ancient tree on the site has been felled.11. No attention has been paid to the recommendation for further surveys concerning bats

and flowers.12. The ecological survey shows a plan for 28 dwellings.13. Open space needs protection.14. The proposal will increase the chance of accidents.15. The exit sight lines are inadequate. The road is already at over capacity.16. Vehicular access to and from Woodhouse Grove already causes mayhem.17. The car park at Apperley Bridge is full by 8am and excludes use of the train service for

local residents.18. Lack of neighbour notification.19. Access for dustbin lorries.20. Safety of school pupils.21. Only one bus (747) goes on the road, forcing people to take their cars and add to

congestion.22. There have been a number of accidents on the road.

In support: 1. The site will turn into a fly tip if not built.2. The area should contribute towards housing targets.3. The land is unencumbered.4. Infill site will help towards the current housing crisis.5. The choice is between travellers and homes.

Consultations:Highways: Object to the scheme on the grounds of highway safety and maintain this objection following receipt of additional comments.Drainage: No objections, subject to conditions.Environment Agency: No response received.Leeds City Council: No response received.

Summary of Main Issues:1. Principle of Development.2. Highway Safety.3. Visual Amenity.4. Residential Amenity.5. Drainage & Flood Risk.6. Other Issues Raised in Representations.

Appraisal:1. Principle of the DevelopmentThe site is located within the green belt as identified within the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP). The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Government places great importance to the protection given to the green belt, which is a factor that should be given considerable weight and very careful consideration in the consideration of this application.


Paragraph 143 of the NPPF confirms that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in ‘very special circumstances’. Local planning authorities are required to ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt and ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Paragraph 145 of the NPPF directs local planning authority to regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt unless they relate to:

a) buildings for agriculture and forestry;b) the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries

and burial grounds and allotments; as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;

c) the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;

d) the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;

e) limited infilling in villagesf) limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the

development plan (including policies for rural exception sites); andg) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land,

whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would: ‒ not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or‒ not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.

The proposed residential development within the Green Belt does not fall into any of these categories and is therefore clearly inappropriate development. In addition, the scale, size and location of the proposal would intrude spatially into the countryside, resulting in urban sprawl. This would have a significant impact on openness, which is in conflict with the fundamental aims of Green Belt policy. Substantial weight is given to this clearly identified harm to the openness of the Green Belt. In reaching this conclusion consideration is also given to the site being part of a larger site and drawings submitted alongside supporting information have indicated an intention for a larger development covering a larger part of the site.

In seeking to justify the proposal the planning application includes the following information in an attempt to demonstrate very special circumstances:

i) The site consists of an infill plot between properties.ii) The site sits between two proposed potential development sites as shown on the

Allocations Development Plan Document Issues and Options report.iii) The lack of a five year housing land supply.iv) The proposal would represent sustainable development.v) Net gain in biodiversity.


Each of these points will be addressed in turn before forming a conclusion on the principle of the development.

i) The site consists of an infill plot between propertiesParagraph 145 of the NPPF allows for ‘limiting infilling in villages’. The applicants claim that this is an infill plot is flawed. The proposal fails in respect of all three of the key words within this exception.

Firstly it is not a ‘limited’ development. It proposes a significant scale of development on a site which is part of a much larger site on which plans have previously been made available for the development of 25 dwellings.

Secondly, the site is not considered to constitute an ‘infill’ plot for the purposes of Green Belt policy. Infill plots refer to small plots of land in villages washed over by the Green Belt or in identified settlements which are tightly constrained by existing built form. Saved RUDP policy GB3 relates to infill development and defined an infill site as ‘a small gap in a small group of buildings, normally sufficient for example for only one dwelling, which is bounded by buildings on at least two sides’. This is a large open site fronting Apperley Lane and whilst there are residential properties immediately to the north and south of the site these do not tightly constrain this site. In fact Bank House to the north sits well back from the Apperley Lane and sits in very substantial grounds.

Finally, the site does not sit within a defined village boundary. Villages are defined as being a ‘group of houses and associates building, larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town, situated in a rural area’. Apperley Bridge may have historically been a village however it now sits comfortable within the built form of Bradford. Saved Policy GB3 identifies a number of settlements within the Bradford District in which infill development would be acceptable. This site includes villages such as Esholt, Tong and Stanbury but does not include this settlement.

As a consequence of the above the proposal is not considered to represent ‘limited infilling in villages’.

ii) The site sits between two proposed potential development sites as shown on the Allocations Development Plan Document Issues and Options report

The site does sit in between two sites identified in the Allocations Development Plan Document Issues and Options report but the supporting information fails to take into account comments in relation to these sites contained within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).

The site to the south referenced NE/051b is the Esholt Water Treatment Works which constitute a large area of previously development land which could potentially be suitable for development purposes though local policy constraints i.e. its allocation as Green Belt, flood zones and wildlife impacts may make development difficult. The site is considered to be not achievable at the current time according to the SHLAA.

The site to the north referenced NE/068 is also situated within the defined Green Belt described as ‘rolling agricultural land’ which is considered to be an unsuitable site for residential development as it ‘does not relate well to the urban area.’


Of the two sites it is clear that the northern site is more closely related to the site currently under consideration and the conclusion is gain that the site does not relate well to the urban area and is therefore considered to be unsuitable.

iii) The lack of a five year housing land supplyThe District currently does not have a 5-year housing land supply. However, any benefits that could be derived through the delivery of new homes on this site, will need to be balanced against the harm that would be caused by loss of openness and conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt. This is clearly set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF which whilst providing a presumption in favour of sustainable development where local policies are out of date is clear that this does not relate to areas or assets of particular importance within the NPPF which provide a clear reason for refusing the proposed development. The NPPF is clear that this includes Green Belt land and nationally, the general approach to this kind situation has established that unmet housing need is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying inappropriate development.

The Council is also currently undertaking a partial review of the Core Strategy DPD following recent updates to national planning policy, particularly in relation to calculating housing requirements and green belt protection. This partial review may see the new housing requirement revised to a lower number and re-assess the case for exceptional circumstances identifying the need for any changes to Green Belt policy.

Policy HO1 of the Core Strategy DPD establishes the housing requirement for the period 2013-2030 which indicates a minimum requirement of 2,477 dwellings per annum. Recent changes to national planning policy indicate that the minimum number of homes needed in an area should be established in strategic policies and should be informed by a local housing need assessment. Based on the 2014 household projections, an indicative assessment for Bradford over the period 2016-2026, indicates a need of 1,663 dwellings per annum. The partial review therefore advises that the local housing needs figure for Bradford is therefore likely to change at the end of the partial review. This also has implications on the need for and the scale of any subsequent Green Belt releases.

Policy SC7 of the Core Strategy DPD is clear that any changes to Green Belt boundaries ‘will be delivered by a selective review of Green Belt boundaries’ and this review will be undertaken ‘through the Allocations DPD in consultation with local communities and stakeholders’. The Partial Review of the Core Strategy also includes a review of this policy and seeks to ‘identify whether there continue to be exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land and if so the extent of Green Belt changes that are required to facilitate growth’.

The application also contains no information as part of the current application to show if other sites have been considered and if so, why this site is sequentially more preferable. It is also noted that this site has not been put forward for consideration as part of any of the call for sites which will inform the Allocations DPD. Should the applicants wish to pursue this site for development purposes the correct way would be to put the site forward for consideration as a potential housing site as part of the Allocations DPD process.

In light of the above it is clear that it has not been demonstrated that the lack of a five year housing supply can constitute very special circumstances in this case to allow development


on Green Belt. The likelihood that the housing need for the District could be reduced at the end of the Partial Review of the Core Strategy DPD adds significant weight to this view.

iv) The proposal would represent sustainable developmentThe Council cannot at this time demonstrate a five year housing supply thus the NPPF provides a presumption in favour of granting permission for sustainable development. The NPPF is also clear that this presumption in favour of sustainable development does not override the statutory status of the development plan as a starting point for decision making. It is also clear in stating that where the application of policies within the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance, including land designated as Green Belt, which provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.

That being said, the claim that this is a sustainable site is also disputed. The submitted statements claim that the site is sustainably located ‘abutting the existing built-up area’ with access to a range of existing services, shops and public transport which can be reached on foot.

In terms of amenities, the site lies approximately 2.2 kilometres from the centre of Rawdon and 2.0 kilometres from the shops in Greengates. It is within 400 metres of a bus stop and 0.83 kilometres from Apperley Bridge railway station. Accessibility standards as given in appendix 3 of the Core Strategy, however, require that in sustainability terms, buses and train services must run at least four times an hour; currently, the bus to the airport and Harrogate runs once an hour and trains to both Leeds and Bradford run three times an hour. Neither therefore meet accessibility requirements for the site and it is certainly difficult to envisage any end users of the site travelling by foot to use services in any of the nearby centres. The development is therefore not considered to represent a sustainable form of development.

v) Net gain in biodiversity and landscapeIt is difficult to envisage how constructing a residential development on an undeveloped site could encourage biodiversity on a site. Whilst it may be possible to incorporate some features within a development it would carry very limited weight in justifying this inappropriate development with very significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

vi) Conclusions in relation to the Principle of the DevelopmentIt is clear that this development represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt which causes significant harm to its openness. No compelling evidence has been submitted to demonstrate very special circumstances and so the proposal is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and wholly unacceptable in principle.

2. Highway SafetyPreviously, the proposed development site was subject to an internal consultation with Asset Management in which the likely use of the land was described as being for agricultural purposes. Whilst there would not be a highway issue with the use of the land as agricultural, the creation of a new access from Apperley Lane was not supported.

The visibility splays shown on the proposed Site Plan (Ref: AMA/2036/SK003) are not acceptable. The existing advisory speed limit to the south of the proposed access is 30mph and changes to 40mph approximately 15m north of the proposed site access.


Previously concern was expressed that the visibility splays were incorrectly plotted to the centreline of the road rather than to the near side kerb or tangential to the near side kerb on the bend. Given that there is a double solid white centreline that restricts overtaking it is now accepted that a visibility splay of 2.4m x 120m can be achieved to the north of the proposed access thus addressing this concern.

To the south however whilst the existing speed limit is 30mph, in free flow conditions vehicles actually travel at around 40mph or more on the approach to the proposed site access. It is acknowledged that previously highways advice was that a visibility splay of 2.4m x 4.5m be provided in this direction. However, given the likelihood that vehicles actually regularly exceed these speeds and in the absence of any information to indicate otherwise in the form of on-site speed surveys, visibility splay of 2.4m x 120m would also be required in this direction. Given the alignment of Apperley Lane to the south of the development site i.e. an existing ‘S’ bend, then this cannot be achieved.

Suggestions from the applicant’s highway consultants that Apperley Lane is an urban road along which Manual for Streets 2 (MfS2) standards should apply are not accepted. Given this road is a busy major transport corridor route the principle function of which is for the movement of traffic it is considered to be entirely reasonable to require the implementation of standards set out in Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).

In addition to the above the plans show a right turn lane on Apperley Lane. This would require the 'No Overtaking' solid white lining to be moved past the southern bend. This is also considered to be unacceptable.

Overall, the proposal fails to provide suitable visibility splays and would result in the creation of a substandard access onto an extremely busy district distributor road resulting in conditions prejudicial to highway safety. This is of particular concern, since there have also been clusters of road traffic accidents around the existing junctions of Apperley Lane / The Avenue, Apperley Lane / Woodlands Drive and Apperley Lane / Little Park immediately south of the proposed development site. The creation of another access on this busy classified distributor road would result in further similar accidents occurring.

3. Visual Amenity and Landscape CharacterThe site is allocated as "enclosed pasture" in the "Landscape Character Supplementary Planning Document Volume 2: Esholt" (SPD). The SPD states that "enclosed pasture" has, "a strong character, high historic continuity, and a visible and enclosed nature" (section 8.3.3). This landscape is sensitive to change and, the SDP goes on: "Housing estate development would detract significantly from the character of this landscape, though some carefully designed, stone, 'one-off' detached houses could potentially be accommodated if located within or close to existing woodland blocks or tree groups". Individual older stone properties and small groups of two or three houses comprise the traditional settlement pattern in this area.

Clearly, the proposal is a housing estate development and even if a single house were the subject of the application, there are few existing woodland blocks or tree groups on or near the site for its accommodation.


The SPD continues: "Should further development be required in this area it should be located on the edge of the enclosed pasture adjacent to existing urban areas... However, there is an overriding concern that the size of the landscape unit of the Esholt Valley should not be compromised by the cumulative effect of small 'one-off' developments, or subsequent phases of estate developments, because of the important role the Esholt Valley plays in separating the Bradford and Leeds conurbations".

The site is not on the edge of the enclosed pasture; nor, despite the presence of a small number of houses to the north and south, is it adjacent to existing urban areas. Rather, it is in the middle of an open area and would constitute a one-off development, contrary to the overriding concern expressed in the SPD. Furthermore, there was concern also that the proposal was one phase of a development, since although the description of the development and some of the plans refer to nine houses, there was a plan in the initial ecological appraisal showing twenty four houses on the site. This has now been superseded.

Even given substantial landscaping, the proposed dwellings and curtilages would significantly reduce the space and open character of the land between the existing houses and, to all intents and purposes, introduce a ribbon of development as well as an element of urbanisation. Given the low number of houses either side of the site, it is not considered that the proposal constitutes infill development. As such, the development would significantly reduce the value of the site as enclosed pasture and fail to conserve, or enhance the diversity of landscapes within the Esholt valley, notwithstanding the applicant's claim that the development has been located in such a way as to minimise its impact.

Moreover, the site has few long range views, but it is, nevertheless, highly prominent from the adjacent road and pavement. Developing the site for residential purposes would mar the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and consequently, there would be an adverse effect on the landscape character and appearance of the area, contrary to policy EN4 and DS2 of the Core Strategy. This effect may be increased by the layout of the site, but, in the absence of levels and sections, it is not possible to assess fully this aspect.

4. Residential AmenityThere are residential properties adjacent to the site with the closest being 3 West View to the south. The application is made in outline however, notwithstanding the issues raised above, the development of the site for residential purposes could likely be accommodated without causing any significant harm to residential amenity.

5. Drainage & Flood RiskThe site falls in Flood Zone 1 which is land at the lowest risk of flooding. The Council’s Drainage section has not raised any objections to the proposal. It is noted that this site forms part of a much larger area of land and drawings have been submitted within the supporting information indicating its development for 25 dwellings. A flood risk assessment would likely be required for development of the larger area of land.

6. Other Issues Raised in RepresentationsA number of letters have been received, both for and against the proposal. It is not considered that the site will turn into a fly tip if not built, as, should this be the case, there are other, less intrusive ways of securing the site.


Encumbrance, or otherwise, of the site is not a planning matter and the stated choice between "travellers and homes", cited by one supporter of the scheme, is in essence a false dichotomy, since there are other options, such as leaving the site as it is.

Many of the grounds of objection to the scheme are based on implications for highway safety, or ecology, which have been considered above. Stated concerns about air quality are not backed up by evidence, though further development will add to current levels of pollution.

Whether land was sold as agricultural land and whether there are any covenants relating to residential development, are private matters between the interested parties and not planning matters in this case.

Community Safety Implications:There are no community safety implications arising from the proposal.


Reasons for Refusal:1. The proposed development lies within an area defined as Green Belt on the

Replacement Unitary Development Plan wherein there is a strong presumption against inappropriate development. The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and in the absence of any very special circumstances, which may warrant the proposal being treated as an exception, the proposed development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. For this reason the proposed development is unacceptable against Policy GB1of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan, Policy SC7 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and national policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal fails to provide suitable visibility splays and would result in the creation of a substandard access on to an extremely busy district distributor road resulting in conditions prejudicial to highway safety. As such, the proposal would be contrary to policies DS4 and TR3 of the adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The size and residential nature of the proposal would harm the landscape character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies DS2 and EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.