Plan for shops and flats in employment zone is refused

A planning panel refused the development of four businesses and 12 apartments on a site on Birksland Street, off Leeds Road, at a meeting on Thursday.

The decision came after members were told the development would be in the middle of an employment zone – land normally set aside for industrial use.

The site is currently used for car storage, and is opposite the Haworth Scouring factory.

The planning application, submitted by a Mr Hughes, called for four ground floor Class E units – which can be shops, cafes, restaurants or offices.

It said the businesses would “appeal to end users similar to those using the Leeds Road area.”

A total of 12 apartments would be based on the two floors above these units.

But a report presented to the committee by planning officers raised serious concerns over the plans.

Planning officer Amin Ibrar told members that the site’s designation as an employment zone limited the type of development that could take place.

He said introducing homes to such a site could lead to a situation where future residents could complain about the noise from nearby businesses – putting existing companies at risk of enforcement action and putting potential business off from moving to the area.

The meeting was held in Bradford City Hall (Image: T&A)

He said the site is located in a flood plain, and this would usually prevent any residential development. Even if the Council did approve the scheme, it would have to go to the Secretary of State for final approval due to the flood plain issue.

The Environment Agency had objected to the plans due to the flood plain issue.

Referring to the employment zone concerns, he said: “The surrounding area is predominately industrial. With an employment zone, any development other than employment use would not be approved. Retail and residential apartments are not acceptable.

“If you add residential use to an industrial site, you get people complaining about noise.

“We designate areas as employment zones so this type of industry, which can be noisy, can take place.

“Adding flats would impact the vitality and viability of the nearby area. If you allowed residential uses in this area, then businesses couldn’t operate with the freedom they currently have.”

Chair of the Committee, Councillor Mohammed Shafiq (Lab, Bradford Moor) asked if there had been any recent flooding in the area.

Mr Ibrar said: “That is not really the point – the land has been found to be at risk of flooding – from a planning policy standpoint we shouldn’t be allowing this type of development on land like this.”

He was asked why shops, which would employ people, would not be suitable for an employment zone.

Mr Ibrar said employment zones were intended for industrial uses, not shops, giving Pro Logis Park as an example of another employment zone in the city.

He said there were only a limited number of sites in the city with such a designation.

Councillor Matt Edwards (Green, Tong) said: “Are you saying this could take out what is a scarce resource?”

Mr Ibrar said it would.

Highways officers had also raised concern over the plans. Residents of the flats and shop customers would park in a car park behind the new building, which would be accessed by a new access road.

But officers said: “The access is remote and would be inconvenient and will be likely to lead to indiscriminate parking on street.”

The applicant said they would fund a traffic order, such as double yellow lines in front of the shops.

But Mr Ibrar said: “People living in the apartments may use the car park, but people visiting the shops will likely just park outside.

“People can be lazy, they park on the road rather than walking an extra few minutes.”

Steven Hartley, representing the applicant, told the meeting: “The Council only has a two-year land supply for housing. It needs at least five years.

“The Prime Minister has reminded us we are in the middle of the most acute housing crisis of a generation.

“The default answer to brownfield housing plans should be yes.

“This development would improve the appearance of the area.”

Members voted to refuse the plans.