Up to nine homes at Lavender House, Thornton, Bradford

What was proposed

The application sought permission in principle for up to nine residential dwellings, with detailed matters reserved for a later consent.

“Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Full planning application for up to 9 residential dwellings at Spring Hole Lane, Thornton.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site was an open agricultural field east of Lower Heights Road, on Thornton’s edge, within designated Green Belt land.

“Site Description: The application site relates to an existing open field directly east of Lower Heights Road, on the outskirts of the built up area of Thornton. A number of residential properties lie to the north and west of the site. The site is allocated as Green Belt Land.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

The relevant site history was an earlier application for widening a property entrance and associated works, which was granted in 2019.

“Relevant Site History: 19/02241/FUL Widening entrance to property and associated works GRANT 07.08.2019.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the site Grey Belt, found it met the national tests for appropriate development and recommended permission in principle.

“Grey Belt Considerations Grey belt was introduced in the 2024 revision to the NPPF and is defined as “For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143.”

“Planning Balance and Reason for Grant of Planning Permission: The site also represents 'Grey Belt' for the purposes of an assessment against the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. There are no barriers to the development of the site when considered against the specific, non-green belt, criteria set out in Footnote 7 of that document. The NPPF states that Grey Belt developments need not be inappropriate in certain circumstances as is the case here.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no objection in principle subject to later technical requirements, while drainage and rights of way advice identified further consultation or design matters.

“Consultations: Rights of way – Recommend the applicant consults with Rights of Way Team at earliest opportunity to avoid potential impacts to existing right of way.”

“Highways – No objections subject to Leeds Transport SPD design guide being followed and a number of conditions being stipulated if a subsequent Technical Details application is submitted…”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Thirty-three objections raised concerns about Green Belt loss, traffic and safety, wildlife, infrastructure capacity and overdevelopment.

“Green Belt & Landscape Development on Green Belt land considered inappropriate. Loss of an open green space.”

“Highways, Traffic & Safety Already narrow, congested and unsafe. Junction safety concerns. Risk of overspill on-street parking, reducing visibility and pedestrian safety.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors addressed the Panel about Green Belt protection, biodiversity, highway safety and existing problems on Lower Heights Road, while the applicant supported a smaller sympathetic scheme.

Members’ discussion

Members recognised local highway and rural-character concerns but considered those matters suitable for detailed assessment later and found no reason to refuse in principle.

“Members made the following comments: • The strength of local concerns regarding highways and the rural character of the area were acknowledged but noted these matters would be subject…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director’s technical report.

“That the application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the Strategic Director, Growth technical report, (Document “A”).”

Minutes