Apartment development which would provide emergency housing refused due to ‘poor facilities’ concerns

An apartment development that would provide emergency and social housing has been refused planning permission, partly due to concerns it would offer poor facilities for future residents.

A planning application to build a three-storey extension to a property on Lumb Lane to create six “house of multiple occupation” apartments was submitted to Bradford Council in January.

If approved, the building would have space for an extra 24 residents.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Formerly a Victorian pub called Perseverence, 161 Lumb Lane is already used as HMO flats.

An apartment development that would provide emergency and social housing has been refused planning permission, partly due to concerns it would offer poor facilities for future residents.An apartment development that would provide emergency and social housing has been refused planning permission, partly due to concerns it would offer poor facilities for future residents.
An apartment development that would provide emergency and social housing has been refused planning permission, partly due to concerns it would offer poor facilities for future residents.

The plans to extend the facility, submitted by a Mr Khan, have now been refused by Bradford Council.

Planning officers said: “The Council’s Housing Standards Team have assessed the proposed development and consider that the rooms do not meet the necessary space standards.

“The kitchens provided are too small to comfortably accommodate four persons for cooking and dining.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“The greatest concern with the proposed development is the layout overall of the apartments, which are poor in terms of fire safety.

“All occupiers in the event of emergency would be travelling through the living area to the bedrooms and exits, which is unacceptable.

“The layout of the second floor is unacceptable due to the height of the building and there being no alternative means of escape.”

Highways officers also raised concerns that the extension would effectively wipe out any parking on the site, when the extra flats would require more, not less parking.

And heritage officers feared the three storey extension would be “overbearing” and would “detract from the setting of the Grade II listed terraced properties of South field Square.”