‘Big Shotter’ fireworks store given green light despite raft of objections

The application to divide a long empty unit on Darley Street into two smaller businesses was submitted to the council this Autumn.

Big Shotter Fireworks, currently based in another Darley Street unit, would relocate to one of the new units, while the other would be a beauty salon.

The plans attracted a huge number of objections, including from West Yorkshire Police. The main concern was that allowing a firework shop to open would increase anti-social firework use in the city.

The plans went before Bradford Council’s Bradford Area Planning panel on Wednesday morning, where officers recommended the application be approved.

They pointed out that the unit could be converted to a firework shop without planning permission – as retail use fell into the same planning category as the old Post Office use.

The reason planning permission was required was because of the subdivision of the ground floor of a listed building, and the new salon use.

Chair of the Committee Councillor Sinead Engel (Lab, Clayton and Fairweather Green) asked of the police objection related to the location of the shop, or to the sale of fireworks in general.

Officers told her the objection raised concern that another shop in the city centre could lead to increased anti-social use of fireworks.

Councillor Aneela Ahmed (Lab, City) spoke against the plans. She said: “I don’t have to tell you about the nightmare of fireworks in the city that our residents have to suffer on a daily basis. I completely object to this unit becoming a fireworks retail outlet.”

Michael Chow, agent for the applicant, said: “If permission is not granted to split this unit into two, they could still sell fireworks anyway – all that would happen is the frontage would not be improved.

“The units will bring an active frontage to Darley Street. The applicant already has a firework store, but has outgrown the site. They want to relocate to this new premises.”

He said the fire department, which grants licences for fireworks sales and storage, was aware of the plans, and that Big Shotter had complied with health and safety requirements since it opened several years ago.

He pointed out that the applicant did not need to disclose that the new use would be a firework store in the application, saying he had been “honest from the outset” about his plans.

Jamil Ashraf from Big Shotter said he had appeared on the BBC promoting safe firework use, adding: “We don’t want our fireworks used illegally in any way.”

He added: “The nuisance fireworks are ones that are likely sold illegally. We go through rigorous tests every single year.”

He told the panel that most of the fireworks were stored off site.

The existing Big Shotter unit would be open for another retail use once the business moved – members were told.

Councillor Si Cunningham (Lab, Bolton and Undercliffe) said: “This is a very emotive subject for the people of Bradford.

“Misuse of fireworks is an absolute scourge in this city, but we’re very much guided by national policy – there is little we can do to control the sale of fireworks.

Councillor Brendan Stubbs (Lib Dem, Eccleshill) said: “This leaves us in the difficult position where we have to approve this.

“It needs to be made clear that it is the misuse of fireworks that causes problems across the district.

“But it is misuse – they are a legitimate product that is legal to sell.

“Without any change in Government regulation there is very little we can do as a Council to stop them being sold legitimately.

“Approving this business is not an endorsement on the misuse of fireworks, which I don’t condone at all.”

Councillor Sinead Engel (Lab, Clayton and Fairweather Green) said: “We hear about firework problems from our constituents, and our children, pets and relatives are all affected by this.

“But banning fireworks or the selling of fireworks isn’t in our remit.

“The question for us today is do we grant permission to bring a derelict shop back into use, and there are no planning reasons to refuse this.”

Five members voted to approve the plans and one voted against.