PROPOSALS for a “flagship” department store in Bradford have been refused, with planners saying the development could draw business away from the city’s existing retail centres.
Earlier this year Asian fashion store Janan announced plans to expand its Shearbridge Road headquarters.
The company said the extension would create more storage space and allow the business to stock a wider product range, particularly in its menswear department.
The application added: “Janan Fashions is an underestimated business in Bradford, its national standing and position in the Asian fashion is something Bradford needs to support its development along with other businesses within the city.”
As well as a large extension to the building, the car park on the site would be expanded from 35 to 50 spaces.
But planning officers have now refused those expansion plans, arguing that large shop developments should be based in existing “retail centres” such as city centres or high streets.
They say the location of this planned department store – in the Shearbridge area of Bradford on the far outskirts of the city centre – goes against current planning policy on large shops.
Highways officers had also raised concerns about the application.
Under current policies, developers behind out-of-town retail schemes should prove that existing space in existing retail centres is not suitable for their plans.
They should also provide an assessment that their plans would not draw shoppers away from existing shopping areas.
Planning officers say neither of these assessments are included in the Janan application, which would create a “significant” out-of-town store.
Janan was founded in Bradford in 2011 and has 10 stores across the UK. It is now one of the country’s biggest Indian and Pakistani fashion brands.
Refusing the application this week, planning officers said: “Although previous consents for change of use and extensions to the building have allowed for the creation of a retail unit of substantial size in this out-of-centre location, the current proposal for further substantial extension is considered significant.
“The applicant has not submitted any supporting planning and retail assessment and therefore has not been robust in outlining their approach to sequential assessment and/or highlighting any likely impact that the proposal may have on the vitality and viability of all relevant retail centres.
“It is therefore concluded that the proposal cannot be fully assessed from a retail point of view.
“National and local planning policy prioritises a town-centre-first approach for main town centre uses, ensuring that such developments support the vitality and viability of designated centres.
“The closest designated centres to the development site are the local centres of Princeville, Woodhead Road and Horton Grange, but the site is beyond being classified as an edge of centre location for all these local centres.”
Referring to policies that require developers to search for town centre or high street spaces first, officers added: “This ensures that there are no suitable, available, and viable sites within or on the edge of designated centres before out-of-centre development is considered.
“The applicant has not submitted a sequential test to demonstrate compliance with this policy. As such, there is no evidence that the proposed development could not be accommodated in a sequentially preferable location.
“The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are no suitable, available, and viable sites within or on the edge of a designated town centre that could accommodate the proposed development.
"Furthermore, no retail impact assessment has been provided to assess the potential adverse impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of existing designated centres.”
Highways officers had also criticised the plans, saying the layout of the site “provided poor internal layout, inadequate servicing provision, and the creation of conflict between vehicular and pedestrian movements".
They added: “The development is likely to result in unsafe manoeuvring within the site and overspill onto the public highway, to the detriment of highway safety and the free flow of traffic.”
Another reason for refusing the application was that the development had the “potential negative implications for bats.”
Officers said: “A bat survey is required due to a likely impact on bat flight paths for foraging and social behaviours.
“No survey has been provided to evaluate this threat and detail any mitigation measures that may be required.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel
You must verify your phone number before you can comment.
Please enter your phone number below, and a verification code will be sent to you by text message.
Please enter the six-digit verification code sent to you by SMS.
Your verification code has been sent a second time to the mobile phone number you provided.
Your verification code has been sent a third time to the mobile phone number you provided.
You have requested your verification code too many times. Please try again later.
Didn’t receive a code? Send it againThe code you entered has not been recognised.
Please try again
You have failed to enter a correct code after three attempts.
Please try again later.
Your phone number has been verified.
Your phone number has been stored with your account details. We will never use it for anything other than verifying that you are the legitimate owner of this account.