Plans for Bradford student flats are turned down

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: an artist’s impression of the revised application an artist’s impression of the revised application

Major plans for a tower block of student flats behind the Alhambra Theatre and Odeon building have been refused by planners because they would “detract from the character and appearance” of the area.

The 16-storey building was first proposed last year, and although applicant Castlebrook Properties has since reduced its size by several stories, Bradford Council still deemed the building to large for the the city centre conservation area.

The original scheme, planned for the site of the former Castaways nightclub, would have housed 263 students and three shops and cafes. It involved the conversion of a grade II listed warehouse building into a cafe.

After objections from Bradford Council officers the company agreed to reduce its size, and even added an area of public art to the proposals.

But these changes were not enough to satisfy planning officers, who refused the application because of the building’s scale and because residents of the flats would be affected by noise from a neighbouring nightclub.

A third reason for refusal was because the building would “compromise” any future development of the area.

Since the plans were first announced there have been objections from English Heritage, which called the plans “obtrusive and jarring”, and the Council’s heritage officer John Akroyd, who called the proposed building “a monolithic modern structure” that would “reduce the (Alhambra) theatre towers to insignificant urban components”.

The refusal statement said: “The proposed development would detract from the character and appearance of the city centre conservation area by reason of its height, scale and massing.

“It would create an obtrusive feature in the street scene, failing to preserve or enhance the character of the area.”

The application’s transport statement said the Alexandra car park next to the site could be used by parents dropping off and collecting students at the start of each semester – but the car park is itself subject to another planning application.

Bradford College hopes to build a £10 million new technology building on the site, meaning there would be limited parking for the hundreds of students living at Castlebrook’s proposed building. No-one at Castlebrook could be contacted for a comment.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:53am Thu 17 Apr 14

Papa Smurfs Wig says...

The council want to build a hundred flats on the Alexandra car park as sais in this paper over a year ago in their quest to make the city centre a housing estate. Do where realisically can people park and could prospective tenants who take on a flat park if they have a car? It shows that won't really be an option.
The site would make a decent small supermarket though (hello Morrisons)
But slack reporting again. The plit us known more as Jumping Jacks or the Chicago and later the Gasworks. Castaways was there three months or so.
The council want to build a hundred flats on the Alexandra car park as sais in this paper over a year ago in their quest to make the city centre a housing estate. Do where realisically can people park and could prospective tenants who take on a flat park if they have a car? It shows that won't really be an option. The site would make a decent small supermarket though (hello Morrisons) But slack reporting again. The plit us known more as Jumping Jacks or the Chicago and later the Gasworks. Castaways was there three months or so. Papa Smurfs Wig
  • Score: -16

9:01am Thu 17 Apr 14

pcmanners says...

The flats need a dome on top, then they would blend in.
The flats need a dome on top, then they would blend in. pcmanners
  • Score: 5

9:17am Thu 17 Apr 14

Joedavid says...

"Since the plans were first announced there have been objections from English Heritage, which called the plans “obtrusive and jarring”, and the Council’s heritage officer John Akroyd, who called the proposed building “a monolithic modern structure” that would “reduce the (Alhambra) theatre towers to insignificant urban components”."

Why no mention of the Odeon/New Victoria?
"Since the plans were first announced there have been objections from English Heritage, which called the plans “obtrusive and jarring”, and the Council’s heritage officer John Akroyd, who called the proposed building “a monolithic modern structure” that would “reduce the (Alhambra) theatre towers to insignificant urban components”." Why no mention of the Odeon/New Victoria? Joedavid
  • Score: 4

10:15am Thu 17 Apr 14

Out of site says...

Build another mosque that would blend in well
Build another mosque that would blend in well Out of site
  • Score: -4

11:02am Thu 17 Apr 14

Avro says...

Stands out like a sore thumb, what a daft idea to put forward!
Stands out like a sore thumb, what a daft idea to put forward! Avro
  • Score: 7

11:56am Thu 17 Apr 14

m.r.c says...

So the planners turn down a multi-million pound development to replace a derelict boarded up eyesore..mmmm.
So the planners turn down a multi-million pound development to replace a derelict boarded up eyesore..mmmm. m.r.c
  • Score: -9

2:02pm Thu 17 Apr 14

basil fawlty says...

A poor design is a poor design. Well done the planners.
A poor design is a poor design. Well done the planners. basil fawlty
  • Score: 2

6:18pm Thu 17 Apr 14

alive and awake says...

basil fawlty wrote:
A poor design is a poor design. Well done the planners.
Off subject "sorry" I might have missed it but did the T&A report anything about Ed Balls not reporting a car accident?
[quote][p][bold]basil fawlty[/bold] wrote: A poor design is a poor design. Well done the planners.[/p][/quote]Off subject "sorry" I might have missed it but did the T&A report anything about Ed Balls not reporting a car accident? alive and awake
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Thu 17 Apr 14

alive and awake says...

m.r.c wrote:
So the planners turn down a multi-million pound development to replace a derelict boarded up eyesore..mmmm.
The Rev. Flowers used to be on the planning committee.
[quote][p][bold]m.r.c[/bold] wrote: So the planners turn down a multi-million pound development to replace a derelict boarded up eyesore..mmmm.[/p][/quote]The Rev. Flowers used to be on the planning committee. alive and awake
  • Score: 2

8:20pm Thu 17 Apr 14

allinittogether says...

alive and awake wrote:
basil fawlty wrote:
A poor design is a poor design. Well done the planners.
Off subject "sorry" I might have missed it but did the T&A report anything about Ed Balls not reporting a car accident?
You seriously making a veiled suggestion that the T&A is a left leaning newspaper?
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]basil fawlty[/bold] wrote: A poor design is a poor design. Well done the planners.[/p][/quote]Off subject "sorry" I might have missed it but did the T&A report anything about Ed Balls not reporting a car accident?[/p][/quote]You seriously making a veiled suggestion that the T&A is a left leaning newspaper? allinittogether
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree