Application Number 89/00195/FUL)

6 CALDERDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE

WARDS AFFECTED: MORE THAN THREE

Date of meeting: 15 October 2019

Chief Officer: Director of Regeneration and Strategy.

1. SUBJECT OF REPORT

APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION RE PLANNING PERMISSION, LISTED BUILDING CONSENT/CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT, LOCAL AUTHORITY APPLICATIONS, CROWN APPLICATION OR CONSENT TO FELL PROTECTED TREES

(i) Executive Summary (ii) Individual Applications

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 The attached report contains two sections. The first section (yellow sheets) contains a summarised list of all applications to be considered at the Committee and the time at which the application will be heard. Applications for Committee consideration have been identified in accordance with Council Standing Orders and delegations.

2.2 The second section comprises individual detailed reports relative to the applications to be considered.

2.3 These are set out in a standard format including the details of the application and relevant planning site history, representations/comments received arising from publicity and consultations, the officers assessment and recommendation, with suggested conditions or reasons for refusal, as appropriate.

2.4 Where the Committee considers that a decision contrary to the recommendation of the Director of Regeneration and Strategy may be appropriate then consideration of the application may be deferred for further information

2.5 Where a Legal Agreement is required by the Committee, the resolution will be “Mindful to Permit Subject to a Legal Agreement being completed”, combined with a delegation to the Director of Regeneration and Strategy.

3. IMPLICATIONS ARISING FROM REPORT

3.1 Planning Policy

These are set out separately in each individual application report.

3.2 Sustainability

Effective planning control concurs with the basic principle of sustainable development in that it assists in ensuring that development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Through the development control system, the Council can enable environmental damage to be minimised and ensure that resources are used efficiently and waste minimised. Particular sustainability issues will be highlighted in individual reports where appropriate.

3.3 Equal Opportunities

All applications are considered on their merits having regard to Government guidance, the policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and other factors relevant to planning and in a manner according to the Development Control Code of Conduct for officers and members as set out in the Council’s Standing Orders.

Planning permission in the vast majority of cases is given for land not to an individual, and the personal circumstances of the applicant are seldom relevant.

In particular however, the Council has to have regard to the needs of people with disabilities and their needs are a material planning consideration. Reference will therefore, be made to any such issues in the individual application reports where appropriate

Furthermore, the Council also attempts wherever possible/practical to apply good practice guidance published in respect of Race and Planning issues.

3.4 Finance

A refusal of planning permission can have financial implications for the Council where a subsequent appeal is lodged by the applicant in respect of the decision or if a case of alleged maladministration is referred to the Local Government Ombudsman or a Judicial Review is sought through the Courts.

In all cases indirect staff costs will be incurred in processing any such forms of ‘appeal’.

However, there is no existing budget to cover any direct costs should any such ‘appeal’ result in ‘costs’ being awarded against the Council. These would have to be found by way of compensatory savings from elsewhere in the Planning Services budget.

Reference: 6/00/00/CM Richard Seaman For and on behalf of Director of Regeneration and Strategy ______

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS REPORT CONTACT:

Richard Seaman TELEPHONE :- 01422 392241 Corporate Lead For Planning Services

DOCUMENTS USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT:

1. Planning Application File (numbered as the application show in the report) 2. Secretary Of State For Communities And Local Government 3. Calderdale UDP (including any associated preparatory documents) 4. Related appeal and court decisions 5. Related planning applications 6. Relevant guideline/good practice documents

DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT: www.calderdale.gov.uk.

You can access the Councils website at the Councils Customer First offices and Council Libraries.

List of Applications at Committee 15 October 2019

Time App No. Location Proposal Ward Page No. & No.

1400 19/00739/HSE The Bungalow Extension to south Illingworth And - 01 Union Lane elevation Mixenden Ogden Halifax 5 - 11 West Yorkshire

1400 19/01051/FUL Hebble End Mill First floor extension Calder - 02 Hebble End to provide holiday let Hebden Bridge accommodation Calderdale (Revised Scheme to 12 - 31 18/01007)

1445 19/00356/FUL Hipperholme Demolition of existing Hipperholme Grammar Junior former junior school And Lightcliffe School building to facilitate a 45 Wakefield Road new 66-bed Lightcliffe residential care 32 - 53 Brighouse home. Calderdale

1500 17/00395/OUT Land Opposite Residential Hipperholme St Giles Close Development And Lightcliffe Hove Edge (Outline) (Amended Brighouse Plans) 54 - 65 Calderdale

1600 19/00181/FUL Land South East Detached dwelling, Ryburn Of High Field new access drive, High Field Lane and septic tank. Ripponden 66 - 83 Sowerby Bridge Calderdale

______

Time Not Before: 1400 - 01

Application No: 19/00739/HSE Ward: Illingworth And Mixenden Area Team: North Team

Proposal: Extension to south elevation

Location: The Bungalow Union Lane Ogden Halifax West Yorkshire HX2 8XS

Applicant: Mr D Teal & Councillor L Lambert

Recommendation: PERMIT

Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: No Departure from Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Countryside Services (E)

Description of Site and Proposal

The application relates to a detached bungalow. It is situated in a semi rural setting at Ogden approximately 6.5km northwest of Halifax town centre and accessed via the main A629 Keighley Road.

The applicant seeks planning permission to replace a small porch on the south east, roadside elevation with a single storey extension to provide a new accessible external entrance and additional bedroom/bathroom accommodation for a dependant relative.

The application has been referred to Planning Committee because this is an application submitted in a personal capacity by Councillor Lisa Lambert who is a ward Councillor for Illingworth and Mixenden.

Relevant Planning History

Application 94/01539/FUL was approved on 9 September 1994 for a single storey side extension to form a bedroom & garage Application 97/01217/FUL was approved on the 16 October 1997 for part demolition and new side extension.

Key Policy Context:

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Green Belt Development Plan Designation Special Landscape Area Replacement Calderdale Unitary GNE1 Containment of the Urban Area Development Plan policies NE12 Special Landscape Area BE1 General Design Criteria BE2 Private Amenity EP12 Protection of Water Resources EP13 Development Involving Non-mains Drainage EP20 Protection from Flood Risk EP22 Sustainable Drainage Systems National Planning Policy Framework 12. Achieving well-designed places Sections 13. Protecting Green Belt Land 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Other relevant planning Constraints None

Publicity/ Representations:

The application was publicised by neighbour notification letters to the three neighbouring dwellings.

No objections or representations have been received.

Parish/Town Council Comments

The development is not located within the boundaries of a Parished Council.

Assessment of Proposal

Principle of Development

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) compliments this requirement. The revised NPPF was updated on 19 February 2019 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied, alongside other national planning policies. Paragraph 213 of Annex 1 (Implementation) of the NPPF advises to the effect that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. The closer the policies in the plan to the NPPF policies, the greater the weight they may be given.

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means:

 approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or  where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: - i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed (for example land designated as Green Belt); or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan does not contain a saved policy on extensions to existing dwellings in the Green Belt and as such the second bullet point above potentially applies to the determination of this application. However, consideration must be given to whether the Green Belt policies in the NPPF provide a clear reason for refusing the application; and whether any other adverse impacts of the permitting the application would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. These matters are considered below.

According to the NPPF, the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The NPPF goes on to establish that the purposes of the Green Belt are:

 to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;  to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;  to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;  to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and  to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

In relation to inappropriate development, the NPPF states that:

143. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

144. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed [my underlining] by other considerations.

In the case of Doncaster MBC v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2002) (relating to an unauthorized gypsy caravan site), the court explained that it is very important that full weight is given to the proposition that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Relevant policy (at that time set out in PPG2, now expressed in essentially same terms in the NPPF) is a reflection of the fact that there may be many applications in the Green Belt where the proposal would be relatively inconspicuous or have a limited effect on the openness of the Green Belt, but if such arguments were to be repeated the cumulative effect of many permissions would destroy the very qualities that underlie the Green Belt designation. Hence the importance, the court pointed out, of recognising at all times that inappropriate development is by definition harmful, and then going on to consider whether there will be additional harm by reason of such matters as loss of openness and impact on the functions of the Green Belt. It is therefore evident that an assessment of a proposed development’s harm involves two separate considerations

RCUDP policy GNE1 states “The plan will seek to restrain development outside the urban areas through the general extent of the Green Belt”. However, RCUDP policy NE1, which was the specific Part Two Policy relating to development within the Green Belt, was not saved when the RCUDP was amended by Direction of the Secretary of State on 25 August 2009.

Paragraph 145 of the NPPF establishes that:

“A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are (amongst other things):

c) the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.”

The proposed development is an extension and therefore potentially falls into the above exception; however, for this to apply it is necessary to establish whether or not it amounts to a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.

It is acknowledged that there has been development in the past over and above the original volume of the bungalow. However, the NPPF does not provide a specific definition of what would constitute a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building, and as such it is a matter of judgement.

The proposed extension would be on the south east elevation and would measure 9.5m x 3m at the position of the existing porch extending to 4m at the widest point. The proposed extension would have an eaves height of 3.5m at its highest point and ridge height of 5.7m which would run through at the same height as the main roof structure.

Whilst the bungalow has been previously extended, the proposed development, would infill an area which is slightly set down from the highway between the existing roadside elevation and the south east boundary, and would be well screened by the natural boundary treatment.

The new extension would incorporate the existing porch which would be remodelled to form ensuite bathroom facilities to the new bedroom. The open views to the south west and north-west would remain unaltered by the proposal. The proposed extension would present a second gabled feature and the roofline would extend at the same height as the main ridge height. The entrance would be set back from the existing south west facing elevation. Overall the design and siting of the proposed extension would give it a subservient appearance.

The original bungalow was a very small building that would not meet reasonable modern expectations. It was extended in 1994 and 1997 to improve the quality of the accommodation but it is unclear as to what proportions of the approved additions have actually been implemented. A small conservatory has been added to the northwest elevation under permitted development; however the property still remains a modest two bedroomed dwelling.

The building, as it currently stands has a volume of approximately 525m3 and the additional volume of the proposed extension would increase the extended bungalow by approximately 156 cubic metres. This would result in an approximate increase in volume of 90% over and above the original bungalow.

It could be argued in a mathematical sense that the previous and proposed extensions would cumulatively result in a disproportionate addition relative to the original building; however, even after the proposed extension the bungalow would still remain a modestly proportioned dwelling, with a visually subservient extension.

On balance, the development is not considered to result in a disproportionate addition and as such the proposal is not considered to be inappropriate development. The principle of development is therefore acceptable as the proposal satisfies RCUDP policy GNE1 and Section 13 of the NPPF.

Residential Amenity

RCUDP policy BE2 deals with privacy, daylighting and amenity space and establishes that development proposals should not significantly affect the privacy, daylighting and private amenity space of adjacent residents or other occupants and should provide adequate privacy, daylighting and private amenity space for existing and prospective residents and other occupants.

There are no neighbouring dwellings that would be affected by the proposed extension given the existing boundary treatment and the orientation of the proposal in relation to dwellings within the near vicinity.

The proposed extension is considered acceptable in terms of RCUDP policy BE2.

Visual Amenity, Layout, Design and Materials

The site lies within the Special Landscape Area where RCUDP policy NE12 applies. This policy establishes that development which would adversely affect landscape quality will not be permitted.

Policy BE1 of the RCUDP aims to ensure that development proposals make a positive contribution to the quality of the existing environment or, at the very least, maintain that quality by means of high standards of design. Development proposals are expected to respect or enhance the established character and appearance of the existing buildings and their surroundings in terms of layout, scale, height, density, form, massing, siting, design, materials, boundary treatment, landscaping and to consider energy efficiency and security issues.

Section 12 of the NPPF Achieving well-designed places paragraph 124 states that:

“The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities….”

The extension has been designed primarily to accommodate a dependant relative providing an accessible level external entrance and bedroom with en-suite facilities. The extension would be sympathetic in design to the existing bungalow and would be constructed using facing and roofing materials to match the existing dwelling. The proposed measurements of the extension are set out above under ‘Principle of Development’ and as the extension would be contained within the established garden area and set down and well screened by the existing mature planting, the extension is not considered to visually impact on the open countryside and the Special Landscape Area.

Given the existing development within the site and the established residential use, it is considered that the proposed extension to the south-east elevation would satisfy RCUDP policies BE1 and NE12 and section 15 of the NPPF.

Flooding and drainage

RCUDP Policies EP20 and EP22 establish that ground and surface water will be protected and development will not be permitted if it would increase the risk of flooding due to surface water runoff or obstruction. RCUDP policy EP13 discusses development involving non-mains drainage. Sustainable Drainage Systems should be incorporated where appropriate.

Whilst the proposal would largely infill an area between the South East elevation of the property and the adjacent boundary, it would not obstruct surface water run off.

The applicant has completed a FDA1 in terms of foul water drainage, which confirms that the proposed extension will be connected to an existing septic tank that serves the building which is of sufficient capacity to accommodate additional load.

It is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of policies EP13 Development Involving Non-mains Drainage, EP20 which discusses protection from flood risk and EP22 which is concerned with sustainable drainage systems of the RCUDP.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions specified. The recommendation to grant planning permission has been made because the development is in accordance with the policies and proposals in the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework set out in the ‘Key Policy Context’ section above and there are no material considerations to outweigh the presumption in favour of such development.

Richard Seaman For and on behalf of Director of Regeneration and Strategy

Date: 3 October 2019

Further Information

Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:-

Sally Rose (Case Officer) on 01422 392277 or Richard Seaman (Lead Officer) on 01422 392241

Conditions

1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the schedule of approved plans listed above in this decision notice, unless variation of the plans is required by any other condition of this permission.

2. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling a single permanent bat roosting feature shall be installed within the fabric of the dwelling as close to the S facing roofline as possible (but not directly above any windows or doors), details of which shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bat roosting feature shall be installed in accordance with the details so approved and shall be so retained thereafter.

Reasons

1. For the avoidance of doubt as to what benefits from planning permission and to ensure compliance with the Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework.

2. In the interests of conservation and to protect the ecological species and in order to ensure compliance with policy NE17 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

Time Not Before: 1400 - 02

Application No: 19/01051/FUL Ward: Calder Area Team: North Team

Proposal: First floor extension to provide holiday let accommodation (Revised Scheme to 18/01007)

Location: Hebble End Mill Hebble End Hebden Bridge Calderdale

Applicant: Fletcher

Recommendation: PERMIT

Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: No Departure from Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Highways Section Environmental Health Services - Pollution Section (E) Environment Agency (Waste & Water) Hebden Royd Town Council Council for Protection of Rural England Canal & River Trust Countryside Services (E)

Tourism & Rural Development

Description of Site and Proposal

The site is located alongside the Rochdale Canal in Hebden Bridge on an ‘island’ site between the Canal and the River Calder. The site is currently occupied by a two storey former Canal warehouse with a single storey weaving shed extension to one side. There is no vehicular access.

The building is currently home to a number of small businesses on the ground floor, with storage on the first floor of the eastern part of the mill.

Planning permission is sought for First floor extension to provide holiday let accommodation (Revised Scheme to 18/01007).

The proposal is within the Hebden Bridge Conservation Area.

The application has been referred to Planning Committee due to the sensitive nature of the proposal.

The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents:

 Flood Risk Assessment  Design and Access Statement  Heritage Statement  Supporting statement  Land Contamination Report  Bat Scoping Survey

Relevant Planning History

An application for the refurbishment and subdivision of existing buildings was permitted by Planning Committee on 31 March 1989 (application number 89/00195/FUL).

An application for change of use of part of existing building from industrial to coffee shop / restaurant was refused by planning committee on 4 April 1990 (application number 90/00296/COU). The reasons for refusal were given as being contrary to the Council’s shopping policy and failing to meet the criteria for retail development in non-retailing areas.

An application for change of use of part of existing building from industrial to coffee shop / restaurant was refused by planning committee on 26 February 1991 (application number 91/00052/COU). The reasons for refusal were given as being contrary to the Council’s shopping policy and failing to meet the criteria for retail development in non-retailing areas.

An application for First floor extension to provide holiday let accommodation was originally deferred by planning committee 2 July 2019 to request more information on the impact of the proposal on no.’s 7 and 9 Hebble End. The application was subsequently presented to planning committee 13 August 2019 and was refused as it was considered that the extension to Hebble End Mill would result in an unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impact on habitable room windows serving the dwelling at 9 Hebble End. The application is therefore contrary to policy BE2 (Privacy, daylighting and amenity space) of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

Key Policy Context:

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Conservation Area Development Plan Designation Primary Employment Area Site of Ecological and Geological Interest Wildlife Corridor Replacement Calderdale Unitary E1 Primary Employment Area Development Plan policies E5 Safeguarding Employment Land and Buildings E11 Hotels, Motels and Other Visitor Accommodation BE1 General Design Criteria BE2 Privacy Daylighting and Amenity Space BE5 The Design and Layout of Highways and Accesses BE15 Setting of a Listed Building BE18 Development within Conservation Areas NE15 Development in Wildlife Corridors NE16 Protection of Protected Species T18 Maximum Parking Allowances EP8 Other Incompatible Uses EP14 Protection of Groundwater EP15 Development Alongside Waterways EP20 Protection from Flood Risk EP22 Sustainable Drainage Systems National Planning Policy Framework 6 Building a strong, competitive Paragraphs economy 7 Ensuring the vitality of town centres 8 Promoting healthy and safe communities 12 Achieving well-designed places 14 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 16 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Other relevant planning Constraints Contamination Site Flood Zone 2 and 3 Within 50m of Grade II Listed Buildings

Publicity / Representations:

The application was publicised with site and press notices, and in addition thirty five neighbour notification letters were sent.

Two letters of objection and one neutral letter were received.

Summary of points raised:

Objection

 Rise in temporary accommodation is not to the benefit of residents  Tourists / visitors do not use the local schools, health services, library etc  What do visitors bring to the local economy  Do not need any more overnight accommodation  Need employment sites / studios / offices  my main concern is the fire escape which uses the roof of my outbuilding in my back yard will be used as access for guests  Security issues for work units on ground floor  Over development of a land locked site  Significant impact on local residents during ad after construction  Development reduces quality of existing artisan / retail space  Development compromises local residents and business owners right to enjoy peaceful way of life.

Neutral

 Plans still incorrect and lack information of height  View of new roof from western elevation required  Neighbours notification letter has not been received from Calderdale.

Parish/Town Council Comments

The development is located within the boundaries of Hebden Royd Town Council.

The Town Council make the following comments:

RECOMMEND REFUSAL. The Town Council is not in principle against this development but the inaccurate drawings do not allow the proposal to be considered with due regard for all. Specific areas of the plans that are of concern are:  The lack of dimensions, therefore consideration cannot be given to the height of the roof and its impact on neighbours  Alterations to the window on both sides of the canal facing façade  The inaccurate number of apartments  The lack of internal layouts for the apartments, including the accessible apartment on the ground floor  The lack of a door to unit 4  A large triangular section of roof that appears to have not been considered  The sections of roof which are stated as being retained as is but the drawings not reflecting them as they currently are

Additionally we have concerns regarding the parking arrangements as proposed and legally binding agreements to secure these. Similar concerns exist regarding access to the rear of the site during the construction phase.

Assessment of Proposal

Principle of Development

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means:

 approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or  where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: - i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; (for example…designated heritage asset) or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal seeks permission for a first floor extension to provide holiday let accommodation.

As the site lies within the Hebden Bridge Conservation Area, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The site is also within the Primary Employment Area and subject to an assessment of all other relevant planning policies and this is detailed below.

Employment Land

Loss of Employment Land

The proposed site is designated as a Primary Employment Area, and the ground floor is currently separated into individual units for small independent businesses.

Policy E1 states that:

Within the defined Primary Employment Areas as shown on the Proposals Map, development proposals within Use Classes B1, B2 and B8 will be permitted provided that the proposed development:-

i. relates well in scale and character to the locality; ii. does not create any unacceptable environmental, amenity, safety, highway or other problems; iii. is accessible by good quality public transport as existing or with enhancement and offers pedestrian and cycle access; and iv. is consistent with other relevant UDP policies. Any proposals for other employment uses, which can include retail or leisure uses, will be determined having regard to the criteria in this policy and other applicable UDP policies. The applicant maintains that following completion fifteen business units will remain, offering improved facilities for existing tenants. Therefore in terms of the above policy, the proposal seeks to maintain the businesses to the ground floor and accords with policy E1.

The new roof extension would allow for the creation of the nine holiday apartments.

Tourism

Policy E11 of the RCUDP is concerned with hotels, motels and other visitor accommodation.

The Council’s Tourism Officer has been consulted on this latest application but did not comment. However given the latest application’s proposed use is the same as the previous scheme it is considered reasonable to repeat their comments they made against the previous application:

The Tourism Team supports this application and has previously liaised with the applicant to provide supporting information for this planning application.

The central location in Hebden Bridge of Hebble End Mill is close to many leisure drivers and although there are other serviced, self-catering and airbnb lets both in and around Hebden Bridge, anecdotal evidence suggests that the market is far from saturated and that there is demand for further high quality accommodation. Members of the Tourism Team have carried out a site visit and feel this is a good location for holiday accommodation and would support the SME enterprises in the local vicinity to the proposed accommodation. Attached is the visitor economy research document provided to Mr Fletcher in summer 2018. (note the economic impact figures stated in the support letter were from 2016, the updated data is below)

Overnight stays bring increased revenue to Calderdale; supporting jobs and the local economy. Research shows:  that staying visitors spend on average over twice more per person than day visitors. Therefore increasing the opportunity for more visitors to have a good quality overnight stay in Calderdale is good for the local economy and Calderdale's good reputation as a visitor destination.*  Overnight stays in Calderdale resulted in an estimated 1.03 million visitor nights spent in the borough, 0.66million by domestic visitors and 0.37 million by those visiting from overseas. Overall trip expenditure reached £68.7 million in 2017. Total expenditure by visitors (overnight and day) to Calderdale is estimated to have been in the region of £266.4 million in 2017, up by 5% compared to 2016.*  With multiplier effects, the worth of the visitor economy in 2017 is estimated to be £344.1 million, an increase of 5% from 2016, demonstrating that the visitor economy and accommodation sector is sustainable and growing.*

*Source: The Economic Impact of Tourism on Calderdale 2017

Strategic Information

The project has originated from a desire to extend the visitor offer and maximise the opportunities presented from the area within Calderdale as a growing visitor destination. Information has been sourced from the Visit Calderdale tourism team which has identified clear evidence to demonstrate there is a demand for accommodation as a result in the development of the visitor economy, particularly in thriving visitor destinations such as Hebden Bridge for couples and families wishing to experience the great outdoors, the walking and cycling offer but with a desire for comfort and luxury and close proximity to rural and urban environments.

The information below is taken from the Visitor Economy Strategy - Calderdale 2015-18 Calderdale - 2016 Research Data (Source Economic Impact Assessment -Tourism South East)

Recent trends for Calderdale show an overall increase in year on year tourism spending and visitor numbers which has been driven by day trips and international visitors. From available research we know that there has been an upward trend in the visitor economy in Calderdale since 2010.

Overall, an estimated 333,000 staying trips were spent in the District in 2016. It is estimated that 281,000 trips were made by domestic visitors and 52,000 were made by overseas visitors. Staying trips resulted in an estimated 1 million visitor nights spent in the District, 665,000 by domestic visitors and 369,000 by those visiting from overseas. Overall trip expenditure reached £65 million in 2016.

Approximately 6.3 million tourism day trips were made to the District in 2016 and increase from 5.56 million reported in 2015, generating £188 million in trip expenditure.

Total expenditure by visitors which combines overnight and day trips to Calderdale is estimated to have been in the region of £253 million in 2016, an increase of 9% from the previous year, reducing the figure to take into account visitor spend to travel to Calderdale this results in direct visitor spend of £241 million.

With multiplier effects, the worth of the visitor economy in 2016 is estimated to be £328 million, an increase of 11% from 2015, demonstrating that we are proposing to do business in a sustainable and growing environment.

We are aware that tourism activity is estimated to have supported 4,633 FTE jobs in Calderdale. Once part-time and seasonal employment is accumulated, the total number of jobs supported increased to 6,371 actual jobs, up 7% from 2015 and currently accounts for 6% of all jobs within the borough of Calderdale.

Visitor Motivations

Desk top research has been carried out to identify why visitors are coming to Calderdale and how we can ensure our product is fit for purpose and importantly attracting new markets.

Visitor Information - source Visitor Economy Strategy Update document 2017/18

From January - September 2017, data was gathered from Hebden Bridge and Halifax Visitor Centres. Just fewer than 80 questionnaires were completed, equating to 220 individuals with an average party size of 2.75. Of all visitors questioned 85% were considered true visitors. (Outside of Calderdale) 62% from across the region and 38% from beyond an hour's drive time. From the research carried out through Hebden Bridge Visitor Centre we are aware that the area attracted

25% of repeat visitors, 65% of new visitors and (15% local users). For both areas, the repeat visitor statistics were interesting with 40% having visited within the last year but a significant amount revisiting the area after a period of 3-5 years. .

Shopping and special occasion trips were primary motivators for visitors to Halifax, which correlates with The Piece Hall data analysis. In the upper valley, the walking offer attracts more than 30% of those questioned, combined with shopping and eating. Pre- trip influencers to the area include hard copy promotions and an increasing number through on line promotions such as visitcalderdale.com. Of all visitors questioned 98 % commented they would recommend the area to others and of this 89% stated that they would be highly likely to recommend. 82% of visitors advised that they had planned their trips and 18% were impulse visits.

Day Trippers & Staycations

Of the visitors questioned, 45% were day trippers and 55% were overnight stays. In Halifax, of those staying, 95% were staying in paid for accommodation (hotel, B&B or narrow boat) in Hebden Bridge, 40% were staying with friends and relatives and 60% in paid for accommodation. The average length of stay is consistent with regional research which is currently three nights. However a significant number of international visitors are estimated to stay for 7+ nights. Research has indicated that length of stay increases throughout the summer months. International visitors making up 21% of the staycation market, visiting from Canada, Majorca, USA, Australia and Belgium.

Developing the Business within the Context of Strategic Information

From carrying out desk top research, using local intelligence and from liaison with the Principal Officer - Tourism at Visit Calderdale it is evident that there is a strong business case for development of new accommodation in Hebden Bridge. Attached at appendix 1 is information showing the current provision within Hebden Bridge and the surrounding hill top areas. From current research there are an estimated 53 self- catering providers offering 84 rooms and 276 bed spaces. In addition there 25 serviced accommodation providers offering 79 rooms which equates to 171 bed spaces. There are some group accommodation offerings in the locality and a camping and caravan offer on the hill tops.

Sustainability

Having spoken to tourism officers we are aware that over the period of the last 12 months there has been a loss of 20 bed spaces in Hebden Bridge, this is as a result of retirement and diversifying to long term letting. There have been 13 new bed spaces created during this period also.

From analysing the current provision and the variation in the offer, the proposal would not displace other existing provision it would complement this. Hebble End Accommodation The aim of the project is to construct a new first floor above existing ground floor craft units in a stone building along the canal that runs through the centre of Hebden Bridge. The new floor will accommodate six self-contained holiday apartments. Located in the heart of a vibrant and bustling town with good amenities and a significant out of season festival offer; this allows potentially provision for a 12 month of the year demand. However working on the basis that occupancy would be for 40 weeks of the year, allowing for quiet period over the winter months and also accommodating variation in length of stay the table below gives an indication as to what can be provided.

Potential income

Operating 6 apartments for a 2 X 3 night basis per week, costing £300 per 3 night stay over a 40 week period would generate £144,000 per annum

Operating 6 apartments for a 1 X 7 night basis, costing an average of £375 per week over a 40 week period would generate £90,000 per annum

Operating 6 apartment for a 2 night basis (weekends only) once a week costing £250 per apartment would generate £60,000 per annum

It is estimated that there will be busy and quiet period throughout the season and differentiation in individual occupancy; however, based on the information above it is considered a realistic figure that the business could generate in excess of £100,000 per annum taking into account the quieter months. In addition to leisure tourism; there are some significant employers in the borough of Calderdale, including, Lloyds, Nestle, Weir Minerals and Marshalls. Business tourism is evident in the borough and there is the potential to explore this market as an opportunity two of the apartments. Business tourism supports the local economy as well as supporting longer terms inward investment opportunities.

The Offer

As proprietors of the business we are strongly influenced by the need to support local and we are passionate about promoting locally sourced products and local guided walks and cycling, working with local entrepreneurs to create a bespoke, packaged, memorable experience. We want to create eco-friendly accommodation that blend with the local landscape creating an immersive experience for couples or adults. We will work closely with the local visitor centre and direct visitors to learn more about the area on their arrival. Out of season the accommodation affords the opportunity to target walkers on short breaks or those tackling the Pennine Way/Calderdale Way and also mountain bikers that enjoy out of season breaks, including the infamous Mary Townley Loop. With this in mind we intend to equip the accommodation with facilities for bike storage and muddy, supporting the town's 'Walkers are Welcome' ethos and the areas as a cycling destination.

Marketing and Promotion

We are aware that increasingly visitors research their short breaks on line and will have a digital and social media presence to market the accommodation and encourage bookings; we will consider the most appropriate booking options for the accommodation and will work further with Visit Calderdale's tourism team if necessary. We will ensure we work closely with Visit Calderdale to maximise the free marketing and promotional opportunities from the Destination Management Organisation including the website and social media promotions; for the cycling market we will promote our offer on Cycle Calderdale. We will have an awareness of the many and varied events and festivals that take place in the borough in order to direct visitors to and support the wider economy.

We will also regularly stock up on leaflet and brochure information through Hebden Bridge Visitor Centre. We will use our good business connections to ensure that we market our offer through word of mouth recommendations, the best form of marketing.

Given the Tourism Officer’s comments and data provided, it is considered the proposal would support the tourism offer in Hebden Bridge and accords with policy E11 of the RCUDP.

Impact on heritage assets

The closest Listed Buildings are No.’s 1 and 2 The Neptune, which are Grade II and is next door but one to the application site. The Bridge at Hebble End is also Grade II listed, whilst to the east is the Grade II Listed Black Pit Aqueduct.

The site is also within the Hebden Bridge Conservation Area.

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting special regard must be given to the desirability of preserving the building and its setting or any features of special architectural/historic interest.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that in exercising functions with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

Decision makers must give importance and weight to the desirability of avoiding any harm to designated heritage assets, to give effect to the LPA’s statutory duties under sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The finding of harm to a heritage asset gives rise to a strong presumption against planning permission being granted.

The requirements of Sections 66 and 72 are set out legislation and as such they are legal duties rather than policy requirements that the Council can choose to attach limited weight to. This is reflected in paragraph 193 of the NPPF, which states that:

When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

With regards to the RCUDP, policies BE15, BE18 and BE19 are of relevance.

BE15 ‘Setting of a Listed Building’ states that “Development will not be permitted, where through its siting, scale, design or nature it would harm the setting of a Listed Building.” Policy BE18 refers to ‘Development Within Conservation Areas’. This states that “the character or appearance of Conservation Areas, defined on the Proposals Map, will be preserved or enhanced. New development and proposals involving the alteration or extension of a building in or within the setting of a Conservation Area will only be permitted if all the following criteria are met:- i. the form, design, scale, methods of construction and materials respect the characteristics of the buildings in the area, the townscape and landscape setting; ii. the siting of proposals respects existing open spaces, nature conservation, trees and townscape/roofscape features; iii. it does not result in the loss of any open space which makes an important contribution to the character of the Conservation Area or features of historic value such as boundary walls and street furniture; and iv. important views within, into and out of the area are preserved or enhanced.”

BE19 refers to Demolition within a Conservation Area.

The proposals seek to provide a first floor extension to the existing Mill in order to provide tourist accommodation. The proposals seek to retain the business units to the ground floor, whilst providing nine holiday apartments to the first floor.

It is acknowledged that the site is a complex one, and the proposals involve a number of changes. The main change is the raising of part of the roof in the form of a northlight roof; reflecting the building’s industrial heritage.

No change will be made to the eastern elevation facing the properties at Fountain Street.

The previous application proposed a first floor extension along the entire central part of the mill, and increased the existing elevation facing no.7/9 Hebble End. This latest application proposes no change to the form or height of any part of the mill facing no. 7/9 Hebble End. The former Water Tower and Zig-Zag walling bordering the yard will remain exactly as they are. Rather than increasing the height as proposed in the original application to the mill facing no. 7/9 to create a first floor apartment, the area behind the ‘zig zag’ elevation will be occupied by a roof garden, sunk below the wall and screened to prevent any overlooking. No new windows will be created in the western elevations.

A new pitched roof will be installed on the riverside elevation adjacent to the existing western extension to the mill in order to create sufficient height to accommodate the holiday accommodation at first floor level.

In terms of the canalside elevation, this will largely be retained as existing; with a new entrance and glazed frontage to a first floor atrium.

The Council’s Conservation Officer considered the latest scheme represented less of an impact compared to the previous application on the original structure and appearance of the building at least towards the canalside and between the mill and no.7/9 Hebble End. In addition the eastern elevation experiences little change.

The Conservation Officer raised concerns however over the size and design of the new window openings to the riverside elevation, along with the introduction of a proposed new gabled structure adjacent to the existing 2 storey western block. They also requested clarification as to how the new northlight roof would be installed alongside the eaves of the existing eastern two storey warehouse and the new first floor western extension.

Following these comments the applicant submitted a set of amended plans. The amended plans sought to address the above concerns in relation to retaining the historic form of the Mill.

Overall the Conservation Officer considers the impact of the proposal on the heritage asset to result in some harm, but that harm is considered as being less than substantial harm. In relation to paragraph 196 of the NPPF, this states that “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.”

As the proposal would secure a future viable use for the mill, which would also support the tourism offer in Hebden Bridge and the local economy; it is considered this carries significant weight. The less than substantial harm is therefore outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.

Additionally, the design of the proposed scheme involves a contemporary intervention whilst also recognising the historic pattern of the mill.

Furthermore, the success of the proposed scheme will be largely dependant upon the quality of the materials and the finish. A number of conditions are suggested to address these issues and to minimise any harm; and to achieve the quality of development required in this location.

The proposal is considered to accord with policies BE15, BE18 and BE19 of the RCUDP and also chapter 16 of the NPPF.

Residential Amenity

A number of objections to the original application related to the potential impacts on residents of Fountain Street and no.7/9 Hebble End. In relation to this latest application, the owner of no.7/9 wanted clarification of the proposed western elevation of the mill, whilst other concerns related to the potential disturbance as a result of the development on existing residents.

Policy BE2 establishes that development should not significantly affect the privacy, daylighting or amenity space of existing and prospective residents and other occupants. Annex A sets out guidelines to help assess whether such impacts arise.

The proposal seeks to maintain the business use in the ground floor and therefore there would be no change in the existing amenity enjoyed. As part of the redevelopment, there will be 15 work / retail units at ground floor level.

To the first floor, seven holiday apartments are proposed. With regards to the eastern elevation, no new window openings are proposed, although there are two new rooflight arrangements proposed. All windows to this elevation will be obscure glazing which would help mitigate the impact on properties along Fountain Street; the separation distances involved range from 4.1m at the southern end of Fountain Street to 5.3m at the northern end.

In terms of the riverside elevation this includes eight new windows. The windows provide openings to both ground floor workshop units and to the first floor apartments. This elevation is separated by the River to both the Co Op car park and the mill on Fielding Street by 15m.These separation distances are considered appropriate given the existing commercial uses of the land on the opposite side of the river.

In regards to the western part of the site, the mill is adjacent to no.7/9 Hebble End, and ‘wraps around’ this property which results in a narrow corridor between the north elevation of no.9 and the mill. The separation between the eastern elevation of no.9 Hebble End and the western elevation of the mill when viewed from the Canal, at its widest point is 5.6m, narrowing to 1.8m. The separation between the northern elevation of no.9 Hebble End and the mill is 1.1m. No change to this elevation is proposed as part of this application; therefore the relationship between the two buildings will remain as existing.

This is the most significant change in the design compared to application number 18/01007/FUL. The increased height to the mill’s northlight roof would now take place further back into the central part of the mill and would not be considered to have an impact on no. 7/9 ‘s amenity, privacy, or daylighting.

With regards to the amenity in terms of noise, the Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health) was consulted on the proposal but did not comment. On the previous application they had no observations to make.

The proposal relates the first floor extension of a mill in a densely developed location. The mill’s unique design has resulted in a tightly compacted relationship between existing dwellings and the mill. The amended design of this application retains the elevations that are closest to existing residential properties as existing, and therefore in terms of privacy, amenity and daylighting it is considered that the proposal accords with policy BE2 and Annex A of the RCUDP.

Layout, Design & Materials

RCUDP Policy BE1 calls for development to make a positive contribution to the quality of the existing environment or, at the very least, maintain that quality by means of high standards of design.

This is also reflected in Section 12 of the NPPF, which states that “the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.”

The proposal seeks to use traditional materials, and where possible infill sections will be completed by using stone from the partial demolition and removal of the existing roof.

With regards to the rear elevation (riverside) the existing gable end will be retained and existing windows will be replaced with matching timber. The central element of the rear elevation will be formed by the northlight roof, which will extend across to a new pitched roof gable elevation adjacent to the existing western extension of the mill.

In terms of the eastern elevation facing Fountain Street all the windows and doors on this elevation will be replaced by timber frames which will match the rear elevations. The glazing to all windows and doors in this elevation will be obscure glazed in order to protect the privacy and amenity of Fountain Street residents.

To the southern elevation which faces the Canal, the existing gable will be retained, whilst the flat roof tower will also be retained. Again any replacement windows will be timber framed. The curtain walling to the front entrance infill area at both ground and first floor will be formed in metal-framed curtain walling to match.

The north light roof will be formed with metal-framed curtain walling to match with slate roof finish to the reverse.

The higher part of the area that ‘wraps round to the north elevation of no.7/9 Hebble End will be pushed back, and rather than increasing the height immediately adjacent to the neighbouring property as the previous application proposed, in this instance the area behind the ‘zig zag’ elevation will be occupied by a roof garden, sunk below the wall and screened to prevent any overlooking.

As discussed under the heritage aspect of the report, the proposed design has attempted to retain as much of the historic form of the building as possible, whilst allowing for a contemporary design to the first floor extension.

The proposed use of traditional and matching materials is also welcome as part of the redevelopment. As referred to elsewhere, the initial concerns raised by the Conservation Officer in relation to the ‘domestic appearance’ have been addressed as a result of the amended design.

Internally, the new accommodation is arranged with the commercial units to the ground floor and the holiday accommodation to the first floor. There are 15 commercial units proposed for the ground floor, with a reception area, and 9holiday apartments to the first floor. The holiday apartments are centred around an open concourse.

The proposal has attempted to reduce the impact of the redevelopment on the adjacent properties by increasing the height in the central part of the mill and leaving the elevations facing existing properties as existing. Given the proposed materials and design which retains as much as possible of the historic pattern of the mill, whilst adding a contemporary extension, the proposal is considered to accord with policy BE1 of the RCUDP and section 12 of the NPPF.

Highway Considerations

Policy BE5 seeks to ensure the safe and free flow of traffic in the interest of highways safety. Policy T18 sets out maximum parking allowances for new development. The Assistant Director – Strategic Infrastructure (Highways) was consulted on the proposals and provided the initial comments:

There remains no highway objection to this application which in Highway terms offers very few changes to the details provided in the previous application.

This application seeks to develop an existing site which is adjacent to the town centre zone in Hebden Bridge. It is unusual by the fact that no vehicular access is available with the building being situated on an island between the canal and river. The proposed use as a holiday let would be a welcome addition to the location which is near to the well used canal tow path and with public transport available within just a short walk from the proposed development.. I consider that the close proximity to public transport and the town centre justifies the lack of parking in this case. On- street parking restrictions are present in the immediate area of this developments and no further traffic regulation orders would be required to maintain the free flow of traffic. Cycle storage is provided and it is anticipated that the let with its limited access, would attract tourists attracted to the location by its footpaths, tracks and access to public transport. Public on street and off street parking, although limited is available within a short walk from the development. This would apply to most town centre applications.

There are concerns that the building works and access to the site during this time could be detrimental to the location and as such a management strategy document of such works will be required.

There are no highway objections to this application as submitted subject to condition.”

Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 4, Class A of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, before construction works commence, details shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority in respect of the provision of a contractors compound and staff car parking area within the site. Such details shall include the provision of protective fencing to the boundaries of the construction site. The details so approved shall thereafter be implemented in advance of construction works commencing and shall be retained for the duration of construction works unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to commencement of works at the site, a scheme for the prevention of mud or other material being deposited onto the public highway, including full details of any equipment on the site used to clean the hard standing areas, access, wheels and chassis of vehicles, equipment location and means of drainage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The permitted scheme shall be implemented on commencement of works. The scheme shall be

updated where the local planning authority consider mud on the road to be a recurrent problem by the operator or their agents in liaison with and to the written approval of the local planning authority. The updated scheme shall be implemented within a timescale to be agreed. In the event of mud or other material being deposited onto the public highway, immediate remedial and preventative action shall be taken, including suspension of operations if necessary.

Subject to conditions relating to details of a contractors compound and prevention of mud on the highway the proposal accords with RCUDP policy BE5 and T18.

Flooding and drainage

Section 14 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) paragraph 163 of the NPPF seeks to ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

For major developments the Secretary of State’s Written Ministerial Statement, dated 18 December 2014, establishes that sustainable drainage systems for the management of run-off should be put in place, unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. RCUDP Policy EP22 also establishes that sustainable drainage systems should be incorporated where appropriate.

The Environment Agency were consulted on the proposal and initially objected to the proposal provided the following comments:

As there does not appear to be any ground floor development within 8m of the river Calder we have no comments on this proposal based on the information provided.

Advice to LPA - Access/Egress The Environment Agency does not normally comment on or approve the adequacy of flood emergency response procedures accompanying development proposals, as we do not carry out these roles during a flood. Our involvement with this development during an emergency will be limited to delivering flood warnings to occupants/users covered by our flood-warning network.

The Planning Practice Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework states that those proposing developments should take advice from the emergency services when producing an evacuation plan for the development as part of the flood risk assessment.

In all circumstances where warning and emergency response is fundamental to managing flood risk, we advise local planning authorities to formally consider the emergency planning and rescue implications of new development in making their decisions.

The EA were asked to clarify the comments as they raised no objection to the previous scheme. The confusion appeared to result from a misunderstanding as to the location of the visitor apartment for the disabled; this is actually on the first floor of the proposed redevelopment. They also requested clarification of the safe access and egress from the development which the applicant has now provided.

The applicant subsequently provided details as requested by the EA in relation to this matter.

Members will be provided with a verbal update as to the EA position at committee.

The Canal and Rivers Trust were also consulted on the proposal and considered that one of the main issues in relation to the proposal was the potential risks of contamination towards the canal during construction activities. They requested that a Construction and Environmental Management plan condition is included to quantify the risks and to identify effective mitigation measures to limit such risks. In addition they requested that bins were not stored in view of the canal in order to protect its character.

Subject to conditions relating to drainage, along with a construction and environmental management plan, the proposal accords with RCUDP policies EP14, EP20 and EP22.

Ground conditions

RCUDP policy EP10 refers to development of sites with potential contamination

In relation to land contamination the applicant submitted a phase 1 contaminants report, which concluded that “the risk of contamination or pollution conditions seems negligible and may obviate the need for further investigation”. The Environmental Health Officer was consulted in regards to land contamination but did not comment.

Given the information provided in the Phase 1 report the proposal is considered to accord with RCUDP policy EP10.

Wildlife Conservation

Some objections referred to the ecological impact arising from the development especially in relation to the Canal and River.

The proposed development lies within a Wildlife Corridor. Policy NE15 ‘Development in Wildlife Corridor’, NE16 ‘Protection of Protected Species and NE17 Biodiversity Enhancement’ apply.

The Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods (Conservation) was consulted on the proposals and commented as follows:

“I consider the bat survey to be satisfactory. Should planning permission be granted, I recommend that the mitigation and compensation measures in section 12 should be the subject to a planning condition.”

Subject to a condition relating to the mitigation and compensation measures in the Bat Survey, the proposal accords with RCUDP policies NE15, NE16 and NE17.

Balance of Considerations

The main objections to the original proposal surrounded the proposed design in relation to the Conservation Area and the overlooking issues resulting from the first floor extension. There have been significantly fewer objections to this application; the applicant has endeavoured to retain the eastern and western elevations as existing and therefore the relationship between the Fountain Street dwellings and no.7/9 Hebble End remain the same.

In relation to the main changes to the mill, the design proposes an increased height to the central part of the northlight roof, and will achieve this without resulting in overlooking or a loss of privacy and amenity for neighbouring residents.

The proposed scheme is considered to represent an appropriate mix of a traditional and contemporary design, one that allows the historic form of the building to be retained, whilst introducing a new design to the first floor, but which retains the historic north light roof design.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions specified below. The recommendation to grant planning permission has been made because the development is in accordance with the policies and proposals in the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework set out in the ‘Key Policy Context’ section above and there are no material considerations to outweigh the presumption in favour of such development.

Richard Seaman For and on behalf of Director of Regeneration and Strategy

Date: 3 October 2019

Further Information

Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:-

Paul Copeland (Case Officer) on 01422 392195 or Richard Seaman (Lead Officer) on 01422 392241

Conditions

2. Prior to the construction of the external walls of the first floor extension hereby approved full details of the foul and/or surface water and/or sustainable systems of drainage if feasible and/or sub-soil drainage and external works for the development (taking into account flood risk on and off site and including details of any balancing works, off-site works, existing systems to be re-used, works on or near watercourses and diversions) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be implemented prior to the first operation of the development and retained thereafter.

3. Notwithstanding any details shown on the permitted plans, the facing of the development shall not begin until details of the facing material which shall be of regularly coursed natural stone (sympathetic in colour, coursing and texture to that used in the immediate vicinity), have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use, it shall be constructed in accordance with the details so approved and so retained thereafter. The pointing shall be flush with the face of the stone or slightly recessed, ("ribbon" or "strap" pointing shall not be used) and shall be so retained thereafter.

4. Notwithstanding any details shown on the submitted plans, the roofing of the development, including the north light structure, shall not begin until details of the roofing materials including the north light frames, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use, the roofing of the development shall be constructed in accordance with the details so approved and shall be so retained thereafter.

5. Before any windows and doors are installed, details of the materials, treatment, colour, finish, manner of opening, and degree of inset from face of wall, of the windows and doors, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The windows and doors shall then be installed in accordance with the approved details and so retained thereafter.

6. Prior to their installation, details of the 'north lights' including their design, materials, treatment, colour, finish, and manner of opening, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include sections showing the structure of the frames. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and so retained thereafter.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (and any order revoking and re-enacting the order) no further windows or other openings shall be formed in the new dwellings without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

8. In line with the mitigation measures set out in the Bat Scoping Survey dated 8th September the following mitigation measures are to be adopted:

 All contractors to be made aware that bats are present locally and that all works must be carried out in a careful manner while being vigilant to the presence of bats.

 The roof tiles should be stripped by hand, particularly the ridge tiles, ideally between October and March (inclusive) when bats are less likely to be present.

 If any bats are found during the works, then work in that area should immediately cease and advice sought from a qualified ecologist.

9. Prior to the first occupation of the building a permanent bat roosting feature shall be installed within the fabric of the building on the south elevation and the west elevation (but not directly above any windows or doors), details of which shall be first submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The bat roosting features shall be installed in accordance with the details so approved and shall be so retained thereafter.

10. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall include measures to prevent water run off from the construction site to the canal (including information detailing the location and pathways from existing drains on site); the location of stockpiled materials; and measures to limit the movement of dust. Thereafter, construction activities on site shall be in accordance with the approved plans.

11. Notwithstanding any details shown on the submitted plans, no cleaning of stonework shall take place until details of the proposed method have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

12. The first floor of the development hereby permitted shall be used for holiday letting accommodation only and not for permanent residential occupation or uses ordinarily permitted within Use Class C3 as in The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).

13. The rainwater goods shall not be installed until details of all gutters, downpipes and all other external plumbing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the use of plastic or similar materials for such items will not be acceptable. These items shall then be provided in accordance with the approved details and so retained thereafter.

Reasons

1. For the avoidance of doubt as to what benefits from planning permission and to ensure compliance with the Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework.

2. In the interests of flood prevention and to ensure compliance with policies EP14, EP20 and EP22 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

3. To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure compliance with policies BE1, BE15 and BE18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

4. To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure compliance with policies BE1, BE15 and BE18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

5. To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure compliance with policies BE1, BE15 and BE18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

6. In the interests of the character and visual amenity of the area and to ensure compliance with policies BE1, BE15 and BE18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

7. In the interests of residential amenity and policy BE2 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan

8. In the interests of conservation and to protect the ecological species and in order to ensure compliance with policies NE15, NE16 and NE17 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

9. In the interests of conservation and to protect the ecological species and in order to ensure compliance with policies NE15, NE16 and NE17 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

10. In order to limit the exposure of the canal to pollution, in accordance with the aims of paragraph 180 from the National Planning Policy Framework

11. In the interests of the character and visual amenity of the area and to ensure compliance with policies BE1, BE15 and BE18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

12. To avoid the accommodation becoming a permanent residential unit which would be contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan and to ensure compliance with policies BE2, BE5, T18 and GNE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

13. In the interests of the local character and visual amenity, and of historical accuracy and to ensure compliance with Policies BE1 and BE18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

Time Not Before: 1445

Application No: 19/00356/FUL Ward: Hipperholme And Lightcliffe Area Team: North Team

Proposal: Demolition of existing former junior school building to facilitate a new 66-bed residential care home.

Location: Hipperholme Grammar Junior School 45 Wakefield Road Lightcliffe Brighouse Calderdale HX3 8AQ

Applicant: Torsion Care Ltd

Recommendation: PERMIT

Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: No Departure from Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Highways Section Environmental Health Services - Pollution Section (E) Yorkshire Water Services Ltd Tree Officer Lead Local Flood Authority Community Engagement

West Yorkshire Police ALO Highways Section

Description of Site and Proposal

The site is located off Wakefield Road in Lightcliffe and is the former school buildings and playing field of Hipperholme Grammar Junior School. The site itself is now vacant, as the school has now transferred to a single site.

The site is generally surrounded by dwellings; to the east is the large garden area of Lea House, which has permission for a development of three detached dwellings (18/01196/FUL).

The site also includes a number of protected trees which are along the eastern, southern and western boundary.

Planning permission is sought for Demolition of existing former junior school building to facilitate a new 66-bed residential care home.

The application has been referred to Planning Committee at the request Councillor Robinson.

The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents:

 Arboricultural Report  Air Quality Statement  Travel Statement  Travel Plan Framework  Design and Access Statement

Relevant Planning History

An application for the demolition of existing building to facilitate construction of 14 dwellings (Amended) was permitted under delegated powers on 21 March 2019 (application number 18/01044/FUL)

Other previous planning history relates to the school use of the site.

Key Policy Context:

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Open Space Development Plan Designation Replacement Calderdale Unitary H2 Primary Housing Area Development Plan policies H9 Non Allocated Sites OS1 Protected Open Spaces BE1 general design Criteria BE2 Privacy, Daylighting and Amenity Space BE3 Landscaping BE4 Safety and Security Considerations

BE5 The Design and Layout of Highways and Accesses T18 Maximum Parking Allowances NE15 Development in Wildlife Corridors NE16 Protection of Protected Species NE17 Biodiversity Enhancement EP8 Other Incompatible Uses EP14 Protection of Groundwater EP20 Protection from Flood Risk EP22 Sustainable Drainage System National Planning Policy Framework 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of Paragraphs homes 7. Ensuring the vitality of town centres 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 9. Promoting sustainable transport 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Other relevant planning constraints British Coal Standing Advice Area Tree Preservation Orders

Publicity/ Representations:

The application was publicised with site and press notices.

One hundred and thirty four letters of objection and one letter of support were received.

Summary of points raised:

Objection

 No topographical surveys submitted  Plans indicate a revision to building height but this would require removal of excessive amounts of land to lower by 1.5m  How do applicants know a care home will be viable  Question the need for a care home  Demolition already underway  Proposal will only increase traffic issues  Massing of building is enormous and totally out of character  Existing parking issues are really frustrating for residents  Care home will place further pressure on Kos Clinic and other doctors  With excavation of such large amount of soil how can surrounding properties be safeguarded  Even amended plans mean the commercial size of the building is too large and overbearing  No correct heights of building provided  Disagree with D&A statement – not in keeping with surroundings  Care home would be brightly lit impacting on surrounding properties

 Increased vehicle trips will increase congestion on local road network  Impact on already poor air quality  Three storey building will cause loss of privacy and light to existing dwellings  Loss of property values [note this is not a material planning consideration]  Wall at bottom of Rock Terrace gardens will become unsafe  Lower level of land will threaten trees  What impact will excavations have on the water table and flooding?  Prospective residents will have little or no outside space  Development will cause constant pollution and noise  Impact on wildlife including protected species.  Although not perfect preferred the previous residential scheme  Not enough parking spaces one for every 4 members of staff  More residents will drive than assumed  Applicant has failed completely to alleviate concerns about pressures on local health service  Commercial aspect of the proposal would not help local economy  Not realistic to say that people will walk or cycle to work  Public transport not viable for shift workers  Impact of noise and odours from air con /mechanical ventilation  Counter to the objectives of NPPF relating to area’s character and setting  No space for a minibus  No plans for disposal of trade or pharmaceutical / hazardous wastes  Question the conclusions of the Tree Officer  Plan refers to Bungalows at extreme left of the plan.  Commercial application in a residential area  Building is too close to the boundary  Will the council be held responsible if the integrity of existing properties is compromised  Tree report out of date and does not cover care home proposals  Surface Water Form is incorrect  Design and Access Statement submitted late in the process  How would residents be evacuated safely in such an enclosed location  Materials pallete not appropriate for the area  Location of bin store adjacent to an existing property  Who will the end user be?  Incorrect to compare the delivery requirements of a commercial operation with a school  To claim the site is previously developed is moot  Visual impact of building  Pedestrian access not shown on plans  No details of external lighting scheme provided  Boundary retaining walls prove the building is too big for the site.  Style of building is that of a large hotel  Development will generate heavy goods traffic  No ecological assessment  Proposal contradicts Calderdale’s Joint Wellbeing Strategy  Breaches policy BE1 design criteria  Area required for ground source heating considerably more than the site  Traffic from development could have a significant impact on Hipperholme crossroads  Site within 200m of an Air Quality Management Area  Impact on existing drainage – how will foul and surface water be disposed  Why is ridge height estimated – Drawing SS01 has 2 different measurements for same building

 No neighbour notifications sent  Drawing showing heights of school, dwellings and proposal misleading  Proposal does not have access for fire appliances  Inappropriate building for the site  Sloping aspect of landscaping not friendly for the elderly to enjoy  Previous residents put in place legal covenants to protect the character of the area  Application form incomplete  Red line on site layout clearly overlaps another property  Improved sports facilities at Hipperholme Grammar School are not a suitable or ethical alternative to existing green space  Access to the site would be dangerous given the location  Object to the roof amendment as the alteration is inconsequential

Ward Councillor Comments

Councillor George Robinson requests that the application is referred to Planning Committee if the recommendation is to permit and makes the following comments:

I kindly ask for this application to be called into planning committee, should officers recommend to permit. I also ask that the committee members undertake a site visit prior to the committee meeting.

Congestion

Hipperholme is a well-known congestion hot spot. This congestion not only contributes to air pollution and blights the lives of local residents, however I fear also presents a safety issue for residents of this proposal.

As you can see from the enclosed photo, congestion at rush hour runs well past the access point to the development on Wakefield Road, reaching as far as the Lightcliffe Club. This is a frequent occurrence at peak times, two times a working day. Imagine an emergency vehicle attempting to circumnavigate this standstill traffic and parked cars. This presents a danger to road users, pedestrians, and also care home residents due to delayed emergency response. I am surprised this point has not been mentioned in Calderdale’s highways report.

Regarding congestion specifically, Hipperholme’s Sensitivity Test for the local plan stated that “it can be clearly demonstrated that the Hipperholme cross roads junction is at an unacceptable level of congestion currently and this is worsened by the overall predicted growth in traffic as a result of the wider local plan allocations”. The purpose of the local plan is to provide a strategic vision for development and mitigate any consequential impact on infrastructure. Thought must be given to the status of the Hipperholme junction in the future, after the local plan allocation has been built. Based on evidence submitted to Calderdale as part of the local plan consultation, Hipperholme’s already over capacity cross roads will be worsened in the future. I therefore see no sense in adding to this congestion, no matter how ‘minimal’ the impact is considered. Numbers accumulate, and if take the approach of permitting developments because of the minimal individual impact they make, the collective cumulative effect creates a big consequence. Where will the line be drawn?

Air Quality

Hipperholme is the unwanted home of an ‘Air Quality Management Area’, with an NO2 level measured at 51μg/m3, up from 47 μg/m3 in 2014. This AQMA runs along the top of Highland Ville and along Leeds road, parallel to the proposed application.

The Air management report indicates that the proposal does not run adjacent to or within an AQMA, stating ‘The 45m distance between the site and the closest part of the AQMA is not considered to be ‘adjacent’ in this case. From my research, it seems this 45m figure was ascertained from the AQMA to the access point, however the distance is closer when measured to developments closest boundary. Additionally, the AQMA is clearly adjacent to the application, contrary to the applicants air management report. However classifying the AQMA as a distinct boundary in itself is ridiculous, because pollution does not itself stop at the boundary of the AQMA. Therefore I would highly suspect that the development is actually inside an area that exceeds acceptable air quality standards. This is an issue because the care home residents will be subjected to unacceptable air quality. I suggest that an air quality assessment is carried out by measuring the air quality at the site.

Overbearing nature of the application

The large scale of the development will overlook existing properties. There is no side view submitted with the application therefore it is difficult to examine the affect this would have on residents. However assuming that the care home bedrooms will have windows for the benefit of residents’ welfare, these windows will overlook existing properties and gardens. This presents not only an unfair abuse of existing residents privacy, however also may be a safe guarding consideration for care home residents.

The technical points

The site would create 3300sqm of accommodation and over 0.5 hectares (application form). According to the Town and Country Planning Order 2015 the proposals would be defined as a major application and require the following documentation to support an application: Design & Access statement and existing and proposed elevations (all sides) and site sections including finished floor levels and site levels. It would also seem evident that the following is needed: a lighting assessment given the nature of the facility and the possible affect this would have on neighbouring properties, noise assessment, and a ventilation and extraction statement. Why have these important and in some cases required documents not been included?

The previous approval for 14 houses can be seen to be in keeping with the type and scale of properties within the immediate surroundings of the site. While the existing school building occupies a larger footprint compared to the semi-detached houses to Highland Ville it is comparable to the longer terrace buildings on the opposite side of Wakefield Rd. It’s a two storey building with domestic features such as projecting bay windows and small openings to match the scale of the surrounding properties. It has a small extension to the side and therefore has a varied roof line. The application for 14 new houses justified the proposals on the basis of having a varied roof line to “fit in” with the surroundings. What has now been presented with the new care home proposals is a large 3 storey block with pitched roof above. The roofline is consistent across the whole footprint and therefore goes against the justification of the previous proposals. The large deep footprint of the building along with the height of the building would be difficult to justify in the context of its surroundings and therefore not in accordance with Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) whereas proposals should be sympathetic to the local character and history of the surroundings. Furthermore, NPPF promotes pre-application consultation with both the local authority and local community to inform the design process. This does not seem to have taken place with the new proposals. Again, the Design and Access statement for the previous application for 14 house justifies the proposals by stated that key views/vistas will not be demeaned, and that the new housing would be suitable based on its scale and density of development. All of which are now contradictory to the new proposals.

Materials

The planning officer’s report for the previous application suggested that artificial stone and slate roofs were not appropriate for this location and that the applicant had agreed to substitute these for natural stone and slates. The materials palette proposed for the new care home again recommend the use of artificial products and therefore would go against what has been approved previously.

Further issues

The location of the bin store is immediately adjacent to an existing property and the plans appear to show this as an open fenced enclosure. I expect there to be a large amount of waste on a facility like this and would recommend a fully enclosed bin store to control smells, noise, and rodent issues.

What kind of care home is this proposed to be? Some users would require more security than others but the application doesn’t appear to suggest the type of care facility. The scale of the building could give rise to rights to lights issues and over shading. Therefore the applicant should be provide suitable evidence that this won’t be the case. To conclude, I urge officers to refuse the application on delegated authority for the above reasons.

Parish/Town Council Comments

The development is not located within a parished area.

MP Comments

Craig Whittaker MP makes the following comments:

“I have been contacted by many concerned residents in the Hipperholme area in relation to the above planning application. Whilst I appreciate this is a local planning matter, I would like to express my own concerns as a Calder Valley resident and reiterate those concerns that have been raised to me as Member of Parliament for Calder Valley. I would like to make it clear that I am not against housing development, nor am I objectional to care homes. Rather, development of any housing needs to be in the right place and in the right proportion taking into consideration the existing infrastructure in the local area and the impact on the local community.

Amongst other various concerns coming forward, the strongest objections by far are in relation to the following:

Highways

Wakefield Road is a well-used road, not only for local traffic but for motorway (M62) traffic too. It is a hotspot for heavy congestion, particularly at every day peak times/rush hour, which is exacerbated by the slow traffic movement around Hipperholme traffic lights. Calderdale Council’s Highways Consultee report states that:

“the daily vehicular movements for a care home of this size would be similar to that of the consented 14 number dwellings at around 100 trips. There are therefore no concerns with the traffic impact on the local road network.”

I would raise concerns with this claim and argue that a 66-bed residential care home would inflate traffic volumes substantially, much more so than 14 dwellings on the same site, with the movement of various professional staff (medical, care/support staff, catering, general maintenance, administrative staff, hospital transportation, deliveries, visitors, security) presumably, needed around the clock, 24 hours - not to mention the visitors for 66 residents coming in and out of the premises. Furthermore, the report states that there will be a maximum of 22 staff at any one time, which alone would surely exceed the standard traffic flow that would be seen from 14 dwellings or that of the school that was previously situated at this site.

I am also aware that parking along and around Wakefield Road is a logistical nightmare both for local residents and for vehicles using Wakefield Road. I understand many residents have provided photographic evidence of the problem parking/congestion to which I shall refer you. According to Highways, 18 standard car parking spaces are an acceptable amount for a care home of this size. Residents are understandably concerned that cars will overspill on to the main road/nearby residential streets if the car park is full (especially if there are 22 staff at any one time, plus visitors, etc.), regardless of how much staff/visitors/residents are encouraged to use alternative modes of transport.

Genuine concerns are expressed about the access for blue light services (given existing congestion, parked cars and additional traffic movements this development would bring) and the safety of pedestrians, road users (including cyclists) and care home residents/staff. I feel these points in the Highways report are somewhat bypassed and significantly underplayed.

Air pollution

In addition to the increased traffic movement/volume/congestion, more air pollution will inevitably be generated in very close proximity to an existing ‘Air Quality Management Area’ (AQMA) - see link for AQMA outline at Hipperholme Crossroads https://www.calderdale.gov.uk/v2/sites/default/files/Air%20Quality%20Management%20A rea%20-%20Hipperholme.pdf )

I note on page 3 of the Air Quality Statement that the proposal “is not adjacent to or within an AQMA.” The term ‘adjacent’ is defined as ‘very near, next to, touching’ and the 45m distance between the site and the closest part of the AQMA is not considered to be ‘adjacent’ in this case. Whilst this distance may be accurate (depending on where the boundaries of measurements have been taken to and from) the report fails to acknowledge the impact this scale of development will have on the existing AQMA and many residents would challenge the claim that 45m is, in fact, adjacent to the AQMA in this case. Moreover, air pollution is not constrained in/outside of a AQMA. The additional traffic will deteriorate air quality further both in and around the Hipperholme AQMA.

Tackling air pollution, as well as being high on the Council’s agenda currently (I see daily press releases about the Clean Air campaign), needs to be addressed with tangible and realistic solutions. Whilst the Travel Plan details some initiative to encourage staff/visitors to use alternative modes of transport, namely to walk or cycle, in practice, I am not convinced the schemes will work as well or as quickly as they are intended due to Calderdale’s topography and current public transport connections. For instance, if a visitor for one of the care home residents lives in Todmorden, I would highly doubt that they are going to walk or cycle to Hipperholme. I would therefore reiterate my concerns about the inevitable overspill of vehicles from the premises on to the main road/neighbouring residential streets which would considerably worsen both the congestion and air quality of the local area.

Given the strength and volume of objections to this application, I trust the matter will be referred to Planning Committee as requested by Cllr George Robinson, and residents concerns will be fully taken into consideration in line with planning law.

Assessment of Proposal

Principle of Development

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF establishes that for decision taking this means:

 approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or  where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; [for example…land designated as Green Belt…designated heritage assets]) or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal seeks permission for Demolition of existing former junior school building to facilitate a new 66-bed residential care home. In this instance, the land is designated as public open space in the urban area in the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

Policy OS1 ‘Protected Open Spaces’ applies. This states that “the Proposals Map identifies as Open Space, areas which make a significant contribution to public amenity by virtue of their open space character, appearance and/or function. Development proposals located within open spaces will only be permitted where one of the following circumstances applies. The proposed development:-

i. is for the replacement or extension of an existing building(s) currently set in open space or for a new building which supports a recreational or sports use and where the proposal does not detract from the open character of the area, maintains or enhances visual amenity, and does not prejudice the established function of the area; or ii. s necessary for the continuation or enhancement of established uses for recreation, leisure or nature conservation which would result in community benefits and where the proposal maintains the open character of the area, and maintains or enhances visual amenity; or iii. includes the provision of an appropriate equivalent or improved replacement facility in the locality, of at least quantitative and qualitative equal value to compensate for the open space loss, and it can be demonstrated that the open space is surplus to present and future community needs; and

iv. is consistent with all other relevant UDP policies.

Section 8 of the NPPF deals with promoting healthy communities and paragraph 97 states that:

Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:

(a) An assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or

(b) The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

(c) The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

The Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods (Open Space) commented on the proposal and requested that as with the previous residential permission on the site, a condition relating to a scheme of works to carry out improvements to the facilities at the combined school was attached to the decision notice.

The designation of the site as open space reflects its previous use as a school. This use has ceased and as such it is not considered that the application conflicts with either policy OS1 of the RCUDP or paragraph 97 of the NPPF. However, in order to be consistent with the recently approved residential development, the aforementioned condition will be attached to any permission granted.

Housing Issues

The proposal seeks permission for a 66-bed residential care home. This type of accommodation is classed as a ‘residential institution’. Government guidance is that this type of housing is included in housing land supply.

The requirement to maintain a rolling 5-year supply of deliverable land for housing is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The current position is that Calderdale has 2 years housing supply.

The references in policies H2 and H9 to green field sites are not up-to-date because they are inconsistent with the NPPF (the NPPF encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed; however it does not prohibit the development of green field sites), and the Council does not currently have a five year supply of housing.

In this instance the site is not covered by any NPPF policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance and as such the presumption under paragraph 11 of the NPPF will apply unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. This is assessed further in the sections below. The proposed development is, however, acceptable in principle.

Residential Amenity

A number of objections referred to the design of the proposal resulting in a loss of privacy for exiting residents both within dwellings and in their private garden areas, along with a loss of natural light.

Other objections to the proposal in relation to amenity referred to the impact on existing residents of a 24 hour commercial operation within an established residential area, including but not limited to noise, odours, external lighting, and vehicle movements. In relation to this concern, a care home is clearly an appropriate use for a residential area and it is not considered that undue disturbance would be caused to existing residents.

Policy BE2 of the RCUDP establishes that development should not significantly affect the privacy, daylighting or amenity space of existing and prospective residents and other occupants. Annex A of the RCUDP sets out guidelines to help assess whether such impacts arise.

The proposed development sits in the central part of the site, and is three storeys high. Given the nature of the proposed development and the internal layouts, it is reasonable to consider both the north and south elevations of the proposed development as main elevations.

The nearest properties to the north of the proposal sit alongside Leeds Road. The distance between the proposed building’s northern elevation and rear elevations of the Leeds Road properties is estimated to be 32m.

To the east of the proposed care home is the site of a recent planning permission (reference 18/01196/FUL). In terms of the eastern elevation of the proposed development and the neighbouring permission, the distances between the elevations all exceed the 21m minimum set out in Annex A.

In terms of the south, the proposal again exceeds the minimum guidelines set out in Annex A, being at least 26m from elevation to elevation. To the west the property no.1 Highland Ville is 21m from the gable elevation. This property would face on to the western gable of the proposed development, which includes window openings to the central corridor.

The properties to the north of the site along Leeds Road are set above the proposed development, whilst the properties to the south along Wakefield Road are slightly below.

Whilst the separation distances meet the minimum guidelines, the pre amble to Annex A states that “in certain instances, due to changes in ground levels, development may have the potential to significantly overlook or overshadow an existing dwelling or be affected by existing properties. In these cases separation distances should be greater than the minimum set out within Table A 1 below. Factors that should be taken into consideration in determining planning applications include:-

 the design of a dwelling or extension in relation to its effect on the existing form of development and the appearance of the streetscape;

 levels (developers may be required to submit details of existing and proposed ground and finished floor levels);  privacy, aspect and overshadowing;  the use of permanent screening (although the use of soft landscaping and boundary treatment could also assist in screening);  whether an extension replaces an existing extension or outbuilding; and  the orientation of the proposal in relation to the sun.

Therefore, the information within Table A.1 is not hard and fast rules, but provides an indication of standards which will be applied with a measure of flexibility in appropriate circumstances, an approach which as highlighted above, is supported by PPG3.

…That part of the private garden area sited immediately adjacent to the dwelling and primarily used for sitting out in should not be directly overlooked from other properties or gardens and measures to improve privacy should be considered. Balconies, roof gardens and first floor patios can adversely affect the privacy of neighbours and will generally be unacceptable.”

Taken as a whole, the building is considered to have main elevations to both the north and south elevations. Although the siting of the building exceeds all minimum separation guidelines there is some potential for overlooking of neighbouring gardens from the proposed development. On balance though given the substantial separation between main aspects, it is considered the proposal accords with policy BE2 and Annex A of the RCUDP.

Policy EP8 refers to ‘other incompatible uses’. In relation to the proposal the Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health ) was consulted but did not comment. However they requested a number of condition against the previous residential permission that are considered reasonable and appropriate to be attached to any decision notice concerning this application. In terms of EP8, conditions relating to hours of construction and dust control practices shall be attached to the decision notice; subject to these conditions the proposal accords with policy EP8 of the RCUDP.

Layout, Design & Materials

A number of objectors referred to the proposed design, materials, height and scale of the proposed development.

RCUDP Policy BE1 calls for development to make a positive contribution to the quality of the existing environment or, at the very least, maintain that quality by means of high standards of design.

Section 12 of the NPPF Achieving well-designed places paragraph 124 states that:

The proposed building would provide accommodation over three floors, with bedrooms and other rooms located off a central corridor, a dining area and lounge in the central part of each floor, and a quite lounge area at the eastern end. All bedrooms are to be ensuite.

To the ground floor there is the main entrance, 19 bedrooms, dining area and lounge, 2 no. clinics, kitchen, and general store, office, laundry, staff room, 2 no. assisted bathrooms. In addition there are 3 no. WCs and a quiet lounge area to the eastern end of the floor.

To the first floor, there are 23 no. bedrooms, clinic, dining area and lounge, 2 no. assisted bathrooms, sports bar and lounge, 2 no. WCs, gallery café, hair salon, quiet lounge and external terrace.

To the second floor, there are 25 no. bedrooms, 2 no. assisted bathrooms, family room, activity room, clinic, dining and lounge area, office, store, and quiet lounge.

Externally there are landscape areas, cycle store, bin store, potting shed, secure lawned areas, parking for 20 vehicles, and additional boundary planting. Whilst some objections related to a lack of outside space, it is considered that the design does achieve an appropriate level of green space for residents to enjoy.

Initially, the local planning authority raised concerns over the design of the building, as it was considered to have a somewhat ‘monolithic’ appearance, being relatively uniform and lacking any features of interest. The planning authority requested the applicant re consider elements of the design, specifically the lack of any differing heights in relation to the roofline. Following discussions, the applicant reviewed the initial design and submitted amended plans which incorporated differing ridge levels which helped to break the single building roof line up and add interest to the upper floor elevations.

Although the applicant has proposed the use of artificial stone, it is considered appropriate to condition the facing to ensure natural stone is used to achieve a satisfactory appearance. In addition, a condition relating to landscaping will be attached to any permission along with a boundary treatment condition.

Subject to the above conditions, the proposal accords with policy BE1 of the RCUDP and chapter 12 of the NPPF.

Highway Considerations

RCUDP Policy BE5 seeks to ensure that new development provides for safe and efficient movement by pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists.

RCUDP Policy T18 sets out maximum parking allowances for new development.

The Assistant Director – Strategic Infrastructure (Highways) was consulted on the proposal and provided the following comments:

The proposals are for a 66 bed care home with 20 car parking spaces, 2 of which will be for disabled users.

The site is in a sustainable location with public transport and local facilities within walking distance.

Whilst the layout indicates footways, there is no continuous route between the building and the existing footway on Highland Ville. Pedestrians would have to cross a wide area in front of the car parking spaces. The layout should be revised accordingly.

There are no showering or changing facilities indicated on the floor plans for staff that travel by cycle. Internal or secure cycle parking provision is also required. These should be shown on a revised drawing.

The external cycle parking provision is also acceptable for visitors.

In terms of car parking, policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan calculates maximum parking provision of standard spaces for residential homes require at 1 space per 4 members of staff plus 1 space per 5 bedrooms. The policy states that when determining the appropriate level of parking, consideration should be given to the accessibility of the site, relationship to the urban areas and opportunities to use non-car modes.

The submission states that there will be a maximum of 22 staff at any one time. A review of staffing levels at existing care homes indicated that this is a typical number. The maximum provision would be 19 spaces. The 18 number standard car parking spaces are therefore acceptable.

A Car Parking Management Plan condition will be required which would need to include items such as how parking will be rationed between staff, residents and visitors. It would also need to include measures to restrict parking on the access road.

The proposed access is based on the layout agreed for the 2018 residential application. The highway authority commented that the layout was acceptable having considered the improvements and the former education use as indicated in the extract below:

Visibility on the access road is restricted by parked vehicles on Highland Ville for drivers emerging from the site. However account is taken of vehicle speeds, the former school use and the fact that the access road would be widened to the south thereby improving visibility measured at 2m back. On balance therefore the visibility at the access onto Highland Ville is acceptable.

The daily vehicular movements for a care home of this size would be similar to that of the consented 14 number dwellings at around 100 trips. There are therefore no concerns with the traffic impact on the local road network.

The submitted swept path indicates that a large refuse or delivery vehicle can turn within the site.

It is noted that concerns have been raised by local residents about the number of car parking spaces and the traffic impact of the proposals. However in traffic terms the proposals must be compared against the previous and consented uses. Having reviewed the proposals, they are considered acceptable subject to a revised layout indicating the requested items.

Subsequently the applicant sought further clarification from the Highways Officer and provided additional plans. The Highways Officer reviewed these plans and raised no objections; therefore subject to conditions the proposal accords with policies BE5 and T18 of the RCUDP.

Flooding and drainage

RCUDP Policies EP14 and EP20 establish that ground and surface water will be protected and development will not be permitted if it would increase the risk of flooding due to surface water runoff or obstruction. Sustainable Drainage Systems should be incorporated where appropriate in accordance with RCUDP Policy EP22.

For major developments, paragraph 165 establishes that sustainable drainage systems should be incorporated “unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate development.

In this instance, the applicant is proposing to dispose of both surface water and foul sewage via the mains sewer.

The Lead Local Flood Authority were consulted on the scheme and raised no objections, subject to conditions the proposal complies with Policies EP14, EP20 and EP22.

Ground conditions

A number of objections related to the need to excavate into the site in order to lower the proposed development. Resulting concerns were raised relating to the stability of the retaining walls along the site boundary and the structural integrity of the existing dwellings surrounding the site.

The NPPF is quite clear that “the responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer / landowner”. Furthermore, the site does not lie within the ‘potentially unstable land’ designation of the RCUDP. The site is however within an area where the standing advice of the Coal Authority applies. An informative relating to the standing advice will therefore be attached to any permission granted.

Policy EP9 and EP10 of the RCUDP refer to contaminated land. Whilst the site does not lie within the contaminated land layer on the council’s planning constraints mapping, a condition was attached to the residential permission relating to site investigations, therefore in order to achieve consistency a similar condition would be attached to any permission granted in relation to this latest application on the same site.

Wildlife Conservation

Some objectors commented that the site is home to a range of species, including protected species such as bats.

However, the site does not lie within a designated wildlife corridor, and is not within the Bat Alert Area.

No wildlife concerns were considered in relation to the residential development permitted on the same site under application 18/01044./FUL.

A condition will be applied to ensure that any planting etc. related to the landscaping scheme is restricted to native species.

Trees and Landscaping

Some objections related to the potential loss of trees, and the potential damage that would be caused by the proposed development to any trees retained.

The site includes a number of Tree Preservation Orders along the eastern, western and southern boundary of the site.

RCUDP policy NE20 establishes that development will not be permitted where it would result in the removal or damage of protected trees unless it is in the interests of good arboricultural practice or the benefits of the development outweigh the harm. Policy NE21 refers to Trees and Development sites.

The Council’s Tree Officer was consulted on the proposal and provided the following comments:

“I have not been able to access the site but having inspected the site for the previous application and looking at the previous approved plans the proposal appears to have a similar impact on the trees and therefore I have no objection to the proposal. The retained trees should be protected during the development as per BS5857:2012 and new appropriate landscaping should be undertaken.”

Subject to a condition protecting the retained trees, the proposal accords with policies NE20 and NE21 of the RCUDP.

Public health

Paragraph 92 of the NPPF states:

“To provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should: …

b) take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well-being for all sections of the community;”

Paragraph 181 of the NPPF states that:

Planning policies and decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas. Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management, and green infrastructure provision and enhancement. So far as possible these opportunities should be considered at the plan-making stage, to ensure a strategic approach and limit the need for issues to be reconsidered when determining individual applications. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan.

The Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health) was consulted on the proposal and did not comment. Given the previous use as a school would arguably create more traffic, especially more traffic that would be concentrated around specific times compared to this latest proposed use which would be likely to create a more dispersed number of vehicle trips. Paragraph 110 of the NPPF establishes that development should be designed where practical to incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra low emission vehicles. In accordance with this, a condition is proposed requiring the installation of a suitable facility to permit the recharge of an electrical battery powered vehicle that may be used in connection with that dwelling.

Other Issues raised

Crime Prevention

RCUDP policy BE4 ‘Safety and Security Considerations’ explains that Developers should, prior to submitting detailed proposals, seek advice from the West Yorkshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer on designing out crime, and any recommendations received should be incorporated into the development proposal unless these conflict with other significant interests (for example, the interests of Listed Buildings). Developers are also encouraged to submit statements in conjunction with planning applications that emphasise the measures taken to design out crime.

Paragraph 127 (f) of the NPPF seeks to ensure developments create places that are safe, inclusive an accessible and which promote health and well being with a high standard of amenity for existing future users and where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

The West Yorkshire Police ALO has been consulted and has provided details of crime prevention measures. Whilst they have no objections to the proposals, they recommend the site should be built to "secured by design" and other standards to keep the calls for service to a minimum.

Balance of Considerations

The proposal has raised a significant number of objections from local residents, relating to a number of issues. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development is a significant development, the siting of the building is such that it exceeds the minimum guidelines set out in Annex A and in the majority of cases this is exceeded by a significant amount.

The design is borne out of the proposed end use. Conditions will be attached to ensure the use of natural materials. The concerns over the proposed excavations to the site relate to a responsibility of the landowner / developer, whilst traffic impacts are considered acceptable by the Highways Officer.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions specified below . The recommendation to grant planning permission has been made because the development is in accordance with the policies and proposals in the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework set out in the ‘Key Policy Context’ section above and there are no material considerations to outweigh the presumption in favour of such development.

Richard Seaman For and on behalf of Director of Regeneration and Strategy

Date 1 October 2019

Further Information

Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:-

Paul Copeland Case Officer) on 01422 392195 or Richard Seaman (Lead Officer) on 01422 392241

Conditions

2. Notwithstanding any details shown on the permitted plans, the facing of the development shall not begin until details of the facing material which shall be of regularly coursed natural stone (sympathetic in colour, coursing and texture to that used in the immediate vicinity), have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use, it shall be constructed in accordance with the details so approved and so retained thereafter. The pointing shall be flush with the face of the stone or slightly recessed, ("ribbon" or "strap" pointing shall not be used) and shall be so retained thereafter.

3. Notwithstanding any details shown on the submitted plans, the roofing of the development shall not begin until details of the roofing material have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use, the roofing of the development shall be constructed in accordance with the details so approved and shall be so retained thereafter.

4. Before any windows and doors are installed details of the materials, treatment, colour and finish of the windows and doors shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The windows and doors shall then be installed in accordance with the approved details and so retained thereafter.

5. Prior to the construction of the accesses details of their construction and specification shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be fully implemented before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter.

6. The use of the development hereby permitted shall not commence until the car park and manoeuvring facilities shown on the permitted plans has been provided, surfaced, sealed and marked out in accordance with the permitted plans and the car park shall thereafter be retained for that purpose for the occupiers of and visitors to the development.

7. Prior to the first use of the development a car parking management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall be implemented upon first occupation of the development and shall be so retained thereafter.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 4, Class A of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, before construction works commence, details shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority in respect of the provision of a contractors compound and staff car parking area within the site. Such details shall include the provision of protective fencing to the boundaries of the construction site. The details so approved shall thereafter be implemented in advance of construction works commencing and shall be retained for the duration of construction works unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

9. Prior to commencement of works at the site, a scheme for the prevention of mud or other material being deposited onto the public highway, including full details of any equipment on the site used to clean the hardstanding areas, access, wheels and chassis of vehicles, equipment location and means of drainage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The permitted scheme shall be implemented on commencement of works. The scheme shall be updated where the local planning authority consider mud on the road to be a recurrent problem by the operator or their agents in liaison with and to the written approval of the local planning authority. The updated scheme shall be implemented within a timescale to be agreed. In the event of mud or other material being deposited onto the public highway, immediate remedial and preventative action shall be taken, including suspension of operations if necessary.

10. During the construction phase, the hours of operation should be limited to 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday, 9am to 1pm Saturday and not at all on Sunday and Bank Holidays. This includes deliveries, operations and removal of waste.

11. Prior to construction, details of a dust control scheme shall be submitted in writing and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The details so approved shall thereafter be implemented in advance of construction works commencing and shall be retained for the duration of construction works unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

12. Prior to the first occupation of the building a scheme of landscaping the site , which shall include details of all existing trees and hedges on the land and details of any to be retained, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved and shall be retained thereafter

13. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the dwellings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and shall be so retained thereafter, unless any trees or plants within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased. These shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and these replacements shall be so retained thereafter.

14. Before the first occupation of any of the building details of the treatment of all the boundaries of the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The treatments so approved shall then be provided in full prior to the first occupation of the dwellings and shall thereafter be retained.

15. Prior to the construction of the external walls of the dwellings hereby approved full details of the foul and/or surface water and/or sustainable systems of drainage if feasible and/or sub- soil drainage and external works for the development (taking into account flood risk on and off site and including details of any balancing works, off-site works, existing systems to be re-used, works on or near watercourses and diversions) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be implemented prior to the first operation of the development and retained thereafter.

16. Prior to the construction of the external walls of the development hereby permitted, a scheme for the disposal of surface water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The aforementioned scheme shall make provision for the disposal of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.

Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall include but are not limited to:

i. Details of the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site, the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters and increasing flood risk to downstream land; ii Design details of all components and in accordance with CIRIA report C753 The SuDS Manual iii. A timetable for its implementation; and iv. A management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

The approved scheme (including all physical measures and the management and maintenance measures) shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and shall be so retained thereafter in a functioning and effective state.

17. A survey of existing site drainage, including any culverts/watercourses that may cross the site, showing connectivity and condition, shall be carried out prior to demolition of any existing structures and the findings submitted to the Local Planning Authority for comment.

18. Prior to the development commencing: a. A contaminated land Phase I report to assess the actual/potential contamination risks at the site shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. b. Should the Phase 1 report recommend that a Phase II investigation is required, a Phase II investigation shall be carried out and the results submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. c. Should the Phase II investigations indicate that remediation is necessary, then a Remediation Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remedial scheme in the approved Remediation Statement shall then be carried out. Should remediation be required, a Site Completion Report detailing the conclusions and actions taken at each stage of the works including an agreed scheme of validation works shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use or occupation of any part of the development hereby approved.

19. Prior to the first occupation of the building details that show how 'Secured by Design' principles have been incorporated into the scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority and once approved the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved 'Secured by Design' details prior to occupation or use of any part of the development hereby approved.

20. In connection with any garage, driveway, vehicle hardstanding or car-port hereby approved for construction within the boundary of a dwelling, prior to the occupation of that dwelling, there shall be installed a facility to permit the recharge of an electrical battery-powered vehicle. Unless otherwise required by the location the installation(s) shall comply with IEE.

21. Prior to the commencement of the development no construction materials, plant or machinery be brought onto site until the trees to be retained are protected by suitable fencing as recommended in British Standards 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction. This fencing shall be retained until the completion of the development and no materials, plant or equipment shall be stored, no bonfires shall be lit nor any building or excavation works of any kind shall take place within the protected fencing.

22. Prior to the occupation of the building hereby permitted an agronomists report detailing a scheme of works to be carried out on the playing fields at Hipperholme Grammar Senior School shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of improvements so approved shall be carried out in full by the applicant unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. For the avoidance of doubt as to what benefits from planning permission and to ensure compliance with the Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework.

2. To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure compliance with policy BE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

3. To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure compliance with policy BE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

4. To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure compliance with policy BE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

5. To ensure that suitable access is available for the development and to ensure compliance with policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

6. To ensure that adequate off-street parking is available for the development and to ensure compliance with policy T18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

7. To ensure that adequate off-street parking is available for the development and to ensure compliance with policies T18 and BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

8. In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that adequate off-street parking is available during the construction period and in the interests of amenity and to ensure compliance with policies BE5 and T18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

9. In the interests of highway safety and to ensure compliance with policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

10. In order to protect the existing residents from undue nuisance and to ensure compliance with policy EP8 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

11. In order to protect the existing residents from undue pollution and to ensure compliance with policy EP8 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

12. In the interests of amenity and to ensure compliance with policy BE3 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

13. In the interests of amenity and to help achieve a satisfactory standard of landscaping and to ensure compliance with policy BE3 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

14. In the interests of amenity and to ensure compliance with policies BE1 and BE2 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

15. In the interests of flood prevention and to ensure compliance with policies EP14, EP20 and EP22 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

16. In the interests of flood prevention and to ensure compliance with policies EP14, EP20 and EP22 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

17. In the interests of flood prevention and to ensure compliance with policies EP14, EP20 and EP22 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

18. To ensure that any ground contamination is identified and remediated, and to ensure compliance with Policies EP9 and EP10 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan

19. In the interests of crime prevention and to ensure compliance with policy BE4 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

20. In the interests of sustainability and to ensure compliance with section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

21. To ensure compliance with policy NE21 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

22. In order to ensure compliance with policy OS1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and chapter 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework

Time Not Before: 1500

Application No: 17/00395/OUT Ward: Hipperholme And Lightcliffe Area Team: North Team

Proposal: Residential Development (Outline) (Amended Plans)

Location: Land Opposite St Giles Close Hove Edge Brighouse Calderdale

Applicant: Mr Robert Hall

Recommendation: REFUSE

Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: No Departure from Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Highways Section Environmental Health Services - Pollution Section (E) Historic England Tree Officer Conservation Officers Highways Section Historic England

Description of Site and Proposal

The application site is a parcel of land measuring c.0.36ha that is located to the south of Giles House, a grade II* Listed Building. It consists of pasture enclosed by a dry stone wall and mature trees on the boundary. Historical maps indicate that the land was originally part of a larger area but it was divided by a new road, St Giles Road, (now Public Right of Way Footpath 133) that was constructed sometime between 1855 and 1894. The land has been retained in its current layout since that time.

Hove Edge is a residential suburb to the north of Brighouse that has developed over the years from a small rural settlement. There appears to have been a boom in housing post world war II and residential development extended to the north with St Giles Road forming a boundary between this urbanisation and the open space beyond including the application site.

Outline planning permission is sought for four dwellings and an associated driveway. Access is a matter for consideration with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale being reserved for future consideration.

The development has been amended since the initial submission with the omission of plot 1 and the detached garages and re-siting of plots 2 and 3 further to the north-west.

The reason that the application has been brought to Committee is because it was requested by Councillor Raistrick, a ward councillor for Hipperholme and Lightcliffe.

Relevant Planning History

An outline application for residential development at the site was withdrawn (Application number 14/01155/OUT).

An outline application for residential development at the site was withdrawn (Application number 15/00370/OUT)

Key Policy Context:

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Primary Housing Area Development Plan Designation Replacement Calderdale Unitary GP1 Encouraging Sustainable Development Plan policies Development GP2 Location of Development H2 Primary Housing Areas H9 Non-Allocated Sites H10 Density of Housing Developments GBE1 The Contribution Of Design To The Quality Of The Built Environment BE1 General Design Criteria BE2 Privacy, Daylighting and Amenity Space BE3 Landscaping BE4 Safety and Security Considerations BE5 The Design and Layout of Highways and Accesses BE6 The Provision of Safe Pedestrian Environments BE15 Setting of a Listed Building

T18 Maximum Parking Allowances NE16 Protection of Protected Species NE17 Biodiversity Enhancement NE20 Tree Preservation Orders NE21 Trees and Development Sites EP14 Protection of Groundwater EP20 Protection from Flood Risk EP22 Sustainable Drainage Systems National Planning Policy Framework 2. Achieving sustainable development Paragraphs 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 9. Promoting sustainable transport 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Other relevant planning constraints British Coal – Standard Advice

Grade II* Listed Building on the northern boundary: Giles House BR3/144

Grade II Listed Building to the south: Lower Green House BR3/91

Publicity/ Representations:

The application was publicised with site and press notices because it affects the setting of Listed Buildings. In addition nineteen neighbour notification letters were sent.

Eighteen letters of objection were received.

Summary of points raised:

 The highway details do not comply with standards.  Excessive distance to bin store.  Turning area not correct size for servicing vehicles.  Bin wagon will either park on road or reverse in or out of drive.  Only 1 space shown for each plot 4 and 5.  No fire tender provision and distance from electric gates exceeds 45m minimum.  No visitor parking.  Luxury houses that will spoil a luxurious piece of nature.  Loss of valuable local asset; green field and trees.  Additional traffic on congested corner.  Affect on wildlife – loss of habitat and natural vegetation.  Not much green space left around Hove Edge and every effort should be made to preserve it.  Loss of privacy, daylight and views.  Impact on value of house.  Do not believe there are significant adjustments from previous application.  Reduction in significance of adjacent listed buildings: increased impact.

 Not in keeping with existing housing.  Traffic risk as entrance on “blind bend”.  Increased surface water and inadequate drainage system.  The paddock is home to two horses that are a source of pleasure and interest.  The area has undergone significant changes with increased noise and traffic.  Flood risk – loss of natural soakaways.  Schools and doctors are oversubscribed.  Further reduction in gap between Hove Edge and Lightcliffe: urban sprawl and loss of community identity.  Impact from construction: traffic, noise and dust.  Replacement trees will take years to grow.  Out of scale to surroundings.  Very large new housing development off St Giles Road.  Statement by architect that the site will become undesirable is untrue.  The number of people whose lives would be detrimentally affected outweighs the few people that the project will benefit.  Lack of site notices.  Must not affect the public footpath as it provides a link between Lightcliffe and Hipperholme.  Traffic congestion from local schools.

Ward Councillor Comments

Councillor Raistrick requests that the application is referred to Planning Committee if the recommendation is to refuse and makes the following comments:

“I'm going to reiterate my request that if the proposal for 4 houses on this site is to be refused under delegated powers it is sent to committee. I've had a look at the site and read the advice from Historic England.

Now, I’m no expert, but I think you may have overstated Historic England’s position. 'Less than substantial' is the phrase they use in reference to harm caused. Seems clear to me. We need houses, they're in a good spot, no congestion worries, I don't see a problem.”

Parish/Town Council Comments

The development is not located within a parished area.

Assessment of Proposal

Principle of Development

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF establishes that for decision taking this means:

 approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or  where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: - i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; [for example…land designated as Green Belt…designated heritage assets]) or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

Footnote 7 at paragraph 11 of the NPPF establishes that, for applications involving the provision of housing, the policies which are most important for determining the application should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

The weight attributed to not having a five year supply should reflect paragraph 11 of the NPPF taking forward the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” and decisions based on whether a proposal is consistent with the policies set out in the NPPF when taken as a whole. In this case it is considered that the policies of the Framework, in particular section 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment that protects assets of importance, do provide a clear reason for refusing the development, as discussed in more detail under the heading ‘Impact on heritage assets’ and the proposal is therefore not sustainable development.

The references in policies H2 and H9 to green field sites are not up-to-date because they are inconsistent with the NPPF (the NPPF encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed; however it does not prohibit the development of green field sites). The policies are also out-of-date as the Council does not currently have a five year supply of housing.

It is considered that the development would be contrary to policies H2 and H9 as it would adversely affect the setting of Listed Buildings, however the conflict with the policies is given little weight as they are out-of-date.

The proposed development is unacceptable in principle.

Impact on heritage assets

Decision makers must give importance and weight to the desirability of avoiding any harm to designated heritage assets, to give effect to the LPA’s statutory duties under section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The finding of harm to a heritage asset gives rise to a strong presumption against planning permission being granted.

The requirement of section 66 is set out legislation and as such it is a legal duty rather than a policy requirement that the Council can choose to attach limited weight to. This is reflected in paragraph 193 of the NPPF, which states:

“When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.”

Also, in considering the impact of development on a heritage asset regard must be had to the significance of that heritage asset, in accordance with paragraph 190 of the NPPF:

“Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”

Historic England states: “The application site lies adjacent to Giles House, Grade ll* listed and to the south Lower Green House, Grade ll listed. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and is currently used a paddock bounded by a number of trees and dry stone walls. Giles House lies to the north and was erected in the mid seventeenth century.

Historically the house was surrounded by agricultural land which remained undeveloped until the twentieth century. The rural nature of the site contributes strongly to our understanding of its agricultural past. This setting has now been compromised to some degree by the construction of housing, particularly to the south and east. Nevertheless the application site retains its rural character, providing an historic setting which contributes to the significance of Giles House. Given the loss of setting elsewhere, this remnant is particularly important and provides an historic context and visual connection between the two listed buildings. It is also noted that glimpses of the principal elevation of Giles House are possible across the application site from Lower Finkil Street and adjacent footpath. Consequently the landscape character of the application site positively contributes to the fortuitous aesthetic and historical illustrative significance of the Giles House.”

In addition, paragraph 192 of the NPPF states that:-

“In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness”

Paragraph 194 of the NPPF states:

“Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:

(a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional;

(b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional”

Historic England advises

“The character and openness of the application site currently contribute positively to the setting of the listed building, being essentially the last undeveloped are of land surrounding the listed building which allows an appreciation of its historic rural setting.

Any development on this site will therefore be harmful to this setting. We consider the amendments to the proposal have reduced the level of harm and overall the harm to the significance of the listed building would be "less than substantial". Nevertheless, any harm to designated heritage assets requires a "clear and convincing justification" and should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme in accordance with paragraphs [194] and [196] of the National Planning Policy Framework. Bearing in mind the need to give considerable importance and weight to the asset's conservation, required by section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, your authority should consider whether these requirements have been satisfied.” [My emphasis]

Paragraph 196 of the NPPF states:

“Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.”

RCUDP policy BE15 establishes that development will not be permitted where it would harm the setting of a Listed Building.

As per Historic England’s comments it is noted that the scheme has been amended to position the houses towards the northwest end of the site so that they do not have a direct impact on the principal elevation of Giles House. However, it is considered that four houses in the position shown on the indicative layout along with the driveway through the site would be noticeable development that would have an urbanising effect on the land and detract from the remaining agricultural setting of Giles House.

The development would provide four houses and these would make a small contribution to the Council’s five year housing land supply accordingly they are given some weight. However, it is considered that this does not outweigh the considerable weight that must be given to the conservation of the setting of Giles House. As such the public benefit does not outweigh the harm and it is considered that the development would be contrary to paragraphs 194 and 196 of the NPPF and RCUDP policy BE15.

Residential Amenity

Warren Park and St Giles Close, residential cul-de-sacs, are south of the site. There would be a minimum of 9.8m between the nearest existing dwelling and the boundary of the site.

Whilst layout is a reserved matter an indicative layout has been provided, and it is considered that a development could be constructed that would be in accordance with Annex A and not harm the amenity of existing or prospective residents.

It is considered that development complies with policy BE2.

Layout, Design & Materials

RCUDP Policy BE1 calls for development to make a positive contribution to the quality of the existing environment or, at the very least, maintain that quality by means of high standards of design.

Appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved matters however indicative layout and elevations have been provided.

The buildings have been given an agricultural /rural appearance with the provision of large glazed openings and cat slide roof, possibly to reflect the historic use of the land, however it is considered that they would introduce a false history as there were not any agricultural buildings on the land.

As matters are reserved they can be considered at a latter stage and as such there is no conflict with policy BE1 at this time.

Highway Considerations

RCUDP Policy BE5 seeks to ensure that new development provides for safe and efficient movement by pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists.

RCUDP Policy T18 sets out maximum parking allowances for new development.

The Assistant Director – Strategic Infrastructure has considered the proposal and states:

“This is an outline application with means of access out forward for consideration. As a detailed site layout has also been submitted comments on this have also been provided to assist the applicant.

The site is in an established residential area accessible by non-car modes so the proposed dwellings are acceptable in principle.

The traffic impact of the additional dwellings will not noticeably add to local congestion in peak periods.

The parking provision on the submitted layout is appropriate for the size and type of dwellings proposed.

The proposal does not affect the public footpath (Brighouse 133) that runs along the southern site boundary on St Giles Road.

The proposed access is on the inside of a sharp bend on Lower Finkil Street. Drivers approaching the corner from both Lower Finkil Street and Newton Park have restricted forward visibility. Vehicles have to slow down significantly to negotiate the bend with on street parking restricting the effective width of the road. The road is fairly busy for a residential area and serves as a local distributor; at the start and end of the school day there are pronounced increases in movements.

Whilst there have been several local objections to the proposal citing road safety grounds, the proposed access location on the inside of this bend affords sufficient visibility in both directions for departing vehicles. A vehicle approaching the proposed access from Newton Park and stopped in the carriageway waiting to turn right will be visible to both any following vehicle and a vehicle approaching from Lower Finkil Street. The access location is therefore considered acceptable in terms of road safety

The electric gate is too close to the highway and will result in larger vehicles such as delivery vehicles having to encroach onto the highway or they will park on the bend. This should be removed or the gates set back at least 10m back.

The kerbed radii indicated are not appropriate for what will be a lightly trafficked driveway. A conventional footway crossing should be provided so that it is clear that pedestrians have priority.

The 3m opening is not wide enough for a vehicle to turn left in without swinging out into the opposing traffic lane. This should be widened to the 5.5m carriageway width which will also allow two vehicles to pass

As this will be a private access road a presentation point should be indicated by the access where residents can place their refuse bins on collection days. Given the number of bins involved this needs to be off the footway.

A revised drawing should be submitted with the access changes.

Even though this will be a private drive it will be used by service vehicles. Any future reserved matters application should show a turning area large enough for a transit type van to turn around. This should be designed in such a way that it cannot be used to park vehicles, for example with parking spaces leading directly off it.”

Subject to recommended conditions it is considered that the development would comply with policies BE5 and T18.

Paragraph 110 of the NPPF establishes that development should be designed where practical to incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra low emission vehicles. In accordance with this, a condition is proposed requiring the installation of a suitable facility to permit the recharge of an electrical battery powered vehicle that may be used in connection with that dwelling.

Flooding and drainage

Applicants will need to demonstrate that adequate foul and surface water drainage infrastructure is available to serve the proposed development and that ground and surface water is not adversely affected. A condition requiring the submission of drainage details for approval is proposed. Subject to this condition the proposal complies with Policies EP14, EP20 and EP22.

Trees and Landscaping

RCUDP policy NE20 establishes that development will not be permitted where it would result in the removal or damage, or threaten the future survival of one or more trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order unless it is in the interests of good arboricultural practice and the benefits of the development would outweigh the harm.

RCUDP policy NE21 sets out criteria where trees are located on or adjacent to development sites, which require submission of a tree survey, retention of worthy trees, protection during construction

The Council’s tree officer has considered the proposal and states:

“After reading the submitted tree report I have no reason to disagree with the comments made in it.

The protected trees adjacent to Lower Finkil Street are Limes and Sycamore and appear to be in a reasonable condition. The majority of the trees are to be retained although two trees have been identified for removal in order to allow better access to the site. I would not object to the loss subject to replacement planting. The remaining protected trees are to be retained although it is likely some minor works will be required in order to maintain them in a healthy and safe condition.

The trees adjacent to St Giles Road which are not the subject of the TPO are mainly self seeded Sycamore trees. A large Poplar adjacent to the wall has significant decay in the base and due to its age consideration should be given to its removal. I would not object to the removal of the trees of poor form or directly adjacent to the wall subject to suitable replacement trees being planted.

All retained trees should be protected during any development as per BS5837.”

Subject to conditions it is considered that the development complies with policies NE20 and NE21.

Public health

Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states:

Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans;

Paragraph 181 of the NPPF states that:

The Planning Practice Guidance establishes that when deciding whether air quality is relevant to a planning application considerations could include whether development would significantly affect traffic including generating or increasing traffic congestions, significantly changing traffic volumes etc. It is considered that the proposed development is well served by existing highway infrastructure and the proposed number of dwellings would not result in a significant impact on air quality from the resulting vehicle movements.

Notwithstanding this, the Air Quality & Emissions Technical Planning Guidance suggests that most developments, however large or small, can “contribute to overall air quality and provides for a proportionate level of mitigation to be put in place to achieve sustainable development”. In this case, facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra low emission vehicles will be conditioned in accordance with paragraph 110 of the NPPF and it is considered that this would provide appropriate mitigation.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is not considered to be acceptable. The recommendation to refuse planning permission has been made because the development is not in accordance with policy BE15 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and paragraphs 194 and 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework, nor have there been any material considerations to indicate that an exception should be made in this case.

Richard Seaman For and on behalf of Director of Regeneration and Strategy

Date: 2 October 2019

Further Information

Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:-

Claire Dunn (Case Officer) on 01422 392155

Reasons

1. The proposed development would, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, harm the setting of the Grade II* Listed Building as it would introduce urban development that would harm the landscape character of the undeveloped site, which currently positively contributes to the fortuitous aesthetic and historical significance of Giles House, and, as such, would be contrary to policy BE15 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. In addition, it is considered that the public benefit of the provision of four houses towards Calderdale's five year housing land supply would not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset and as such would also be contrary to paragraphs 194 and 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Time Not Before: 1600

Application No: 19/00181/FUL Ward: Ryburn Area Team: South Team

Proposal: Detached dwelling, new access drive, and septic tank.

Location: Land South East Of High Field High Field Lane Ripponden Sowerby Bridge Calderdale

Applicant: Making Place Estate

Recommendation: PERMIT

Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: No Departure from Development Plan: Yes

Consultations:

Highways Section Environmental Health Services - Pollution Section (E) Countryside Services (E) Ripponden Parish Council Flood Risk Manager

Description of Site and Proposal

The site is located on land to the north east of High Field Lane in a rural area on the hillside above Ripponden and in the hamlet of Soyland. The site forms part of an agricultural holding that extends to 46.6 acres (19 hectares). The site is within the applicant’s ownership and has an agricultural holding number (49/356/0607). The agricultural holding extends to some 50 acres and has already been in use for livestock in association with a neighbouring farmer. The holding has a large barn accessed by a track over the field. The land is mostly grazing land with haymaking and equestrian use on the field next to the barn for polo events taking place in the summer, there are no other buildings on the land.

There is a public footpath (Ripp 053) which runs along the northern boundary of the site accessed off Soyland Town Road which is separated from the site by a stone wall and there are some existing trees to the northern boundary of the proposed site which will be incorporated into the proposed landscaping.

Planning permission is sought for a detached dwelling, new access drive and septic tank. The proposed dwelling will sit on elevated ground within farmland overlooking a sporadically developed rural landscape. The dwelling would of contemporary design and the proposed materials are zinc roofing system, natural stone chimney, dry stone walls, rough-hewn facing stone, weathered hardwood timber and hardwood timber Bries Soleil and roof lights.

The proposed dwelling is split over three levels with the primary living spaces all on the ground floor. First and lower ground levels are accessed by a staircase and in addition there is a lift to all levels which allows access to people with disabilities and reduced mobility.

The site is accessed by vehicle and foot from the re-aligned driveway (some 400m in length) to Soyland Town Lane. It is approached through a wide pedestrian gate and landscaped courtyard which is level with the internal floor finish.

The wider landscape works would introduce:-

 Intermittent trees (including Oak, Sycamore and Hawthorn) along the edge of field boundaries.  Native woodland planting, predominately on low, steep ground on the valley slopes.  Native tree planting to screen the barn and yard  A re-aligned drive and route to the barn (echoing the line of an existing track to the west).

The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents:

 Design and access document  Landscape and Visual Appraisal  Landscape statement  Landscape character assessment  Water management opportunity assessment  Planning statement  Landscape palette  Planning visuals  Package treatment plan  Foul drainage assessment form  Surface water flood Risk form

The application has been brought to Planning Committee as the Director of Regeneration and Strategy considers that the application should be referred to Planning Committee for determination due to the sensitivity of the proposal.

Relevant Planning History

An application for an agricultural building (agricultural notification) was concluded prior approval not required under delegated powers on 8th September 2014 (application number 14/40012/AGR)

An application for agricultural building and alterations to access (retrospective) was permitted at planning committee on 19th November 2015 (application number 15/00378/FUL)

Key Policy Context:

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Green Belt Development Plan Designation Wildlife corridor Leeds Bradford Airport Safeguard Replacement Calderdale Unitary GNE1 Containment of the Urban Area Development Plan policies GP2 Location of Development BE1 General Design Criteria BE2 Privacy, Daylight and Amenity Space BE3 Landscaping BE5 Design and Layout of Highways and Accesses T18 Maximum Parking Allowances EP10 Development of Sites with Potential Contamination EP13 Development involving Non-Mains Drainage EP14 Protection of Groundwater EP20 Protection from Flood Risk EP22 Sustainable Drainage Systems NE15 Development in Wildlife Corridors NE16 Protection of Protected Species NE17 Biodiversity of Protected Species NE21 Trees and Development Sites NE23 Protection of stone walls National Planning Policy Framework 2. Achieving sustainable Development 9. Promoting sustainable transport 12. Achieving well-designed places 13. Protecting Green Belt Land 14. Meeting the Challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Other Constraints Public Footpath – Ripponden 053 Bat alert area

Publicity/ Representations:

The application was publicised with a press notice, site notice as the application is for planning permission affecting a public footpath/departure and forty three neighbour notification letters.

Sixty four letters of representation were received which included 41 letters of objection and 23 letters of support.

Summary of Points Raised:

Objection

 The proposed development does not fall within any of the Green Belt exceptions and as such is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt  It is interesting to note that the applicant is not applying under exception a) (there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside).  The Design and access statement states that the applicant has farmed the land for 6 years and that he now has a ‘desire for his home to be part of his land to enable to contribute, manage and protect heritage of this context and provide a legacy for future generations’.  The evidence required for an application proposing agricultural worker’s dwellings under paragraph 79 exception a) includes demonstrating an essential need for a rural worker to be on permanently on-site, However, given that no such case has been put forward under exception a), we would question where the concept of agriculture fits into the wider justification in connection with the exception clause e).  The arguments connected to agriculture, are unrelated to the justification required under exception clause e).  The site is relatively close to a number of settlements such as, Kebroyd, Mill Bank and Soyland Town and as such it is not considered that the site is sufficiently isolated as to qualify for special circumstances under paragraph 79. Therefore whether or not the design of the proposed dwelling is of exceptional quality or not is deemed to be irrelevant, if the LPA determine the location of the proposal is not isolated.  The Design and Access statement contains lots of detail and information concerning the concept, context and specific aspects of the design with the words ‘exemplary’ and ‘experimental’ often being applied. However, there does not appear to be any clear convincing arguments and justification as to what exactly makes the proposed dwelling truly outstanding or innovative, instead of simply being a bespoke, architect-designed tow storey house constructed using timber, stone and zinc.  Site is in green belt so why have green belt then build upon it  Currently a barn on site which is an eyesore and does not blend in, in any way whatsoever  The new dwelling is oversized and will not blend into the surrounding area  The surrounding properties were all built at least 150 years ago  It affects views an sight line for many residents  If granted it will open up to more new builds ie holiday cottages, housing for staff, more outdoor buildings  Will impact on Wildlife  If such a house is required, there are plenty of old farms and barns in need of renovation.  Prominent position being overlooked by the Mill Bank Conservation Area, historic Soyland town and adjacent hillside up Ripponden Bank Road.  The site is on the Calderdale Way which is a tourist attraction and should be protected from new development  The policy on building new dwellings in the Green Belt has not changed.

 Loss of wildlife  It will affect the natural run of water.  Not in keeping with other buildings in the vicinity  Impact on natural water courses  Site not including in the emerging draft local plan as a new housing site  Would not enhance its immediate setting  Visible on the skyline and will affect rural views both locally and from a distance  Out of character with the area  Increased traffic on narrow roads  Harm listed buildings  Design, appearance and materials used not in keeping with the local area  Additional light pollution  There is not guarantee that it will be constructed in accordance with the plans  The dwelling introduces unnatural features and spoils the natural and existing contours and harms traditional field patterns.  It will encroach onto footpaths  Harm to the openness of the Green Belt.  The manner in which the application has already contravened planning policy in constructing the barn on the adjacent filed circa 40% larger than the original planning permission demonstrates the deceitful natural of this application.  Calderdale have failed residents in the locality, granting retrospective planning for the barn to remain as built, only for the benefit of the applicant to enjoy his personal hobby of polo not agricultural use as the original planning permission was intended.  The roads are unsuitable to accommodate the large volume of traffic associated with a polo field.  The roads will deteriorate with the proposal and cause permanent disruption to residents.  Mulita-storey, glass clad silver zinc roofed eyesore  Design not sympathetic to local area  No positive attribute to the development at all.  The owners want to expand their polo activities considerably by justifying it with a large house and extensive parking spaces.  The land belongs to someone who already owns a significant property elsewhere.  Save our greenbelt and conservation areas  Design of dwelling more in keeping with sandbanks than here in Calderdale  Unsuitable building  Intrusive skyline  footpaths

Support

 It is clear the all aspects have been carefully considered.  Without encouraging such applications, how can we move forward towards a new and better way of doing things.  The scheme has been developed after very careful analysis of the site, local context, historical context, historical social analysis, consideration of the rural vernacular and with particular attention to topographic and climatic issues. The setting, material choice, landscaping and water attenuation measures are clearly very fitting for the site and context.  The proposal represents the next phase of the evolution of the traditional rural dwelling found in Calderdale.  Any application in the Green Belt needs to set a high bar for development and architectural merit, to which this application does.

 It it obvious that the development has benefited from a rigorous design development process which has involved extensive research into the surrounding landscape, history and vernacular  Design would enhance its immediate surroundings whilst being sensitive and sympathetic to the landscape.  The scheme fulfils both the highest architectural design and innovation requirements of NPPF paragraph 79 and should be approved.  The design is of outstanding quality  Proposal responds well to the topography of the site.  The Council should seize this opportunity to set a precedent within the area for considered, sustainable design within the beautiful Calder Valley.  The owner has improved the quality of the upkeep of the pastures, walls and fences.  The tree planting and pond will enhance the visibility of the location and attract more wildlife in the form of bird life and small animals such as deer.  Will enhance the value of other property around us.  A beautiful quality design and fantastic opportunity to showcase regional skills nationally.  The design demonstrates thoughtful sustainability credentials and is exactly the right kind of architecture we should be producing in this region.  The proposal seeks to envisage the ‘English Country house’ and more specifically the historic ‘Halifax House’ in the 21st century.  Innovative, distinctive design.  Sustainability is an integral part of the project  Application involves more than a design for a house, but an exemplar for a highly sustainable development and an exemplar of land management.

Parish/Town Council Comments

The development is located within the boundaries of Ripponden Parish Council.

The Parish Council make the following comments:

Resolved in a motion that the Parish Council objects to this application on the grounds that it is Green Belt development NE2 and a Wildlife Corridor NE15.

Assessment of Proposal

Principle of Development

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means:

- i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; [for example…land designated as Green Belt…] or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The application site is located within the Green Belt and as such the above presumption will not apply if it is concluded that the Green Belt policies of the NPPF provide a clear reason for refusing the application.

RCUDP policy GNE1 states “The plan will seek to restrain development outside the urban areas through the general extent of the Green Belt”. However, RCUDP policy NE1, which was the specific Part Two Policy relating to development within the Green belt, was not saved when the RCUDP was amended by Direction of the Secretary of State on 25 August 2009.

Paragraph 145 of the NPPF identifies that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, unless that building falls within a specified number of exceptions. In addition, paragraph 146 sets out other forms of development that are not inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The proposal would not fall within any of these exceptions and, consequently, should be considered as inappropriate development in the terms established by the NPPF.

Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states:

Inappropriate development is, be definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states:

When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. “Very Special Circumstances” will not exist unless the potential harm to Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

As identified above inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and as such, should not be approved unless very special circumstances apply. In terms of other harm to the Green Belt, the proposed dwelling would have a substantial built form and there would be areas of domestic curtilage. In view of this it would result in a loss of openness of the Green Belt and also fail to safeguard the countryside from encroachment.

In summary there would be harm to the Green Belt by virtue of inappropriateness and also through loss of openness (resulting from the creation of a substantial built form in the Green Belt) and encroachment into the countryside.

It is also necessary to consider how the NPPF deals more generally with development in the countryside. In relation to this, paragraph 79 of the NPPF establishes that planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply:

a) there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; b) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future heritage assets; c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting; d) the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling; or e) the design is of exceptional quality, in that it: - is truly outstanding or innovative, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design and more generally in rural areas; and - would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. [My underlining] It should be noted that a number of objections to the application express concern that the application site is not used for agricultural purposes anymore, but for more equestrian activities because the applicant owns a number of horses which are associated with polo. Irrespective of whether this is correct, the applicant is not arguing that the proposed dwelling is required for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside (i.e. criterion a) of paragraph 79 above).

It is also suggested in objections that the proposed development is not ‘isolated’. This term is open to interpretation; however, the proposed dwelling would occupy an open location and would not form part of an existing village or hamlet. The development would be served by a long track from the adopted highway and surrounded by fields. It is therefore considered to fulfil the ‘isolated criteria’.

However, it is submitted by the applicant that criterion e) justifies an isolated new dwelling being permitted in open countryside that is also designated as Green Belt.

Paragraph 79 relates to the countryside in general and as such does not in itself overcome the need to demonstrate very special circumstances. However, it is clearly a material consideration in establishing whether or not very special circumstances have been made out.

Very Special Circumstances put forward by the applicant

The applicant has submitted the proposal to CABE for design review (CABE is the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment). It is an independent national body that comments on design proposals throughout the country. They offer a “Comprehensive design service, bringing together local knowledge and world class built environment and design experts to help deliver high quality and sustainable places”.

The meetings and comments and advice from the Design Council CABE have been incorporated into the proposal as it has evolved from first review in 2017 and second review in 2018. As such, it is clear that the development of the design has been rigorously assessed at all stages of the design process and is described in the Design and Access Statement (DAS) that accompanied this application.

The Design and Access summary concludes that:-

“the design proposal for Making Place reflects the highest standards of architecture and design for a new house within an agricultural estate. This is a thoughtful building that re- envisages the ‘Halifax House’ in the 21st century; responds to and is sensitive of the defining characteristics of the local area and its immediate neighbours, whilst being an assured, confident modern dwelling that would significantly enhance its setting. The wider scheme is an exemplar of land management within an agricultural setting that will address modern problems of water run-off from upland fringes and would help raise the standards more generally in rural areas. The overall scheme integrates an innovative and considered environmental strategy for the overall site to include sustainability credentials of the building, gardens, landscape, water management and land stewardship.”

As such, the applicant believes that the requirements of Paragraph 79 of the NPPF have been fully addressed in the application scheme and have been endorsed by an independent design review body. Despite this, the Local Planning Authority must come to its own view on the merits of the design and if it is found to be of exceptional quality, what weight should be attached to this when balanced against the harm to the Green Belt.

The design is considered to be a modern interpretation of a large manor house, incorporating elements that take their inspiration from traditional agricultural buildings. Whilst the design is unashamedly contemporary, it clearly pays homage to its Pennine context. The design also responds sensitively and imaginatively to the site topography.

The proposed dwelling has been positioned upon a hilltop, contained in its wider landscape context of higher ground in all directions. To the east and south-east, views from the site extend over to Norland Moor and Ringstone Edge Moor, to the west Soyland Moor tops out at Manshead End and to the north, Crow Hill.

The landscape around the application site comprises of open fields of a small to medium size, which are enclosed by dry stone walls. Some field boundaries incorporate individual mature trees; however most of the tree cover in the area is confined to the steep valley side and in close proximity to farmsteads and residential properties.

Whilst the landscape is rural, it is scattered with individual, isolated farms, agricultural buildings and residential properties along with small clusters of built form, which comprise residential properties. There is a network of roads, tracks, lanes, footpaths and bridleways. In general, properties are constructed and finished in local Millstone Grit sandstone with sandstone and slate tiled roofs.

The site does not contain any sections of hedgerow or woodland, however, there are a number of prominent, mature and individual trees, which are predominantly sycamores located along field boundaries.

Design is ultimately a subjective matter where individual judgements will legitimately vary. That said it is clear that the proposed development is a result of a long and iterative process of design development. A marked characteristic of this particular proposal is the effort that the architect has made to articulate through the design, an understanding of the site’s historic Pennine context. This is achieved in a manner that is honest and contemporary rather than pastiche. These factors are considered to lift this proposal above the notion of might simply be described as an attractive modern design.

Overall it is considered that the design of the dwelling is outstanding reflecting the highest standards of architecture. The design approach that has been taken is not one that has been pursued previously in Calderdale and in this sense it is innovative. Whilst it would not be appropriate to replicate this design elsewhere, it demonstrates what can be achieved, through following a good design process, and as such will help to raise standards more generally. As a result of the careful iterative process that the architect has followed the resulting design is both sensitive to its environment and a feature that will enhance its setting by virtue of its elegance and visual appeal.

Whether or not very special circumstances have been made out requires all of the considerations to be balanced, and this assessment is set out at the end of this report.

Housing Issues

The references in policies H2 and H9 of the RCUDP to greenfield sites are not consistent with the NPPF (the NPPF encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed; however it does not prohibit the development of green field sites). To this extent the aforementioned policies are out-of-date.

Paragraph 11, footnote 7 of the NPPF establishes that, for applications involving the provision of housing, the policies which are most important for determining the application should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, unless the policy protects areas or assets of particular importance and provides a clear reason for refusing the development, such as those relating to land designated as Green Belt.

The Government have made it clear “unmet housing need (including traveller sites) is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the “very special circumstances” justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Green Belt. “Paragraph: 034Reference ID: 3-034-20141006.

In view of above, the lack of a 5 year supply of housing land has not been accorded significant weight in the assessment of this application.

Materials, Layout & Design

Policy BE1 seeks development that contributes positively to the local environment through high quality design, respecting the established character of the area in particular scale, design, materials, appropriate landscaping, being energy efficient and includes consideration for crime prevention.

Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places), paragraph 124 of the NPPF states:

The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.

The design of the development is considered above in the context of the very special circumstances case put forward by the applicant and it is therefore unnecessary to repeat that assessment detail. It was however concluded that the design is of exemplary quality.

It should be noted that some key sustainable technologies will include:-

 building envelope with high levels of insulation and air tightness,  stone chimney stacks with high thermal mass in direct light,  building envelope with recessed glazing and shading to minimise the heat gains In summer and benefit from heat gains in winter,  localised heat sources in addition to underfloor ambient heating,  plant room located centrally for efficiency,  solar shading provide where required,  good levels of daylighting to all spaces to reduce artificial sources,  pool to act as a heat pump during summer months  narrow plan with good cross ventilation, when required in very high temperatures

Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan policy BE1 and paragraph 79 and section 12 of the NPPF.

Residential Amenity

Policy BE2 seeks to ensure that development does not significantly affect the privacy, daylighting or amenity space of existing and prospective residents and other occupants. Annex A sets out guidelines to help assess whether such impacts arise.

The dwelling is located in a rural setting, the nearest residential dwellings to the site are located to west at Highfield and to the east at Delf Field Fold/Cottage and Farm. However, those dwellings are over 80m and 100m respectively away from the proposed dwelling and as such will not affect the privacy or amenity of the existing dwellings or proposed dwelling.

As such, the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to policy BE2 of the RCUDP.

Highway Considerations

Policy BE5 seeks to secure highways and accesses whose design and layout ensure the safe and free flow of traffic in the interests of highway safety and to provide an attractive environment. Policy T18 seeks to ensure there is adequate off street parking facilities.

The proposal introduces an amendment to the existing track, in that a new section will be created off part of the existing track to the west of the existing agricultural barn and then continuing north towards the proposed dwelling.

The Assistant Director – Strategic Infrastructure (Highways) was consulted on the application and made the following comments:

“The site is located some 400 metres from the bus stop on Soyland Town Road. Furthermore, the service frequency is not conducive to accessing facilities by public transport. Should the application be recommended for approval, conditions are requested” . Subject to conditions, the proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies BE5 and T18 of Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

Paragraph 110 (e) of the NPPF establishes that development should be designed where practical to incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra low emission vehicles. As such, a condition was previously included requiring the installation of a suitable facility to permit the recharge of an electrical battery powered vehicle that may be used in connection with that dwelling if approved.

Contrary to the comments made in the objections the development would not encroach onto any public rights of way, and as such public rights of way will not be affected by the development.

Flooding and Drainage

RCUDP Policies EP20 and EP22 establish that ground and surface water will be protected and development will not be permitted if it would increase the risk of flooding due to surface water runoff or obstruction. Sustainable Drainage Systems should be incorporated where appropriate.

Foul drainage for the new dwelling is proposed by way of a new package treatment plant.

The proposal incorporates the following measures for sustainable drainage and natural flood management (and habitat management):

 new swale and infiltration drain may be constructed if feasible at the lowest point on theslope to intercept and infiltrate water from runoff and existing field drains.  New native woodland may be planted to enhance infiltration, water uptake and biodiversity.  Lowest field 8 may be managed as a traditional hay meadow (subject to soil suitability) to enhance biodiversity and create valuable habitat, and to minimise soil compaction from grazing.  Wetland, pond or infiltration basin may be created in existing quarried area, to receive and water from existing field drains for infiltration. Area could be designed for visual appeal and amenity as it is adjacent to the Calderdale Way.  New swale may be created to intercept field drains in compartment 7. Swale could be designed to be dry during normal weather conditions to be retained as pasture, or as a wet swale for enhance biodiversity value. Access across swale would be retained as needed.  Proposed horse plunge pool may be fed with recycled roof water. Water quality may be sustained by recycling through wetland treatment system.

 Corner of field 6 may be re-graded to create a local low point. Site to be planted as wet woodland. Access to existing gate would be retained.  New drainage may be installed to serve wet area of field 3. Water would be transferred to infiltration basin in new wet woodland in field 6.  New swale or ditch may be constructed adjacent to the track to reduce runoff down the bank.  Wetland or infiltration basin may be created to retain runoff water.  Steeply sloping area of field 5 may be converted to orchard, to minimise soil compaction from grazing and improve infiltration and water uptake from trees.  New native woodland may be planted at the bottom of the slope in field 4 and 5 to enhance infiltration, water uptake and biodiversity.  Turnbys may be created on steep sections of Cow Lane if needed to reduce rate of runoff down the path.  Native mixed woodland may be planted at lowest point adjacent to existing mature oak to create small copse.  Blocked drain/spring may be intercepted and spill formalised into drinking trough (if water quality is appropriate) and then spill into wet infiltration basin in newly planted woodland.

Subject to a condition the proposal would satisfy RCUDP policies EP13, EP14, EP20 and EP22.

Ground Conditions

The site falls on land with potential contamination. RCUDP policy EP10 discusses land with potential contamination.

Paragraph 179 of Section 15 of the NPPF establishes that where a site is affected by contamination, it is the developer and/or landowner’s responsibility for securing a safe development.

Whilst phase 1 report has been submitted with the application, The Assistant Director of Public Services (Environmental Health) was verbally consulted on the application and did not consider the site to be contaminated.

As such, the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to policy EP10.

Wildlife Conservation and Biodiversity

Policy NE15 states that development will not be permitted in a wildlife corridor if it would impair the functioning of the corridor by preventing the movement of species.

Policy NE16 discusses the protection of protected species and establishes that development will not be permitted if it would harm the habitat requirements of legally protected, rare or threatened wildlife species and the species themselves unless provision is made to protect those species and their habitats.

Policy NE17 discusses biodiversity enhancements and states that development will be required where appropriate to enhance biodiversity.

The NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts upon biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline to biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.

At present the site comprises of a number of fields some sloping and a field which was formerly a quarried area. The land is mostly grazing land with haymaking and equestrian use on the field next to the barn for polo events taking place in the summer, there are no other buildings on the land.

By way of biodiversity the proposal will include:-

 Trees  New native woodlands belts  Ponds  Wetlands  Wildflower/hay meadows to enhance biodiversity and create valuable habitat.  Orchards

The biodiversity proposed is considered to enhance the site creating a tree lined access, wetlands, wildflower and hay meadows creating valuable habitats and Orchards.

The Council’s Nature Conservation Officer was consulted on the application and has made the following comments:-

“I have no objections to the proposals. However, I have the following comments on the landscaping proposals: 1. I would expect the hay meadow, wildflower meadow and wetland areas to Incorporate locally native plant species, which should be specified. 2. I recommend that the tree planting include areas of densely planted locally native shrubs such as blackthorn and hawthorn, primarily for the benefit of nesting birds. 3. Proposals to enhance and create species rich locally native hedgerows would be welcomed. 4. The planting of a small number of standard trees on the main drive way (labelled 2) would be beneficial to the landscape and biodiversity, providing habitat linkages with the SW of the site.

The site also falls within a Wildlife Corridor which is discussed under RCUDP policy NE15. The proposal is not considered to harm the wildlife corridor and as such would comply with policy NE15 of the RCUDP.

Subject to conditions, the proposal is therefore considered to accord with RCUDP policies NE15 and NE16 of the RCUDP.

Landscaping

Policy BE3 of the RCUDP establishes that development proposals will be required, where appropriate, to be accompanied by landscaping schemes that include good quality hard and soft landscaping. They should be designed as an integral part of the development proposal and should contribute to the character and amenity of the area and where possible, enhance local biodiversity.

The site sites on elevated ground within a rural setting overlooking a sporadically developed rural landscape, the vicinity of which is made up of residential hamlets. The application was submitted with a landscape and visual impact assessment which concluded that the new dwelling, together with the extensive proposals for landscape enhancement, is appropriate in size and would sit comfortably with the pattern of development within the area.

The landscape proposals have been developed to ensure that the outside spaces immediately adjacent to the proposed dwelling complement the distinctive architecture and connect the dwelling to the wider landscape.

The landscape proposals include the introduction of  Intermittent trees (including Oak, sycamore and Hawthorn) along the edge of field boundaries.  Native woodland planting to screen the barn and yard  Re-aligned drive and route to the barn  Flood alleviation measures such as leaky dams and swales.  Habitat and biodiversity creation/enhancement through the introduction of trees, native woodland belts, ponds, wetland. Wildflower/hay meadows, an orchard and by selecting a diverse range of native species of UP provenance.

The garden spaces to the south and west of the proposed dwelling comprise of

 a reflection pool (with bridge/access route) immediately adjacent to the large sections of glazing on the eastern elevation.  A terrace positioned to catch the evening sun.  A series of drystone walls running perpendicular to the building and to define the northern boundary of the western garden.  A large border with a bar code arrangement of stone paving, low hedging, water troughs and herbaceous planting.  A level lawn fringed with an informal arrangement of trees (Damson, Apple, Hawthorn) set within lounge grass/bulbs/wildflowers with meandering mown paths.  A pond with a jetty, a plunge area for horses and a belt of woodland extending along its northern edge

The hard landscaping proposals include dry stone walls around the site or stock proof fencing and the areas around the proposed dwelling will be surfaced using gritstone with contrasting unit sizes and surface textures.

Subject to conditions, the proposal is considered to comply with policy BE3 of the RCUDP

Balance of Considerations

The development causes harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness, loss of openness and encroachment into the countryside. This harm is accorded substantial weight in the assessment of the application.

However, it is has also been concluded that the design of the proposed development is of exceptional quality. It is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture; it would help to raise standards of design; the development would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be particularly sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

On balance it is considered that the exceptional quality of the design is such that the harm to the Green Belt is clearly outweighed. It is therefore considered that there are very special circumstances to justify planning permission being granted in this particular instance.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions. The recommendation to grant planning permission has been made because the development is in accordance with the policies and proposals in the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework set out in the ‘Key Policy Context’ section above with exception of Policy GNE1 of the RCUDP and chapter 13 of the NPPF. However, very special circumstances have been demonstrated that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

Richard Seaman For and on behalf of Director of Regeneration and Strategy

Date: 1 October 2019

Further Information

Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:-

Janine Branscombe (Case Officer) on 01422 392215

Richard Seaman (Lead Officer) on 01422 392241

Conditions

1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the schedule of approved plans listed above in this decision notice , unless variation of the plans is required by any other condition of this permission.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order) no development falling within Classes A - E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the said order shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

3. Prior to occupation of the development, details of the construction and specification for the access road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be fully implemented before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter.

4. The building construction works shall not begin until the new vehicular access has been laid out and constructed to base course. The access shall be completed in accordance with the permitted plans before any part of the development is brought into use and shall be so retained thereafter.

5. The access from the existing highway at Soyland Town Road should be a minimum width of 4.5 metres and any proposed gate should be set back at least 6 metres from the existing highway to avoid the potential for conflict with highway users.

6. Prior to commencement of works at the site, a scheme for the prevention of mud or other material being deposited onto the public highway, including full details of any equipment on the site used to clean the hardstanding areas, access, wheels and chassis of vehicles, equipment location and means of drainage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The permitted scheme shall be implemented on commencement of works. The scheme shall be updated where the local planning authority consider mud on the road to be a recurrent problem by the operator or their agents in liaison with and to the written approval of the local planning authority. The updated scheme shall be implemented within a timescale to be agreed. In the event of mud or other material being deposited onto the public highway, immediate remedial and preventative action shall be taken, including suspension of operations if necessary.

7. The dwelling should not be occupied until sightlines of 2.4 x 43m have been provided in both directions at the centre point of the access road at its junction with the existing highway and these shall be kept free of any obstruction to visibility exceeding 0.9m in height thereafter. The frontage wall along Soyland Town Road shall be lowered to this height along the entire extent of the site line, and any planted trees/vegetation should not be within this location.

8. No drainage works shall begin until full details of the foul and/or surface water and/or sustainable systems of drainage if feasible and/or sub-soil drainage and external works for the development (taking into account flood risk on and off site and including details of any balancing works, off-site works, existing systems to be re-used, works on or near watercourses and diversions) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be implemented prior to the first operation of the development and retained thereafter.

9. Prior to the first occupation of the development full details of a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details so approved shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted and retained thereafter.

10. In connection with any garage, driveway, vehicle hardstanding or car-port hereby approved for construction within the boundary of the dwellings, prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings, there shall be installed in an appropriate location a suitable facility to permit the recharge of an electrical battery-powered vehicle that may be used in connection with the dwellings. Unless otherwise required by the location the installation(s) shall comply with IEE regulations and BSEN 62196-1 for a mode 3 system.

11. Notwithstanding any details shown on the permitted plans the facing and roofing of the development shall not begin until details of the proposed facing and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use, the development shall be constructed in accordance with the details so approved and shall be so retained thereafter.

Reasons

1. For the avoidance of doubt as to what benefits from planning permission and to ensure compliance with the Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework.

2. In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure compliance with Policy GNE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

3. To ensure that suitable access is available for the development and to ensure compliance with policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

4. To ensure that suitable access is available in the interests of highway safety and to ensure compliance with policies BR5 and T18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

5. To avoid danger and inconvenience to highway users and to ensure compliance with Policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

6. In the interests of highway safety and to ensure compliance with Policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

7. To ensure that adequate provision is made for vehicle parking clear of the highway in the interests of highway safety and to ensure compliance with policies BE5 and T18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

8. To ensure proper drainage of the site and to ensure compliance with Policies EP20 EP22 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

9. To ensure proper drainage of the site and to ensure compliance with Policies EP20 EP22 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

10. In the interests of sustainability and to ensure compliance with Paragraph 110 of Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport), of the National Planning Policy Framework.

11. To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure compliance with Policies GNE1 and BE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.