Kirklees Council

KIRKLEES COUNCIL

PLANNING SERVICE

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DECIDED BY

PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE (HUDDERSFIELD AREA)

09-Apr-2015

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 BACKGROUND PAPERS

There is a file for each planning application containing application forms, plans and background papers.

Simon Taylor - Extension 04778

In respect of the consideration of all the planning applications on this Agenda the following information applies;

PLANNING POLICY

The statutory development plan comprises:

The Unitary Development Plan (UDP). These reports will refer only to those polices of the UDP ‘saved’ under the direction of the Secretary of State beyond September 2007.

The statutory development plan is the starting point in the consideration of planning applications for the development or use of land unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

The LDF core strategy approved by the Council in March 2012 was sunmitted to the Secretary of State on 2nd April 2013 for independent examination. However, following correspondence and meetings with the planning inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, the council resolved to withdraw the core strategy on 23rd October 2013. Until such time as revised core strategy proposals have been submitted for examination they will have no significant weight in the determination of planning applications.

National Policy/Guidelines

National planning policy and guidance is set out in National Policy Statements, primarily the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published 27th March 2012, the Planning Practice Guidance Suite (PPGS) launched 6th March 2014 together with Circulars, Ministerial Statements and associated technical guidance.

The NPPF consitutes guidance for local planning authorities and is a material consideration in determining applications.

REPRESENTATIONS

The Council adopted its Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) in relation to planning matters in September 2006. This sets out how people and organistations will be enabled and encouraged to be involved in the process relating to planning applications.

The applications have been publicised by way of press notice,.site notices and neighbour letters (as appropriate) in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement and in full accordance with the requirements of regulation, statute and national guidance.

EQUALITY ISSUES

The Council has a general duty under section 149 Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to eliminating conduct that is prohibited by the Act, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share that characteristic. The relevant protected characteristics are:

• age;

• disability;

• gender reassignment;

• pregnancy and maternity;

• religion or belief;

• sex;

• sexual orientation.

HUMAN RIGHTS

The Council has had regard to the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular:-

• Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life.

• Article 1 of the First Protocol – Right to peaceful enjoyment of property and possessions.

The Council considers that the recommendations witihn the reports are in accordance with the law, proportionate and both necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others and in the public interest.

PLANNING CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS

Paragraph 203 of The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that Local Planning Authorities consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of planning condition or obligations,

The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 stipulates that planning obligations (also known as section 106 agreements – of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) should only by sought where they meet all of the following tests.

• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

• directly related to the developmetn; and

• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

The National Planning Policy Framework and further guidance in the PPGS launched on 6th March 2014 require that planning conditions should only be imposed where they meet a series of key tests; these are in summary:

1. necessary;

2. relevant to planning and;

3. to the development to be permitted;

4. enforceable;

5. precise and;

6. reasonable in all other respects.

Recommendations made with respect to the applications brought before the Planning sub-committee have been made in accordance with the above requirements.

Application No: 2014/92280 ...... 9 Type of application: 62 - FULL APPLICATION Proposal: Erection of detached dwelling Location: adj 77, Wessenden Head Road, Meltham, Holmfirth, HD9 4HR Ward: Holme Valley North Ward Applicant: J Askew Agent: Claire Parker-Hugill, L'Arche Developments(Yorkshire)Ltd Target Date: 20-Feb-2015 Recommendation: RF1 - REFUSAL ------Application No: 2014/93961 ...... 21 Type of application: 62 - FULL APPLICATION Proposal: Erection of boundary fence to the existing Lindley Infant School and Lindley Junior School Location: Lindley CE VA Infant School, East Street, Lindley, Huddersfield, HD3 3NE Ward: Lindley Ward Applicant: Nicola Beaumont Agent: Simon Taylor, Brewster Bye Architects Target Date: 16-Feb-2015 Recommendation: RF1 - REFUSAL ------Application No: 2013/94063 ...... 31 Type of application: 62 - FULL APPLICATION Proposal: Change of use, extension, and alterations of former funeral home and workshops to form meeting rooms and office facilities. Removal of existing roof and replacement with flat roof to accommodate hidden solar panels. Change of use of agricultural land to form car park. Location: 615, New Hey Road, Mount, Huddersfield, HD3 3YE Ward: Golcar Ward Applicant: Mark Foster, The Office Hub Agent: Target Date: 23-Feb-2015 Recommendation: ASD-CONDITIONAL FULL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS ------Application No: 2014/93692 ...... 55 Type of application: 60 - OUTLINE APPLICATION Proposal: Outline application for erection of 2 dwellings Location: Land Adjacent, 720, New Hey Road, Outlane, Huddersfield, HD3 3YQ Ward: Colne Valley Ward Applicant: Queenscourt Development Agent: Michael Chow, Jade3 Architecture Ltd Target Date: 09-Mar-2015 Recommendation: RF1 - REFUSAL ------

Application No: 2015/90002 ...... 73 Type of application: 62 - FULL APPLICATION Proposal: Erection of one dwelling and garage, alterations to access and demolition of existing building Location: Upper Snow Lea Farm, Lamb Hall Road, Longwood, Huddersfield, HD3 3TH Ward: Golcar Ward Applicant: Mr & Mrs S Williams Agent: Derrie O'Sullivan Target Date: 18-Mar-2015 Recommendation: FC - CONDITIONAL FULL PERMISSION ------Application No: 2014/93929 ...... 90 Type of application: 62HH - FULL APPLICATION Proposal: Erection of single storey extension Location: 1, Drake Hill Cottages, Hey Slack Lane, Whitley Common, Huddersfield, HD8 8YD Ward: Holme Valley South Ward Applicant: S Hollingworth Agent: Alan Davies, Northern Design Partnership Target Date: 17-Apr-2015 Recommendation: RF1 - REFUSAL ------

Application No: 2014/92280

Type of application: 62 - FULL APPLICATION

Proposal: Erection of detached dwelling

Location: adj 77, Wessenden Head Road, Meltham, Holmfirth, HD9 4HR

Grid Ref: 409774.0 410273.0

Ward: Holme Valley North Ward

Applicant: J Askew

Agent: Claire Parker-Hugill, L'Arche Developments(Yorkshire)Ltd

Target Date: 20-Feb-2015

Recommendation: RF1 - REFUSAL

------

LOCATION PLAN

120 45c 122

73 71

Popley Butts Post 38

124 TINKER LANE

10 202.5m 57

138

208.2m

2 77

162 4

152 89

154 160 156

158 5

4 99

10 101

16 109 DRIVE

215.8m 12 111

VICARAGE 50 © Kirklees Council 100019241 2008

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

The proposal is not acceptable, as the site is located within close proximity to two groups of mature trees which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders, and which cause significant shading of the application site throughout the day. 9

The principle of developing this site for a dwelling would result in pressure from future residents to fell or significantly prune these trees. This would have a detrimental impact on the structural integrity of the group of trees, and would lead to a significant unacceptable loss these protected trees. Furthermore the consequences of the proximity of the dwelling to trees would lead to a poor standard of amenity for future occupiers. The proposal would therefore conflict with the provisions of Policies D2 and BE2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL

2. INFORMATION

The application is brought before the Huddersfield Planning Sub Committee at the requests of Cllr Holroyd-Doveton. Each committee request is set out below: Can I ask that the above application goes to committee, should you be minded to refuse the application. Having looked at the application it is a standard and acceptable 'garden building development' and does not impinge on other properties etc.

I note the tree office has opposed the application, but I have now seen alternative professional reports that contradict this assessment. In consequence these objections would not, I believe have sound planning reasons. And other planning matters being as they are, I cannot see any objections on planning grounds.

The Chair of Sub-Committee has confirmed that Cllr Holroyd-Doveton request is valid having regard to the Councillor’s Protocol for Planning Committees.

3. PROPOSAL/SITE DESCRIPTION

Site The application site forms a part of the garden space to no.77 Wessenden Head Road, which is a single detached two storey stone built dwelling, set in larger grounds and was formally Meltham Vicarage. The site is located off Wessenden Head Road, and is set back from the main road, with access provided by a single width drive which also serves no.79, which is located to the north west. Surrounding the dwelling is a large lawned area to the south east, and to the south west the land rises steeply.

A number of protected trees are located at the site, with individual trees located along the north eastern boundary, and a belt located to the south, and south western boundary. An existing garage is located to the west of the dwelling. Surrounding the site, the properties of Vicarage Drive back on to the garden space of the application site to the east, south east, and south west. To the west are the rear of properties off Wessenden Head Road.

The site of the proposed dwelling is located a significantly higher level than that of the existing dwelling at 77, and the site is currently part terraced, part sloping. The site is mainly covered in grass, with some formal landscaping created within proximity to the dwelling.

Proposal The application seeks the erection of a detached dwelling with attached double garage. The proposed dwelling would be two storey and part built into the natural topography of the site. Access to the property would be via the existing access off Wessenden Head Road. Existing access arrangements would be amended to separate the site from no.77 by the formation of a gated access for no.77, and the demolition of an existing garage which serves no.77 to make way for the new access to the proposed dwelling. A driveway and parking area would be formed in front of the dwelling to allow off street parking and access to the property.

The proposed dwelling would be 11.5 metres wide, 8.2 metres deep, with a maximum overall height of 7.5 metres. The attached garage would be located to the north west of the dwelling and be 6.75 metres deep and wide, with a maximum overall height of 5 metres. The proposed dwelling would have 4 bedrooms, and would be constructed from natural stone, and the roof covered in slates.

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

• 2014/92244 - Demolition of existing garage and erection of double garage and orangery – Approved http://www2.kirklees.gov.uk/business/planning/application_search/detai l.aspx?id=2014%2f92244

• 2014/91868 - Works to TPO(s) 71/91 - Granted http://www2.kirklees.gov.uk/business/planning/application_search/detai l.aspx?id=2014%2f91868

• 2006/91093 - outline application for erection of detached dwelling with integral garage - Withdrawn http://www2.kirklees.gov.uk/business/planning/application_search/detai l.aspx?id=2006%2f91093

5. PLANNING POLICY

The site is unallocated on the Kirklees UDP Proposal Plan.

Kirklees Unitary Development Plan

• BE1 – Design principles • BE2 – Quality of design • BE11 – Use of natural stone in areas where this material is prevalent

• BE12 – Space About Dwelling Distances • NE9 – Protection of Mature Trees • D2 – General Design Principles • T10 – Highway Safety

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

• NPPF6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes • NPPF7: Requiring good design • NPPF11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment • Core Planning Principles

Other Relevant Guidance

• PPG - Tree Preservation Orders and trees in conservation areas • British Standard - Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction

6. CONSULTATIONS

The following is a brief summary of Consultee advice (more details are contained in the Assessment section of the report, where appropriate):

• KC Arboriculturist – objects to the application, as it would lead to a pressure to fell protected trees.

• KC Environment Unit – no objection, subject to mitigation measures.

7. REPRESENTATIONS

Publicity on the application expired on: 12/11/2014, no comments received. Comments of Ward Cllr Holroyd-Doveton are set out in Section 2 of the report.

• Meltham Town Council – no objection

8. ASSESSMENT

Principle:

The site is without notation on the UDP Proposals Map and Policy D2 (development of and without notation) of the UDP states “planning permission for the development … of land and buildings without specific notation on the proposals map, and not subject to specific policies in the plan, will be granted provided that the proposals do not prejudice [a specific set of considerations]”. All these considerations are addressed later in this assessment.

Under the NPPF Local Authorities are required to provide a five year supply of deliverable sites. Housing applications should also be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 49 of the NPPF) and authorities should encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value (para 17 of the NPPF).

This is a Greenfield (previously undeveloped) site. However, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of available housing land sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the NPPF. Paragraph 49 of NPPF states that if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date”. Paragraph 14 states that where “relevant policies are out of date” planning permission should be granted unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

The NPPF further states that the purpose of the planning system “is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.” NPPF identifies the dimensions of sustainable development as economic, social and environmental roles. It states that these roles are mutually dependent and should not be taken in isolation. “Economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.” NPPF stresses the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

In principle the proposal fulfils the economic role as will result in limited employment opportunities for contractors and suppliers.

In terms of the social role the proposal will contribute to “the supply of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations” although there are concerns regarding the amenities of the future occupiers of the dwelling

In terms of the environmental role the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on trees which would be contrary to guidance in Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

Given the above it is considered that the proposal would not constitute sustainable development in principle.

A principal consideration is the impact of existing trees on amenity of the future occupiers and the consequential impact the erection of a dwelling could have on these protected trees. Further consideration needs to be taken with respect to the design of the proposal, its impact on highway safety, residential amenity of surrounding properties, other ecological matters and all other material planning considerations. These matters will be assessed in turn below.

Impact on Protected Trees:

The key constraint for the application site is the presence of a row of protected trees which are located along its south eastern, southern and south western boundary. These trees are covered by a group preservation order dating from 1991 and the trees consist of Sycamore, Beech, Oak and Ash trees. Group preservation orders are issued as the trees as an entire group are considered to provide an important contribution to the visual amenity of the local landscape.

The application has been assessed in detail by the Council’s Arboriculturist and in respect of the impact the trees have on the site, and with reference of Policies BE2 and NE9 of the UDP, and Policies in Chapter 11 of the NPPF, guidance on Trees in PPG, and guidance set out in the British Standard document regarding ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction.’

In light of the constraints from the protected trees, the applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment, and plans which detail the level of shade which the trees create at the site and the crown spread of the trees. The applicant has also amended the design of the proposal through the course of the application, in order to address objections made by the Council Arboriculturist. The amended scheme now represents the proposal under consideration.

The Council’s Arboriculturist has assessed the amended plans however objections to the scheme are maintained. The application site experiences a significant level of shading throughout the day from the protected trees, and this impact is exacerbated given that the trees are located to the south east, south, and south west of the proposed dwelling. Given this orientation of the proposed dwelling and it garden space to the adjacent protected trees, it means that a significant proportion of the site is always in the shade of the trees at some part of the day.

The applicant has provided a plan to detail the level of shade created by the protected trees. The plan clearly demonstrates that the whole of the proposed dwelling would experience shade from the trees from the early morning, throughout the day and into the evening, as the sun moves around the site from east to west.

The level of shading experienced at the site from the protected trees is considered to be detrimental to the amenity of the future occupiers of the dwelling, and the proposed dwelling is considered to be located too close to the protected trees. At its very closest, the south eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling which contains the main habitable room windows for the living kitchen, lounge, and 3 bedrooms would be 11 metres from the trunks or 3.4 metres from the crown spread of the protected trees. To the south west a distance of 7.6 metres would be achieved to the trunk or 1.8 metres to the crown spread, though it is acknowledged that only an en-suite window is inserted in this side elevation.

The close proximity of trees not only causes overshadowing to the proposed dwelling and its garden space, but would also leads to increased levels of nuisance for the occupiers of the proposed dwelling. Nuisance from trees can include leaf litter, accumulation of material on surfaces to make them slippery, potential damage to buildings, surfaces or vehicles. There is also an increase in fear of branch drop on to the garden, on to the proposed building, or potentially occupiers of the dwelling when using the garden space. This concern is exacerbated in winter months or at times of high wind when trees can often sway significantly in the wind.

These levels of nuisance and other issues combined with the shading issues at the site are considered to lead an increased pressure to fell or significantly prune these protected trees. Given the group nature of the protected trees at the site, any significant pruning, or loss of trees in the group would be detrimental to the visual amenity benefit they provide. It would also have a detrimental effect on the structural integrity of the group of trees which will have grown and developed as a group.

This potentially detrimental impact on protected trees is considered to be contrary to Policy BE2 of the UDP and paragraph 118 of the NPPF, which are set out below:

BE2 New development should be designed so that:

iv Existing and proposed landscaping features (including trees) are incorporated as an integral part of the proposal.

118. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: o planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;

It is therefore considered that the site is not of a sufficient size, and the protected trees too large, to be able to design a dwelling at the site which is sufficiently far enough away from the shade of the protected trees, so as to avoid a detrimental impact on future residents.

It is the opinion of officers that although purchasers of the property would be aware of the trees surrounding the property, the implications of future issues arising from their proximity would not be experienced until they occupy the property. This is based on previous experience of requests to fell and prune trees elsewhere.

It is considered that incoming occupiers of properties will want trees to be in harmony with their surroundings without casting excessive shade or otherwise unreasonably interfering with their prospects of reasonably enjoying their property.

Officer’s assessment of the current proposal is that the trees would not be in harmony with the proposed dwelling and that they would cast excessive shade which would interfere with the future occupants’ enjoyment of their property. In light of this, these existing trees could have a severely detrimental impact on living conditions of future occupants of the proposed dwelling, and most likely result in an application to prune or fell the trees to the detriment of the group of protected trees.

In light of the above concerns, the applicant has provided further information to state that, the protected trees are mature, would not significantly increase in size, but there is room to allow them to develop, that the dwelling has been designed with shallow room depths, that the site is elevated to allow good levels of natural light which is evident from a lawn and meadow grass growing at the site, and that other properties in the surrounding area have been constructed closer to protected trees.

The above points are noted, however given the proximity of the trees to the proposed dwelling, groups on both the south eastern and south western sides of the proposed dwelling it is considered that shading would be significant, both to the proposed dwelling but also the garden area. It is not considered that the rooms have been designed to be significantly shallower than any other dwelling with all the rooms on the southern aspect occupying more than 50% of the depth of the dwelling. Other dwellings constructed in the surrounding area have different circumstances, for example those to the south of the application site, are orientated with the protected trees to their north.

Further to the above concerns, the applicant has not provide an Arboricultural Method Statement to detail how nuisance measures outlined above, and the health of the trees will be protected through the construction phase, and also its use as a dwellinghouse.

The proposals would, in the opinion of officers, threaten the long term viability of these trees and would have a detrimental impact on mature trees, which would contradict with Policy BE2 of the UDP and paragraph 118 of the NPPF.

The principle of developing the site for a residential dwelling is not considered to be acceptable.

Impact on Visual Amenity:

Policies D2, BE1, BE2 and BE11 of the UDP are considerations in relation to design, materials and layout of developments. Paragraph 60 of the NPPF stipulates that planning decisions should not stifle innovation through unsubstantiated requirements to confirm to certain development forms or styles, although it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctness. 16

Notwithstanding the concerns regarding the principle of developing the site as set out above, the scale and appearance of the proposed dwelling is considered to be acceptable. The area is characterised by two storey residential dwellings of which high proportion are detached properties. The erection of a new detached dwelling is not considered to be detrimental to this character. The use of natural stone, and the proposed design, scale and layout of the window openings, and other architectural detailing are considered to be acceptable.

It is considered that the proposal is therefore consider to have an acceptable impact on visual amenity and would accord with the requirements of Policies D2, BE1, BE2 and BE11 of the UDP and Policies in the MPPF.

Highway Safety:

The highway impact of the proposed use has been assessed in relation to Policy T10 of the UDP. The proposal would use the existing access from Wessenden Head Road which currently serves the applicants dwelling no.77 and the adjacent property to the north no.79. The use of this existing access on to Wessenden Head Road for one additional dwelling is considered to be acceptable in principle.

The site would be divided into two separate plots to provide separate off street parking and access for each dwelling. The existing property has recently been given permission under 2014/92244 for the erection of a detached garage, to be located to the north of the dwelling to replace the one lost by the creation of the drive to serve the new property. Sufficient off street parking would be provided for the existing dwelling and proposed dwelling and access arrangements within the site are considered to be acceptable. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy T10 of the UDP.

Residential Amenity:

The impact of the proposal on residential amenity needs to be considered in relation to policies BE12 and D2 of the UDP and the core planning principles of the NPPF.

The impact of the development on the amenity on future occupiers of the dwelling has been partly considered earlier in this assessment with respect to the impact caused on amenity from the adjacent protected trees. It has been concluded that given the close proximity of the trees to habitable room windows in the main southern aspect of the dwelling, that shade issues would arise for the future occupiers, which would detrimental to amenity. A core planning principle of the NPPF is that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all ‘future occupants of land and buildings’. Furthermore Policy D2 of the UDP states that proposals should not prejudice, amongst other things, residential amenity. The relationship of the dwelling to the protected trees would result in a poor standard of amenity for future occupiers which would be contrary to the NPPF and the UDP. 17

Turning to the impact of the development on surrounding properties, the site is surrounded by residential dwellings, with properties off Vicarage Drive to the south, and east, properties of Wessenden Head Road to the west and north, and the applicants property no.77 located to the north east. The closest property to the site is no.77, where the south western side elevation of contains 5 windows, a secondary sitting room and kitchen window at ground floor, and a bathroom, and secondary bedroom windows at first floor. A distance of only 18.6 metres would be achieved from the side elevation of the proposed dwelling to these windows. At ground floor level the conservatory approved under 2014/92244 would only be 13.6 metres away.

The separation distance of less than 21 metres is not considered to be acceptable. It is however acknowledged that the windows at ground floor of the proposed dwelling are secondary lounge windows, where potential for overlooking could be controlled by appropriate boundary treatment, and the first floor window is secondary to bedroom 2. The use of obscure glazing in the first floor window could be sufficient to prevent detrimental overlooking to occur.

The position of the proposed dwelling to the south west of the site has also been considered in relation to potential for overbearing or overshadowing impact on no.77. The proposed dwelling would be set at a significantly higher level than that of no.77, with the ground level 4 metres higher than the ground level of no.77, and the ridge height 2.2 metres higher than the ridge of no.77. It is considered that in terms of overshadowing from the proposed dwelling, the impact would be no materially worse than what is experienced from the surrounding protected trees. In terms of overbearing impact it is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling would have some impact on no.77, the impact is however on balance considered to be acceptable, given that a separation of 18.6 metres can be achieved, and given that no.77 is the applicant’s property and that the remaining dwelling would have an open aspect from its principal east elevation across its garden.

The next closest are nos.16 and 19 Vicarage Drive which are located to the south, no. 16 is located 21 metres away, and no.19 some 25 metres away. Both of these separation distances are in accordance with Policy BE12. Other properties in the surrounding area along Wessenden Head Road, are all positioned beyond the minimum separation distance of 21 metres as required by Policy BE12.

The proposed dwelling would not, on balance, adversely affect the amenities of existing residential development but for the reasons set out above would not provide a good standard of amenity for future occupiers. The development would be contrary to a core planning principle of the NPPF and Policy D2 of the UDP.

Ecology:

The site of the proposed development is mainly amenity grassland and ornamental shrubberies which are unlikely to be of significant ecological interest. However, the surrounding trees are likely to be used by foraging bats and the development could impact on this feature. However, it is not proposed to remove any of the trees and, only if this is the case, any potential can be avoided through appropriate precautionary measures. These include the provision of a bat box and sparrow terrace and control of external lighting.

If planning permission was to be granted by which no trees were to be affected it would be possible to impose suitable planning conditions to secure mitigation of impact on the ecology of the area. This would be in accordance with Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

Conclusion:

In conclusion the erection of a detached dwelling at the site is not considered to be acceptable, as it would result in pressure to fell protected trees and a poor standard of amenity for future occupiers.

The NPPF has introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The policies set out in the NPPF taken as a whole constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice.

This application has been assessed against relevant policies in the development plan and other material considerations. It is considered that the development proposals do not accord with the development plan and there are specific policies in the NPPF which indicate development should be restricted.

9. RECOMMENDATION

REFUSAL

Refusal subject to the following reasons:

1. The application site is in close proximity two groups of mature trees which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders, and which cause significant shading of the application site throughout the day. The principle of developing this site for a dwelling would result in pressure from future residents to fell or significantly prune these trees. This would have a detrimental impact on the structural integrity of the group of trees, and would lead to a significant unacceptable loss these protected trees. The proposal would therefore conflict with the provisions of Policy BE2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The application site is in close proximity two groups of mature trees which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders, and which cause significant shading of the application site throughout the day. This would include shading of habitable room windows in the main southern aspect of the dwelling. The relationship of the dwelling to the protected trees would result in a poor standard of amenity for future occupiers which would be contrary to a core planning principle of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy D2v of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

This recommendation is based on the following plan(s):-

Plan Type Plan Reference Revision Date Received Location Plan 034/90-01 - 30/9/2014 Site Plan as 034/00.01 - 30/9/2014 Existing Proposed Site 015/00-03 Rev B - 8/12/92014 Layout Plan and Elevations Proposed Floor 015/00-02 Rev B - 9/12/2014 Plans Tree Survey - - 30/9/2014 Existing Layout Plan Tree Shade - - 30/9/2014 Proposed Layout Plan Tree Survey - - 30/9/2014 Proposed Layout Arboricultural - - 30/9/2014 Survey Arboricultural - - 30/9/2014 Impact Assessment Design and - - 30/9/2014 Access Statement

Application No: 2014/93961

Type of application: 62 - FULL APPLICATION

Proposal: Erection of boundary fence to the existing Lindley Infant School and Lindley Junior School

Location: Lindley CE VA Infant School, East Street, Lindley, Huddersfield, HD3 3NE

Grid Ref: 411909.0 418377.0

Ward: Lindley Ward

Applicant: Nicola Beaumont

Agent: Simon Taylor, Brewster Bye Architects

Target Date: 16-Feb-2015

Recommendation: RF1 - REFUSAL

------

LOCATION PLAN

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

This application seeks permission for the erection of a boundary fence to the existing Lindley Infant and Lindley Junior Schools. 21

The principle of boundary fencing is acceptable and elements of the submitted scheme can be supported. However, the length of fencing being positioned above the existing retaining wall to George Street would be detrimental to the amenities of the residents of George Street and visual amenity. For this reason the application cannot be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

2. INFORMATION

The application is brought to the Planning Sub-Committee for determination at the request of Officers. This is because of the finely balanced arguments between the merits of the fencing, which would safeguard school property and pupils, and the impact it would have on residential and visual amenity.

The Chair of the Sub Committee has confirmed that this request is in accordance with the delegation agreement.

3. PROPOSAL/SITE DESCRIPTION

Site Description

Lindley CE (A) Infants School is located within an area of Urban Greenspace within the Unitary Development Plan. The premise is accessed from East Street and shares the site with Lindley County Junior School. The western boundary of the site runs parallel with George Street which is a single lane one-way street set on a higher ground level than the school grounds. Both Schools are surrounded by residential properties.

Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of 3 sections of boundary fencing to both the Infant and Junior Schools.

The first length of fencing would span approximately 125 metres alongside George Street and would comprise galvanised steel posts supporting mesh panel fencing above the existing stone retaining wall. The fencing would project 1.2 metres above the existing wall totalling 2.4 metres in height.

The second length of fencing would be 2.4 metre high mesh fencing sited on part of the northern boundary adjacent to East Street. This would include a new vehicular access gate and pedestrian gate.

The final area of new fencing is proposed along the boundary of the site adjacent to No. 28 East Street, also to include a new vehicular access gate.

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

Infant School

2002/93753 Formation of car park, new access and erection of fencing and gates Conditional Full Permission

5. PLANNING POLICY

Kirklees Unitary Development Plan

D3 – Urban Greenspace BE1 – Design principles BE2 – Quality of design T10 – Highway safety

National Planning Policy Framework

Part 7 – Requiring good design Part 8 – Promoting healthy communities Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment (retaining structures)

6. CONSULTATIONS

Below is a summary of the consultation responses received; where appropriate these are expanded upon in the assessment section of this report:

K.C. Highways Development Management – no concerns relating to pedestrian or driver inter-visibility at junctions and access points

K.C. Highways Structures – concerned regarding future access of the wall to George Street for maintenance purposes – conditions proposed should the application be approved

7. REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters of representation received, two objections and a letter of support from the Police Community Support Officer. Ward Councillor Cahal Burke has also commented on the application.

The comments received are summarised as:

• Support aims of improving security for the site and strongly object to the proposed method • Erecting an 8ft fence on George Street will have a severe impact on the visual amenity of the street • A negative and obtrusive impact on the outlook for residents 23

• Inconsistent with existing fence around the Junior School which is unobtrusive being erected inside the school grounds and since these are several feet below level of George Street, there is no significant visual impact. Should follow this existing fence line. • There is plenty of room inside the school grounds, and would satisfy both the schools requirements and have much less impact on residents of George Street • Playground area enjoyed by residents outside school hours – access would be lost. • Agree that some measures are necessary to protect the flat roof areas of the building itself but fencing the whole area is not the answer

Comments from Police Community Support Officer (PCSO):

• Over the years there has been copious problems in the grounds of the school • Local youths have gained access to the grounds over the small wall surrounding the site and once inside grounds have been causing a nuisance to local residents by making noise and riding bikes and scooters on the playground and on the roof of the school and other anti-social behaviour • Instances of damage recorded to the buildings, skips and walls • Concerned about safety of youths playing on the roof by falling off or falling through it • From a Police point of view, there have been many calls for service to the area due to anti-social behaviour and believe this would be greatly reduced by planning being approved • Fence surrounding the school would stop youths entering the grounds and causing nuisance making life much more bearable for local residents and pupils

Comments from Councillor Cahal Burke:

• Over the years received numerous concerns and complaints from residents, local school and the neighbourhood policing team with regard to anti-social behaviour on the school site • Many meetings have taken place to try and resolve the problems, although not ideal the only option was to erect a fence around the school site of the Junior and Infant School • Junior School have erected a fence around their site but would prove ineffective without the Infant School doing the same • Due to limited space, the Infant School had to look at the use of the boundary wall when erecting a fence • Understand and sympathise with those residents who have concerns but also understand the many years of anti-social behaviour endured by many residents and the huge costs incurred by the school to pay to make repairs following damage caused by vandalism

• On balance, the fence would be a benefit to both schools and the local community to help deter anti-social behaviour and reduce the risk of criminal damage in the future

8. ASSESSMENT

General Principle / Policy:

The site is allocated as Urban Greenspace and Policy D3 of the Unitary Development Plan which restricts development. Amongst other things it states that development should only be granted for proposals which are for the ‘continuation or enhancement of established uses’. Given that the proposal would be for the enhancement of the school use it would be acceptable in principle. Policy D3 continues that even where a proposal is acceptable in principle this is only where it would ‘protect visual amenity, wildlife value and opportunities for sport and recreation’. Visual amenity will be assessed later in the report but it is considered that the proposal as a whole would not adversely affect wildlife value or opportunities for sport and recreation.

An assessment of the impact of the proposal on visual and residential amenity will also be made taking into account Policies BE1 and BE2 of the UDP.

Post-dating the Unitary Development Plan, Paragraph 74 of the NPPF states that existing open space should not be built on. In terms of this application, as the works are for fencing which would be constructed upon and confined to the boundaries, it is considered that the proposed development would not conflict with this guidance.

Finally, under Paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework it is stated that local authorities should “give great weight to the need to create, expand and alter schools”. This has been duly acknowledged in the assessment of this application.

Impact on visual and residential amenity:

The proposal seeks permission for fencing with pedestrian and vehicular access gates at various points within the school grounds. There are no objections to two sections of fencing: those that are on the boundary with East Street and to be provided at the access to the Junior School. These areas of fencing would be largely set away from residential property, save for a bungalow at 28 East Street that is partly screened from the fencing by soft landscape. Furthermore the element to the boundary with East Street would replace existing fencing and simply be of a different design and slightly increased height. In these circumstances the fencing would accord with Policies D3, BE1 and BE2 of the UDP.

The element of fencing proposed on the George Street boundary would have cranked support posts constructed within the school grounds to allow it to sit above the existing retaining wall. When viewed from George Street the existing wall is 1.2m high of stone construction with a saddleback coping. The new mesh fence would be erected above this to a total height of 2.4 metres. 25

George Street is a single lane one-way street with no footway adjacent the retaining wall. A terrace of residential properties is located on the western side of the road. The front and principal elevations of the properties would be 6 metres from the proposed fence. Given the height and proximity of the fencing to the boundary with George Street and the residential properties on the other side of the road it is considered that it would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of occupiers and to the street scene. This would be out of keeping with surrounding development and be visually unattractive – contrary to Polices BE1 and BE2 of the UDP. Furthermore it would not result in a good standard of amenity for existing residents contrary to a core planning principle of the NPPF.

Officers have discussed these concerns with the Agent and requested that the fencing be moved within the school grounds which would assist with the security for the school whilst mitigating the impact of the height of the fence on the residents and visual amenity of George Street. However, the school have stated that:

“The school was built in 1954 with 7 classes. This has steadily increased over time to 9 classes in 1976, 10 classes in 2001 and finally to the current position of 12 classes in 2006. However the playground space remains the same since the school was first built. As the school has expanded, it is no longer possible for all the children to play out at the same time. This has meant considerable changes to timetable arrangements to organise playtimes for different year groups at different times of the day. The top playground currently provides playing space for 120 (4 classes) year 2 children. When the number of classes increased to 12, all the children played out together but playground monitoring showed that there was an increase in behaviour issues and the number of children sustaining minor injuries. At this point, timetable arrangements had to be reviewed which led to the current arrangement of different year groups having playtimes at different times during the day. If the fencing was to be sited within the school grounds, to make the site secure and replicate the junior school fencing we would have to site the fencing 1.5 metres into the school playground. This would be impractical because: • The children would lose a significant amount of space from the playground leading to overcrowding. • Overcrowding would lead to an increase in behaviour issues as children have less space to play. It would also lead to an increase in minor injuries and children are more likely to bump into each other and fall over • The fencing would create an obstacle within the playground which the children could potentially fall into causing unnecessary injury. • Siting the fencing within the grounds would create a void between the wall and the fencing which would attract litter. In order to access this area, additional gates would need to be installed at additional expense. • We have very little grassed area within the school grounds and during the summer months, the children use this to sit and enjoy quiet time.

This entitlement would be removed if the fencing was site in within the grounds The fencing of the site is necessary to prevent any further vandalism or damage to the school which has been sustained over a long number of years. The children who attend our outstanding school deserve to have grounds which can be developed to include necessary play equipment as well as developing areas within the grounds that can support the children’s learning. This is not possible at the moment due to the number of unwelcome visitors the site experiences at night and during holiday times. This also comes at a considerable cost to the school when necessary repairs have to be carried out as a result of vandalism. This is money that could otherwise be spent on providing valuable resources for the children.”

As such, the Agent has requested that the application be determined in its current form.

In assessing the impact on amenity the positive impact of a reduction of crime and anti-social behaviours also needs to be taken into account. The PCSO and Cllr Burke have highlighted some of the issues facing the school and the damage unauthorised access has caused. Paragraph 69 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should promote safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. Securing the grounds could improve the general amenity of nearby residents through preventing unauthorised access and providing a safe environment for the users of the school. Whilst this could be achieved as a result of any proposed scheme the benefits of the current scheme – in promoting a ‘healthy community’ - is that it would retain the totality of the school grounds.

The loss of open space within the grounds of the school is a material consideration and the consequence of relocating the fence would be to create an unusable area between the wall and the fence line. The fence would need to be set back into the site to avoid the existing wall creating a step to would- be intruders. This design solution would result in the loss of around 195 sq m of open space within the grounds. This would result in a small reduction in the play area for children attending the school and would result in a ‘no-mans land’ between the wall and the fence line. The affected area is a mainly a margin of grass and some benches adjacent to hard surfaced play areas.

Whilst accepting the requirements for security fencing for the school, and having weighed up the pros and cons of the scheme in its present form, it is considered that the harm to the amenity of residents of George Street and the visual amenity of street scene outweigh the benefits of the scheme. This takes into account para 72 of the NPPF. Officers consider that the scheme could be amended to re-site the fencing with the school grounds which would assist the security for the school whilst mitigating the impact of the height of the fence on the residents of George Street and the visual amenity of the area.

As such, it is considered that the proposed development fails to comply with Policies BE1 and BE2 of the Unitary Development Plan and a core planning principle of the NPPF.

Highways Issues:

It is proposed that the fence would be sited upon an existing retaining wall with George Street.

K.C. Highways Development Management have been formally consulted as part of the application process and raise no objections.

The Structures team have however raised concerns regarding the proposals primarily in relation to future access to the retaining wall at George Street for maintenance purposes. The wall retains the public highway. It has been requested that should the application be granted approval, a structural report detailing the condition of the existing highway wall should be submitted and also the school/Local Education Authority should arrange access to any part of the highway wall in need of essential repair/reconstruction in the future. If the application was granted such conditions would be reasonably necessary taking into account guidance in Chapter 11 of the NPPF. This states that to prevent unacceptable risks from land instability planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location.

REPRESENTATIONS

The issues raised in representations have been considered as follows:

• Support aims of improving security for the site and strongly object to the proposed method Response: Noted

• Erecting an 8ft fence on George Street will have a severe impact on the visual amenity of the street and more importantly has a negative impact on the outlook for residents Response: This has been assessed within the impact on amenity section of this report

• View would be blighted by the fence and feel like living in a cage with living room only a few feet from fence Response: This has been assessed within the impact on amenity section of this report

• Far from being ‘unobtrusive to residents’ as claimed by the school, it is difficult to see how it could be worse Response: Noted

• Do not object in principle and would support the application if the fence was erected within the school grounds following the established practice in the Junior School Response: This has been addressed within the impact on amenity section of this report

• There is plenty of room inside the school grounds, and would satisfy both the schools requirements and have much less impact on residents of George Street Response: Noted

• Playground area enjoyed by families as a safe and convenient amenity area for toddlers and young children using stabilized cycles and scooters at holiday times, summer evenings and weekends Response:

The grounds are not a ‘public’ facility and therefore this is not a material planning consideration.

• Also used infrequently as a football kickabout area by young children who do no damage to the school building itself Response: The grounds are not a ‘public’ facility and therefore this is not a material planning consideration.

• Proposed fencing will prevent legitimate innocent leisure activity whilst having a detrimental visual impact on the area and fail to prevent deliberate criminal activity only as a challenging structure to be scaled Response: Noted

• Agree that some measures are necessary to protect the flat roof areas of the building itself but fencing the whole area is not the answer Response: Noted

Comments from Police Community Support Officer:

Response: Noted

Conclusion:

The very finely balanced conclusion is that the element of fencing to George Street is not acceptable. Whilst accepting the requirements for security fencing for the school, and having weighed up the pros and cons of the

scheme in its present form, it is considered that the harm to the amenity of residents of George Street and the visual amenity of street scene outweigh the benefits of the scheme. This takes into account para 72 of the NPPF.

As such, it is considered that the proposed development fails to comply with Policies BE1 and BE2 of the Unitary Development Plan and a core planning principle of the NPPF.

This application has been assessed against relevant policies in the development plan and other material considerations. It is considered that the development proposals do not accord with the development plan and the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits of the development when assessed against policies in the NPPF and other material considerations.

9. RECOMMENDATION

REFUSAL

1. The fencing proposed along the western boundary of the site to George Street, due to its height and proximity to the principal elevations of domestic property along this road, would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity and on the visual amenity of the wider street scene. This is contrary to Policies BE1 and BE2 of the Unitary Development Plan and a core planning principle within the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing occupants of land and buildings.

This recommendation is based on the following plan(s):-

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received Site plan Dwg. No. 22nd December 465/01(02)001 D 2014 George Street – Section Dwg, No. 22nd December A-A 465/01(02)002 2014 Fencing detail Dwg. No. 22nd December 465/01(02)003 2014 Site location plan Dwg. No. 22nd December 465/01(02)004 C 2014 Supporting Statement 16th March 2014

Application No: 2013/94063

Type of application: 62 - FULL APPLICATION

Proposal: Change of use, extension, and alterations of former funeral home and workshops to form meeting rooms and office facilities. Removal of existing roof and replacement with flat roof to accommodate hidden solar panels. Change of use of agricultural land to form car park.

Location: 615, New Hey Road, Mount, Huddersfield, HD3 3YE

Grid Ref: 409193.0 418057.0

Ward: Golcar Ward

Applicant: Mark Foster, The Office Hub

Agent:

Target Date: 23-Feb-2015

Recommendation: ASD-CONDITIONAL FULL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS

------

LOCATION PLAN

ESS

605

615 NEW HEY ROAD 613 607

Works

603 599

Leeches

Hill 9

3 2

Path (um)

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

The application is for the redevelopment of an existing/fire damaged building to form a B1 Office Hub development to provide 429 square metres of flexible office/meeting space which would be rented out per desk/small scale office. The proposal also includes works to form an associated parking area to the rear of the site.

It is considered that the proposal would bring a prominent gateway site back into use, and provide new space for employment in an area of the market where the district has only limited supply. The proposed works would not increase the external size of the original building, and it is considered that very special circumstances surrounding the need for the associated car park have been demonstrated, which clearly outweigh the harm this would have on the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the impact on its openness. The proposal is considered to achieve acceptable highway arrangements, and would not be detrimental to the setting or operation of the adjacent public footpath or local amenity.

RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL FULL PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO: • SECURE A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT TO ENSURE THE OPERATION OF THE SITE IS LIMITED TO SHORT TERM LEASE B1 OFFICE USE. • IMPOSE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS. WHICH MAY INCLUDE THOSE SET OUT BELOW, AND • SUBJECT TO THERE BEING NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT WOULD ALTER THE RECOMMENDATION TO ISSUE THE DECISION NOTICE.

2. INFORMATION

The application is brought before the Huddersfield Planning Sub Committee at the requests of Cllr Andrew Marchington. The committee request is set out in full below:

1 - if the negative impact of the development on the setting and character of the green belt is outweighed by any potential economic benefit. 2 - if the impact of the addition traffic generated by the development over the previous business use on the predominately residential section of New Hey Road is acceptable.

The Chair of Sub-Committee has confirmed that Cllr Marchington’s request is valid having regard to the Councillor’s Protocol for Planning Committees.

3. PROPOSAL/SITE DESCRIPTION

Site The application site is a former funeral home/workshop building which was badly damaged by fire in 2011, and is part demolished to the western side due to this fire. The building on site is a large three storey stone built structure with pitched roof. The principal elevation of the building faces to the east, with a drive leading to the side and rear of the building at the end of New Hey Road. The site is accessed via a section of New Hey Road in close proximity to the roundabout serving junction 23 of the M62. This section of New Hey Road is a no through road for vehicles and serves residential properties.

The land to the rear of the building (south) drops away steeply and is currently grassed and covered in material from the partially demolished building. A small timber outbuilding is located on the southern edge at the boundary with the adjacent farm land. To the east runs a public footpath that steps down from New Hey Road in the north to the south.

Surrounding the site to the east is the residential dwelling of no.611 New Hey Road, with no.s 2 and 11 Leeches Hill located further to the east, along with 605 and 607 New Hey Road. To the south are open agricultural fields and to the north and west is the M62 motorway and its associated slip road.

Proposal The application proposes the redevelopment of the site for a B1 Office Hub development to provide 429 square metres of flexible office/meeting space which would be rented out per desk/small scale office. A total of 47 work stations would be provided along with a large meeting room, a reception area, and associated staff facilitates.

The proposal would lead to the part demolition of the remaining fire damaged section of the building which would be rebuilt in a contemporary style. The scale and footprint of the building would remain the same as the original building which occupies/formally occupied the site prior to fire damage. However the redesigned building would have a large area of glazing to the west, 12 metres wide by 6.8 metres high, a glazed section to the north which is 3.6 metres wide by 6.8 metres high. The southern elevation would retain a more traditional appearance with 4 windows with stone surrounds. The redesigned building would have a flat roof, with solar panels located on the roof. Space for signage is located on the western and northern elevation.

Car parking facilities with 22 vehicular spaces and 1 accessible space would be formed to serve the development, and would be located around the building. A new parking area would be formed to the rear (south) of the site and to the rear of the adjacent no.611. The car park would be formed by raising the existing ground levels by importing material into the site and the erection of a number of retaining structures. The retaining structures would be formed by a timber crib wall retaining system, called ‘Permacrib.’ This

would retain the land whilst allowing vegetation to be planting in the gaps in the structure to allow it to become green over time.

At its highest point the retaining structures would be 4 metres high in the south western corner of the site, which would reduce down to 0.8 metres at the south eastern corner. Adjacent the public footpath the structures would be approximately 2 metres high. A boundary fence would be located on top of the retaining structure. This would be 3.2 metres above the height of the public footpath at its highest point.

Pedestrian access to the building would be via a ramp to the existing main entrance to the building and by a set of steps which would lead up from the parking area.

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

No relevant background.

5. PLANNING POLICY

The site is unallocated on the Kirklees UDP Proposal Plan.

Kirklees Unitary Development Plan

• B1 – Business Strategy • B6 – Office Developments • BE1 – Design Principles • BE2 – Quality of design • BE23 – Crime Prevention • EP6- Development and Noise • T10 – Highway safety • T17 – Cycling Provision • T19 – Parking Standards • R13 – Public Rights of Way

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

• Chapter 1 - Building a strong, competitive economy • Chapter 2 - Ensuring the vitality of town centres • Chapter 7 – Requiring good design • Chapter 9 – Protecting Green Belt land • Chapter 10 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change • Chapter 11 – Conserving the natural environment

6. CONSULTATIONS

The following is a brief summary of Consultee advice (more details are contained in the Assessment section of the report, where appropriate): 34

• KC Highways DM: No objections subject to conditions

• KC Planning Policy: no objection subject to the use being restricted to that proposed.

• KC Environmental Services: No objection

• KC Environment Unit: no objection subject to condition

• KC Conservation and Design: No objection

• KC Strategic Drainage: comments made

• Highways Agency: No objection

• Yorkshire Water – make observations

• KC Public Rights of Way Team (verbal comments) - whilst not ideal, the impact of the retaining structures on the footpath is on balance considered acceptable

7. REPRESENTATIONS

Initial publicity on the application expired on: 11 February 2014. A second round of publicity ended on 28 July 2014.

In total 9 local residents have made comments on the application which raise the following objections to the proposal:

• The proposed development has 49 desks and a meeting room with space for 12 people, but only 22 parking spaces plus 1 disabled space. It is considered that the development could lead to 60 people working at anyone time, and would therefore have a shortfall in parking spaces, and additional vehicles would have to parking on New Hey Road. There is concern that it would lead to drives along New Hey Road being blocked. Existing on street parking is taken up in part by people car sharing on the M62, and there is concern that there would be a short fall in spaces in the local area. There is also no account for deliveries. • The access to the section of New Hey Road which serves the development is off a short steep ramp off the roundabout, and in snow this section of road is impassable. The proposed steep nature of the ramp to the parking area would also become unusable in bad weather. • The proposed hours of use from 07:00 to 20:00 seven days a week with the associated traffic with the use is considered to be detrimental to residential amenity in the local area, and cause a nuisance to local residents.

• Refuse access to the site is poor, currently refuse vehicles have to reverse down the full length of this section of New Hey Road. It is therefore considered to be difficult to access the site for refuse vehicles. • The local area is residential, and the proposal will create a large commercial centre, there is concern that the proposal would detract and be detrimental to the economic viability of Huddersfield Town Centre. There is concern regarding the justification of such a use. • There are no amenities in the local area and the site is considered to be unsustainable, users would need to drive if they required any refreshments or provisions such as lunch. This would lead to additional vehicles on the road. • The proposal would lead to a lack of privacy to the occupiers of no. 611 New Hey Road as staff enter and leave the building throughout the day. It will be possible to view into the garden/living room of no.611 from the balconies. The proposed car park would potentially be flood lit causing additional light pollution and disturbance. • Nuisance will be caused throughout the construction works of the development, through noise and dust disturbance. • The glazed window to the rear, could potential lead to reflections which distract drives on the M62 motorway. • There is concern that there is not sufficient access for emergency service vehicles, and a fire broke out at the premises previously which lead to the closure of the slip road to the M62. • There is concern regarding electric and sewage services to the site. • There is concern with the access arrangements for vehicles who travel to the site from the north, either those that leave the M62 at junction 23, or those that come from A643 Lindley Moor Road. There is only a small opening on New Hey Road to allow for the required right hand turn which can only accommodate 2 vehicles. Given the scale of the development there is concerns that such a manoeuvre would not be in the best interests of highway safety. • A footpath runs adjacent the side of the site, and there are bridleways locally used by horse riders, dog walkers, cyclists and ramblers. • There are concerns regarding the surface of the car park, the potential for additional noise created by hard-core or other such similar materials, and potential for increase surface water run off. • To form the proposed parking area would require a significant amount of material to be imported/built up which would impact on the Green Belt.

8. APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING STATEMENT

The applicant has provided a supporting statement to detail how they envisage the site operating and the benefits for which it would provide, which is set out below:

“This building is in a very prominent position and is probably the first landmark as you enter Kirklees from Manchester on the M62 and currently gives the first impressions as a rundown deprived area.

Our previous experience was to purchase and convert the empty Wellington Mills site at Lindley and develop into the thriving business centre (Heritage Exchange) which today is at full occupancy with a waiting list !!Following the success of Wellington Mills and our extensive research we can see the potential to create a building to replicate the business model of www.thehotoffice.com this company operates on the outskirts of London and specialise in providing a new revolutionary way to work. (Hot Desk & Co Working Space) A perfect example to this is your own offices and consulting area. The benefits to the town centre will be that as the business grow and expand they will be likely to look locally for their next office accommodation and staff requirements.

We feel that The Office Hub could be a key gateway feature as people enter Kirklees and would be ideal for the small businesses of Huddersfield that have the needs to join the Motorway quickly and expand their services along the M62 corridor.

This scheme will encourage entrepreneurship and employment with beautiful surroundings and be a perfect place to network with motivated individuals. The Business Model will target national companies and offer Hot Desk contracts for representatives visiting the area, these people have been called 'nomads of the modern working world', finding a small space here or a corner there to rest your battered laptop, have a cappuccino and do an hours work before they move on to there next appointment.

We will be providing fully equipped, flexible CoWorking space that has been designed with regional workers in mind with a professional reception service to provide secretarial services on-demand.

Fully equipped touch-down office and meeting room facilities, WiFi and as much Free Tea, Coffee & Cappuccino you need to keep your engine charged! Use your Hot Office CoWorking Hub package just like a gym membership, joining at entry level gives you access to your local Hot Office Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.

Our services are ideal for: • Flexible Freelancers • Regional sales personnel • Remote project staff • Professional Institute Members • Teleworkers & Telecommuters”

9. ASSESSMENT

Principle:

The application is for the formation of a B1 office development in an area of defined Green Belt close to the Mount area of Huddersfield. The impact of the development on the Green Belt needs to be considered in detail given the works proposed, as well as the impact of the development on Huddersfield Town Centre, given that the proposal represents a main town centre use outside a main or town centre.

All other material planning considerations need to be assessed including the impact of the development on highway safety, amenity and ecology.

Overall Principle

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is clear that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore planning permission should be granted unless the proposal is contrary to national policy or where the development would result in a significant adverse impact which outweighs any benefits. Paragraph 17 states that Local Planning Authorities should also proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver business and industrial units including the conversion/redevelopment of existing buildings.

In general terms Chapter 1 of the NPPF is relevant and it is noted that the proposed scheme would help to generate jobs in a market (start-up office space) that is currently under-represented in the Huddersfield area. Chapter 1 emphasises the importance of securing sustainable economic growth to support jobs and prosperity, and therefore significant weight should be afforded to such applications. As this proposal would generate jobs in the office market – which would help to diversify the Huddersfield economy - and bring back into use vacant and fire damaged premises then the application is considered to meet the requirements of chapter 1 of the NPPF.

Green Belt

Turning to the Green Belt impact of the development Chapter 9 of the NPPF needs to be considered. The application represents the redevelopment of a site within the Green Belt and forms two distinctive elements, the part reconstruction, conversion and alteration of the existing/fire damaged building currently on site for an office development, and the formation of an associated car park to serve the development.

• Redevelopment of Existing Building

The redevelopment of the existing building is considered in part to represent the redevelopment of a previously developed site, which can be considered to be an exception to inappropriate development within the Green Belt under the last bullet point of NPPF paragraph 89. The proposal is also considered to 38

form the conversion of an existing building within the Green Belt which is not an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt under paragraph 90. Both of these forms of development are however subject a number of criteria, including the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt, and any potential encroachment into the countryside (the main purposes of including land within the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 80 which would be most relevant to the scheme).

The redevelopment of the existing building would not lead to an increase in the scale or footprint of the existing building/building which formally occupied the site. The conversion of the remaining section of the building would not form a materially larger structure externally, though an addition mezzanine level floor would be inserted to create additional internal floor space.

It is therefore considered that the openness of the Green Belt would be protected by the works to the building, and it is not considered that this part of the proposal would lead to any encroachment into the countryside. In terms of the redevelopment works, the impact on the Green Belt would be very similar to existing, though with a differently designed building, which will be considered in detail later in this report.

The proposal would also bring back into use, and improve the appearance of a currently derelict site in a poor state of repair which is located within a prominent location on one of the key gateways/entrances to Kirklees and Huddersfield. As discussed later in this report, other uses for the site such as residential would not be supported by Environmental Services due to concerns regarding air quality and noise caused by the adjacent motorway, and the site has an historical use as a business premises for a number of years. The redevelopment of the building for an office use is therefore considered to have an acceptable impact on the Green Belt.

• Parking Area

Turning to the formation of the car park, this is considered to represent an engineering operation within the Green Belt, and paragraph 90 of the NPPF is relevant. Paragraph 90 advises that provided the engineering operations preserve the openness of the Green Belt, and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt, it is not an inappropriate form development within the Green Belt.

The proposed car park would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt due to the scale of the works and the extent of the allied retaining structures. Furthermore it would lead to some encroachment into the countryside, given that it would lead to the change of use of an area of land which is currently grassed and steeply sloped.

In light of the above it is considered that very special circumstances would need to be demonstrated to support the proposal, and an additional statement and detailed section drawings of the car park have been provided by the applicant. As with all applications in the Green Belt, the NPPF provides 39

overarching policy guidance in relation to developments within the Green Belt in paragraphs 87 and 88 which state:

87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

88. 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 by other considerations.

As can be seen above, substantial weight should be given to any harm caused to the Green Belt, and very special circumstances are by definition rare and infrequent.

• Very Special Circumstances

The applicant has provided the following as representing their very special circumstances for the development. • The proposed Office Hub development would meet a need for start-up office space which does not currently exist in Huddersfield/Kirklees. • The car park is necessary to facilitate the proposed Office Hub. • The business plan for the site is based on the site’s location next to the motorway, and within easy access by car to a wide catchment area of potential users. • Users of the site will mainly arrive by private car, and a car park of sufficient size is essential for the site to operate as envisaged. • The total number of parking spaces provided is in accordance with the requirements of the Kirklees UDP parking standards as required by Policy T19. • There are no other locations at the site or within close proximity where such a car park can be positioned. • The site of the car park is largely overgrown with vegetation with a derelict shed at the bottom of the slope, and is of little merit. • The new retaining structure would have a green external finish with vegetation planted in the gaps in the structure. • The new retaining structure would be read in conjunction with other retaining structures in the local landscape, most notably those which retain elements of the M62 motorway. • Any reduction in floor space for the building to reduce parking demand and therefore the scale of the parking area would lead to the scheme becoming unviable. • Levels across the parking area are dictated by highway requirements, and are at the maximum acceptable levels for the car park to operate appropriately.

The very special circumstances put forward by the applicant have been considered by Officers, and it is accepted that to facilitate the proposal a car park is necessary. It is acknowledged that that there is not sufficient parking provision in the local area for the proposal to proceed without additional parking. Due to the steep topography of the local area, it is accepted that the area selected is the only practical position for the car park, and the existing drive from New Hey Road leads to a potential existing access point. The requirement to raise the land levels at the site is necessary to facilitate the practical use of car park, and meet necessary gradient standards.

While the retaining structures necessary to form the parking area are large, they are not considered to be any larger than absolutely necessary to comply with the requirements of Policy T19 regarding parking standards. The car park is also positioned adjacent the banking used to form the motorway which itself forms a manmade intervention into the countryside. While the parking area would be seen from views from the south towards the site, there are other similar retaining structures along the rear of properties off New Hey Road, and the proposed retaining structure does reduce in size as it projects to the south east. Weight should also be given to the benefit of bringing the site back into use which is in a prominent location at a gateway/entrance to Kirklees/Huddersfield, and for which an alternative residential scheme would not be supported by Environmental Services.

On balance, when assessing the scheme as a whole and the information put forward by the applicant, it is considered that very special circumstances exist which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm. Any harm to the openness and character of the Green Belt or encroachment into the countryside is considered to be outweighed by the benefit of bringing this prominent site back into use. The design of the retaining structure is such that it become green with vegetation over time, and would be read in conjunction with other main made structures in the local area, most notably those in which retain the M62.

Impact on the Town Centre:

Chapter 2 of the NPPF advises that office developments should be directed towards main town centres, and the application site located outside of the Huddersfield Town Centre which is approximately 5km to the south east, or any main local centres.

It is noted, based on the applicant’s submitted policy statement, that a justification for the need of an out-of-centre location has been supplied. Based on the proposed business model the applicant argues that an out-of- centre location, with good motorway access, is required to accommodate the needs of national companies to offer hot desk contracts and flexible co working space for regional workers. An example of the business model proposed has been provided for a company called Hot Office which operates in the south of England.

It is accepted that, based on the information supplied and the nature of the business market the proposed, the development seeks to capture a market which is one where workers travel long distances by car generally by motorway, or where business start-ups require a formal office or meeting space, but can not afford their own premises. Pursuing a sequentially preferable location in the town centre of Huddersfield, or edge of centre for that matter, would not represent the location requirements required for such a business model to succeed, i.e. they need a base to work from with supporting facilities that has quick access off and on to the motorway whilst in between jobs.

In view of this, it is accepted that the need for an out of centre location is sufficiently justified and it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of Chapter 2 of the NPPF. However given that this justification for the site’s location forms a material planning consideration for this application, it is considered necessary to ensure that the site would operate as proposed and not as an open B1 office use. It is considered that the only appropriate mechanism to secure such a restriction would be via a section 106 legal agreement. The applicant is willing to enter into such an agreement, and has provided some heads of terms for such an agreement, which are set out below.

• The Office Hub to offer max 3 month contracts to clients • Desk Space sold as memberships Gold, Silver & Bronze • At no point can one company occupy over 50% of building • The Office Hub to be used as business start-up incubator • Meeting Rooms to be available to all opportunities • All charges to be fully inclusive of, Electricity,Gas & Water • No allocated car parking • Can be used as a Disaster recovery Centre.

The above heads of terms are in principle considered to be acceptable, to ensure that sufficient control is in place to limit the operation of the site to that proposed, and to that which represents very special circumstances in Green Belt terms. Further refinement will however be required at the stage of the final wording of the legal agreement.

Sustainability

The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system “is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.” NPPF identifies the dimensions of sustainable development as economic, social and environmental roles. It states that these roles are mutually dependent and should not be taken in isolation. “Economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.” NPPF stresses the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

In principle the proposal fulfils the economic role as will result in employment opportunities for both for contractors and suppliers and future tenants of the building

In terms of the social role the proposal will contribute to supporting a high quality built environment by the rebuilding and refurbishing a vacant and derelict site.

In terms of the environmental role the proposal would enhance the built environment by refurbishing the existing building and, through the use of conditions, would help to improve biodiversity. Although the site would be largely reliant on the private car the provision of covered cycle parking would assist in moving to a low carbon economy.

Given the above it is considered that the proposal could be perceived as constituting sustainable development in principle.

Highway Safety:

The application has been assessed by the Highways Team and in relation to Policies T10 and T19.

The application proposes 22 parking spaces and 1 accessible space. The Highway Officer raises no objection to the general principle of development, and the provision of 23 spaces in total is considered to be an acceptable and would meet the requirements of the UDP parking standards required by Policy T19.

If needed, it is considered that there is a the section of New Hey Road which leads up to the site that would be capable of taking a degree of additional on street parking, without being to the detriment of highway safety and efficiency.

The initially submitted layout of the site has been amended in line with Highway Officers recommendations, and acceptable gradients could be achieved across the site to ensure that the spaces are workable.

Access to the site would be via New Hey Road, for vehicles accessing from Huddersfield and those from the south east, access would be taken by turning off the main road to the left at close proximity to the junction with the roundabout which forms part of Junction 23 of the M62. For vehicles accessing the site from the north, east or west, or via the M62 by either junction 23 or 24, they would have to either perform a right-hand turn shortly after leaving the roundabout to cross the two lanes of traffic on the main New Hey Road (A640), or via proceeding further along New Hey Road before turning around, and accessing the site on the opposite side of the road. These arrangements are considered acceptable and would allow safe access to and from the site.

To ensure that appropriate highway arrangements are put in place to support the development conditions are proposed regarding construction of the raised 43

parking area to also include surfacing in an appropriate material, marking out to ensure it operates efficiently, and a condition ensuing that gradients do not exceed 1 in 10. A condition ensuring acceptable gradients are achieved will also be attached together with details of bin storage and collection. Finally the

Subject to the conditions set out above the proposal is considered to have and acceptable impact on highway safety and a sufficient level of off street parking is provided. The proposal would therefore comply with Policies T10 and T19 of the Kirklees UDP.

Public Rights of Way (PROW):

The public footpath HUD/437/10 runs adjacent the proposed parking area to the south east and application has been considered in relation to Policy R13 of the UDP, and by the Council’s Pubic Rights of Way (PROW) Officer.

The proposed development does not propose to alter or reposition the footpath; however the retaining structures necessary to form the parking area and associated fencing would impact on the setting of the footpath.

A set of sectional drawings have been provided to demonstrate how the parking area would appear when viewed from the footpath. The plans demonstrate that the retaining structures would at their greatest be 2.05 metres high, with a 1.2 metre high boundary treatment located on top. Initially concerns were raised by the PROW Officer, however after the amended plans were considered, whilst not ideal, the impact of the retaining structures on the footpath is on balance considered to be acceptable. The footpath is 1.4 metres wide at its point adjacent the parking area, and this combined with the demonstrated need for the parking area to support the business model of the development, as previously set out, is considered in combination sufficient to ensure that no significant detrimental impact to the path is experienced.

A condition will be attached to the recommendation requiring details to be submitted of how the works to form the parking area will be carried out whilst protecting the operation of the footpath. A note will also be attached to the recommendation highlighting the positon of the footpath.

Subject to the condition set out above the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the Public Right of Way and comply with the requirements of Policy R13 of the UDP.

Amenity:

The amenity impact of the development needs to be considered in relation to Policy EP6 of the UDP, and the application has been assessed by the Council’s Environmental Services Officer. The Environmental Services Officer has specifically stated that they would not support a residential use at the site.

The closest dwelling to the application site is no.611 New Hey Road which is 6 metres away from the building to the east. The next closest dwellings are no.s 2 and 11 Leeches Hill, the side of no.2 is 4.7 metres from the proposed parking area and 34 metres from the building, no. 11 is 14.1 metres from the parking area and 33 metres from the building. The next closest properties are no.s 605 and 607 New Hey Road which are 41 metres away from the building to the east.

In terms of potential for general disturbance the proposed use of the building for B1 offices is considered to be a low generator of noise, and is considered to be an acceptable use within close proximity to residential properties. The application form details that the site would operate from 7am until 8pm 7 days a week. In the interests of protecting residential amenity, it is considered appropriate that these hours of use are conditioned. Another form of disturbance could occur from illuminating the car park, whilst it is considered an acceptable scheme could be devised, to protect the amenity of surrounding properties such a scheme will be conditioned as part of the permission.

Impact on no.611

In terms of the impact on no. 611, it contains no habitable room windows in the side of the main body of the building; however a conservatory is located to the rear. In terms of overshadowing and overbearing impact from the building to no.611, the application building exists and it is not proposed to increase its scale under the proposal. Whilst within close proximity to no.611, it has always had an existing impact on the occupiers of no.611, and the application building predates no.611 in terms of age, with no.611 being constructed in part of the curtilage of the application site under a planning permission dating from 1988. In these circumstances the relationship between the two buildings would remain unchanged.

In terms of potential overlooking, windows in the eastern elevation of host building would look towards the side elevation of no.611, and any potential for overlooking would be limited. While there are some secondary windows in the side elevation of no.611 and a conservatory to the rear, the proposed development would utilise existing window openings on this elevation, and the impact of the proposal would not be materially different than what was experienced previously when the site operated as a funeral home/joinery workshop. At ground floor level there is an existing 1.8 metre high boundary fence between the properties to limit potential overlooking of private amenity space.

Turning to the impact of the parking area on.611, the parking area would be part located to the rear of no.611 and be formed at the same land levels as the rear garden of no.611. It is acknowledged that a level of disturbance would be created by the operation of the car park to the occupiers of no.611 by vehicle movements, visitors to the site, and vehicular lights in the early mornings/evenings. The impact on no.611 is however considered to be generally limited. Any noise disturbance by the operation of the car park 45

would be part masked by higher than normal background noise levels at the site created by the presence of the M62 motorway to the north, and appropriate boundary treatment along the northern elevation of the site, would prevent any detrimental impact from headlights.

Given the information set out above the impact on no.611 is considered to be acceptable, subject to a condition regarding the submission of details of boundary treatment.

Impact on No.2 Leeches Hill

The most significant impact of the development on no.2 would occur from the formation of the parking area, which would be located opposite the western side elevation of no.2. The parking area would be within 4.2 metres of the side elevation of no.2, which contains two sets of high level windows.

It is acknowledged that a level of disturbance would be created by the operation of the car park to the occupiers of no.2 by vehicle movements, visitors to the site, and vehicular lights in the early mornings/evenings. The impact on no.2 would not be dissimilar to the impact on no.611 as set out above, and it is not considered to be materially detrimental to residential amenity. Similarly to the impact on no.611, any noise disturbance by the operation of the car park would be part masked by higher than normal background noise levels at the site created by the presence of the M62 motorway to the north, and appropriate boundary treatment along the northern elevation of the site, would prevent any detrimental impact from headlights.

Given the information set out above the impact on no.2 is considered to be acceptable, subject to a condition regarding the submission of details of boundary treatment.

Impact on No.s 605 & 607 New Hey Road and No. 11 Leeches Hill

These properties are considered to be located sufficiently far enough away from the development for the proposal to have a significant detrimental impact on them in amenity terms. Whilst the properties may experience an increase in vehicles movements along New Hey Road, this is not considered to be unduly detrimental to the residential amenity of these properties.

Conclusion

In conclusion the proposed development is considered to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties subject to conditions. The proposal would therefore comply with the requirements of Policy EP6 of the UDP and Policies in Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

Drainage:

The drainage impact of the proposal has been assessed by Kirklees Flood Management & Drainage, and in relation to Policies in Chapter 10 of the NPPF, Yorkshire Water have also commented on the proposal.

The main drainage consideration with the scheme is in relation to surface water drainage, and the potential reduction in permeable surfaces at the site from the formation of the parking area.

The Drainage Officer has stated that they would like to see details of how the new parking provision is to be drained. Permeable materials are encouraged, however given that the parking area will be formed by importing in material there is concerns that existing permeable drainage arrangements at the site would be changed. The application form details the use of soakaways, however soil conditions are unknown, and the raised parking area may mean that these are unviable. Tests should be carried out to determine whether soakaways are viable, and specific design details should be provided. The new car parking areas should not drain to the public sewer network and should mimic the current drainage regime without providing additional risk of creating boggy ground in adjacent land. In light of the recommendations of the Drainage Officer a condition will be attached to the recommendation for the submission of drainage details.

Yorkshire Water have also assessed the proposal as a water main crosses the site. There is no objection in principle to the development, however to ensure that sufficient access is secured to the water main, Yorkshire Water advise that a condition is placed on the permission to require a 3 metre stand off distance either side of the main. In light of these comments this will be conditioned on the recommendation.

Subject to this condition the application is considered to comply with the requirements of Policies in Chapter 10 of the NPPF.

Ecology:

The ecology impact of the development has been assessed by the Council’s Ecologist and in relation to policies in Chapter 11 of the NPPF. A bat survey was requested by the Ecologist which has been subsequently submitted and assessed.

The bat report detailed that no bats were found to be using the building for roosting, although roost features are present and bats were foraging around the site. There are, therefore no statutory constraints to the development but a series of measures are recommended in the report to avoid the risk of harm to bats or destruction of potential roost sites. The Ecologist has advised that the recommendations within the bat report are conditioned, and a condition will be attached to the recommendation regarding this.

Subject to condition the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on local ecology and would to comply with the requirements of Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

Representations:

The planning related objections raised are summarised as follows with a response to each one in turn:

• The proposed development has 49 desks and a meeting room with space for 12 people, but only 22 parking spaces plus 1 disabled space. It is considered that the development could lead to 60 people working at anyone time, and would therefore have a shortfall in parking spaces, and additional vehicles would have to parking on New Hey Road. There is concern that it would lead to drives along New Hey Road being blocked. Existing on street parking is taken up in part by people car sharing on the M62, and there is concern that there would be s short fall in spaces in the local area. There is also no account for delivers. Response: As set out above, the level of parking provided meets the necessary UDP parking standards, and is considered to provide an acceptable level of off street parking. It is considered that additional on street parking could be used along New Hey Road if necessary without having a detrimental impact to highway safety.

• The access to the section of New Hey Road which serves the development is off a short steep ramp off the roundabout, and in snow this section of road is impassable. The proposed steep nature of the ramp to the parking area would also become unusable in bad weather. • There is concern with the access arrangements for vehicles who travel to the site from the north, either those that leave the M62 at junction 23, or those that come from A643 Lindley Moor Road. There is only a small opening on New Hey Road to allow for the required right hand turn which can only accommodate 2 vehicles. Given the scale of the development there is concerns that such a manoeuvre would not be in the best interests of highway safety. • There is concern that there is not sufficient access for emergency service vehicles, and a fire broke out at the premises previously which lead to the closure of the slip road to the M62. Response: The access arrangements to the site have been assessed by the Highway Officer who considers them to be acceptable.

• The proposed hours of use from 07:00 to 20:00 seven days a week with the associated traffic with the use is considered to be detrimental to residential amenity in the local area, and cause a nuisance to local residents. Response: No objections are raised to the hours of operation by Environmental Services, and the nature of a B1 office use is that they are low generators of noise. While the existing situation at the site would change, it is

not considered that this would be unduly detrimental to residential amenity. Any nuisance caused by the operation of the car park is considered to be masked by the high background noise levels at the site, and any stray lights from headlights could be sufficiently controlled by appropriate boundary treatments.

• Refuse access to the site is poor, currently refuse vehicles have to reverse down the full length of this section of New Hey Road. It is therefore considered to be difficult to access the site for refuse vehicles. Response: Details of the bin storage and collection are attached as a condition to the application, but in principle acceptable arrangements are considered to be achievable.

• The local area is residential, and the proposal will create a large commercial centre, there is concern that the proposal would detract and be detrimental to the economic viability of Huddersfield Town Centre. There is concern regarding the justification of such a use. Response: It is considered that the applicant has demonstrated the need of the development at the proposed site, and it would bring a currently derelict building at a gateway site back into use. The site has an historic commercial use.

• There are no amenities in the local area and the site is considered to be unsustainable, users would need to drive if they required any refreshments or provisions such as lunch. This would lead to additional vehicles on the road. Response: It is acknowledged that the site is separated from local amenities such as local convenience stores etc, however stores are located within relatively close proximity of the site at Salendine Nook, and the need for the development in the proposed location is considered to be sufficiently demonstrated as detailed above.

• The proposal would lead to a lack of privacy to the occupiers of no. 611 New Hey Road as staff enter and leave the building throughout the day. It will be possible to view into the garden/living room of no.611 from the balconies. The proposed car park would potentially be flood lit causing additional light pollution and disturbance. Response: The proposed balconies have now been removed from the scheme, and any potential overlooking is considered to be limited, given that existing window openings would be used. The submitted plans do not propose to illuminate the car park, however to ensure that any lighting plan has an acceptable impact, a scheme of details is conditioned.

• Nuisance will be caused throughout the construction works of the development, through noise and dust disturbance. Response: A note will be added to the decision notice regarding hours of operation, and Environmental Health legislation could control any disturbance to amenity via construction works.

• The glazed window to the rear, could potential lead to reflections which distract drives on the M62 motorway. Response: The application has been assessed by the Highways Agency who raise no objections to the proposal, the proposal is therefore considered to have an acceptable impact on the operation of the motorway.

• There is concern regarding electric and sewage services to the site. Response: Connections to the sewage and electric fall outside of the control of the planning application.

• A footpath runs adjacent the side of the site, and there are bridleways locally used by horse riders, dog walkers, cyclists and ramblers. Response: As set out above, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the operation of the footpath.

• There are concerns regarding the surface of the car park, the potential for additional noise created by hard-core or other such similar materials, and potential for increase surface water run off. Response: As set out above, the operation of the proposed parking area is considered to be partly masked by the high background noise levels created by the motorway. Notwithstanding this a condition is attached to the decision notice requiring the submission of details for the formation of the parking area, to account for elements such as drainage and surfacing.

• To form the proposed parking area would require a significant amount of material to be imported/built up which would impact on the Green Belt. Response: As set out above, it is considered that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated the need for parking area, and demonstrated very special circumstances. The associated importing of material to form the parking area is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Conclusion:

In conclusion the proposal would bring a prominent gateway site back into use, and provide new space for B1 office employment subject to securing an appropriate legal agreement. The works to the building would not increase the size of the building, and it is considered that very special circumstances for the development have been demonstrated to detail the need for the parking area, and the associated change in land levels. The proposal is considered to achieve acceptable highway arrangements, and would not be detrimental to the setting or operation of the adjacent public footpath. The proposal would have an acceptable impact on local amenity and local ecology.

This application has been assessed against relevant policies in the development plan and other material considerations. It is considered that the development would constitute sustainable development and is therefore recommended for approval.

10. RECOMMENDATION

CONDITIONAL FULL PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO: • SECURE A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT TO ENSURE THE OPERATION OF THE SITE IS LIMITED TO SHORT TERM LEASE B1 OFFICE USE. • IMPOSE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS. WHICH MAY INCLUDE THOSE SET OUT BELOW, AND • SUBJECT TO THERE BEING NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT WOULD ALTER THE RECOMMENDATION TO ISSUE THE DECISION NOTICE.

Proposed conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications listed in this decision notice, except as may be specified in the conditions attached to this permission, which shall in all cases take precedence.

3. Development shall not commence until details of external materials to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No materials other than those approved in accordance with this condition shall be used.

4. Development shall not commence until full and final design details of the hereby approved parking area, access and associated retaining structures to serve the development, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include: • Full design details of the retaining structure to be installed at the site, including detailed drawings, sections and engineering calculations. • Details of the marking out of the parking bays. • Details to demonstrate that the access to the parking does not exceed a gradient of 1 in 10. • Details of final surfacing and drainage of the parking area. • Details of the type of soft landscape to be planted within the retaining structure.

• Details regarding the maintenance of the structure and soft landscaping • Details of how the structure will be created to prevent any detrimental impact on the adjacent public footpath, and details of how the public footpath would be protected throughout construction. The development shall thereafter be built in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

5. Before the development is brought into use details of storage and access for collection of wastes from the premises shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works comprising the approved details shall be provided before any part of the building is first occupied and shall be so retained thereafter free of obstructions and available for storage.

6. Development shall not commence until a scheme detailing surface water and land drainage, (including sustainable drainage assessment and percolation testing, plans and longitudinal sections, hydraulic calculations, existing drainage to be maintained/diverted/abandoned) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The building shall not be occupied until such approved drainage scheme has been provided on the site to serve the development it shall thereafter be retained.

7. No building or other obstruction shall be located over or within 3.0 (three) metres either side of the centre line of the water main, which crosses the site.

8. No activities associated with the use hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the premises outside the hours of 07:00 to 20:00 any day of the week.

9. Notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 4, no external lighting shall be installed on the building or within the car park unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details to be submitted shall indicate the measures to be taken for the control of any glare or stray light arising from the operation of external lighting and the proposed hours of operation. The external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the measures so approved and thereafter the external lighting shall be operated in accordance with the approved scheme.

10. A scheme detailing the boundary treatment for the whole site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and erected in accordance with the scheme so approved before the building is first brought into use. The works comprising the approved scheme shall thereafter be retained.

11. The hereby approved development shall be constructed in complete accordance with Section 5.8 of the Protected Species Survey dated June 2014 (with the exception that the bat box shall be constructed of woodcrete, similar to the Schweglar type 1FQ) with the bat roost features provided to be retained thereafter.

12. The use hereby approved shall not be occupied until 6 secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the approved facilities shall thereafter be retained free of obstructions and available for cycle parking.

Note The granting of planning permission does not authorise the carrying out of works within the highway, for which the written permission of the Council as Highway Authority is required. You are required to consult the Design Engineer (Kirklees Street Scene: 01484 414700) with regard to obtaining this permission and approval of the construction specification. Please also note that the construction of vehicle crossings within the highway is deemed to be major works for the purposes of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (Section 84 and 85). Interference with the highway without such permission is an offence which could lead to prosecution.

Note Public footpath number Hud/437/10, which abuts the site, shall not at any time prior to, during or after construction of the proposed development be unofficially obstructed or closed without prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

This recommendation is based on the following plan(s):-

Plan Type Plan Reference Revision Date Received Location Plan A4053 - 7/1/2014 Existing Site A4049 - 22/1/2014 Levels Proposed Plans A4048 Rev 01 - 22/1/2014 and Elevations Existing Plans A4047 - 22/1/2014 and Elevations Proposed and A4051 - 22/1/2014 Existing Roof Elevations Proposed Site A4050 Rev 01 - 19/1/2015 Levels Existing and A4052 Rev 01 - 19/1/2015 Proposed East Site Section Elevations Existing and A4060 Rev 01 - 9/3/2015 Proposed South Elevation Existing and A4060 Rev 01 - 9/3/2015 Proposed East Elevation

Plan Type Plan Reference Revision Date Received Existing and A4062 Rev 01 - 9/3/2015 Proposed Site Section North to South Permacrib Wall 417966 – SK2 - 22/1/2015 Detail Planning - - 11/4/2014 Statement Planning - - 29/12/2014 Statement 2 Structural Report MAC-1288 - 7/1/2014 Office Hub - - 7/1/2014 Leaflet 1 Office Hub - - 7/1/2014 Leaflet 2 Proposed Heads - - 22/1/2015 of Terms Further - - 22/1/2015 Information Re Flexible Working Photographs of - - 22/1/2015 Installed Green Walls Artists - - 22/1/2015 Impressions Protected - - 25/6/2014 Species Survey

Application No: 2014/93692

Type of application: 60 - OUTLINE APPLICATION

Proposal: Outline application for erection of 2 dwellings

Location: Land Adjacent, 720, New Hey Road, Outlane, Huddersfield, HD3 3YQ

Grid Ref: 409040.0 418117.0

Ward: Colne Valley Ward

Applicant: Queenscourt Development

Agent: Michael Chow, Jade3 Architecture Ltd

Target Date: 09-Mar-2015

Recommendation: RF1 - REFUSAL

------

LOCATION PLAN

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

The proposed residential development is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt which would be harmful to the openness and character of the Green Belt. The proposal is not 55

considered to meet the requirements for infill development within the Green Belt, as the site is not within a settlement/village and furthermore is large, capable of accommodating more than 2 dwellings, and not mostly surrounded by development. It is also considered that the development of the site would be harmful to the local character and the openness of the Green Belt. The application site is also subject to high levels of noise and poor air quality which would be detrimental to the future occupiers of the development.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL

2. INFORMATION

The application is brought before the Huddersfield Planning Sub Committee at the requests of Cllr Ridgway. The committee request is set out below:

I would like this application to be heard by committee for the following argument.

1. The UDP has well outlived its purpose 2. The Council failed in its attempt to replace the UDP with the LDF and is now working on a new Local plan 3. The requirement for housing development must be reflected in the new plan, demonstrating a 5-year rolling plan for the release of suitable land for development. The SCHLAA report has demonstrated where such land might be in order to achieve the appropriate numbers of houses into the future. 4. Although the SCHLAA report is expected to be regarded as neutral, in respect of current planning applications, it obviously will have an effect, particularly where specific land is potentially to change its status. 5. The land in question falls into this category and could possibly become subjected to an application for a small housing estate, which will completely change the ecology of the local area. 6. in order to preserve an important green area, therefore, it is my opinion that the erection of two detached houses will have the longer term benefit of restricting further development in that area, thereby retaining the greater part of the land as it is currently. 7. When the local plan is finalised the likelihood is that this site will be taken out of the Green Belt and will be identified for development. In terms of the existing openness of the Green Belt this application therefore forms the least intrusive encroachment into the countryside – limiting the development to two dwellings when the totality of the site could accommodate more. This is a very special circumstance in favour of the development at this time.

For these reasons and based on the above argument, I request that this matter be heard by the committee

The Chair of Sub-Committee has confirmed that Cllr Ridgway’s request is valid having regard to the Councillor’s Protocol for Planning Committees. 56

3. PROPOSAL/SITE DESCRIPTION

Site The site a forms a piece of land located at the end of New Hey Road in the village of Outlane. To the south is the M62 Motorway and its associated slip road, while to the north is open grazing land. The site is predominantly covered by a conifer plantation with the remaining area open countryside, the site is covered by dense vegetation. The land rises from New Hey Road towards the north. The part of New Hey Road where the site is located forms the old part of the road which was cut off when the M62 motorway was constructed. The area is characterised by stone built houses the majority of which are terraced.

The site is within Green Belt.

Proposal The application seeks outline planning consent with all matters reserved for the erection of 2 detached dwellings on an area of land which covers 0.43 hectares. The indicative information put forward details that the properties would be extremely large 3 storey dwellings, providing 5 large bedrooms, and substantial living space at ground floor level, with balcony space to the front and rear, with a shared parking area to the front, and amenity space to the rear. The applicant has detailed that a portion of the site would be turned into an ‘ecological area’.

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

• 2013/90934 - Outline application for erection of 24 no. apartments – Refused http://www2.kirklees.gov.uk/business/planning/application_search/detai l.aspx?id=2014%2f90934

• 2013/90767- Outline application for erection of residential development - Refused http://www2.kirklees.gov.uk/business/planning/application_search/detai l.aspx?id=2013%2F90767

• 2000/60/90260/W2 - outline application for erection of residential development – Refused, on Green Belt and noise/amenity grounds. http://www2.kirklees.gov.uk/business/planning/application_search/detai l.aspx?id=2000%2F90260

• 95/60/91678/W2 - outline application for erection of detached house with integral garage – Refused http://www2.kirklees.gov.uk/business/planning/application_search/detai l.aspx?id=95%2f91678

5. PLANNING POLICY

The site is unallocated on the Kirklees UDP Proposal Plan.

Kirklees Unitary Development Plan

• BE1 – Design principles • BE2 – Quality of design • BE11 – Building Materials • BE12 – Space About Dwellings • BE23 – Crime Prevention Measures • EP4 – Sensitive Locations • EP6 – Development and Noise • T10 – Highway Safety • T19 – Parking Standards • D13 – infill in the Green Belt

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

• NPPF6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes • NPPF7: Requiring good design • NPPF9: Protecting Green Belt land • NPPF11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment • Core Planning Principles

National Planning Practice Guidance NPPG - Air Quality - Noise - Housing supply

6. CONSULTATIONS

The following is a brief summary of Consultee advice (more details are contained in the Assessment section of the report, where appropriate):

• KC Environment Unit – comments made regarding submitted ecological survey

• Highways Agency – Offers no objection.

• KC Environmental Services – Submitted noise and air quality assessments provide insufficient information, and objections are raised on noise and air quality grounds.

7. REPRESENTATIONS

Publicity on the application expired on 16 Feb 2015, in total 5 comments have been received. 4 of the comments are in objection to the scheme including comments by the Huddersfield Civic Society, and 1 comment in support. 58

A summary of the objections to the application is set out below:

• The site is located within the Green Belt where new development is restricted. The proposal represents inappropriate development, and it is considered that the proposal does not meet any exceptions to inappropriate development. • The development will be totally out of character with the local area and local environment. This is highlighted by the indicative details which have been provided, which propose to extremely large houses. • The proposal would also lead to the loss substantial amount of wildlife and be detrimental to local ecology. • It is disingenuous to claim that the Councils lack of housing supply should lead to the sacrificing of areas of Green Belt for development. • Development of the site will lead to detrimental overlooking of no.722 New Hey Road, and will be detrimental to the privacy and amenity of no.722. • The proposal would be detrimental to the amenity of future occupiers given the site’s close proximity to motorway, and the proposal would be not comply with legislation in relation to noise pollution or air quality. A barrier of trees is not considered to provide sufficient mitigation in relation to preventing adverse impacts from noise. • Previous residential schemes have been refused and the current application should also be refused as the situation in terms of planning remains the same as previously assessed. • The proposal would intensify an existing access which currently experiences issues with on street parking to the detriment to highway safety. Insufficient parking has been provided with proposal. • The site poorly served by public transport and does not represent a sustainable location. • Existing local infrastructure including local schools are over subscribed and have insufficient capacity to accommodate additional residents as proposed by the development. • There is sufficient local new housing provision with the Lindley Moor development within close proximity.

The letter in support of the application states: • It is considered that the proposed development would improve the proposed area. • The land is of no use whatsoever and is an eyesore and it would be nice to see it developed. The addition of houses would improve the area and make it more secure and less likely to attract undesirables in cars. • The proposed design of the houses do not appear to be appropriate for this location as there are no other houses of this design in Outlane. The design looks like 2 blocks of flats and not "normal" residential houses. The design of the houses requires toning down for the area.

8. ASSESSMENT

The application seeks outline consent with all matters reserved and seeks to agree the principle of development on the site. While all matters have been reserved, the applicant has put forward indicative information for the erection of 2 very large detached dwellings and associated garden space.

Notwithstanding the submitted indicative information put forward, limited weight can be given to the content of this information given that all matters have been reserved.

The overall principle of the developing the site for a residential proposal will therefore be considered with this application in relation to its impact on the Green Belt, amenity, highway safety, local ecology, and all other material planning considerations and comments received.

Background

The current application represents the third recent submission for residential development at the site, with previously refused schemes 2013/90767 and 2014/90934 proposing a larger scale development of up to 24 apartments. The reason for refusal on the most recent application is set out below:

1. The proposed residential development by reason of its location within an area defined as Green Belt, as set out on the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan Proposal Map, constitutes inappropriate development which, by definition, would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. No very special circumstances have been put forward to demonstrate that the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness or other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies set out in Chapter 9 Protecting Green Belt land of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The site is located within close proximity to the M62 motorway and its slip road from junction 23. For these reasons the area experiences poor air quality. The submitted air quality assessment fails to demonstrate that future occupiers of the proposed residential development would enjoy a good standard of amenity which is not adversely affected by unacceptable levels of air pollution. The development would therefore be contrary to Chapter 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment of the National Planning Policy Framework.

therefore be contrary to Policy EP4 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and Chapter 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In addition to the above, two other applications 95/91678 and 2000/90260 on this site for residential developments have been previously refused, both on their impact on the Green Belt and potential noise impact of the scheme on future occupiers.

Principle:

The site is located within an area of Green Belt, as defined on the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan Proposal Map. The site is 0.43 hectares in size and contains no buildings, and is covered partly by a conifer plantation, and partly by open heathland, the site is therefore classified as a Greenfield site within the Green Belt.

The principle of developing the site for a residential use formed the first reasons for refusal on the previous applications 2013/90767 and 2014/90934 as set out above. The applicant has however put forward an alternative scheme for the site under the current application, and has proposed a scheme for two detached dwellings as an infill development.

Infill Development

Infill development within an existing settlement/village, needs to be assessed against Policy D13 of the UDP and Policies in paragraph 89 are relevant, which are set out in full below.

D13 Within existing settlements in the Green Belt infill development will normally be permitted where: i. the site is small, normally sufficient for not more than two dwellings, and within an otherwise continuously built-up frontage, or ii. the site is small and is largely surrounded by development, and iii. no detriment will be caused to adjoining occupiers of land or to the character of the surrounding area.

Infill development should be in harmony with existing development in terms of design and density and capable of safe access from the highway.

89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:… • limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or

The first assessment with respect to Policy D13 is whether the site can be considered to be located within a settlement/village. The site is located adjacent to an area of unallocated land which forms the boundary of the 61

Outlane settlement, but is not deemed to be “within a settlement” for planning purposes. The built-up part of Outlane is unallocated land on the UDP Proposals Map; the proposed development site is Green Belt. In such circumstances, the settlement boundary is deemed to be the Green Belt boundary. The land in question is therefore outside a recognised settlement or village and it cannot be deemed appropriate development either under NPPF paragraph 89 or UDP Policy D13.

While Officers do not consider the site falls within the settlement boundary of Outlane, for completeness an assessment will still be carried out in relation to the other criteria of Policy D13 and paragraph 89 to ensure a full detailed assessment of the proposal is conducted.

The first criteria which requires assessment is whether the site can be considered to be small, sufficient for only 2 dwelling, and within an otherwise continuously built-up frontage. The site at 0.43 hectares is however considered to be large, and capable of accommodating many more than two dwellings. A basic density calculation of 30 dwellings per hectare for the site leads to site being able to accommodate 13 dwellings. It is noted that topography at the site varies, however it is considered that this basic density calculation highlights that the site is much larger than what can be considered to be ‘small’, and what could accommodate only 2 dwellings.

When a comparison is made to the size of the plots for the adjacent two storey semi-detached dwellings at 728-730 New Hey Road, which also have large rear garden areas, each dwelling occupies 311 square metres, with two properties occupying 0.0622 hectares. The application site is approximately 7 times larger than the space used for these two adjacent dwellings which further highlights that the site is considered to be large.

Furthermore the site is not located ‘within an otherwise continuously built-up frontage’ (D13 i). The site is located on the end of a row of properties located to the north of New Hey Road, with no other properties or development to the east of the site. The submitted indicative details also propose two dwellings which would be set well back within the site, and would therefore not be read as part of a frontage of dwellings which face New Hey Road.

The site is not ‘largely surrounded by development’ D13 ii. While there are dwellings to the west, there is no development to the north, or east of the site, and given the scale of the submitted red line boundary, development to the west is limited to only the garden space of the existing dwellings. The proposed development is not considered to meet this requirement of policy D13.

Furthermore the erection of two dwellings the application site is considered to be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area, Policy D13 iii. Whilst all matters are reserved, the submitted indicative information highlights that the development of the site for two dwellings, which would most likely be very large in scale would be out of keeping with the pattern of small semi-detached and terraced houses in the local area. 62

The proposal would not represent infill development within the Green Belt, for the reasons given above and would fail to comply with Policy D13 of the UDP and the relevant bullet point of paragraph 89 of the NPPF.

The development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which, by definition, would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. The NPPF at paragraph 88 states that in these circumstances development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. These will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Very Special Circumstances

The applicant has put forward the following very special circumstances which they wish to be assessed with the proposal. The applicant states the following in relation to the site: • The site has no significant use to anyone and would assist in urban regeneration. • The site was left over as a result of the M62 motorway cutting. • This land is on a steep slope and not beneficial for any use other than to provide a fresh use and bringing it back into regeneration. • The scheme now includes ecological benefits with the provision of an acid grassland to the east of the site. • The proposals would enhance the appearance of the site. • The development represents the only financially viable scheme for the site. • There is a demand for executive homes as proposed.

The above information has been considered by Officers, and the NPPF provides guidance on such matters in paragraph 88.

The circumstances put forward by the applicant have been considered, however they are not considered to represent very special circumstances, which are by definition rare and infrequent. The harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of the inappropriateness of the development is considered to be substantial.

The proposal would lead to a significant encroachment into the countryside in the Green Belt, the third purpose of including land within the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF. The use of a greenfield site within the Green Belt would not assist in any form in the urban regeneration of previously developed land, the fifth purposes of including land within the Green Belt. This would have the potential to leave vacant sites in nearby settlements such as Huddersfield undeveloped if the proposal were to be developed. It is therefore considered that the proposal would fail both third and fifth bullet points of paragraph 80.

It is considered that the site is of benefit to local residents by providing an area of open countryside which prevents towns and settlements from merging into one another. The settlement boundary of Outlane is tightly drawn and clearly excludes this land. The site also has a forestry use, and has most recently been used as a Christmas tree plantation, another viable use for the site. The provision of an ecological area is not considered to provide significant benefit to the local area, above that which the open land already provides at the site to outweigh the harm caused by the development to the Green Belt.

The above circumstances put forward do not overcome the principal concern with the development, which is that the proposal represents an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt, which is contrary to paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF, and it is considered that the proposal fails to meet the requirements for infill development as set out in Policy D13 of the UDP and paragraph 89 of the NPPF.

Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and the proposal to develop a large greenfield site (0.43 hectares) is considered to be significantly harmful to the Green Belt. The development would not only significantly reduce openness within the Green Belt by the erection of new buildings, it would also significantly alter the visual appearance of a large section of land (0.43 hectares) and would be out of keeping with the character of the local area/landscape. The harm caused by the development, both by reason of inappropriateness and the specific harm to openness and character, is not considered to be clearly outweighed by any other consideration put forward by the applicant.

In conclusion, the case put forward by the applicant in relation to the impact of the development on Green Belt is not supported by Planning Officers for the reasons set out, and the development constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt which would be significantly harmful to the openness and detrimental to its character and appearance.

Case put Forward in Relation to Local Housing Supply

Further to the above, the applicant has put forward that the site is on the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) list and the site forms part of site number 67. The findings of the SHLAA assessment are that the site is Greenfield, available in terms of ownership, however has a potential noise problem and is on a steep gradient.

While it is noted that the site is on the SHLAA list, SHLAA is a policy neutral assessment, and only assesses sites in terms of their suitability for development (discounting planning policy), their viability (in terms of ownership), and whether a development scheme would be achievable. Therefore no weight can be given to the presence of the site on the SHLAA assessment and this does override any of the current Green Belt Policies as set out above, or other planning policies or material planning considerations mentioned below. 64

5 Year Land Supply

It is acknowledged that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 49, “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date”. Consequently planning applications for housing are required to be determined on the basis of the guidance in NPPF paragraph 14. This requires proposals which accord with UDP to be approved without delay or where the UDP is silent or out-of-date to grant planning permission unless (in this case) ‘specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted’.

While the Council can no longer demonstrate a 5 year land supply for housing, the significant and demonstrable harm to the Green Belt as set out above indicates that the development should be restricted. This is in accordance with Chapter 9 of the NPPF which states that inappropriate development should not be approved. Furthermore the NPPG has recently clarified that ‘unmet housing need…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’.

The Council position in relation to 5 year land supply for housing does not override Green Belt Policies as set out above, and these need to be considered in full.

Conclusion on Principle

In conclusion the proposal is not considered to represent infill development within the Green Belt, and the proposal would represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt which would be significantly harmful to the openness and character of the Green Belt. There are no very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness or other harm and the application would fail to comply with policies set out in Chapter 9 of the NPPF.

Amenity:

The impact of the development on the amenity of existing and future occupiers is considered against the site’s location within close proximity to the M62 Motorway (within 35 metres), and the slip road to junction 23. The detrimental impact of the development on the amenity of the future occupiers of the dwellings formed the second and third reasons for refusal on the most recently refused application on the site. The current application is accompanied by the same Air Quality Assessment and Noise Report submitted in support of that application.

The submitted reports and the principle of the development have been assessed by Environmental Services. From monitoring in the area it is considered that Air Pollution levels at the site are over the government objective, and as the development proposal is for private dwellings there will be no way of controlling air pollution levels inside the premises.

From a previous noise report for the site, other noise reports for sites in the area and knowledge of the noise levels close to the motorway carriageway it is known that noise levels will be in the region of 70 to 75dB daytime. These levels are unacceptable for new dwellings, although it may be technically possible to incorporate noise attenuation into the buildings, there will be no way of providing attenuation to the outdoor amenity space to achieve the recommended 50 to 55dB levels. It is therefore recommended that the application is refused on amenity grounds as there will be more suitable development site available in alternative, lower noise and lower pollution sites.

Guidance in relation to air quality matters and noise is set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) have also been considered.

The air quality section of the NPPG states that “the potential impact of new development on air quality is taken into account in planning where the national assessment indicates that relevant limits have been exceeded or are near the limit.”

Given the air quality at the site exceeds the Government Objective levels the proposal would lead to the additional exposure of people to an existing source of poor air quality generated by the presence of the M62 motorway.

In light of the above it is therefore concluded that the proposal would lead to a poor standard of amenity to the future occupiers of the proposed development, by reasons of disturbance caused by the noise and air pollution created by the M62 motorway. The submitted noise and air quality assessments do not demonstrate that the site can be developed without future occupants being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of air and noise pollution. The application would therefore fail to comply with Policies EP4 of the Kirklees UDP, and guidance in Chapter 11 of the NPPF. The proposal would also not comply with planning practice guidance set out in the NPPG.

Ecology:

Given that the site is a classified as Greenfield, which is partly occupied by an area of heathland the application has been assessed by the Council’s Ecologist and the Councils Arboriculturalist in relation to the ecology value of the site. The Councils Arboriculturalist raises no objection to the scheme.

The applicant has provided a Phase 1 ecological survey of the site to consider the impact of the development on local ecology. The Council’s Ecologist has stated he has raised concerns with the quality of the submitted survey as details in respect to the qualifications of the author are missing. It is 66

considered a full ecological report by a suitably qualified person should be submitted with the application to allow full assessment.

Notwithstanding this concern, an assessment has been made of the information submitted and a number of further concerns are highlighted. In ‘Section C.2.3 acid grassland,’ it is stated that the acid grassland will be retained within the gardens of the dwellings. This is not acceptable and any area of important habitat should be retained outside of the curtilage of the new dwellings. The proposals should be modified accordingly, and only those areas of conifer plantation and low value habitats between the road and conifers included as garden.

It is proposed to plant a conifer hedge barrier along the south east boundary as a noise barrier. This will impact adversely on the acid grassland/heath habitats (through shading). Similarly, the proposed landscape buffer around the periphery of the site could impact on the heath acid/grassland habitats. This treatment is not appropriate or conducive to maintaining the Habitats of Principal Importance. This is not to rule out any landscaping in these areas but this should be sensitive and complementary to the habitats present.

It is stated that the no breeding birds were identified during the surveys undertaken in November and January. The bird breeding season is generally from March to August inclusive so the timing was wrong for identifying breeding birds. Even so, it is possible to predict species which may use the site and this information should be included.

No signs of bats were found but, again, the surveys were carried out in November and January. The conclusions of this survey work can only be accepted if the survey work and reporting has been undertaken by appropriately qualified personnel. Details of the surveyors and their qualifications should be provided.

To address these concerns the applicant has put forward that a portion of the site to the east be set aside for ecological enhancement. The Council’s Ecologist supports the principle of the provision of an area of ecological enhancement, and subject to final landscaping and layout details, that the principle of the development could be acceptable in ecological terms. Further ecological work by a suitably qualified person would need to be submitted to establish the final layout and landscaping enhancement of the site.

Given that the application seeks only outline consent with all matters reserved including the layout and landscape, it is considered that further ecological work could be submitted at reserved matters stage in order to assess the acceptability of layout and landscape arrangements. Subject to this it is considered that the application could in principle meet the requirements of Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

Highways:

The impact of the development on highway safety has been considered by the Highways Agency given the site’s location within close proximity to the M62 Motorway, and by the Highways section of the Council. It should however be noted that as access is reserved in the outline application a detailed assessment has not been carried out.

Access to the site would be gained from an unclassified section of New Hey Road which would join with the classified section of the road, the A640 at a junction to the west of the site. The proposal to gain access from this junction along the unclassified section of the road is considered to be acceptable in principle.

The junction of the unclassified section with the A640 is also considered to be capable of providing an acceptable access point on to the main highway network given that sufficient sight lines can be achieved, and given that the speed of the road is restricted to 30 mph just prior to the junction. An hourly bus service also serves the village of Outline which is considered to provide a sufficient alternative means of access other than the private car. The application in principle is considered to provide adequate means of access to comply with Policy T10.

The Highways Agency have assessed the proposal in relation to its impact on the motorway network and raise no objection to the scheme.

Other Considerations:

Drainage Previous schemes at the site were assessed by Yorkshire Water and the Kirklees Strategic Drainage Officer who raised no objections to the scheme in principle.

In terms of sustainable drainage, the proposal would lead to the loss of a significant amount of greenfield land and which would increase run off from the site. Sustainable drainage techniques would therefore need to be provided for the site to ensure that run off rates meet the necessary greenfield run off rates for the site in accordance with Chapter 10 of the NPPF.

Coal The site lies within a low risk coal area, the standing advice note will therefore be attached to the decision notice.

Representation:

5 representations have been received which raise concerns with the application, 1 comment in support. A summary of the comments is set out below, a Planning Officers response to each one is set out below:

• The proposal would also lead to the loss substantial amount of wildlife and be detrimental to local ecology. Response: It is considered that in principle the development could be undertaken without an adverse impact on local ecology.

• Development of the site will lead to detrimental overlooking of no.722 New Hey Road, and will be detrimental to the privacy and amenity of no.722. Response: It is considered that sufficient separation distances could be achieved in principle for the impact on no.722 to be acceptable.

• The proposal would be detrimental to the amenity of future occupiers given the site’s close proximity to motorway, and the proposal would be not comply with legislation in relation to noise pollution or air quality. A barrier of trees is not considered to provide sufficient mitigation in relation to preventing adverse impacts from noise. Response: Comments are noted and accepted as set out above.

• The proposal would intensify an existing access which currently experiences issues with on street parking to the detriment to highway safety. Insufficient parking has been provided with proposal. • The site poorly served by public transport and does not represent a sustainable location. Response: Highway arrangements for the development are in principle considered to be acceptable.

• Existing local infrastructure including local schools are over subscribed and have insufficient capacity to accommodate additional residents as proposed by the development. Response: In principle local infrastructure is considered to be capable of accommodating the two additional dwellings.

The one comment

• It is considered that the proposed development would improve the proposed area. • The land is of no use whatsoever and is an eyesore and it would be nice to see it developed. The addition of houses would improve the area and make it more secure and less likely to attract undesirables in cars. Response: As set out above, the site has an existing forestry use and forms part of the countryside in which restricts new development.

• The proposed design of the houses do not appear to be appropriate for this location as there are no other houses of this design in Outlane. The design looks like 2 blocks of flats and not "normal" residential houses. The design of the houses requires toning down for the area. Response: These comments are noted and accepted, the submitted design details however are indicative only.

Conclusion:

In conclusion the proposed residential development is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt which would be harmful to the openness and character of the Green Belt. The proposal is not considered to meet the requirements for infill development within the Green Belt, as the site is not within a settlement/village and furthermore is large, capable of accommodating more than 2 dwellings, and not mostly surrounded by development. It is also considered that the development of the site would be harmful to the local character and the openness of the Green Belt. The application site is also subject to high levels of noise and poor air quality which would be detrimental to the future occupiers of the development.

This application has been assessed against relevant policies in the development plan and other material considerations. It is considered that the development proposals do not accord with the development plan and that there are specific policies in the NPPF which indicate that development should be restricted.

9. RECOMMENDATION

REFUSAL

Reasons for refusal are as follows:

1. The site is located within the Green Belt, and as it is outside the settlement boundary of Outlane on the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan, it is not classed as infill development within an existing settlement or village for the purposes of Policy D13. Neither would the development satisfy the criteria set out in Policy D13 for infill development in the Green Belt. It would therefore constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which, which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt. It would significantly harm the openness of the Green Belt, especially given the elevated and prominent nature of the site. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm. It would therefore be contrary to the aims of Policy D13 of the Unitary - Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework - Protecting Green Belt land.

3. The site is located within close proximity to the M62 motorway and its slip road from junction 23. For these reasons it is subject to high levels of noise. The submitted noise assessment fails to demonstrate that future occupiers of the proposed residential development would enjoy a good standard of amenity which is not adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise pollution. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy EP4 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and Chapter 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment of the National Planning Policy Framework.

This recommendation is based on the following plan(s):-

Plan Type Plan Reference Revision Date Received Location Plan and Site 100 - 12/1/2015 Plan Proposed Site Plan 101 - 12/1/2015 Site Plan With - - 5/2/2015 Ecological Benefit Area Design and Access - - 12/1/2015 Statement Ecological Report Comments Further to - - 19/2/2015 Representations Information RE - - 7/2/2015 SHLAA Supporting Statement - - 5/2/2015 Further Planning - - 5/2/2015 Policy Statement Further Ecological - - 5/2/2015 Statement Supporting Statement - - 3/2/2015

Application No: 2015/90002

Type of application: 62 - FULL APPLICATION

Proposal: Erection of one dwelling and garage, alterations to access and demolition of existing building

Location: Upper Snow Lea Farm, Lamb Hall Road, Longwood, Huddersfield, HD3 3TH

Grid Ref: 409779.0 417879.0

Ward: Golcar Ward

Applicant: Mr & Mrs S Williams

Agent: Derrie O'Sullivan

Target Date: 18-Mar-2015

Recommendation: FC - CONDITIONAL FULL PERMISSION

------

LOCATION PLAN

7 1 255.4m NEW HEY ROAD

RAY GATE 26 28

238.4m 79

262.4m 493

LONGWOOD EDGE ROAD Path (um)

Longwood Edge

174

223.4m 172

170 115

113 111

LAMB 107

HALL ROAD Tennis

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

RECOMMENDATION: Full Conditional Approval

The application site is located within the Green Belt and forms the redevelopment of a previously developed site (stables) for a single dwelling together with garaging and new access. The proposal is considered to be of an acceptable design and scale which would not have a detrimental impact on the openness and character of the Green Belt or local area. The proposal would not adversely affect highway safety and local amenity would be sufficiently protected by the development.

2. INFORMATION

The application is brought before the Huddersfield Planning Sub Committee at the requests of Cllr Iredale. The committee request is set out below:

It is requested that the application is determined by Committee, as it will cause loss of amenity and impinge on the Green Belt. A site visit is requested to allow members to get a better idea of the area.

The Chair of Sub-Committee has confirmed that Cllr Iredale’s request is valid having regard to the Councillor’s Protocol for Planning Committees.

3. PROPOSAL/SITE DESCRIPTION

Site The application site forms an existing single storey stable block located in an agricultural field located off Lamb Hall Road. The existing stable block building is 5.8 metres deep by 21.4 metres long with a maximum overall height of 4.6 metres. The existing building has a mono pitched roof with 4 window openings to the frontage and four to the rear and is constructed from red brick. The adjacent agricultural building is constructed of block work with Yorkshire boarding/corrugated sheeting above with a double gated entrance.

Access to the site is off Lamb Hall Road which is a single width road, which leads to Ray Gate and New Hey Road to the north west, and Longwood Edge Road to the south east. Surrounding the site are agricultural fields used for grazing with the closest residential dwellings being 170-174 Lamb Hall Road to the south east. To the south of the building is a yard/access area which provides parking for vehicles and storage, and a track that leads up to the building which is the subject of the application.

Proposal The application proposes to demolish the existing building and erect a dwelling. The dwelling would be 21.5 metres long, have a depth of 7.2 metres, and a maximum overall height of 5.6 metres for the two storey element, and 4.6 metres for the single storey element. The ground floor would accommodate two bedrooms, a living space, and a kitchen dining room, with a master bedroom located at first floor. The building would be constructed from natural stone, with a zinc roof. Habitable room windows would be located on the southern (front) and northern (rear) elevations. 74

Access to the site would be via a realigned point of access on Lamb Hall Road, with new parking and garaging space created at a lower level to the dwelling. The new garage space would be built into the natural topography of the site with a roller shutter door inserted in front. Pedestrian access would then be provided to the dwelling from the parking spaces.

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

2014/90298 - Alterations and extensions to convert stables into dwelling with formation of new access - Withdrawn

2003/93280 – erection of cow shed, granted 1 October 2003.

5. PLANNING POLICY

The site is Green Belt on the Kirklees UDP Proposal Map.

Kirklees Unitary Development Plan

• BE1 – Design Principles • BE2 – Quality of design • BE12 – Space about buildings • EP6- Development and Noise • T10 – Highway safety • G6 – Contaminated Land

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

• Chapter 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes • Chapter 7 – Requiring good design • Chapter 9 – Protecting Green Belt land • Chapter 11 – Conserving the natural environment

6. CONSULTATIONS

The following is a brief summary of Consultee advice (more details are contained in the Assessment section of the report, where appropriate):

• KC Highways DM – no objections subject to conditions

• KC Environment Unit – no objection

• KC Environmental Services – no objections subject to conditions

• KC Building Control – no objections

7. REPRESENTATIONS

The application was publicised by site notice and neighbour notification letter. The period of publicity expired on 16 February 2015.

In total 7 representations have made on the application, a summary of which is set out below: • The proposal forms inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The site is agricultural, and its use for a residential development is inappropriate. • The site has had previous applications refused on the site, which have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate. • There is concern that granting the proposal would lead to the further development of the wider area within the Green Belt and would potentially lead to the loss of one of the few open spaces in the local area. • The highway network in the local area is poor with narrow lanes, is a bridle path, with the road not wide enough to accommodate 2 vehicles side by side. There is concern that the development of the site would further lead to a detrimental impact to highway arrangements in the local area. • Even with the proposed access changes, it will not be possible to see traffic coming from the east side of Lamb Hall Road. • The local area has a large mix of biodiversity and the development of the site for a dwelling is considered to have a detrimental impact on the local ecology. • The proposal would lead to the overlooking of 113 Lamb Hall Road. • Publicity of the application has not been sufficiently extensive. • There are many other more appropriate brownfield sites in the local area to be developed instead of the proposed one. • The proposed new modern house would not been in keeping with the character and appearance of the local area. Due to the property’s design it would be dominant on the hillside. The amendments to the access with the loss of stone boundary walls would alter the character of the local area. • The proposal would not meet the requirements for the conversion of a building within the Green Belt as set out in PPG2 and D12 of the UDP, the building has not architectural merit and its conversion should not be allowed. • The proposal would conflict with details set out in the Longwood Village Design Statement, which states that development should be focused on brownfield sites before greenfield sites are used, and green spaces retained. • The proposals are not materially different to that previously proposed and then withdrawn.

Jason McCartney MP has also objected to the proposal stating:

I would like to object to the above application in the strongest terms as an unsustainable development within greenbelt. It is the council’s responsibility to protect the green spaces that surround our towns and villages. This area of greenbelt is a vital green space in an increasingly congested area.

From the plans it is clear that the design of this structure will be a large departure from the existing farm buildings, which is unacceptable.

Residents understandably fear that this is a Trojan horse of a development, starting with one property and if passed would give the green light for more development on this 4 acre greenbelt site. This must not be allowed to happen.

I therefore urge the council to reject this application.

Ward member, Cllr Christine Iredale requested the application be determined by Sub-Committee for the reasons set out in Section 2 of the report.

8. ASSESSMENT

The site is located within an area of defined Green Belt on the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The application for the erection of a new dwelling therefore needs to be considered against appropriate Policies in relation to new development in the Green Belt, as set out in the Kirklees UDP and NPPF. In addition all other material planning considerations need to be assessed such as the impact of the development on highway safety, amenity, ecology and all other material planning considerations.

The application represents the resubmission of a scheme previously proposed under 2014/90298 which was withdrawn after it was concluded that the development represented the redevelopment of the site for a new dwelling, instead of alterations and extensions as originally proposed. The new scheme has also made further amendments to the previous scheme, reducing the garden area, removing a previously proposed new driveway, and now proposes to leave the attached cattle shed for agricultural purposes.

Principle:

The erection of new buildings in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful to the Green Belt as set out in paragraphs 87 and 89 of the NPPF, and should only be approved in very special circumstances.

The existing building currently on site is used for stables and is set out with 6 horse boxes, with space for a tack room adjacent to the entrance to the building. Evidence of this use was observed at the time of Officer’s site visit. Given the site’s existing use as stables, it is considered that the site

represents previously developed land as defined in the glossary section of the NPPF.

The development is therefore considered to represent the redevelopment of a previously developed site. Redevelopment of previously developed sites can be acceptable forms of development in the Green Belt as outlined in paragraph 89 of the NPPF which is set out below:

89. A Local Planning Authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:

• limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

As can be seen above, the principle of developing previously developed sites in the Green Belt can be considered to be acceptable, subject to the impact the redevelopment would have on the openness of the Green Belt, and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt as outlined in paragraph 80 of the NPPF. The section of paragraph 80 relevant for this application being the prevention of encroachment into the countryside.

It is acknowledged that the proposed building which would replace the existing stable block at the site would be materially larger than the existing building in terms of cubic volume. However the new dwelling would be constructed on a similar foot print to existing, with only a relatively small increase in footprint with an addition of 1.1 metres to the depth of the building. A second floor would also be formed above the northwestern half of the building to create a master bedroom, however the overall height of this element of the building would not exceed the height of the adjacent cattle shed, and the width of this element would be just over one third of the width of the whole building.

The new building has been designed to reflect similar architectural detailing and styles of the existing building, but providing modern enhancements. The use of natural stone would improve the visual appearance of the building, and the use of a zinc roof would provide a contemporary appearance to the building, but retain an agricultural feel to it appearance. Garden space for the dwelling would be located to the front of the dwelling, where pedestrian access would also be provided from the parking area to the south. The surrounding fields would fall outside of the domestic curtilage of the dwelling, but are within the applicants’ ownership.

The proposed realignment and improvement works to the access, and the formation of the submerged garage are considered to represent engineering works within the Green Belt. Paragraph 90 of the NPPF therefore needs to be considered which states that, engineering operations are not inappropriate

development within the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

The proposed works to improve the access would involve removing and realigning boundary walls at the site to the south west, and small changes in levels to open up the access point to the site. It is not considered that these works would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt, nor the purposes of including the land within it.

The proposed submerged garage would be formed into the natural topography of the site and an access track to an existing building would be retained over the top. The formation of the submerged garage is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt nor the purposes of including land within it.

Off street parking would be retained adjacent the garage in an existing yard, which would also serve the agricultural use of the wider site, and would accommodate up to 5 vehicles. These arrangements are considered to be acceptable in principle.

The redevelopment of the existing stable block to form a new dwelling is on balance considered to retain the openness and character of the Green Belt. Whilst the proposed building would be materially larger than the existing, it is considered that it would not have a detrimental impact on openness given it would occupy a similar footprint and would not encroach into the countryside. The proposed materials of construction are considered to be visually acceptable within the site and to the wider Green Belt. The proposed access arrangements are considered not to affect the openness of the Green Belt, and would also provide some highway improvement to users of Lamb Hall Road, as detailed in the highway section of this report.

While the development is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on Green Belt, Officers consider it important to attach a number of conditions to the decision. These include the submission of materials of construction, the withdrawal of permitted development rights for any extension to the building or within the curtilage of the dwelling, and the defining of the curtilage to the property. A condition regarding the submission of boundary treatment, is also considered to be necessary. The conditions are considered to be necessary to preserve the openness and character of the Green Belt and the local area, and in the interests of visual amenity, and to comply with Policies, BE1 and BE2 of the UDP, and Policies in the NPPF.

Highway Safety:

The application has been assessed by the Highways Team and in relation to Policies T10 and T19. The application proposes to realign an existing access point and provide improved visibility. The current access is considered to be substandard in terms of its layout, with access only easily possible for vehicles driving down Lamb Hall Road in a south easterly direction. For vehicles traveling up Lamb Hall Road in the north westerly direction it is not 79

easy to perform the necessary right hand turn due to the narrow width of the carriageway and the presence of stone boundary walls. Furthermore, sightlines for vehicles leaving are extremely poor to the left.

The proposed alterations to the access would rectify this substandard access by repositioning the point of the access, and providing sightlines in both directions. These enhancements are considered to be acceptable from a highways perspective and would allow the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling to adequately access the site safely. Furthermore the alterations would also be beneficial to wider users of Lamb Hall Road, allowing them to see vehicles entering and leaving the entrance and also by providing an area where vehicles could pass.

Within the site parking provision for at least 5 vehicles is proposed by the formation of a double garage and parking area, which accords with adopted standards. It is considered that traffic generated by the proposal can be safely accommodated within the local network and is unlikely to result in any undue highway safety implications.

To ensure that the proposal is carried out in accordance with the appropriate highway improvements conditions are attached to the recommendation for the provision of sightlines, driveway gradients, the surfacing of areas, details regarding waste collection. A note will be added that no gates within 5 metres of the highway should be proposed as this would not be in the interests of highway safety. As permitted development rights for gates, wall and fences are being removed there would be no need to condition this separately.

Subject to the above conditions the proposal is therefore considered to have an acceptable impact on highway safety and would comply with Policies T10 and T19.

Amenity:

The impact on amenity needs to be considered in relation to Policies BE1, BE2, BE12 and G6 of the UDP and Policies in the NPPF. The application has also been assessed by the Environmental Services Officer in relation to the previous use on the site.

Design

The design of the proposal needs to be considered in relation to Policies BE1 and BE2 of the UDP and Chapter 7 of the NPPF. The proposed dwelling has been designed to retain the character and appearance of the existing building, and has sought to retain architectural features, in terms of roof appearance, size of window openings, and, in general, the overall scale and appearance of the existing building. The proposal has however sought to use natural stone to replace the existing red brick to enhance the visual appearance of the site, and has proposed a zinc roof.

The design of the proposal is considered to be acceptable retaining the overall character and appearance of development on the site. The use of natural stone is welcomed by Officers and as set out above, and the use of a zinc roof, would add a contemporary feel to the building. The submerged garage and alterations to boundary walls would harmonise with the existing character of the site.

The design of the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the Green Belt. As previously set out conditions will secure samples of the construction materials for the development to ensure that they are in keeping locally, and details of boundary treatments will be submitted to ensure these are in keeping with the ‘agricultural’ appearance of the wider site.

The design of the proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and would comply with Policies BE1 and BE2 of the UDP and Policies in the NPPF.

Residential Amenity

The impact of the proposal on residential amenity has been considered in relation to Policy BE12. The closest residential properties to the site are no.170 to 174 Lamb Hall Road to the south east. At its closest point the proposed dwelling is 21.8 metres from the rear of no.174 with no.s 172 and 170 further away. The separation distance of 21.8 metres is considered to provide sufficient separation to prevent any detrimental overlooking and would meet the requirements of Policy BE12. While the proposed dwelling would be set at a higher level than no.s170 -174, the relationship with the properties is at an oblique angle, which would further reduce the potential for overlooking. Given that 21 metres can be achieved as required by Policy BE12, the relationship between the properties is considered to be acceptable.

The position of the dwelling is not considered to cause a detrimental overlooking or overshadowing impact on these properties or any other properties in the surrounding area.

The closest other properties in the local area are no.s 111, 113 and 115 Lamb Hall Road to the south and south west. A minimum distance of 62.5 metres can be achieved to no.113 and no.111, with no.115 some 77 metres away. The separation distances to these properties are all considered to be acceptable and meet the requirements of Policies BE12.

Pollution

The Environmental Services Officer has assessed the development at the site in relation to its previous use. No objections are raised to the development, however information held by Environmental Services has confirmed that the site could be potentially contaminated due to its previous use, and contamination conditions are attached to the recommendation.

Consideration also needs to be made in respect to Policy EP6 regarding noise and odour disturbance caused by the surrounding existing agricultural use to the proposed dwelling. The proposed dwelling would also be attached to a cattle shed approved under application 2003/93280.

While the proposed dwelling would be located within an agricultural field and attached to a cattle shed, the existing stabling operation at the site would cease. The site does not currently operate as a formal farm holding, and the site is of a relatively small scale which limits the operation of the site for agricultural activities. The site’s location within the Green Belt further restricts potential for future development. The attached cattle shed and surrounding fields also fall under the control of the applicant being in their ‘blue line’ boundary, and therefore any distance caused by its use would be controlled by the applicant.

Given the circumstances set out above, the formation of a new dwelling at the site is considered not to have an adverse impact on future occupiers of the dwelling, and would accord with Policy EP6 of the UDP.

Conclusion

In conclusion the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of local residents, and sufficient space about dwelling distances can be achieved. Any previous contamination on the site will be appropriately considered via the submission of reports after decision. Subject to the above conditions the proposal is considered to meet the requirements of Policies BE1, BE2, BE12 and G6 of the UDP and Policies in the NPPF.

Ecology:

The ecological impact of the development has been assessed by the Council’s Environment Unit and in relation Policies in the NPPF. The Council’s Ecologist has stated that the proposed development is unlikely to be of significant ecological interest. However it has been advised that a note be added to the decision notice regarding the timing of the removal of vegetation at the site, and that enhancement measures in the form of a bat box and sparrow terrace are included within the development to ensure biodiversity obligations of the NPPF are met. These enhancements will be conditioned on the recommendation. Subject to the conditions set out above, the proposed development is considered to have an acceptable impact on local ecology and would comply with the requirements of Policies in Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

Representations:

The planning related objections raised are summarised as follows with a response to each one in turn:

• The proposal forms inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The part of the building to be converted is agricultural, and its change of use is inappropriate. 82

• There is concern that granting the proposal would lead to the further development of the wider area, within the Green Belt, and would potentially lead to the loss of one of the few open spaces in the local area. • The proposal would not meet the requirements for the conversion of a building within the Green Belt as set out in PPG2 and D12 of the UDP, the building has not architectural merit and its conversion should not be allowed. Response: As set out above, it is acknowledged that the site is located within the Green Belt; however the proposed development is considered to be an acceptable form of development in the Green Belt for the reasons set out. Any future applications for development would be considered on their own individual merits. Green Belt Policy D12 was deleted from the UDP in 2007 and PPG2 was revoked when the NPPF was issued in 2012. As set above the impact of the development on the Green Belt is on balance considered to be acceptable.

• The site has had previous applications refused on the site, which have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate. Response: The only previous planning history on the application is for the erection of the cattle shed, and the withdrawn scheme for a new dwelling on the site, as set out in section 4 of this report. Other previous applications in the local area which went to appeal are not considered to be relevant to this application.

• The highway network in the local area is poor with narrow lanes, is a bridle path, with the road not wide enough to accommodate 2 vehicles side by side. There is concern that the development of the site would further lead to a detrimental impact to highway arrangements in the local area. • Even with the proposed access changes, it will not be possible to see traffic coming from the east side of Lamb Hall Road. Response: As set out above the proposed highway arrangements are considered to be acceptable, and the development would provide highway improvements. The addition of one additional dwelling on the local highway network is not considered to be detrimental in terms of highway safety and no objections are raised by the Highways Officer. Lamb Hall Road does not form a bridle path, the bridle path runs to the south 44 metres away, the proposed development is not considered to impact on the operation of the bridle path given this separation distance.

• The local area has a large mix of biodiversity, and the development of the site for a dwelling is considered to have a detrimental impact on the local ecology. Response: The application has been assessed by the Council’s Ecologist who raises no objections to the proposal. While it is acknowledged that there is a mix of ecology in the wider local area, the development of the specific application site is not considered to be detrimental to local ecology. The proposal would however provide some ecological benefits as set out above.

• The proposal would lead to the overlooking of 113 Lamb Hall Road. Response: As set out above the separation distance to surrounding properties is considered to be acceptable and meet the requirements of Policy BE12, the proposed dwelling would be 66 metres from no.113.

• Publicity of the application has not been sufficiently extensive. Response: Publicity has been carried out in accordance with standard Council practice and national legislation with letters set to neighbours and a site notice posted on Lamb hall Road.

• There are many other more appropriate brownfield sites in the local area to be developed instead of the proposed one. Response: The application has to be determined on its own merits for what is proposed, and whether it complies with the relevant policies for the development proposed, which has been carried out above. the site of the new dwelling represents previously developed/brownfield land using the definition set out in the glossary to the NPPF.

• The proposed new modern house would not been in keeping with the character and appearance of the local area. Due to the property’s design it would be dominant on the hillside. The amendments to the access with the loss of stone boundary walls would alter the character of the local area. Response: It is considered that the design of the proposed dwelling would retain the character and appearance of the local area, and with the use of natural stone would represent a visual improvement on the existing building. It is considered that the improvements to the access have wider highway benefits and would not detract from the character of the local.

• The proposal would conflict with details set out in the Longwood Village Design Statement, which states that development should be focused on brownfield sites before greenfield sites are used, and green spaces retained. Response: As set out above, the site of the new dwelling represents previously developed/brownfield land using the definition set out in the glossary to the NPPF. It is therefore considered that the development would lead to the development of a brownfield site.

• The proposals are not materially different to that previously proposed and then withdrawn. Response: The current proposals are considered to be materially different to that previously proposed. Notwithstanding this, no decision on the previous application was made, and the current application has to be assessed on its own individual merits.

• Jason McCartney MP has also raised objections to the scheme as set out in section 7 of the Report. Response: The comments of the local MP have been considered however as set out above the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the Green Belt, and meets the requirements for developments within the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF.

Conclusion:

In conclusion the redevelopment of this previously developed site in the Green Belt, is on balance, considered to be acceptable, and would form an exception to inappropriate development as set out in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF. The proposal would have an acceptable impact on the openness and character of the Green Belt, and is of an acceptable design and scale. The proposal would have an acceptable impact on highway safety and local amenity would be sufficiently protected by the development.

9. RECOMMENDATION

Approval subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this permission.

3. Development shall not commence until details of external materials to be used on the hereby approved dwelling, and retaining structures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No materials other than those approved in accordance with this condition shall be used.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development included within Classes A, B, C, D, E and F of Part 1 or Classes A or B of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out.

5. Notwithstanding the approved plans, the domestic curtilage of the dwelling house hereby approved shall be limited to the area outlined in red on the hereby approved Proposed Site Layout Plan Drawing Number Pp 01.12.14 as submitted on 21 January 2015.

6. A scheme detailing the boundary treatment of the all the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works comprising the approved scheme completed prior to the occupation of the hereby approved dwelling. The boundary treatment shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.

7. The visibility splays as shown on the hereby approved Proposed Site Plan Drawing Number Pp 01.12.14 and as submitted on 21 January 2015 shall be laid out and completed before the development is brought into use. Thereafter the visibility splays shall be retained with no obstruction to visibility exceeding 1m in height within the splays so formed above the road level of the adjacent highway.

8. The development shall not be brought into use until all areas indicated to be used for access/parking/turning on the approved plans have been laid out with a hardened and drained surface in accordance with the Communities and Local Government; and Environment Agency’s ‘Guidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens (parking areas)’ published 13th May 2009 (ISBN 9781409804864) as amended or any successor guidance; Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) this shall be so retained, free of obstructions and available for the uses specified on the submitted/listed plans thereafter.

9. The gradient of the driveway to the hereby approved dwelling shall not be steeper than 1 in 20 for the first 5.0 metres from the carriageway of Lamb Hall Road and the remainder of the driveway shall be no steeper than 1 in 8. The works to form the driveway shall be retained thereafter.

10. Before development commences details of storage and access for collection of wastes from the premises shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be provided before first occupation and shall be so retained thereafter.

11. Notwithstanding the approved plans, the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the following ecological measures: • One bat box, in the form of a Schweglar type 1FR bat box or similar, shall be installed integral to the new dwelling within the site, during the construction phase. The box shall be installed on the south facing wall and be located at least 4 metres from the ground and not above windows or doors to avoid nuisance from bat droppings. • One woodcrete sparrow terrace nest box shall be installed, integral to the new dwelling within the site, during the construction phase. The box

shall be installed in the north facing wall at least 3 metres from the ground and not located above windows or doors. The above bat and bird boxes provided shall be installed before the dwelling is first occupied and hereafter be retained.

12. Development shall not commence until actual or potential land contamination at the site has been investigated and a Preliminary Risk Assessment (Phase I Desk Study Report) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

13. Where further intrusive investigation is recommended in the Preliminary Risk Assessment approved pursuant to condition 12 development shall not commence until a Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14. Where site remediation is recommended in the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report approved pursuant to condition 13 development shall not commence until a Remediation Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Remediation Strategy shall include a timetable for the implementation and completion of the approved remediation measures.

15. Remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the Remediation Strategy approved pursuant to condition 14 In the event that remediation is unable to proceed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or contamination not previously considered [in either the Preliminary Risk Assessment or the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report] is identified or encountered on site, all works on site (save for site investigation works) shall cease immediately and the Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing within 2 working days. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, works shall not recommence until proposed revisions to the Remediation Strategy have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Remediation of the site shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved revised Remediation Strategy.

16. Following completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy or any approved revised Remediation Strategy a Validation Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, no part of the site shall be brought into use until such time as the remediation measures for the whole site have been completed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or the approved revised Remediation Strategy and a Validation Report in respect of those remediation measures has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Note regarding gates and barriers Any gates or barriers for or over a vehicular access or egress proposed under condition 6 should be set back 5 metres from the back of carriageway and hung as to only open inwards. So long as such gates or barriers are in position they should be retained to only open inwards. This is to avoid any conflict with the public highway.

Note to Applicant Regarding Condition 8 – Surfacing Link to Communities and Local Government; and Environment Agency’s ‘Guidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens’ published 13th May 2009 (ISBN 9781409804864): www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pavingfrontgardens

Note to Application Regarding Works Which Affect the Highway The granting of planning permission does not authorise the carrying out of works within the highway, for which the written permission of the Council as Highway Authority is required. You are required to consult the Design Engineer, Flint Street, Fartown, Huddersfield (Kirklees Street Care: 0800 7318765) with regard to obtaining this permission and approval of the construction specification. Please also note that the construction of vehicle crossings within the highway is deemed to be major works for the purposes of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (Section 84 and 85). Interference with the highway without such permission is an offence which could lead to prosecution.

Note to Applicant Regarding Construction Site Noise As there are residential premises very close to the North West boundary of the site, please apply the following footnote to any consent granted:

To minimise noise disturbance at nearby premises it is generally recommended that activities relating to the erection, construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of buildings, structures or roads shall not take place outside the hours of:

07.30 and 18.30 hours Mondays to Fridays 08.00 and 13.00hours , Saturdays With no working Sundays or Public Holidays

In some cases, different site specific hours of operation may be appropriate.

Under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, Section 60 Kirklees Environment and Transportation Services can control noise from construction sites by serving a notice. This notice can specify the hours during which work may be carried out.

Note to Applicant Regarding Vegetation and Building Clearance Vegetation and building clearance should be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season, March to September inclusive. If any clearance work is to be carried out within this period, a nest search by a suitably qualified ecologist should be undertaken immediately preceding the works. If any active nests are present work which may cause destruction of nests or, disturbance to the resident birds must cease until the young have fledged.

This recommendation is based on the following plan(s):-

Plan Type Plan Reference Revision Date Received Location Plan BW-00295765 - 21/1/2015 Existing Site Layout Plan Ex 03.12.14 - 21/1/2015 and Existing Elevations Proposed Plans and Pp 02.12.4 - 21/1/2015 Elevation Proposed Site Layout Pp 01.12.14 - 21/1/2015 and Street Scene Elevation Design and Access - - 21/1/2015 Statement

Application No: 2014/93929

Type of application: 62HH - FULL APPLICATION

Proposal: Erection of single storey extension

Location: 1, Drake Hill Cottages, Hey Slack Lane, Whitley Common, Huddersfield, HD8 8YD

Grid Ref: 418370.0 406870.0

Ward: Holme Valley South Ward

Applicant: S Hollingworth

Agent: Alan Davies, Northern Design Partnership

Target Date: 17-Apr-2015

Recommendation: RF1 - REFUSAL

------

LOCATION PLAN

Low Common

349.9m

Stables

1 Cottages Drake Hill Farm 2

Drake Hill

Pond

Issues

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

This application is for the erection of a single storey side extension linking the host dwelling to the existing detached outbuilding.

The proposed extension, by reason of its location, design and scale when considered cumulatively with the existing two storey side extension and detached outbuilding, would represent a disproportionate addition to the original building of No.1 Drake Hill Cottage. This would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The extension would therefore fail to comply with Policies D11 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and Chapter 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated that clearly outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

2. INFORMATION

The application is brought to the Huddersfield Planning Sub-Committee following a request from Councillor Patrick which states: “It was only a small property originally, so an increase of 50% is relative but not significant in the setting. With the extension it is probably smaller than some other properties nearby. For example the farmhouse at Meadow Nook Farm must be more than 50% bigger than it was and I think that extension was an officer decision taken in the last two years. If having reviewed it you still feel unable to approve then may I suggest it is referred to committee for decision on the basis of the subjectivity around the size of the property in the green belt”. The Chair of the Sub Committee has confirmed that Councillor’s Patrick’s reason for making this request is valid having regard to the Councillors’ Protocol for Planning Sub Committees.

3. PROPOSAL/SITE DESCRIPTION

Site Description

The application site comprises of 1 Drake Hill Cottage, Hey Slack Lane, Whitley Common a semi-detached property with detached outbuilding, originally a garage, now used for ancillary living accommodation. The host building is faced in natural stone with stone slate roof tiles. It has an existing two storey side extension on the north facing elevation. The adjoining dwelling, no. 2 Drake Hill Cottage has also been extended by creating additional living accommodation in the attached barn, a first floor rear extension and a detached double garage. Drake Hill Cottages are located within the Green Belt. There are open fields to the north, west and south of the cottages with Drake Hill Farm, across Hey Slack Lane, being the only other dwelling in the immediate area.

Proposal

The proposal is for the erection of a single storey side extension linking the dwelling to the detached outbuilding to create additional living space.

The extension would be 3.3m wide by 6m deep with a setback of 3m from the front elevation. The extension would be built from stone with a stone slate dual pitched roof.

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

1998/93092 – Erection of two storey side extension – refused (Appeal Dismissed)

Reason for refusal:-

“The proposed extension, by reason of its size and siting and having regard to previous extensions to the property, would have an adverse impact on the openness and character of the Greenbelt, contrary to the provisions of policy D11 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan.”

Inspectors comments: -

“while I sympathise with the problem of accommodating four daughters between the ages of 12 & 18 in a modest 3 bedroom house….this house would have more than twice the volume of the original cottage. Including what would then in effect be an integral garage it would be nearer three times the size.

Setting an extension back slightly is desirable where a decent match cannot be obtained and /or subservience is important but doing that her, and also tying it into the garage, would emphasise the increased scale and mass of the whole development.”

91/02688 – Change of use of barn to form extension to existing dwelling/ extension to existing cottage/ erection of 2 detached garage/stable block/septic tank – granted

This application was implemented however at the time the original cottage was almost demolished, leaving less than 5% of the original building. This was challenged as it appeared that this almost constituted a new dwelling but no application was submitted. Nevertheless this application, in principle, granted a two-storey side extension to the original cottage and a detached garage. This ‘extension’ and garage were erected. The subsequent 1998 application accepted that the original building had been extended by the 1991 application.

5. PLANNING POLICY

Kirklees Unitary Development Plan

D11 - The extension of buildings in the Green Belt BE1 – Design principles BE2 – Quality of design BE13 – Extensions to dwellings (design principles) 92

BE14 - Extensions to dwellings (scale)

National Planning Policy Framework

Part 9 Protecting Green Belt land

6. CONSULTATIONS

Below is a summary of the consultation responses received; where appropriate these are expanded upon in the assessment section of this report:

Barnsley MBC - No objections.

7. REPRESENTATIONS

No letters of objection / support have been received save for the comments of Cllr Patrick in section 2 of the report.

Holme Valley Parish Council – supports the application.

8. ASSESSMENT

General Principle / Policy:

The site is allocated Green Belt on the Unitary Development Plan. The NPPF sets out that new buildings in the green belt are inappropriate unless, amongst other things, they relate to the extension of an existing building and that this does not result in a disproportionate addition to the original building. Policy D11 of the UDP also seeks to ensure that in cases of extensions in the green belt, the original building should remain the dominant element.

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved unless very special circumstances are demonstrated which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. (NPPF Chapter 9 paragraphs 87 and 88). Other Unitary Development Plan Policies of relevance include BE1 and BE2 relating to general design principles and Policies BE13 and BE14 of the UDP which relate specifically to householder extensions.

Green Belt and visual amenity issues:

When considering this proposal alongside the previous extensions to the building and detached outbuilding it is considered that their cumulative impact would be disproportionate to and out of character with the original building. Originally the host property was a small one up one down cottage and in 1991 was granted to erect a two storey side extension and detached double garage. This was an increase of 138% in volume of the original cottage (not including roof space). The proposed single storey extension would increase the original property by an additional 31%. The combined extensions and 93

outbuilding would have a cumulative increase of 169% (these percentages do not include the roof space). This is clearly disproportionate to the original building on the site and as such would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The development in these circumstances is contrary to Chapter 9 of the NPPF and Policy D11 of the UDP.

A further consideration is whether the original building would remain the dominant feature on the site. The extension is single storey and set back from the front wall by 3m, which does reduce its dominance. However when this extension is viewed together with the previous additions and outbuilding to the property, combined with the design linking the outbuilding directly to the dwelling, it would emphasise the increased scale and mass of the whole development. This would be in stark contrast to the character of the original building which was a small cottage. The ensuing result is that the extensions would dominate the original building which, again, would be contrary to Policy D11 of the UDP.

The general design of the extension and materials of construction would harmonise with the principal dwelling in accordance with Policies BE1 BE2 and BE13 of the UDP. However, this does not weigh in favour of the proposal but rather has a neutral effect on the overall balance when taking Green Belt issues into account.

The NPPF at paragraph 79 says that ‘the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence’. This section of Hey Slack Lane contains sporadic residential development set in an open rural landscape. To the rear and side of this property there are open fields. While the extension would be seen in the context of the host dwelling and associated outbuilding it would be built upon land that is currently open. Consequently, the extension would result in a reduction in openness here. While this harm would be modest, any harm to the Green Belt must be considered to be substantial.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and reduce openness to a modest degree. Both of these factors attract substantial weight which is not outweighed by any other considerations or very special circumstances. The proposal would conflict with national Green Belt policy and policy D11 of UDP.

Residential amenity

The proposed extension would be located on the north facing side elevation and it is considered that the proposal would have no impact upon the adjoining property No.2 Drake Hill Cottage. There are no other residential properties to the north in the immediate vicinity. It is considered that the proposal would have no undue impact on residential amenity in accordance with Policy BE14 of the UDP.

Highways Issues:

There is no highway issues given that the proposed extension would not alter the existing parking layout, therefore there would be no impact upon highway or pedestrian safety.

REPRESENTATIONS

There were no letters of representation received as a result of the publicity.

Conclusion:

The proposed single storey extension would result in a disproportionate addition to the original building of 1 Drake Hill Cottage. This would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The extension would therefore fail to comply with Policy D11 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and Chapter 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm. The National Planning Policy Framework has introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice. This application has been assessed against relevant policies in the development plan and other material considerations. It is considered that the development proposals do not accord with the development plan and that there are specific policies in the NPPF that indicate development should be restricted.

9. RECOMMENDATION

REFUSAL is recommended for the following reasons:

1. The proposed extension, by reason of its design and scale when considered cumulatively with the existing two storey side extension and detached outbuilding, would represent a disproportionate addition to the original building of 1 Drake Hill Cottage. This would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is harmful to the Green Belt by definition. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness or other harm. The extension would therefore fail to comply with Policy D11 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and Chapter 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

This recommendation is based on the following plan(s):-

Plan Type Reference Date Received Location Plan 1:1250 18.12.2014 Existing plan & elevation 01 18.12.2014 Proposed plan & elevation 02 18.12.2014