1 Proposed New Saddleworth

PROPOSED NEW SADDLEWORTH SCHOOL SITE: FORMER WH SHAW PALLET WORKS, HUDDERSFIELD ROAD, DIGGLE OL3 5NX WARD: SADDLEWORTH NORTH APPLICATION REPORTS OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING COMMITTEE: 13th April 2016 Application A (PA/337931/15) A full planning application submitted by WRT Developments Ltd to demolish the existing buildings on the WH Shaw site within the red line boundary. It does not include the grade II listed office building and clock tower or link bridge. Registration Date: 22/12/15 Agent: Mr Michael Brown, HNA Architects Ltd Application B (LB/337929/15) A listed building consent application submitted by WRT Developments Ltd to demolish the link bridge attached to the Grade II listed office building and clock tower. Registration Date: 21/12/15 Agent: Mr Michael Brown, HNA Architects Ltd Application C (PA/337301/15) A full planning application submitted by Interserve Construction Ltd on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education to build a new secondary school and associated facilities. Registration Date: 28/7/15 Agent: WYG Application D (PA/337930/15) 1 A full planning application submitted by Oldham Council to provide a parental drop off facility plus residential car parking as part of the wider highways scheme on land off Huddersfield Road. Registration Date: 21/12/15 Agent: Mr Paul Groves, Unity Partnership 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application A 1.1. Taken as a whole, the demolition would create substantial harm to the setting and context of the listed office building and less than substantial harm to other designated heritage assets. That means paragraphs 133 and 134 of the NPPF are engaged in the assessment of the application. The strong presumption in favour of protecting, conserving and enhancing the settings of heritage assets set out in the Development Plan and Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 has also been given proper weight. 1.2. However: • the evidence of unsuccessful marketing of the site over many years and therefore the unlikely reuse of the buildings going forward; • the significant benefits for future generations of use of the development site, potentially as a new school; • stopping anti-social behaviour on site; • the potential blighting of the site for any realistic future use if the buildings are not demolished; • the likely deterioration of the site surrounding the listed building, thus detracting to the character of the area and the setting of a listed building, plus, • the lack of direct harm to the designated heritage asset, means that officers consider that the demolition of the five buildings presents a list of planning benefits that weigh in favour of approving the application. On balance, having weighed and balanced the proposal against the Development Plan, legislation and relevant NPPF tests, Officers recommend that the demolition application should be approved as the planning benefits to the area that are a consequence of the demolition and subsequent redevelopment of the site amount to substantial public benefits that outweigh the strong legislative presumption against the demolition of the factory buildings and subsequent harm to the setting and context of the Grade II listed office building. 1.3. Moreover, Officers consider a refusal of the scheme would result in an outcome that runs contrary to the principle aims of the Development Plan and NPPF that seek to encourage sustainable economic growth and sustainable communities. They take this view particularly in the context of the potential use of the site as a school and 3 the significant economic, social and environmental benefits it would create if approved. 1.4. The impact on the landscape and visual amenity resulting from the demolition of the factory buildings will not be significant enough to sustain a reason for refusal. 1.5. The scheme is considered acceptable in air quality, flood risk and drainage, ecology, waste and highways terms. 1.6. Overall, when weighed and balanced against all the relevant policies of the Development Plan, the application is considered to be acceptable and is consequently recommended for conditional approval. Application B 1.7. The link bridge joins a designated heritage asset (a grade II listed office building) and non-designated heritage asset (an unlisted factory building). 1.8. In relation to the designated heritage asset, Officers consider that the demolition of the link bridge results in substantial harm to the setting and therefore the significance of the Grade II listed office building in spite of the fact that the link bridge is not an original element of the listed building and the office building‟s special architectural and historic interest is not significantly affected by its removal. Where this happens local planning authorities are required to refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm [Paragraph 133 of the NPPF]. 1.9. In relation to the non-designated heritage assets (the factory buildings), the NPPF requires the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage assets should be taken into account in determining the application and that in weighing applications that affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset [paragraph 135 of the NPPF]. Having balanced the limited harm created by the demolition of the link bridge and the limited significance of non-designated heritage assets that are the factory buildings, Officers consider that the demolition of the link bridge would not sustain a reason for refusal in relation to any material harm to the unlisted factory buildings. 1.10. Officers have had regard to the strong presumption set out in legislation and the Development Plan to preserve the setting of heritage assets. However, because of the limited impact the demolition will have on the heritage asset‟s (office building) specific heritage significance, it is Officers opinion that the significant social and 4 economic benefits the demolition would create by allowing a fit for purpose school to be delivered on the site, plus the shortage of sites to develop a new school on, are considerations which significantly outweigh this presumption in this instance. Furthermore, because the scheme can demonstrate that substantial public benefits arise from the scheme and these outweigh the harm on the designated heritage asset, an approval would be in accordance with paragraph 133 of the NPPF. 1.11. The method for finishing the remaining edge of the link bridge after the demolition is argued by the applicant to be sympathetic to the existing building and is proposed to consist of the end of the bridge being boarded with vertical timber boards painted black. Officers consider this could be a somewhat „short term‟ fix to sealing off the end of the link bridge and one that, if not treated property could result in harm to the listed office building. As such, an amending condition is recommended by Officers to ensure this treatment is suitable and effective for this part of the listed building. Four finishing options are currently being considered by the Council and the preferred solution will be reported in the late list. 1.12. There are no other material considerations that would warrant the refusal of this application to demolish part of the link bridge. As such, the application is considered acceptable when weighed against the overall balance of the Development Plan and in line with the principles set out in the relevant national and local planning policy and guidance. Application C 1.13. The loss of employment land is acceptable as the applicant has shown the site is no longer viable as an employment use and the proposed new school would benefit the community. 1.14. Whilst the use of the Green Belt for outdoor sport and recreation purposes is generally considered appropriate, the addition of man-made features surrounding the sport facilities such as fences, flood lights, goal posts and artificial surfaces are inappropriate development since they change parts of the Green Belt from a natural environment to one more intensively used and one that impacts on the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt. However, the substantial social and economic benefits of delivering a new school on this site and the lack of alternative sites for such a use mean that there are very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt land by reason of inappropriateness, particularly since none of the overarching purposes of the Green Belt are significantly affected by this proposal. As such, this element of the scheme is considered acceptable and complies with this part of the Development Plan. 5 1.15. Numerous benefits are gained from using the site for school purposes including remediating a contaminated site, providing a fit for purpose school with better facilities than the existing one and significant socio-economic benefits in terms of jobs and new facilities. The school will also be more energy efficient than the existing school. 1.16. No best and most versatile agricultural land is lost by this proposal. 1.17. The proposed replacement sports facilities are at least equivalent in terms of usefulness, attractiveness, quality, accessibility and quantity as the existing school. 1.18. It is acknowledged that landscape and visual impacts will occur, but these will be mitigated wherever possible and the impact on the landscape and visual amenity will not be significant enough to sustain a reason for refusal. Additionally, the setting of the school is not considered to create any unacceptable impacts that would support a refusal of the application. 1.19. The proposed development accords with policy in relation to trees.

Load more