Kirklees Council

KIRKLEES COUNCIL

PLANNING SERVICE

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DECIDED BY

STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

16-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: 2014/93549 ...... 9 Type of application: 60m - OUTLINE APPLICATION Proposal: Outline planning application for residential development Location: Land at, Lancaster Lane, Brockholes, Holmfirth, HD9 7EG Ward: Holme Valley North Ward Applicant: M Hall, Millpark Construction Ltd Agent: Andy Rushby, Assent Planning Consultancy Ltd Target Date: 16-Feb-2015 Recommendation: OASD - CONDITIONAL OUTLINE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DELEGATION TO OFFICERS ------Application No: 2014/93579 ...... 34 Type of application: 60m - OUTLINE APPLICATION Proposal: Outline application for erection of 14 dwellings Location: Lancaster Lane, Brockholes, Holmfirth, HD9 7TL Ward: Holme Valley North Ward Applicant: J Wood, Petrian Construction Ltd Agent: Andy Rushby, Assent Planning Consultancy Ltd Target Date: 19-Feb-2015 Recommendation: RF1 - REFUSAL ------Application No: 2014/92737 ...... 59 Type of application: 60 - OUTLINE APPLICATION Proposal: Outline application for erection of 5 dwellings Location: adj, 8, Miry Lane, Netherthong, Holmfirth, HD9 3UQ Ward: Holme Valley South Ward Applicant: Steven Buttershaw & Kust Schramm Agent: Angus Ellis, WHpArchitecture Target Date: 27-Feb-2015 Recommendation: OASD - CONDITIONAL OUTLINE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DELEGATION TO OFFICERS ------Application No: 2014/93248 ...... 81 Type of application: 60m - OUTLINE APPLICATION Proposal: Outline planning application for a residential development Location: Land off, Stoney Bank Lane, Holmfirth Ward: Holme Valley South Ward Applicant: S Douglas Agent: Andy Rushby, Assent Planning Consultancy Ltd Target Date: 09-Feb-2015 Recommendation: OASD - CONDITIONAL OUTLINE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DELEGATION TO OFFICERS ------

Application No: 2014/91449 ...... 113 Type of application: 60 - OUTLINE APPLICATION Proposal: Outline application for erection of three dwellings and associated infrastructure Location: Hawthorn Road, Slaithwaite, Huddersfield, HD7 5DU Ward: Colne Valley Ward Applicant: Scott Waters, Alcuin Homes Limited Agent: Target Date: 16-Jan-2015 Recommendation: OP - CONDITIONAL OUTLINE PERMISSION ------Application No: 2014/93326 ...... 127 Type of application: 62 - FULL APPLICATION Proposal: Conversion and extension of existing building, including part demolition, to form wedding venue and restaurant with bedrooms, and ancillary car park together with community use. (Listed Building) Location: Fieldhead, 1, Lidget Street, Lindley, Huddersfield, HD3 3JB Ward: Lindley Ward Applicant: Bankgate Agent: Malcolm Sizer Planning Ltd Target Date: 09-Mar-2015 Recommendation: ASD-CONDITIONAL FULL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS ------Application No: 2014/93632 ...... 146 Type of application: 49m - GENERAL REGULATIONS REG.4 Proposal: Outline application for erection of residential development Location: Oakmead, 1C, Lidget Street, Lindley, Huddersfield, HD3 3JB Ward: Lindley Ward Applicant: Joanne Bartholomew, Kirklees Council, PRP Agent: Azhar Said, Kirklees Council, PRP Target Date: 20-Feb-2015 Recommendation: GR2 - GRANT UNDER REG.4 GENERAL REGULATIONS ------Application No: 2015/90262 ...... 159 Type of application: 62m - FULL APPLICATION Proposal: Erection of 6 storey education centre Location: Former sports hall & Brunswick building, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3BL Ward: Newsome Ward Applicant: The University of Huddersfield Agent: Iain Bath, Iain Bath Planning Target Date: 08-May-2015 Recommendation: ASD-CONDITIONAL FULL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS ------

Application No: 2014/93549

Type of application: 60m - OUTLINE APPLICATION

Proposal: Outline planning application for residential development

Location: Land at, Lancaster Lane, Brockholes, Holmfirth, HD9 7EG

Grid Ref: 415275.0 410612.0

Ward: Holme Valley North Ward

Applicant: M Hall, Millpark Construction Ltd

Agent: Andy Rushby, Assent Planning Consultancy Ltd

Target Date: 16-Feb-2015

Recommendation: OASD - CONDITIONAL OUTLINE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DELEGATION TO OFFICERS

------

LOCATION PLAN

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

Application Details Type of Development Residential (Outline Application) Scale of Development Site area: 0.44 Units: N/A hectares No. Jobs Created or Retained N/A Policy UDP allocation Urban Greenspace Independent Viability Required No Consultation/Representation Individual Support (No.) N/A Individual Objection (No.) 34 Petition One petition containing 160 names Ward Member Interest Yes Correspondence received from Councillors Greaves & Holroyd- Doveton Statutory Consultee N/A Objections Contributions • Affordable Housing To be addressed by condition • Education N/A • Public Open Space To be addressed by condition • Other N/A Other Issues Any Council Interest? No Pre-application planning No advice? Pre-App Consultation No Undertaken? Comment on Application Having regard to the limited value of the Urban Greenspace, on balance Officers consider that the provision of new housing in a sustainable location outweighs the loss of the open space. Officers are satisfied that an acceptable scheme can be agreed at reserved matters stage.

RECOMMENDATION:

DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO GRANT CONDITIONAL OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION SUBJECT TO

I. NEGOTIATE A REDESIGN OF THE PROPOSED LANCASTER LANE / RIVER HOLME VIEW JUNCTION;

II. IMPOSE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS AND;

III. THERE BEING NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, ISSUE THE DECISION.

2. INFORMATION

This application is brought to Strategic Planning Committee as the development proposed departs form the provisions of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

3. SITE DESCRIPTION & PROPOSAL

Site Description

The application site comprises a triangular shaped parcel of land which lies between Lancaster Lane – an unmade track which forms a public right of way – and New Mill Road in Brockholes. The site comprises of overgrown brambles and scrub which slopes steeply upwards in a westerly direction from Lancaster Lane to New Mil Road.

The site is allocated as Urban Greenspace on the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map and the application site comprises the entirety of the allocation.

The site is flanked to the south by 238 New Mill Road which forms a large detached dwelling and separates the site from a parcel of grass and scrubland further to the south which is separately allocated Urban Greenspace.

Proposal

The application seeks outline permission for residential development. Access is the only matter applied for with scale, layout, appearance and landscaping being reserved.

Access for the development would be via a new road which would be formed along Lancaster Lane. The new access road would link to the south eastern end of River Holme View.

The application suggests 22 dwellings as an indicative number of units; the indicative site layout shows this as 8 pairs of semi-detached houses (16 dwellings) and a small terrace of 6 flats.

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

There is no planning history on the site. However, the following application reported elsewhere on the agenda is of relevance.

2014/93579 Outline planning application for residential development (14 dwellings) on the other side of 238 New Mill Road.

5. PLANNING POLICY

Kirklees Unitary Development Plan

D3 – Urban Greenspace BE1 – Design principles BE2 – Quality of design BE11 – Materials BE12 – Space about buildings BE23 – Crime prevention T10 – Highway safety T16 – Pedestrian routes T19 – Parking standards H10 – Affordable housing H12 – Arrangements for securing affordable housing H18 – Provision of open space R9 – Allotment sites

National Planning Guidance

NPPF Chapter 4 Promoting sustainable transport NPPF Chapter 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes NPPF Chapter 7 Requiring good design NPPF Chapter 8 Promoting healthy communities NPPF Chapter 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change NPPF Chapter 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Other Guidance

SPD 2 Affordable Housing

6. CONSULTATIONS

The following is a brief summary of consultee advice. Further information is contained within the report assessment (where necessary).

KC Highways – No objection

KC Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions.

KC Lead Local Flood Authority - No objection subject to conditions.

KC Strategic Housing – No comments received.

KC Environment Unit - No objection.

KC PRoW Officer - No objection

KC Parks and Recreation – Comments provided on current demand for allotments in this area

Yorkshire Water Authority - No objections

Police Architectural Liaison Officer - No objection

7. REPRESENTATIONS

The application has been advertised by site notices, press advert and neighbour notification letters. Representations: 34 individual letters/emails of objection have been received along with a petition against the development containing 160 names.

The main points of objection are:

Principle of development:

• Development is contrary to Policy D3 of UDP • Loss of Urban Greenspace • Loss of local green space • Loss of allotment land / contrary to Policy R9 of UDP • Brownfield land should be developed before greenfield sites such as this • Planning history: Planning permission has previously been refused on adjacent land

Cumulative impacts:

• This application should be assessed in the context of application 2014/93579

• Impact on local infrastructure and services of this and already approved developments in the locality

Residential amenity:

• Overlooking/privacy issues • Noise pollution • Light pollution from new street lights

Visual amenity:

• Impact on the character of the area (infilling) • Loss of open land • Urban sprawl

Ecological impacts:

• Loss of important natural habitat • Impact on biodiversity/wildlife including protected species • Impact on adjacent areas which support wildlife • Proposed nature trail is inadequate

Flood risk/drainage:

• Development would increase flood risk on River Holme View • Land acts as a natural soakaway • Overloading of drainage and sewer network

Highway impacts:

• Intensification in the use of River Holme View & Rock Mill Road • Increased traffic and congestion • Prejudicial to highway safety • Impact on safety of users of the public footpath (Lancaster Lane) • Loss of Lancaster Lane as a footpath • Lancaster Lane unsuitable for heavy traffic and larger vehicles • Highway safety implications of vehicles using the Lancaster Lane / New Mill Road junction • The traffic assessment is flawed and inaccurate • Highway assessment should be made in conjunction with application 2014/93579 (reported elsewhere on this agenda) • Cyclists and pedestrians should have priority on Lancaster Lane. Improvements should be made to other sections of Lancaster Lane.

Other issues:

• Ground stability, including that of Lancaster Lane

• No provision of open space, adjacent land is not available as replacement green space • Damage to existing road • Disruption from development • Trees on the site were felled in 2013, contrary to information contained in the application. Removal of trees was to facilitate the planning application • Impact on tourism

Ward Councillor Charles Greaves has written to object to the application as follows:

“I object to this application as it does not conform to UDP Policy D3 "Urban Green Space" - and on this ground alone I believe that it should be refused. If the applicant indicates that they are able to meet the policy requirement I would like to know the full details.

In their DAS they state that the UGS designation is inappropriate. My understanding of events is that it was designated UGS when it was allotments. The land was then sold as allotments, but the new owner decided to clear off the users. I think that this was in 2002. Since then they have deliberately neglected the site and allowed it to be degraded in terms if use and management - to the point where it is now a mess. The site could have remained as a local allotment site right up to the present day - it would have been well used and maintained, and it would have made a positive contribution to the village. It does appear that removal of the allotments was a deliberate strategy to degrade the land and to reduce its amenity in order to undermine the UGS designation and to get development. Such behaviour is not appropriate and should not be rewarded.

I also have concerns over the density of housing on the site - though this may be down to an error in the site size quoted in the application - but 16 houses and 6 flats on a 0.44ha site seems excessive and out of character for this area.

Whilst this is an outline application it would be helpful to have a clearer understanding of how Lancaster Lane will operate post-development. There is a PRoW along the lane and this development would substantially increase vehicle use of the lane - to that end the road should be made up to a proper standard with the creation of a formal footway for the whole length of the site (as this will be the foot and cycle access to the village).

Street lighting will be needed along the whole length of the lane which may cause light pollution issues for the residents of River Holme View who back onto the site - this needs to be investigated and addressed.

A bollard preventing vehicles from exiting from Lancaster Lane directly onto New Mill Road is needed for highways safety. It is not clear whether the applicant would have the legal right to do this, but without it, occupants may

use this route as a short cut”.

Junction changes will be needed at the point where the Lane meets River Holme View - it is not clear who owns this section of land but I understand that it is NOT owned by the applicant - and therefore the proposed layout may not be deliverable.

It would also be helpful to have more details on the Nature Area to the top of the site - what exactly this will be, and how it will be managed and paid for over the longer term - otherwise it could just end up being a waste land.

Councillor Greaves has also raised concerns in the context of the separate application on the Urban Greenspace to the south off Lancaster Lane (2014/93579 – reported elsewhere on this agenda). The concerns relate to the combined effect of the two proposed developments in terms of the loss of open space in the area. It has also been stated that both sites appear to be within the same ownership and so for the purposes of calculating s106 contributions the developments should be added together. Councillor Holroyd- Doveton concurs with these comments.

Jason McCartney MP has written to object to the application and comments as follows:

“I would like to object to the above development.

I believe this development is unsustainable for the following reasons –

1. We need to protect the remaining open spaces between our villages. It is a requirement of the council to prevent urban sprawl. 2. This development is just not sustainable – we do not have the infrastructure in terms of school places, doctors, dentists or the road capacity to take the additional cars. 3. (A protected species) would be affected by this development due to close proximity to (their habitat). 4. Lancaster Lane would be made into a road leading from River Holme View to the detriment of both pedestrians and cyclists. 5. Building on this site will increase run off of rainwater and increase the likelihood of flooding to houses on River Holme View which is already on a flood plain.

For these reasons I hope that the council rejects this application”.

Holme Valley Parish Council:

Object on the grounds that this is Urban Green Space and Highways issues. Lancaster Lane is not suitable to be made into a main road. Members are also concerned about the detrimental impact on the environment, bio-diversity and a protected species and on tourism and economic concerns. There is also a public footpath through the site and there would also be an impact on the drainage and water run-off. 16

8. APPLICANT’S STATEMENT

The Design and Access Statement sets out the applicant’s case in support of the principle of development.

Firstly, and central to the applicant’s case, is the council’s inability to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in such circumstances (NPPF paragraph 49).

The second main component of the applicant’s case relates to a separate parcel of Urban Greenspace which lies approximately 25 metres to the south of the application site and which is the subject of a separate planning application for residential development (application 2014/93579 – reported elsewhere on this agenda).

The applicant highlights the findings of the Inspector at the UDP inquiry when considering the merits of designating this neighbouring site as Urban Greenspace along with the findings of the Inspector when allowing an appeal for residential development on this neighbouring site in January 1999 (application ref 1998/91665). To summarise, the Inspector at the UDP Inquiry considered that the value of the land as open space was limited and the appeal Inspector found no reason to disagree with this view when subsequently allowing an appeal for outline consent for residential development on this nearby site.

The applicant contends that “there is very little difference between the appeal site and the current application site and, for all intents and purposes, the findings of the Inspector in relation to the appeal site are sufficiently relevant to the application site so as to be a material planning consideration in the determination of this application…Whilst the application site is not the appeal site referred to above, the two sites are situated in close proximity and share crucial and important characteristics”.

In addition, the Design and Access Statement asserts that the site lies within a sustainable location which further supports the principle of development.

It is contended that in the context of the Inspectors’ findings and of paragraph 49 of the NPPF there is a presumption in favour of development.

9. ASSESSMENT

General Principle:

The site is identified as Urban Greenspace on the Council’s Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The starting point for consideration is therefore Policy D3 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

Policy D3 sets out at part (i) that on Urban Greenspace sites planning permission will not be granted unless the development is necessary for the continuation or enhancement of the established use(s) or involves a change of use to alternative open land uses, or would result in a specific community benefit, and, in all cases, will protect visual amenity, wildlife value and opportunities for sport and recreation.

Or, as in part (ii), the development includes an alternative provision of Urban Greenspace equivalent in both quantitative and qualitative terms to that which would be developed and reasonably accessible to existing users.

The community benefit element of the policy within part (i) is not consistent with the considerations of paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The majority of the policy is however in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and as such Policy D3 should be afforded significant weight.

The proposal is for residential development on a site which comprises open land. The development is not necessary for the continuation or enhancement of the use of the site and does not involve change of use to alternative open land uses. No alternative provision of Urban Greenspace is included within the scheme. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D3 and represents a departure from the Council’s development plan. The application is referred to Strategic Committee on this basis.

Planning permission should only be granted if outweighed by other material considerations.

Paragraph 212 of the NPPF indicates that the policies in the Framework are a material consideration to be taken into account.

NPPF paragraph 74 advises that existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land should not be built on unless:

• “an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space to be surplus to requirements; or • the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or • the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which outweigh the loss”.

The development proposed does not make replacement provision for the loss of the open space and it is not for alternative sport and recreational provision. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the Urban Greenspace is clearly surplus to requirements. The application submission does not include an assessment to consider whether the site is surplus to requirements as open space.

Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) outlines a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means (unless material considerations indicate otherwise):

• “approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

Footnote 9 of the Framework lists examples where specific policies within the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. The examples include land designated as Green Belt and Local Green Space; the application site does not fall into either of these categories although in terms of its value and level of protection it is considered to fall somewhere in between the two.

The NPPF sets out at paragraph 49, “housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.”

Sustainability:

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the purpose of the planning system “is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.” (para 6). It further notes that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in peoples’ quality of life (para 9).

The NPPF identifies the dimensions of sustainable development as economic, social and environmental roles (para 7). It states that these roles are mutually dependent and should not be undertaken in isolation. “Economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.” (para 8). The NPPF goes on to stress the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The proposals have been assessed in relation to the three strands of sustainable development as follows:

Economic:

The proposal will bring economic gains by providing business opportunities for contractors and local suppliers, creating additional demand for local services and potentially increasing the use and viability of local bus services.

Social:

There will be a social gain through the provision of new housing at a time of general shortage, which includes affordable housing.

Environmental:

The development of this greenfield site represents an environmental loss but it may be possible to mitigate the environmental impacts and secure compensating environmental gains through the imposition of conditions and through consideration of the layout at reserved matters stage.

Although national policy encourages the use of brownfield land for development, it also makes clear that no significant weight can be given to the loss of greenfield sites to housing when there is a national priority to increase housing supply.

In this case, assessing the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole in accordance with the paragraph 14 test, the environmental harm arising from the development of this greenfield site is considered to be outweighed by the benefits to be gained from the provision of housing.

The NPPF also recognises the need to locate significant development in sustainable locations as a core planning principle.

The site lies within the defined settlement boundary of Brockholes and would adjoin an existing area of housing. The site is around 350m from what could be described as the centre of Brockholes where there is a public house, post office and convenience store which would generally provide for ‘top-up’ grocery shopping. There is also a church and junior and infant school in the same vicinity. There are some commercial premises forming part of the ribbon development along New Mill Road between Brockholes and Honley that would provide some scope for employment opportunities. The Large Local Centre of Honley (as allocated on the UDP Proposals Map) is just under 2 kilometres from the site and this is where the nearest medical facilities and a more substantial, but not extensive, range of shopping facilities are located.

There is a bus stop adjacent to the site which provides a public transport link to Honley (approximately 10 minutes) and Huddersfield town centre (approximately 25 minutes). Huddersfield is the nearest centre which provides a comprehensive range of employment, leisure and retail opportunities. The site is also within walking distance of Brockholes train station which provides direct links to Huddersfield, Barnsley and Sheffield.

The site provides easy access on foot to a reasonable range of local facilities and it has good public transport links which enables future occupiers to access a greater range of facilities by sustainable means. It is inevitable that there would be a reliance on the private car for a proportion of essential trips but the harm caused by this must be weighed against other material

considerations. In this instance the delivery of new housing is considered to outweigh any harm which would arise from increased car trips.

It is to be noted that this judgement on the impact of increased car trips is consistent with a recent appeal decision at Netherthong (APP/Z4718/A/14/2219016 - Land off St Marys Avenue). In that case the Inspector found that in the context of the emphasis on growth within the NPPF, the need to boost the supply of housing and in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply, that development’s contribution to housing supply in the District would “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm that would arise as a result of increased trips by private car.” It is to be noted as well that the current application site has much greater accessibility to public transport than the appeal case which is a material difference in favour of the proposal.

It is concluded that the development is sustainable having regard to the NPPF. In this context it is considered that a judgement should be made about of the quality of the Urban Greenspace, set against the departure from Policy D3 of the UDP and paragraph 74 of the NPPF, taking into account the provision of housing in a sustainable location. Also to be weighed in the balance is the fact that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of land for housing.

Value assessment:

The most up-to-date information which the Council has in relation to the value of this piece of open space is the Council’s Open Space Study which was first published in 2007 and subsequently revised in 2010.

The Open Space Study classified the application site as ‘natural/semi-natural greenspace’ (unused land) and categorised it as being of medium quality and low value as open space (study assessment made 2006). The site was not specifically identified at that time as being potentially surplus to requirements. The value assessment of the site was based on a number of considerations, including scarcity value; level of use; indices of multiple deprivation; meeting the needs of different groups of people and visual amenity; providing specific benefits (e.g. structural and landscape, ecological, education, social inclusion and health, cultural and heritage, amenity and sense of place and economic benefits); and other information such as any nature designation or listed buildings.

The overall assessed value for this site was very low, taking into account scarcity value, level of use and indices of deprivation for the area.

It is considered that there has not been any significant change to the physical characteristics, appearance and function of the site since the study assessment was made. The site continues to be a natural/semi natural greenspace with the land currently comprising of dense brambles and ruderal vegetation. There remains no public access to the land and so the site does not have any significant recreational value. It is very unlikely that the surrounding area’s classification under the indices of deprivation has altered 21

significantly in the past 5 years. As such, the findings of this study are considered to be germane to this application.

It is also relevant to consider whether there has been any material change in circumstances in terms of the value of the site as assessed against the other criteria of the Open Space Study.

The site was recorded as having scarcity value as natural/semi-natural greenspace under the Open Space Study although the nearby Urban Greenspace site to the south off Lancaster Lane was not recorded as having scarcity value when it was assessed at the same time; there is nothing within the Open Space Study to give an indication as to the reasoning for this. Nevertheless, giving consideration to the presence of other natural/semi natural greenspaces within the immediate vicinity, there is Scar Wood on the opposite side of New Mill Road as well as the aforementioned site to the south, although there is a separate planning application for residential development on the latter.

Even in the event that the separate Urban Greenspace site to the south (adjacent Lancaster Lane) was developed as per outline planning application 2014/93579, it is considered that the scarcity value of the application site would not be greatly affected given the presence of Scar Wood close by which forms a large wedge of natural/semi-natural Urban Greenspace.

The site does not have public access and so is not meeting a specific need in terms of its use and Officers consider that the land has limited wider visual amenity value. Views across the site are generally restricted to the area adjacent to the site along Lancaster Lane, from much of River Holme View, from the adjacent part of New Mill Road as well as from the more distant wooded valley slopes towards the west and south west. The site does not contain any landscape features of any significant merit, such as protected trees, and the site does not afford important views of other open land. All these considerations further constrain the scope of the visual amenity value of the site. Overall the land is not considered to provide any strategic landscape function. On these criteria the value of the site remains low.

One of the criteria of the Open Space Study assessment was whether the open space provided a specific benefit, for example ecological, health, heritage, amenity or economic benefits. A specific benefit provided by the site was not identified by the study and there is nothing to suggest that this has changed.

The site can be considered as potentially having some additional value as open space on the basis that it was previously used as allotments. However, there is no realistic likelihood of this privately owned site being brought back to allotment use and consequently any such additional value is negligible. Taking all of these factors into account, this parcel of Urban Greenspace is considered to be of relatively low value. Having made this judgement, the weight to be given to protection of the Urban Greenspace is therefore more limited than may be the case with other Urban Greenspace allocations. 22

In considering paragraph 74 of the NPPF, this indicates that the open space should not be built on unless it is clearly surplus to requirements. The site was not classified as being surplus to requirements under the Open Space Study and an assessment has not been provided with the application to demonstrate to the contrary. However, the clear and considerable limitations of the site in terms of its overall value as open space give weight in favour of the development proposed, particularly in the context of paragraph 49 of the Framework, when set against the requirements of paragraph 74.

In such circumstances, on balance it is considered that the loss of this Urban Greenspace site is outweighed by the provision of housing, including affordable housing as would be required through this development, and taking into account the shortfall in the District’s supply of housing land that currently exists.

Allotments:

UDP policy R9 of the UDP states:

“Proposals involving development on allotments, or land last used as allotments, will not be permitted unless replacement allotments of equivalent community benefit are provided or it can be demonstrated that there is no unsatisfied local demand for allotments. All proposals should make provision for the safeguarding of visual and residential amenity and established wildlife”.

The site previously contained allotments and there is information to indicate that this use ceased circa 2001. There is nothing to suggest that the land has been put to any use since that time and the site now consists of dense bramble cover and ruderal vegetation. There are no records of the allotments being owned by the Council and it is likely that they were privately owned.

The Council’s allotment manager has advised that there is a demand in the area for allotments because three council managed sites in this area are fully let and each has a waiting list – the total number of people waiting across the three sites is 37. The application does not propose any replacement allotment provision and the application is therefore contrary to Policy R9 of the UDP.

The land has not been used as allotments for a considerable period of time (approximately 14 years) and has reverted to a natural/semi natural greenspace (as identified in Council’s Open Space Study). The land is in private ownership and it is considered that there is no realistic prospect of the site being provided for allotment land in the future. Taking these circumstances into account, Officers are of the opinion that the benefits of the proposed development in terms of the provision of new housing in a sustainable location outweigh the loss of this historic allotment site, and also outweigh the absence of any alternative allotment provision as part of the development proposed. A departure from Policy R9 is accepted in this instance. 23

Response to the applicant’s case:

In respect of planning policies related specifically to housing in the UDP, consideration must be made as to whether these can be classed as ‘up to date’ following the publication of the NPPF. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

At present, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land and therefore the provision of new housing to meet the shortfall is a material consideration that weighs in favour of the development proposed. However, the degree of weight attributed to this in favour of the scheme is to be balanced against any adverse impacts, including the loss of Urban Greenspace and the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The designation of this site as Urban Greenspace was not specifically considered by the Inspector at the UDP inquiry. However, the applicant’s case relies, in part, on the comments of the Inspector when considering the merits of designating a separate parcel of land as Urban Greenspace which is in very close proximity to the application site, along with the associated comments of the appeal inspector when considering a proposal for residential development on this neighbouring site.

In considering the nearby Urban Greenspace designation at the UDP inquiry, the Inspector found that the land was of “unexceptional appearance…and has very little impact on its surroundings”, commenting that the land has limited visibility from New Mill Road “because the site falls away from the road and only pedestrians looking down from the adjoining footway could see it”. Further, it was found that the site does not have particular visual quality and does not afford important views of other open land and that there was no desirable reason why the land should be kept open to provide separation between residential development (on River Holme View) and New Mill Road.

It is to be noted that despite the Inspector’s view that allocation as Urban Greenspace was not justified and the recommendation that the site should be allocated for housing, the parcel of open land to the south of the application site was allocated as Urban Greenspace on the adopted UDP (March 1999).

In January 1999 – two months before the UDP was adopted – an appeal against the Council’s refusal of permission for residential development on this adjacent site (application reference 1998/91665) was upheld. The appeal Inspector found no reason to disagree with the UDP inquiry Inspector’s assessment of the site’s (limited) contribution to visual and recreational amenity and its wildlife value.

In summary, the Inspector found that the development would not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the area given the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings and that there were other areas of greater visual importance in the vicinity of the site. Furthermore, it was found that the development would not lead to such a reduction in the amount of open land in this part of Brockholes that it would be materially harmful to its overall appearance or character and it was also found that the development would not materially reduce the separation distance between Brockholes and Thongsbridge to the south.

Officers acknowledge that there are some similarities between the application site and the separate parcel of Urban Greenspace to the south. For example, both sites are set down from New Mill Road and provide physical separation between River Holme View and New Mill Road. Given the broad similarities and proximity between the two sites, the Inspectors’ findings provide some useful context; however because the findings relate to a separate site which has its own individual characteristics, they are not considered to carry any significant weight in the assessment of this application.

Conclusion on the principle of development:

In conclusion, it is considered that the departure from Policy D3 of the UDP and Paragraph 74 of the NPPF is, on balance, outweighed by the provision of housing in a sustainable location and the lack of a 5 year housing land supply given the relatively low value of this Urban Greenspace allocation.

Impact on visual amenity:

Policies BE1 and BE2 of the UDP are considerations in relation to design, materials and layout. The layout of buildings should respect any traditional character the area may have. New development should also respect the scale, height and design of adjoining buildings and be in keeping with the predominant character of the area. Chapter 7 of the NPPF emphasises the importance of good design. The scale, appearance, layout and landscaping of the development are reserved matters are not therefore under consideration although an indicative site layout plan and indicative site sections have been provided.

The development would border an existing residential development on River Holme View which was built sometime around the early 1990s. The indicative site layout shows 10 semi-detached dwellings and a block of flats set around a ‘T’ shaped estate road off Lancaster Lane with 6 semi-detached houses further to the north each taking access directly off Lancaster Lane. The site comprises an area of around 0.44 hectares and the application indicatively shows a total of 22 dwelling units which equates to a development density of 50 units per hectare.

bungalows. There is variation within the design of the dwellings on River Holme View but pitched roof gables are a characteristic feature. This existing development is constructed of stone with concrete tiles to the roofs.

The proposal would effectively form an extension of the existing River Holme View development by infilling a wedge of land between River Holme View and New Mill Road, albeit the proposed development would be set higher up than the existing residential estate which occupies the flatter valley floor.

The indicative density of the proposed development is significantly greater than that of River Holme View and it is considered that 22 units on the site would not be in keeping with the urban grain of the surrounding area and would amount to overdevelopment. Officers consider that the indicative number of units is not acceptable however the amount of development would be considered at reserved matters stage. Officers are satisfied that an appropriate layout can be achieved having regard to the urban grain and character of the surrounding area. It is to be noted that the layout will be based around the access as proposed.

Given the mixture of property types in the vicinity, particularly on River Holme View, this provides flexibility on the type of housing which could be accommodated on the site. The indicative site layout shows mainly semi- detached housing. Semi-detached houses would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area because there is some semi-detached housing on River Holme View and also immediately opposite the site on New Mill Road. Flats/apartments are not evident in the immediate vicinity but if the scale of the block of flats was in keeping with the prevailing character of surrounding buildings then there would not be any undue harm to the visual amenity of the area.

Indicative site sections have been provided; these show a row of development adjacent to Lancaster Lane broadly on the same level as one another and slightly elevated to Lancaster Lane with the remaining development which is closer to New Mill Road being on a higher level. The sections and Design and Access Statement suggest that the properties would be two storeys in height. The information demonstrates that a stepped profile would exist between existing and proposed development with the properties on New Mill Road being on the highest level with the proposed dwellings in the middle and the adjacent properties on River Holme View set down from the application site. Officers are satisfied that dwellings of an appropriate scale which respect the topography of the site and surrounding development can be accommodated without having any significant detrimental impact on visual amenity. The visibility of the site from the east would be relatively limited because the site falls away from New Mill Road and when viewed from other directions the proposal would be seen in the context of River Holme View.

It is considered that an acceptable design could be achieved which respects the prevailing local vernacular. Facing materials are to be agreed at reserved matters stage but materials that in keeping with those on River Holme View are likely to be the most appropriate. 26

As discussed in the previous section of this assessment, the visual amenity value of the open land is considered to be limited and as such developing this wedge of land for housing would not materially harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. There is no overriding reason to seek to retain a buffer between River Holme View and New Mill Road and this is a view which the Inspectors applied when considering the nearby piece of Urban Greenspace to the south at the UDP inquiry and appeal to application 98/91665.

In conclusion, the indicative information demonstrates that an acceptable scheme can be agreed subject to the amount of development on the site. The application accords with Policies BE1 and BE2 of the UDP and guidance in the NPPF.

Residential amenity:

Policy BE12 of the UDP sets out the Councils policy in relation to space about buildings. New dwellings should be designed to provide privacy and open space for their occupants and physical separation from adjacent property and land. Distances less than those specified in the policy will be acceptable if it can be shown that by reason of permanent screening, changes in level or innovative design no detriment would be caused to existing or future occupiers of the dwellings or to any adjacent premises or potential development land.

The indicative layout plan demonstrates that Policy BE12 can be satisfied in respect of the neighbouring properties on River Holme View. These adjacent properties are at a lower level and include bungalows and two storey houses. Minimum separation distances are achievable to the rear gardens of these properties and distances which meet or are in excess of the minimum requirement are achievable between habitable windows. Existing and new boundary treatment would also provide a degree of screening to the adjacent dwellings on River Holme View. It is considered that an acceptable development can be provided which would not prejudice the amenity of the properties to the west.

Officers have concerns with the relationship between the semi-detached properties in the south west corner of the site and 238 New Mill Road; this existing dwelling has a small number of windows in its rear elevation (which do not appear to be main windows) and an elevated patio area to its western gable. Habitable windows in the rear of the dwellings in the south west corner of the site, particularly at first floor level, would not meet Policy BE12 standards and would give rise to overlooking which would prejudice the amenity of the occupiers of 238 New Mill Road and the future occupiers of the dwellings. Design and layout are reserved matters and this relationship will have to be considered and addressed as part of a future application.

The development would not have any significant impact on the properties on New Mill Road given the difference in levels and separation distances. 27

Minimum separation distances internal to the site are considered to be achievable.

The development would result in a formalised carriageway immediately to the rear of the properties on River Holme View which abut Lancaster Lane and lie immediately to the west of the application site. Lancaster Lane abuts the rear gardens of these properties and some of these gardens, mainly those further to the north, are set down from Lancaster Lane with a retaining wall along their rear boundary. It has been confirmed that the finished levels of the proposed access road would utilise the existing ground levels and the access road would not be built up above the level of Lancaster Lane as it currently stands. This will mitigate the impact of the road on the adjoining gardens. The finished levels of the road can be controlled by condition.

The proposed access road will inevitably give rise to increased noise, light pollution, and vehicle emissions which is likely to have some impact on residential amenity. However, given the total number of dwellings which the site could reasonably accommodate, it is considered that the use of the road not be so intensive so as to materially harm residential amenity. Consideration of light spill from the lighting of the highway will be addressed through separate highway process but it is considered that a lighting scheme is practicably feasible without prejudicing existing residents.

Access to the site will be via River Holme View and intensification in the use of this existing estate road is unlikely to result in any significant detriment to residential amenity. This remains the case when taking into account any development on the separate parcel of Urban Greenspace to the south which is the subject of a separate planning application for residential development and which also takes access of River Holme View.

The Council’s Pollution and Noise team have assessed the application and no issues have been raised with respect to air quality and noise. Conditions relating to the provision of electric vehicle charging plug-in points and contaminated land have been recommended.

Highways issues:

Access: Access to the site is via River Holme View and Lancaster Lane. Lancaster Lane forms an unmade track which is a public footpath. It is proposed to create a carriageway along Lancaster Lane to serve the proposed development and this would adjoin the turning head at the end of River Holme View.

It is considered that the junction between Lancaster Lane and River Holme View as shown on the submitted plans needs to be redesigned to improve this connection however Officers are satisfied that this can be achieved.

Parking and turning spaces within the site are to be provided to allow vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear. 28

Traffic Generation: The TRICS database has been used to derive the peak hour generation rates for this level of residential development. Whilst the proposals indicatively show 22 dwellings, for the purposes of this report a development of 25 units has been used for robustness and to allow for some scope in the design and layout of the scheme. Using TRICS generation rates for 25 units the following traffic flows can be calculated for the proposed development:

AM Peak: 6 vehicles in and 13 vehicles out

PM Peak: 13 vehicles in and 8 vehicles out

The cumulative impact of the existing traffic generation and both of the proposed Lancaster Lane development sites (i.e. this application and application 2014/93579) has been considered and the combined traffic generation calculated. The total cumulative increase at the busiest peak hour from both developments results in 21 vehicles in and 14 out.

During the busiest peak hour this development could see an increase from the existing estimated traffic generation of 1 vehicle in every one and half minutes arriving and one vehicle every two minutes departing to a traffic generation of 1 vehicle every one minute arriving and one vehicle every one and a half minutes departing.

Accidents: There have been only 2 recorded injury accidents at the Rockmill Road /A616 new Mill Road junction in the last 5 years.

Both of the incidents occurred in January 2011 a week apart from each other. The first involved a single vehicle (a van) and the second was a collision between a car and a cyclist

Public Right of Way: Lancaster Lane forms a public right of way. The proposed access along Lancaster Lane would become a shared surface for the development and as a public right of way. There are no objections to this from the Council’s PRoW Officer.

Conclusion: In conclusion, Highways Development Management generally concurs with the findings of the Transport Assessment. There are no objections subject to design improvements being made to the junction and conditions relating to the approval of a scheme of works for the adoptable access roads and public footpath, approval of all highway retaining structures and approval of measures to restrict vehicle access to New Mill Road via Lancaster Lane. The application complies with Policy T10 of the UDP.

Ecological issues:

Chapter 11 of the NPPF advises that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment. This should be done by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity (and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible) contributing to halting overall decline in biodiversity (including by establishing coherent ecological networks) and addressing issues of pollution (paragraph 109).

Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states that “if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused”.

The ecological survey report has established that the site consists of dense bramble cover and ruderal vegetation which is of limited ecological interest. There is evidence of past tree removal and only a few individual trees remain at the site. The report also establishes that there is also evidence of the site being used by a protected species as a thoroughfare and for foraging.

The Council’s Environment Unit has not raised any objection to the principle of development however the indicative layout would not be acceptable because it does not properly take into account the ecological constraints of the site. The layout needs to have due regard to permeability through the site for wildlife by way of the provision of a north-south ecological network and an east-west thoroughfare. A ‘nature trail’ is indicated on the plan but this does not have any meaningful benefit. Subject to the final layout, in principle the development would not significantly harm local biodiversity and the application accords with chapter 11 of the NPPF.

Flood risk and drainage issues:

The site is within a low flood risk area. Kirklees Lead Local Flood Authority has not raised any objections to the principle of the development. The application indicates that surface water will be disposed of by soakaway and this is acceptable in principle. A condition regarding the disposal of surface water is necessary.

Yorkshire Water has not raised any objections to the application subject to conditions.

Trees:

There are no trees on site which are considered to be worthy of preservation.

Contributions:

Affordable housing:

In accordance with Policies H10 & H12 of the UDP, guidance contained within SPD2 and national Planning Practice Guidance, the provision of affordable housing is a material planning consideration and would be applicable to this development. As this is a greenfield site, the contribution would normally be 30% of the total floor space of the development. In order to secure this requirement, it is considered that a planning condition can be imposed.

Public Open Space (POS):

Policy H18 of the UDP requires the provision of POS on sites put forward for housing development which are over 0.4 hectares. The site area is approximately 0.44 hectares and therefore the requirements of Policy H18 apply.

In order to secure this provision, a standard condition can be imposed. An off- site contribution would be needed in this instance because there is no scope to provide on-site POS based on the indicative layout.

Education:

The development does not trigger a contribution towards education provision.

Crime Prevention:

Consideration of specific Crime Prevention issues will need to be given at Reserved Matters stage in respect of site layout and design.

Objections: The main issues raised in the representations relate to the principle of development, visual amenity, residential amenity, highways concerns, flood risk and ecological issues. These matters have all been addressed separately within this report.

Comments have been made regarding the inadequacy of local infrastructure and services within the locality to support the new housing proposed. Specific mention has been made to the sewer network, highway network, school places, doctors and dentists.

With regard to physical infrastructure, no objections have been raised by relevant consultees e.g. Yorkshire Water, Kirklees Lead Local Flood Authority and Kirklees Highways Development Management.

With regard to schools, based on the indicative number of dwellings the application is below the threshold when Education Services would be consulted and the development does not trigger a financial contribution

towards education provision. In terms of doctors and dentists, neither of these are facilities over which the local planning authority has any control.

Issues of ground stability and Public Open Space can be fully addressed by conditions.

The concerns raised with regard to the impacts of physically constructing the development are not material to the determination of this application and would generally fall under separate legislation, for example issues such as noise, dust and damage to the highway.

It is considered that the development would not have any material impact on local tourism.

Conclusion: Having regard to the specific value of the site as Urban Greenspace Officers consider that the benefits of the development, in terms of the provision of housing in a sustainable location, outweigh the loss of the open space and the requirements of paragraph 74 of the NPPF and justifies a departure from Policy D3 of the UDP.

The proposed access arrangements would not result in any significant harm to highway safety and Officers consider that an acceptable scheme can be agreed at reserved matters stage for the scale, appearance, layout and landscaping of the site which would not be prejudicial to the amenities of the area.

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 would constitute sustainable development and is therefore recommended for approval.

9. RECOMMENDATION

DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO GRANT CONDITIONAL OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION SUBJECT TO

I. Negotiate a redesign of the proposed Lancaster Lane / River Holme View junction

II. impose all necessary and appropriate conditions and;

III. there being no substantial changes, issue the decision.

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

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received Design & Access - - 18 December 2014 Statement Highway Statement - - 17 November 2014 Location Plan - - 25 November 2014 Indicative Site Layout - - 18 December 2014 Indicative Site Sections - - 17 November 2014 Highway Layout Plan - - 10 March 2015 Ecology Report - - 15 December 2014

Application No: 2014/93579

Type of application: 60m - OUTLINE APPLICATION

Proposal: Outline application for erection of 14 dwellings

Location: Lancaster Lane, Brockholes, Holmfirth, HD9 7TL

Grid Ref: 415286.0 410535.0

Ward: Holme Valley North Ward

Applicant: J Wood, Petrian Construction Ltd

Agent: Andy Rushby, Assent Planning Consultancy Ltd

Target Date: 19-Feb-2015

Recommendation: RF1 - REFUSAL

------

LOCATION PLAN

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

Application Details Type of Development Residential (Outline Application) Scale of Development Site area: 0.49 Units: 14 hectares No. Jobs Created or Retained N/A Policy UDP allocation Urban Greenspace Independent Viability Required No Consultation/Representation Individual Support (No.) N/A Individual Objection (No.) 29 Petition One petition with 160 names Ward Member Interest Yes Correspondence received from Councillors Greaves & Holroyd- Doveton Statutory Consultee N/A Objections Contributions • Affordable Housing To be addressed by condition • Education N/A • Public Open Space To be addressed by condition • Other N/A Other Issues Any Council Interest? No Pre-application planning No advice? Pre-App Consultation No Undertaken? Comment on Application Recommendation is to refuse outline planning permission. On balance the loss of the Urban Greenspace and associated ecological impacts outweigh the benefits of the development.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL

2. INFORMATION

This application is brought to Strategic Planning Committee as the development proposed departs from the provisions of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

3. SITE DESCRIPTION & PROPOSAL

Site Description

The application site comprises an area of 0.49 hectares which lies between Lancaster Lane (an unmade track which forms a public right of way) and New Mill Road in Brockholes. The site sits towards the south eastern end of River Holme View which is a relatively modern self-contained housing development. The site comprises of overgrown grassland and scrub which slopes steeply upwards in a westerly direction from River Holme View/Lancaster Lane to New Mil Road.

The site is an irregular shaped parcel of land which is allocated as Urban Greenspace on the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. The application site comprises the entirety of the allocation.

The site is flanked to the north by 238 New Mill Road which forms a large detached dwelling and separates the site from a parcel of scrubland further to the north which is also allocated as Urban Greenspace. To the south of the site lies Holme Valley Camping and Caravan Park and the southern boundary of the application site forms a boundary with the adjacent Green Belt land. To the east of the site, and on the eastern side of New Mill Road, is some ribbon development and an area of trees which forms part of a strip of Urban Greenspace. Dwellings at River Holme View lie to the west and north west of the site.

Proposal

The application seeks outline permission for the erection of 14 dwellings. Access is the only matter applied for with scale, layout, appearance and landscaping being reserved.

The proposed access to the site is taken off River Holme View and would effectively form an extension of the existing cul-de-sac. An indicative layout has been submitted which shows 10 detached dwellings and two pairs of semi-detached dwellings arranged around a roughly ‘T’ shaped estate road.

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

1998/91665 Outline application for residential development – Refused & Appeal Upheld 19 January 1999

Application refused as harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the site’s allocation as Urban Greenspace in the draft UDP.

2001/91485 Erection of 3 detached dwellings with integral garage and associated road (Plots 1 -3) – Refused 10 April 2003

Refused for the following reasons: • Urban Greenspace, contrary to Policy D3 of UDP 36

• Greenfield site, contrary to PPG3 (now cancelled) • Piecemeal development • Insufficient flood risk information

2002/93722 Erection of 2 detached dwellings with integral garages (plots 4 & 5) – Refused 10 April 2003

Refused for the following reasons: • Urban Greenspace, contrary to Policy D3 of UDP • Greenfield site, contrary to PPG3 (now cancelled) • Piecemeal development • Insufficient flood risk information

2003/94593 Variation of condition 2 on previous outline planning permission for residential development, granted on appeal on 19 January 1999 (ref. 98/60/91665/W3) to allow application for approval of the reserved matters to be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of six years from the date of this permission – Refused 18 December 2003 (Appeal invalid)

Refused for the following reasons: • Urban Greenspace, contrary to Policy D3 of UDP • Greenfield site, contrary to PPG3 (now cancelled)

Also relevant:

2014/93549 Outline planning application for residential development (22 dwellings) – Undetermined: Application is reported elsewhere on this agenda

5. PLANNING POLICY

Kirklees Unitary Development Plan

D3 – Urban Greenspace BE1 – Design principles BE2 – Quality of design BE12 – Space about buildings BE23 – Crime prevention T10 – Highway safety T19 – Parking standards H10 – Affordable housing H12 – Arrangements for securing affordable housing H18 – Provision of open space G6 – Land contamination

National Planning Guidance

NPPF Chapter 4 Promoting sustainable transport. 37

NPPF Chapter 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes NPPF Chapter 7 Requiring good design NPPF Chapter 8 Promoting healthy communities NPPF Chapter 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change NPPF Chapter 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Other Guidance

SPD 2 Affordable Housing Planning Practice Guidance

6. CONSULTATIONS

The following is a brief summary of consultee advice. Further information is contained within the report assessment (where necessary).

KC Highways - No objection subject to conditions.

KC Environmental Health - No objection.

KC Lead Local Flood Authority - No objection subject to conditions.

KC Trees - No objection.

KC Environment Unit – Object.

KC PRoW Officer - No objection.

KC Strategic Housing - No comments received.

KC Parks and Recreation - No comments received.

Environment Agency – No objection subject to a condition restricting development in Flood Zone 3.

Yorkshire Water Authority - No objections.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer - No objection.

7. REPRESENTATIONS

The application has been advertised by site notices, press advert and neighbour notification letters. Representations: 28 individual letters of objection have been received along with a petition against the development containing 160 names.

The main points of objection are:

Principle of development:

• Development is contrary to Policy D3 of UDP • Loss of Urban Greenspace • Absence of an up-to-date local plan is not a reason to allow development on Urban Greenspace • Loss of Urban Greenspace is not outweighed by provision of housing • Planning history - previous applications on the site were refused • Brownfield sites should be developed before greenfield sites such as this one

Visual amenity:

• Impact on the character of the area • Loss of open land • Urban sprawl

Residential amenity:

• Overlooking / loss of privacy • Noise • Pollution

Highway impacts:

• Vehicle access across the PRoW is a safety hazard • Intensification in the use of River Holme View & Rock Mill Road • Increased traffic and congestion • Prejudicial to highway safety • Impact on Lancaster Lane • The traffic assessment is flawed and inaccurate • Highway assessment should be made in conjunction with application 2014/93549 (reported elsewhere on this agenda) • Cyclists and pedestrians should have priority on Lancaster Lane. Improvements should be made to other sections of Lancaster Lane.

Flood risk/drainage:

• Development would increase flood risk on River Holme View • Land acts as a natural soakaway • Overloading of drainage and sewer network

Cumulative impacts:

Application should be assessed in the context of the current application on adjacent land (2014/93549)

Ecological impacts:

• Loss of important natural habitat • Impact on biodiversity/wildlife including protected species • Impact on adjacent areas which support wildlife • Protected trees on the site Other issues:

• Impact on the adjacent camping and caravan park – possible complaints from new residents, overlooking. Impact on tourism. • Ground stability • Recent removal of trees was to facilitate the planning application • Inadequate infrastructure and services to support new housing • Ground stability, including that of Lancaster Lane • Provision of open space, adjacent land cannot account for any replacement green or open space • Damage to existing road • Disruption from development phase

Ward Councillor Charles Greaves has written to object to the application as follows:

In their DAS they state that the UGS designation is inappropriate. If both applications succeed there will be very little open space retained in this area. The owners have neglected the site and allowed it to be degraded in terms of use and management - to the point where it is now a mess. The site could provide a public benefit either through proper use or public access and would make a positive contribution to the village. It does appear that the neglect of the site is a deliberate strategy to degrade the land and to reduce its amenity in order to undermine the UGS designation and to get development. Such behaviour is not appropriate and should not be rewarded.

Junction changes will be needed at the point where the Lane meets River Holme View - it is not clear who owns this section of land but I understand that it is not owned by the applicant - and therefore the proposed layout may not be deliverable.

It would also be helpful to have more details on the flood area at the bottom of the site - what exactly this will be, and how it will be managed and paid for over the longer term - otherwise it could just end up being a waste land”.

Councillor Greaves has also raised concerns in the context of the separate application on the Urban Greenspace to the north off Lancaster Lane 40

(2014/93549 – reported elsewhere on this agenda). The concerns relate to the combined effect of the two proposed developments in terms of the loss of open space in the area. It has also been stated that both sites appear to be within the same ownership and so for the purposes of calculating s106 contributions the developments should be added together. Councillor Holroyd- Doveton concurs with these comments.

Jason McCartney MP has written to object to the application and comments as follows:

“I would like to object to the above development.

I believe this development as it is unsustainable for the following reasons –

1. We need to protect the remaining open spaces between our villages. It is a requirement of the council to prevent urban sprawl. 2. This development is just not sustainable – we do not have the infrastructure in terms of school places, doctors, dentists or the road capacity to take the additional cars. 3. There is a (home for a protected species) on this field and the proposal involves putting a road and houses directly on top of (that home). There is another (home adjacent to the site). We must do all we can to protect this habitat. 4. Building on this site will increase run off of rainwater and increase the likelihood of flooding to houses on River Holme View which is already on a flood plain.

For these reasons I hope that the council rejects this application”.

Holme Valley Parish Council:

Object on the grounds of Highways issues; Lancaster Lane is not suitable to be made into a main road. Parish Council Members are also concerned about the detrimental impact on the environment, bio-diversity and a protected species, and on tourism and economic concerns. There is also a public footpath crossing the site and there would also be an impact on the drainage and water run-off. There are also potential over-looking issues.

8. APPLICANT’S STATEMENT

The Design and Access Statement sets out the applicant’s case in support of the principle of development.

Firstly, and central to the applicant’s case, is the Council’s inability to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in such circumstances (NPPF paragraph 49).

The second main component of the applicant’s case are the findings of the Inspector at the UDP inquiry with regard to the merits of designating the 41

application site as Urban Greenspace and the findings of the Inspector when allowing an appeal for residential development on the site in January 1999 (application ref 1998/91665). To summarise, the Inspector at the UDP Inquiry considered that the value of the land as open space was limited and the appeal Inspector found no reason to disagree with this view when subsequently allowing an appeal for outline consent for residential development on the site.

In addition, the Design and Access Statement asserts that the site lies within a sustainable location which further supports the principle of development.

It is contended that in the context of the Inspectors’ findings and of paragraph 49 of the NPPF there is a presumption in favour of development.

9. ASSESSMENT

General principle of development:

Planning permission should only be granted if the harm is outweighed by other material considerations.

Paragraph 212 of the NPPF indicates that the policies in the Framework are a material consideration to be taken into account.

NPPF paragraph 74 advises that existing open space, sports and recreational buildings should not be built on unless:

The development proposed does not make replacement provision for the loss of the open space and it is not for alternative sport and recreational provision. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the Urban Greenspace is clearly surplus to requirements. The application does not include an assessment to consider whether the site is surplus to requirements as open space.

• “approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

The NPPF sets out at paragraph 49, “housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.”

Sustainability:

Economic:

Social:

There will be a social gain through the provision of new housing at a time of general shortage, which includes affordable housing.

Environmental:

The NPPF also recognises the need to locate significant development in sustainable locations as a core planning principle.

The site lies within the defined settlement boundary of Brockholes and would adjoin an existing area of housing. The site is around 350m from what could 44

be described as the centre of Brockholes where there is a public house, post office and convenience store which would generally provide for ‘top-up’ grocery shopping. There is also a church and junior and infant school in the same vicinity. There are some commercial premises forming part of the ribbon development along New Mill Road between Brockholes and Honley that would provide some scope for employment opportunities. The Large Local Centre of Honley (as allocated on the UDP Proposals Map) is just under 2 kilometres from the site and this is where the nearest medical facilities and a more substantial, but not extensive, range of shopping facilities are located.

It is concluded that the development is sustainable having regard to the NPPF. In this context it is considered that a judgement should be made about the quality of the Urban Greenspace, set against the departure from Policy D3 of the UDP and paragraph 74 of the NPPF, taking into account the provision of housing in a sustainable location. Also to be weighed in the balance is the fact that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of land for housing.

Value assessment:

The Open Space Study classified the application site as ‘natural/semi-natural greenspace’ (unused land with no public access) and categorised it as being of medium quality and low value as open space (study assessment made 2006). The site was not specifically identified at that time as being potentially surplus to requirements. The value assessment of the site was based on a number of considerations, including scarcity value; level of use; indices of multiple deprivation; meeting the needs of different groups of people and visual amenity; providing specific benefits, e.g. structural and landscape, ecological, education, social inclusion and health, cultural and heritage, amenity and sense of place and economic benefits; and other information such as any nature designation or listed buildings.

The overall assessment score for this site was very low, taking into account, level of use and indices of deprivation for the area.

It is considered that there has not been any significant change to the physical characteristics, appearance and function of the site since the study assessment was made. The site continues to be a natural/semi natural greenspace with the land comprising of grassland and scrub, with the scrub areas of the site undergoing natural succession to woodland. There remains no public access to the land and so the site does not have any significant recreational value. It is very unlikely that the surrounding area’s classification under the indices of deprivation has altered significantly in the past 5 years. As such, the findings of this study are considered to be germane to this application.

It is also relevant to consider whether there has been any material change in circumstances in terms of the value of the site as assessed against the other criteria of the Open Space Study.

A specific benefit provided by the site was not identified in the Open Space Study however on this criterion it is considered that there has been a material change in circumstances in terms of the value assessment of the open space. The application submission has established that the site has an identifiable ecological value; the ecology report accompanying the application confirms that the site consists of several habitats, some of which are defined as Habitats of Principal Importance, and contain plant species which are typical of these habitats. Furthermore, the report also indicates that the site has an important function as a habitat for a protected species. Such detailed ecological information, as has been submitted with this application, was not available when the land was assessed as part of the Open Space Study in 2007.

The ecology report demonstrates that the site provides a specific benefit as open space in terms of ecological value by supporting biodiversity and providing habitats for wildlife. The specific benefit identified means that the site would have been classified as being of high value overall under the Open Space Study criteria.

At this stage it is necessary to consider the extent to which the ecological impacts of the development could potentially be mitigated for the purposes of balancing the harm against other material considerations. Officers consider that there is no realistic prospect of adequate mitigation being provided. This is because the loss of the elements of the site which have the greatest ecological value (i.e. Habitats of Principal Importance and habitat areas integral to the use by a protected species) would need to be adequately compensated for through the provision of alternative habitat of equivalent or better quality/value. Based on the total number of dwellings and the indicative layout the scheme does not afford any realistic opportunity for this to occur.

On the question of potential mitigation, it is concluded that the ecological impacts arising from the loss of this open land could not be adequately mitigated through this application.

The site was not considered as having scarcity value as natural/semi-natural greenspace although it is noted that the nearby Urban Greenspace site to the north off Lancaster Lane was recorded as having scarcity value when it was assessed at the same time; there is nothing within the Open Space Study to give an indication as to the reasoning for this. Nevertheless, giving consideration to the presence of other natural/semi natural greenspaces within the immediate vicinity, there is Scar Wood on the opposite side of New Mill Road as well as the aforementioned site to the north, although there is a separate planning application for residential development on the latter.

Even in the event that the separate Urban Greenspace site to the north (adjacent Lancaster Lane) was developed as per outline planning application 2014/93549, it is considered that the scarcity value of the application site would not be greatly affected given the presence of Scar Wood close by which forms a large wedge of natural/semi-natural Urban Greenspace.

The site does not have public access and so is not meeting a specific need in terms of its use and Officers consider that the land has limited wider visual amenity value. Views across the site are generally restricted to the area adjacent to the site along Lancaster Lane, from the neighbouring part of River Holme View, from the adjacent part of New Mill Road and from the more distant wooded valley slopes towards the west and south west. Views from the caravan park to the south, which lies within the Green Belt, are screened by a belt of trees. The site does not contain any landscape features of any significant merit, such as protected trees, and the site does not afford important views of other open land. All these considerations further constrain the scope of the visual amenity value of the site. Overall the land is not considered to provide any strategic landscape function. On these criteria the value of the site remains low. 47

On balance, based on its ecological value, this parcel of Urban Greenspace is considered to be of high value as open space. Having made this judgement, the weight to be given to the protection of the Urban Greenspace is substantial.

In considering paragraph 74 of the NPPF, this indicates that the open space should not be built on unless it is clearly surplus to requirements. The site was not classified as being surplus to requirements under the Open Space Study and an assessment has not been provided with the application to demonstrate to the contrary. The value of the open space which has been identified gives weight to the requirements of paragraph 74 when set against paragraph 49 of the Framework.

To conclude, on balance it is considered that the loss of this Urban Greenspace site is not outweighed by the provision of housing - including affordable housing as would be required through this development - and taking into account the shortfall in the District’s supply of housing land that currently exists.

Response to the applicant’s case:

At present, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land and therefore the provision of new housing to meet the shortfall is a material consideration that weighs in favour of the development proposed. However, NPPF paragraph 14 states that in such circumstances 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 Framework. In Officers’ opinion the ecological harm resulting from the loss of the Urban Greenspace significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of housing delivery.

The Inspectors’ findings at the UDP inquiry and the planning history of the site – in particular the development allowed on appeal under application reference 1998/91665 – are material considerations.

In considering the Urban Greenspace designation at the UDP inquiry, the Inspector stated that “In my view the land is of unexceptional appearance, being a paddock with a few trees, and has very little impact on its surroundings. While the Council emphasises views of the land from New Mill Road, the site does fall away from the road, so that only pedestrians looking down from the adjoining footway could see it. The land is well screened from 48

the adjoining Green Belt. Whereas it would be seen by pedestrians in Lancaster Lane, this does not justify keeping the land open because it does not have particular visual quality and does not afford important views of other open land. A benefit is claimed from the separation created between residential development and New Mill Road but I see no reason why this should be regarded as desirable”.

Despite the Inspector’s view that allocation as Urban Greenspace was not justified and the recommendation that the site should be allocated for housing, the site was allocated as Urban Greenspace on the adopted UDP (March 1999). The site’s designation as Urban Greenspace was based on its surface, landscape and boundary features, its visual and recreational amenity value, its contribution to the setting of the River Holme valley, and its context within the nearby wildlife corridor which runs north towards Honley and south to Thongsbridge.

Application 1998/91665 sought outline permission for residential development on this site. The application was refused on the grounds that it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and because the site was allocated as Urban Greenspace in the draft UDP. An appeal against the refusal of permission was upheld in January 1999, two months before the adoption of the UDP.

At the time of the appeal the Council confirmed that the site was to be designated as Urban Greenspace. However, in the decision letter the appeal Inspector concluded that there was no reason to disagree with the UDP Inspector’s assessment of the site’s (limited) contribution to visual and recreational amenity and its wildlife value.

The comments made by the Inspectors provide an assessment of the value of the site as Urban Greenspace as the land stood in the late 1990s. It is considered that the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings have not changed significantly since the UDP inquiry and planning application appeal and in this regard the findings of the Inspectors carry some weight. There is however clear evidence to suggest that the ecological value of the site has changed since the Inspectors’ findings which is borne out by the submitted ecological report. Since the appeal the land has evolved from a grassed paddock, as it was described at that time, to acid and neutral grassland and scrub. The comments of the Inspectors therefore need to be considered in this context. 49

Conclusion on the principle of development:

In conclusion, it is considered that the departure from Policy D3 of the UDP and Paragraph 74 of the NPPF is, on balance, not outweighed by the provision of housing in a sustainable location and the lack of a 5 year housing land supply given the high value of this Urban Greenspace allocation.

Impact on visual amenity:

Policies BE1 and BE2 of the UDP are considerations in relation to design, materials and layout. The layout of buildings should respect any traditional character the area may have. New development should also respect the scale, height and design of adjoining buildings and be in keeping with the predominant character of the area. Chapter 7 of the NPPF emphasises the importance of good design. The scale, appearance, layout and landscaping of the development are reserved matters and are not under consideration although an indicative site layout plan and indicative site sections have been provided.

The development would essentially form an extension of the existing River Holme View development which was built sometime around the early 1990s. The existing cul-de-sac is to be extended into the application site to form a roughly ‘T’ shaped estate road. The indicative site layout shows 10 detached dwellings and two pairs of semi-detached dwellings grouped around the road; this includes a row of 7 detached dwellings parallel to the New Mill Road boundary with a row of 3 larger detached dwellings to the north of the access and the semi-detached dwellings to the south of the access.

The site comprises an area of around 0.49 hectares and 14 dwellings would equate to a development density of around 28 units per hectare. The indicative layout has however been amended during the course of the application to remove development from within a flood zone which lies in the south western part of the site; this reduces the amount of developable site area to approximately 0.35 hectares which equates to a density of 40 dwellings per hectare.

The residential development comprising River Holme View is made up of a mixture of dwelling types. Two storey detached dwellings predominate but there are also some terraced and semi-detached properties, detached bungalows and courtyard style development. Immediately to the east of the site are a row of closely spaced detached houses and a row of terraced houses.

The proposal would form a natural extension of the existing River Holme View development - albeit the proposal would rise up from the existing development which occupies the flatter valley floor - and a mixture of detached and semi- detached dwellings set around a cul-de-sac would generally be in keeping with the character of the area. However, in light of the constraint on development within the south west corner of the site, there is a concern with 50

the indicative layout in that the semi-detached houses have a somewhat cramped form. Nevertheless, the layout is only indicative at this stage and it is considered that this could be addressed through a reserved matters application; for example there would be scope to alter some of the large detached dwellings to the north of the access into semi-detached or even terraced houses.

The density of development on the overall site is comparable to that of River Holme View although there is a disparity when the flood zone is omitted and density is calculated on the developable part of the site only. Nevertheless, it is considered that the density is unlikely to result in any significant detriment to the character of the area. There are parts of River Holme View that are more densely developed than others (for example numbers 22-42 on the west of River Holme View and the terraced houses comprising 71-81) and as such the density of the development would not be wholly out of keeping with the urban grain. What is more, by omitting development from the south western corner this naturally builds in open space and has a benefit in giving greater openness around the public footpath and in relation to existing development. The NPPF requires that developments optimise the potential of a site to accommodate development (paragraph 58) and overall it is considered that the amount of development is acceptable.

Indicative site sections have been provided and demonstrate that the site’s existing topography can be utilised to give the development a stepped profile. Dwellings to the eastern part of the site would be at the highest level and would be partially dug into the sloping ground with the roof areas being broadly level with New Mill Road. Dwellings in the central part of the site would be set further down with the properties gradually becoming lower towards Lancaster Lane. The sections suggest that the properties would be two storeys in height. Officers are satisfied that dwellings of an appropriate scale which respect the topography of the site can be accommodated without having any significant detrimental impact on visual amenity.

There is variation within the design of the dwellings on River Holme View although pitched roof gables are a characteristic feature. This existing development is constructed of stone with concrete tiles to the roofs. It is considered that an acceptable design could be achieved which respects the prevailing local vernacular. Facing materials are to be agreed at reserved matters stage but materials that in keeping with those on River Holme View are likely to be the most appropriate.

As discussed in the previous section of this assessment, the visual amenity value of the open land is considered to be limited and it is relevant to note at this stage one of the main findings of the Inspector when allowing the appeal to application 1998/91665 which was essentially that residential development on this wedge of land could be accommodated without materially harming the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Officers consider that this remains the case on visual grounds.

In conclusion, Officers are satisfied that an acceptable scheme can be agreed that would not adversely affect the visual amenity and character of the area and which would satisfy Policies BE1 and BE2 of the UDP and guidance in the NPPF.

Residential amenity:

Policy BE12 of the UDP sets out the Council’s policy in relation to space about buildings. New dwellings should be designed to provide privacy and open space for their occupants and physical separation from adjacent property and land. Distances less than those specified in the policy will be acceptable if it can be shown that by reason of permanent screening, changes in level or innovative design no detriment would be caused to existing or future occupiers of the dwellings or to any adjacent premises or potential development land.

The indicative site layout suggests that Policy BE12 could be satisfied although careful consideration of the relationship between new dwellings and the curtilage of 238 New Mill Road would be required. Adequate separation distances to other surrounding properties are readily achievable and it is considered that a scheme could be agreed under a reserved matters application that ensured that the amenity of neighbouring properties would not be unduly prejudiced. Furthermore, the indicative layout suggests that minimum separation distances internal to the site can be met, subject to consideration of the dwellings’ internal layout and window arrangements.

Access to the site will be via River Holme View and intensification in the use of this road is unlikely to result in any significant detriment to residential amenity. This remains the case when taking into account any development on the separate parcel of Urban Greenspace to the north which is the subject of a separate planning application for residential development and also takes access off River Holme View.

The site is separated from the adjacent camping and caravan site by a belt of trees and with the River Holme lying in between. At its closest point the application site is approximately 25m from the boundary of the caravan site. It is considered that this relationship would mitigate the potential for any issues arising between the campsite and future occupiers of the development.

Highways issues:

The proposals are to construct a residential development of 14 dwellings on land to the south of the present development served by River Holme View and the A616 New Mill Road.

The site is located at the southern end of River Holme View and to the east of Lancaster Lane. Lancaster Lane currently provides the means of access to the parcel of land. The site is currently not in use and is generally steeply sloping down from the A616 New Mill Road to a public right of way known as Lancaster Lane.

River Holme View is a residential cul de sac with a 5.5m carriageway and footways and street lighting to both sides. It presently serves 74 dwellings along its length and on several minor side streets off it. There is a turning head at its southern end which also abuts a public right of way known as Lancaster Lane which provides access to a single dwelling to the north and leads on to the A616 New Mill Road and a camping / caravan park to the south before joining the A6024 Woodhead Road to the west.

At its northern end River Holme View forms a priority junction with Rockmill Road. The latter is about 7m wide with footways and lighting to both sides. Rockmill Road provides the main access to a small commercial estate known as Brockholes Business Park. Rockmill Road forms a priority junction with the A616 New Mill Road. This junction benefits from sight lines which comply with Manual for Streets.

The A616 New Mill Road forms part of the strategic highway network providing a link between Huddersfield, Brockholes and New Mill and continues towards Sheffield. In the vicinity of the development site it is a single two way carriageway with footways on both sides.

Access:

Vehicular access to the development will be formed by extending River Holme View across the right of way known as Lancaster Lane. An indicative layout shows 14 dwellings. Lancaster Lane will continue north as it does now to join New Mill Road.

Parking and turning spaces within the site are proposed to allow vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear.

Traffic Generation:

The TRICS database has been used to derive the peak hour generation rates for this level of residential development. Whilst the present proposals are for 14 dwellings for the purposes of this report a development of 18 units has been used for robustness and to allow for some scope in the design and layout of the scheme. Using TRICS generation rates for 18 units the following traffic flows can be calculated for the proposed development.

AM Peak: 4 vehicles in and 10 vehicles out

PM Peak: 9 vehicles in and 6 vehicles out

During the busiest peak hour the development could be expected to experience one vehicle arriving at it every 6 and a half minutes on average, and one vehicle departing every 10 minutes, on average.

The cumulative impact of the existing traffic generation and both of the proposed Lancaster Lane development sites (i.e. this application and application 2014/93549) has been considered and the combined traffic generation calculated. During the busiest peak hour this development could see an increase from the existing estimated traffic generation of 1 vehicle in every one and half minutes arriving and one vehicle every two minutes departing.

Accidents:

There have been only 2 recorded injury accidents at the Rockmill Road /A616 new Mill Road junction in the last 5 years.

Both of the incidents occurred in January 2011 a week apart from each other. The first involved a single vehicle (a van) and the second was a collision between a car and a cyclist

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Highways Development Management generally concurs with the findings of the Transport Assessment and there are no objections subject to conditions relating to the approval of a scheme of works for the adoptable estate road and public footpath, approval of all highway retaining structures and approval of measures to restrict vehicle access to New Mill Road via Lancaster Lane. The application complies with Policy T10 of the UDP.

Ecological issues:

The ecological survey report has established that the site consists of several habitats, some of which are Habitats of Principal Importance including acid grassland, neutral grassland and scrub. Some plant species which are present are indicative and typical of these habitats which are currently undergoing natural succession to woodland (the scrub areas). The site also 54

has an important function as a habitat for a protected species. The site therefore has a demonstrable ecological value.

The location of the site also means that it forms part of a broader habitat network. This is because of the site’s proximity and linkages with the land to the south and west which is identified as Hagg Wood. This adjacent area is allocated as a wildlife corridor and Site of Scientific Interest (reclassified as a Special Wildlife Site) on the UDP Proposals Map. Furthermore, the site’s location is such that it would be part of a main habitat network focussed along the River Holme corridor. The relationship between the application site and this adjoining land enhances the ecological significance of the site.

Given the importance of the site in terms of the habitats it provides and the biodiversity which it supports, objections have been raised by the Council’s Environment Unit. This objection is strengthened by the physical connectivity to adjacent natural areas which means that the site contributes to the wider ecological networks in this locale.

The site is considered to have local importance as a site which directly supports biodiversity as well as having a role in supporting wider habitat networks within the surrounding area. These functions would be lost as a result of the development. As discussed earlier in this report (see section on general principle), consideration has been given to the potential for ecological mitigation or compensation however it is considered that adequate measures to mitigate or compensate the biodiversity impacts could not be secured through this application and none have been offered.

Officers consider that the development would result in significant harm to biodiversity and in such circumstances the NPPF indicates that planning permission should be refused.

Flood risk and drainage issues:

The south west corner of the site lies within a medium and high flood risk area (Flood Zones 2 and 3 on the Environment Agency Flood Map). Residential development in such locations should normally be restricted and the indicative layout does not show any buildings in these Flood Zones. The Environment Agency has confirmed that there is no objection to the principle of development provided that there is no development in Flood Zone 3. It would be appropriate to impose this restriction by condition and the agent has confirmed agreement to such a condition.

Detailed consideration of the design and layout of the development at reserved matters stage will be required to satisfy the Environment Agency. This is to ensure that the development does not increase flood risk elsewhere or prejudice future occupiers.

Kirklees Lead Local Flood Authority has not raised any objections to the principle of the development. The application indicates that surface water will

be disposed of by soakaway and this is acceptable in principle. A condition regarding the disposal of surface water is necessary.

Yorkshire Water has not raised any objections to the application subject to conditions. The final layout will need to take into account the public sewers crossing the lower part of the site or the developer will have to make arrangements with Yorkshire Water to relocate the pipes.

Trees:

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has assessed the application and no objections have been raised.

Contributions:

Affordable housing:

Public Open Space:

Policy H18 of the UDP requires the provision of POS on sites put forward for housing development which are over 0.4 hectares. The site area is approx. 0.49 hectares and therefore the requirements of Policy H18 apply.

In order to secure this provision, a standard condition can be imposed. Based on the indicative layout there is the potential for a small amount of POS to be provided on-site however an off-site contribution is likely to be needed to fully satisfy Policy H18.

Education:

The development does not trigger a contribution towards education provision.

Crime Prevention:

Consideration of specific Crime Prevention issues will need to be given at Reserved Matters stage in respect of site layout and design.

Objections:

The main issues raised in the representations relate to the principle of development, visual amenity, residential amenity, highways concerns, flood risk and ecological issues. These matters have all been addressed separately within this report. 56

With regard to physical infrastructure, no objections have been raised by relevant consultees e.g. Yorkshire Water, Kirklees Lead Local Flood Authority and Kirklees Highways Development Management.

With regard to schools, the application is well below the threshold when Education Services would be consulted and the development does not trigger a financial contribution towards education provision. In terms of doctors and dentists, neither of these are facilities over which the local planning authority has any control.

Issues of ground stability and Public Open Space can be fully addressed by conditions.

It is considered that the development would not have any material impact on local tourism.

Conclusion:

Having regard to the specific value of the site as Urban Greenspace Officers consider that the benefits of the development in terms of the provision of housing are not outweighed by the ecological harm and therefore there is no justification for a departure from Policy D3 of the UDP. The harm that would be caused by the loss of the open space and the associated ecological impacts mean that the development is unsustainable and is therefore contrary to 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

REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. The site is allocated as Urban Greenspace on the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Proposals Map and the proposed development is contrary to Policy D3 of the UDP which relates to development on such sites. The site is considered to have ecological value as open space and as such it is not deemed to be surplus to requirements and the development is also therefore contrary to paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The loss of the value of the Urban Greenspace is considered to outweigh all other material considerations, including the delivery of new housing.

2. The site includes Habitats of Principal Importance and functions as a habitat for a protected species. Furthermore, the location of the site and its linkages to adjacent natural areas, including land allocated as a wildlife corridor and a Special Wildlife Site on the Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map, enhances the overall biodiversity value of this site because of its contribution to local habitat networks. The development would result in significant harm to biodiversity which cannot be adequately mitigated or compensated for and as such the development is contrary to paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework which indicates that in such circumstances planning permission should be refused.

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

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received Design & Access - - 11 December 2014 Statement Highway Statement - - 20 November 2014 Location Plan - - 20 November 2014 Indicative Site Layout - - 11 December 2014 Indicative Site Sections - - 20 November 2014 Ecology Report - - 15 December 2014 Flood Risk Assessment - - 20 November 2014

Application No: 2014/92737

Type of application: 60 - OUTLINE APPLICATION

Proposal: Outline application for erection of 5 dwellings

Location: adj, 8, Miry Lane, Netherthong, Holmfirth, HD9 3UQ

Grid Ref: 413532.0 409922.0

Ward: Holme Valley South Ward

Applicant: Steven Buttershaw & Kust Schramm

Agent: Angus Ellis, WHpArchitecture

Target Date: 27-Feb-2015

Recommendation: OASD - CONDITIONAL OUTLINE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DELEGATION TO OFFICERS

------

LOCATION PLAN

38 ST MARY'S RISE 18

11 1

16 7 20

ST MARY'S RISE 18

12 1

ST MARY'S WAY 7

20 18 8

Issues © Kirklees Council 100019241 2008 B k H

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

The application seeks outline planning permission for residential development with details of access and layout to be considered, all other matters being reserved for subsequent consideration. 59

The site is part of a larger area allocated as Provisional Open Land (POL) on the Councils Unitary Development Plan with the remainder of the POL site proposed as Public Open Space.

Following the withdrawal of the Core Strategy the Council can no longer demonstrate a required deliverable housing land supply sufficient for 5 years, and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) relevant policies for the supply of housing are out of date. In such circumstances no significant weight can be given to its content. In accordance with NPPF there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, or that specific NPPF policies indicate development should be restricted.

The proposal constitutes sustainable development. The application site with the improvements proposed to Miry Lane can be accessed safely in highway terms and the loss of a small section of a hedgerow and trees which do not form part of the protected group would be replaced by compensatory planting, enhancement and mitigation measures. In terms of layout there would be no harmful effect on visual or residential amenity.

All other material planning considerations, relevant UDP and national planning policy objectives are considered to be addressed, subject to Conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL OUTLINE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO:

i) THE APPLICANT ENTERING INTO A PLANNING OBLIGATION TO SECURE THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

ii) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO IMPOSE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS

iii) SUBJECT TO THERE BEING NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE THAT WOULD ALTER THIS RECOMMENDATION, ISSUE THE DECISION NOTICE

2. INFORMATION

The application is brought before the Strategic Committee as the application represents a departure from the Development Plan.

3. PROPOSAL/SITE DESCRIPTION

Site Description

The application site comprises 0.4 hectare of land that is steeply sloping from north to south. The site is surrounded by residential properties to the east and 60

south with open fields to the north and west of the site. The application site is part of a larger area of Provisional Open Land and lies to the southern part of the wider site.

Proposal

The application seeks outline permission for residential development with details of access and layout to be considered, all other matters being reserved. The layout proposes five dwellings to be served from Miry Lane. The proposal would involve widening of the highway, formation of a 1.50m wide footway shown to be extended from outside no. 8 Miry Lane to the bottom part of the application site along the proposed new access.

The indicative scale of properties shows the proposed dwellings to be two storey in height

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

2015/90580 – Outline application for erection of 7 dwellings and formation of two sites access points – validated 26th Feb 2015 – pending decision

2013/93081 – Outline application for residential development for 18 dwellings - recommended for refusal on road safety, visual amenity from the loss of hedgerow/trees and biodiversity within the hedgerow – withdrawn before determination

1978/60/0434 - Outline application for residential development. Refused and dismissed at appeal.

This appeal is historic and predated the preparation of the Local Plan for the area, which has since been replaced by the UDP. As such, little weight should be afforded the decision.

5. PLANNING POLICY

The application site is forms part of a larger area of Provisional Open Land (POL) on the Unitary Development Plan, the remainder of which is shown as Public Open Space.

Kirklees Unitary Development Plan

D5 – Provisional Open Land BE1 – Design principles BE2 – Design of new development BE12 – Space about buildings standards BE23 – New developments to incorporate crime prevention measures G6 – Development having regard to contamination 61

NE9 – Protection of mature trees EP11 – Incorporation of integral landscaping scheme which protects or enhances ecology H18 – Provision of open space

T10 – Highway safety considerations T16 – Provision of safe, convenient and pleasant pedestrian routes within developments T19 – Parking standards

National Planning Policy Framework

‘Achieving Sustainable Development’ ‘Core Planning Principles’ Section 4 - Promoting sustainable transport Section 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7 – Requiring good design Section 8 – Promoting healthy communities Section 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Other Guidance

Planning Practice Guidance – Open Space

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. Highway Development Management: Support on receipt of engineered sections and subject to conditions

K.C. Environmental Services: Support subject to conditions

K.C. Arboricultural Officer: Support subject to conditions including recommendations within the arboricultural methods statement accompanying the application

K.C. Conservation & Design: Support (see assessment below)

K.C. Ecologist: Support subject to conditions to include enhancement measures including retention of Veteran tree

K. C. Strategic Drainage: Support subject to conditions

K.C Landscape architects: Proposed landscape should be well thought out, of high quality, enhance the area and strengthen the green corridor along Miry lane.

Yorkshire Water: There is no public sewer network in Miry Lane outside the development site.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer: Comments provided in relation to boundary treatments to be no less than 2.1m in height for the houses backing on to the POS and door and window specifications. These matters can be secured via condition, where appropriate.

7. REPRESENTATIONS

The application has been advertised by neighbour letter and site notice. The final publicity period expired on the 24th November 2014. 228 letters of objection have been received. The concerns of which are summarised below:

Highways:

• Lack of details relating to height of retaining and boundary/ walls • Approaches to site are not suitable for HGV’s • Site access unsuitable for increased traffic as is steep, winding single track sharp bend and with on-street parking only one car could pass. • Lack of footway and unmade surface • Access through Netherthong and Deanhouse problematic because of narrow/poorly maintained roads, through small village. • Additional sections/ information is vague makes no reference to excavations • Increase highway safety concerns, adding to congestion problems, existing access/parking issues in the village will be worsened including around school run time. • Construction traffic and proposed would exacerbate access/safety issues. • Fire Service has had difficulties due to parked cars. • There have been a number of car accidents in close proximity of site • Miry Lane has previously had flooding problems and development would worsen this. It can be impassable in extreme weather of snow and ice. • Local school has raised issues of highway safety previously. • Many people drive far too fast for the local road conditions.

Sustainability:

• Brownfield sites should be used instead of this greenfield site. • Sustainability issues with this location including distance to major centre/shops etc. and reliance on cars. • Proposal would not have any employment benefit. • Site is ‘lowest tier in Local Development Framework’ so the village has the least potential for development. • The main service centre for Netherthong is Holmfirth. • Given location and local employment opportunities, most residents of the development would be commuters. • The development does not support “the transition to a low carbon economy” (National Planning Policy Framework) • The bus service is limited • The ‘Hopper’ bus service to Holmfirth is under threat due to funding cuts. • Totally unsuitable for people with prams, bikes, less abled people and people using mobility scooters. • The shop in Netherthiong sells a very limited range of goods. • The village has no doctor’s, dentist or chemist.

Landscape / ecology:

• The Veteran oak tree to be retained will block sight lines for traffic entering in and out of the access. • No information/details of retaining walls/ depth of foundations which can affect the long term viability of protected trees including the veteran oak tree. • Proposals would result in the loss of trees that are protected and loss of hedgerow • New landscape could potentially cause loss of light and damage to foundations of existing trees • Road widening would impact on protected trees on western side of Miry Lane from excavation works under tree canopy • The proposed 'no dig drawing' submitted by the applicant is not appropriate in constructing a suitable adoptable highway on Miry Lane which would require significant excavation • Site is full of wildlife interest (inc. owls, bats, squirrels). • Further pressure on shrinking areas of wildlife habitat – such areas of unimproved grassland provide important patches of relatively un- managed ground which act as reservoirs for species within built-up areas. • Site is not currently in agricultural use and is currently vacant. • Site has trees of significant quality which add to the value of the area. • Residential development needs public space • Inadequate and misleading information submitted relating to siting, size and depth of trees.

Planning policy:

• Proposal is contrary to Policy D5 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan, which makes it clear that planning permission for such land will not be granted other than for very limited purposes. • Other POL sites should be developed first, in more suitable locations. • Not in sustainable location • this POL application is approved then it may set a precedent for the other two POL sites in Netherthong to be brought forward for residential.

Heritage:

• Development will impact upon character of Conservation Area. • Any development extending towards the Conservation Area would in effect enclose it and eliminate visual permeability into it from the surrounding Green Belt.

Infrastructure capacity:

• The village is full and already at breaking point. • Netherthong primary school is already full and cannot be extended. Holmfirth High School is also full. • Adequate number of houses already available in area. • Existing drainage/sewerage problems will be worsened causing flooding • Area experiences power cuts which would be worsened. • Foul/surface drainage may not work given changes in levels in and around the site and adversely impact on the neighbouring properties.

Other matters raised:

• Nothing has changed since the last withdrawn application (13/93081) and must be rejected on the same grounds. • 2.1m fence would be an eyesore • Loss of privacy from upper floors of proposed property • Ownership of the strip of grass verges is unclear • Site has community benefit as dog walkers and should not be lost. • Development may suffer from noise from local businesses which would affect local trade and employment. • There are many houses for sale in the local area, exhibiting a lack of demand. Some local developments with planning permission have not been built.

Additional representations:

Jason McCartney MP has commented on the application as follows:

“Thank you for your email to say that the above application has been updated by the developer. I would like to add further comments to my objection to this development to take into account these updates.

1. The wildlife corridor will be separated by the applicant’s entrance road, this goes against the entire purpose of such a safe corridor threatening wildlife such as bats and owls. 2. The excavations envisaged on Miry Lane will also destroy a significant number of tree roots further impacting on wildlife. 3. The design proposed by the applicant goes against equality of highway design as set out in the Governments Manual of streets as it excludes wheelchair users, pushchairs, elderly persons and cyclists.

I hope these further points are taken alongside my previous objection to this development”

Initial comments made:

“I would like to add my objection to those of other residents regarding the above development. This is yet another unsustainable development on green field land – the congested roads, the lack of adequate public transport, the distance to amenities like the doctors and the lack of school places all remain the same as for developments that that have been recently submitted. In fact the cumulative effect of these submissions makes the situation in Netherthong increasing difficult.

The access from Miry Lane is also a problem which is too close to protected oak trees. This loss of habitat on the existing field boundary will cause unacceptable damage to the local environment.

I hope the planning committee take these issues into account and reject this application”.

Holme Valley Parish Council – Object to the application on highways, transport and environmental grounds:

1) Lack of safe and suitable access to/from the site, to access everyday local amenities, town centre facilities, schools and transport system; also not within acceptable walking distance. 2) Topography of site and local road layouts in area will intensify use of vehicles as opposed to walking/cycling, intensifying the already difficult traffic and pedestrian conditions.

3) Inappropriate access for people with reduced mobility (e.g. the elderly and disabled, wheel chair and pram users), due to proposed steps and steep gradients. 4) Not conducive to walking or cycling, due to steep gradients, particularly during inclement weather conditions. 5) Poor provision for safe, convenient and pleasant pedestrian routes, due to narrow or non-existent footways combined with steep slopes, blind bends and parked cars, particularly on Miry Lane and Giles Street (route to be taken by school children). 6) Poor pedestrian access to schools – nearest high school would be outside preferred maximum walking distance of 2km); also concerns that all schools in vicinity are already over-subscribed. 7) Inappropriate access to public transport (bus and rail) – the bus service in this area is inadequate, with insufficient bus stops and not conducive to use for commuting purposes. 8) Part of the site is an important ancient hedgerow (as defined in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997; the ancient hedgerows and veteran trees form a natural habitat and wildlife corridor along Miry Lane and must be protected. Any removal (in whole or part) of the ancient hedgerow is not justified, to achieve the proposed roadway. 9) Some of the trees have TPOs on them and must continue to be protected. 10) Concerns re drainage – Dean Road is particularly prone to flooding. 11) Concerns that foul water system is outdated and is incapable of supporting this development. 12) Inappropriate development between Netherthong and the Green Belt (being bordered on two sides by Green Belt). 13) Such a development would not be sustainable and is not in keeping with the conservation area’s local character and distinctiveness based on the character of the built environment and landscape alongside the proposed development.

Members also request the following: a) That this development should be rejected, to continue to protect this greenfield site as ‘Provisional Open Land.’ b) That this application should be referred to the Planning Sub-Committee for consideration. c) That consideration be given to the decision on a previous application (and appeal) regarding this site: planning consent was refused in 1978 on the grounds that “The proposed development would constitute and undesirable extension of development from the village of Netherthong in a prominent position and would set a precedent for further extension of developments westwards. In addition, it is considered that the proposal would increase the concentration of traffic in the vicinity of the site and in the village centre, which would not be in the interests of the amenities of the area.” The decision went to appeal (ref T/APP/5113/A/19/2558/G2) and was subsequently dismissed.

8. ASSESSMENT

Principle of development:

The application site includes land designated as Provisional Open Land (POL). Policy D5 of the UDP states that “planning permission will not be granted other than for development required in connection with established uses, changes of use to alternative open land uses or temporary uses which would not prejudice the contribution of the site to the character of its surroundings and the possibility of development in the longer term”

The weight that can be given to Policy D5 in determining applications for housing must be assessed in the context of NPPF paragraphs 215 and 49.

In the context of paragraph 215, the wording of policy D5 is consistent with NPPF paragraph 85 concerning safeguarded land. However, with regard to paragraph 49 the council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. Relevant information is provided in the annual monitoring report published on 31 December 2013. (www.kirklees.gov.uk/business/regeneration/ldf/AnnualMonitoringReport.aspx )

The weight that can be given to policy D5 in these circumstances was assessed in October 2013 by a planning inspector in his consideration of an appeal against refusal of permission for housing on a POL site at Ashbourne Drive, Cleckheaton (ref: APP/Z4718/A/13/2201353). The inspector concluded (paragraph 42):

“The lack of a five-year supply, on its own, weighs in favour of the development. In combination with other paragraphs in the Framework concerning housing delivery the weight is increased. The lack of a five-year supply also means that policies in the UDP concerning housing land are out of date. Policy D5 clearly relates to housing and so it, too, is out of date and its weight is reduced accordingly. This significantly reduces the weight that can be given to the policy requirement for there to be a review of the plan before the land can be released. In these circumstances, the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged.”

The presumption referred to by the inspector is set out in NPPF paragraph 14 which states that where relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted “unless any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole, or that specific NPPF policies indicate development should be restricted”. Footnote 9 lists examples of restrictive policies but this does not include policies concerning safeguarded land.

Sustainability:

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the purpose of the planning system “is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable 68

development.” (para 6). NPPF notes that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in peoples’ quality of life (para 9). NPPF identifies the dimensions of sustainable development as economic, social and environmental roles (para 7). It states that these roles are mutually dependent and should not be undertaken in isolation. “Economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.” (para 8). NPPF stresses the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The developer has submitted a supporting document on sustainability, and the proposal has been assessed against each role as follows:

Economic: A proposal for five dwellings would bring some economic gains by providing business opportunities for contractors and local suppliers. In accordance with the NPPF new houses will support growth and satisfy housing needs thereby contribute to the building of a strong economy. The proposals would be creating additional demand for local services and potentially increasing use and viability of local bus services

Social: There will be a social gain through the provision of new housing at a time of general shortage that has good access to local facilities and with an area to be dedicated to Public Open Space.

Environmental: The development of a greenfield site represents an environmental loss. However, although national policy encourages the use of brownfield land for development it also makes clear that no significant weight can be given to the loss of greenfield sites to housing when there is a national priority to increase housing supply. On balance the proposal is considered to meet the paragraph 8 test.

The Services Biodiversity officer advises whilst there is a tree corridor/hedge along Miry Lane, the application field is improved grassland and of little ecological interest. The proposal would result in removal of part of the holly hedge to enable the construction of the proposed access to the site. The removal of a short strip of this hedge would be compensated for by appropriate mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures being incorporated into the development and other measures to be taken prior to development. These can be secured by conditions.

In terms of accessibility, the NPPF does not set out specific criteria to determine the sustainability of development. However, accessibility tests are set out in the RSS (table 13.9). Although the RSS has been revoked by the current Government, it remains the latest plan that has been subject to public examination and is therefore currently the most sound basis for assessment under NPPF paragraph 14. The application has been assessed against the tests as follows:

Test 1: is there a local service centre within 1200m walking distance?

Response: The site is approximately 2,200 metres away from Holmfirth district centre, via New Road. However, the site is within 1,200m of local facilities in Netherthong including a food store and two public houses.

Test 2: is there a bus stop within 800m with a service of at least a 30 minute frequency and a journey time of less than 30 minutes (25 minutes bus and 5 minutes walking) to a town centre offering employment, leisure and retail opportunities?

Response: The site is 700m from a stop served by the 308 which provides an hourly service to Huddersfield taking 40 minutes. St Mary’s Rise is served by the H5 bus, which forms part of the Holmfirth minibus network and provides an hourly service to Holmfirth bus station. The site fails to meet the final part of this test in that the frequency and journey time to a town centre offering employment, leisure and retail opportunities is served by an hourly service taking 40 minutes.

Test 3: is there a primary school within 1600m? (This equates to a 20 minute walk)

Test 4: is there a surgery or other primary health facility within 1600m?

Response: The site is approximately 600m from Netherthong Primary School; the site is within 1,900m of GP surgeries at Holmfirth Memorial Hospital. The H5 bus provides an hourly link to the GP surgeries.

Only limited access to sustainable modes of transport is available and the development does not fully meet the four tests to determine the accessibility of development. On balance however, the proposal is considered to be sustainable for the purposes of the NPPF.

Assessing the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole in accordance with the paragraph 14 test, the environmental harm arising from the development of this Greenfield site and the marginal disadvantages in its accessibility are considered to be clearly outweighed by the benefits to be gained from the provision of housing. The principle of development is therefore acceptable.

Impact on visual amenity:

A full assessment of the scale and appearance of the development would be made upon the submission of reserved matters. Proposals for new development should respect the architectural qualities of surrounding development and their materials of construction in order to preserve and enhance the appearance of the area as stated under Policy BE5 of the UDP. This is reiterated in section 12 of the NPPF.

UDP Policies are BE1 and BE2 require that the layout of buildings should respect any traditional character the area may have. All development should be of good quality design that such that it contributes to a built environment and creates a sense of local identity and must respect the scale, height and design of adjoining buildings and be in keeping with the predominant character of the area.

The internal access road would be central to the proposed five properties and dictates the siting of these dwellings. In the layout shown, the road and properties would appear staggered with those on St Marys Way. However, this is not uncommon having regard to the layout of the highway network and grain of the surrounding development.

Given the sloping nature of the site, extensive excavations and infilling would be required within the site. All plots are shown to provide reasonably sized enclosed garden areas including parking provision with space for waste bins for each plot. Given the size of the application site, Officers are of the opinion that five dwellings can be adequately accommodated without appearing out of context.

With regard to the scale of properties, an indicative scale is submitted showing them to be two storey in height. Whilst, this is a matter to be considered at reserved matters or full application stage, the agent has been advised the scale of properties would need to comparable to those on St Mary’s Way to ensure the proposal integrates with the visual amenity of the surrounding development and to accord with Policies BE1 and BE2 of the UDP. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed properties could have an overbearing impact with loss of privacy for occupiers of existing properties to Miry Lane. (Discussed in detail below)

With regards to design and external appearance, these are matters which are be considered in detail upon submission of reserved matters or full application taking into account the above policies and the impact on the character and appearance of the surroundings.

Heritage assets, trees and ecology:

The application site lies close to the Netherthong Conservation Area, to the south east of the site. The proposed access is shown to be formed off Miry Lane, which is one of the gateways into the Conservation Area. This section of Miry Lane with its narrow width and mix of trees, hedgerows and drystone walls defines a significant approach into Netherthong.

Conservation Officers initially raised concerns that the proposals to form the access road to serve the development would harm this tranquil and rural gateway due to the significant amount of work required which would include extending the existing footway and street lighting provision on the eastern side of Miry Lane up to the new site access and the loss of boundary walling/hedging to form a 4.8m wide access with visibility splays of 2.4m x43m. In addition the Conservation officer raises concern about the level of 71

engineering work which would lead to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the setting of the Netherthong Conservation Area, thereby failing to comply with paragraph 134 of the NPPF.

Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

At the request of officers further information including engineered sections has been submitted to shown how the works to provide the new access, extension of the footway from outside 8 Miry Lane to the application site and road widening would be undertaken. From this information it is evident that the proposal would result in the removal of a small section of the holly hedge a Sycamore and Elder tree which, although providing some amenity value are considered by the Services Arboricultural Officer to be of limited value and are not included as part of the protected group of trees. The widening of the road, would result in the loss of the grass verge along the western edge of the Miry Lane, no works are proposed along Miry Lane, to the top side of the application site.

The loss of the holly hedge and two trees would be compensated by appropriate mitigation, with replacement planting to form part of the landscape scheme. This would be conditioned to include a woodland mix of trees and shrubs to create open woodland in the area proposed for the POS and landscaping along the site frontage to Miry Lane. In light of this further information the Conservation Officer has subsequently advised that whilst the proposals would lead to less than substantial harm to the setting of the nearby Conservation Area, this is outweighed by the substantial public benefits the proposal brings, in terms of enhanced landscaping. The other public benefits include highway improvements along this section of Miry Lane and the proposals to provide housing at a time of general shortage. As such the proposals would accord with paragraph 134 of the NPPF.

Turning to the impact on the ecology & trees within the site, paragraph 118 of the NPPF states “when determining applications Local Planning Authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity” by applying a number of principles. These include the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in and around developments. UDP Policy EP11 requests that applications for planning permission should incorporate landscaping which protects/enhances the ecology of the site.

Firstly with regard to trees, in an initial assessment of the proposed works, the Services Arboricultural Officer raised a number of concerns relating to the impact on the long term viability of trees to be retained including those on the opposite side of the application site as a result of the proposed road widening. Subsequently further information was requested in the form of an accurate tree survey, arboricultural method statement and engineered sections to assess the impact of the proposed works on the roots and future viability of

the protected trees to be retained, including those on the opposite side of the application site.

The creation of the new access would require the removal of a section of the hedgerow along the eastern part of Miry Lane and as noted above the removal of two other trees, an Elder and a single stemmed Sycamore as identified on the drawing within the tree survey. These are identified within the tree survey accompanying the application to be of low amenity value.

The Services Arboricultural Officer is satisfied that the proposed works to widen the road to end at the carriageway edging would not affect the long term viability of the trees to be retained on both sides of the road provided that the remaining margin verge edge along the western side of the road is reinstated as a grass verge.

The loss of the small section of the hedgerow, which does not form part of the protected group, and two trees which are of low amenity value can be compensated by appropriate mitigation measures to include new planting, conditioned to form part of any future landscape proposals at reserved matters or full application stage, along with the conditions suggested by the Services Arboricultural Officer. This would accord with Policy NE9 of the UDP, in that satisfactory precautions will be taken to ensure the continued viability of the trees to be retained on site and on the opposite side of the road.

With regards to the ecological value of the site, the Services Biodiversity Officer advises that the hedgerow is used by foraging bats and nesting birds. As stated above, the proposal would result in the removal of a short section of hedgerow. In light of the Arboricultural method statement indicating measures to be employed during improvement and access works, the root zones of the remaining trees would be protected.

This together with the new planting proposed is considered to provide a semi- natural buffer between the gardens of the new development and the existing hedge line. The Services Biodiversity Officer is satisfied that the removal of a short section of hedge is acceptable, provided appropriate replacement compensatory planting and mitigation measures in the form of bat and bird boxes are provided integral to the new build. Subject to conditions the proposal is thus in accordance with Policy EP11 of the UDP and guidance in the NPPF.

Impact on residential amenity:

Policy BE12 of the UDP sets out the normally recommended minimum distances between habitable and non-habitable room windows for new dwellings. New dwellings should be designed to provide privacy and open space for their occupants and physical separation from adjacent property and land. Distances less than those specified will be acceptable if it can be shown that by reason of permanent screening, changes in level or innovative design

no detriment would be caused to existing or future occupiers of the dwellings or to any adjacent premises.

It is anticipated the proposed dwellings would have their main aspect towards the north and south with front elevations facing onto the proposed internal access road. Internally within the layout, the proposed dwellings would have an acceptable distance between them. The layout would also achieve adequate distance between the proposed and existing properties to the east on St Mary’s Way.

The properties most likely to be affected are to the south, namely nos. 6 and 8 Miry Lane. These are set at a considerably lower level than the application site. The layout shows plots 1 and 2 at an oblique angle to these properties. A distance of 20m would be achieved at the nearest point between the corner of plot no. 2 and existing property at no. 8 Miry Lane. Having regard to the levels between existing and proposed dwellings, officers are satisfied that the layout would not adversely affect the residential amenity of occupiers of existing properties.

However, officers are concerned about the indicative scale which indicates the proposed properties to be two storey in height. This would not be acceptable in terms of impact on visual amenity and moreover the potential overlooking and overbearing impact it would have on existing properties to Miry Lane, south of the application site.

The agent has been fully appraised on these issues and acknowledges officers concerns. This will however be a matter for detailed consideration at reserved matters stage.

Impact on Highways and road safety:

UDP Policy T10 states that “New development will not normally be permitted if it will create or materially add to highway safety or environmental problems or, in the case of development which will attract or generate a significant number of journeys, it cannot be served adequately by the existing highway network”. Policy T19 addresses car parking in relation to the maximum standards set out in Appendix 2 to the UDP.

The section of Miry Lane fronting the western site boundary, from which access is proposed, is a narrow country lane of poor surface condition with steep gradients. The metalled surface of Miry Lane in the vicinity of the proposed site access is around 3.5m wide with grass verges to either side and provides insufficient width for two way vehicle movements. Previously it was noted, there was evidence of vehicles overrunning the verge to pass opposing traffic. In terms of vertical alignment the average gradient of Miry Lane along the site frontage is around 18% (1:5.5).

It is acknowledged that Miry Lane is lightly trafficked and that due to geometry constraints vehicle speeds are low. Notwithstanding this, the proposed residential development would result in an intensification of use of Miry Lane 74

in terms of both vehicular and pedestrian movements.

The proposal includes the widening of the existing road width to 4.8m, along a length of approximately 40m below the proposed access and provision of a 1.50m footpath. Engineered sections were requested by the Highway Officer to assess and establish how and whether the proposals could be achieved and to assess the impact on the boundary wall of no. 8 Miry Lane. The sections show the existing highway to be raised by approximately 300mm and re-grading of the grass verge on both sides of the road. The verge along the western side of Miry Lane would be grass and to the east, details of re- grading would need to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This can be controlled by condition.

In conclusion; it is considered that traffic generated by the proposed development for five dwellings can be safely accommodated within the local highway network and that the proposal would not result in any undue highway safety implications. Subject to suitable conditions the application is considered acceptable by Highway Officers who are satisfied that the sections submitted indicate a technical solution and would accord with the above mentioned highway Policies of the UDP and the NPPF.

Drainage issues:

The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to take account of climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk and water supply. New development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure.

It is acknowledged the submission has indicated an intention to drain the site via soakaways. The Strategic Drainage Officer is concerned from the risk of re-emergence on steep sided slopes and the flow of moisture around proposed properties and advises:

“A watercourse is available, with a discharge restriction of 5l/s either directly or via surface water sewers adjacent to the site. Sustainable drainage can be incorporated into the development even where soakaways are not viable or carry a risk to new or adjacent properties. Examples include incorporating rainwater harvesting into the development. Soakaways for use on the adoptable highway should have a clear flood route off site with no risk to property. Soakaways for houses should be positioned with flood routing in mind. The relationship of the site to the surrounding areas in terms of flood risk, should also be analysed both for the construction and occupation phases. There is a strong possibility of run off both from the site in construction phase and to the site from surrounding field. Perimeter drainage systems could be solution”

Subject to the imposition of suitable drainage conditions, as suggested by the drainage officer, including temporary drainage solutions to protect adjacent properties during the construction phase, where run off can be increased due to vegetation and soil strip, it is considered the site can be adequately accommodated without risk to surrounding properties, in accordance with advice in the NPPF.

Public Open spaces:

Policy H18 of the UDP requires the provision of POS on housing sites of 0.4 hectares or more at a ratio of 30 sq m per dwelling. To the north of the proposed development, the balance of the POL allocation is within the ownership of the applicant and is proposed as informal POS. This area of land is approx.. 0.6 Ha in area, well in excess of the 150 sq m of POS required.

Following consultation with the Services Landscape Officer, the provision of a non-equipped area of informal POS is considered to be acceptable.

A detailed scheme for the landscaping of the POS and arrangements for subsequent maintenance can be secured by condition.

The applicant has confirmed a willingness to enter into a planning obligation that provides for the balance of the POL allocation to be retained as POS.

Crime Prevention issues:

NPPF, paragraph, 69 advises that development should aim to achieve safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion. Design and Access statements should demonstrate how crime prevention measures have been considered in the design of the proposal and how the design reflects the attributes of safe, sustainable places set out in Safer Places – The Planning System and Crime Prevention.

The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has reviewed the submitted layout and in light of the POS area to the north of the site, has provided comments in respect to boundary treatment advising, fencing to a height of 1.8m is not tall enough to give adequate protection against intrusion into rear gardens where encroachment can be made unseen from public space.

In order to address this concern it is considered reasonable to require boundary treatment along the northern site boundary be a minimum of 2.1m in height. Officers are satisfied that adequate boundary treatment can be secured via an appropriate condition in order to ensure compliance with Policy BE23 of the UDP as well as chapter 8 of the NPPF and to alleviate the potential concerns raised by the Police Architectural Liaison Officer.

In addition, it is also essential that door and window security specification meets with the current guidance given by ‘Secured by Design’. An informative note shall be included on the decision notice advising the applicant/ developer 76

of these measures to be taken into account, including a link to the above guidance.

Land Contamination:

To ensure that any unexpected contamination is dealt with appropriately and to protect the future occupants of the development would not be at risk of contamination Environmental Service officers have recommended standard conditions in the event of unexpected contamination. This will be imposed on the decision notice to accord with Policy G6 of the UDP and Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

Objections:

Insofar as representations received that have not been addressed through the officer’s assessment, these are responded to as follows:

Highways: • Lack of details relating to height of retaining and boundary/ walls

Response: Given the sloping nature of the site and topography of surrounding land it is acknowledged that retaining walls/ structures will be required. The application is submitted in outline with details of access and layout to be considered. Details of retaining walls/ structures will be required as part of any subsequent reserved matters submission.

• Additional sections/ information is vague makes no reference to excavations

Response: The sections/information submitted relate to the works proposed to widen the road and provide a footpath. Highway Officers are satisfied that the proposals would not require extensive excavations and would result in the raising of the existing road level by 300mm.

In addition, it is noted Paragraph 120 states that “The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity………should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.”

Details of retaining walls would be required by Highway Structures Officers for retaining walls that would retain land adjacent to a highway.

In accordance with the NPPF the developer/ applicant would be responsible for ensuring that adequate site investigation was carried out by a competent person to demonstrate that the site can be developed without unacceptable risks to the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings or the existing occupiers of neighbouring properties from land stability. Details of retaining walls and boundary treatment would be conditioned and should form part of

any subsequent applications to accord with the requirements of the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance

Landscape / ecology: • The Veteran oak tree to be retained will block sight lines for traffic entering in and out of the access.

Response: Highway Officers are satisfied this is not the case, as the tree would not be in the sightline proposed.

• New landscape could potentially cause loss of light and damage to foundations of existing trees/dwellings • Response: The proposed landscaping is shown to be an adequate distance from existing dwellings.

• Inadequate and misleading information submitted relating to siting, size and depth of trees.

Response: The information/details were amended to show accurately the siting and size of trees following concerns about the accuracy of information raised by the Services Tree Officer.

Infrastructure capacity: • Netherthong Primary School is already full and cannot be extended. Holmfirth High School is also full.

• Adequate number of houses already available in area.

Response: Whilst these concerns are noted they are not valid planning concerns when considering an application for five dwellings.

• Existing drainage/sewerage problems will be worsened causing flooding

• Foul/surface drainage may not work given changes in levels in and around the site and adversely impact on the neighbouring properties.

Response: Drainage issues have been considered by the Councils Strategic Drainage Officer who recommends a number of conditions to be imposed should the application be approved, including the provision of temporary drainage solutions to protect adjacent properties during the construction phase

Other matters raised: • 2.1m fence would be an eyesore

Response: The Police Architectural Liaison Officer recommends that fencing to a height of 2.1m be provided to give adequate protection to rear gardens 78

along the northern boundary of the site. It is considered that this would not unduly detract from the visual amenity of the area and is necessary to protect the amenity of occupiers of the development

• Ownership of the strip of grass verges is unclear

Response: Miry Lane is adopted and the grass verge is likely to be in the ownership of the Council. This is being investigated and will be reported to members in the update report.

Conclusion:

Following the withdrawal of the Core Strategy the Council can no longer demonstrate a required deliverable housing land supply sufficient for 5 years and in accordance with the NPPF relevant policies for the supply of housing are out of date. In such circumstances no significant weight can be given to its content.

The application would provide for public open space on the balance of the POL site and there would be no materially harmful effect on highway safety visual or residential amenity, from the proposed layout.

In such circumstances it is considered that there are no adverse impacts of granting permission which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole, or that specific NPPF policies indicate development should be restricted. In such circumstances the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL OUTLINE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO:

iii) THE APPLICANT ENTERING INTO A PLANNING OBLIGATION TO SECURE THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

iv) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO IMPOSE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS

iii) SUBJECT TO THERE BEING NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE THAT WOULD ALTER THIS RECOMMENDATION, ISSUE THE DECISION NOTICE

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

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received Location plan 01 A 11th Sept 2014 Existing site levels 02 11th Sept 2014 Proposed site 03 G 16th Dec 2014 block/layout plan with service vehicle swept paths Location plan with area 04 20th Jan 2015 for POS & extended garden areas Engineered Sections 1405401 B 11th March 2015 with grass verge Transport Statement 14054 dated 11th Sept 2014 August 2014 Tree Survey 14106 by James 3rd Nov 2014 Royston Arboricultural Method 14106MS 3rd Nov 2014 Statement

Application No: 2014/93248

Type of application: 60m - OUTLINE APPLICATION

Proposal: Outline planning application for a residential development

Location: Land off, Stoney Bank Lane, Holmfirth

Grid Ref: 415572.0 409817.0

Ward: Holme Valley South Ward

Applicant: S Douglas

Agent: Andy Rushby, Assent Planning Consultancy Ltd

Target Date: 09-Feb-2015

Recommendation: OASD - CONDITIONAL OUTLINE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DELEGATION TO OFFICERS

------

LOCATION PLAN

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

Application Details Type of Development Residential Scale of Development Site Area: 2.38ha Units: Indicatively 53 dwellings No. Jobs Created or Retained Policy UDP allocation Provisional Open Land (POL) Independent Viability Required No Consultation/Representation Individual Support (No.) 60 Individual Objection (No.) 69 Petition 27 Standardised Letters Ward Member Interest Yes Cllr Nigel Patrick has made comments Statutory Consultee No Objections Contributions • Affordable Housing Yes – Standard Condition to be applied • Education Yes – Standard Condition to be applied • Public Open Space Yes – Standard Condition to be applied • Highways Yes – Contribution to New Mill junction improvement; provision of a resident metro card scheme Other Issues Any Council Interest? No Pre-application planning No advice? Pre-App Consultation Yes 20 comments received by the Undertaken? applicant, submitted with application Comment on Application The application is recommended for conditional outline approval.

RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL OUTLINE PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO: • SECURE A CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW MILL JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME • 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 Strategic Planning Committee in accordance with the Delegation Agreement as the development proposed represents a departure from the Councils Unitary Development Plan.

3. PROPOSAL/SITE DESCRIPTION

Site: The application site forms a piece of land located off Stoney Bank Lane/Road in the Thongsbridge area of the district. The site is an open greenfield site which is 2.38 hectares in area and is currently used for animal grazing. Adjacent the site to the north east is a collection of 2 and 3 storey dwellings which are accessed off Stoney Bank Lane. To the east and south east of the site are a number of dwellings of varying design and scale which are located along Stoney Bank Lane and Stoney Bank Road. To the west of the site is a row of mature trees covered by a preservation order, beyond which is an open greenfield site defined as urban greenspace on the UDP. To the north is a small wood coppice, with the water way of New Mill Dike running further to the north.

Proposal: The application seeks outline planning permission for residential development with means of access to be considered. All other matters are reserved for subsequent consideration. An indicative layout for 53 dwellings has been withdrawn the application therefore seeks to establish the principle of residential development with the means of access to serve it.

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

No relevant planning history.

5. PLANNING POLICY

The site is unallocated on the Kirklees UDP Proposal Plan.

Kirklees Unitary Development Plan

• D5 – Provisional Open Land (POL) • D6 – Green Corridor • BE1 – Design principles • BE2 – Quality of design • BE11 – Use of natural stone • BE12 – Space about buildings • T10 – Highway safety • T16 – Pedestrian routes • T19 – Car parking standards • G6 – Contaminated land • H1 – Meeting housing needs in the district 83

• H10 – Affordable housing • H12 – Affordable housing • H18 – Public open space • EP4 – Noise sensitive development • EP10 – Energy efficiency • EP11 – Integral landscaping scheme to protect / enhance ecology • BE23 – Crime prevention • R13 – Rights of way

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

• NPPF Promoting sustainable transport (chapter 4) • NPPF Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes (chapter 6) • NPPF Requiring good design (chapter 7) • NPPF Promoting healthy communities (chapter 8) • NPPF Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding (chapter 10) • NPPF Conserving and enhancing the natural environment (chapter 11)

Planning Practice Guidance March 2014

Air Quality

Other Guidance

KMC SPD 2 (2008) – Affordable Housing KMC Policy Guidance: ‘Providing for Education Needs Generated by New Housing’

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 – no objection subject to S106 obligation and conditions

• KC Public Rights of Way – comments made

• KC Environmental Services – no objections subject to conditions

• KC Strategic Drainage – no objection subject to conditions

• KC Strategic Housing – awaiting comments

• KC Trees – no objection in principle

• KC Ecologist – agree with the assessment and conclusions of the ecology survey. Recommend conditions

• KC Education – contribution required for site

• Environment Agency – no objections subject to conditions

• Yorkshire Water – no objections subject to conditions

• West Yorkshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections, comments made.

7. REPRESENTATIONS

Publicity on the application expired on: 16/12/2014.

In total 69 representations against the proposal have been submitted including comments by Jason McCartney MP. 87 representations in support have been received of which 27 have been submitted on a standardised letter. Local ward member Cllr Nigel Patrick has also raised objections to the proposal.

A summary of the representations against the proposal are set out below:

• There have been a number of serious accidents in the local area in the last 2 years, and existing junctions are at capacity. One of the accidents was fatal within only 100 metres of the site. There have been other accidents with one where a horse was killed. • The submitted Transport Assessment is misleading and provides inaccurate information with respect to levels of traffic generation and impacts on surrounding junctions. • The existing local highway network already experiences significant highway issues at surrounding junctions with queuing traffic, the proposed development is considered to have a detrimental impact on highway safety. • Stoney Bank Lane doesn’t have a footway along its full length and access to bus stops etc is far from ideal on foot. An increase in vehicle movements on the local highway network would be detrimental to the safety of pedestrians and road users. • Certain sections of the local highway network are only passable at low speeds, less than 5mph, and any increase in the number of movements is not considered to be acceptable. • There are well used playing fields in the local area close to the application site which are used extensively on Saturdays and Sundays throughout the season. Currently there are high levels of on street parking and they have a significant impact on the local highway network, it is not considered that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate any further dwellings in the local highway network. • Access to public transport is poor, and pedestrian links to bus stops are in poor condition. The 308 bus service runs only once an hour, the closest train station is located 2.4km not the 1.5 km as stated in the

submitted transport statement, and runs only an hourly service and has no provision for cycle parking. • In terms of sustainability, the proposal would fail 3 of the 4 sustainability tests. The proposal is 1300 metres from the closest local centre of New Mill, does not have a sufficiently frequent bus service within 800 metres of the site, and is not located within 1600 metres of a primary health care facility. • There is concern that there would be no substantial highway improvements to try and mitigate the highway impact of the application. • A previous planning application from 2005 for 5 dwellings was refused on highway safety grounds, and it is considered that this concern remains. • The proposed houses should be constructed elsewhere in a more appropriate location, recent studies detail that there is sufficient land to accommodate, 1 million homes on brownfield land. • The proposal will significantly affect the rural character of the local area, will be detrimental to local ecology and biodiversity, and would lead to a loss of agricultural pasture land. • The proposal will turn an area of countryside into an urban environment to the detriment of local character. • The proposed layout is not considered to be acceptable and would be out of character with the local area. The layout of dwellings is considered to be far too dense when compared to other developments locally. • The proposed use of the woodland to the north of the site as Public Open Space is totally unacceptable, and would provide no amenity or recreation value to the residents. • The local area has a high recreational value used by walkers, cyclist, and the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of this countryside by these users. • The site is located within the Green Belt, and loss of this important Green Space is considered to be inappropriate, and not acceptable. The Green Space provides a valuable asset locally. • The local high school is over-subscribed and additional housing will put additional pressure on the school, some schools are at 99% capacity. • Local GP services are oversubscribed and there is not sufficient capacity for the additional dwellings proposed. • The proposed development would experience surface water flooding, due to the lie of the land, and given that the local area already experiences flooding. • There has been significant number of approvals in the local area for new housing which include up to an extra 100 dwellings. The existing infrastructure is not capable of accommodating such an increase in housing in the local area and the proposal will have a detrimental cumulative impact, on issues such as highways, schools, wildlife. • New residents to the dwelling are unlikely to find jobs within the Holme Valley, and this will lead to them having to travel, and mainly by the private car for work. This is not considered to represent a sustainable form of development. 86

• The sewage network in the local area is not to a sufficient standard to accommodate the additional requirement generated from the proposed development. • There are 375 homes in the local area which are served by the local road network and the provision of an extra 53 homes represents an increase of 14%, local infrastructure is not considered to be capable of accommodating such an increase in housing. • The proposal does not meet the requirements for sustainability particularly with regard to transport and environmental protection, particularly with regard to open space and local character. • The proposal will have a detrimental impact on residential and visual amenity; the proposal will be an eyesore to the local residents. • The proposal will have a detrimental overshadowing and overbearing impact to adjacent residential properties. • The proposed layout would have a detrimental impact to the amenity of surrounding properties • Restrictions should be placed on hours of construction of the proposed development if acceptable, to protect local amenity. • Site is in the Green Belt in a wildlife habitat corridor and it should not be developed. The local area, including the adjacent woods and meadows, are a haven for wildlife of varying species and the proposed development would destroy this habitat. • The proposal will have an adverse impact on protected TPO’d trees in the local area, and there are a number of trees alone the boundary of the site. • There are a significant number of bats in the local area that use surrounding buildings, and forge in local trees and woodland. The erection of a residential development would have a detrimental impact bats. • Incorrect notifications have been served. • The pre application consultation which was carried out was of a poor standard, and it is not considered that comments made were taken into consideration. • The submitted information is outdated and it refers to guidance and documentation that has been superseded. • The proposal will have an adverse impact on the Grade II listed building of Stoney Bank Cottage due to the increase traffic that would pass the building, and the impact it would have on the structural soundness of the building.

Cllr Patrick has stated the following:

The application should and must be refused on access, highways and school places.

The roads to and from the site are unsuitable for the extra traffic generated. Access to the A616 (Huddersfield) will be via Kirkbridge which is a single track road, or Luke Lane which is just as bad. Access to the A616 (Sheffield) and the A635 will be via Kirkbridge Lane and 87

the infamous New Mill Junction which as we know is already at capacity. Well over capacity when current approvals are built. Access to Holmfirth will be via Springwood Road which is an accident black spot. The accident assessment in the applicants transport report fails to identify all the accidents, having only looked at a period 2008 to 2013 and describes it as ‘a relatively good injury accident record in the vicinity of the site’. They fail to identify a number of accidents on Springwood Road including a fatality. At the time of writing there was no response from Kirklees Highways Development.

The applicants transport report under estimates the number of trips. With 53 homes we can expect 100 cars. The majority will commute by car to work and shopping centres and add to the already congested roads in a morning and evening. Computer generated models for traffic flows are only as good as the data used. I do not think the transport assessment is realistic and does not take account of the current situation. Because locals know New Mill junction is over capacity and queues are long, they tend to use the rat runs including Kirkbridge Lane, Stoney Bank Road and Luke Lane. 53 new homes will add to the congestion and increase the road safety issues that persist on these roads. Infrastructure improvements are needed.

Lets also look at school places. I have just been speaking to the School Place Planning Officer. The calculation for places at Kirkroyds Infant School, Wooldale Junior School and Holmfirth High School looks at this application in isolation and takes no account of the new homes approved, but not yet built. There must be over 300 dwellings approved, but not yet built in the Holmfirth area. All three schools are showing at capacity or over capacity by 2018/19. If the Council continues to build new homes without properly calculating the impact of all the new homes on school places the Council will find itself looking for money to build new schools or to extend existing schools. The £56,129 contribution for Kirkroyds Infants will not be enough. This is a statistical exercise with no practical application. It is not realistic. The School Place Planning Section of the Council should have access to the number of houses approved in order to provide a proper assessment.

Also I understand the bus service 308 runs every 60 mins not every 30 mins as reported in the application.

The application should be refused.

Jason McCartney MP has stated the following:

I would like to object to the above application for outline planning to build 53 houses. This development is UNSUSTAINABLE for these principle reasons – 1. The local roads cannot cope with this further development. The roads are already busy at peak time with the school close by and 88

the roads are narrow with some without pavements. We have already seen this year a fatality near by. These roads are used as rat runs and this situation is only going to get worse as a result of this proposed development bringing with it 106+ cars, given the nature of the proposed housing. 2. This is a vital green corridor will be destroyed by this development. This is a necessary amenity between villages providing green space which is home to numerous wildlife including badgers. We must protect against this urban sprawl. 3. There is the ongoing issue with surface water and removing farmland that currently soaks up rainwater will only make this worse. 4. There is a lack of school places, doctors and other facilities in easy reach, which makes this an unsustainable development. 5. This development must be considered along with those others that have already been passed, leading to a massive increase of population proposed in such a small area.

For all these reasons, I believe this development should be refused.

A summary of the representations in support of the application are set out below:

• There is an urgent requirement for new housing in this part of the district and the proposal would also generate affordable housing which is welcome. • The development is located in a good position which would help to support the local population. • The local highway network is considered to be capable of accommodating the additional traffic generated by the development. • The site is within walking distance of local schools and bus services and is accessible to local services in New Mill and Holmfirth. • A scheme could be designed which has an acceptable impact on local residents. • The site has limited value for recreational purposes and the provision of housing is considered to outweigh the value it currently holds. • The proposal would support local business and the local economy by the provision of more residents in the area.

8. ASSESSMENT

The application seeks outline planning permission for the principle of residential development with means of access to be considered. All other matters of appearance, layout, scale and landscaping are reserved for subsequent consideration.

General principle:

The application site forms part of a wider allocation of Provisional Open Land (POL) in the Councils UDP, subject to UDP policy D5. Policy D5 states that:

“Planning permission will not be granted other than for development required in connection with established uses, changes of use to alternative open land uses or temporary uses which would not prejudice the contribution of the site to the character of its surroundings and the possibility of development in the longer term”

The weight that can be given to Policy D5 in determining applications for housing must be assessed in the context of NPPF paragraphs 215 and 49.

In the context of paragraph 215, the wording of Policy D5 is consistent with NPPF paragraph 85 concerning safeguarded land. However, with regard to paragraph 49, the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. . Relevant information is provided in the annual monitoring report published on 31 December 2013. (www.kirklees.gov.uk/business/regeneration/ldf/AnnualMonitoringReport.aspx)

The weight that can be given to Policy D5 in these circumstances was assessed in October 2013 by a Planning Inspector in his consideration of an appeal against refusal of permission for housing on a POL site at Ashbourne Drive, Cleckheaton (ref: APP/Z4718/A/13/2201353). The inspector concluded (paragraph 42):

“The lack of a five-year supply, on its own, weighs in favour of the development. In combination with other paragraphs in the Framework concerning housing delivery the weight is increased. The lack of a five- year supply also means that policies in the UDP concerning housing land are out of date. Policy D5 clearly relates to housing and so it, too, is out of date and its weight is reduced accordingly. This significantly reduces the weight that can be given to the policy requirement for there to be a review of the plan before the land can be released. In these circumstances, the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged.”

The presumption referred to by the Inspector is set out in NPPF paragraph 14 which states that where relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted “unless any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole, or that specific NPPF policies indicate development should be restricted”. Footnote 9 lists examples of restrictive policies but this does not include policies concerning safeguarded land.

Sustainability:

Economic: The proposal will bring economic gains by providing business opportunities for contractors and local suppliers, creating additional demand for local services and potentially increasing the use and viability of local bus services.

Social: There will be a social gain through the provision of new housing at a time of general shortage, which includes affordable housing.

Environmental: Whilst the development of a greenfield site represents an environmental loss, compensating environmental gains may be possible through the imposition of conditions. Although national policy encourages the use of brownfield land for development, it also makes clear that no significant weight can be given to the loss of greenfield sites to housing when there is a national priority to increase housing supply.

Accessibility is one element of sustainable development but not the ultimate determining factor. Accessibility criteria set out in the revoked Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS table 13.9) provides a useful guide to assess the accessibility of housing development in this location. Although the RSS has been revoked it remains the latest plan which has been subject to public examination and is therefore currently the soundest basis for a paragraph 14 assessment. The tests in this location are as follows:

• Test 1: is there a local service centre within 1200m walking distance? • Test 2: is there a bus stop within 800m with a service of at least a 30 minute frequency and a journey time of less than 30 minutes (25 minutes bus and 5 minutes walking) to a town centre offering employment, leisure and retail opportunities? • Test 3: is there a primary school within 1600m? (This equates to a 20 minute walk) • Test 4: is there a surgery or other primary health facility within 1600m?

The above tests have been carried out for the proposal and have been undertaken from the proposed vehicular access to the development.

Test 1 - The site is approximately 2,200 metres away from Holmfirth district centre, though the site is within 1,200m of shops and services at New Mill. The applicant’s Design and Access Statement considers that there are other facilities within 500m of the site.

Test 2 - The site is approximately 300 metres away from the nearest bus stop on Springwood Road which is served by the 308 Huddersfield – Holmfirth service, this provides an hourly service which takes 9 minutes to Holmfirth, or 49 minutes to Huddersfield. The site is also located 600 metres from a bus stop on New Mill Road (A635), served by the 314 which provides an hourly service to Holmfirth in 5 minutes or to Huddersfield in 27 minutes. The 435 service provides an infrequent service to Wakefield (53 minutes).

The sites location within proximity to these two bus stops is considered to be sufficient to meet the requirement of the test. Holmfirth provides a good level of services for employment, leisure and retail, and connections to Huddersfield would provide further services.

Test 3 - The site is approximately 1,000m from Kirkroyds Infants School and 1,500m from Wooldale Junior School. Test 3 is therefore considered to be met by the proposal.

Test 4 - The site is within 2,100 m of GP surgeries at Holmfirth. The H4 bus stops within 300m of the site and provides an hourly link to the GP surgeries, there are also other services which connect the site to Holmfirth town centre.

Although it is considered that the application site passes the four tests set out above it is noted that the site is located within a residential area, and connections to the main settlement of Huddersfield are more than the desired 30 minute journey time on a 30 minute frequency of service. It is therefore likely that the proposal would not allow all new residents to access a full range of local services by sustainable means.

Similar observations were made by the Inspector for a recent appeal decision on a POL site in Netherthong (APP/Z4718/A/14/2219016 - Land off St Marys Avenue). In that case the Inspector noted the deficiencies in access to local services by sustainable means but having,

“regard to the emphasis on growth within the Framework, and (having given) weight to the need to boost the supply of housing. In the absence of a 5 year housing land supply, the contribution the development would make to housing supply in the District would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm that would arise as a result of increased trips by private car.”

As set out in the ‘Highways’ section below, the proposal would however include a MetroCard scheme for residents to allow them to access public transport services which are available in the local area.

In this case, assessing the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole in accordance with the paragraph 14 test, the environmental harm arising from the development of this greenfield site and the disadvantages in terms of accessibility are considered to be outweighed by the benefits to be gained from the provision of housing. The principle of development is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Amenity

Impact on Visual Amenity

In relation to the impact of the development on visual amenity, this will need to be examined fully at reserved matters stage when details of layout, scale, landscaping and appearance are submitted. However an initial assessment needs to made in respect of Policies BE1, BE2, BE11 and BE23 of the UDP, and Policies in the NPPF. The applicant has also been assessed in relation to Crime Prevention by West Yorkshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer.

As noted in the above site description, the area is characterised by open fields with residential development to the south and south east. It is therefore accepted that any form of residential development will alter the existing character of the area. Comments in relation to designing out crime have been forwarded to the agent for consideration, and it is anticipated that such matters would be taken into account at the reserved matters stage.

The principle of the loss of a greenfield site has been considered in the above assessment and found to be acceptable. Notwithstanding this, subject to a well designed scheme with appropriate materials being brought forward at reserved matters stage, it is considered that the development is acceptable in respect of visual amenity. The proposal would therefore comply with the requirements of Policies BE1, BE2, BE11 and BE23 of the UDP and Policies in the NPPF.

Impact on Residential Amenity

The applicant has not sought approval of details of layout at this time and therefore the issue of the impact of the dwellings on residential amenity will need to be fully considered at reserved matters stage. However, it is considered that a form of layout can be brought forward which would not unduly impact on residential amenity.

Policy BE12 of the UDP requires minimum separation distances of 21 metres between existing and proposed habitable room windows. It is considered that the site is large enough to enable separation distances to be at least in accordance with these requirements to be achieved (subject to a suitable number of dwellings being proposed). Achieving at least these appropriate 93

separation distances will ensure that no significant loss of amenity will occur in terms of overlooking.

As details of scale of the dwellings have not been submitted, this will be appropriately considered at reserved matters stage.

In terms of living conditions for future occupants, adequate amenity space can be provided when details of the site layout are brought forward. Depending upon the site layout proposed, it may be necessary to remove permitted development rights for extensions/outbuildings, but again this is a matter for consideration at Reserved Matters stage.

It is considered that an acceptable form of development can be brought forward having regard to impact on residential amenity and Policy BE12 of the UDP.

Air Quality:

Environmental Services have assessed the proposal in respect of Air Quality. It is considered that future occupiers of the site would be subject to acceptable levels of air quality given the sites location. It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with West Yorkshire Low Emission Strategy Planning Guidance. This guidance categorises developments according to size and different air quality mitigation / assessment is required when the application meets certain criteria.

Depending upon the number of units that come forward at reserved matters stage, vehicle charging points for electric vehicles may be required to be installed for each dwelling.

The provision of a travel plan is also recommended by Environmental Services, this can be secured by way of condition.

Noise:

Turning to the matter of noise, the proposed residential development is not considered to be subject to unacceptable levels of noise once constructed, and it is therefore not considered necessary for a noise report to be undertaken for the site. However to ensure that surrounding residential properties are sufficiently protected through the construction phase of the development, a note regarding hours of construction will be attached to the decision notice. Subject to this note the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on local amenity and would comply with Policy EP4 of the UDP.

Contaminated Land

Environmental Services have assessed the proposal in relation to Policy G6 and policies in the NPPF. Environmental Services advise that given to the size of the site and its location adjacent land which has previously been 94

recorded as potentially contaminated, it is recommended that standard contaminated land conditions be imposed. It is considered that such conditions are appropriate and necessary given the advice provided and will be attached to the recommendation to ensure the proposal complies with Policies G6 and Policies in the NPPF, and in the interests of the protection of residential amenity.

Conclusion on Amenity

In conclusion it is considered that the proposed residential development would not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity of existing and future occupiers, visual amenity and the character of the local area. The proposal is also considered to be acceptable in terms of air quality, noise and contaminated land. The application would therefore comply with Policies BE1, BE2, BE12, EP4 and G6 of the UDP and Policies in the NPPF.

Highway Safety:

The highway safety impact of the development has been assessed in relation to Policies T10, T16, T19 and R13 of the UDP, and Policies in the NPPF. The application has been assessed by Highway Services and the applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment to accompany the application.

As previously stated, the indicative layout proposed for the site has been withdrawn; layout forms one of the reserved matters. The application therefore seeks to agree the principle of access for the site.

The existing site: The site currently consists of undeveloped land located on the North West side of Stoney Bank Lane close to the junction with Stoney Bank Road.

Stoney Bank Lane fronting the site is a cul-de-sac and runs generally south to north from its junction with Stoney Bank Road. Stoney Bank Lane splits into 2 sections at its head with the small length located to the north east being known as Old Mill Lane and serves some 16 properties and a left hand (northerly) leg serving some 14 properties.

The site is located within a residential area and is situated in close proximity of the Holmfirth High School. Access to bus services and a convenience store is situated on the Springwood Road approximately 540m to the west of the site.

Stoney Bank Lane forms a priority junction with Stoney Bank Road at its southern end which is located on the inside of a sweeping bend. Stoney Bank Road heads south westerly for approximately 125 metres to form a priority junction with Springwood Road.

Both Stoney Bank Lane and Stoney Bank Road are two way single carriageway roads. Springwood Road, which ultimately becomes known as Miry Lane, provides a link between the A635 New Mill / Holmfirth Road to the 95

south with the A6024 Huddersfield Road to the west. This is a busy local distributor route particularly at the recognised peak periods.

Springwood Road forms a priority junction with the A635 New Mill Road almost immediately opposite two closely located junctions known as Bill Lane and Robert Lane. Some 30 metres to the west of the junction is a signalised pedestrian crossing with anti-skid surfacing to both main road approaches.

Miry Lane’s junction with the A6024 is also in the form of a priority junction and forms a crossroads with Thong Lane which provides a through route to Netherthong situated to the northwest. The proposals are to clear the site to make way for the construction of a new residential development.

Access: A single point of access to the site directly from Stoney Bank Lane via a new priority junction is proposed. At the junction the access road is 5.5m wide carriageway with 2.0 wide footways to either side. Access geometry and visibility accord with current guidance to be considered acceptable to serve a development of the scale proposed.

Internal Layout: The proposed road within the development should be a shared surface designed to achieve a maximum speed of 15mph. In general parking should be provided in accordance with Appendix 2 of the UDP, including visitor (1 space per 4 dwellings) and cycle parking. If integral garages are to be considered as contributing towards parking provision they must provide internal dimensions of 3m x 6m.Turning heads should be designed to accommodate an 11.6m long waste collection vehicle which should be demonstrated using swept path analysis. The access road should be 5.5m in width and 600mm hard margins are needed to all sections of any shared surface carriageways. Link path to POS should be 2-metre minimum width, preferably within a landscaped corridor, improving amenity value and creating separation from property curtilage

Traffic generation: Traffic surveys of the local highway network have been undertaken by the applicant’s consultants. The morning and evening peak hour counts along Stoney Bank Road/Lane are as follows:

AM Peak 32 vehicles recorded travelling north west to south east and 29 south east to north west.

PM Peak 36 vehicles recorded travelling north west to south east and 23 south east to north west.

Information from the nationally accepted TRICs database has been used to calculate expected trip numbers generated by the development. The estimated peak hour morning and evening trip generation is as follows:

AM Peak 9 vehicles in and 26 vehicles out

PM Peak 23 vehicles in and 14 vehicles out

The proposed development is anticipated to generate approximately 35 trips during the morning peak and 37 trips during the evening peak hours.

The proposed development traffic predicted to 2020 has been distributed onto the network in accordance with the existing traffic flows and turning proportions at the junctions.

The predicted increase in traffic flow on Springwood Road towards the A616 New Mill Road junction shows the most significant increase of 34 trips from 219 to 254 in the AM peak which is an increase of less than 2 trips per minute.

A survey was undertaken by Highways on 7th January between 8.20am and 9.00am at the key junctions within close proximity of the proposed developments and found that there were no queuing vehicles at the junctions of Stoney Bank Road/ Springwood Road, Stoney Bank Lane/ Kirk Bridge Lane and Kirk Bridge Lane/A616. Queues were observed at the Springwood Road/A635 junction. The maximum queue length was 8 and these were observed to clear relatively quickly.

Accidents: The personal injury accident records for the period 2008 to 2013 were obtained by the applicant’s consultants. During the study period the consultants found only one recorded injury accident. This incident was noted as being slight and involved 2 vehicles and was identified as occurring south of the Springwood Road /Stoney Bank Road junction.

Highways have reviewed the accident records and found a further tragic fatal accident occurred in August 2014 when an 18 year old woman lost her footing and fell from the footway on the northern side of Springwood Road into the carriageway and into the path of a vehicle.

Three other accidents resulting in slight injury were also identified as follows:

May 2010 - at the junction of Springwood Road and New Mill Road. This involved a vehicle colliding with a pedestrian when turning from New Mill Road into Springwood Road.

December 2011 - Springwood Close, 30 metres south east of Stoney Bank Road. This involved a positive breath test.

December 2013 - Springwood Road near to Co Op. This involved a cyclist avoiding a reversing car and colliding with an oncoming car.

Whilst highways do not agree with the consultant’s view that refers to a relatively good accident record in the vicinity, there doesn’t appear to be any pattern or common causation factor to the accidents identified.

Public Transport: Bus services are available on Springwood Road and New Mill Road (i.e. within 580m of the site on Springwood Road and 545m on New Mill Road). The service on Springwood Road operates generally as a hail and ride service. The services/ bus stops on New Mill Road have the benefit of passenger shelters, raised boarding kerbs and timetable information.

There are 4 bus services available from the nearest stops with services every 30 minutes to the local towns of Holmfirth and Huddersfield, and an hourly service to Wakefield city centre.

Highways conclusion: Highways would generally concur with the findings of the Transport Assessment that the level of traffic generated by the proposals can be accommodated and will have no material impact on the safe operation of the local highway and will not significantly add to any congestion at the peak times on the local network.

Further consultation has emphasised existing efficiency/queuing issues at the Holmfirth Road/Huddersfield Road/Penistone Road/Sheffield Road junction in the centre of New Mill. A number of proposed options have been developed and assessed to manage traffic and to assist pedestrians, with the preferred option being signalisation of the junction, with the estimated cost being circa £225,000. The development will be required to contribute to the cost of this junction improvement, to be secured by way of a S106 obligation, with the value of contribution being based upon traffic flows from the development travelling through the junction at peak times.

Funding for a resident metro card scheme should also be secured by way of condition.

Drainage

Drainage has been assessed by the Councils Strategic Drainage Officer, Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency. The application has been assessed in relation to relevant policies set out in the NPPF.

The vast majority of the application site is located in flood zone 1, with a small section to the north of the site, in an area currently occupied by a coppice of trees adjacent New Mill Dyke falling in zones 2 and 3. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment has however identified that 3rd generation surface water flood maps show two distinctive flood routes in the vicinity of the site, one just beyond the western boundary and Stoney Bank Lane itself. Due to the significant sloping nature of the site the use of soakways is not recommend as there is a serious risk of re-emergence to flood properties and land at lower levels. A connection to watercourse is therefore the preferred option. 98

The Councils Strategic Drainage Officer initially raised objections to the proposal on the basis of the indicative layout. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment required consideration of the siting of dwellings for flood routing purposes as detailed above, and such a process had not taken place.

Further detailed information would however need to be submitted at reserved matters stage in the form of a detailed Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate how the layout would take account of flood risk at the site. In addition, conditions are also proposed for the development, which require drainage details, flow restrictions, surface water attenuation, overland flow routing and temporary drainage provision to be attached to the recommendation.

The Environment Agency raises no objections to the proposal but recommend a condition regarding surface water drainage. These comments are noted, however the conditions from Strategic Drainage are considered to more appropriate.

Yorkshire Water have also assessed the proposal and do not raise any objections, but make a number of comments in relation to drainage which the applicant has been made aware of.

Subject to the conditions set out above, the application is considered to have an acceptable impact on drainage arrangements for the site, and would comply with the requirements of Policies in the NPPF.

Ecology

The ecological impact of the development has been assessed in relation to Policies D6 and NE9 of the UDP and Policies in the Chapter 11 of the NPPF. The application has been assessed by the Councils Ecologist and Arboriculturist. Comments have also been made by the Environment Agency in respect to biodiversity.

The applicant has submitted an Ecological Report which has been amended, and added to through the course of the application, after concerns were initially raised by the Councils Ecologist.

The submitted ecological report has established that the site is covered by agriculturally improved grassland which is of limited ecological interest and that its loss will not significantly impact on biodiversity. The site lies adjacent to an area of wood pasture and a buffer is required to protect this impact area of habitat. The plantation woodland to the north has some ecological interest for bird communities, especially given its location adjacent to the stream and this feature should be retained by the development. The development is unlikely to impact on other habitats or species groups providing the woodland and stream corridors are protected from light spillage both during construction and post development phases. With the inclusion of bat and bird boxes into the new dwellings (or on trees if appropriate to species), alongside the above measures, there are opportunities for biodiversity enhancement. 99

The findings of the ecological assessment have been accepted by the Councils Ecologist. The development of the site is therefore considered to have an acceptable impact on ecology, subject to appropriate mitigation measures. The mitigation measures required include the provision of an ecological buffer along the western side of the site to ensure that the existing habitat by the mature protected trees is retained. Bat and bird boxes to be provided integral to the new houses. A detailed landscape management plan to be submitted for the whole site, and a lighting scheme which sufficiently protects tree corridors and the adjacent coppice from light spillage.

The Environment Agency recommends that an appropriate buffer zone be provided to the existing habitats and that an appropriate landscaping strategy be agreed, these comments support those made by the Councils Ecologist and are noted.

Trees

A row of protected trees are located along the western boundary of the site, which are covered by a woodland preservation order. The Arboriculturist raises no objection to the principle of the proposed residential development, the layout to be considered as part of the reserved matters submission will need to ensure that protected trees are safeguarded.

An Arboricultural method statement for the development would need to be provided once layout and landscaping have been finalised. Given that these matters are reserved, it is not considered that a condition is necessary at this stage, and this information could come forward as part of the reserved matters submission.

Concerns were also raised with the proposed position of the public open space, and further information would be necessary to detail how the currently coppiced woodland would provide an amenity value to residents. Again given that landscaping and layout are reserved matters, this information would come forward at a later application.

Contributions

Affordable housing:

In accordance with Policies H10 & H12 of the UDP and the guidance contained within SPD2, the provision of affordable housing is a material planning consideration. As this is a greenfield site, the contribution would normally be 30% of the total floorspace of the development. In order to secure this requirement, it is considered that a condition can be imposed given that the application seeks outline permission.

100

Public Open Space:

Policy H18 of the UDP requires the provision of POS on sites put forward for housing development which are over 0.4 hectares, and requires 30 square metres per dwelling. The site area is approx. 2.38 hectares and therefore the requirements of Policy H18 apply.

In order to secure this provision, a standard condition can be imposed. The layout of this POS, if an on-site contribution is proposed, will need to be considered at Reserved Matters stage. If an off-site contribution is proposed it would be addressed through discharge of condition.

Education:

In line with the requirements of ‘Providing for Education Needs Generated by New Housing’ (KMC Policy Guidance), it is considered that the standard education condition should be imposed to enable the demand to be more accurately assessed following Reserved Matters stage.

Highways:

Contribution to improvement of Holmfirth Road/Huddersfield Road/Penistone Road/Sheffield Road junction in the centre of New Mill, to be secured by way of a S106 obligation.

Funding for a resident metro card scheme to be secured by way of condition.

Representations:

The planning related objections raised are summarised as follows with a response to each one in turn. The representations from Cllr Patrick and Jason McCartney MP have been considered in detail, and the points raised have been responded to below.

Response: It is noted that the submitted information has not identified all road traffic accidents which have taken place in the local area. However accident records have been considered in detail by Highways as set out above. In relation to the traffic generation information, the submitted information has been considered and a separate survey was undertaken by Highways on 7th January 2015. The Highway section of the assessment considers this in detail.

101

• The existing local highway network already experiences significant highway issues at surrounding junctions with queuing traffic, and the proposed development is considered to have a detrimental impact on highway safety. • Stoney Bank Lane doesn’t have a footway along its full length and access to bus stops etc is far from ideal on foot. An increase in vehicle movements on the local highway network would be detrimental the safety of pedestrians and road users. • Certain sections of the local highway network are only passable at low speeds, less than 5mph, and any increase in the number of movements is not considered to be acceptable. • There are well used playing fields in the local area close to the application site which are used extensively on Saturdays and Sundays throughout the season. Currently there are high levels of on street parking and they have a significant impact on the local highway network, it is not considered that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate any further dwellings in the local highway network.

Response: As set out on the main body of the report, access to the site for pedestrians and vehicles is considered to be acceptable. On street parking in the local area currently operates safely and it is considered that the new development would have an acceptable impact on these arrangements.

• Access to public transport is poor, and pedestrian journeys to bus stops are in poor condition. The 308 bus service runs only once an hour, the closest train station is located 2.4km not the 1.5 km as stated in the submitted transport statement, and runs only a 1 hourly service and has no provision for cycle parking. • In terms of sustainability, the proposal would fail 3 of the 4 sustainability tests. The proposal is 1300 metres from the closest local centre of New Mill, does not have a sufficiently frequent bus service within 800 metres of the site, and is not located within 1600 metres of a primary health care facility.

Response: As set out in the main body of the committee report, the proposal is considered to have sufficient access to public transport, and is considered to represent a sustainable site in planning terms. It is considered that the proposal passes the four tests as set out above.

• There is concern that there would be no substantial highway improvements to try and mitigate the highway impact of the application.

Response: It is considered that the local highway network is of a sufficient standard to accommodate the proposed development, and no substantial improvements are required to the surrounding network. Sufficient on site parking and access arrangements could be achieved, and a metro scheme to support the use of buses will be conditioned as part of the application.

102

• A previous planning application from 2005 for 5 dwellings was refused on highway safety grounds, and it is considered that this concern remains.

Response: Access arrangements to this previously refused application were substantially different to proposed those arrangements with access being taken directly off Stoney Bank Lane at a point where no footways are provided. The proposed arrangements take access off a section of Stoney Bank Lane which has a footway.

• The proposed houses should be constructed elsewhere in a more appropriate location, recent studies detail that there is sufficient land to accommodate, 1 million homes on brownfield land.

Response: The Council currently has a shortfall in housing land, and can not meet its 5 year land supply of housing. Therefore it is considered that the development of the site is acceptable. Each application has to be assessed on its own individual merits, and the provision of brownfield land across the country has little weight.

• The proposal will significantly affect the rural character of the local area, and will be detrimental to local ecology and biodiversity, and would lead to a loss of agricultural pasture land. • The proposal will turn an area of countryside into an urban environment to the detriment of local character. • The proposed layout is not considered to be acceptable, and would be out of character with the local area. The layout of dwellings is considered to be far too dense when compared to other developments locally. • The proposed use of the woodland to the north of the site as Public Open Space is totally unacceptable, and would provide no amenity or recreation value to the residents. • The local area has a high recreational value used by walkers, cyclist, and the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of this countryside by these users.

Response: The application seeks only outline permission with all but access reserved. The application is therefore seeking to agree the principle of developing the site, and design details would be submitted at a later date, in a reserved matters application. As set out above, the development of the site is in principle considered to have an acceptable impact on local character. The detailed public open space is only indicative and final design details would need to be determined at reserved matters stage.

• The site is located within the Green Belt, and loss of this important Green Space is considered to be inappropriate, and not acceptable. The Green Space provides a valuable asset locally.

103

Response: The site is not located in the Green Belt, but is allocated as Provisional Open Lane (POL) on the Unitary Development Plan. As set out above the development of this area of POL is considered to be acceptable in principle in this instance.

• The local high school is over subscribed, and additional housing will put additional pressure on the school, some schools are at 99% capacity. • Local GP services are oversubscribed and there is not sufficient capacity for the additional dwellings proposed.

Response: It is considered that there is sufficient capacity in local schools and GP services to accommodate the proposed development.

• The proposed development would experience surface water flooding, due to the lie of the land, and given that the local area already experiences flooding.

Response: Drainage arrangements for the site are considered to be acceptable in principle subject to conditions. Layout of the development would need to take account of potential for surface water flooding as set out above.

• There has been significant number of approvals in the local area for new housing which include up to an extra 100 dwellings. The existing infrastructure is not capable of accommodating such an increase in housing in the local area, and the proposal will have a detrimental cumulative impact, on issues such as highways, schools, wildlife.

Response: As set out above the existing infrastructure is considered to be capable of accommodating the additional number of dwellings proposed.

• New residents to the dwelling are unlikely to find jobs within the Holme Valley, and this will lead to them having to travel, and mainly by the private car for work. This is not considered to represent a sustainable form of development. • The sewage network in the local area is not for a sufficient standard to accommodate the additional requirement generated from the proposed development. • There are 375 homes in the local area which are served by the local road network and the provision of an extra 53 homes represents an increase of 14%, local infrastructure is not considered to be capable of accommodating such an increase in housing. • The proposal is not meet the requirements for sustainability particularly with regard to transport, and environmental protection, particularly with regard to open spaces and local character. • The proposal will have a detrimental impact to residential and visual amenity, the proposal will be an eyesore to the local residents.

104

• The proposal will have a detrimental overshadowing and overbearing impact to adjacent residential properties. • The proposed layout would have a detrimental impact to the amenity of surrounding properties

Response: The layout of the development has been withdrawn from consideration, and the application is solely seeking to agree the principle of developing the site. It is considered that the site is capable of being developed which has an acceptable impact on local amenity.

• Restrictions should be placed on hours of construction of the proposed development if acceptable, to protect local amenity.

Response: A set of advised construction hours can be placed on the recommendation, and Environmental Health Legislation would ensure that any complaints at times of construction could be appropriate dealt with.

• Site is in the Green Belt in a wildlife habitat corridor and it should not be developed. The local area, including the adjacent woods, and meadows, are a haven for much wildlife of varying species and the propose development would destroy this habitats. • The proposal will have an adverse impact on protected TPO’d trees in the local area, and there are a number of trees alone the boundary of the site. • There are a significant number of bats in the local area that use surrounding buildings, and forge in local trees and woodland. The erection of a residential development would have a detrimental impact bats.

Response: After the submission of additional information, and the withdrawal of the layout from the scheme, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on local ecology, including the adjacent TPO’d trees.

• Incorrect notifications have been served.

Response: Correct notice has been served by the applicant, and no information has been submitted to contrary.

• The pre application consultation which was carried, was of a poor standard, and it is not considered that comments made were taken into consideration.

Response: The standard of pre application consultation is considered to be of a sufficient standard.

• The submitted information is outdated and it refers to guidance and documentation that has been superseded.

105

Response: The application has been assessed by the Council against current policies and guidance as set out above.

• The proposal will have an adverse impact on the Grade II listed building of Stoney Bank Cottage due to the increase traffic that would pass the building, and the impact it would have on the structural soundness of the building.

Response: The proposal is not considered to have a detrimental impact to the setting of the Grade II Listed Building of Stoney Bank Cottage as it is located over 200 metres from the application site.

The comments in support of the development are noted by officers.

Conclusion:

In conclusion the principle of developing this area of Provisional Open Land (POL) is considered to be acceptable. The Council cannot demonstrate a deliverable housing land supply sufficient for 5 years and in accordance with the NPPF relevant policies for the supply of housing are out of date. In such circumstances no significant weight can be given to its content and, in accordance with NPPF there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and planning permission should be granted “unless any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole, or that specific NPPF policies indicate development should be restricted”.

It is considered that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed development that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of developing the site for housing. It is considered that the proposal would provide additional housing at a time of local shortage and a scheme can be designed which has an acceptable impact on highway safety, local amenity, drainage, and also provided biodiversity benefits.

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.

106

9. RECOMMENDATION

CONDITIONAL OUTLINE PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO: • SECURE A CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW MILL JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME • 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.

Subject to the following conditions:

1. Approval of the details of the, layout, scale, appearance, and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called ‘the reserved matters’) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development commenced.

2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 1 above, relating to layout, scale, appearance, and the landscaping of the site, shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved plans.

3. Application for approval of any reserved matter shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of two years from the final approval of reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

5. No material operation as defined in section 56(4)(a)-(d) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 shall be carried out to commence the development pursuant to this planning permission until arrangements for the provision of public open space to serve the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The arrangements shall cover the following matters:- a) the layout and disposition of the public open space. b) the timescale for the implementation and completion of the works to provide the public open space; c) the mechanism for ensuring that the public open space will be available for public within perpetuity. d) maintenance of the public open space in perpetuity.

6. No works shall commence on the construction of any residential unit until a scheme for the provision of affordable housing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall take account of the provisions of the Council's Supplementary Planning 107

Document 2 (Affordable Housing) or other such policy or policies relating to the provision of affordable housing as shall prevail at Reserved Matters stage.

7. No material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a)-(d) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 shall be carried out to commence the development pursuant to this planning permission until arrangements for the provision of educational facilities to serve the needs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8. 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.

9. Where further intrusive investigation is recommended in the Preliminary Risk Assessment approved pursuant to condition 8 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.

10. Where site remediation is recommended in the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report approved pursuant to condition 9 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.

11. Remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the Remediation Strategy approved pursuant to condition 10. 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.

12. 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.

108

13. Before development commences, the wall to the site frontage shall be set back to the rear of the proposed 2.4 x 43m visibility splays and shall be cleared of all obstructions to visibility and tarmac surfaced to current standards in accordance with details that have previously been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

14. Prior to the development being brought into use, the approved vehicle parking areas shall be surfaced and drained in accordance with the Communities and Local Government; and Environment Agencies ‘Guidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens (parking areas)’ published 13th May 2009(ISBN 9781409804864) as amended or superseded; and thereafter retained throughout the lifetime of the development.

15. No development shall take place until a scheme detailing the proposed internal adoptable estate roads have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include full sections, drainage works, street lighting, signing, surface finishes and the treatment of sight lines, together with an independent safety audit covering all aspects of work. Before any building is brought into use the scheme shall be completed in accordance with the scheme shown on approved plans and retained thereafter.

16. 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.

17. Before the development is first occupied a travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The travel plan shall include measures to improve and encourage the use of sustainable transport as follows: - the provision of 'live' and other bus/train information; - provision of a residential metro card scheme; - the upgrade of bus stops and shelters where necessary; - the provision of cycle facilities and information The Travel Plan will include details of when these measures will be introduced, arrangements for monitoring the travel plan and details of how the travel plan and its objective of more sustainable travel will be promoted.

18. Development shall not commence until a scheme detailing separate foul, surface water and land drainage, (including off site works, outfalls, balancing works, plans and longitudinal sections, hydraulic calculations, phasing of drainage provision) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. None of the dwellings shall be occupied until such approved drainage scheme has been provided on the site to serve the development or each agreed phasing of the development to which the dwellings relate and thereafter retained throughout the lifetime of the development.

109

19. Development shall not commence until a scheme restricting the rate of surface water discharge from the site to a maximum of 5 litres per second per hectare (for the developed area) has been submitted to and approved in writing by Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme shall be designed to attenuate flows generated by the critical 1 in 30 year storm event as a minimum requirement. Volumes in excess of the critical1 in 30 year event, upto and including the critical 1 in 100 year storm event with an appropriate allowance for climate change shall be stored on site in areas to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a detailed maintenance and management regime for the storage facility including the flow restriction. There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development and no part of the development shall be brought into use until the flow restriction and attenuation works comprising the approved scheme have been completed . The approved maintenance and management scheme shall be implemented throughout the lifetime of the development.

20. The development shall not commence until an assessment of the effects of 1 in 100 year storm events, with an additional allowance for climate change, exceedance events and blockage scenarios on drainage infrastructure and surface water run-off pre and post development between the development and the surrounding area, in both directions, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use (dwellings shall not be occupied) until the works comprising the approved scheme have been completed and such approved scheme shall be retained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.

21. Development shall not commence until a scheme, detailing temporary surface water drainage for the construction phase (after soil and vegetation strip) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall detail:

- phasing of the development and phasing of temporary drainage provision. - include methods of preventing silt, debris and contaminants entering existing drainage systems and watercourses and how flooding of adjacent land is prevented.

The temporary works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and phasing. No phase of the development shall be commenced until the temporary works approved for that phase have been completed. The approved temporary drainage scheme shall be retained until the approved permanent surface water drainage system is in place and functioning in accordance with written notification to the Local Planning Authority.

22. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority, no building or other obstruction shall be located over or within 3.0 (three) metres either side of the centre line of the sewers, which cross the site.

23. Before development commences the applicant shall submit a plan detailing facilities to be provided for charging plug-in and other ultra low 110

emission vehicles. This plan must be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and the plan implemented before first occupation of the properties.

26. Before development commences, a full biodiversity mitigation/enhancement strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall include the following:

• A landscaping scheme which also incorporates semi-natural habitat features to be retained within the site, such as the stream corridor, plantation woodland and the wood pasture habitat buffer zone as described above. Other trees within the site should be retained where possible. Replacement and other planting across the site should be based upon the use of native tree and shrub species. • Bat boxes and bird boxes integral to the new dwellings (sparrow terraces and swift boxes) and on mature trees where appropriate to species (starlings). • A landscape management plan to manage the important biodiversity features incorporated into the site as specified in 1 above. • A lighting scheme which is designed to avoid light spillage into tree corridors where bats are likely to forage and/or where bat boxes have been erected. This applies to both the construction and operational phases. • Fencing which allows for the free movement of hedgehogs across the site post development. • A long term landscape management plan to manage the biodiversity features incorporated into the site.

The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved strategy and retained thereafter.

Footnote Link to Communities and Local Government; and Environment Agencies ‘Guidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens’ published 13th May 2009 (ISBN 9781409804864): www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pavingfrontgardens

Footnote; 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.

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

111

Plan Type Plan Reference Revision Date Received Location Plan OS - 10/11/2014 Indicative Layout 1 R B - 10/11/2014 Plan Pre App Layout - - 10/11/2014 Plan Design and October 2014 - 10/11/2014 Access Statement Ecological - - 9/2/2015 Assessment Flood Risk - - 10/11/2014 Assessment Transport 887/ October - 10/11/2014 Assessment 2014 Arboricultural AIA/SW/S1) - 10/11/2014 Implication Assessment Arboricultural 10/11/2014 Implication Appendix

112

Application No: 2014/91449

Type of application: 60 - OUTLINE APPLICATION

Proposal: Outline application for erection of three dwellings and associated infrastructure

Location: Hawthorn Road, Slaithwaite, Huddersfield, HD7 5DU

Grid Ref: 407490.0 414432.0

Ward: Colne Valley Ward

Applicant: Scott Waters, Alcuin Homes Limited

Agent:

Target Date: 16-Jan-2015

Recommendation: OP - CONDITIONAL OUTLINE PERMISSION

------

LOCATION PLAN

Allotment Allotment Gardens

Gardens

51 55

14 32 HAWTHORN ROAD

38 9 46

29 CENT © Kirklees Council 100019241 2008

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

The development proposed represents a departure from policy R9 of the Councils Unitary Development Plan, the site having been last used as allotments. 113

The application site is largely vacant with only the southern part of the site still in use, accommodating six allotments, of which three are considered to be in workable condition. The applicant has offered three alternative sites on land within their control where replacement allotments could be provided, however these sites have been found to be unsuitable for allotment use by the Councils Allotment Manager.

As an alternative, the applicant has offered a financial contribution to be secured via a unilateral undertaking that can be used towards future provision or improvement of existing allotments managed by the Council at Olney Street. In addition, to accommodate the additional surface water flows from the proposed development the applicant has agreed a further financial contribution for improvement works to the existing drainage infrastructure to Hawthorn Road.

The proposal constitutes sustainable development. The application site can be accessed safely in highway terms and subject to conditions, the proposals would not prejudice visual or residential amenity.

All other material planning considerations, relevant UDP and national planning policy objectives are considered to be addressed.

RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL OUTLINE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO:

v) THE APPLICANT ENTERING INTO A PLANNING OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO IMPROVE EXISTING ALLOTMENTS AT OLNEY STREET, SLAITHWAITE AND TO IMPROVE EXISTING DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE TO HAWTHORN ROAD

vi) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO IMPOSE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS WHICH MAY INCLUDE THOSE DETAILED IN THE REPORT, AND

iii) SUBJECT TO THERE BEING NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE THAT WOULD ALTER THIS RECOMMENDATION, ISSUE THE DECISION NOTICE

2. INFORMATION

The application is brought forward to the Strategic Committee as the development proposed represents a departure from the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

114

3. PROPOSAL/SITE DESCRIPTION

Site description

The application site comprises 0.24ha of land that is slopes steeply from south to north. The whole of the site has previously been used as allotments and currently accommodates six allotments on part of the site. To the north of the site is open land, gardens of residential properties on Hawthorn Road and Longroyd Crescent bound the site to the south and west.

Hawthorn Road itself forms the eastern boundary of the site. In the northern corner of the site are two detached garages served directly from Hawthorn Road.

Proposal

The application is in outline for the erection of three detached dwellings with details of access, layout and scale to be considered at this stage. The submitted plans show that the proposed internal access road would be served from Hawthorn Road in the south east corner of the site and run parallel to the eastern boundary. The scale of the properties proposed would be two storeys. The proposal would also include the provision of a 2m wide footway along the full site frontage. No details of materials are provided.

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

94/91449 – outline for residential development. Refused June 2009 on greenfield land and highway grounds

5. PLANNING POLICY

Kirklees Unitary Development Plan D2 – Unallocated Land BE1 – Design principles BE2 – Quality of design BE11 – Materials BE12 – Space about buildings EP11 – Incorporation of integral landscaping scheme which protects or enhances ecology T10 – Highway safety T19 – parking provision R9 - Proposals on allotments or land last used as allotments National Planning Policy Framework Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes (Section 6) Requiring good design (Section 7) Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change (Section 10) Conserving and enhancing the natural environment (Section 11)

115

6. CONSULTATIONS

K.C. Highway Development Management: support amended plans, conditional approval

K.C. Ecology: support subject to enhancement measures

K. C. Strategic Drainage: support following investigations on site and subject to improvement works to be carried out in vicinity of site

K.C. Parks & Recreation: discussed in detail in assessment below

7. REPRESENTATIONS

The application was advertised by site notice and neighbour notification letters. The publicity period for the final amended plans and information expired on 25th December 2014. As a result of that publicity, ten representations have been received from local residents. A summary of the comments made are as follows:

• Loss of allotments site/ greenfield site • Loss of garages on application site • Increased highway safety/ parking concerns along Hawthorn Road, where there is no footway • Drainage/flooding issues on the existing allotment plots/ houses in vicinity of site due to damage to land drains • Proposed access road opposite access on opposite side of road • Loss of privacy to no. 18 Longroyd Crescent • Area attracts wildlife

None related issues • Issues relating to the development on going on the opposite side of the road. • Pressure on school and doctors surgery

8. ASSESSMENT

The application site is largely vacant with only the southern part of the site still in use, accommodating six allotments. Whilst these are on private land, the allotments are leased to the Council to manage and let to local residents on a rolling 12 month agreement. The lease agreement expired in February 2015.

Of the six allotments, three are considered to be in good workable condition. The remainder of the site has proved difficult to let due to a number of issues including drainage.

Policy R9 states “proposals involving development on allotments, or land last used as allotments, will not be permitted unless replacement allotments of

116

equivalent community benefit are provided or it can be demonstrated that there is no unsatisfied local demand for allotments”

Following consultation with the Council’s Allotment Manager, it is evident there is demand in the area for allotments.

The applicant has offered three alternative sites on land within their control where replacement allotments could be provided: • Hawthorn Road, above the application site, • Varley Street, Slaithwaite, and • Olney Street, Slaithwaite

All three sites have been assessed by the Council’s Allotments Manager to consider their suitability for allotment use. The alternative sites are considered to be unsuitable because of issues relating to drainage, levels and accessibility.

The existing allotments are privately owned and have been identified as being of medium quality and medium value in the Councils Open Space Strategy. Of the six remaining allotments, only three are considered to be in good workable condition. The lease to the Council has now expired and there seems little realistic prospect of the site continuing to be used for allotments. The applicant has offered to provide alternative allotment sites within the area, however the sites put forward are considered to be unsuitable.

As an alternative, the applicant has offered a financial contribution of £1,500 to be secured via a unilateral undertaking that can be used towards future provision or improvement of existing allotments managed by the Council at Olney Street.

In terms of Policy R9 and the requirement for a replacement provision of equivalent community benefit, the fact that the existing allotments are privately owned and would no longer be available given the expiry of the lease together with the unsuitability of alternative sites to accommodate replacement provision means that the offer of a financial contribution to be used to improve existing allotments to make them more useable/ letable is considered to be of community benefit.

The Allotments Manager advises that the preferred option is to secure the financial contribution that will be used towards the better management and improvement of existing allotments at Olney Street. The unilateral undertaking would provide for this outcome and on balance it is considered that this would be the most pragmatic solution.

The Allotments Manager also advises that whilst there is a waiting list, it is intended that the remaining plot holders on the application site be offered alternative sites when vacancies became available. There is currently one plot vacancy with the possibility of a further vacancy at Olney Street.

117

Housing issues:

In the context of the NPPF the site is considered to be previously undeveloped ‘greenfield’ land.

The Council’s latest Annual Monitoring Report shows that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites in accordance with paragraph 47 of 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.

It is therefore considered that, unless it is judged that there are any adverse impacts of granting permission that would outweigh the benefits, that the proposal should be approved.

In addition to Policy D2 of the UDP, Policies BE1 and BE2 of the UDP highlight the importance of achieving good design which is also a main objective set out in chapter 7 of the NPPF, entitled “requiring good design”. Paragraph 56 states that “the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment”.

These and other material considerations are assessed below.

Effect on visual amenity:

A full assessment of the appearance and landscape of the development proposed would be made upon submission of reserved matters.

UDP Policies are BE1 and BE2 state that the layout of buildings should respect any traditional character the area may have. Development must respect the scale, height and design of adjoining buildings and be in keeping with the predominant character of the area.

Given the sloping nature of the site, excavations and infill would be required within the site. The layout and sections submitted are considered to be acceptable in that they show two storey dwellings which would follow the general topography of the land and the scale proposed would conform to the scale of surrounding properties. All plots are shown to provide reasonable sized enclosed rear garden areas including three parking spaces with adequate space for waste bins for each plot and a bin collection point adjacent to the access point. Given the size of the application site, it is considered that three dwellings can be adequately be accommodated without 118

appearing to be out of context and the development would be in keeping with the grain of the surrounding development.

With regard to external appearance and landscape these are matters which would be considered in detail upon submission of reserved matters or full application taking into account the above policies and the impact on the character and appearance of the surroundings. Nevertheless, it is considered necessary to condition that the dwellings be externally faced in natural stone. This would accord with Policy BE11 in that it would respect the traditional character of the area and be in keeping with the surrounding development, which is predominately faced in natural stone.

Given the topography of the site, retaining walls will be required internally within the site. A condition is recommended requiring submission and approval of such details.

It is considered that development of the site can be achieved without harm to visual amenity in accordance with UDP policy and the NPPF.

Effect on residential amenity:

From the proposed layout it is anticipated that principal openings would be in the east and western elevations of the proposed dwellings. Taking into account the predominant character of the site and levels, it is felt that the development can be designed to achieve distances to accord with Policy BE12 of the UDP. Furthermore, in the layout shown the amenities of future occupants as well as those that are located within close proximity to the application site would be safeguarded.

Effect on Highways & road safety:

UDP Policy T10 states that “New development will not normally be permitted if it will create or materially add to highway safety or environmental problems or, in the case of development which will attract or generate a significant number of journeys, it cannot be served adequately by the existing highway network …”. Policy T19 addresses car parking in relation to the maximum standards set out in Appendix 2 to the UDP.

On initial assessment the Highway Officers considered that the elongated shape of the site would make it impractical to provide internal turning provision for large service vehicles. Given that Hawthorn Road is residential in 119

nature carrying low volumes of traffic it is considered acceptable that refuse vehicles would reverse into the access from Hawthorn Road. However, to facilitate refuse collection an area close to the site entrance for the storage of bins on the day of collection is required. Along with this the provision of three parking spaces would be required for the size of dwellings proposed. The plans have been amended in accordance with this advice. The proposals would also involve lowering and repositioning the existing stone boundary wall along Hawthorn Road 2m back into the site with an overall height of 1m and the provision of a 2m wide footpath.

Highway Officers are now satisfied that the principle of developing this site for three dwellings is achievable with adequate access onto Hawthorn Road as shown on the amended plan.

In conclusion; it is considered that traffic generated by the proposed development can be safely accommodated within the local highway network and that the proposal would not result in any undue highway safety implications on the existing surrounding highway network. Subject to suitable conditions the application is considered acceptable by Highway Officers and would accord with the above mentioned highway Policies of the UDP and the NPPF.

Drainage Issues:

Further information has been submitted in the form of Flooding and Drainage Assessment produced by CODA Structures (dated 4/11/2014 including drawing ref 6917/Fig 3 Rev A ‘Drainage Schematic’) to examine the exact line of the watercourse upstream and provide details of kerbing work necessary to lower the risk of water entering the site from Hawthorne Road.

Surface water drainage details are considered satisfactory. However a connection to the watercourse would give rise to additional flows to the system located in Hawthorn Road. A defect has been observed on this watercourse and in order to facilitate this development, an agreement to contribute £1,500 towards upgrading the defective section has been reached with the Council’s Strategic Drainage Officer. The contribution is secured by way of a unilateral undertaking.

To manage residual risk for potential overland flows, perimeter drainage maybe required which can connect into the watercourse through the site. Subject to the imposition of appropriate drainage conditions and securing of funding for the necessary improvement works to the watercourse, it is 120

considered that the development can be adequately accommodated in accordance with advice in the NPPF.

Ecological issues:

Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states “when determining applications Local Planning Authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying a number of principles”. These include the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in and around developments.

UDP Policy EP11 requires that applications for planning permission should incorporate landscaping which protects/enhances the ecology of the site. The ecological report accompanying the application has identified the site as having some low value habitats with potential biodiversity impacts.

The Biodiversity Officer advises the site consists of allotment gardens with occasional shrubs and early stages of scrub development. The site is of limited value and there are unlikely to be any significant ecological impacts as a result of the proposed development.

Nevertheless, certain measures would need to be adopted to provide appropriate enhancement and compensation measures in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and Policy EP11 of the UDP. These include the removal of vegetation and buildings to be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season, (March to August inclusive) and a landscaping scheme which incorporates native species and the inclusion of 2 woodcrete sparrow terraces located on a suitable (northern aspect) elevation of the new build and 2 bat tubes similar to the Schweglar 1FR boxes fitted integral to suitable elevations of the new build (southerly aspect). In light of this appropriately worded conditions and notes will be included should Member be minded to approve the application.

Representations:

Insofar as representations received that have not been addressed through the officer’s assessment, these are responded to as follows:

• Loss of garages on application site. Response: the plans have been amended to retain the two existing garages in the north corner of the site.

• Loss of privacy to no. 18 Longroyd Crescent Response: the layout proposed would achieve distances in excess of those set out in Policy BE12 of the UDP. Given the land levels and proposed scale of the dwellings, officers are satisfied that the proposed development would not result in a significant loss of privacy to existing garden areas and dwellings.

121

Conclusion:

9. RECOMMENDATION

GRANT CONDITIONAL OUTLINE PERMISSION SUBJECT TO:

i) THE APPLICANT ENTERING INTO A PLANNING OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO IMPROVE EXISTING ALLOTMENTS AT OLNEY STREET, SLAITHWAITE AND TO IMPROVE EXISTING DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE TO HAWTHORN ROAD

ii) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO IMPOSE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS WHICH MAY INCLUDE THOSE DETAILED IN THE REPORT, AND

iii) SUBJECT TO THERE BEING NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE THAT WOULD ALTER THIS RECOMMENDATION, ISSUE THE DECISION NOTICE

Conditions:

1. Approval of the details of the appearance and landscaping of the site (hereinafter called ‘the reserved matters’) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 1 above, relating to the appearance, scale, and landscaping of the site, shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved plans.

3. Application for approval of any reserved matter shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

5. The dwellings shall be faced in coursed natural stone and the roofing material shall be of a flat profile to harmonise with those on dwellings in close vicinity of the site. 122

6. Any planting, seeding or tree management works forming part of the landscaping scheme, to include native species, to be approved by conditions 1 and 2 shall be carried out during the first planting, seeding or management season following the commencement of construction, or as otherwise may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be maintained for a period of five years from the completion of planting works. All specimens which die within this period shall be replaced with like for like species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7. Notwithstanding the submitted information, two bird nesting features in the form of woodcrete sparrow terraces, to be located on the north elevation at least 3 metres above ground level and not above doors or windows shall be included integral to the new builds before the dwellings are first occupied and retained thereafter

8. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, two bat roosting features in the form bat tubes similar to Schweglar type 1FR bat boxes shall be incorporated integral to the new builds, on the southerly aspect, located away from external windows and lighting, at least 5 metres above ground level, before the dwellings are first occupied and retained thereafter.

9. 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, or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

10. The internal driveway, new access arrangements with adequate sight lines and vehicle turning facility, as shown on approved drawing no. 1401- 110 Rev D, shall be constructed and made operational before the hereby approved dwellings are first occupied. The turning facility shall thereafter be made available for use at all times by vehicles and shall be kept free from obstruction to such use.

11. The development authorised by this planning permission shall not begin until the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing a full scheme of works for the provision of a new footway across the frontage of the site as indicated on the approved drawing no. 1401-110 Rev D. The dwellings shall not be occupied until all of the footway has been completed in accordance with the approved details.

12. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, all private areas indicated to be used for access, parking and turning as shown on approved drawing no. 1401-110 Rev D, shall be laid out with a hardened and drained surface in accordance with the 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 before the dwellings are first occupied. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended (or any Order revoking or 123

re-enacting that Order) this shall be so retained, free of obstructions and available for access, parking and turning.

13. The hereby approved dwellings shall not be brought into use until all obstructions within the visibility sight lines as shown on approved drawing no. 1401-110 Rev D, have been lowered to 1m in height. Thereafter no obstructions which exceeds 1.0m in height shall be planted or erected within the visibility sight lines, along the site frontage.

14. The hereby approved dwellings shall not be brought into use until details of storage and access for collection of wastes from the premises have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and adhered to before any of the dwellings are occupied and thereafter retained free of obstructions and available for storage.

15. No development shall take place until details of the siting, design and material to be used in the construction of retaining walls/ including structures abutting a highway have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction of the hereby approved dwellings shall commence only on completion of the retaining structures/walls in accordance with the approved details or unless otherwise approved in writing and thereafter retained as such.

16. Before the hereby approved dwellings are occupied, the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved Flooding and Drainage Assessment produced by Coda Structures dated 4th November 2014 revision A and drainage drawing no. 6918/Fig3 Rev A, and shall incorporate all the proposed mitigation measures into the development.

NOTE: Perimeter Drainage may be required to intercept overland flows from outside the site. This can connect to the watercourse. A temporary cut off trench and sump is advisable after soil and vegetation strip to protect adjacent properties as run off may increase during the construction period.

NOTE: The Council’s Environment Officer has commented that a bat roost may be present on site. Bats are a European protected species under regulation 41 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. It is an offence for anyone intentionally to kill, injure or handle a bat, disturb a roosting bat, or sell or offer a bat for sale without a licence. It is also an offence to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place used by bats for shelter, whether they are present or not.

If bats are discovered on site development shall cease and the applicant is advised to contact Natural England for advice.

NOTE: The removal of vegetation and buildings should be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season, March to August 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 124

nests are present work which may cause destruction of nests or, disturbance to the resident birds must cease until the young have fledged.

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: Link to 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 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: Please note that the granting of planning permission does not overrule private legal rights of ownership and it is your responsibility to ensure you have the legal right to carry out the approved works as construction and maintenance may involve access to land outside your ownership.

NOTE: The responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner. It is advised where a site could be affected by land stability issues this be taken into account and dealt with appropriately by the developer and/or landowner

125

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

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received Access Statement A 14th May 2014 Planning Policy 14th May 2014 Statement Phase 1 Environmental 6918 dated 28 14th May 2014 Assessment March 2014 Location Plan 1401-103 A 14th May 2014 Proposed site block 1401- 110 D 5th Dec 2014 Plan & sections Flooding & Drainage Coda Structures A Assessment Amended drainage plan 6918/Fig 3 5th Nov 2014 Draft unilateral 08th Jan 2015 undertaking

126

Application No: 2014/93326

Type of application: 62 - FULL APPLICATION

Proposal: Conversion and extension of existing building, including part demolition, to form wedding venue and restaurant with bedrooms, and ancillary car park together with community use. (Listed Building)

Location: Fieldhead, 1, Lidget Street, Lindley, Huddersfield, HD3 3JB

Grid Ref: 411787.0 418111.0

Ward: Lindley Ward

Applicant: Bankgate

Agent: Malcolm Sizer Planning Ltd

Target Date: 09-Mar-2015

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

------

LOCATION PLAN

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

127

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

Application Details Type of Development Leisure use Scale of Development Site Area: 0.5315 ha No. Jobs Created or Retained 22 created Policy UDP allocation Unallocated on the UDP Independent Viability Required No Consultation/Representation Individual Support (No.) 0 Individual Objection (No.) 6 Petition No Ward Member Interest No Statutory Consultee No Objections Contributions • None required Other Issues Any Council Interest? Yes The Council own the site, and notice has been served. Pre-application planning Yes Advice provided in respect to the advice? impact of the development on the Listed building Pre-App Consultation No Undertaken? Comment on Application The application is recommended for conditional full approval.

RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL FULL PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO: • 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 Strategic Planning Committee in accordance with the Councils Delegation agreement as the development proposed is for a leisure use on a site which exceeds 0.5 hectares.

3. PROPOSAL/SITE DESCRIPTION

Site: The application site forms a piece of land which includes a Grade II listed building known as ‘Fieldhead’ which is located off Lidget Street in the Lindley Area of Huddersfield. The site accommodates a number of buildings which 128

are all interconnected and previously formed a children’s home and centre. The buildings are currently empty, with windows boarded up, and are in a poor state of repair. The buildings are constructed from natural stone with pitched roofs of varying designs.

The buildings form three distinctive elements, the main former house and its coach house, the extension to the west of the coach house, and a long rectangular building which is located to the north of the site. The large rectangular building fronts Lidget Street and it connected to the main body of the house via a first floor bridge link.

The age of the buildings vary with the listed elements being the oldest sections. The former coach house has been converted into habitable space, with the extension to its west being relatively modern. The long rectangular building is relatively old but has a simpler design than that of the main building. The main building has an ashlar frontage, with a number of architectural design features.

Access to the site is via an existing vehicular drive from Lidget Street to the south of building, and leads to a turning circle in front of the main building, with the drive continuing along the southern side of the building. The area in front of the turning circle is grassed, and a large lawn is provided between the southern elevation of the building and St Stephen’s Church which is located to the south.

Surrounding the site, to the south is an access which serves a development site to the south west, where a former office building has recently been demolished. St Stephen’s Church and its associated church yard are located to the south of this access road, with the church forming a Grade II listed building. To the east the site is bounded by a number of trees, with Lidget Street beyond, which forms the main road through the local centre of Lindley. Detached properties are situated on the opposite side of Lidget Street which face towards the site, a number of on street time restricted parking spaces are provided along Lidget Street. To the north of the site, are three residential properties which face towards the rectangular building, with a two recently constructed blocks of apartments behind. To the west of the site is an existing two storey building which currently operates as a children’s home. A row of protected trees run along the boundary of the wider site.

Proposal: The application seeks permission for the conversion and extension of the existing building, including part demolition, to form a wedding venue and restaurant with bedrooms, and ancillary car park together with community use. The proposal forms three distinctive elements: • Bar/restaurant (113 square metres) located in the main body of the house, • Function Space (300 square metres) to the rear of the site in the former coach house and new extension and a smaller room with community use located in the main body of the house.

129

• Hotel and Spa with 10 bedrooms located in the rectangular building at the site, and above the main body of the house.

The extensions to the building would be attached to the coach house to the west of the site, and would increase the available floor space for the function room/hotel and ancillary facilities, and link the main body of the house with the function space and hotel. The extensions would be constructed from materials to match existing, and also include large sections of glazing in part.

In total 57 parking spaces would be provided for the development, or which 3 would be for staff 2 would be disabled spaces, and the remaining 52 for users of the building. The spaces would be predominantly located on the existing lawn to the south of the buildings, but also at other points around the site.

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

• 2014/93327 – Listed building consent for the conversion and extension of the existing building, including part demolition, to form a wedding venue and restaurant with bedrooms, and ancillary car park together with community use – Pending Consideration

Adjacent site • 2014/93632 - Outline application for erection of residential development – Pending Consideration

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 – Material of Construction • BE12 – Space about Dwellings • BE23 – Designing Out Crime • D2 – General Design Principles • T10 – Highway Safety • T17 - New Development and Cycle Facilities • T19 – Parking Standards • EP4 – Noise Sensitive Development • EP6 – Development and Noise • NE9 – Retention of Mature Trees • B14 – Hotel and Conference Facilities • C1 – Community Facilities • S1 – Town and Local Centres

130

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

• NPPF1: Building a strong competitive economy • NPPF 2: Ensuring the vitality of town centres • NPPF7: Requiring good design • NPPF11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment • NPPF12: Conserving and enhancing the historic 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 – no objection subject to conditions

• KC Environmental Services – no objections subject to conditions

• KC Strategic Drainage – no objection subject to conditions

• KC Trees – no objection in principle

• KC Ecologist – no objections subject to conditions

• KC Conservation and Design – no objections subject to conditions

• Historic England – This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your expert conservation advice.

• West Yorkshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections, comments made.

7. REPRESENTATIONS

Publicity on the application expired on: 5 December 2015

In total 6 representations have been received on the application. Of the submitted representations there is a mix of comments in support, and some raising concerns, with the Huddersfield Civic Society supporting the application. A summary of the submitted representations are set out below.

Concerns • The proposed development provides insufficient levels of off street parking, this is a particular concern given that existing parking arrangements in the local area are generally oversubscribed. • The local highway network is not of a sufficient standard to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development. • Users of the development are highly unlikely to use public transport to access the site, given the nature of the use. 131

• The provision of a community room is considered to be misleading, and appears inaccessible given the layout of the building, and the associated used. It is considered that the community use element of the development should be given very little weight in considering the application. There are also a number of other spaces available locally for community uses • It is considered that the proposal would not provide the levels of jobs suggested, and most would be part time or on zero hours contacts, which will do little to boost the local economy. • The application at Oakmead should not be brought forward until the development at Fieldhead has been finalised as the two sites impact on one another.

Support • The general principle of bringing this Grade II Listed Building back into use is supported. The building experiences vandalism and is in a poor statement of repair, and a long term viable use is welcomed. • It is acknowledged that a level of overlooking will occur to the occupiers of 5-9 Lidget Street, however will appropriate mitigation measures and given that the use would be predominantly on weekends, it is considered that this impact is acceptable.

8. ASSESSMENT

Principle:

The application seeks planning permission for the proposed development which includes works that also require listed building consent. A separate application for listed building consent has been submitted under the allied application 2014/93327.

The application seeks the change of use of former C2 children’s home to form a mixed use leisure development for a wedding venue, which consists of a bar/restaurant, function room(s) and a hotel spa, providing approximately 1,600 square metres of floor space. The proposed use would fall under the Sui Generis classification of the Use Class Order. The principle of development needs to be considered in relation to Policy S1 of the UDP, and policies set out in chapter 1 and 2 of the NPPF regarding main town centre uses. The application site also accommodates a Grade II listed building and Policies in Chapter 11 of the NPPF are relevant with respect to the impact of the development on the listed building.

The site has been unoccupied for a significant period of time, is in a poor state of repair and has experienced significant vandalism over recent years. The previous use as a Children’s home is no longer considered to be viable given the buildings current state and significant repair works are necessary to bring the building into a viable use.

132

The site is located within Lindley local centre which is a large local centre as set out under Policy S1 of the UDP. The proposed mixed use wedding venue represents a leisure use which Policy S1 and chapter 2 of the NPPF states should be located within town and local centres.

Policy B14 of the UDP is also considered to be relevant given the hotel and function room space provided by the development. Policy B14 advises that such facilities will normally be permitted in town and local centres, and with sites with good strategic highway network provision, subject to amenity and highway safety considerations.

The application site is considered to be located within the Lindley local centre and it is considered that the proposal would meet the principle requirements of Policy S1 and B14 of the UDP and NPPF chapter 1 and 2. The local centre has good access to the strategic highway network, being within close proximity to junction 23 and 24 of the M62, and other key routes to the main town centre of Huddersfield, and surrounding towns and local centres. The site is also served by a frequent bus services via routes which connect the nearby hospital to the south with Huddersfield Town Centre.

Chapter 1 of the NPPF also encourages support for local businesses and sustainable growth stating “…significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.” The premises have been empty for a significant period of time, and its re use would lead to the creation of 22 jobs. The application sites location is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle. However, an assessment needs to be made with respect to the impact of the development on the Grade II listed building, residential and visual amenity, highway safety and ecology.

Impact on Listed Building

The impact of the development and the internal alterations on the listed building have been considered by the Conservation and Design Officer, and a full assessment of the internal works is set out in the associated listed building application, 2014/93327. English Heritage have also assessed the submitted comments in relation to the proposal, and advise that local Conservation and Design advice is followed. The application has been assessed in relation to Policies BE1, BE2 and BE11 of the UDP and Policies in the NPPF, paragraphs 131, 132 and 134 of the NPPF are most relevant which are set out below:

131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

133

• the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional.

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

The Conservation Officer has stated that the proposed development needs to be considered in the light of numerous alterations that have been carried out at the site to enable the previous use. These works have reduced the significance of the building, and it is noted that the proposed development would put back some of the original plan form. Equally the building is in a poor condition due to the lack of maintenance and vandalism which has occurred over recent years, and this is also a consideration with the proposal.

The internal alterations include the widening of existing openings, particularly on the ground floor which would open up the hall, the removal of stud partitioning, removal of two staircases, new window openings being formed, installation of a new staircase, glazed partitions and the blocking up of redundant openings.

Externally the biggest impact on the listed building would be closure of the gap between the main building and the former coach house, and the rebuilding works of the modern extension to the west of the coach house.

It is acknowledged that the extensions do cause harm to the character and significance of the listed building and as such paragraph 132 of the NPPF applies. The impact of the proposed development should be assessed and great weight given to the conservation of the asset. However, it is felt that the harm caused is not substantial and as such paragraph 134 of the NPPF applies. This paragraph states that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. This latter part is of great importance as the building has been vacant for some time is in a poor state of repair and has suffered from vandalism over recent years. Bringing the building back into use requires a great deal of investment to make the building usable, and as such investment is unlikely to come from a private residential use, therefore a use such as this is more likely to be viable. The proposed use is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle and would bring the building back into use for a long term viable use.

134

Further to the above, it is considered that link extension between the main building and the Coach House has been designed to an acceptable standard to preserve the historic nature of the building. Whilst closing the gap between the two buildings it has been designed with a relatively lightweight structure which would allow views through to the original parts of the listed building, and would allow the history of the buildings to be read. The extension to the west of the Coach House has been designed to replicate the scale and form of the existing Coach House, and it is considered that this extension would represent a visual improvement on the building to hat is currently in place at the site. The new extension and the former coach house would be linked to together by a simple glazed link with pitched roof, such a design is considered to be acceptable.

The design of the extensions is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle and would assist in bringing a long term viable use for the site. Architectural detailing for the proposal and window designs for proposal are considered to be acceptable in principle, however final details information will need to be submitted on these matters, and could be secured via condition. In light of the above the proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies in Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

Other Design Considerations

The application has also been assessed by the Police Architectural Liaison Officer (PALO) and in relation to Policy BE23. The PALO raises no objection in principle to the development and the applicant has now agreed that CCTV will be installed to the car park area which is considered to be acceptable.

Conclusion on Principle

In conclusion the principle of the proposed wedding venue is considered to be acceptable. It is located within an identified large local centre and would bring a Grade II listed building in a poor state of repair back into use. The application would therefore comply with the requirements of Policies BE1, BE2, BE23, B14, S1 of the Kirklees UDP and Policies in the NPPF.

Highway Safety:

The development has been assessed in relation to Policies T10 and T19 of the UDP, and Policies in the NPPF. The application has been assessed by Highway Services and the applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment to accompany the application.

The site was previously used as children’s home and day centre with 15 bedrooms including 2 flats, offices and meeting areas. The site is currently unoccupied.

Currently access to the site is via the existing main access point from Lidget Street which serves the application site, the Children’s Home at Woodlands, and the site of the former Oakmead Office block which has recently been 135

demolished, and is subject to an outline application for residential development under application 2014/93632.

The access consists of a footway vehicular crossing, with keep clear road markings on the adjacent carriageway. On street parking restricts visibility from the proposed access onto Lidget Street in both directions. There is also a secondary access point to the application site to the north.

Lidget Street is a two way single carriageway with footways to both sides. The carriageway within the vicinity of the main site access is approximately 8.2m in width. The west side footway along the site frontage ranges in width between 1.5m and 1.6m, and the east side footway is generally around 1.7m in width. There are marked on-street parking bays along the western side of Lidget Street and waiting restrictions along the eastern side.

The proposed development site would utilise the existing shared vehicular access point to the south that currently serves an existing Children’s Home, the application site, and the site of the former Oakmead Office block. The access point to the north would be closed off.

The current access arrangements for the site are considered to be substandard for the uses it would have to serve. Improved access arrangements are therefore considered to be necessary to both serve the proposed wedding venue development, but also the residential scheme proposed subject of 2014/93632 for the Oakmead site, as well as serving the existing Children’s Home.

The improved access arrangements would involve making the access point up to adoptable standards with 6m radius kerbing, 5.50m wide carriageway width, pedestrian footways on both sides and improvements to visibility. Improvements to visibility to Lidget Street would be provided across land within the applicant’s control. The improved point of access would need to be secured before either this application, or the proposal for the Oakmead site is brought into use, and it is considered that a suitably worded conditioned could ensure that the access is delivered in the appropriate timescale. Access arrangements for the site are therefore considered to be in principle.

Concerns have however been raised in relation to the level of off street parking delivered by the development, with Highways concerned that sufficient off street parking is not provided to ensure compliance with UDP Parking Standards. This is of particular concern given the high demand for on street parking in the local area and the parking restrictions that are in place on a number of roads locally. This highway concern can however be addressed if sufficient control is in place in relation to the operation of the site with respect to the proposed uses. There is particular concern that the proposed restaurant and bar could operate at the same time as the function room leading to a high level of parking demand. In light of these concerns it is proposed that a condition is placed on the recommendation which limits the use of the bar and restaurant when the function room is in use.

136

To ensure the visitors and members of staff are aware of sustainable means of transport to access the site, a condition is placed on the recommendation for the submission of a travel plan, and the provision of cycle storage.

In conclusion the proposed access and internal layout are considered acceptable subject to appropriate conditions as set out above. The proposal is therefore considered to have an acceptable impact on highway safety and would accord with Policies T10 and T19 of the UDP.

Amenity:

Residential Amenity The impact of the development on residential amenity has been assessed in detail including by consultation with Environmental Services and in relation to Policies D2, EP4 and EP6 of the UDP and Policies in the NPPF. The applicant has also provided a site specific noise report which has been assessed.

The application site is located within close proximity to a number of residential properties, 5-9 Lidget Street are located to the north and look towards the proposed site, dwellings at Sykes Court and Holly Bank House form older person flats and are located to the north west. A children’s home is located to the west at Woodlands, and a residential scheme has been proposed for the former Oakmead site to the south west, where an outline application has been submitted under 2014/93632. To the east on the opposite side of Lidget Street are three dwellings which look towards the site.

Noise In terms of noise impact from the proposed development Environmental Services initially raised concerns with the proposal and a noise report was then submitted which has now been assessed. The findings of the noise report are considered to be satisfactory. However the recommendations in the report to control the levels of potential noise may conflict with what is acceptable to Listed Buildings i.e. the improved glazing and ventilation. The report recommends acoustic secondary glazing and the need for ventilation other than relying on opening windows and doors, i.e. mechanical ventilation/air conditioning.

The Conservation Officer has considered the submitted details and is agreeable to the proposed mitigation measures in principle, however final detailed design would need to be submitted, via condition. Subject to final design details of the noise mitigation measures the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on local amenity with respect to noise.

Further control with respect to noise levels may be secured via the licencing arrangements. However to ensure that there is sufficient control regarding the operation of the bar and restaurant, an hours of use condition will be attached to the recommendation.

137

Overlooking In terms of potential for overlooking, the main impact would occur from the proposed hotel rooms. The existing dwellings in closest proximity to the proposed development are the flats at Holly Bank House and the dwellings at 5-9 Lidget Street. Hotel rooms would be formed in the rectangular building of the development, which is positioned to the north of the site. Policy BE12 provides a set of space about dwelling distances for new dwellings, however it is considered that these distances provided a good set of guidelines for the proposed development. In terms of ground floor relationships, it is considered the use of appropriate boundary treatment would ensure that there would be no adverse overlooking impact from the proposed development. Details of boundary treatments will be conditioned as part of the permission.

In terms distances to Holly Bank House to the north, windows to serve bedroom 9 of the hotel would be within closest proximity, and these would be located 23 metres away. This separation distance exceeds the 21 metres advised by Policy BE12. It is therefore considered that this separation distance is sufficient to ensure the amenity of residents in Holly Bank House is sufficiently protected from any adverse overlooking.

In terms of distances to 5-9 Lidget Street, a separation distance of between 8- 10.5 metres could be achieved from the windows which serve bedrooms 6 and 7 and the dwellings. It is acknowledged that this separation distance falls significantly short of the distances advised by Policy BE12 between habitable room windows. It should however be noted that the building to be used for the hotel is existing and all the windows openings to be used are existing openings. There has therefore been a long standing relationship between the two properties and previously there would have been a degree of overlooking when the host property was used as a children’s home. It is therefore considered that whilst short of the advised separation distance for habitable room windows, the relationship between the two properties is acceptable and would not be materially worse than currently experienced. To mitigate against any detrimental overlooking impact, all windows in the northern side at first floor level which serve bedrooms 6, 7 and 9 will be conditioned to be obscurely glazed to protect the amenity of the occupiers of 5-9 Lidget Street.

In terms of separation distances to other existing dwellings, distances would all exceed the 21 metres advised by Policy BE12, and the impact on these surrounding properties is considered to be acceptable with respect to overlooking.

Conclusion on Amenity

In conclusion the proposed development is considered to have an acceptable impact on local amenity subject to the submission of final design details for the noise attenuation measures, boundary treatments, and obscurely glazing some of the windows which serve the hotel.

138

Ecology:

The ecological impact of the development has been assessed in relation to Policies NE9 of the UDP and Policies in the Chapter 11 of the NPPF. The application has been assessed by the Councils Ecologist and Arboriculturist, a Bat Survey and Arboricultural report has also been provided.

The Councils Ecologist raised initial concerns with the submitted bat survey, however after further clarification that the building did not contain a maternity roost, it was accepted that further survey work can be conditioned. It is also advised that mitigation measures are delivered by the development in the form of bat and starling boxes and details of a landscaping scheme. It is considered that this further information can be conditioned.

Turning to the impact of the development on protected trees, the Arboriculturist raises no objection in principle to the development. A method statement for the development has been provided to detail how works will be carried out at the site which protects the health of the trees. The recommendation in the method statement will be conditioned as part of the recommendation.

Subject to the conditions as set out above, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on trees, and the proposal would comply with Policy NE9 of the UDP and Policies in the NPPF.

Drainage:

The applications impact on drainage has been assessed by the Councils Strategic Drainage Officer, and in relation to relevant policies set out in the NPPF. No objections are raised by the Strategic Drainage Officer as the net increase in footprint will be only 200 sq. m. However it is not clear from the submitted plans whether any new drainage works are proposed and therefore a condition is attached to the recommendation requiring further information to be submitted. Subject to the conditions the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on drainage.

Representations:

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

• The proposed development provides insufficient levels of off street parking, this is a particular concern given that existing parking arrangements in the local area are generally oversubscribed.

Response: As set out above the development would be subject to an appropriate condition restricting the uses at the site, the proposal is considered to provide a sufficient level of off street parking for the uses proposed.

139

• The local highway network is not of a sufficient standard to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development. • Users of the development are highly unlikely to use public transport to access the site, given the nature of the use.

Response: The local highway network is considered to be of a sufficient standard to accommodate the proposed use. The site does have good access to public transport with a frequent bus service. It is considered that the site is sufficiently sustainable in terms of its access.

• The provision of a community room is considered to be misleading, and appears inaccessible given the layout of the building and the associated used. It is considered that the community use element of the development should be given very little weight in considering the application. There are also a number of other spaces available locally for community uses.

Response: The provision of a community room in the proposal is noted, however it is acknowledged that its use by the community cannot be guaranteed, and only limited weight can be afforded to its provision.

• It is considered that the proposal would not provide the levels of jobs suggested, and most would be part time or zero hours contacts, which will do little to boost the local economy. • Response: It is considered that the proposal would support the local economy and create employment opportunities.

• The application at Oakmead should not be brought forward until the development at Fieldhead has been finalised as the two sites impact on one another.

Response: Each application has to be assessed on its own merits based on the information provided. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable for the reasons set out above.

The comments in support are noted by Officers.

Conclusion:

In conclusion the application site is located within the main local centre of Lindley, and the formation of a mixed use wedding venue is considered to be appropriate for the site. The proposal would bring back into use an empty listed building which is in a poor state of repair, and provide a long term viable use for the building. The extensions and alterations to the buildings are considered to be of an acceptable design and scale, and would bring some historic features back to the building. The proposal would sufficiently protect the amenity of surrounding properties with the provision of appropriate

140

mitigation measures. The proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on Highway Safety and local Ecology.

9. RECOMMENDATION

Suggested 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. The external walls and roofing materials of the extension hereby approved shall in all respects match those used in the construction of the existing building.

4. When the function room of the hereby approved wedding venue is in operation, the restaurant and bar element of the development shall at no point operate independently to the operation of the function room. The restaurant and bar shall only operate independently when the function room is not in use.

5. The development shall not be brought into use until sight lines in which there shall be no obstruction to visibility 1.0m above the adjacent carriageway channel line as indicated on the approved plan No 02 Rev B have been completed. Thereafter, the sight lines shall be retained throughout the lifetime of the development.

6. Notwithstanding the approved plans, development shall not commence until a scheme detailing the layout and construction specification, including surfacing, and works programme for the access, internal road and footpaths 141

(and all associated works) and car park, with the appropriate Road Safety Audits has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into use until the approved works have been implemented. Thereafter, the said works shall be retained thereafter.

7. Before development commences specific design details of the sound attenuation measures as specified in the submitted Noise Report dated 16 February 2015 produced by S & D Garritt Ltd shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved attenuation measures shall thereafter be: I. Installed and completed. II. Written evidence to demonstrate that the specified noise levels have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. III. Retained thereafter. If it cannot be demonstrated that the noise levels specified in the aforementioned Noise Report have been achieved then a further scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority incorporating further measures to achieve those noise levels. All works comprised within those further measures shall be completed and written evidence to demonstrate that the aforementioned noise levels have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is first brought into use and retained thereafter.

8. Before development commences, a ventilation scheme to show how function rooms shall be ventilated without the need to open windows and doors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works which form part of the approved scheme shall be completed before the development is first brought into use and retained thereafter.

9. All external doors and windows to the room/s where regulated entertainment is provided shall remain closed (other than for normal access and egress) during the course of the entertainment.

10. All amplified music, singing and speech provided as part of the regulated entertainment shall be played through a sound system that incorporates a sound limiting device that has been installed and set to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for the prevention of Public Nuisance (Pollution & Noise Control). The sound limiting device shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

11. Before development commences a bat activity survey report for the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bat activity survey which details appropriate mitigation measures shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within 1 month of the survey having been undertaken. Any mitigation measures required by the approved survey shall be provided and retained thereafter.

142

12. Before the development is brought into use three woodcrete starling nest boxes shall be erected on mature trees within the site. The boxes shall be erected at least 3 metres from the ground above a clear stem with no branching. The boxes shall be retained thereafter.

13. Development shall not commence until a scheme detailing landscaping, tree/shrub planting, including the indication of all existing trees and hedgerows on and adjoining the site, details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority . The scheme shall detail the phasing of the landscaping and planting. The development and the works comprising the approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved phasing. The approved landscaping scheme shall, from its completion, be maintained for a period of five years. If, within this period, any tree, shrub or hedge shall die, become diseased or be removed, it shall be replaced with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

14. The hereby approved development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the recommendations and requirements as set out in the Arboricultural Method Statement by JCA Limited, Ref 12111/SR submitted on 25 March 2015.

15. Development shall not commence until a scheme detailing foul, surface water and land drainage, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied until such approved drainage scheme has been provided on the site to serve the development and thereafter retained.

16. Before the development is brought into use all windows at first floor level in the northern side elevation of the development hereby approved have been fitted with obscure glazing, minimum grade 4, the obscure glazing shall be retained thereafter.

17. Before the development is brought into use details of the boundary treatment to for all of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme completed. Thereafter the approved boundary treatment shall be retained.

18. No part of the development shall be brought into use until details of cycle parking facilities for 6 cycles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved cycle parking facilities shall be installed in accordance with the approved scheme before the development is first brought into use and retained.

19. No part of the development shall be brought into use until a Full Travel Plan for the site, produced in accordance with the Framework Travel Plan by PAH Highway Consultants submitted on 22 October 2014, has been

143

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Full Travel Plan shall include: • Measures, objectives and targets for reduced car usage and increased non-car transport usage, including modal split targets; • The provision of Travel Plan Co-ordinator including roles, responsibilities and annual monitoring; • The provision of travel Information; • Implementation and review timescale; and • Enforcement, sanctions and corrective/review mechanisms. The measures contained within the Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timescale, except where the monitoring evidence demonstrates that a revised timescale/measures to achieve trip targets are necessary, in which case the revised details would be implemented.

20. Before the development is brought into use, a scheme of details for a site specific CCTV system to monitor all car parking areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use and retained thereafter.

21. The bar and restaurant use of the hereby approved development shall not be open to customers outside the hours of 06:00 to 00:00 Midnight.

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

Plan Type Plan Reference Revision Date Received Block Plan 2013/38/10 Rev - 4/3/2015 A Existing Site 2013/38/01 - 22/10/2014 Levels Existing Ground 2013/38/01 - 22/10/2014 Floor Plan Existing First 2013/38/02 - 22/10/2014 Floor Plan Existing 2013/38/04 - 22/10/2014 Elevations Existing 2013/38/05 - 22/10/2014 Elevations Proposed Internal 2013/038/11 - 10/2/2015 Wall Detailing Proposed 2013/38/08 - 22/10/2014 Elevations Proposed 2013/38/09 - 22/10/2014 Elevations Proposed First 2013/38/07 - 22/10/2014 Floor Plan Proposed Ground 2013/38/06 - 22/10/2014 Flood Plan 144

Plan Type Plan Reference Revision Date Received Proposed Parking 01 Rev D - 19/1/2015 Layout Proposed Access 02 Rev B Plan Bat Survey and 11785/DR - 22/10/2014 Report Bat Survey and 11785/DR Rev1 - 12/1/2015 Report Further 11785/DR - 26/3/2015 Statement to Bat Report Design and - - 22/10/2014 Access Statement Noise Report - - 18/2/2015 Conservation and - - 22/10/2014 Design Planning Brief Transport - - 22/10/2014 Statement and Travel Plan Framework Tree Survey 4845 - 22/10/2014 Arboricultural 12111/SR - 25/3/2015 Method Statement Parking - - 19/1/2015 Statement

145

Application No: 2014/93632

Type of application: 49m - GENERAL REGULATIONS REG.4

Proposal: Outline application for erection of residential development

Location: Oakmead, 1C, Lidget Street, Lindley, Huddersfield, HD3 3JB

Grid Ref: 411767.0 418044.0

Ward: Lindley Ward

Applicant: Joanne Bartholomew, Kirklees Council, PRP

Agent: Azhar Said, Kirklees Council, PRP

Target Date: 20-Feb-2015

Recommendation: GR2 - GRANT UNDER REG.4 GENERAL REGULATIONS

------

LOCATION PLAN

1a 110 Field Head 134

Field Tops 104 (children's home) Day Care Unit

132 1b

22 Woodlands (Children's Home) 23

14 El Sub Sta

Car P ark 1c

Lych

St Stephen's Church Gate 15

MS 11 FARNLEE

Path

Path (um)

189

187 5 4

PLOVER ROAD

183 PO 205.7m 8

26 177

11 9 A llotment Gardens 2

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

1. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

Outline permission is sought for residential development with access to be considered, all other matters being reserved for subsequent consideration.

146

The site is unallocated on the Councils UDP and is a brownfield site in a sustainable location. As such there is no objection to the principle of residential development on this site. Matters of affordable housing, POS and Education contributions are dealt with by way of condition.

The site is part of a larger complex, previously used by the Council as offices, a children’s home and day centre. There is a current application for the neighbouring building, Fieldhead (a Grade 2 listed building) for use as a hotel, spa and restaurant/ bar with a function room. As these proposals may impact upon each other there is a need to consider both applications together, particularly with respect to the provision of a satisfactory joint access off Lidget Street, and mitigation of any potential noise/ disturbance for future residents.

Both of these issues have been satisfactorily resolved and are controlled by the imposition of appropriate conditions.

The site is capable of being made fit to received new development and issues of drainage, noise attenuation and bio diversity enhancement, are covered by condition.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT UNDER REGULATION 4

2. INFORMATION

This application is brought to Sub Committee as the site area is in excess of 0.5ha.

3. PROPOSAL/SITE DESCRIPTION

Site

The application site comprises an area of 0.78 ha, and is located on the western side of Lidget Street, Lindley. The site contains the former Council Office building Oakmead, which has been vacant for some time.

To the north of the site is a smaller building still used as a children’s home, and to the east is Fieldhead, which is a Grade 2 listed building. Fieldhead was last used as a children’s home and day centre, it is currently vacant and in a dilapidated condition. There is a current application (ref 2014/93326) for the change of use and extension of this building to form a wedding venue and restaurant.

To the south is St Stephen’s Church which is also a Grade 2 listed building, and allotment gardens. The site is bounded to the west by a public footpath, which separates the site from the residential properties along Farnlee.

147

Access to the site is off an existing driveway from Lidget Street that currently serves both the application site and Fieldhead.

There are a substantial number of mature trees throughout the site that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

The site is unallocated on the Councils Unitary Development Plan.

Proposal

Outline permission is sought for residential development with access to be considered, all other matters being reserved for subsequent consideration.

There are applications for planning permission and listed building consent for the neighbouring Fieldhead property that seek permission for change of use and extensions to form a wedding venue, bar and restaurant. These applications have the potential to impact upon each other having particular regard to the proposed shared common access off Lidget Street, and the potential for conflict between residential and leisure use (in terms of potential noise nuisance).

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

2014/90919 - Prior notification approval for the demolition of Oakmead Centre

2014/93326 - (Adjacent site at Fieldhead) Conversion and extension of existing building, including part demolition, to form wedding venue and restaurant with bedrooms, and ancillary car park together with community use. Not determined.

2014/93327- (Adjacent site at Fieldhead) Listed building consent for conversion and extension conversion and extension of building , including part demolition, to form wedding venue and restaurant with bedrooms and ancillary car park together with community use. Not determined.

2014/92871- Outline application for residential development (Land at Oakmead and adjoining children’s home). Withdrawn

5. PLANNING POLICY

Kirklees Unitary Development Plan:

D2 – Unallocated land H1 – Housing needs of the district H10 – Affordable housing H18 – Provision of open space BE1 – Design principles BE2 – Quality of design G6 – Land contamination NE9 – Retention of mature trees 148

T10 – Highway safety T19 – Parking standards

National Planning Policy Framework:

Part4 Promoting sustainable transport Part 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Part 7 Requiring good design Part 8 Promoting healthy communities Part 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Part 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Other relevant policy:

Supplementary Planning Document 2 Affordable Housing

6. CONSULTATIONS

KC Highways - No objection in principle, recommend conditions in the event of approval

KC Environment Services - Recommend conditions in the event of approval, including the requirement for a noise survey

KC Trees - No objections to the principle of residential development. The illustrative layout provided is unacceptable in relation to the protected trees (accordingly the illustrative layout has been withdrawn)

KC Ecologist - A bat survey and a site survey (trees and grassland) have been undertaken as part of the prior notification for demolition. These findings are relevant and in accordance with paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Any reserved matters submission should provide for bio diversity enhancement.

KC Strategic Drainage - No objection to the proposal at outline stage. Recommend conditions and the use of sustainable drainage solutions must be considered at Reserved Matters stage.

KC Conservation and Design - Under para 128 of the Unitary Development Plan an impact of the proposals setting on the neighbouring listed buildings should be provided and is necessary for consideration. Therefore as the application is for Outline with all matters reserved, it will be necessary at Reserved Matters stage for a Heritage Impact Assessment to be provided, and this should seek to demonstrate a degree of openness and separation between the site and the listed buildings.

KC Recreation and Parks - Given the size of the site Policy H18 (provision of public open space) will apply. In this case an off site contribution towards improvement of existing facilities is acceptable.

149

KC Strategic Housing - The site falls into the category of brown field development, as such affordable housing should be provided at a rate of 15% of floor area. There is a demonstrable need for affordable housing in this area.

Yorkshire Water - Recommend conditions in the event of an approval.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer - There is a public footpath running adjacent to the site (i.e. to the west between the site and Farnlee) A uniform boundary treatment at a substantial height say 3m, would be needed along this boundary for security. Detailed comments to follow at the reserved matters stage, on any layout.

7. REPRESENTATIONS

The application has been publicised by site notices, press advertisement and neighbour notification letters. The period of publicity expired on 2nd January 2015.

One letter has been received expressing concern about the need to safeguard privacy for neighbouring dwellings and that the development proposed should relate to the footprint of the existing building.

Two letters have been received which object to the proposal for the following reasons: • Lindley already has too much housing and cannot accommodate any more units. • The local schools are already over capacity, and Doctors surgeries and Dentists are oversubscribed. • The local highway network cannot cope with any additional residential development which will only exacerbate existing congestion on Lidget Street.

‘Shape Lindley’ (A Community Interest Group)

Object to the proposal and are concerned that the pressures on children’s and community services in the area is being fuelled by the extra developments that are proposed. They have sought, pro-actively, with the Council to ensure that the opportunities at Fieldhead/Oakmead complex are realised for the overall benefits of the community.

Policy C1 of the UDP indicates that community facilities should be located in local centres as they are accessible locations. The lack of available land in the centre of Lindley marks this site as significant in considering the provision of community facilities.

The site lies within the settings of listed buildings i.e. the neighbouring Fieldhead and St Stephens Church. Any application on this site is premature until a viable strategy for the entire complex, based upon the delivery of community benefit has been agreed. If this is not done, it would be harmful to the areas’ character and cause congestion 150

8. ASSESSMENT

General Principle/Policy:

The site is unallocated on the Unitary Development Plan and as such subject to Policy D2, which indicates that planning permission for development including change of use of land, on the UDP proposals map, and not subject to specific policies in the plan will be granted subject to the proposals not prejudicing: • The implementation of the plan; • The avoidance of over development; • The conservation of energy; • Highway safety; • Residential amenity; • Visual amenity; • The character of the surroundings; • Wildlife interests; and the efficient operation of existing and planned infrastructure.

The site is not subject to specific polices and as an outline application with all matters reserved, the principle of residential use is considered to be compatible with Policy D2.

Also of relevance is the fact that the site is considered to be a brownfield site, and guidance within the NPPF supports the re development of such sites for residential use.

As such there is no policy objection to residential development of this site at this time, and in accordance with the guidance contained in paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, for decision taking purposes this means “approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay”.

In additional the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites, the provision of residential development on this site will help to address the shortfall.

Paragraph 49 of the NPPF indicates that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Accessibility is one element of sustainable development, but not the ultimate factor. Accessibility tests are set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS table 13.9). Although the RSS has been revoked it remains the latest plan which has been the subject of public examination and is therefore currently the most-sound bas for assessment under the NPPPF paragraph 4.

151

The tests are: 1. Is there a local service area within 1200m walking distance? 2. Is there a bus stop within 800m walking distance with a service of at least 30 minutes (25 minutes plus 5 minutes walking) to a town centre offering employment, leisure and retail opportunities? 3. Is there a primary school within 1600m (this equates to a 20 minute walk)? 4. Is there a surgery or other primary health care facility within 1600m?

This site satisfies all of the above tests. It is considered that the proposal represents sustainable redevelopment of a brownfield site, in accordance with both Local and National Policy guidance.

Given the size of the site policies relating to Affordable Housing (H10) and Public Open Space (H18) are applicable. It is proposed to impose the relevant conditions as part of the outline permission to enable these contributions to be secured at reserved Matters stage.

It is necessary to have regard to the fact that there is also a current application for commercial use on the adjacent site. It would be sensible therefore for the Strategic Planning Committee to consider both applications together.

Highways Issues:

The application seeks outline permission with all matters reserved apart from access. The site is currently occupied by two buildings used as offices, which are proposed to be demolished.

The site is currently served by a shared vehicular access that also serves Fieldhead Care Home from Lidget Street, Lindley.

From a Highway Development perspective the principle of the development is considered acceptable subject to the access and layout being made up to an adoptable standard to serve the proposed development.

Public Rights of Way have also advised that as part of the development a pedestrian link to Lindley Village from paths 365 and 475 should be considered.

It should be noted that there is an application submitted on the adjacent site (2014/93326) which proposes to utilise the existing access point. As part of that development, improvement works to the access and layout are proposed and are considered acceptable.

The principle of the residential development is considered acceptable subject to imposition of conditions.

152

Impact on Amenity:

Visual Amenity:

The site is located in the centre of Lindley, within the setting of both Fieldhead and St Stephens Church. There are a number of mature trees on and surrounding the site (these trees are covered by a Tree Preservation Order).

The existing Oakmead building is a functional building of no significant visual merit; demolition has already been approved. The application is in outline with access applied for. As such any approval would require the subsequent submission of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping. Consideration of the reserved matters would seek to preserve the trees on site and the setting of the neighbouring listed buildings.

Access to this site is part of an agreed ‘shared arrangement’ that also serves the Fieldhead development. Proposed alterations to the access from Lidget Street are considered to be acceptable in terms of impact on the existing boundary treatments and neighbouring protected trees.

Residential Amenity:

The nearest residential properties are to the west across the footpath, on Farnlee, and the remaining children’s home to the north. Whilst layout is not applied for, the distances between the site and existing dwellings on Farnlee are substantial. The TPO’d trees along the western edge of the site should be retained as part of any reserved matters submission. As such it is considered that the development proposed will not cause an adverse effect to Farnlee residents either in terms of disturbance or loss of privacy. Having regard to the children’s home to the north, residential use of this site would be an acceptable neighbouring use.

The residential development proposed abuts the curtilage of Fieldhead to the northwest. The future use of Fieldhead will have potential to impact upon any future residents, and it is necessary at this stage to deal with this potential impact and afford adequate mitigation. The north eastern boundary of this site abuts the Fieldhead application site. Whilst the current application does not seek permission for siting it is self evident that a number of houses on the Oakmead site would back onto the Fieldhead site and therefore the residential amenity of any future dwellings along that boundary will need to be safeguarded against potential noise / disturbance associated with a hotel, bar and function room use.

Environmental Services have recommended a condition requiring the submission of a noise survey which should predict existing and future noise levels and identify any necessary mitigation for future dwellings. This should enable the site at Oakmead to come forward for residential development either on its own without prejudicing the future operation of Fieldhead, or in conjunction with the Fieldhead proposal.

153

Contamination/ Drainage/ Noise:

The site is capable of being satisfactorily remediated to deliver a site fit to receive the new development, and conditions to secure this are recommended.

The site is within Flood Zone 1 (i.e. the area least likely to flood) and is also brownfield. As an outline application with layout reserved, it is accepted that drainage details can be dealt with via the imposition of conditions, and these are recommended. Also as a brownfield site, it is possible to secure a reduction in the amount of potential run off from the site by up to 30%, in accordance with the Councils own guidelines.

Issues regarding noise and noise attenuation are dealt with in detail in the “residential amenity” section above, and conditions are recommended.

Ecology/ Bio Diversity

The Oakmead building has already received permission for demolition and a bat survey undertaken. The principle ecological interests on this site are the mature trees which surround this site and extending through the Fieldhead complex. As layout is not applied for the retention and protection of these trees will be secured at Reserved Matters stage, landscaping is also a Reserved Matter. However it is proposed to add a condition which requires the submission of a scheme identifying bat and bird nesting opportunities within and surrounding any new residential development on this site to ensure the site deliver enhanced bio diversity opportunities in accordance with the guidance contained in part 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework “Conserving and Enhancing the natural environment.”

Crime Prevention

This is an outline application with layout reserved and any reserved matters submission will be considered against the Crime Prevention principles. The site on the western side abuts a public footpath, which is bounded by a 2m wall with the mature trees adjacent to the wall.

There is no proposal at this stage to link the development to this footpath, which in this case is considered to be appropriate as the site is close to Lindley Centre, and access to the local amenities would be via Lidget Street. Whilst there could be houses backing onto this footpath, it is considered that the boundary wall is robust and provides security for the site.

Conclusion

The site is unallocated on the Councils Unitary Development Plan and is a brownfield site, located in a sustainable location near to the Lindley Centre. There are no objections in principle to redevelopment of this site for residential use.

154

As an outline application with access applied for, matters of affordable housing, provision of public open space and education contributions are dealt with by way of condition.

The Oakmead site is part of a lager grouping of buildings including the neighbouring Fieldhead property that was formerly used by the Council as Offices and as a Children’s centre and home. There are current proposals for use of Fieldhead as a hotel and spa, restaurant/ bar and function rooms.

As such it is necessary to consider the potential impact that both developments may have on each other, particularly in respect of the joint access arrangements and mitigation against any potential noise/ disturbance for future residents from the neighbouring Fieldhead scheme.

A joint access off Lidget Street is proposed which will adequately serve both developments. Conditions are recommended to provide for the realignment of the access point, design of the access road and provision of a turning area.

The relationship between proposed residential development and the leisure use proposed for Fieldhead in terms of noise and disturbance is a consideration that is material to both applications. A noise survey to identify existing and predicted noise levels, together with any necessary mitigation measures has been recommended by Environmental Health. This should enable the delivery of the residential scheme without prejudicing the Fieldhead proposals and avoids potential future conflict between the two.

The application is therefore recommended for approval under Regulation 4.

9. RECOMMENDATION

GRANT UNDER REGULATION 4

1. Approval of the details of the layout, scale, appearance, access and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called ‘the reserved matters’) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 1 above, relating to the layout, scale, appearance, access and the landscaping of the site, shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved plans.

3. Application for approval of any reserved matter shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

5. Trees within or on the boundary of the site shall be neither felled, topped or lopped except with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, nor shall they be damaged or killed by fire or by the application of toxic or injurious substances.

6. Prior to development commencing protective fencing in accordance with British Standard BS 5837 shall be erected around all protected trees and trees to be retained on the site.

7. No material operation as defined in section 56(4)(a)-(d) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 shall be carried out to commence the development pursuant to this planning permission until arrangements for the provision of public open space to serve the development have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The arrangements shall cover the following matters:- a) the layout and disposition of the public open space. b) the timescale for the implementation and completion of the works to provide the public open space; c) the mechanism for ensuring that the public open space will be available for public within perpetuity. d) maintenance of the public open space in perpetuity.

8. No material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a)-(d) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 shall be carried out to commence the development pursuant to this planning permission until arrangements for the provision of affordable housing have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The arrangements shall cover the following matters:- a) the number and type of affordable housing units to be provided. b) the layout and disposition of the units affordable housing to be provided. c) the timescale for the implementation and completion of the affordable housing units; d) the mechanism for ensuring that the affordable housing units remain affordable for both the initial and subsequent occupiers.

9. 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.

10. Where further intrusive investigation is recommended in the Preliminary Risk Assessment approved pursuant to condition 9 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.

11. Where site remediation is recommended in the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report approved pursuant to condition 10 development shall not 156

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.

12. Remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the Remediation Strategy approved pursuant to condition 11. 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.

13. 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.

14. Before development commences a report specifying the measures to be taken to protect the development from potential noise shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The report shall: (i) Determine the existing noise climate; (ii) Predict the noise climate in gardens (daytime), bedrooms (night-time) and other habitable rooms of the development. (iii) Detail the proposed attenuation/ design necessary to protect the amenity of the new dwellings (including ventilation if required).

Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority the development shall not be occupied until all works specified in the approved report have been carried out in full and such works shall be retained thereafter.

15. Development shall not commence until a scheme detailing the following on and off site works, (including the relevant Stage 1, 2 and/or 3 Road Safety Audit ref: CIHT guidelines on Road Safety Audit - 2008), has been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

157

Realignment of access point to provide: • 6m radii with pedestrian crossings; • 1.8m footways on both flanks of Lidget Street; • 5.5M road widths; and • 2.4m x 43m visibility splays

Access Road: • 5.5m road width; • Single 2.0m footway on the northern flank; • 0.6m margin on the southern flank

The development shall not be brought into use until the above works have been carried out in complete accordance with the approved scheme, and thereafter shall be retained.

16. Prior to any development commencing details of a turning area for a 11.6m long service vehicle, to be provided within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing y the Local Planning Authority. The agreed turning area shall be provided prior to any part of the development being brought into use, and shall remain free of obstructions and available for vehicle turning purposes only and retained as such.

17. Prior to any development commencing, a scheme identifying the location and numbers of new bird nesting and bat roost opportunities within and surrounding any new development, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in accordance with an agreed time frame, and subsequently retained.

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

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received Location Plan 24/11/14 Tree Survey L4845/01 A 24/11/14 Tree Protection plan L4845/03 24/11/14 Topographical Survey 130990 1 of 2 24/11/14 2 of 2 Design and Access 24/11/14 Statement Tree Arboricultural 24/11/14 Assessment

158

Application No: 2015/90262

Type of application: 62m - FULL APPLICATION

Proposal: Erection of 6 storey education centre

Location: Former sports hall & Brunswick building, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3BL

Grid Ref: 414837.0 416492.0

Ward: Newsome Ward

Applicant: The University of Huddersfield

Agent: Iain Bath, Iain Bath Planning

Target Date: 08-May-2015

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

------

LOCATION PLAN

Broad Canal

WAKEFIELD ROAD FERN STREET EAST ZETLANDSTREET

W o rk s

ASPLEY PLACE 64.6m

FB Aspley Wharf

QUEENSGATE PH 44

Huddersfield

Aspley Wharf H 46 Broad Canal

PH 45 WAKEFIELD ROAD

Aspley Basin 31to33

RICE STREET RICE 41 BrunswickAnnexe

John Ramsden Sloping 33 1 to 12 masonry

Court Sluice

Crane

65.5m Club 40

Crane 42

Huddersfield

52 Wharf 50 SAND STREET PH

Huddersfield Basin ASPLEY

Health Centre 60

FIRTH STREET 64 66

Map not to scale – for identification purposes only

159

1. SUMMARY

Application Details Type of Development Creation of non-residential floor space (education) Scale of Development Site area: 4.7 units/m2: N/A ha No. Jobs Created or Retained Policy UDP allocation Without Notation Independent Viability Required No Representation/Consultation Individual Support (No.) Individual Objection (No.) 2 in total Petition No Ward Member Interest No Statutory Consultee Yes Coal Authority Objections Contributions • Affordable Housing N/A • Education N/A • Public Open Space N/A • Other N/A Other Issues Any Council Interest? No Planning Pre-application Yes advice? Pre-App Consultation Yes Undertaken? Comment on Application

RECOMMENDATION: DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO GRANT CONDITIONAL PERMISSION SUBJECT TO ANY COAL MINING LEGACY ISSUES BEING SATISFACTORILY RESOLVED.

2. INFORMATION

The application is brought before the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) as it is considered that, whilst the proposal is less than the usual 0.5 ha threshold for non-residential development, this proposal has significant strategic implications with regard to the University and Huddersfield town centre.

The Chair of the Huddersfield Sub-committee has agreed that this application can be determined by the SPC.

160

3. PROPOSAL/SITE DESCRIPTION

The application seeks planning permission to construct a 6 storey education centre which would provide 4 new lecture theatres, 22 classrooms, 58 offices, 7 language labs and 1 law court for training purposes. The overall floor space created across the 6 floors would be 7624m² on a building footprint of 1,872m². The new accommodation created would be mixed across the levels of the proposed building with teaching, associated office and ancillary facilities including toilets, social areas and meeting rooms being included on each of the floors. The main lecture theatres would be located together in the north western section of the building.

The application site is located to the south of the town centre on the periphery of its retail and commercial core. The site is at the northern apex of the university campus site immediately adjacent to the Shorehead roundabout which forms the intersection of Wakefield Road with Queensgate. As such the site is in a very prominent location and can be seen from considerable distance particularly from the north and from high ground to the north east of the town.

The site occupies an area of approximately 4762m² and was previously occupied by the University Sports Hall and Brunswick Building, which were demolished some time ago leaving a vacant plot. Due to the site topography levels change by 7m along the site’s length. The site would be served by an existing access which adjoins Wakefield Road and is controlled by barriers and by an emergency access which is taken directly from Queensgate via a dropped crossing and removable of bollards.

The area surrounding the application site exhibits a variety of architectural designs both historic and contemporary which have utilised a mixture of facing materials including brick, stone and prefabricated cladding. At present the Shorehead Roundabout is dominated by the rear elevation of the Kingsgate shopping Centre which is of similar scale to this proposal.

4. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

The applicant has indicated that this proposal forms the final element of a phased strategy to deliver enhanced facilities for the university within this part of the Queensgate campus.

A significant number of planning applications have been made with regard to the university site, the most relevant to this proposal area are included as follows:

2004/93270 – Outline application for 3 storey educational building (Granted 6.9.04)

2006/91634 – Erection of creative arts building (Granted 29.8.06)

161

2012/92065 – demolition of sports hall erection of learning and leisure centre with associated facilities. Alterations to adjacent buildings and reconfiguration of Wakefield Road car park(Granted 2.10.12)

2012/92066 – Outline application for erection of educational building (Granted 7.9.12)

5. PLANNING POLICY

The statutory development plan comprises the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). This report will refer only to those policies of the UDP ‘saved’ under the direction of the Secretary of State beyond September 2007.

The LDF core strategy approved by the council in March 2012 was submitted to the Secretary of State on 2 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

The site is without notation in the adopted Unitary Development Plan and it is considered that the following policies and documents are relevant to this application:

Unitary Development Plan

BE1 – Design principles BE2 - Design of new development BE22 - Parking Facilities for People with Disabilities BE23 - Crime Prevention Measures B11- Materials D2 – Sites without notation on the proposals map EP4 – Noise sensitive development EP10 – Energy Efficient Site Development G6 – Land Contamination T10 – Highway safety T16 – Provision of safe pedestrian routes in new development T17 – Considering the needs of cyclists T19 – Parking standards TC1 – Development within Huddersfield Town Centre. TC 22 – Design and Character of the Town Centre

162

National Policy Documents

NPPF Section 1 – building a Strong, competitive ecomomy NPPF Section 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport NPPF Section 7 – Requiring Good Design NPPF Section 8 - Promoting Healthy Communities NPPF Section 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment NPPF Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Other Considerations

Firth Street Regeneration Area Guidance

6. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

K.C. Highways – No objection subject to the inclusion of a planning condition requiring the submission of a schedule which includes the details of:

• The means of access for construction traffic • The routeing of construction traffic • Details of the times access will be required • Construction workers parking facilities • Wheel washing facilities

K.C. Environmental Health – No Objections subject to the inclusion of a planning condition to satisfactorily deal with any site contamination found during construction that has not already been identified

K.C. Ecologist – No objections subject to:

• the development being carried out in complete accordance with paras. 38 and 39 of the ecological statement • details of the living roof, landscaping and bat boxes being submitted to and approved by the LPA

K.C. Conservation and Design – No objections subject to the inclusion of planning conditions which require the submission and approval of facing and roofing materials

K.C. Strategic Drainage – No objection subject to:

• Details of drainage measures to be submitted to and approved by the LPA • Details of measures to prevent fats oils and grease entering the drainage networks being submitted to and approved by the LPA

Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections subject to the inclusion of a note advising the applicant to contact the police regarding the inclusion of measures to reduce the risk of crime occurring at the site. 163

Environment Agency – No objections subject to a surface water management plan being submitted to . Yorkshire Water – Has raised issues relating to surface water drainage and existing infrastructure crossing the site and have suggested that if planning permission is granted then planning conditions should be attached that require:

• No development within 3m either side of any live public water main crossing the site • No development within 4m either side of any sewer crossing the site • The submission an approval of a foul and surface water drainage scheme prior to development commencing • No piped discharge from the site of surface water from the site prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works.

Coal Authority – Object to the proposal due to the lack of an adequate coal mining risk assessment

English Heritage – No objections

7. REPRESENTATIONS

This application was publicised by the erection of 4 site notices, the posting of 42 neighbour notification letters and an advertisement in the local press. This resulted in the receipt of two representations, one in support and one objecting to the proposal. The issues raised can be summarised as follows:

Support • The design of the building is attractive and its scale is appropriate for this setting

Objection • The development would be too large on this site • The development would add to existing traffic problems in the area

8. ASSESSMENT

General Principle

The site has no specific allocation in the Unitary Development Plan. Policy D2 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:

• the implementation of the development plan;

164

• the avoidance of over-development; • the conservation of energy; • highways safety; • residential amenity; • visual amenity; • the character of the surroundings ; • wildlife interests; and • the efficient operation of existing and planned infrastructure

Considerations relevant to policy D2 are addressed later in this assessment. Subject to these not being prejudiced the proposal would be acceptable in principle in relation to policy D2.

Policy TC1 of the Unitary Development Plan refers to how the role of Huddersfield town centre will be enhanced through improvements to existing facilities and enabling new development, and makes specific reference to supporting the expansion of the University. The site also falls within the ‘Firth Street Regeneration Area’ where regeneration is encouraged to bring about the revitalisation of the area. Paragraph 4.3 of this document states that “the influence of the University is an important factor throughout the Firth Street area” and “significant investment has been made by the University leading to substantial improvements”.

Paragraph 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework stipulates that to help achieve economic growth, local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century. The principle of the development of this building is considered to be acceptable in accordance with policy D2 and TC1 of the UDP, the NPPF and the ‘Firth Street Regeneration Area Guidelines’.

Design and Layout

The supporting plans illustrate that the building would have a footprint of approximately 1872m² which would be generally ‘L’ shaped although it is proposed it would have a curved design around the apex of the plot immediately adjacent to Shorehead roundabout. UDP Policies BE1 and BE2 set out criteria in relation to design, materials and layout. Policy TC22 of the UDP stipulates that the scale and massing of new development should have regard to the character of the town centre and general views across the town. Policy BE11 stipulates that where a development proposal would be located within a town centre and within an area where stone is the predominate material of construction, new development should be constructed in natural stone of a similar colour and texture to that prevailing in the area. However, paragraph 60 of the NPPF stipulates that planning decisions should not stifle innovation although it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.

The University is on the periphery of the Town centre and the area immediately surrounding the site exhibits a mix of materials and architectural

165

styles which are predominantly contemporary in character on this part of the university campus.

The site occupies a very prominent position at the gateway to Huddersfield town centre when approaching from both Leeds Road via Queensgate and Wakefield Road. Whilst this proposal would see the erection of a six storey building, It is considered the its scale would be in keeping with existing development on the campus, including the contemporary design of the Creative Arts Building off Queensgate, the Central Services Building and with other development in the immediate vicinity such as the Kingsgate shopping centre.

With respect to siting and design, the curved structure would successfully utilise the shape and constraints of the site which is located immediately adjacent to the Shorehead roundabout and officers consider that it would successfully accentuate this corner plot with bold detailing. In some respects the University has provided strong precedents over the design of the campus and the quality it has brought, particularly with reference to the recent development of the Creative Arts Building off Queensgate, and the Business School and Larchfield Mills off Firth Street. The Council’s Conservation Officer notes the proposal has a strong architectural image and is designed to make a bold statement on what is a key location at the entrance to the town centre. The imagery supporting the application highlights this approach and as such is felt to be an acceptable solution both in architecture and urban design. The Conservation Officer also indicates that there would be no objection to the use of this contemporary design in this space and materials chosen will, especially with the use of glass, create a more open elevation treatment which will be lighter and harmonise with the adjacent buildings. Whilst stone panels will be used within the development, the use is sparing. However, the Conservation Officer has indicated that he would not wish to see this building fully compliant with policy BE11as this would result in a more oppressive less open design. It is therefore considered that this proposal would not only reflect the existing character of this part of the university campus but would become an iconic gateway structure for the town. Consequently the proposal is considered to accord with UDP policies BE1, BE2, TC22 and Section 7 of the NPPF with regard to design and the aims of policy BE11.

Impact on Amenity

Visual Amenity

The proposed development would introduce an additional large scale building into the area which would be seen both at close quarters and at distance, particularly from high ground to the north east of the site at Dalton Bank. The development would therefore have the potential to impact significantly on the visual amenity of the area both during the day and at night when artificially illuminated. However, this needs to be considered in the context of other development in the area. The University already includes several other buildings of a similar or larger scale which, as previously outlined, exhibit a

166

variety of historic and contemporary designs which reflects the evolution of the campus over many decades.

Buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site, including the Kingsgate Shopping Centre and Oldgate House, again exhibit a variety of architectural styles and are of a similar scale to this proposal. These buildings already have a significant impact on the townscape.

It is therefore considered that this proposal would not appear as incongruous within this setting and as a consequence would not have a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area. It is therefore considered that the development would accord with UDP policies BE1 and BE2 with regard to its potential impact on visual amenity.

Noise

The site is immediately adjacent to a busy highway junction at Shorehead which results in significant traffic noise, particularly during the day. The use of the proposed building could therefore be detrimentally affected as a result. However, the proposed development will be constructed to modern standards and incorporate measures to insulate the building in order to mitigate against noise nuisance associated with the high volumes of traffic using the adjacent highway network. Whilst it is likely that some noise generated externally would be heard within the building it is considered unlikely that it would be sufficient to cause disturbance and nuisance. The Council’s Pollution and Noise Control Team was consulted regarding this proposal and has indicated that there are no significant risks at the development as a result of noise.

As a consequence, officers consider that, once occupied, users of the new building are unlikely to experience any significant detrimental effects associated with the local noise climate. This proposal would therefore accord with UDP policies EP4 and national policy guidance contained in Section 11 of the NPPF relating to noise.

Residential Amenity

Policy D2 of the UDP states that new development should not prejudice residential amenity. The nearest residential properties to this site are at John Ramsden Court, which are located to the south east of the application site. However, the new university sports complex falls between those properties and this site, effectively acting as a screen. It is therefore considered that due to the distance to this proposal from John Ramsden Court (approx. 100m) combined with the screening effects of the existing sports complex, this development would not have a detrimental overbearing impact. Consequently this proposal would accord with UDP policy D2 with regard to its impact on nearby residential properties.

167

Environmental Impact

Local Ecology/Biodiversity

The site has been cleared and offers very little opportunity for the provision of useful habitats. The applicant has carried out an ecological assessment to support this application, the conclusions of which can be summarised as follows:

• The site supports a limited range of very common habitats and is considered to be of low ecological value.

• The low value habitat of the site results is very few opportunities for fauna.

• The site is not well linked to any statutory designated sites and its loss is unlikely to impact on such sites.

The site provides a limited opportunity to enhance biodiversity. However, the development includes proposals to create a green roof planted with a wildflower mix, to plant native standard trees along as much of the site boundary as possible and to install artificial bat boxes to provide roosting opportunities for local bat populations all of which area designed to enhance local ecological networks.

It is therefore considered that, subject to the inclusion of the mitigation measures outlined above this proposal accords with UDP policy EP11, and Section 11 of the NPPF with regard to its potential impact on the local ecology and biodiversity.

Pollution/Contamination

UDP Policy G6 states that development proposals will be considered having regard to available information on the contamination or instability of the land concerned. The future development of this site could result in existing on site contaminants being disturbed or the introduction of materials which could lead to the pollution of surface water or ground water regimes. Bearing in mind the proximity of this site with regard to the canal and River Colne, it is considered that it is important to ensure this risk is fully examined.

A phase I and phase II land contamination report have been submitted to support this application which show that chemical contamination on the site falls below that would allow for a commercial land use. The supporting documents have been reviewed by the Council’s Pollution and Noise Control Team and subject to the inclusion of measures to deal with any unexpected contamination found during construction, it does not wish to raise objections to this proposal. The development would therefore accord with UDP policy G6 and Section 11 with regard to the potential for the development to cause pollution/contamination

168

Flood Risk

The majority of the site lies within Zone 1 with a small area falling in zone 2 of the Environment Agency Flood Map and is therefore considered that the site is at low to medium risk from fluvial flooding. The NPPF indicates that the proposed use of this site is acceptable within Flood Zones 1 and 2. The applicant has provided a Flood Risk Assessment to support this proposal which concludes that:

• the application site should be considered as a very low risk to external; flooding,

• there are no identified flood risks; and

• this development would not create an additional flood risk

As a consequence the report indicates the site is suitable for this development. The Environment Agency has indicated that it does not wish to object to the proposal subject to the submission of a surface water management plan and has recommended the installation of flood proofing measures to the level 1 plant room.

As it is considered that these matters can be satisfactorily dealt with via appropriately worded planning conditions, this proposal therefore accords with Sections 10 of the NPPF with regard to flood risk.

Impact on Local Heritage Assets

The proposal is within the setting of the Grade 2* former canal warehouse (Sir John Ramsden Court), the Aspley Canal Basin opposite, a cluster of listed buildings around 41 Queensgate and the Huddersfield Town Centre Conservation Area; the latter two elements are to the north west of the application site and separated from the application site by the ring road. Under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act the LPA has a duty to ensure that development proposals preserve and enhance the character and significance of listed buildings and a similar requirement is held under Section 72 of the Act where the application is within a Conservation Area; whilst outside of the Conservation Area it is considered that its boundary is close enough to consider the application to be within in terms of its possible impact. This view does not appear to be shared by the Heritage Impact Assessment submitted in support of the application in terms of the latter two elements mentioned above and concentrates on the impact upon the warehouse and the basin. The Council’s Conservation Officer concurs with the applicant’s assessment that there are no heritage assets directly affected and that the basin and warehouse are not affected by this proposal as their setting as been altered by the previous developments. In terms of the buildings opposite, their setting has been eroded by the ring road and the construction of the Creative Arts Centre and as such it is considered that their setting will remain unaltered. As such, it is considered that Section 66 has been complied with. Turning to the effect on the Conservation Area, 169

the building would be at its southern entrance and provides a gateway to the area. Therefore to minimise its impact the design of the building is important along with the need to improve the site following the demolition of the former sports hall. It is felt that the proposed design of this development would result in an impressive building that this area demands and will accentuate this gateway approach. As a consequence the character of the Conservation Area would be enhanced and as such complies with S72 of the Act and is in accordance with Section 12 of the NPPF.

Impact on Highways Safety

The site currently benefits from vehicular access – served by an on-site access road running parallel to Queensgate. This access will be retained - to service the proposed building and to provide proximity parking for disabled drivers. There is currently no pedestrian access onto the site. However, the applicant has indicated that it is the intention of the University to provide new entrances to the Queensgate façade with a newly created ‘Entrance Square’ serving the main pupil, visitor and staff entrance. The majority of student circulation will be concentrated around the student square. This area has been given pedestrian priority, with limited vehicle access for accessible bays and emergency use only. The wider university campus already provides a substantial quantity of secure cycle spaces which would be available for use by students using the proposed building.

Services and deliveries access is maintained off Wakefield Road with the retention of the existing access road to the rear of the creative arts building. As part of the development two disabled spaces are to be provided to replace the spaces lost by the demolition of the Brunswick building.

The University has developed a travel plan which covers the period 2009 to 2017, and sets out a range of strategies, objectives and targets aimed to promoting sustainable modes of transport. Given the sustainable location, these proposals are considered acceptable from a highways perspective. The Council’s Highways Development Management Team has reviewed the proposals and has indicated that it does not wish to object to this development and it is therefore considered that it accords with UDP policies T10,T16,T17 and T19.

Other Considerations

Coal Mining Legacy Part of the site falls within an area identified as being at high risk of containing unrecorded historic coal mining workings at shallow depth.

The development’s impact on previous coal workings will be considered through further investigation and it is recommended that authority be delegated to Officers to complete this.

170

Crime Prevention UDP Policy BE23 states that new developments should incorporate crime prevention measures to achieve pedestrian safety on footpaths; natural surveillance of public spaces; and secure locations for parking areas. The Police Architectural Liaison officer raises no objections to the principle of the proposed development. The applicant’s agents have had discussions with the Police Architectural Liaison Officer his colleagues from West Yorkshire Police and have expressed a willingness to incorporate security measures to address the specific concerns raised.

Objections As previously outlined two representations have been received with regard to this proposal, one in support and one objection. The issues raised have been noted above and a response to each is summarised here:

Support

The design of the building is attractive and its scale is appropriate for this setting.

Response: This matter has been considered under the section title ‘Design and Layout’.

Objection

The development would be too large on this site.

Response: This matter has been considered under the section title ‘Design and Layout’.

The development would add to existing traffic problems in the area.

Response: This matter has been considered under the section title ‘Impact on Highway Safety.

Conclusion:

This proposal represents a major element in the growth and expansion of this part of the Queensgate University campus, which has already seen the completion of the Learning & Leisure Centre and Creative Arts buildings in recent years. The scheme would develop this part of the campus, which is designated as a priority area for regeneration through the provision of modern enhanced educational facilities within the main University campus, which is in a sustainable location with regard to student accommodation, transportation and local services

Although the contemporary design of the building makes a strong architectural statement, it is considered that the it would harmonise well within the existing setting and successfully accentuate this prominent gateway position into Huddersfield. 171

Officers consider that this proposal represents sustainable development and accords with both the Councils Unitary Development Plan Policies and Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. Furthermore it is considered that this proposal would not have any significant detrimental impact on local amenity, the local environment, local heritage assets or highway safety.

Recommendation: DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS TO GRANT CONDITIONAL PERMISSION SUBJECT TO ANY COAL MINING LEGACY ISSUES BEING SATISFACTORILY RESOLVED.

Conditions:

1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which permission is granted.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications except as may be required by other conditions.

3. No development shall commence until samples of all facing and roofing materials has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be constructed of the approved materials.

4. Prior to construction commencing, a schedule of the means of access to the site for construction traffic shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include the point of access for construction traffic, details of the times of use of the access, the routing of construction traffic to and from the site, construction workers parking facilities and the provision, use and retention of adequate wheel washing facilities within the site. All construction arrangements shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule throughout the period of construction.

5. In the event that contamination not previously identified by the developer prior to the grant of this planning permission is encountered during the development, 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 on site shall not recommence until either (a) a Remediation Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority or (b) the local planning authority has confirmed in writing that remediation measures are not required. The Remediation Strategy shall include a timetable for the implementation and completion of the approved remediation measures. Thereafter remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy.

Following completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy a Validation Report shall be submitted to the local planning authority. 172

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 whole site has been remediated in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy and a Validation Report in respect of those works has been approved in writing by the local planning authority.

6. No development shall commence until the following measures have been implemented:

(i) A survey has been undertaken to identify the position of any live water mains and/or sewers crossing the site; and

(ii) A scheme detailing measures to protect any water infra-structure identified as crossing the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The approved scheme shall be fully implemented and thereafter retained.

7. No development shall commence until the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage, including details of balancing works and off-site works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority. None of the buildings shall be occupied until such approved drainage scheme has been provided on the site to serve the development or each agreed phasing of the development to which the buildings relate and thereafter retained throughout the lifetime of the development.

8. There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works and no buildings shall be occupied or brought into use prior to the approved foul drainage works.

9. No development shall commence until a scheme to manage surface water at the site has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

10. Surface water from vehicle parking and hardstanding areas shall be passed through an interceptor of adequate capacity prior to discharge from the site. Roof drainage shall not be passed through any interceptor.

11. No development shall commence until a scheme to prevent fats, oils, and grease entering the drainage network serving commercial food preparation and dish-washing areas has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development and shall be retained throughout the lifetime of the development.

173

12. The approved landscaping scheme shall, from its completion, be maintained for a period of five years. If, within this period, any tree, shrub or hedge shall die, become diseased or be removed, it shall be replaced with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

14. No development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority which provides the following:

(i) Details of the proposed living roof including cultivation and planting techniques and of the species types to be used.

(ii) Details of the specification, numbers and position of bat boxes to be provided as part of this development

The approved scheme shall be fully implemented and retained thereafter.

Note: It is recommended that flood proofing measures are installed in the construction of the level 1 plant room to mitigate the impact of potential flooding.

Note: 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.

Note: It is recommended that the applicant contact West Yorkshire Police to discuss the inclusion of site specific security measures as part of this development.

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, Flint Street, Fartown, Huddersfield (Kirklees Street Care: 0800 7318765) with regard to obtaining this permission and approval of the construction specification. Please 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 174

with the highway without such permission is an offence which could lead to prosecution.

This recommendation is based on the following plans and documents:

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received

Location plan AED1108.GA.010 PL01 6 February 2015 Planting strategy AED1108.GA.005 6 February 2015 Proposed floor plan – PL 20 001 6 February 2015 level 02 Proposed floor plan – PL 20 002 6 February 2015 level 03 Proposed floor plan – PL 20 003 6 February 2015 level 04 Proposed floor plan – PL 20 004 6 February 2015 level 05 Proposed floor plan – PL 20 005 6 February 2015 level 5.5 Proposed floor plan – PL 20 006 6 February 2015 level 6 Proposed floor plan – PL 20 007 6 February 2015 level 7 Proposed floor plan – PL 20 008 6 February 2015 Roof Proposed Elevations PL 20 101 01 6 February 2015 Proposed Elevations PL 20 102 02 6 February 2015 Proposed Elevations – PL 20 201 01 6 February 2015 Visual Proposed Elevations - PL 20 202 02 6 February 2015 Visual Proposed Elevations - PL 20 203 03 6 February 2015 Visual Layout – working levels PL01 003 6 February 2015 Layout – Trees to be PL02 006 6 February 2015 retained or removed Layout - Circulation PL02 004 6 February 2015 Layout – General PL04 002 6 February 2015 Arrangement Transport assessment 11004 – P6 6 February 2015 Planning Supporting 6 February 2015 Statement Flood risk Assessment 6 February 2015 Ecological Appraisal R-2139-01 6 February 2015 Drainage Strategy and 6 February 2015 Surface Water Run off Assessment

175

Design and Access 6 February 2015 Statement Conservation and FAS2015 593 6 February 2015 Heritage Assessment HHU561 Revised Ground 30977 – November 10 March 2015 Investigation report 2014 Preliminary Ground 30977 – Sept 2014 27 March 2015 Investigation Report

176