2010/90077

Tolson House
Armitage Bridge
Huddersfield
HD4 7PD

Erection of one dwelling with attached garage (within a Conservation Area)

Objection
The proposal is a clear example of garden in-fill in Armitage Bridge Conservation area. The development would involve the loss of important space which makes a valuable contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation area contrary to Policies BE2, BE5 and BE6 of the UDP and PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment (1994).

The plan would also detract from the setting of a listed building, Tolson House, contrary to PPG15 (2.16).

2009/93504

Castle Hill Hotel
Lumb Lane
Almondbury
Huddersfield
HD4 6TA

Erection of replacement bar and restaurant including first floor guest accommodation and other associated works

Objection
1. The proposal runs contrary to PPG2 (para. 34) Green Belts. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated by the developer for permission to be granted for a hotel to be built in the Green Belt.

2. The Grade II listed Victoria Tower would have its setting adversely affected by the proposed building contrary to PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment.

3. Castle Hill is a Scheduled Ancient Monument, protected under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act. The proposed hotel would damage the visual and archaeological integrity of the Monument.

4. Kirklees Council, in partnership with English Heritage and West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, have produced a Conservation Management Plan for Castle Hill. The proposed Hotel does not comply with this Plan, as it would have an adverse affect on the unique landscape value, character and exposed setting of the site.

5. Access for vehicles to the site is very poor, and the 28 parking places provided in the scheme would not be sufficient to meet the demands of the increased number of customers anticipated by the developers.

6. The public facilities for the use of visitors to Castle Hill, provided in the scheme, are minimal. It would be preferable for such facilities to be located, along with car parking, at the foot of the Hill.

2009/93616

Approval of reserved matters

Waterfront Quarter
Land Adjacent To:
Chapel Hill/ Manchester Road
Huddersfield
HD1 3EH

Reserved Matters for appearance and landscape relating to Kirklees College pursuant to outline planning permission no 2008/91394

Objection
1. Appearance
There is no distinctive character to the design of the three blocks which fail to create a sense of local identity: they could be in any town in the country. The design is unimaginative and not of sufficient quality for this prominent site, contrary to policy BE1 of Kirklees UDP.

2. Materials
The proposed materials are totally inappropriate, not reflecting those found in adjoining buildings contrary to BE1 and BE2 of the UDP. The use of dark grey “Forticrete” block work cladding, rain screen, Kalwall and metal cladding are anathema in this stone town. Local stone should be the predominant facing material as stipulated in policy BE11 of the UDP. The reasons given for not using local stone are laughable: “... available modern stone cladding of a similar colour would not be suitable and would reinforce the differences between existing and proposed materials”...stone cladding that tried to match local materials would not provide an adequate quality finish”. Both these statements are without foundation: the nearby Kingsgate Centre and Sainsbury’s supermarket have used local stone cladding to excellent effect.

3. Adjacent Listed Buildings
The setting of the adjacent Folly Hall Mills (Grade II* Listed) would be adversely affected by the poor quality design and alien materials proposed for the College blocks. Folly Hall Mills are fine examples of conservation and would be compromised by the proximity this badly designed scheme. The application makes no mention of the twelve Grade II listed buildings on Chapel Hill, and the sixteen on Manchester Road which are contiguous with the proposed College buildings. These buildings all have one feature in common: they are faced in local ashlar stone and would be overwhelmed by the artificial materials proposed for the College, which would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area.

4. Concern has been expressed over the poor pedestrian access to the site across the Ring Road and Manchester Road. There are very few car parking spaces and nearly all journeys will be made on foot for which no provision appears to have been made.

5. This is the first phase of the Waterfront Development; it sets a precedent for the design and materials to be used in subsequent phases (as admitted in the application). To allow such an incongruous proposal to progress would create a model of mediocrity for this sensitive site.

2009/93151

Refused

184 Birkby Hall Road
Birkby
Huddersfield
HD2 2XD

Installation of a 1.4 Photovoltaic array on the roof

Objection
184 Birkby Hall Road is part of Birkby Conservation Area and makes a valuable contribution to the designated area's character and appearance. Taking up nearly half of the south facing roof of the property this array would be clearly visible from a major highway. It would be to the detriment of the conservation area, contrary to Kirklees UDP policy BE5 and national guidance given in PPG15.

2009/93359

Land Adjoining Upper Prospect
Nettleton Hill
Golcar
Huddersfield
HD7 4PD

Erection of two 11kw wind turbines on 18m masts

Objection
1. These large turbines would have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt being in a prominent hill top position. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt contrary to EP8 of the UDPand PPG2 (Green Belts) 1995.

2. The 18m hubs and 13m diameter blades would have an adverse effect on the settings of 10 listed buildings in the hamlet of Nettleton Hill and two listed buildings on Shaw Lane just below the site contrary to PPG15 (2.16; 2.17). (See list below)

3. No Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out despite its being required for turbines above 15m hub height under the Town Planning Act (Regulations) 1999.

4. The application is misleading: it states that the turbines are "small" when the planning regulations referenced in the Design and Access Statement categorise such turbines as "medium to large". The applicants also state that the turbines are to provide domestic electricity for their home. In fact, the manufacturers claim that two 11kw turbines could supply up to 25 properties. This would suggest a commercial generating intention. The application makes no reference to the 12 listed buildings which would be affected by the turbines.

Listed Buildings viewed as follows:

From the South West: 1 & 3 Green Edge; 2-12 Green Edge; 9 Green Edge; 6-10 Green Lane Terrace; Ryecroft Green Lane Terrace;

From the South East: 1 Mole's Head; 5 Mole's Head;

From the North West: Round Ings; 21-27 Round Ings Road; Barn Shaw Farm; Large Barn Shaw Farm ,Shaw Lane; New Lane Farm House.

2009/92869

Land Adjoining The Old Vicarage
Church Lane
South Crosland
Huddersfield
HD4 7DB

Erection of vertical axis wind turbine on 11 metre high mast in redundant quarry

Objection
The application as it is contrary to national and local planning guidelines and policies.

1. The turbine proposal is in Green Belt contrary to PPG2. No very special circumstances for its construction have been shown by the applicant.

2. The turbine would adversely affect the settings of three listed buildings: Holy Trinity Church (Grade llB); The Vicarage (Grade ll) and the National School (Grade ll). This is contrary to PPG15 (2.16 and 2.17) Planning and the Historic Environment.

3. The proposed turbine is now 13.2 m high: twice as high as when the applicant consulted with Kirklees design and conservation and planning departments.

4. No bat survey has been carried out in the quarry. This is very important owing to the detrimental effect of turbines on the welfare of bats and should be carried out before a planning application can be considered.

2009/92550

Land At Lindley Moor
Junction Of Lindley Moor Road & Crosland Road
Huddersfield
HD3 3TD

Outline application for erection of Data Campus and formation of new access from Lindley Moor Road

Comment
1. The site is allocated for B1/B2 and B8 use under Kirklees UDP and this proposal is relatively benign. As this is an outline application, any approval should be for the precise purpose of building a Data Centre Campus, housing computing and related systems only. There should be no possibility of its being converted into industry or warehousing which would impinge adversely on the local infrastructure and community.

2. As this is a very sensitive development, security lighting should be designed and positioned so as not to impact on the surrounding area. Security fencing should not be allowed to dominate this prominent site: landscaping should be used to obscure it./

3. The proposal includes a Class 2 archaeological site (Roman road 712) and a grade ll ancient monument (Haigh Cross). A full archaeological investigation should be carried out before any development begins, including geophysics and trial trenches.

2009/92494

Consent granted

18-20 St George’s Square
Huddersfield
HD1 1JF

Listed Building Consent for internal and external works to provide 14 units of student accommodation

Approval
The Civic Society supports this imaginative proposal to conserve this important building by changing its use to student accommodation.

2009/92745

Withdrawn

Aspley Auto Parts
Firth Street
Huddersfield
HD1 3BL

Erection of student accommodation, installation of solar panels and heat recovery units

Objection
1. Scale: This is a very restricted and awkward site; a five storey building would create a cramped and overwhelming appearance in a much improved area. An absolute maximum of four storeys should be permitted to equate with the recent, high quality, student residences on Firth Street situated opposite the proposed development.

2. Appearance: The use of aluminium sheeting and wooden cladding should not be permitted. All the elevations should be fully clad in local stone in compliance with policy BE11 of the UDP. A pitched roof would be more in keeping with the local vernacular.
The proposed cladding in alien materials would be in stark contrast to the stone facings of the existing student residences immediately opposite the proposed site. There are very few non-stone buildings left on Firth Street: this proposal, if successful, would destroy the best efforts of planners and developers to maintain a sense of local identity in the area and would contravene policy BE1 of the UDP.

2009/92421

Advertisement consent refused

Bus Shelter Ref: 29009
Opposite Britannia Buildings
St George's Square
Huddersfield
HD1 1BL

Erection of 1 illuminated advertising poster to existing bus shelter (within a Conservation Area)

Objection
Object to the erection of all illuminated posters in bus shelters in St. George's Square (including 2009/92416 and 2009/92420) as the shelters should be clear glass with no posters so as not to detract from the newly refurbished Square and the listed buildings surrounding it. This includes the Grade I listed Railway Station which would be compromised by garish illuminated advertising posters.

2009/92452

Refused

4-6 High Street
Huddersfield
HD1 2LE

Change of use of ground floor of 4 High Street from retail shop to coffee shop.

Change of use from auction rooms to banqueting halls, alterations to front elevation to High Street and the roof of the existing auction hall to the rear of the site (Listed Building within a Conservation Area)

Objection
Whilst we would wish for a viable use to be found for this important listed building, we feel that the alterations to the front elevation would destroy many of the features which are detailed in the 1978 listing: “....the segmented headed archway with elaborate cast-iron gates.......flanked by pointed arched doorways and doors with six elaborately moulded panels”.

The proposed alterations would destroy the gates and doors and incorporate the archway into the coffee shop. The replacement of the gates, doors and windows by smoked glass doors and windows would compromise the integrity of the 19th century frontage.

2009/92381

Land at Chapel Hill, Milford Street, Queensgate and Queen Street South
Huddersfield
HD1 3EA

Demolition of existing building and erection of foodstore (Use Class A1) with associated access, parking landscaping and ancillary facilities (Part Within Conservation Area)

Objection
At our Committee meeting, concern was expressed at the effect that this development would have upon the viability of town centre businesses and thus upon the vibrancy and prosperity of the town centre itself. This concern is magnified by the poor pedestrian access across the ring road. There was also a worry over the loss of many long-stay parking places along Milford Street and Chapel Street.

Our greatest dismay, however, lay with the design of the store and the choice of materials to be used in its construction. The design seems to be an “off the peg” corporate production with no attempt to blend sympathetically with the townscape and surrounding buildings. It will, for example, be adjacent to the County Court which is built of local stone with a traditional pitched roof. The store would be in stark contrast, with its non-pitched roof and use of alien materials such as white cladding, render and reconstituted “stone”. These materials are particularly prevalent on the South, East and West elevations. We are particularly anxious that local stone should be the predominant material used on all elevations. This would be in accordance with policy BE11 of Kirklees UDP and consistent with previous Council insistence that the Sainsbury’s Shore Head store should be faced in stone.

There will be a great deal of natural stone available when the existing industrial buildings are demolished and, if the applicants are serious about their sustainability credentials, they should re-use the same for the new store.

2009/91993

Huddersfield Railway Station
St George's Square
Huddersfield
HD1 1JB

Listed Building Consent for erection of facade lighting (within a Conservation Area)

Approval and Comment
Although the Civic Society supports the floodlighting of the Grade I listed station facade, we do question the stated rationale for not illuminating the two wings which currently serve as public houses.

The application states that the wings will not be illuminated as they form part of the train shed, which is not original, and have less historical importance than the rest of the station. This is incorrect. The two wings are no more part of the train shed than the rest of the facade and were designed as booking offices for the two railway companies who built the station.

They form an original and integral part of Pritchett’s design and should be illuminated along with the portico, entrance and colonnades in order to maintain the integrity of the facade as a whole, and display its original symmetry during periods of illumination.

I have spoken with the initiating officer who agrees that the reasons given for non-illumination in the application are incorrect, and trust that the proposals can be amended to include the two wings.

2009/91714

Refused

2009/91715

Consent refused

4, Wheathouse Road
Birkby
Huddersfield
HD2 2UW

Installation of photovoltaic panels to roof (Listed Building Within a Conservation Area)

Listed Building Consent for installation of photovoltaic panels to roof (Within a Conservation Area)

Objection
The 13 proposed solar panels would grossly distort the appearance of the roof of this Grade II listed 18th century building. The 1978 listing refers specifically to the “pitched stone slate roof” which would be obscured by the rows of panels, and the “ashlar stack with moulded base and cornicing” the setting of which would be compromised.

The listed “casements with very long timber lintels” on the South elevation would also be deleteriously affected by the incongruous panels being visible above them. The proposed installation would adversely affect the Birkby Conservation Area in which this listed building is situated.

NB. The application form does not stipulate the number of panels proposed for the south facing roof, but analysis of the supporting documentation shows that thirteen have been ordered.

2009/91263

Withdrawn

2009/91264

Withdrawn

The College Arms
33-35 Queensgate
Somerset Road
Huddersfield
HD1 2RD

Conversion of ground floor into 2 separate units and associated external alterations comprising of the installation of new door and window openings (Listed Building within a Conservation Area)

Listed Building Consent for the installation of new window and door openings and internal alterations (within a Conservation Area)

Objection
1. The proposed door in place of the existing window would compromise the integrity of a listed building in contravention of PPG15. A building of this style and date would not have had two doors adjacent to each other.

2. There already exists an entrance door to number 33, albeit not in the original position. Having three doors and an extra window in one elevation would lead to a cluttered and incongruous frontage.

3. The listing description of the building emphasises the late C19th public house door and window with entablature. This would be compromised by the addition of an extra door and the lowering of the window.

4. The design and access statement is totally inadequate in its justification of the visual and structural alterations to a listed building in a conservation area.

2008/93096

Approved
Conditional Full Permission

Application was amended satisfying all our objections regarding scale and materials. Approved by Committee 16th April 2009.

Land adjacent
Site of Old Riverside Studios
8-17 Kings Mill Lane
Somerset Road
Huddersfield
HD5 9AT

Demolition of 10 no. Dwellings. Erection of Student Accommodation comprising Studios and Bedrooms with associated living accommodation and ancillary management facilities and parking.

Objection
We condemn the demolition of Somerset Crescent which makes a valuable contribution to this key gateway into the town. In previous proposals by the same developer these properties were to be largely retained and refurbished: this should be a requirement of any successful bid to redevelop the site.

Though the scale and massing is less than in the previous (unsuccecssful) application it is still overbearing in relation to the neighbouring buildings, some of which are listed.

We consider that the materials proposed for the elevations onto Somerset Road, Wakefield Road, Kings Mill Lane and Maple Street contradict policies BE1, BE2 and BE11 of Kirklees Unitary Deveopment Plan, which state that developments should retain a sense of local identity (BE1) and be in keeping with surrounding developments in respect of materials (BE2). BE11 states that in key areas such as this, where stone is the predominant material of construction, new developments should be constructed in natural stone of a similar colour or texture to that prevailing in the area. These, clearly, are not.

Whilst the properties at this key gateway into Huddersfield are largely built of stone (including the new Lidl Store and Wakefield Road Retail Park) the proposed development has very little stone in its elevations. Most of the proposed elevations are to be faced with render, and three types of coloured cladding. These are not in keeping with the surrounding buildings, nor do they support our local identity as a “stone town”. Similar residences could be found in any University town. As the proposed blocks are not of a landmark or iconic design they do not require non-traditional materials. They should therefore be faced largely with stone.

2008/93428

Refused

Land adjacent
2 Queens Road
Edgerton
Huddersfield
HD2 2AG

Erection of detached dormer bungalow (Within a Conservation Area).

Objection
The proposal is an example of “in-fill” in Edgerton Conservation Area which has as one of its defining characteristics “mature landscapes contained within private garden areas”.

The proposed development would involve the loss of important space which makes a valuable contribution to the character and appearance of Edgerton Conservation Area, contrary to policies BE2, BE5 and BE6 of Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

The proposed dormer bungalow would constitute a cramped form of development that would be out of keeping with the nature of the surrounding Victorian development pattern contrary to policies D2 and BE2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

It would also remove an area of open space and the physical separation between listed building, 2 Queens Road, and the proposed dwelling leading to the erosion of the special character of the area.

2008/92938

Approved
Conditional Outline Permission

Kirkgate Tenements
Chantry House & Lancaster House
Oldgate
Huddersfield
HD1 6HQ

Outline application for erection of 8 storey student accommodation building and demolition of tenements.

Objection
Whilst we appreciate that the two tenement blocks proposed for demolition are not listed, we feel that they should be preserved as they are contiguous with the three listed tenement blocks which are proposed for refurbishment into student accommodation under a separate planning permission.

We also object to the proposed replacement of the two blocks for the following reasons:

1. The proposed eight storey block is far too tall in scale and fails to observe the surrounding development, especially the listed tenements, contrary to policy BE2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed design is very poor, lacking any attempt to retain a sense of local identity; it is not appropriate to its site and does not respect the surrounding buildings, especially the listed tenement blocks, contrary to policy BE1 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and 2.16 of PPG15.

3. The roof should be pitched to match those of the listed tenements.

4. The materials proposed for the new accommodation are totally out of keeping with its site. Only a very small proportion is to be faced in natural local stone; most external surfaces are to be concrete resin rainscreen and zinc cladding contrary to policy BE11 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan which states that new developments should be in natural stone where stone is the prevailing material of construction. This is true of the Oldgate area where the buildings being replaced are stone, as are the listed tenements, the sections of the Kingsgate Development facing the road and the Sainsbury’s supermarket.

2008/92951

Approved
Conditional Full Permission

2008/92952

Approved
Consent granted

Both granted permission on condition that stone is used for walls and roofs which satisfies in full the Society's original objections.

Spring Lodge

27 Woodthorpe Terrace
Longroyd Bridge
Huddersfield
HD1 3HY

Conversion of unused lodge into student accommodation (12 bedrooms) and erection of 5 town houses.

Listed building consent for demolition of derelict out buildings and portal extension.

Objection
The proposed materials (white render) will detract from the adjacent ashlar stone listed building and be inappropriate in an area predominantly constructed of stone contrary to policy BE11 of Kirklees Unitary Development Plan. The whole development should be faced with local stone.

2008/92132

Approved
Conditional Full Permission

Application was amended satisfying our objection regarding materials: development will now be constructed in stone. Approved by committee 16th April 2009.

Lower Car Park
Birkby Grange
Birkby Hall Road
Birkby
Huddersfield
HD2 2YA

Erection of residential development (within a conservation area).

Objection
Some of the materials proposed (render) will detract from the adjacent listed building and be inappropriate in an area predominantly constructed of stone. The whole development should be faced in local stone.

2008/92596

Refused

30 Daisy Lea Lane
Lindley
Huddersfield
HD3 3LP

Outline application for erection of detached dwelling with a garage (within a conservation area).

Objection
It is an example of “in-fill” in Edgerton Conservation Area which has as one of its defining characteristics “mature landscapes within private garden areas”.

The proposed development would detract from the character and appearance of the Edgerton Conservation Area, contrary to policies BE2, BE5 and BE6 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

It would constitute a cramped form of development that would be out of keeping with the nature of the surrounding development pattern contrary to policies D2 and BE2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

2008/92564

Refused
- Invalid

2008/92565

Refused
- Invalid

Spring Lodge

Land off Woodthorpe Terrace
Longroyd Bridge
Huddersfield
HD1 3HY

Conversion of unused lodge into student accommodation (12 bedrooms) and erection of 5 town houses.

Listed building consent for demolition of derelict out buildings and portal extension.

Objection
The proposed materials (white render) will detract from the adjacent ashlar stone listed building and be inappropriate in an area predominantly constructed of stone. The whole development should be faced with local stone.

2008/92115

Approved
Conditional Full Permission

The Deals
2 Leeches Hill
Outlane
Huddersfield
HD3 3XX

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 1 dwelling with integral garage.

Objection
1. The proposed new building is inside the green belt and is materially larger, by any definition, than that which is proposed for demolition, in contravention of PPG2 (Green Belts) 2005.
The original house was on one floor, a single storey on brick pillars, with no garage and a flat roof. The proposed replacement has four floors, a double garage and a pitched roof.

2. The scale and design of this four storey building, in a prominent hill top position, would have a detrimental impact upon the green belt, contrary to PPG2. The unbalanced and confused design would not preserve the openness, character and visual amenity of the green belt, and would not be in keeping with the dramatic topography of the site when viewed from the expansive southern direction, contrary to policy BE2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

3. Vehicular access is poor, via an unmade track. The frontage is very narrow, leaving little room to manoeuvre a vehicle to enable exiting the site using forward gears, without obstructing a bridle path which is well used by pedestrians as well as riders.

2008/91902

Undecided

Queensgate Revival
Huddersfield
HD1 2UJ

Queensgate Revival: an outline planning application for a new residential development (C3); retail and leisure (approximately 350,00 sq ft gross, encompassing A1 to A5 uses, including anchor department store and new market hall); hotel (C1); new library, art gallery and information centre (D1); a new car park (900 spaces) and for the change of use of the Court House to form café/restaurant (A3, A4) and enhancement/ improvement to public realm, bridge link and highways improvements.

Objection
Whilst the Society welcomed some aspects of the scheme: the retention of the frontages of the whole of the former Co-op building; the reuse of the former Crown Court building; the better pedestrian links from the University and the replacement of the Alfred Street Car Park, there was a great deal of concern and dissatisfaction with many aspects of the proposals, viz:

1. Whilst we appreciate that government guidelines now require outline planning applications to be more detailed than heretofore, this appears to be a full application which has been rushed through,prematurely, under the misleading guise of an outline application with all major matters reserved.

2. Proposed facing materials are shown on some of the elevations. The Society has grave reservations when “reconstituted stone”, white render and decorative concrete blocks are proposed for such a prominent site. Only local stone should be used on key elevations.

3. The demolition and rebuilding of the distinctive parabolic roof shells at the west end of the market hall site was considered to be totally unacceptable: they are grade 2 listed and should be retained at their current heights.

4. The dismantling and removal of some of the Fritz Steller ceramic sculptures was considered inappropriate and insensitive for these listed structures.

5. The height of the proposed frontages onto Peel Street was seen as overweening, diminishing the listed Town Hall and its setting.

6. The views of the ceramic sculptures would be restricted from both directions on Queensgate, by the bulk of the proposed store on the current car park site from the south east, and the necessary height of the proposed foot bridge from the University from the north east.

7. The loss of the green margins to the southern end of the current car park and below the ceramic sculptures is to be regretted as they do not seem to be compensated for elsewhere.

8. It was felt that the anchor store at the extreme margin of the site would be isolated from the mainretail area of the town.

2008/91481

Approved
Removal Or Modification Of Conditions(s)

Destiny
44/48 Westgate
Huddersfield
HD1 1NX

Variation of conditions 11 and 14 relating to materials used for exterior walls and roof on previous permission 2005/62/90510/W1 for demolition of existing shop and erection of new shop (Within a conservation area).

Approval
The Society sent a letter of approval of this application.

2008/91179

Refused

70 John William Street
Huddersfield
HD1 1EC

Installation of replacement windows and doors to shop front (listed building in a conservation area).

Objection
The application proposes to remove the ground floor frontage of a listed building which would not preserve the listed building in its setting and would destroy features of special architectural and historic interest (original hooded windows and door) contrary to policy BE3 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

The existing facade is not a shop front and should be preserved in its original form.

2008/91101

Withdrawn

80 New North Road
Edgerton
Huddersfield
HD1 5NE

Listed Building consent for the demolition of former coach house and garages and formation of site entrance and parking (within a conservation area).

Objection
The proposal would cause the demolition of a listed building which the application fails to demonstrate to have no beneficial or potential viable use.

There is no proof in the application that the building cannot be made sound contrary to policy BE4 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

2008/91058

Undecided

The Gables
Thornhill Road
Edgerton
Huddersfield
HD

Conversion of residential care home to 2 no dwellings, erection of 5 no mews houses and 2 no detached dwellings with integral garages (Within a conservation area).

Objection
1. The proposal is an example of “in-fill” in Edgerton Conservation Area which has as one of its defining characteristics “mature landscapes contained within private garden areas”. The proposed development would involve the loss of important space which makes a valuable contribution to the character and appearance of Edgerton Conservation Area, contrary to policies BE2, BE5, and BE6 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment (1994).

2. Map 2 in Appendix A of the Edgerton Conservation Area Designation shows that the proposed development is at a “key gateway” into the Conservation Area. A development at this sensitive location would erode the special character of the area.

3. Whilst the Society recognises the need to refurbish The Gables (perhaps as proposed into two dwellings), it agrees with the overwhelming view of residents who attended the meeting with developers on February 25th 2008, that the mews and additional dwellings proposals would detract from this important Conservation area in terms of their bulk and overweening form.

2007/95081

Refused

The Deals,
2 Leeches Hill
Outlane
Huddersfield
HD3 3XX

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 1 no. Dwelling with integral garage.

Objection
Despite the existing building having been destroyed by fire, the Society feels that its proposed replacement is out of keeping with its Green Belt site and has inadequate vehicle access.

The proposed replacement building is 24% larger that its predecessor and therefore conflicts with the regulations for replacing buildings inside the Green Belt. This is a very prominent site which can be seen from a considerable distance.

The site is very cramped with a narrow access lane and a well used bridle path to its side. The only way that vehicles can exit the site using forward gears is to obstruct the entrance to the bridle path which has a lot of pedestrian and equine usage.

2007/94934

Approved
Conditional Outline Permission

Gledholt Mills,
Allen Road
Paddock
Huddersfield
HD1 4SB

Outline application for b1 business development.

Objection
The outline application for b1 business development permission is much more than it appears. The Design and Access Statement states in point 2 that the development proposes the demolition of the existing buildings: i.e. Gledholt Mills.

Gledholt Mills should not be demolished as they represent an important part of the industrial history of Huddersfield, warranting five and a half pages in Teasdale’s book “Huddersfield Mills” (Wharncliffe Books 2004). The mills date from 1818 when Thomas Allen set up business there (hence Allen Street). According to Teasdale the oldest surviving building has the original roofing beams and floor boarding (page 26).

The Society feels that in the spirit of heritage conservation and sustainable development the town would be better served if this building were to be preserved and refurbished rather than be demolished and replaced with modern anonymous commercial units.

2007/94652

Refused

Site Of Old Huddersfield University
Riverside Studios
Wakefield Road / Kings Mill Lane
Huddersfield
HD1

Erection of student accommodation comprising studios and bedrooms with associated living accommodation and ancillary management facilities and parking.

Objection
Whilst we welcome the retention of some of the existing properties which make up Somerset Crescent, we consider that the materials proposed for the elevations onto Somerset Road, Wakefield Road, Kings Mill Lane and Maple Street contradict policies BE1 and BE2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan, which state that developments should retain a sense of local identity (BE1) and be in keeping with surrounding developments in respect of materials (BE2).

Whilst the properties at this key gateway into Huddersfield are largely built of stone (including the new Lidl Store and Wakefield Road Retail Park) the proposed development has very little stone in its elevations (if “masonry block work” is indeed stone). Most of the proposed elevations are to be faced with render, metal panels and rainscreen panels. These are not in keeping with the surrounding buildings, nor do they support our local identity as a “stone town”.

As the proposed blocks are not of a landmark or iconic design they do not require non-traditional materials. They should therefore be faced largely with stone. The interior elevations could still be built and faced as proposed.

2007/93687

Approved
Conditional Full Permission

Poplar Gelder Estate
Wakefield Road/Smithy Lane
Moldgreen
Huddersfield
HD5

Demolition of existing dwellings and erection of 74 two bedded apartments (social housing) with secure access and enclosed courtyard.

Objection
In the opinion of the Society the design of the proposed replacement dwellings is totally inappropriate to the site and its surroundings. All the buildings being replaced are of stone construction and recent developments adjacent to the site have been constructed of stone with pitched roofs (the Wakefield Road Retail Park being an example). The proposed development has only a very small amount of stone in its elevation, the vast majority of which is to be render and hanging tiles. The plans also indicate flat roofs.

The design and access statement published on the Kirklees planning web site does not mention the building materials nor provide any justification for their use (apart from the use of mesh for security reasons).

The proposed design is reminiscent of a 1960s municipal housing development and is totally incongruous in the 21st century on such a prominent site.

If the existing buildings are not capable of being refurbished then their replacements should be more sympathetic to the location and built of stone.

Regret was also expressed at the meeting that the elevation on the corner of Wakefield Road and Smithy Lane was not to be preserved in the development as it is of significant architectural merit.

2007/94746

Approved
Conditional Full Permission

2007/94759

Approved
Consent Granted

Acre Mills and Huddersfield Royal Infirmary
Acre Street Lindley Huddersfield
HD3 3EA

Demolition of curtilage buildings, erection of 2 no. Multi-storey car parks, change of use, extensions and alterations to principle listed building to form office accommodation and outline application with siting and means of access for health related facilities, 17 hospital worker accommodation units, surface car parking and associated landscaping and highway works (Within the curtilage of a listed building) (Modified proposal)

Listed building consent for demolition of curtilage buildings and erection of extensions and alterations to the existing principle building to form offices (Modified proposal)

Approval
The Society sent a letter of approval of this application.

2007/95239

Application
Approved

Huddersfield Parish Church
Byram Street
Huddersfield
HD1 1BU

Erection of joint entrance structure (Listed building within a conservation area).

Approval
The Society sent a letter of approval of this application.

2007/95191

Approved
Conditional Full Permission

2007/95192

Approved
Consent Granted

6-10 Railway Street
Huddersfield
HD1 1JP

Change of use of part of ground floor from a3 cafe to b1 office and installation of roof windows (Listed building within a conservation area)

Listed building consent for alterations to convert former offices and cafe to 11 no. Residential units, offices and restaurant (Modified proposal) (Within a conservation area)

Approval
The Society sent a letter of approval of this application.

2007/94251

Approved
Consent Granted

The Grange
4 Halifax Road
Edgerton
Huddersfield
HD3 3AW

Listed building consent for new site entrance with automatic gate and blocking up existing entrance (Within a conservation area).

Objection
The original gate piers to 4 Halifax Road are themselves separately Grade II listed on their own merits. (Edgerton Conservation Area; Appendix B, Listed Buildings Descriptions, page 6.).

Any blocking up of the existing entrance should in no way detract from the setting of the gate piers (Kirklees Unitary Development Plan Policy BE3) . Any permanently locked gate should be sympathetic with the design of the gate piers (mid C19th, ashlar, chamfered pyramidal caps). The entrance should remain in appearance as at present: be kept clear of vegetation and with a maintained drive way visible beyond the gates (at least as far as its present fork).

Any new entrance requirement is presumably dependent upon the proposed new dwellings being granted planning permission. No prior decision should be made on the entrance, as this permission may well not be forthcoming.

2007/94108

Refused
Advertisement Consent Refused

11/13 Ramsden Street/42 Victoria Lane
Huddersfield
HD1 2QF

Erection of illuminated and non-illuminated shop signs (Within a conservation area).

Objection
This building is in a sensitive site in a conservation area and the illustrative “Get Cash” signage accompanying the application is garish, tasteless and totally inappropriate to the building and its site. A much more understated and dignified colour palette and lettering is required.

2007/93585

Withdrawn

The Grange
4, Halifax Road
Huddersfiel
HD3 3AN

Erection of 4 no. dwellings and garages (listed building in a conservation area).

Objection
The proposal is an example of “infill” in Edgerton Conservation Area which has as one of its defining characteristics “mature landscapes within private garden areas”.

The proposed development would involve a loss of some of this important space which makes a valuable contribution to the character and appearance of Edgerton Conservation Area, contrary to policies BE2, BE5 and BE6 of Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal would be out of keeping with the surrounding development pattern contrary to policies D2 and BE2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

It would also remove an area of open space and the physical separation between listed building 4, Halifax Road and the proposed dwellings, leading to an erosion of the special character of the area.

2007/93478

Approved
Consent Granted

Amended applicaton which satisfies the Society's objections has been approved.

Folly Hall Mills
Chapel Hill/St. Thomas Road
Huddersfield
HD1 3LT

Listed building consent for erection of single storey link extension, 2 storey car park and alterations to mills.

Objection
Although we have no objection to the change of use of the ground, first and second floors to car parking or the single storey glazed link between the two mills, we do have considerable reservations about the nature and appearance of the proposed two storey car parking deck which the application proposes to be built of steel and be “starkly utilitarian” having “shied away from the use of natural stone”.

As this is one of the most important grade II* listed buildings in Huddersfield we believe if the additional parking spaces are deemed desirable by the planning authority, that any structure facilitating this should be built of stone and of a design sympathetic to the buildings of which they will form a part.

As the proposal stands the car parking deck contravenes policy BE3 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan, in failing to preserve the existing listed building and its setting.

2007/93004

Refused

The Deals
2 Leeches Hill
Outlane
Huddersfield
HD3 3XX

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 1 no. Dwelling with integral garage

Objection
As an application for listing of the building has been made earlier in the year and not yet decided, the decision on demolition should be held in abeyance until the result of the listing request is known.

2007/92716

Approved
Advertisement Consent Granted

3 Northumberland Street
Huddersfield
HD1 1DT

Erection of 3 no. Illuminated signs and 2 no. Glass canopies (Listed building within a conservation area)

Objection
Whilst we support the refurbishment of the building, we object to both proposed canopies as they would be garish and inappropriate, compromising the appearance of this important listed building in a conservation area, in contravention of policies BE3 and BE5 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

We also object for the same reasons to two of the proposed illuminated signs: those sited high on each corner of the building. We do not object to the third sign which is at the normal height and does not compromise the fenestration.

2007/92988

Refused

Merrie England Coffee Shop
54 New Street
Huddersfield
HD1 1DT

Erection of giant umbrella (Listed building within a conservation area).

Objection
Object to the permanent nature of the pole to which the umbrella will be fixed. We do not object to a temporary, retractable umbrella, but feel that a permanent post would clutter the pedestrian precinct and create a precedent within this conservation area.

2007/92588

Withdrawn

2007/94315

Approved
Conditional Full Permission

2007/94316

Approved
Conditional Full Permission

6,8,10,12,14,16,18 and 20 Chapel Hill,
Huddersfield
HD1 3EB

Listed building consent for re-roofing and improvements to facade

Listed building consent for re-roofing and alterations to facade

Alterations to facade (Listed building)

Objection
Work on the above properties apparently having been started before planning consent had been granted. Members felt that the windows which had already been removed should have replicated the originals, rather than all being of a uniform design. Chimney pots should be replaced and chimney stacks re-built rather than rendered.

2007/93217

Refused

Adjacent
2 Queens Road
Edgerton
Huddersfield
HD2 2AG

Erection of 1 detached dwelling with integral garage (Within a conservation area).

Objection
The proposal is an example of “in-fill” in Edgerton Conservation Area which has as one of its defining characteristics “mature landscapes contained within private garden areas”.

The proposed development would involve the loss of important space which makes a valuable contribution to the character and appearance of Edgerton Conservation Area, contrary to policies BE2, BE5 and BE6 of Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal would constitute a cramped form of development that would be out of keeping with the nature of the surrounding development pattern contrary to policies D2 and BE2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

It would also remove an area of open space and the physical separation between listed building, 2 Queens Road, and the proposed dwelling leading to the erosion of the special character of the area.

2007/92316

Approved
Conditional Full Permission

Cotton Factory
50 King Street
Huddersfield
HD1 2QT

Installation of retractable awnings (Listed building within a conservation area).

Objection
1. The awnings would spoil the appearance of the attractive facade of a listed building in contravention of policy BE3 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

2. They would compromise the continuity and integrity of King Street and the conservation area of which it forms a key part.

3. There are currently no awnings on the relevant part of King Street or Zetland Street. If permission were granted in this case it would set a precedent and could lead to the spoiling of the facades of other listed buildings in an attempt to create smokers’ retreats.

4. The Justification for Works submitted by the applicants, Ultimate Leisure, states : ...“we believe it better to have smokers supervised in a safe place than have them constantly ‘popping’ in and out of the pavement effecting (sic) passers by.”

As the proposed awnings overhang the pavement by two metres on King Street and Zetland Street they would, ironically, increase the use of the pavement and the nuisance to pedestrians who would have to walk in the road to avoid the customers, presenting a health and safety risk; in effect extending the premises onto the pedestrian pathway.

2007/91696

Withdrawn

9 Bath Street
Huddersfield
HD1 5BQ

Listed building consent for change of use and conversion of office and storage premises to residential use 12 dwellings (Within a conservation area).

Approval
The Society sent a letter of approval of this application.