2012/93544

2012/93545

St Peter's Building
St Peter's Street
Huddersfield
HD1 1RA

Demolition of St Peter's buildings and the formation of a temporary car park, creation of an access/egress and the erection of a boundary treatment to the perimeter of the site (within a Conservation Area)

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of St Peter's buildings

Objection
Under paragraph 135 of the NPPF, the LPA should take into account the significance that the loss of a non-designated heritage asset would cause. Whist the demolition of the 1960s building would enhance the Conservation Area, the loss of the 19th Century former Sunday School would not. The application makes much of the fact that the Victorian building does not have a frontage on to Northumberland Street: this is irrelevant, as fronting on to Lord Street is no less significant.

The Heritage Statement gives a misleadingly tepid opinion of the merits of the endangered building, calling it "quietly competent" (p8). This is not our view, nor was it the opinion of the Huddersfield Daily Chronicle in 1890 which described it as "a great architectural improvement to this part of town" (7th January, p3).

This proposed demolition is not to enable a new development that would enhance the Conservation Area: a car park is not of sufficient merit to over-ride the loss of a significant heritage asset.

There are nearby examples of the re-use of Victorian buildings for modern use: the media centre being a case in point. The former Sunday School could be re-furbished in a similar manner and thus complement rather than detract from the Conservation Area.

2012/93593

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

Listed Building Consent for the installation of electronic ticket gates and barriers inside main entrance hall (within a Conservation Area)

Objection
We welcomed the spaciousness created by the recent refurbishment of the station foyer and concourse: the positioning and style of the ticket barriers as proposed detract from this. The crux of this application centres on Huddersfield Railway Station being a Grade I listed building, warranting the highest degree of protection against harm to its fabric, appearance and setting.

If barriers are inevitable, there are two possible ways of ameliorating the damage to the building. The barriers could be sited on platform 1 as proposed, but rejected, as alternatives in the preparation of this application. There seems to be plenty of room between the entry to the foyer and the platform edge to prevent overcrowding or accidents if the barriers are suitable positioned.

A second possibility is to use "heritage" barriers which would be less obtrusive in this key location. Those proposed may be suitable to a station such as Leeds, but are incongruous and harmful to a Grade I listed building.

Members have identified two practical problems with the barriers:

1. Those wishing to avoid the barriers can do so by reaching the platform via the public houses sited in the former ticket offices.

2. The waiting room and shop will no longer be available to no non ticket holders, such as those waiting for arriving passengers.

2012/93811

Somerset Arms
53 Wakefield Road
Moldgreen
Huddersfield
HD5 9AB

Variation of condition 2 on previous permission 2012/90723 for change of use of ground floor from Class A4 (public house) to Class A5 (hot food take-aways) and installation of replacement shop front. Erection of two storey extension and alterations to form 2 four bedroom houses of multiple occupation and alterations to form 2 studio flats

Objection
We did not object to the previous permitted application (2012/90723) which altered the windows but did not detract from the integrity of the frontage of the building This provided the two proposed take-aways with separate entrances but retained the existing door and lantern. Take-aways do not require large windows as they do not display goods: the proposed larger entrances are not necessary and the damage they will cause to the frontage is out of all proportion to any commercial advantage they may bring.

This heritage asset is a very rare example of a Bentley and Shaw re-modelled pub frontage. The door and lantern are essential elements in what the Brewery History Society refers to as a "Marvellous Art Deco" frontage. There is no compelling reason for removing the door which should be retained and blocked as originally proposed. The current permission should be honoured and the variation of condition 2 be rejected.

2012/93763

adj 5 The Gables
Thornhill Road
Edgerton
Huddersfield
HD3 3AT

Erection of detached dwelling and garage (within a Conservation Area)

Objection
In the application which was permitted in 2011 (2010/91869) the applicant made particular reference to the use of stone as a facing material: this has been replaced with artificial stone in this application and should therefore be refused.

Edgerton Conservation Area has as one of its defining characteristics "large stone residences set in spacious grounds" the use of artificial stone would detract from the sense of local identity in what was known in the 19th Century as the "Belgravia of Huddersfield".

Map 2 in Appendix A of the Edgerton Conservation Area designation shows this site to be a key gateway into the Conservation Area: artificial stone would erode the special character of this gateway.

Policy BE11 of the Kirklees UDP clearly states that new buildings in conservation areas like Edgerton should be constructed in natural stone: to permit artificial stone in this case would be in contravention of the UDP.

2012/93683

Castle Hill Hotel
Lumb Lane
Almondbury
Huddersfield
HD4 6TA

Erection of public house/hotel with associated parking

Objection
Our objections are based on nine issues:

1.The applicants demolished the previous building, contrary to planning permission. The site is subject to green belt status. Development on green belt land is contrary to paragraph 87 of the NPPF which states that it should only be permitted in "very special circumstances". No very special circumstances have been demonstrated in this application.

2.Castle Hill is a Scheduled Ancient Monument protected under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Area Act. The proposed hotel would damage the visual and archaeological integrity of the Monument contrary to paragraph132 of the NPPF which states that substantial harm such as that which the hotel would cause would be "wholly exceptional". No case for wholly exceptional treatment has been made by the developer.

3.The Grade II listed Victoria Tower would have its setting adversely affected by the proposed hotel contrary to NPPF paragraph 129.

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

5. Castle Hill has recently been designated a nature reserve. The hotel would destroy the tranquillity needed for the reserve to thrive.

6 Access for vehicles to the site is very poor and potentially dangerous for the number of visitors and staff envisaged by the applicant. Similarly, there are insufficient parking places in the proposal. The proposed traffic lights would be unacceptable on a scheduled ancient monument. On a BOAT they are an unsuitable solution to the difficult and dangerous entry and egress problems, and could well exacerbate the safely and traffic flow concerns, causing tail-backs and congestion onto the public highway (Lumb Lane).

7. The application form states that the developers have no knowledge of how foul sewage would be disposed of, or whether the hotel will be connected to a drainage system. No arrangements have been made for the separate storage and collection of recyclable waste.

8. The application states that there will be site supervision 24 hours a day, but there is no staff accommodation identified on the plans.

9. The public facilities proposed for the use for visitors to the site are minimal and would be better provided at the foot of the hill, along with car parking.

2012/93492

15 Lower Fitzwilliam Street
Huddersfield
HD1 6BA

Demolition of 4 dwellings and commercial unit and erection of new commercial units with associated parking

Objection
The demolition of the four dwellings on Lower Fitzwilliam Street would lead to their being replaced by a commercial unit set back from the road but becoming the visible frontage onto this key entry point into the town centre. The houses to be demolished are built of stone, but the replacement unit will only have a shallow plinth of stone, the bulk of the walling being steel cladding. In order to preserve the visual integrity and sense of local identity of the area, the total unglazed section of wall facing onto Lower Fitzwilliam Street should be clad in stone to match the remaining properties and the Great Northern Retail Park on the other side of the road. This would comply with policy BE11 of the Kirklees UDP.

2012/93414

Refused

2a Inglewood Ave
Birkby
Huddersfield
HD2 2DS

Installation of window and alterations to convert plant room to accommodation

Objection
The saga of this contentious building seems never-ending. The window for which permission is requested is, I understand, the same as that which was refused by the Planning Inspectorate. Nothing has changed to make it any more acceptable now than it was at the time of the Appeal.

The "plant room" is apparently no longer required, as the application seeks to turn it into a bedroom. As the swimming pool requires a plant room, and no alternative site for the facility is provided in the application, then it cannot be permitted to provide additional sleeping space.

2012/92968

Refused

"Station Approach" nee Railway Street
St Georges Square
Huddersfield
HD1 1LA

Replacement of existing public telephones to 1 combined public payphone & ATM cash machine kiosk

Objection
My attention has just been drawn to the above retrospective planning application for an ATM/Call Box outside Britannia Buildings on Railway Street, St George's Square. I appreciate that the consultation period has lapsed, but ask for my objection on behalf of Huddersfield Civic Society to be considered as the original application was misleading, stating that the ATM was sited in "Station Approach", an address unknown to me, when in fact it is in Railway Street, rather than inside the foyer of the station as I assumed.

The ATM box has a dreadfully negative effect on the setting of the Grade I Railway Station and the Grade II* Britannia Buildings as well as the other heritage assets in the Square and Conservation Area. The materials, design and bulk of the ATM are entirely alien to the Square and detract from the impression ade to visitors leaving the station. Permission for the ATM should be refused.

2012/93457

Somerset Arms
53 Wakefield Road
Moldgreen
Huddersfield
HD5 9AB

Non material amendment on previous planning permission no. 2012/90723 for Change of use of ground floor from Class A4 (public house) to Class A5 (hot food take-aways) and installation of replacement shop front. Erection of two storey extension and alterations to form 2 four bedroom houses of multiple occupation and alterations to form 2 studio flats.

Objection
We didn't object to the original application as we felt that the alterations to the ground floor windows to form separate entrances made the property viable for business use without detracting from the imposing façade of the existing public house. The retention of the central door (even if blocked) and lantern was essential for preserving the integrity and symmetry of the frontage which is a rare example of a Bentley and Shaw Art Deco public house. The proposed amendment to the scheme would effectively remove the central door-way thus destroying the important frontage which does so much to enhance this part of Wakefield Road. We request that the NMA be refused.

2012/92065

Conditional Full Permission

Wakefield Road car park and adjacent land Queensgate Campus
Huddersfield
HD1

Demolition of sports hall, erection of learning and leisure centre with associated facilities. Alterations to adjacent buildings and reconfiguration of the Wakefield Road car park

Objection
There are three main grounds for our objection:

1. The large, overwhelming windowless structure of the proposed sports hall when viewed from Wakefield Road would seriously harm the setting of the Grade II* listed former Canal Warehouse (Sir John Ramsden Court) which is only 22m to the North. Indeed, the vehicle access to the Warehouse is under the proposed sports hall. This significant harm to a Grade II* listed building is contrary to NPPF paragraph 132 which states that to allow such an effect would be "wholly exceptional". The applicants, in their Design and Access Statement, refer to the Warehouse as Grade II when in fact it is afforded much higher protection, being Grade II*. The original opinion of the Council's Design and Conservation team repeated the grading error but retained its favourable judgement in its amended report despite the corrected grading requiring higher degree of protection.

2. The proposed sports hall occupies a key site at this busy gateway into the town centre. There have been strict conditions placed on permissions for earlier developments at this gateway, notably Sainsbury's and the Kinsgate Centre, where local stone was stipulated as the facing material to preserve a sense of local identity for this stone town. A large, blue mesh box on stilts is hardly the landmark building of contemporary design to which the applicant aspires.

3. Sports halls tend to be box-like structures with few if any windows. This type of building would have been better sited in the interior of the campus rather than this key junction of Wakefield Road and Queensgate. If that is not possible, to better articulate the elevations facing Wakefield Road the architect could have borrowed from traditional form and fenestration, emphasising a vertical symmetry, perhaps breaking the facade by introducing vertical "ribbing" in a more subdued colour, including the use of natural stone to comply with BE11 of the UDP.

2012/91867

Refused

Castle Hill site
Lumb Lane
Castle Hill
Huddersfield
HD4 6TA

Erection of public house/hotel with associated parking

Objection
1. Since the applicants demolished the previous building (contrary to planning permission) the site reverted to green belt status. Development on green belt land is contrary to paragraph 87 of the NPPF which states that it should only be permitted in "very special circumstances". No very special circumstances have been demonstrated in this application.

2. Castle Hill is a Scheduled Ancient Monument protected under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Area Act. The proposed hotel would damage the visual and archaeological integrity of the Monument contrary to paragraph 132 of the NPPF which states that substantial harm such as that which the hotel would cause would be "wholly exceptional". No case for wholly exceptional treatment has been made by the developer.

3. The Grade II listed Victoria Tower would have its setting adversely affected by the proposed hotel contrary to NPPF paragraph 129.

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

5. Castle Hill has recently been designated a nature reserve. The hotel would destroy the tranquillity needed for the reserve to thrive.

6. Access for vehicles to the site is very poor and potentially dangerous for the number of visitors and staff envisaged by the applicant. Similarly, there are insufficient parking places in the proposal.

7. The application form states that the developers have no knowledge of how foul sewage would be disposed of, or whether the hotel will be connected to a drainage system. No arrangements have been made for the separate storage and collection of recyclable waste.

8. The application states that there will be site supervision 24 hours a day, but there is no staff accommodation identified on the plans.

9. The public facilities proposed for the use for visitors to the site are minimal and would be better provided at the foot of the hill, along with car parking.

2012/91726

Granted under Reg.3 General Regulations 1992

Land off Hey Lane
Stirley Hill
Berry Brow
Huddersfield
HD4 6TX

Change of use of agricultural land to form a new cemetery and associated works

Objection
This high altitude site is unsuited to use as a cemetery as it is very exposed and open to strong winds and heavy driving rain, making it unpleasant for mourners. The access road is narrow and winding yet very busy. Slow moving funeral corteges comprising large hearses and funeral cars will be unsuited to such a road. The corteges will access the site via the centre of Almondbury. These large vehicles and slow progress will cause congestion in the village, along Northgate, Westgate and Kaye Lane before arriving at Ashes Lane. The site is served by a very poor bus service with a frequency of only 90 minutes. Visitors are unlikely to use public transport to access the cemetery, adding to the congestion.

Once established, the toilets, shelter, graves and associated car parking hard standing will detract from the setting of Castle Hill, a scheduled Ancient Monument, and the Grade II listed Jubilee Tower.

The proposed site is very badly drained and prone to flooding. It is likely that some of the surrounding properties which enjoy a natural underground water supply will obtain that water from the source identified on the site. The Environment Agency stipulates that there should be no burials within 250m of a potable source, making most of the proposed burial area unusable.

2012/91598

Old Recreation Ground
13 Halifax Road
Scapegoat Hill
Huddersfield
HD7 4MS

Erection of one endurance 50Kw wind turbine 34.2M in overall height

Objection
This application has to be judged along with the existing turbines on the escarpment at Scapegoat Hill/Wholestone Moor, especially that at Round Ings Farm (2011/90818), and application 2012/91594 Field House Farm. All three have been submitted by the same commercial company, DC21, and are a clear attempt to achieve "turbine creep" through submitting separate applications for individual turbines rather than the more contentious wind farm which these turbines would form if permitted. This is confirmed by the applicants labelling this turbine as "Turbine 1" on their document "Grade II Listed Buildings": they clearly see it as part of a larger scheme.

This very large turbine would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt contrary to PPG2 and UDP policies D8 and EP8. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated to overcome the damage to the Green Belt which the turbine would cause.

Subsection 5:14 of EP6 states that "what should be avoided is a proliferation of individual turbines across a landscape". There are already four large turbines and one smaller turbine on adjacent sites: an additional large turbine would lead to such a proliferation.

A turbine only yards away from this site was refused planning permission a few months ago (2011/92089) and this refusal was upheld on appeal. The appeal inspector's reasons for refusal are all relevant here. He ruled that the turbine formed inappropriate development in the Green Belt, particularly damaging its openness owing to its proximity to existing infrastructure on this hill top plateau with panoramic views, contrary to PPG2. He also ruled that the turbine would add to the visual clutter on the plateau and harm the setting of Grade II Listed Scapegoat Hill Baptist Church. This proposed turbine would be even more harmful owing to its having three rotor blades rather than the two blades on the refused turbine.

The recent judgement in the administrative court by High Court Judge Mrs Justice Lang is also relevant here. She ruled that the government's renewable energy targets do not outweigh the beauty of the countryside in deciding applications for wind turbines. It should not outweigh the openness of the Green Belt in this case.

2012/91594

Field House Farm Wholestone Moor
Outlane
Huddersfield
HD3 3FQ

Installation of one endurance 50Kw Wind Turbine

Objection
This application has to be judged along with the existing turbines on the escarpment at Scapegoat Hill/Wholestone Moor, especially that at Round Ings Farm (2011/90818), and application 2012/91598 the old recreation ground Scapegoat Hill. All three have been submitted by the same commercial company, DC21, and are a clear attempt to achieve "turbine creep" through submitting separate applications for individual turbines rather than the more contentious wind farm which these turbines would form if permitted.

This very large turbine would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt contrary to PPG2 and UDP policies D8 and EP8. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated to overcome the damage to the Green Belt which the turbine would cause.

Subsection 5:14 of EP6 states that "what should be avoided is a proliferation of individual turbines across a landscape". There are already four large turbines and one smaller turbine on adjacent sites: an additional large turbine would lead to such a proliferation.

A turbine only yards away from this site was refused planning permission a few months ago (2011/92089) and this refusal was upheld on appeal. The appeal inspector's reasons for refusal are all relevant here. He ruled that the turbine formed inappropriate development in the Green Belt, particularly damaging its openness owing to its proximity to existing infrastructure on this hill top plateau with panoramic views, contrary to PPG2. He also ruled that the turbine would add to the visual clutter on the plateau and harm the setting of Grade II Listed Scapegoat Hill Baptist Church. This proposed turbine would be even more harmful owing to its having three rotor blades rather than the two blades on the refused turbine.

The recent judgement in the administrative court by High Court Judge Mrs Justice Lang is also relevant here. She ruled that the government's renewable energy targets do not outweigh the beauty of the countryside in deciding applications for wind turbines. It should not outweigh the openness of the Green Belt in this case.

2012/91290

Conditional Full Permission

2a Inglewood Avenue
Birkby
Huddersfield
HD2 2DS

Erection of detached dwelling with integral garage (modified proposal)

4th Objection
The Society has had more representations against this house than any domestic development in recent years.

This house has been built contrary to planning permission; Kirklees Planning Committee has rejected the applicant's attempt to gain retrospective permission for the house as built and this decision has been upheld by the Planning Inspector.

The applicant now has permission to lower the height of the main house, the garage and the games room to those originally permitted. It seems perverse to demand that the main house should now be allowed to retain its current height: half a metre taller than that permitted.

The original permitted plans satisfied all structural and insulation regulations: the developer just decided to ignore them and build it as tall as he wanted.

The claim by the applicant that the ground level is lower than that on the original plans is disingenuous. The same argument was used in the Appeal and the Inspector rejected it. He said "The house is over-dominant and unsympathetic to the street scene. These effects are the greater as a result of the unauthorised increase in height and mass." ..... The house "has an unacceptable adverse effect on the character and appearance of the street scene".

On the change in ground level he said "I attach little weight to this view. The council's 2009 decision was based on the drawings then presented and it was entitled to expect that the building would be built accordingly. In its visit to the site it looked at the effect of the building as built ....... similarly I have based my conclusion on the impact of the building as seen on site".

The Authority should reject this perverse application which attempts to negate the decision of the Planning Committee and the Planning Inspector.

2012/90595

Conditional Full Permission

5. Notwithstanding the submitted details on the approved plans and application forms the elevations of the building hereby approved which face onto Wakefield Road and Poplar Street, shall be constructed of natural stone, a sample of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to comply with Policy BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan and policies in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Smithy Lane/Poplar Street
Moldgreen
Huddersfield
HD5 9BR

Erection of 15 two bedroom units, including parking provisions, cycle store and bin store

Poplar Gelder Phase 3

Objection
Whilst we have no quarrel with the block plan and general design of the development, we do object to the proposed materials. The elevations facing Poplar Street and Wakefield Road should be faced with natural stone, not artificial stone as described in the application.

The use of artificial stone would detract from the character of the surrounding area where the predominant material of construction is natural stone. The retained buildings contiguous with the development at the key gateway to the town at the junction of Wakefield Road and Smithy Lane are all stone faced. To reduce the amount of natural stone would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area contrary to policies B2, BE11, B1 and BE2 of the UDP.

The recently constructed parts of the development site set a precedent. The original planning permission, 2007/93687, stipulated natural stone on the elevations facing out from the site, towards the highway. An attempt to alter this condition to use cheaper artificial stone (2009/92123) was refused. In order to maintain departmental consistency and comply with the above-mentioned UDP policies only natural stone should be permitted on the elevations facing Poplar Street and Wakefield Road.

2012/90024

Conditional Full Permission

Broomfield House
Firth Street
Huddersfield
HD1 3BA

Alterations to convert vacant mill to 29 student rooms and ground floor commercial unit

Approval
We support this application for conversion of Broomfield House to mixed student accommodation and business use. We feel the Planning Statement and proposed elevation drawings suggest that the development will preserve and enhance a building which is currently under-used and in danger of falling further into disrepair, letting down the much improved street scene on Firth Street. The removal of existing render and making good the stone beneath is in accordance with policy BE11 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan with which we are in full agreement.

2012/90153

Refusal by Inspector of retrospective permission for unauthorised works.

Applied for enforcement.

2a Inglewood Avenue
Birkby
Huddersfield
HD2 2DS

Erection of detached dwelling (modified proposal)

3rd Objection
Following the dismissal of the appeal against refusal of permission for the works carried out contrary to the existing planning permission, we feel that not all the matters raised by the Inspector have been clearly dealt with in this application.

1. There is no clear proposal to reduce the depth of the fascia which the Inspector singled out for criticism. There is no mention in the Design and Access Statement and no dimensions are given on the plans published on-line. The agent was contacted by 'phone but was unable to give a categorical confirmation that the fascia would be reduced from 550mm to 300mm, though he thought that it was the intention to do so.

The fascia is particularly out of proportion on the elevation facing Birkby Road, adding to the over-bulky appearance of the house.

2. There is no intention to reverse the materials which were configured contrary to those permitted. We feel that the use of stone on the upper floors with render on the ground floor of the main house adds to the overwhelming appearance of the property. The conventional approach with a flat roofed building is to have the lighter material at the top, as it was in the original permitted plans.