11/01466

Withdrawn

Lea Hill Equestrian Centre
Lea Hill Farm
Swan Lane
Outlane
Elland
Huddersfield
HD3 3YH

Installation of one Endurance E-3120 50kW wind turbine on 25 metre mast

Objection
We don't normally comment on applications outside the old County Borough of Huddersfield, but in this case the boundary passes through the middle of the site and the proposed turbine would have a detrimental visual impact on residents of a considerable area of North West Huddersfield, including Mount, Lindley Moor, Outlane, Nettleton Hill and Scapegoat Hill.

1. The site is in protected Green Belt where such a very large turbine (max height 34.2 m) would constitute inappropriate development contrary to PPG2 (Green Belts) 1995. The justification given in the Design and Access Statement (apart from the usual platitudes about green energy) is one of reducing the costs to the riding school and gaining income from the very generous feed-in-tariff programme. Financial gain for a commercial organisation cannot be regarded as "very special circumstances" which could overcome the damage to the Green Belt, impacting on the visual amenity of this hill top site, destroying its openness.

This turbine, according to the manufacturers, is designed to power 20 homes: clearly its choice here indicates a wish to raise revenue from the feed-in-tariff rather than to supply green power to the farm; a much smaller turbine would have done that.

It is noted that no community involvement appears to have been undertaken contrary to the recommendations in PPS22.

2. Lee Hill is the site of Scheduled Monument 47464, a Bronze Age round barrow and Iron Age enclosure. The original extent of the site was one and a half acres and the turbine would be situated at its centre. The applicants admit that the works would damage archaeological remains in contravention of EP30: "It is unlikely that the proposed installation of the turbine would not affect any built or cultural heritage assets" (Design and Access Statement Section 8 Conclusion). Clearly, this is unacceptable, particularly as no archaeological survey of the site has been carried out as part of the application. On a site such as this, geophysical and trench investigations should be undertaken before any heavy plant appears or excavations take place.

3. The turbine would detrimentally affect the setting of the Grade II listed Lee Farm and Barn which are next to the site.

4. The site is part of a designated Wild Life Corridor. The turbine would damage the physical continuity of the corridor and prevent the movement of birds and bats, thus harming the nature conservation value of the corridor contrary to planning policy NE15.

The turbine is proposed on the site of a pre Roman monument, adjacent to listed buildings, in Green Belt and in a Wild Life Corridor. A more unsuitable situation would be difficult to imagine.

2012/90024

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.

2011/93329

Conditional Full Permission

Trinity House
136-138, Trinity Street
Huddersfield
HD1 4DT

Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations (Within a Conservation Area)

Approval
The proposals will give a new lease of life to a currently empty building which forms part of one of the finest Georgian/Regency facades in Huddersfield. No detrimental works are proposed, and this key building in a prominent main road position needs to be in daily use.

2011/93327

Palace Theatre
30 Kirkgate
Huddersfield
HD1 1QJ

Change of use and alterations to convert former theatre to 23 student apartments with communal laundry and gymnasium, partially retaining existing bar/restaurant

Approval
We welcome the conversion of this landmark building to student housing as it will preserve its distinctive frontage and re-invigorate a rather run down area of the town. We particularly endorse the restoration of the lantern and the ceramic frontage on to Kirkgate.

Whilst we would have liked the glazing to the front of the building to be retained, we appreciate the practical reasons for this not being feasible. Perhaps a condition could be applied to any planning permission requiring the glazing to be donated to the Brooking Collection (www.thebrookingcollection.com). It would also be beneficial if the plaster and metalwork detailing in the auditorium could be recorded before removal.

As with all recent applications for student accommodation near the town centre we note the lack of parking which would make the loading and unloading of students' belongings difficult at the beginning and end of terms.

2011/92997

33 Queensgate
Huddersfield
HD1 2RD

Listed Building Consent for alterations to cellar and new access, formation of new doorway and erection of 1st and 2nd floor smoking areas to rear and internal alterations (within a Conservation Area)

Objection
This application is an attempt to legitimise a blatant contravention of planning permission 2009/91746/7 in which a new doorway has been formed on the frontage of this listed building in full knowledge that the work was not being carried out in accordance with the permitted plans.

This is a deliberate act of destroying the integrity of a listed building in a conservation area and so should be refused and enforcement action taken to restore the frontage to its original state.

A building of this style and date would not have had two doors adjacent to each other as has been created by this unauthorised work.

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.

2011/92089

Refused
Appeal Lodged

Mount Hebron Farm
Scapegoat Hill
Huddersfield
HD7 4NS

Installation of one WES30 250kW wind turbine on a 31m monopole mast.

Objection
This is a very large turbine which would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity, openness, tranquillity and remoteness of this Green Belt site which is in a very prominent hill top location. It is designated as an area of high landscape value on the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan map, thus deserving even greater protection. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated which would overcome the harm done to the green belt contrary to EP8 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and PPG2 (Green Belts) 1995.

Subsection 5.14 of EP6 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan states that "what should be avoided is a proliferation of individual turbines across a landscape". As there are already 3 large turbines and a smaller turbine on adjacent sites (with planning permission for a 4th large turbine), plus a current application for a 34m turbine on a site only yards from this proposal, this would lead to just such a proliferation of individual turbines on this very prominent escarpment: the highest point in the old County Borough of Huddersfield.

At a total height of 46m this turbine would dwarf the existing turbines, being almost twice as tall. It would be tall enough to harm the settings of several listed buildings, including Scapegoat Hill Baptist Church.

A full bat survey needs to be carried out owing to the proximity of two quarries; Rocking Stone Delph and Wholestone Moor Quarry. Local quarries have proved to be the roosting sites of bats in the recent past and have led to applications for turbines being refused owing to the danger and disturbance caused to this protected species by the rotor blades.

2011/92620

Conditional Full Permission

Former Robert Castings Site Colne Road
Huddersfield
HD1 3AT

Erection of student accommodation (653 beds), communal facilities, associated car parking and landscaping

Approval
The application seems to adhere to national and local planning policies and respect a sense of place in terms of design and materials. The Society is particularly concerned that local stone should be the predominant facing material in such sites and according to the Design and Access Statement (page 20, illustrative elevation) that is the case. We note that the applicant lists "cast stone" in the palette of materials proposed. As no ratio of natural stone to cast stone is given, we presume that the cast stone will be used only for architectural detailing, not as a main walling material. Our support is dependent on that being the case.

On a practical note, there are very few parking places, which could lead to severe logistical problems as students usually arrive on campus to unload their possessions over a single week-end.

2011/92633

Refused 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 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 on Hey Lane. Once established, the 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.

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.

2011/92007

Conditional Full Permission

Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd
82, Willow Lane
Birkby
Huddersfield
HD1 5EB

Removal of existing dry stone wall to front of service yard, erection of 2.0m high paladin fence

Objection
Whilst we fully accept the need for a security fence round the service yard following a spate of thefts, we do want the stone wall fronting Willow Lane retaining as it contributes to the visual amenity of the street scene. To this end, I spoke with Chris Pickard of the agents who fully understood our concerns and approached his clients, Britvic, to assess the possibility of the wall being retained and the security fence built immediately behind it. They didn't think it desirable as they thought that wall would have to be cut back to accommodate the fence. We disagree, and believe the wall should be retained.

I visited the site on 10th September 2011 and was dismayed to find that the wall had already been demolished before the application had been determined by the Council or the consultation process completed.

I request that should the application for the fencing be granted, a condition should be applied that the wall be re-instated prior to the fencing being erected as it has been removed without planning permission.

2011/91471

Advertisement Consent Refused

A1 Car Parks
St Andrew's Road
Huddersfield
HD1 6SB

Erection of 44 non-illuminated signs

Objection
These 44 signs would have an adverse effect upon the Heritage Asset of Aspley Canal Basin, specifically the setting of the Grade II Listed Canal Warehouse North End Aspley Place (listing entry 1220248) and the recently restored mill building adjacent to the new hotel which was described as "listed by default" in the planning application for its refurbishment.

2011/91123

Refused

2a Inglewood Avenue
Birkby
Huddersfield
HD2 2DS

Erection of detached dwelling with integral garage (modified proposal)

2nd Objection
Despite the developer having rectified some of the errors on the previous application, the Society wishes to re-iterate its objection as the house has been built significantly bigger than that originally approved and the materials used in a totally inappropriate manner. The earlier non-material amendment (2010/90821) was not allowed as it was not the correct vehicle for such major changes to the existing permitted development.

The Society has been approached by members and the general public complaining about the overweening appearance of the building which is virtually complete.

We agree that the Birkby Road elevations are now totally inappropriate in such a key location. This building has been constructed contrary to planning permission and should be re-built in accordance with the permitted design,scale and materials.

2011/91475

Conditional Full Permission

Merrie England
54 New Street
Huddersfield
HD1 2BW

Installation of replacement shop front (within a Conservation Area)

Approval
The Society supports this application for a replacement shop front as it is in line with the Society's shop front policy and will improve the street scene on New Street.

We have already commended the owners on the earlier renovation of their Westgate cafe and wish to encourage more businesses to emulate them.

2011/91549

Undecided

5 Bridge Street
Lockwood
Huddersfield
HD4 6EL

Internal and external alterations to 4 no. apartments and stores area to form 8 new

Objection
This is a Grade II listed building; the construction of the external lift/stairs shaft at the rear of the property would detract from the integrity of the building and obscure key features of the property, including a semi-circular window which is the centre of five on the elevation.

2011/91519

Undecided

Cowrakes Road / Weatherhill Road
Lindley
Huddersfield
HD3 3SS

Residential development (294 units) and associated works, including demolition

Comment
1. Much emphasis is placed, in the Planning Statement, on the data underlying the Kirklees LDP Core Strategy Document which the developers refer to as an “emerging” policy. This document is not Kirklees planning policy as it has not been through the ratification process. The assumptions and data used in the Core Strategy Documents, which were put out to consultation, have been subject to a great deal of criticism, particularly in terms of housing targets, the development of Green Land and Green Belt. No supporting evidence can be evinced from the LDF Core Strategy data, as it may well be amended before ratification.

2. The Society has considerable concern over the impact of 294 houses on the village of Lindley, which, it was claimed at a recent Kirklees (West) Planning Committee Meeting , has had over 700 new housing units built within its boundary over the past ten years. There are two major areas of concern:

a) Education:

Our enquiries have indicated that the primary and secondary schools, in whose catchment areas the proposed houses will be sited, are already full and oversubscribed: they could not cater for the hundreds of school children which a large development of family houses could generate. A vague Section 106 agreement will not provide the school places required. Lindley Junior School had only received some extra playing field facilities under previous agreements, no extra teaching capacity: the most sensible way to solve this dilemma is for any 106 Agreement to stipulate that a new primary school should be provided by the developers adjacent to the proposed housing site. Secondary provision is more problematic; compounded by the process being undertaken by both the junior and secondary schools to transfer from LEA control to Academy status. How 106 agreements will apply in these cases seems unclear.

b) Transport:

The roads in Lindley are already highly congested. The proposed improvements to the Ainley Top roundabout and the Cavalry Arms junction will have no ameliorating effect on the village itself. East Street, West Street, Cowrakes Road, and Lidget Street/Acre Street , as well as Lindley Moor Road will be put under tremendous strain by the vehicles engendered by nearly 300 houses. Ambulances already struggle to reach the Infirmary at peak periods. The road infrastructure cannot cope without a huge investment in village road improvements, none of which is proposed in this application.

3. Layout and Design:

Lindley had been the victim of some dreadful recent housing schemes, particularly that on the site of the former YEB headquarters. This must not be allowed to happen again. The materials proposed for the houses and flats in this scheme are artificial stone and render. These materials involve the production of huge amounts of CO2 as well as looking cheap and weathering badly. At the very least, those houses and flats with elevations visible from Cowrakes Road and Weatherhill Road should be faced in coursed local stone to reflect the local vernacular. The problem of the settings of the Grade II Listed houses (19-21 Weatherhill Road) could also be helped by the new houses facing them being stone clad.

4. Archaeology:

As geophysical investigations have indicated significant archaeological remains, a full field evaluation is required to prevent the loss of potentially significant material during ground works.

2011/91518

Approved
Section 106 Outline Permission

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

Outline application for erection of Data Centre Campus with formation of new access

Comment
1. The site is allocated for B1/B2 and B8 use under Kirklees Unitary Development Plan 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. A condition to this effect should apply to any permission which may be granted.

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. A geophysical investigation on the neighbouring site H8.17 has highlighted possible remains of archaeological importance: site B8.1 is in a much more significant area, with known archaeology; preliminary geophysical investigation is essential to enable trench investigation to be carried out. The “desk” study completed thus far is inadequate.

2011/90518

Refused

Site Of Old Riverside Studios 8-17 Kings Mill Lane / Somerset Road
Huddersfield
POSTCODE

Removal of condition 5 on previous permission 2008/93096 for demolition of 10 dwellings

Objection
1. The original permission conditioning that the elevations of the buildings should be substantially faced in natural stone was correct in demanding compliance with policy BE11 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan. Stone is the prevailing material of construction at this key gateway into the town.

2. The attractive terrace of houses on Somerset Road which was demolished to make space for this development was constructed in local stone.

3. Buildings contiguous with the proposed development are built of stone: 10 Kings Mill Lane (listed); the distinctive 11-14 Kings Mill Lane; the impressive Parkside House; St Joseph’s Church and the retained 18 Somerset Road to which the proposed development will connect. All the buildings on the opposite side of Wakefield Road from its junction with Coal Pit Lane are also stone faced.

4. A precedent has been set in the social housing currently nearing completion on the nearby site of the former Poplar-Gelder Estate. The original condition to permission (2007/93687) for the elevations facing Poplar Street and Smithy Lane to be faced in local stone was challenged by 2009/92123 where the use of artificial stone was requested. This was refused as it would “detract from the character of the surrounding area and its appearance where the predominant material of construction is natural stone. To reduce the amount of natural stone within this area would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area contrary to policy B1, B2, BE2 and BE11 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan”. It should be noted that this development is in a far less prominent position than the former Riverside Studios.

5. The proposed development is for a very large construction which the developers describe as a “landmark” building. They also claim in the Design and Access Statement (5.15) that the building would “celebrate the corner of Wakefield Road and Somerset Road”. To clad this building in a cheaper substitute for local stone, which weathers in a completely different way, would make a mockery of the claim to be a landmark building “celebrating” a gateway to the town as well as contravening policy BE11 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

2011/91150

Consent Granted

King's Head
St Georges Square
Huddersfield
HD1 1JFP

Listed Building Consent for erection of illuminated signs (within a Conservation Area)

Objection
The sign on the south elevation is already in place: it is a portrait of Jimi Hendrix; I am unaware of any planning permission having been granted for this. Illumination of this sign would detract from this very significant designated heritage asset as defined in PPS5 and would be a de facto acceptance of the current unpermitted signage.

Enforcement action should then be taken to remove the sign if it has been erected without permission.

As there is lettering already above the entrance of the Head of Steam pub at the southern end of the station facade, it would not be inappropriate for equivalent lettering to appear above the cornice of the King's Head provided that the detail given in the Design and Access Statement satisfies the requirements demanded by the previous refusal of a similar application (2010/92497) regarding justification for alterations to a Grade I listed building and the acceptability of the details of the proposed fixings of the lighting trough.

2011/91193

Conditional Full Permission

6-10 Railway Street
Huddersfield
POSTCODE

C/U & alterations to convert existing premises to form 19 units of student accommodation

Approval
The Society to supports this application as it should secure the future of this important building. The proposals appear to restore and preserve the architectural integrity of this badly fire damaged Listed structure.

2011/91123

Refused

2a Inglewood Avenue
Birkby
Huddersfield
HD2 2DS

Erection of detached dwelling with integral garage (modified proposal)

Comment
The new dwelling has been largely completed but not in accordance with the existing planning permission which stipulated that the ground floor of the main house should be constructed in coursed natural stone and the first floor be of render. In practice, the ground floor has been built of block work and is awaiting render being applied, whilst the first floor has been clad in ashlar stone. This is the opposite to the accepted use of stone and render on such a building and causes it to look incongruous and ungainly.

The matter is made more confusing by the Design and Access Statement which contradicts the accompanying elevation drawings by describing the wall cladding as in the original permission, not that which has actually been constructed.

2011/90818

Conditional Full Permission

Land to the South of
2A Round Ings Road
Outlane
Huddersfield
HD3 3FQ

Installation of 1no. Endurance E-3120 50KW wind turbine at the site of Round Ing

Objection
1. This is a very large wind turbine which would have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt, being in a very prominent hill top position. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated which would outweigh the harm done to the Green Belt, contrary to EP8 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and PPG2 (Green Belts) 1995.

2. Sub section 5.14 of EP6 states that "what should be avoided is a proliferation of individual turbines across a landscape". As there are 2 large turbines plus a smaller turbine on an adjacent site, with permission being recently granted (on appeal) for two more on neighbouring Nettleton Hill, an additional turbine would lead to just such a proliferation of individual turbines on this very prominent escarpment, the highest point in the old County Borough of Huddersfield.

3. At a total height of 34.2m this turbine would dwarf the very obtrusive turbines at Scapegoat Hill. It would, with the existing turbines and telecommunications masts, add to the visual clutter of this landmark escarpment which is visible for miles around as well as from the M62 motorway where it would form a distraction for fast travelling drivers.

4. The E3120 50kw turbine is intended to power 20 homes and is thus much too large for the claimed purpose of supplying electricity to the single host property.

2010/93559

Refused

38 Thomas Street
Lindley
Huddersfield
HD3 3JJ

Outline application for erection of 2 bungalow dwellings

Objection
The proposal is a clear case of infill a residential garden. Despite the original property having been demolished, the site is still de facto and de jure a domestic garden and as such is no longer classified as previously developed land under the definition provided in Annex B and Section 36 of PPS3 (Housing) June 2010.

This is a densely developed village which cannot afford to lose any green space which would be the case if the second bungalow and associated parking were to be permitted in the garden of the former property.

2011/90757

Approved
Removal or modification of condition(s)

Aspley Auto Parts
Firth Street
Huddersfield
HD1 3BL

Variation of conditions 3 and 4 on previous application 2010/90666 (re: materials)

Objection
We object to the variation of the condition stipulating the use of natural stone on the elevations of the proposed development. Reconstituted artificial "stone" would detract from the character of Firth Street which has been developed to a high standard over recent years by the use of local stone on the elevations of all the new buildings constructed there. Reconstituted stone is very different from natural stone, not only in its texture and appearance, but also in the way it weathers: the longer a building exists, the more it appears incongruous when adjacent buildings are built of stone.

To permit the variation of the condition stipulating stone would contravene policies BE1, BE2 and BE11 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and destroy the uniformly high standards of stone facing material on Firth Street.

2011/90090

Refused

Land at
Ladyhouse Lane
Berry Brow
Huddersfield
HD4 7QD

Outline application for erection of a detached dwelling

Objection
The application is for development to take place in the garden of a residential property. Such land is no longer designated as previously developed land under Annex B and Section 36 of PPS3 (Housing) June 2010.

This green land should be left undeveloped as it forms a valuable open space in this area of Berry Brow, bring visible from both Lady House Lane and Newsome Road South.

2011/90047

Withdrawn

East Lawns
21 Thomas Street
Lindley
Huddersfield
HD3 3JJ

Demolition of existing building and erection of 12 no. 3-Bed 2-Storey dwellings

Objection
We object to the use of reconstituted stone on the elevations of the proposed housing units. As can be seen from the photographs accompanying the application, all the surrounding buildings are faced in local stone as are the buildings being demolished on site. The stone from the site should be re-used on the proposed housing and any shortfall be made up with locally sourced stone to avoid the development being unsympathetic to the surrounding buildings.

2009/93675

Appeal Upheld by Inspector following referral to the Secretary of State

Land at
Southgate
Huddersfield
HD1 1TW

Erection of replacement retail store (Tesco Stores Ltd)

Objection
1. Adverse impact on the town centre
We have concerns at the effect of the development upon the viability of town centre businesses and thus upon the vibrancy and prosperity of the town centre itself. This worry is magnified by the poor pedestrian access across the ring road from the proposed supermarket to the commercial centre of Huddersfield.

2. Appearance
The design of the building is much superior to that which was originally shown to the Society. We are particularly pleased that relatively large amounts of local stone are now proposed for key elevations. The extensive use of timber cladding is preferable to the metal rain screen originally intended, but the extent of the timber on the Southgate elevation could lead to its being monotonous. This could perhaps be alleviated by a piece of contemporary relief sculpture being attached to the cladding towards the Southgate House end.

3. Signage
Although there is wall mounted signage on parts of the building, we feel that vertical signs standing above the canopy could be intrusive. We would certainly not want any signage above the roof line should any future advertising consent be sought.

4. Danger of "rat-run" via Turnbridge
The detailed transport plans do not seem to address the danger of an undesirable "rat-run" to the Tesco car parks via St. Andrew's Road, Turnbridge, Quay Street, Watergate and Old Leeds Road. This could be particularly used by customers from the Wakefield Road direction wishing to avoid several sets of traffic lights, and lead to a huge increase in traffic using the Grade II listed "locomotion" bridge which could not cope with the weight and volume of vehicles.

2010/92790

Undecided

3 Cowrakes Road
Lindley
Huddersfield
HD3 3LA

Erection of detached dwelling with attached garages and detached garage

Objection
The application involves the demolition of the large and imposing house known as "Gatesgarth" which, along with its extensive gardens, makes a valuable contribution to the Lindley area. There is a current planning permission to extend the property; demolition would cause the permanent loss of an important undesignated heritage asset under PPS5 (March 2010) and should be resisted.

The proposed replacement dwelling would not, as stipulated in the design and access statement, cover the same footprint as the existing house; it would be double the floor area. It would impinge on the curtilage of the current dwelling, which would be a clear case of infill in a residential garden, which is no longer classified as previously developed land under the definition provided in Annex B and Section 36 of PPS3 (Housing) June 2010. The proposal would involve the loss of several trees and valuable green space and should be refused.

2010/92608

Conditional Full Permission

53 Quarmby Road
Quarmby
Huddersfield
HD3 4EA

Demolition of existing dwelling, detached garage & outbuilding. Construction of a larger property

Objection
As the new property will have twice the footprint of the building which it is proposed to replace, it will be a clear case of infill in a residential garden which is no longer classified as previously developed land under the definition provided in Annex B and Section 36 of PPS3 (Housing) June 2010. The proposal would result in the diminution of valuable green open space and should be refused.

2010/92497

Refused

King's Head
St George's Square
Huddersfield
HD1 1JF

Listed Building Consent for erection of illuminated signs (within a Conservation Area)

Objection
We object to this planning application for signage and illumination on this Grade I listed building.

The sign on the south elevation is already in place; We are unaware of any planning permission having been granted for this. An illuminated sign would detract from this very significant designated heritage asset as defined in PPS5 (2010) and should be refused. Enforcement action should then be taken to remove the sign if it has been erected without permission.

As there is lettering already above the entrance of the Head of Steam pub at the southern end of the station facade, it could be argued that it would not be inappropriate for equivalent lettering to appear above the cornice of the King's Head. The lighting trough proposed for the illumination of the lettering would, however, detract from the fabric and appearance of this Grade I listed building and should be refused under the terms of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act (1990) and PPS5.

2010/91729

Approved
Conditional Outline Permission

Glen View
5 Stainland Road
Outlane
Huddersfield
HD3 3YU

Outline application of erection of 3 detached dwellings

Objection
To deter "garden grabbing" recent changes in planning guidelines mean that gardens are no longer classified as "brown" land suitable for development. Any building on this site would adversely affect the character, visual amenity and openness of the garden and the green belt land which it borders.

This is an unusual application as the property is situated in two planning authorities. When Calderdale Council granted permission to create a new entrance (07/01798/FUL) on March 5th 2008, they did so on the understanding that it was to serve the existing house and that no further development was proposed in the garden. This was clearly not the case, as the design and access statement to 2010/91729 clearly indicates that the new entrance was conceived with a view to new housing being built in the garden (2.3).

We feel strongly that this application is unsuitable for the site and should be refused.

2010/91869

Conditional Full Permission

The Gables
Thornhill Road
Edgerton
Huddersfield
HD3 3AT

Conversion of residential care home to one dwelling and erection of 2 dwellings (within a Conservation Area)

Objection
Whilst we welcome the restoration of The Gables, we are opposed to any development in the garden area. The proposal is a clear example of infill 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 open space which makes a valuable contribution to the Conservation Area contrary to policies BE5 and BE6 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and HE9.1 of PPS5 (2010) which states that there should be a pre-supposition in favour of conservation of designated heritage assets of which Edgerton Conservation Area is a prime example.

Map 2 in Appendix A of the Edgerton Conservation Area designation shows this site to be at a "key gateway" in to the conservation area. A development at this sensitive location would erode its special character.

Recent reclassification of residential gardens from "brownfield" to "greenfield" in Planning Policy Statement 3, means that gardens should no longer be looked on favourably for development, to counteract "garden grabbing" of which 2010/91869 is an obvious case.

2010/92182

Undecided

Undecided

Birkby Lodge
Birkby Lodge Road
Birkby
Huddersfield
HD2 2BG

Erection of 5 no. dwellings including alterations of listed Coach House (within a Conservation Area)

Listed Building Consent for 5 no dwellings including alterations of listed Coach House (within a Conservation Area)

Objection
The proposed housing development would cause substantial harm to the listed building, Birkby Lodge, contrary to BE5 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and paragraphs HE9.1; 9.2 and HE10 of PPS5, Planning for the Historic Environment (2010).

The proposal would be an example of infill in Birkby Conservation Area, adversely affecting its character, contrary to BE5 and BE6 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and paragraphs HE7.4 and 7.5 of PPS5.

As Birkby Lodge is now a private residence, recent amendments to Planning Policy Statement 3 (2005) make the garden green land rather than brown land, there being a presumption against development of such sites.

2010/90753

Advertisement Consent Granted

Salendine Nook Shopping Centre
144 Moor Hill Road
Huddersfield
HD3 3XA

Erection of illuminated signs

Objection
There are several major errors in the application which should render it invalid.

1. Section 8 of the application form states that the advertisement signage is not already in place when in fact it has been in situ for nearly 12 months.

2. The application also states that the existing signage on the facia of the building is to be replaced. These signs have never been erected and so cannot be replaced.

We also object to the roof mounted signage as it dominates the area and creates a grating appearance from all directions. The signs should be on the facia of the building in the spaces which were created for the lettering when the shopping centre sign was re-positioned. A site visit would illustrate this point better than the misleading elevations on the application.

2010/91062

Conditional Full Permission

Land at
Green Mount
Moldgreen
Huddersfield
HD5 8AU

Erection of 14 Flats with associated drainage, landscaping, car parking and services (Site 22)

Objection
Whilst we have no objection to the overall design and appearance of the proposed flats, we do maintain that local stone should be used on their facings rather than reconstituted "Darlstone".

Policy BE11 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan states that new developments should be constructed in natural stone in areas where stone has been the predominant material of construction. This is clearly the case in this situation as the design and access statement makes plain (2.1; 4.1).

2010/90667

Conditional Full Permission

Cambridge Hotel
4 Clare Hill
Huddersfield
HD1 5BS

Erection of hotel extension to form 45 bedrooms with basement parking

Objection
After having this application referred to us by a member of the public, we express our concern that the height of the proposed hotel extension would have an overbearing effect on the terrace of listed buildings on the opposite side of Clare Hill, thus affecting their setting contrary to PPS5.

2010/90722

Conditional Full Permission

Rear Of
Aspley Public House
St Andrews Road
Huddersfield
HD1 6SD

Change of use and alterations to convert existing store building to provide additional 18 bedrooms

Approval
The Society supports thia application to convert the derelict warehouse to hotel bedrooms as it preserves and enhances an important listed building without detracting from its industrial appearance. It is currently a deteriorating eye sore and its renovation would enhance the existing listed buildings in the Aspley Basin.

2010/90994

Part Granted/Part Refused

77 Armitage Road
Milnsbridge
Huddersfield
HD3 4JW

Variation of conditions 3, 6, 7 on previous application no. 2008/93442 for erection of dwelling

Objection
Regular coursed stone with no variation for the gable end should be used to match the adjacent terrace to the east.

The rainwater goods should be cast iron, painted black, and not made from artificial materials.

2010/90788

Refused

12 Station Street
Huddersfield
HD1 LN

Listed Building Consent for erection of 6 air-conditioning units (within a Conservation Area)

Objection
The units have been in situ since last September without planning permission. They are much more obtrusive than the single unit which they replaced (which may not have had planning permission either). These ugly units detract from the integrity of the listed building and the setting of the conservation area of which they form a part contrary to PPG15.

2010/90936

Refused

9 Inglewood Avenue
Birkby
Huddersfield
HD2 2DS

Erection of two detached dwellings with integral garages and demolition of existing dwelling with detached garage

Objection
1. This is a proposal to infill a modern suburban garden, designed for one property, in a low density housing estate; replacing one dwelling with two would be a clear case of overdevelopment.

2. The proposal would lead to the loss of important green space which is a valuable feature of the street scene, adding to the visual amenity of Inglewood Avenue, providing an attractive setting to the whole development.

3. The second of the two proposed houses is sited much closer to the contiguous Edgerton conservation area than the current dwelling, thus not enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area contrary to BE5 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and to a designated heritage asset as defined by PPS5.

4. This proposal would result in a cramped form of development, out of keeping with the existing settlement pattern, and detrimental to the character and appearance of the local area contrary to policies D2, BE1 and BE2 of Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

2010/90544

Granted Under Reg.3 General Regulations 1992

Land at
Spring Grove/Swallow Court
Huddersfield
HD1 1BY

Erection of sports centre and formation of car parking, landscaping, public realm improvements and associated works.

Objection
Whilst welcoming the facilities promised by the new sports centre the Society objects on the following grounds:

Appearance:
The elevation to the Ring Road has insufficient stone on its facings contrary to policy BE11 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan. This is not a passive facade: it is passed each day by thousands of motorists and the footpath will be used my many more pedestrians once the sports centre is operational. The predominant white render should be replaced with local stone.

The lack of stone on the Ring Road and Merton Street frontages compromises the adjacent Conservation Area where original and contemporary buildings are all stone faced.

"Sneck and Jump" stone coursing is alien to the town centre of Huddersfield and should be replaced by ashlar or rough coursed stone.

Access and Parking:
Access from the town centre and bus station via an "improved" underpass is still uninviting and possibly seen as dangerous, especially by women and children.

The loss of 443 long stay car parking spaces is not dealt with properly in the application. Replacement parking spaces are referred to but none is specified by location. The town needs sufficient, convenient, long term parking to attract businesses and employees to Huddersfield.

The provision of 125 parking spaces is the absolute minimum for a 12,538 sq metre leisure development under Policy T2 of the Leeds City Region, Sub Area Regulations. This minimal provision does not take into account the demand for parking spaces for "events" which it is anticipated will attract large crowds to the Centre, particularly on week days when adjacent parking will be unavailable. In contrast, Barnsley Metrodome has much more parking, which is free of charge.

2009/93674

Undecided

Tesco Stores Ltd
Viaduct Street
Huddersfield
HD1 1RW

Outline application for mixed use development comprising office space (Class A2 and B2), residential apartments (Class C3), retail use (Class A1), restaurant and cafe use (Class A3), drinking establishments (Class A4) and leisure uses including hotel (Class C1) and associated car parking (Within a Conservation Area)

Objection
Despite being consulted by the developers on this scheme we feel that it is lacking in the quality which this gateway site deserves.

1. Scale and Massing:
We feel that the proposed blocks are too tall for the relatively small site and that they will overwhelm the viaduct and other listed properties adjacent to the site.

2. Overdevelopment:
There are too many different types of building proposed, with little open space, leading to a cramped development. The landscaped courtyard is already earmarked for car parking and a possible site for the multi-storey car park (Design and Access Statement 3.19).

2010/90077

Refused

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 Kirklees Unitary Development Plan 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

Refused

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 Unitary Development Plan.

2. Materials
The proposed materials are totally inappropriate, not reflecting those found in adjoining buildings contrary to BE1 and BE2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan. 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 Kirklees Unitary Development Plan. 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 Unitary Development Plan policy BE5 and national guidance given in PPG15.

2009/93359

Refused

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 Kirklees Unitary Development Plan and 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

Refused

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

Refused

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 Unitary Development Plan 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 Kirklees Unitary Development Plan. 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 Kirklees Unitary Development Plan.

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

Undecided

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 Unitary Development Plan 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

Consent Granted

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

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
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

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

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

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

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

Refused

Appeal Dismissed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conditional Full Permission

2007/94316

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

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.