Planning Applications

Huddersfield Civic Society

Planning Applications

At its monthly business meetings the Society considers new planning applications, guided by our planning officer, as well as applications highlighted by other members. Kirklees Council consults the Society on major applications and the planning officer examines all applications which cover the Huddersfield area.

Formal comment is then made and often key changes result from the Society’s comments and its efforts in preventing development which is felt to have a negative impact on the area’s heritage and environmental quality.

Any member of the public can view and comment on planning applications via the Kirklees Council Planning website. If you see a planning application you think the Society should know about you can let the Civic Society Planning Officer aware of your views via the Contact Us section of our website in addition to telling Kirklees Council your views.

Below are some recent comments made by the Society.

Application No. Location Description of Development Civic Society Comments

2015/93641

Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 2RR

Erection of 13 townhouses and 64 bed student accommodation with (A1) retail and (A3) commercial uses

Objection

The Civic Society does not object to this development in principle but considers that the materials proposed are dramatically different from those in the previous permitted application 2014/91958.

In that application natural stone was to be used on all external walls, whereas on this revised application there is to be extensive use of artificial stone and render. Artificial stone weathers in a completely different way from natural stone and would be entirely alien at this key site.

To comply with UDP Policy BE11 and to complement the adjacent County Court building the townhouses and student accommodation should be faced in natural stone as in the existing permission. This would also comply with NPPF Section 7 paragraphs 58, 59 and 60 which advocate designs and materials which respond to local character and history and seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.

Pending

2016/92030

Proposed development site comprising: 20, Proposed Kingsgate Leisure and Retail Development, 20-22 Cross Church Street, Fleece Yard, Sun Inn Yard, White Lion Yard, land at r, Huddersfield, Cross Church Street, Huddersfield, HD1 2TP

Listed Building Consent for erection of extension to existing Kingsgate Shopping Centre to form new Leisure Development including new cinema and restaurants, and demolition of existing buildings on the site including 20-24 Cross Church Street (partly within a Conservation Area)

Comment

The Society is pleased that its original objections to the canopy and way markers have been heard and that both have been removed from the plan. We are also supportive of the use of natural stone on the visible elevations as now proposed in the amended plans. There are still concerns that the hanging sign could set a precedent for other listed buildings, but overall we are satisfied that our original fears have been assuaged.

We would ask to be consulted before the proposed "public art" is commissioned.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted




2017/65/90377/W

Newsome Mills, Hart Street, Newsome, Huddersfield, HD4 6JF

Listed Building Consent for demolition of the four storey mill building and the single storey weaving shed, together with the removal of the associated debris

Objection

This demolition proposal does not afford sufficient assurance that the clock tower will be retained. The application states “on the assumption that the clock tower is structurally stable” it is proposed that it be retained. The Society considers that this does not guarantee the tower’s retention. If the tower is not found to be structurally sound, then demolition should cease until it is made structurally sound. The tower is a very significant feature of the setting of Huddersfield, second only to the Victoria Jubilee Tower on Castle Hill, and must be preserved, along with its clock, clock faces and bell.

It is also noted that no uses for the tower and other retained elements are mentioned on the proposed block layouts. This would normally not form part of a demolition plan, but here it would provide some assurance of the good will of the developers if they were to give an indication of plans to repair and utilise the tower, gates, archway and office façade.

Withdrawn

2017/62/90602/W

Land Adjacent to Spotted Cow Public House, New Hey Road, Salendine Nook, Huddersfield, HD3 3FG

Demolition of existing public house and erection of 26no. dwellings

Objection

We object to this proposal on two grounds: the development on protected land and the lack of details of appropriate building materials.

The bulk of the proposed housing will be on land protected under the Kirklees UDP (P.O.L.). If this land were to be built over, it would cause the loss of fast disappearing green space in Salendine Nook and Lindley which are becoming increasingly urbanised to the detriment of the local residents.

Unusually for a full planning application, no materials are proposed for the 28 houses. When contacted, the agents stated that they hoped to negotiate the palette of materials as part of the planning process and welcomed the Society’s suggestions. We feel that local natural stone should be the masonry of choice as the buildings proposed for demolition on the former pub site are constructed of local stone and have, until allowed to deteriorate by the owners, made a most positive contribution to the sense of local identity. On this site, only stone would comply with BE11 of the UDP and paragraphs 58, 59 and 60 of the NPPF (Requiring Good Design).

Decision: Permitted by Committee; natural stone conditioned as we requested.

2017/90951

Longdenholme, 34, Greenhead Road, Huddersfield, HD1 4EZ

Conversion of existing coach house to form 2 dwellings, erection of one dwelling, new vehicular access and parking/turning (within a Conservation Area)

Objection

This application should be refused as it would have a severe detrimental effect on the character of Greenhead Conservation Area and the setting of the listed Greenhead Park, particularly the War Memorial designed by Sir Charles Nicholson in 1922 which was recently up-graded to Grade II* owing to its remarkable scale, exploiting to the maximum effect its siting on the Belvedere of 1881-4.
The main detriment to this sensitive site comes from the proposed removal of huge sections of the high stone wall with profiled copings and an ornate gated pedestrian access on Park Drive South. All this destruction is proposed to gain vehicular access to the site; this is neither necessary nor desirable. Park Drive South is narrow with parking all along the opposite side of the road. Vehicular access should remain as it is at present from Greenhead Road as this is far more suited to the role, being on a bus route as well as being free from car parking.
The proposed two storey extension to the west of the stable block would lead to the diminution of the imposing chimney stack, which forms an iconic part of the building designed by the renowned local architect Ben Stocks: the extension should not be permitted.
The proposed new house should not have the ground floor extension as it is not in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted, but, with the exception of vehicular access, all our objections dating back to 2015 have been satisfied.






2017/92393

27, Greenhead Road, Huddersfield, HD1 4EN

Listed Building Consent for erection of 4 non illuminated signs (Conservation Area)

Objection

These proposed signs are totally inappropriate for use on this Listed Building in a Conservation Area. The signage is almost laughable in its unsuitability: each is too large, harming the integrity of the building's frontage; the three designs being both tawdry and garish, paying no respect whatsoever to the character of the Conservation Area, causing substantial harm contrary to UDP Policies BE3 and BE13 as well as NPPF paragraphs 128-133.
This application should be refused.

Planning Authority Decision: All proposed signage altered to our satisfaction and permitted.

2017/62/92744/W

Birks Farm, Arkenley Lane, Almondbury, Huddersfield, HD8 0LH

Erection of detached dwelling and demolition of existing building

Objection

This application should be refused as it constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to Kirklees UDP and the NPPF. No very special circumstances have been provided which could override the protected status of the site.

This application does not satisfy any of the criteria required for a building to be permitted in the Green Belt: it is not for agricultural or forestry use; it is not an outdoor sports facility or a cemetery; nor is it a replacement of a current building for the same use. By no stretch of the imagination could this huge proposed house on a relatively isolated site be described as "infill" in a village setting, nor does it contribute to affordable housing in a rural community.

If permitted, this application would set a very dangerous precedent for further unwarranted housing development in this most iconic of rural settings contiguous with a Conservation Area.

Planning Authority Decision: Refused

2017/65/93284/W

12, Kaffir Road, Edgerton, Huddersfield, HD2 2AN

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

Supporting Comments

The Civic Society welcomes this application as the building is in a sorry state of disrepair and the proposals would do much to restore it to its former glory. This is an important Listed Building in Edgerton Conservation Area which features in the Society's recently published book "The Villas of Edgerton".

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted

2017/62/93278/W

Salendine Filling Station, New Hey Road, Salendine Nook, Huddersfield, HD3 3UZ

Demolition of existing petrol filling station and redevelopment to provide a new petrol filling station facility with forecourt shop / sales building, customer car parking and associated services

Objection

The Society objects to the materials proposed for the new forecourt shop. The existing shop is faced in local stone and the replacement should use the same material. Not to do so would be contrary to UDP Policy BE11 and NPPF Paragraph 60 as well as the Draft Local Plan which interprets national policy as follows: "It is considered that the Policy would require stone to be used as the building material where it was appropriate in terms of the existing townscape". (Kirklees Council: Local plan Responses page156). This is certainly the case with this application, as not only is the existing shop building clad in stone, so are the only two adjacent private houses.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted

2017/62/92454/W

Land Adj, Springfield Hall, Thornhill Road, Huddersfield, HD3 3AW

Erection of 5 Dwellings (within a Conservation Area)

Objection:

The Society opposes this application in the strongest possible terms. If permitted, it would destroy a key defining characteristic of the Edgerton Conservation area and severely damage the setting of the listed host building: Springfield.

This application should summarily be refused as it forms infill in Edgerton Conservation Area which would adversely affect its character contrary to BE6 of the UDP and paragraphs 128-134 of the NPPF

This site forms part of Character Area 1 as classified in the Appraisal of Edgerton Conservation Area adopted by Kirklees Council in 2007. The distinctive character of the CA is “predominantly that of a leafy Victorian residential area with large, architecturally interesting detached buildings set in generous grounds….. (which) create a sense of open space ….“As this proposed development would remove the “generous grounds” which so define the distinctiveness of the CA it should be refused.

In the Edgerton CA Appraisal, one specific danger to its survival is highlighted: “Some of the properties with large garden areas are under threat from possible infill development”. Clearly it would be perverse to allow the very danger, which the Conservation and Design team have identified, to destroy the character of the Conservation Area. Since June 2010, gardens have not been categorised as “brownfield” sites and thus no longer ripe for development. The Appraisal proposes that the following policy should be included in a future local plan: “The Council will resist proposals that would result in any development of plots and loss of gardens to the detriment of the character of the Conservation Area”.

The gardens form an essential element in the setting of Grade II Listed Springfield. Their removal would contravene Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This states that the Local Planning Authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building and its setting. A recent legal judgement has emphasised the supremacy of this legislation over other local or national plans. The Court of Appeal decision in Barnwell vs. East Northamptonshire DC 2014 (2) made it clear that in enacting section 66 (1) of the 1990 Act, Parliament’s intention was that “decision makers should give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings”.

This egregious application would, if permitted, set a precedent which would endanger the very essence of the Edgerton Conservation Area: it should be refused.

8/5/2018 Objections repeated following alterations (arboreal) to the proposals.

Local Authoruty Decision: Refused

2017/93824

38, Thomas Street, Lindley, Huddersfield, HD3 3JJ

Reserved matters application pursuant to previous permission no. 2016/90215 for outline application for the erection of 1 no. dwelling

Objection:

The materials proposed for this new house are unsuitable. As the adjoining terrace is built entirely of coursed natural stone then the new dwelling should use the same material to respect the local setting and comply with UDP Policy BE11, NPPF paragraph 60 and Draft Local Plan Responses page 156.

Artificial “stone” weathers in an entirely different way from natural stone. Its use would present a garish and inappropriate appendage to the contiguous terrace.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted but with condition that natural stone be used, thus satisfying our objection.

2017/62/93886/W

Co-op Building, 103, New Street, Huddersfield, HD1 2TW

Erection of extensions and alterations to convert existing building to student accommodation (within a Conservation Area)

Comment

With this application the Civic Society is “between a rock and a hard place”: we dislike many aspects of this proposal, but are aware that this is the only application that has been made to save this iconic building which could be lost if re-use and renovation are not carried out. We have scrutinised the proposals and consider that they require significant changes and improvements.

1. Anomalous materials.There is a contradiction in the application: the plans show ashlar as the facing material for the extended stairwell and the walling facing the ring-road, but the palette of materials in the Design and Access Statement (page 10) does not list ashlar at all, “Ibstock Express Cladding” is shown in its place. Natural stone must be used to match the existing local ashlar to satisfy UDP Policy BE11 and NPPF Paragraph 60 and Draft Local Plan Responses page 156. An email to the agent requesting clarification of this contradiction has not elicited a response.

2. Design. The geometrical integrity of the existing Art-Deco building with its strong horizontal and vertical elements, projecting continuous bands, mullions, cills, lintels and banded fenestration is not respected in the current plans. The additional floors should reflect the current design where a continuous cornice may help strengthen a rather weak elevation. The extension of the chamfered corner at the New Street/Ring Road junction requires better definition of the vertical elements by the use of projecting mullions and possibly the replacement of the ground floor glazed panels with ashlar columns. The colours of the light-weight materials proposed for the roof extensions do not complement the palette of the natural stone and should be changed.

Planning Committee Decision: Conditional permission

2017/94109

Queensgate House, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 2RR

Change of use and extension of the existing office building to create 156 student bedrooms including a gym, cycle and refuse storage area, student 'hub' space, plant and services and associated landscaping.

Objection

This confusing application is for an extension to an existing building when in fact it would involve its demolition and replacement with a larger structure clad in entirely inappropriate material.

When Queensgate House was constructed, relatively recently, the Planning Authority placed specific limitations on its massing, height and appearance, as it sits at a key gateway in the town. This proposal contravenes all these conditions: it represents over-development of a relatively small site; it is far too tall and, by replacing the stipulated stone with brick, the cladding contravenes UDP policy BE11, NPPF paragraph 60 and the Draft Local Plan response page 156.

The applicant makes much of the building’s position vis-à-vis Lowry’s celebrated 1960s painting of the scene from Chapel Hill. This proposed development would significantly damage the vista which has such importance for local people.

Strategic Planning Committee Decision: Refused

2017/94277

Bankfield, 12, Edgerton Road, Edgerton, Huddersfield, HD1 5RB

Listed Building Consent for restoration of gate piers (within a Conservation Area)

Support

It is refreshing to see a homeowner seeking to repair and restore gate piers as important as these. The proposals appear very comprehensive and the use of a soot compound to avoid the need for aggressive stone cleaning is interesting.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted