Planning Applications

Huddersfield Civic Society

Planning Applications

At its monthly business meetings the Society considers new planning applications, guided by our planning officer Frank O'Brien, 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

2015/90547

Longdenholme
Greenhead Road/Park Drive South
Huddersfield

Erection of 3no detached dwellings, demolition of existing coach house/stable block and alterations to boundary wall (within a Conservation Area)

Objection

I am authorised to object to the above planning application on behalf of Huddersfield Civic Society at whose last Committee meeting great concern was expressed over the proposal. We object on the following grounds:

1. Despite being a very significant site in the Greenhead Park Conservation area, no Conservation and Heritage Assessment has been carried out. Without such an assessment, it is impossible to demonstrate the importance of the buildings which are proposed for demolition or the effect of the removal of the boundary wall upon the setting of the Grade II Listed Greenhead Park.

2. The application is misleading, describing the coach house proposed for demolition as being "derelict" when it appears to be in very sound structural condition and eminently suitable for refurbishment as a dwelling as part of a development scheme.

3. The coach house is a very significant non-designated heritage asset (though the Civic Society has requested its listing this week by Historic England along with the host mansion, Longdenholme) designed by the pre-eminent local architect Ben Stocks and completed as part of the commission for the Woodhead family in 1881. The coach house has a wealth of architectural interest which should be preserved.

4. The Civic Society maintains that neglect and lack of maintenance of a heritage asset is not a sufficient reason for its demolition.

5. The boundary wall fronting Park Drive South forms a very imposing back-cloth to the listed Greenhead Park, particularly the War Memorial and Belvedere. There is already pedestrian access from the site via an impressive gateway: this should remain the entry point to any development of the site with the wall remaining in-situ and vehicular access made from Greenhead road as at present.

We regret that there is no proposal to develop the main building and hope that a similar attitude will not be taken to Longdenholme in the future as has been evident in the treatment of the coach house.

This is a misleading and incomplete application which should be refused.

Application Withdrawn May 2017

2015/90553

Brian Jackson House, 2, New North Parade, Huddersfield, HD1 5JP

Listed Building Consent for Erection of three storey extension to provide day nursery, play gym, fitness suite, meeting and conference facilities with roof top play area and cafe and alterations to existing building (within a Conservation Area)

Objection

Our objection is entirely concerned with the facing materials: we have no problem with the position or general design of the proposed building; indeed it will be unobtrusive and occupy an unsightly piece of land.

As the extension to the listed former warehouse will be set back from the existing building we consider the use of ashlar to be acceptable next to the existing hammer dressed stone; it is the cladding to which we strongly object. Whilst it is generally acceptable to use a contrasting material on an exterior stair well, there is no need for it to be used on the upper storey of the building as proposed here. The stairwell cladding should be of a subdued colour palette, not the garish blue as indicated on the proposed elevations.

This is a sensitive site: the building will be clearly visible from platform 1 of the Grade I listed railway station: the existing cladding proposal would compromise the setting of this nationally important building.

Planning authority decision: Permitted but with slate grey cladding as we requested.

2015/65/91831/W

Briar Court, 28, Occupation Road, Lindley, Huddersfield, HD3 3EE

Listed Building Consent for replacement glass panels in front door with handmade stained glass (within a Conservation Area)

Support

On behalf of Huddersfield Civic Society I am authorised to support the application to augment this fine Edgar Wood house.

The owners are to be congratulated for commissioning this most appropriate stained glass to replace mundane frosted door glass. We hope that they continue to restore the property in this most positive manner.

Planning authority decision: Permitted.

2015/92455

4-6 High Street Huddersfield HD1 2LE

Listed Building Consent for erection of infill roof and alterations (within a Conservation Area)

Comment

The Civic Society welcomes the renovation of this important listed building and its proposed retail use. We do, however, disagree with the fitting of flag banners to the High Street elevation as they would form inappropriate and incongruous clutter, with the mountings causing needless intrusion on the impressive stonework.

Planning authority decision: Permitted but without the flag banners as we requested.

2015/93052

Fenay Lodge, Thorpe Lane, Almondbury, Huddersfield, HD5 8TA

Erection of detached dwelling and new entrance gates (Listed Building)

Objection

Since June 2010 domestic gardens have not been categorised as "brownfield" sites and thus no longer ripe for development. The garden of Fenay Lodge is fundamental to the setting of this important Grade II Listed Georgian building and should remain as the backcloth from which and towards which this magnificent house should be viewed. As such the application contravenes Policy BE3 of the Kirklees UDP and NPPF Section 12.

The proposed building is completely alien to the setting of the listed Fenay Lodge in both design and materials. Its box-like appearance and use of metal cladding is anathema to the elegant proportions of this Yorkshire stone residence, contrary to BE2 (design and materials) and BE3 (setting of a listed building) of the UDP and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

This incongruous and destructive application should be refused.

Planning Authority Decision: Refused by Committee; applicant has appealed.

Appeal Refused July 2016

2015/93477

Armitage Bridge Lodge, Armitage Road, Armitage Bridge, Huddersfield, HD4 7PL

Listed Building Consent to reinstate former openings, upgrade existing fabric including replacement of windows and doors (within a Conservation Area)

Support

The Civic Society supports this application which will enable this valuable heritage asset to be given a viable use whilst retaining its architectural integrity.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted

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.

2015/62/93827/W

Former Kirklees College, Portland Street, Huddersfield, HD1

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of food retail unit (A1) with associated site works, parking, access and landscaping

Objection

This is a particularly important and sensitive site, being in the curtilage of a Grade II* Listed building and forming a frontage to the Ring Road and two key gateways into the town: Trinity street and New North Road, which take traffic to and from the M62.

The Huddersfield Civic Society recognises the need for an anchor development to help finance the rest of the site, but a retail shed of the type proposed does not do justice to its iconic location. We welcome the low rise proposal to enable the magnificence of the frontage of the former Infirmary to be more visible, but such a building does not have to be mundane and clad in inappropriate materials as proposed here.

If a retail unit is to be constructed on the site then it should not be an “off the peg” standard box design. Lidl have shown elsewhere that they are capable of using imagination in design and choice of materials. A very recent example is the store opened locally in Holmfirth and constructed in stone to reflect the local surroundings and materials. This should be replicated here.

To satisfy UDP Policy BE11 and paragraphs 58, 59 and 60 of the NPPF Section 7 “Requiring Good Design” the predominant facing material should be natural stone thus responding to local character, history and distinctiveness.

NB. The rationale behind the proposed design and materials using curtain glazing, Alucobon panel cladding, render and brickwork only became known on 8th January 2016 as the Design and Access Statement alluded to elsewhere in the application was not published until three days after the public consultation ended and 6 days before the expiry of statutory consultation. The Society pointed out this omission on 14th December 2015 but nothing appeared until over a month after the application was validated. To make matters worse, the Design and Access Statement uses the new sports centre as an exemplar of the use of render panels. As these ghastly, unsightly and already deteriorating panels detract from an otherwise reasonable building, they cannot be held up as good practice. The Statement incorrectly describes the stone walling on the sports centre as “reconstructed” when it is in fact natural stone. Natural stone should be the only masonry used on the proposed Lidl store as in the Holmfirth example.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted by Strategic Planning Committee with all the Society's demands on the use of stone satisfied.


2013/62/93746 2014/90001 Amended April 2017

43, Northgate, Almondbury, Huddersfield, HD5 8RX

Demolition of existing Listed Building and erection of an A1 retail store with 2 dwellings over and 8 no. apartments with associated parking and servicing (within a Conservation Area)

NB. Amended proposal retains the ashlar- fronted former public house.

General Comment

This significantly amended application (April 2017) is a marked improvement on the previous proposals which necessitated the demolition of the Listed former public house. This retention is to be welcomed as is the creation of the “square” between it and the proposed block “C”, which leaves open the impressive side elevation of the former Rose and Crown. It is, however, vital that the listed building’s spalled ashlar be sympathetically repaired and restored and not merely patched as in the past.

The application is still misleading and confused, as out-of-date and contradictory plans and statements remain. It would also be informative if a potential use for the ashlar- fronted building were proposed: it is unclear if any of the site is to be residential, or if unspecified retail use is the sole option.

2015/93884

Rose Hill Natural Burial Ground, Birkby Hall Road, Birkby, Huddersfield, HD2 2BS

Change of use from residential (C3) to chapel facility (D1) and tea room (A3), erection of extension and alterations, formation of extension to car park with demolition of part of boundary wall to form additional entrance from Birkby Hall Road (Listed Building within a Conservation Area)

General Comment

This application needs further elaboration in order for its influence on the setting of this important Grade II* Listed Building to be adequately assessed.

The Civic Society is not satisfied that the effect of the removal of a considerable section of the existing garden to create space for the car park has been illustrated in the plans. A photomontage or similar elevation drawing should accompany the existing plans.

In the application, little attention is given to the impact on the setting of the building of the extensive proposed ramped footpath linking the car park to the main house. More detail of its visual effect using similar methods to those suggested above should enable an informed evaluation to be made.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted following supply of additional information.

2016/90544

Field House Farm, Wholestone Moor, Outlane, Huddersfield, HD3 3FQ

Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) on previous permission 2012/91594 for installation of one endurance 50Kw Wind Turbine to install one endurance 100kw Turbine, with increased height and an alternative wind turbine generator

Objection

This variation of condition should not be permitted as it is de facto an attempt to erect a much larger turbine than that permitted on appeal under 2012/91594. The E-4660 model has a rotor diameter which is 4.3 m greater than that permitted and blades 2.4 m larger than on the E3120 model. The Inspector specified that his decision only applied to the model stipulated in the initial application and thus not the larger model requested here.

This proposed turbine would present even more inappropriate development in the Green Belt than those refused on adjacent sites. The shadow flicker will be greater, and a turbine much larger than any previously permitted in the district would create a precedent which could lead to a proliferation of large turbines contrary to UDP policy EP6.

This variation of condition is not necessary to attain the output the applicant desires, as permission already exists for a turbine on the site with the original permitted rotor diameter and blade size which the applicant claims will produce the required 100kw under non-material amendment 2016/90126.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted


2016/62/91626/W

The New Wharf, 52, Wakefield Road, Aspley, Huddersfield, HD1 3AQ

Partial demolition of existing public house and erection of extensions to create 45 room student accommodation

General Comment

The Civic Society welcomes the retention of the detailed stone frontage of the former New Wharf public house as it is an important non-designated heritage asset at a key junction in the town. We cannot support the palette of materials proposed for the upper storeys facing Wakefield Road and Firth Street: natural stone should be more widely used to complement the existing frontage.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted

2016/91479

Hart Street, Newsome, Huddersfield, HD4 6LS

Outline application for erection of 22 dwellings

Objection

This application should be refused as it involves the loss of the mill dams which are de facto and de jure classified as listed structures under the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990. The dams are linked to the Listed Newsome Mills via a culvert and also form part of the curtilage of the Listed Mills as they form part of the mill land and have done so since before 1st July 1948, as stipulated in the Act.

The removal of the listed dams would not only contravene the 1990 Planning Act, but would also be contrary to Kirklees UDP Policies BE3 and BE4 as well as National Planning Policy Framework Section 1 (5) paragraphs 131, 132 and 133.

Planning Authority Decision: Refused by Committee (unanimously)


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




2016/62/92066/W

Stadium Way, Huddersfield, HD1 6PG

Erection of hotel with associated external works including car parking, servicing and landscaping including realigning of access road

Support

The Society welcomes this application. The town needs greater up-market hotel provision of the type proposed here.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted

2016/62/92767/W

Broomfield House, Firth Street, Huddersfield, HD1 3DA

Erection of 40 student studio flats


Objection

The materials proposed for this development are inappropriate for its location and run contrary to the UDP and the NPPF.

The existing planning permission for this site (2015/90914) stipulates in Condition 15 that the external facing materials shall be natural stone, not brick or artificial "timber" cladding as proposed here. The reasons for this are clear: the vast majority of surrounding buildings are faced with natural stone and other recent developments to the South of the site have had stone conditioned as part of their planning permission.

The Kirklees UDP Policy BE11 and NPPF Paragraphs 58, 59 and 60 (Requiring Good Design) maintain that the predominant facing material should be natural stone in a location such as this in order to respond to the local character, history and distinctiveness. To permit brick and cladding would conflict with local and national planning policy.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted, but with natural stone as the facing material as we requested.

2016/92560

Field House Farm, Wholestone Moor, Outlane, Huddersfield, HD3 3QF

Installation of one 150kW wind turbine with a hub height of 32.5 metres and a blade tip of 44.8 metres

Objection

This application should be refused as it is contrary to local and national planning policies; it is unnecessary, misleading and inaccurate.

The proposed Nordtank NTK 150 turbine is much larger than those permitted under 2012/91594 and 2016/90544. It constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to Kirklees UDP Policies EP6 and EP8 as well as NPPF paragraphs 87,88,89,90 and 91. The openness of the green Belt would be more seriously compromised by this large turbine than by the much smaller permitted models.

The application is unnecessary: the applicant states that the reason for the change from the smaller Endurance turbines to the large Nordtank turbine is that the permitted Endurance E3120 and E4460 turbines are no longer being manufactured. The Vice President (Commercial) of Endurance Wind Power has informed the Society that this is not true. Indeed the turbines are now being manufactured in the UK rather than Canada, thus making their economic and social benefit to Britain all the greater. The two Endurance turbines are still being offered on the applicant’s website; there is no mention of the Nordtank model.

The application is misleading as no Nordtank turbines appear to have been manufactured for many years, the company ceasing to exist in 1997. The only Nordtank turbines currently on the market are second-hand, obsolete or de-commissioned models. If the applicant is proposing to erect a second hand turbine of unspecified antiquity then none of the generating specifications provided can be accurate or trusted.

The data provided by the applicant regarding the comparative size of the permitted and proposed turbines is inaccurate. The application states that the Nordtank turbine is 30% greater in area than the permitted E4460 model: in fact it is 37% larger. It is 51% greater in area than the E3120 turbine that the Planning Inspector permitted. None of the comments made by the inspector in his decision relate to this much larger turbine and should be ignored. The Inspector specifically stated that his judgement only applied to the E3120 model and that no inferences could be made to other applications.

Planning Authority Decision: Application withdrawn by applicant.

2016/91307

Land Adj, 14, Lower Wheatroyd, Almondbury, Huddersfield, HD4 6SP

Alterations to convert stable to dwelling (within a Conservation Area)

Objection

Scepticism always arises when a relatively recently constructed agricultural building is proposed for demolition to be replaced with a domestic residence.

This proposed house would form inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to Kirklees UDP and the NPPF. The site is also part of the Almondbury Conservation Area and forms part of a site of Special Scientific Interest. No very special circumstances exist which could allow this Green Belt development to take place.

If permitted, this house would set a very dangerous precedent for future applications on this important site.

Planning Authority Decision: Refused

2016/60/93702/W

The Lodge, 34, Daisy Lea Lane, Lindley, Huddersfield, HD3 3LP

Outline application for erection of 2 detached dwellings with integral garages and erection of detached garage to no 34 (within a Conservation Area)

Objection

This application should 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 6 as classified in the Appraisal of Edgerton Conservation Area. 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 the survival of Character Area 6 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. The Appraisal claims that earlier infill “to the South and East of Daisy Lea House has disrupted the unban grain of the area and as a consequence had a negative impact on the designated area”.

Planning Authority Decision: Application reduced to one property instead of two. Outline permission granted.

2016/64/94019/W

126a, Trinity Street, Huddersfield, HD1 4DT

Advertisement Consent for erection of illuminated and non-illuminated signs (Listed Building within a Conservation Area)

Objection

Three of these proposed signs are inappropriate for use on a Listed Building in a Conservation Area. The projecting sign breaks the integrity of the frontage whilst the two gable signs are both tawdry and garish. Their location, size, design and colour palette would cause substantial harm to the Listed Building and the Conservation Area contrary to UDP policies BE3 and BE16 as well as NPPF paragraphs 128-133.

The proposed flat acrylic text signs are not inappropriate (if not illuminated), nor are the window graphics.

Planning Authority Decision: Permitted, but without the two gable signs to which we objected.

2017/62/90180/W

Land at Ainley Top/Yew Tree Road/Burn Road, Huddersfield, HD2 2EQ

Erection of 95 dwellings with access from Yew Tree Road and Burn Road

The Society’s objects on two main grounds: lack of affordable housing and unsuitability of materials.

Kirklees Council’s Affordable Housing Policy stipulates that 20% of units in developments of more than 11 properties should be affordable. This proposal is for only 10 of the 95 properties to be affordable which is 10.52 % of the total, just over half of the Kirklees requirement and less than the “circa 12%” quoted in the applicant’s Affordable Housing Statement. Furthermore, only the smallest properties are to be affordable: none of the 85 four and and five bedroom properties will be affordable and none of the ten 2 and 3 bedroomed houses will be for private buyers; clearly socially discriminatory.

The proposed walling material is artificial stone. Natural stone should be used to comply with UDP Policy BE11 and NPPF paragraph 58 which states that “Local plans should respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials…” In this case the local material is natural stone. All the Listed buildings adjacent to the site are constructed of stone: Cosy Nook Farmhouse; The Store, 110 Burn Road; 13 Burn Road; 15 Burn Road; Barn to the rear of Briar Mount; Lower Burn Farm House; 7 Rock Road; 9 Rock Road; St. Philip’s Church and Middle Burn Farm (original stone now rendered). Concrete based artificial stone may be cheap, but it weathers in an entirely different way to natural stone, soon appears tired and pays no respect at all to local character and identity.

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.

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).

2017/90849

20-22, Cross Church Street, Huddersfield, HD1 2PT

Alterations to shop front to form new entrance and erection of canopy (Listed Building within a Conservation Area)

Objection

The Civic Society welcomed the recently approved application for the new Kingsgate entrance without any canopy (2016/92030) and can see no merit in re-introducing a canopy on to the frontage. The canopy destroys the architectural integrity of Cross Church Street and has a detrimental influence on the setting of the Parish Church.

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.