Planning Committe 1 - 18.11.14

6
CALDERDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE 1
WARDS AFFECTED: MORE THAN THREE
Date of meeting: 18 November 2014
Chief Officer: Head of Planning and Highways.
1. SUBJECT OF REPORT
APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION RE PLANNING PERMISSION, LISTED BUILDING

CONSENT/CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT, LOCAL AUTHORITY APPLICATIONS, CROWN
APPLICATION OR CONSENT TO FELL PROTECTED TREES
(i) Executive Summary

(ii) Individual Applications
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The attached report contains two sections. The first section (yellow sheets) contains a
summarised list of all applications to be considered at the Committee and the time at which
the application will be heard. Applications for Committee consideration have been identified
in accordance with Council Standing Orders and delegations.
2.2 The second section comprises individual detailed reports relative to the applications
to be considered.
2.3 These are set out in a standard format including the details of the application and
relevant planning site history, representations/comments received arising from publicity and
consultations, the officers assessment and recommendation, with suggested conditions or
reasons for refusal, as appropriate.
2.4 Where the Committee considers that a decision contrary to the recommendation of
the Head of Planning & Highways may be appropriate then consideration of the application
may be deferred for further information
2.5 Where a Legal Agreement is required by the Committee, the resolution will be
“Mindful to Permit Subject to a Legal Agreement being completed”, combined with a
delegation to the Head of Planning & Highways.
1
3. IMPLICATIONS ARISING FROM REPORT
3.1 Planning Policy
These are set out separately in each individual application report.
3.2 Sustainability
Effective planning control concurs with the basic principle of sustainable development in
that it assists in ensuring that development meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Through the
development control system, the Council can enable environmental damage to be
minimised and ensure that resources are used efficiently and waste minimised. Particular
sustainability issues will be highlighted in individual reports where appropriate.
3.3 Equal Opportunities
All applications are considered on their merits having regard to Government guidance, the
policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and other factors relevant to
planning and in a manner according to the Development Control Code of Conduct for
officers and members as set out in the Council’s Standing Orders.
Planning permission in the vast majority of cases is given for land not to an individual, and
the personal circumstances of the applicant are seldom relevant.
In particular however, the Council has to have regard to the needs of people with disabilities
and their needs are a material planning consideration. Reference will therefore, be made to
any such issues in the individual application reports where appropriate
Furthermore, the Council also attempts wherever possible/practical to apply good practice
guidance published in respect of Race and Planning issues.
3.4 Finance
A refusal of planning permission can have financial implications for the Council where a
subsequent appeal is lodged by the applicant in respect of the decision or if a case of
alleged maladministration is referred to the Local Government Ombudsman or a Judicial
Review is sought through the Courts.
In all cases indirect staff costs will be incurred in processing any such forms of ‘appeal’.
However, there is no existing budget to cover any direct costs should any such ‘appeal’
result in ‘costs’ being awarded against the Council. These would have to be found by way
of compensatory savings from elsewhere in the Planning Services budget.
Reference: 6/00/00/CM Geoff Willerton

Head of Planning & Highways
______________________________________________________________________________
2
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS REPORT CONTACT:
Geoff Willerton TELEPHONE :- 01422 392200

Head of Planning
DOCUMENTS USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT:
1. Planning Application File (numbered as the application show in the report)

2. Secretary Of State For Communities And Local Government
3. Calderdale UDP (including any associated preparatory documents)
4. Related appeal and court decisions
5. Related planning applications
6. Relevant guideline/good practice documents
DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT:
Planning Services, Northgate House, Halifax HX1 1UN.
NON EXEMPT DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT:
Economy and Environment Directorate, Planning Services, Northgate House, Halifax
Twenty-four hour’s notice (excluding holidays and weekends) may be required in order to make
material available.
Telephone 01422 392237 to make arrangements for inspection.
3
List of Applications at Committee 18 November 2014
Time App No. Location Proposal Ward Page No.

& No.
1500 14/00954/CON Hebble House Conversion of Calder

- 01 Old Gate existing public house
Hebden Bridge (A4) to flexible mixed
Calderdale use: A1 (retail), A2
HX7 6EN (financial and
professional
services), A3
(restaurants and 5 - 21
cafes) and A4
(drinking
establishments) at
ground floor level with
associated storage in
cellar and 1 No
residential flat (use
class C3) at first and
second floor levels
1500 14/00179/FUL Land South Of 4 Detached dwelling. Sowerby

- 02 Wakefield Gate Bridge
Halifax 22 - 30
Calderdale
1530 14/00976/LBD Hollins Mill Demolition of single Todmorden

Rochdale Road storey 25 bay
Todmorden Weaving Shed and
Calderdale remove culvert roof to
return Walsden Water 31 - 42
to open flow (Listed
Building Consent to
Demolish)
1600 14/01082/LBC Clover Hill House Create new opening Skircoat

- 01 Haworth Close to rear for patio door
Halifax (Listed Building 43 - 48
Calderdale Consent)
HX1 2NQ
1600 14/10036/ADV 12 - 16 Market One wall mounted Town

- 02 Street LED screen
Halifax (Advertisement 49 - 55
Calderdale Consent)
HX1 1PB
+ Head of Planning & Highways recommends Refusal

$ Head of Planning & Highways requests that conditions be applied
4
Site location map on web page
www.calderdale.gov.uk/environment/planning/search-applications/index.jsp
5
Time Not Before: 1500 - 01
Application No: 14/00954/CON Ward: Calder

Area Team: North Team
Proposal:
Conversion of existing public house (A4) to flexible mixed use: A1 (retail), A2 (financial and
professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes) and A4 (drinking establishments) at
ground floor level with associated storage in cellar and 1 No residential flat (use class C3)
at first and second floor levels
Location:
Hebble House Old Gate Hebden Bridge Calderdale HX7 6EN
Applicant:
Mr M Green
Recommendation: PERMIT
Highways Request:
Parish Council Representations: N/A
Representations: No
Departure from Development Plan: No
Consultations:
Hebden Royd Town Council

Countryside Services (E)
Highways Section
Environmental Health Services - Pollution Section (E)
Environment Agency (Waste & Water)
English Heritage (HUB)
Conservation Officers
Business And Economy
6
Description of Site and Proposal
Hebble House is a former public house previously known as The Hole in the Wall. It is located at
the junction of Hangingroyd Lane and Old Gate in Hebden Bridge. The site falls within the town
centre of Hebden Bridge and Conservation Area and is located adjacent to the 15 th century grade
II* listed and ancient monument, Packhorse Bridge, which is situated over Hebden Water. East of
the site is the recently developed Town Hall.
The proposal is for the conversion of the existing public house (A4) to flexible mixed use: A1
(retail), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes) and A4 (drinking
establishments) at ground floor level with associated storage in the cellar and 1 no residential flat
(use class C3) at first and second floor levels.
The application comes before Planning Committee by request from Ward Councillor Janet Battye
and due to the sensitivity of the proposal.
Relevant Planning History
The only relevant planning history is withdrawn application 14/00135/FUL for the change of use
and extension of former pub (A4) to a flexible mixed use, to include ground floor offices or shops
(A1/B1a) and workshop (B1c), or retention of pub use (A4) to ground floor, with ground floor
workshop (B1c) and in any case with 2 units of ancillary residential accommodation above.
The above application was withdrawn on 2nd June 2004 after discussions with the case officer,
Conservation Officer and English Heritage as there were concerns over the proposed design of the
extension so close to the listed bridge and within the Conservation Area.
An enforcement file was opened under application 13/63129/ENF as complaints had been raised
regarding the public house being converted to offices. No works had been carried out at this time
and as such the file was closed as no breach on 16th August 2013.
A further enforcement file was opened under application 13/63293/ENF as complaints had been
received that the first floor was being used for residential accommodation by the applicant. The
applicant advised that they would either be moving out or that a planning application was
forthcoming to regularise the residential use. The site is currently being monitored subject to the
outcome of this application.
Key Policy Context:
RCUDP Designation Town Centre

Conservation Area
Wildlife Corridor
National Planning Policy Section 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy)
Framework NPPF paragraphs 18, 19 and 21
Section 7 (Requiring good design) paragraphs 56, 60,
61, 65 and 66
Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural
environment) paragraphs 113 and 123
Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic
environment) paragraphs 134 and 137
RCUDP Policies CF5 Development Involving the Loss of Village Shops,
Post Offices, Public Houses or Hotels
7
S2 Criteria for Assessing Retail Developments
BE1 General Design Criteria
BE2 Privacy, Daylighting and Amenity Space
BE5 The Design and Layout of Highways and
Accesses
BE8 Access for All
BE15 Setting of a Listed Building
BE18 Development Within Conservation Areas
EP8 Other Incompatible Uses
EP20 Protection from Flood Risk
EP22 Sustainable Drainage Systems
T18 Maximum Parking Allowances
NE15 Development in Wildlife Corridors
NE16 Protection of Protected Species
NE21 Trees and Development Sites
Publicity/ Representations:
The application has been advertised by means of site notices, press notice and neighbour
notification letters. 28 letters of objection and 3 letters of support have been received.
Summary of points raised:
Reasons for objection
 Object to the building being retained as a pub or drinking establishment as there use to be
significant antisocial behaviour linked with the pub in terms of urinating, defecating and foul
language and environmental health, licensing and the police were called out many times
due to late night/early morning noise problems, and the drug problems it harboured. If
granted all or some of these facts could resurface.
 Object to the above application on grounds of loss of amenity
 Object to yet another attempt to keep what was a popular local community pub from
returning. No problem with residential development on the 2nd floor but the ground floor and
first floor are part of a very unique community venue.
 Since the previous tenants left, the place looks like an eyesore right next to our landmark
bridge.
 We are a local group - Friends of the Hole in the Wall - representing some 300 former
customers of the pub. We strongly object to this application.
 The wish of our members is to see the building retain its "drinking establishment" A4
designation within the local plan and for the owner or lessee to operate the building on that
basis.
 Although "drinking establishment" features among the possible uses envisaged for the
ground floor in the application, it is merely one item in a list which contains, among other
things, "retail" and "financial and professional services". Correspondence with the relevant
case officer at Calderdale Council has confirmed that any one of the proposed uses could
be implemented, so the building might well be used solely for offices or retail space
 No attempt is made in the application to square the proposals with policy CF5 in the
Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan, on development which involves the
loss of community facilities such as public houses.
8
 The drawings attached to the proposals show that all but one of the building's distinctive
chimney stacks would be demolished to make way for second-floor penthouse living space,
impacting on the town's historic roofscape and ignoring Calderdale's 2011 appraisal and
management plan for the conservation area in which the building lies
 No guarantee is given in the conservation statement as to the preservation of the building's
distinctive late-Victorian features - its ornately tiled and engraved walls and marble floor
mosaics - which made the pub such a special place in which to meet. Instead, the
application states that internal features will be preserved only "wherever possible".
 The plans are likely to generate traffic problems on Old Gate
 The present building dates from 1899, and is a significant part of the cultural heritage of this
town.
 The application fails to satisfy Policy CF5 of the RUDP insofar as there is no evidence
submitted to support the claim that there is no reasonable prospect of the The Hole In the
Wall flourishing as a public house in the future.
 I have registered the building with English Heritage requesting it to be spot listed.
 The changes to roof and chimneys will have a visual impact on the skyline of Hebden
Bridge.
 The current owner has made no attempt to consult the local community about what they
would like to see happen to the pub.
 The applicant has made the building look like an eyesore with boarded windows and barbed
wire fence in order to gain planning permission
Reasons for Support
 I have no particular preference as to its use - and the opinions I've heard on the subject
aren't that convincing. It just seems to me to be an utter shame that the town has such a
visual asset, right next to its most famed landmark, that's not being made the most of. If
someone is willing to put in the time, energy and money to do that, they should be
encouraged.
 Any investment to improve any of the derelict buildings that litter Calderdale, and of which a
fair number are closed down drinking establishments, should be supported.
Parish/Town Council Comments
The Town Councils are consulted on all applications in their areas. Where any have been
received these are set out in full below and have been taken into account as part of the
assessment of the application.
Hebden Royd Town Council recommends approval asking that the residential element of the
application be mindful of Approved Document M [Building Regulations].
Ward Councillor Comments
Councillor Janet Battye has made the following comments:
This is a substantial building in a key site in the middle of Hebden Bridge. The first choice for many
local people, which I support, is for it to be retained as a public house. I want to see it used and
retained in public or community use if at all possible. In my opinion, any other use should only be
possible once these uses have been fully tested and explored.
National Planning Policy Framework
9
The NPPF was published on 27 March 2012. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour
of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan
making and decision taking. For decision taking this means:
i) Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without
delay; and
ii) Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date,
granting permission unless:
- Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole; or
- Specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted.
(for example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats
Directives, and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as
Green Belt, Local Green Space, and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage
Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets;
and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion).
Given that this application relates to a designated heritage asset, the above presumption does not
apply. That said it is still important to consider the extent to which the proposed development is
sustainable in the context of the terms set out in the NPPF.
The introduction of the NPPF has not changed the legal requirement that applications for planning
permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise. The policy guidance in Annex 1 of the NPPF is that due weight
should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with
the NPPF.
Assessment of Proposal
Principle of Development
The site is located within Hebden Bridge Town Centre. There are no relevant local polices relating
to the town centre and as such the proposal will be assessed under other relevant policies which
are set out below.
Loss of Community Facilities
RCUDP policy CF5 states that planning applications for development, including change of use,
which involve the loss of a village shop, post office, public house or hostel, will be expected to
demonstrate that;
i. There is no need for the facility in the local area
ii. That it is no longer a viable operating business
iii. All reasonable efforts have been made to retain the facility by investigating the possibility
of setting up a community owned and managed enterprise; and
iv. There is no reasonable prospect in respect of the business becoming viable in the
future.
Permission will be granted where the balance of these considerations clearly shows that the facility
is surplus to requirements or uneconomic, subject to the requirements of all other relevant UDP
policies.
Information regarding the current status of the public house and its on going viability has been
provided. The applicant has stated that The Hole in the Wall, owned by Punch Taverns, was first
placed on the market in 2006, which was also confirmed by the Halifax Courier. The tenancy was
10
purchased by Mr Justin Pringle in 2008 and the public house was decorated and re-opened. In
2011 Mr Pringle, in an article also to the Halifax Courier, confirmed that the public house had been
closed and was simply not viable.
Although the building operated as a “pop up pub” on a temporary part time basis, in 2012 the
property was still for sale. In a total of eight years from 2006 the property has been for sale for five
years. The last period was between 2011 and 2013.
In December 2013 an application was made by the Friends of the Hole in the Wall to list the
building as a Community Asset. The application was rejected by Calderdale Council on the basis
that insufficient revenue could be generated to finance the structural repairs. The applicant has
provided a copy of the report made by Asset Management in terms of the nomination from the
Friends of the Hole in the Wall Group to list the Hole in the Wall public house as a Community
Asset. The report concludes that the criteria is not satisfied to list the property as an asset of
community value and as such should be rejected. Reasons include: there is little evidence in the
nomination demonstrating future community use; the activities that took place in the recent past
are now provided or could be re-provided in a number of other facilities nearby; and the community
uses provided in the period July 2011 to April 2013 were mainly as a result of the actions of a
particular licensee. Furthermore, the property has significant physical challenges and is likely to
be costly to remedy.
The building has become run down and would require substantial works to bring it back into use.
The applicant is applying for a flexible mixed use at ground floor level in order to attract more
interest. The proposal also includes residential accommodation over the first and second floors for
one unit. There would have been manager’s accommodation when the pub was open but the
proposal is looking to approve the accommodation for separate use and not ancillary use to the
pub.
Objectors comment that they do not consider the criteria under RCUDP policy CF5 has been met
and that the applicant has not given the residents chance to purchase the property as a community
owned and managed enterprise.
Applying for a flexible use would allow this to happen if an interested community group were to
come forward. However, if an interested party was to come forward who would like to run the
business as a shop, a financial and professional service or a restaurant or café, if the proposal was
successful then these uses would also be acceptable. Given the history of the site, the use as a
pub has recently not become a viable option but the opportunity for someone to run it as a pub
would still be available.
Objections to the retention of the pub due to unsociable behaviour linked to the pub have also
been received. This is not a material planning consideration in this case, but is a management
issue which may involve the Police. Given that the building was last used as a pub, there would
be no ground for refusing this use.
There are numerous drinking establishments in Hebden Bridge town centre and as such there is
not considered to be a need for the facility in the local area.
Given the above the proposal is considered to satisfy the criteria set out in RCUDP policy CF5.
Non Allocated Sites (Residential Use)
One of the aims of the Government’s sustainable development agenda is that new housing should
be located in suitable sustainable locations and the priority for development should be previously
developed (brownfield) land.
11
It is recognised that existing RCUDP policy H9 for “Non-Allocated Sites” contained within the
Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan (RCUDP)(Adopted August 2006) is now out of
date and non-compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published March
2012. The RCUDP was setting criteria to control development and set an embargo against any
greenfield development.
The proposal for a residential unit would be brownfield development and would be located in a
sustainable location as the site is in the town centre close to all amenities. Given this the proposal
would satisfy RCUDP policy H9.
Furthermore, RCUDP policy H12 discusses living over shops and business premises and
establishes that residential use of accommodation above shops and business premises particularly
within town centres will be encouraged and supported. Proposals should have adequate noise
attenuation measures, adequate access arrangements, parking and any external alterations
comply with the relevant RCUDP.
As the proposal is in the town centre, parking is not required under RCUDP policy T18. Should
consent be granted, conditions will be attached in terms of noise attenuation and a tied use will be
conditioned if the ground floor use would be for a public house or restaurant/café. The
Conservation Officer has been consulted in terms of the external alteration and subject to
conditions the proposals are acceptable.
Given the above the proposal would satisfy RCUDP policy H12.
Flexible Use
RCUDP policy S2 sets out various criteria for assessing retail development. This criteria identifies
that proposals should relate to the role, scale and character of the centre and the catchment the
development is intended to serve; it should not create any environmental, amenity, traffic, safety,
or other problems, the development should also preserve or enhance Conservation Areas and
does not adversely affect Listed Buildings or their settings.
The proposal involves a flexible use at ground floor level for A1 (retail), A2 (financial and
professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes) and A4 (drinking establishments) with
associated storage in the cellar and 1 no residential flat (use class C3) at first and second floor
levels. The previous use was a public house and as such the usual amenity concerns linked with
a public house have already been accepted in principle.
An A4 drinking establishment can change to A1, A2 or A3 uses without the need to apply for
planning permission under the Use Classes Order and as such there is a fall back position for
these uses. However, the proposal includes external alterations which do require planning
permission, hence this application. Furthermore, residential accommodation at first and second
floor level appears to have been partially implemented which is not connected to the A4 use.
Should consent be granted, due to the residential accommodation being part implemented, the
use of a public house at ground floor level will have been superseded with the proposed flexible
use once any conditions imposed have been satisfied.
The main objection by residents is the loss of the pub. However, as stated above the change of
use from an A4 (drinking establishment) to A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional services) and
A3 (restaurants and cafes) is permitted development under the Use Classes Order and so the
applicant could change the use from the pub to one of these identified uses without planning
permission as long as it did not involve external alterations as these require planning permission in
their own right.
12
Given the fall back position and the town centre location, the principle of development is
considered to be acceptable to satisfy RCUDP polices CF5, H9, H12 and S2.
Employment Issues
Section 1 of the NPPF, Building a strong, competitive economy, paragraphs 18, 19 and 21
establishes that the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs
and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of
global competition and of a low carbon future.
The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to
support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an
impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to
support economic growth through the planning system.
The Council’s Business and Economy Officer has commented that full support is given to this
application as this is a good use of the former public house which has been empty for some time.
The application makes good use of the building and this will complement the adjacent Town Hall
which is fully occupied most of the time and there is a lack of office space. The proposal will also
add to the retail offer in the town centre.
The NPPF goes on to establish that investment in business should not be over-burdened by the
combined requirements of planning policy expectations.
The proposal will attract employment to the town given the proposed uses, although the numbers
at this stage are unknown.
Given the above the proposal would satisfy Section 1 of the NPPF and is supported in this context.
Conservation Issues, Layout, Design & Materials
Policy BE15 of the RCUDP discusses Setting of a Listed Building and establishes that
development will not be permitted, where through its siting, scale, design or nature, it would harm
the setting of a listed building.
Section 12 of the NPPF, Conserving and enhancing the historic environment paragraphs 129, 134
establishes that local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of
any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the
setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise.
They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a
heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any
aspect of the proposal.
Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a
designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the
proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
13
Policy BE18 of the RCUDP discusses development within Conservation Areas and establishes
that new development and proposals involving the alteration or extension of a building in or within
the setting of a Conservation Area will only be permitted if all the following criteria are met:-
i. the form, design, scale, methods of construction and materials respect the characteristics of the
buildings in the area, the townscape and landscape setting;
ii. the siting of proposals respects existing open spaces, nature conservation, trees
and townscape/roofscape features;
iii. it does not result in the loss of any open space which makes an important contribution to the
character of the Conservation Area or features of historic value such as boundary walls and street
furniture; and
iv. important views within, into and out of the area are preserved or enhanced.
Policy BE1 of the RCUDP deals with General Design Criteria and aims to ensure that development
proposals make a positive contribution to the quality of the existing environment or, at the very
least, maintain that quality by means of high standards of design. Development proposals are
expected to respect or enhance the established character and appearance of the existing buildings
and their surroundings in terms of layout, scale, height, density, form, massing, siting, design,
materials, boundary treatment, landscaping and to consider energy efficiency and security issues.
Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) paragraph 56 of the NPPF states:
“The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is
a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute
positively to making places better for people.”
Paragraphs 60, 61, 65 and 66 are also relevant and go on to say:
Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular
tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated
requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to
promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.
Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors,
securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore,
planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and
the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.
Local planning authorities should not refuse planning permission for buildings or infrastructure
which promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about incompatibility with an
existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good design (unless the concern
relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or
its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).
Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve
designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in
developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably.
Concerns have been raised by a number of objectors that the proposal is not in keeping with the
surrounding area and townscape due to the removal of the chimneys and other external alterations
and, as such, would affect the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and Hebden Bridge
Conservation Area.
The Council’s Conservation Officer has commented that the proposals are to alter an unlisted
building at a prominent site at the centre of Hebden Bridge Conservation Area and adjacent to the
14
listed packhorse bridge which gives its name to the town. Calderdale and Hebden Bridge is
fortunate to have retained a wealth of built heritage dating back to the 1500's with the existence of
this grade II* listed and scheduled packhorse bridge with pubs sited at either end. There are only
two other scheduled bridges of national importance in Calderdale at Ripponden. Hebden Bridge is
a distinctive Conservation Area which retains much of its character and charm and it is essential to
retain this character.
Previous proposals have been modified considerably in response to pre-application advice which
is welcomed. The current proposals to bring active uses to this site are welcomed in principle
subject to detailing. English Heritage has been consulted and considers that these proposals will
not adversely affect the setting or significance of the adjacent scheduled and listed bridge.
The proposal to alter the roof appears to address the desire to incorporate more accommodation
into the building without raising the height of the building overall as suggested previously. The
alterations to the roof appear to be acceptable provided it is feasible structurally, and it is noted
that the applicant is taking advice from a structural engineer. During the last application (reference
14/00135) it was requested by the Conservation Officer that consideration be given to the retention
of the chimney stacks. The applicant has confirmed that one main chimney will be retained which
is welcomed. The loss of the two other chimneys has been requested by the applicant to maximise
internal space to make the proposals more viable which, on balance, is considered acceptable in
this case. Amended plans have been received to address the initial concerns of the Conservation
Officer regarding the number of rooflights (now reduced from six to four) and the lifting of the
window cills (now using stone infill). These amended plans are now acceptable.
The opening of the blocked up doorway near Hangingroyd Lane is welcomed subject to
submission of details for the door treatment.
In relation to comments received by objectors, it is noted that this building is not listed so the
interior is not protected. However, retention of interesting original tiles is desirable, and it is
understood that these will remain in situ. It appears that this proposal would remove the staircase
from ground to first floor, but this may not occur depending on the use. It is noted that the external
fire escape staircase would serve the new single upper floor flat and Building Control has
confirmed that this would be acceptable.
Overall, fewer external alterations are proposed than previously and this is welcomed. It is
considered that some alterations may be necessary to try to attract new uses so that this building
can be economically viable to ensure its retention for the future.
Given the above the proposal would comply with policies BE1, BE15 and BE18 of the RCUDP and
Sections 7 and 12 of the NPPF.
Residential Amenity
Policy BE2 of the RCUDP deals with Privacy, Daylighting and Amenity Space and establishes that
development proposals should not significantly affect the privacy, daylighting and private amenity
space of adjacent residents or other occupants and should provide adequate privacy, daylighting
and private amenity space for existing and prospective residents and other occupants.
Annexe A of the RCUDP identifies there may be a need for making exceptions to the suggested
standards [in terms of related distances between existing buildings and proposed development],
particularly when assessing alterations or conversions to listed and historic buildings and
developments in Conservation Areas. In such cases proposals will be assessed on their individual
merit.
15
The nearest property to the north of the site is over 30 metres away, and to the north east 18
metres at an angle. There will be no issues regarding the above policy requirements and the
proposal is considered to comply with policy BE2 of the RCUDP.
Section 11 of the NPPF, Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, paragraph 109 states
amongst other things:
“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
 preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at
unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water
or noise pollution or land instability...”
Paragraph 123 states that:
“Planning policies and decisions should aim to:

● avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as
a result of new development;
● mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life
arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;
● recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses
wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions
put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and
● identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by
noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.”
Policy EP8 of the RCUDP deals with incompatible land uses and establishes that where
development proposals could lead to the juxtaposition of incompatible land-uses, they will be only
permitted if they do not lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity caused by odour, noise or other
problems. Where development is permitted, appropriate planning conditions and/or obligations will
be added as necessary to provide landscaping, screening, bunding, physical separation distances
or other mitigation measures.
The Head of Housing, Environment and Renewal has made the following comments:
“I understand that technically the change of use of the existing ground floor public house to a Use
Class A1, A2 or A3 undertaking does not require planning permission, and this could occur at any
time in the future. However, any physical alteration to the building and the change of use of the
upper floor accommodation does require planning permission and therefore this is what my
comments relate to.
“At present, the current [and last] use of the ground floor is a public house, in noise terms the worst
case scenario, as high levels of noise often occur i.e. live entertainment, amplified sound,
deliveries, patron noise etc. It is therefore essential that the occupiers of the residential
accommodation above are not detrimentally affected from such activities. If the residential
accommodation was occupied by a third party, they would be detrimentally affected from noise
disturbance via the structure borne sound transmission and external to internal sound
transmission. Furthermore, public houses also often provide food on a commercial scale. The
premises would need an adequate commercial kitchen extraction system in order to disperse the
cooking odours satisfactorily; otherwise the residential accommodation above may be subject to
odour nuisance. If this was a new build, good sound amelioration works and an adequate
commercial extraction system could be designed into the development to overcome these
concerns, however, this application is a conversion and thus would prove very difficult. These
concerns also relate to an A3 undertaking restaurant/café/bistro.
16
“If the commercial use was to convert to an A1 or A2 use class with residential accommodation
above, the aforementioned concerns would not be an issue.”
In light of the aforementioned, the HHER would like to recommend conditions relating to: a tied use
of the flat if the ground floor is used as A3 or A4 uses; details to be submitted for written approval
within 3 months securing adequate indoor ambient noise levels; provision for storage and
collection of waste (including recyclable waste); sound insulation for any plant and machinery to be
used on the premises.
The HHER has stated that in relation to the hours of operation of the commercial property, given
that the existing public house has no planning restrictions upon it, and that the business could
change to any undertaking within an A1, A2 or A3 use class without planning approval, it may not
be reasonable to attach a condition relating to the hours of use.
Subject to the above conditions the proposal would comply with policy EP8 of the RCUDP and
paragraphs 109 and 123 of Section 11 of the NPPF.
Highway Considerations
Policy BE5 of the RCUDP discusses the design and layout of highways and accesses and
establishes that the design and layout of highways and accesses should ensure the safe and free
flow of traffic (including provision for cyclists) in the interest of highway safety).
Policy T18 of the RCUDP discusses maximum parking allowances and establishes that new
development should provide parking not in excess of the maximum allowances set out in this
policy. In determining the appropriate level of parking to be achieved for any given development,
consideration will be given to the following factors:-
the accessibility of the site its relationship to urban areas, (including proximity to town centres and
other locations of high accessibility);
relevant parking or traffic management strategies;
opportunities for the use of alternative modes of transport including public transport, walking and
cycling.
The Highways Network Manager has made the following comments:
“The proposal is situated within the town centre and it is considered that none of the [proposed]
uses would create any significant access difficulties. The town centre location within Policy T18
would not require any off-street parking. The submitted layout retains the courtyard which can be
used for parking or deliveries. It is also noted that there are no changes to the adjacent road layout
around the site. In view of its town centre location there are no highway objections.”
Given the above and subject to condition the proposal would therefore comply with policies BE5
and T18 of the RCUDP
Flood Risk
Policy EP20 of the RCUDP discusses protection from flood risk and establishes that development
will not be permitted if it would increase the risk of flooding due to surface water run-off or
obstruction, unless agreements are in place which allows the carrying out and completion of
necessary works before the development is brought into use.
Policy EP22 of the RCUDP discusses sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) and establishes
where possible and appropriate, development proposals shall incorporate SUDS. Where this is not
appropriate and possible, an acceptable alternative must be incorporated.
17
It should be noted that the site falls within flood zones 2 and 3 and as such a flood risk assessment
has been submitted as part of the application.
The Environment Agency has been consulted and raises no objections subject to the imposition of
a condition (should consent be granted). The condition requires that the development be carried
out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment and mitigation measures detailed
within the FRA in order to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future
occupants.
The EA has also commented that the LPA should also be satisfied that the flood risk Sequential
Test has been undertaken in an open and transparent way, in full accordance with the National
Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance, and that it has been
passed. Evidence to support the Sequential Test should also be added to the planning file for the
public record.
In terms of the Flood Risk Sequential Test, the proposed ground floor uses are no more vulnerable
than the current A4 use. In terms of the first and second floor accommodation, the applicant has
provided details of flood risk mitigation and emergency egress during times of flood which are
considered to be acceptable subject to the above condition.
Subject to the above condition, the proposal would be acceptable and is considered to comply with
policies EP20 and EP22 of the RCUDP.
Wildlife Conservation
The site falls within a Wildlife Corridor and Bat Alert area.
Policy NE15 of the RCUDP discusses development in wildlife corridors and establishes
development will not be permitted in a Wildlife Corridor if it would :-
i. damage the physical continuity of the Corridor; or
ii. impair the functioning of the Corridor by preventing movement of species; or
iii. harm the nature conservation value of the Corridor.
Policy NE16 of the RCUDP discusses the protection of protected species and establishes
development will not be permitted if it would harm the habitat requirements of legally protected,
rare or threatened wildlife species and the species themselves unless provision is made to protect
those species and their habitats.
The proposal involves works to the roof and, as such, a bat survey has been submitted. The
Wildlife Conservation Officer has been consulted and has no objection subject to a condition
requiring the recommendations and mitigation measures in the report are followed.
Subject to condition, the proposal is considered to satisfy policies NE15 and NE16 of the RCUDP.
Access for All
Policy BE8 of the RCUDP discusses access for all and establishes that buildings that provide
facilities or services to the public should incorporate design features for all including those with
disabilities. In making appropriate provision or adjustments, the applicant is advised to be guided
by the recommendations in BS 8300: 2001. They should also view the document "Guidance on
creating accessible environments". Subject to the above the proposal would comply with policy
BE8 of the RCUDP.
18
CONCLUSION
The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions specified below. The
recommendation to grant planning permission has been made because the development,
including the recommended conditions, is in accordance with the policies and proposals in
the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and National Policy guidance set
out in the ‘Key Policy Context’ section above and there are no material considerations to
outweigh the presumption in favour of such development.
Geoff Willerton
Head of Planning and Highways
Date: 4 November 2014
Further Information
Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first
instance:-
Gillian Boulton (Case Officer) on Tel No: 392232 or Lisa Deacon (Senior Officer) on Tel No:
392233
Conditions
1. Before it is first brought into use, the development hereby permitted shall be constructed of
facing and roofing materials to match the existing building, in terms of colour, texture,
coursing and method of pointing and shall be so retained thereafter.
2. Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use, all gutters, downpipes
and other external plumbing shall be finished in black and so retained thereafter.
3. The development hereby permitted shall not begin until details of the design, materials and
colour finish of the proposed doors and materials and colour finish of the windows have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and so
retained thereafter.
4. The fire escape shall be finished in black and so retained thereafter.
5. Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, the rooflights hereby permitted shall be
of low profile "conservation" type, details of which shall first have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The rooflights shall be installed in
accordance with the approved details and so retained thereafter.
19
6. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved
Flood Risk Assessment 800/267, Supplementary Flood Risk Assessment by ARP dated
June 2014 and the mitigation measures detailed within the FRA.
7. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures in Section
4.4 of the Bat Survey report carried out by Bl-Ecology Ecological Consultancy dated 2nd
June 2014 and in line with the recommendations in Section 4.5, two permanent bat roosting
features shall be integrated into the building design and shall be so retained thereafter.
8. The residential development hereby permitted shall only be occupied or used in connection
with and ancillary to the use of any A3 or A4 commercial undertaking, and shall at no time
be severed and occupied as a separate independent unit. This restriction shall not apply to
any A1 or A2 use.
9. Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a scheme for the site layout, internal design
and building specification of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall be such that the Indoor Ambient Noise Level within living rooms and
bedrooms with the windows closed, assessed in accordance with BS8233:2014, shall not
exceed
' 30dB LAeq in living rooms and bedrooms, and
' 55dB LAeq on balconies and in gardens at any time
The details so approved shall then be implemented within 1 month of the Local Planning
Authority's written confirmation of the details and shall be retained thereafter.
10. Before development begins a scheme of the provisions to be made for the storage and
collection of wastes including recyclable wastes arising from the development, compatible
with the requirements of the Council's waste collection service, shall be submitted in writing
to the Local Planning Authority for its approval. The scheme shall account for
a) suitable location of waste store(s) relative to all dwellings and non-residential uses of the
development hereby permitted, and
b) the design and construction of each waste store so as to minimise loss of amenity from
vermin, odour, flies and animal attack; and to provide sufficient space for receptacles for the
separate storage of household waste and recyclable wastes, and
c) waste collection point(s), level accessways between the stores and collection point(s),
and unobstructed vehicular access to the waste collection point(s); and
d) in respect of mixed residential and non-residential developments, separate storage areas
for wastes arising from residential premises and other uses of the development.
The provisions shall be constructed in accordance the scheme so approved prior to the first
occupation of the development, and maintained thereafter.
11. The development shall not begin until a scheme of sound insulation for any plant and
machinery to be used on the premises has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme so approved shall then be implemented before the
development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter.
Reasons
20
1. To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure
compliance with policies BE1, BE15 and BE18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary
Development Plan.
2. To ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure

Development Plan.
3. In the interests of the character and visual amenity of the area and to ensure compliance
with policies BE1, BE15 and BE18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development
Plan.
Development Plan.
5. In the interests of the character and visual amenity of the area and to ensure compliance
with policies BE1, BE15 and BE18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development
Plan.
6. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants and to
ensure compliance with policies EP20 and EP22 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary
Development Plan.
7. In the interests of conservation and to protect the ecological species and in order to ensure
compliance with policy NE16 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.
8. In the interests of residential amenity and pollution prevention and to ensure compliance
with policy EP8 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and Section 11
of the National Planning Policy Framework.
21
22
Application No: 14/00179/FUL Ward: Sowerby Bridge

Area Team: South Team
Proposal:
Detached dwelling
Location:
Land South Of 4 Wakefield Gate Halifax Calderdale
Applicant:
Mr Knott
Recommendation: PERMIT
Highways Request: $
Representations: No
Consultations:
Flooding And Land Drainage

Highways Section
Flooding And Land Drainage
The application site is located off Wakefield Gate and forms the side garden to 4 Wakefield Gate, a
large semi-detached dwelling a few metres away to the north east. The site forms the side garden
of 4 Wakefield Gate laid to mostly lawn, with a fence to the north east boundary, a hedge and wall
to the north west boundary and a fence to the south west boundary.
There is a mix of housing types in the area with mature terraced dwellings and single storey
detached dwellings adjacent to the site. There is also a mix of materials in the area consisting of
natural stone, render, natural blue slate roofs and concrete roof tiles.
The application seeks planning permission for the construction of a 4 bedroom, 2-storey detached
dwelling with front and rear gardens and integral garage and parking to the front. The application
is to be heard at Planning Committee at the request of the Ward Councillor Wilkinson.
The application was withdrawn from the 24th of June Planning Committee due to legal
reasons, this has however been resolved and the correct certificate D has been served.
23
None
Key Policy Context:
RCUDP Designation Primary Housing Area
National Planning Policy Framework Section 7- Requiring Good Design

(NPPF) Section 6- Delivering a wide choice of high
quality homes.
RCUDP Policies H2 Primary Housing Area
H9 Non Allocated Housing Sites
BE1 General Design Criteria
BE2 Privacy, Daylighting and Amenity
Space
BE3 Landscaping
BE4 Safety and Security Considerations
BE5 The Design and Layout of Highways
and Accesses
T18 Maximum Parking Standards
EP14 Protection of Ground Water
EP20 Protection from Flood Risk
EP22 Sustainable Drainage Systems
The application has been advertised by means of a site notice and neighbour notification. 8 letters
of objection have been received including one from the Ward Councillor
Summary of Comments
 Obstruct views (the loss of a view is not a planning matter)

 Not in keeping with area
 Located on a hazardous bend
 Parking issues exist where children are dropped off for the local school
 Busy road at school times
 Height and massing detrimental to amenity
 Site is not unused it is garden area to number 4
 New access would have to be created despite what the application form claims
 Geological fault on the land
 Ownership uncertain
 Impact on light residential amenity
 Bats can be seen flying nearby –new building would affect bat fly zone
 Will impact on my clients proposed application particularly plot 4 as the distances involved
are below those recommended in policy.
24
Councillor Wilkinson has commented “given the concerns expressed by highways and local
residents I would like to see this application referred to the Planning Committee for consideration.
I would, however, like to place on record that this land is visible from the property in which I reside,
and I will be taking advice as to whether this is considered a prejudicial interest.”
Principle
The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012. At the heart of the
NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden
thread running through both plan making and decision taking. For decision taking this means:
 Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
 Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting
permission unless
- Specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted (for
example, those policies relating to sites protected und the Birds and Habitats Directives,
and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt,
Local Green Space, and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a
National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations of risk
of flooding or coastal erosion).
Section 6 of the NPPF – Delivery a wide choice of quality homes – supports the delivery of new
housing, and applications for housing should be considered in the context of the presumption in
favour of sustainable development (paragraph 49).
Section 7 – Requiring good design – indicates that great importance is attached to the design of
the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development is indivisible from
good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people.
Paragraph 49 is relevant which states “Housing applications should be considered in the context of
the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing
should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year
supply of deliverable housing sites”.
One of the aims of the Government’s sustainable development agenda is that new housing should
be located in sustainable locations and the priority for development should be previously
developed (brownfield) land.
With regards to this application, the site is Greenfield; however, the site is in a very sustainable
location, as it is on a bus route and within walking distance to all local amenities including public
transport, schools and retail facilities. The area surrounding the site is urban in character and is
washed over by a Primary Housing area designation in the RCUDP. It is therefore considered that
the proposal comprises of sustainable development for the purposes of the NPPF.
25
This policy H2 of the RCUDP establishes that proposals for new housing developments on
previously developed land within these Primary Housing Areas would be supported providing that
there is no unacceptable environmental, traffic, amenity or other such problems are created and
that the overall quality of housing is not harmed and is where possible enhanced.
In relation to non-allocated housing sites RCUDP Policy H9 states:
Proposals for residential development (including those for the renewal of a previous
planning permission) on a non-allocated brownfield site or building for conversion will be
permitted where:-
I. The site is located within easy walking distance of a bus stop or a railway station,
and wherever possible is within walking distance of local services (such as
convenience shops, post office, health-centre/surgery, primary school),
II. Existing and planned infrastructure can cater for the development, including the
ability of the schools in the area to accommodate additional pupils;
III. There are no physical and environmental constraints on development of the site,
including flood risk;
IV. The development preserves or enhances Conservation Areas and does not
adversely affect Listed Buildings and their settings, where these are material
considerations;
V. The development complies with the requirements of other relevant UDP policies.
Policy H9 further states that proposals for new housing on Greenfield land ie not previously
developed, will not be permitted.
The site is considered to be Greenfield, as private residential gardens are excluded from the
definition of previously developed land in the NPPF, and as such there is a conflict with policies H2
and H9 of the RCUDP.
Planning Law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance
with the development plan (the RCUDP) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The
NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions and where the RCUDP is non-compliant,
the weight to be attached to the NPPF should be greater than the RCUDP.
In this context it is considered that the development is consistent with the overall presumption in
favour of sustainable development expressed through the NPPF.
The Council’s Preferred Options for its Core Strategy were published in October 2012. The
document sets out what the Council sees as the main planning challenges over the next 15 to 20
years and our preferred approaches for dealing with them. None of the policies or the strategy
itself are fixed at this time. This document is a material consideration. However, at the current
stage it is too early to attach significant weight to its policies.
Materials and Design
Policy BE1 seeks development that respects the established character and appearance of existing
buildings and their surroundings in terms of layout, scale, siting, design and materials, as well as
retaining any natural or built features that contribute to the amenity of the area.
The design for the detached 4 bedroom dwelling is that of a two storey dwelling, with integral
double garage and drive/parking to the front off Wakefield Gate. Main room windows have been
positioned both to the front and rear of the dwelling with blank side elevations.
26
The proposed dwelling has been positioned diagonally across the triangular shaped plot but whilst
still retaining ample space around the dwelling, it thus fits onto the irregular shaped plot of land
without being too close to any of its boundaries.
The site is prominent and elevated and thus would be quite prominent from Wakefield Gate,
Skircoat Moor Close and Delph Hill Road. However it provides space for a 4 bedroom dwelling
with similar dimensions to the dwellings with similar sized frontages and depths. The area contains
a mixture of house types and there is no particular pattern of development in the area. It is
considered therefore the proposal would maintain the character of the area and would thus be
acceptable under policy BE1 and section 7 of the NPPF.
The dwelling would be constructed in materials to match the area in coursed stone for the walls,
and blue slate roof. Windows will be white UPVC, doors and garages black UPVC. However it is
considered that based on the limited information submitted in terms of the materials and the
proximity of a newly approved housing site located to the west of this site it is necessary a
condition is attached to secure further details of the proposed materials.
The layout plan indicates that soft landscaped gardens are to be to the north and south of the
property with a block paved parking driveway and a rear block paved patio area.
With regard to an objection raised by a resident, about the loss of a view, this is not a material
planning consideration.
The proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policy BE1 of the Replacement

Calderdale Unitary Development Plan as it would respect the established character and
appearance of existing buildings and their surroundings in terms of layout, scale, siting, design as
well as retaining any natural or built features that contribute to the amenity of the area.
Residential Amenity
Policy BE2 seeks to ensure that new buildings respect the privacy and daylighting of occupants of
adjoining buildings and that private amenity space is provided with new dwellings and protected
around existing buildings.
The proposed dwelling has been designed with main room windows front and rear and blank gable
ends.
To the west/rear of the site is a housing scheme for 4 houses approved under 14/00062/FUL, plot
4 is the nearest house to the proposed house at 4 Wakefield Gate. Plot 4’s ground floor would be
located several metres below the ground floor level of the single dwelling in this application and
would be separated by a rock face and a boundary fence.
The agent of this application has submitted a cross section that shows the relationship between
the two proposed buildings. The distance is shown as 14m wall to wall but with a 1.8m high fence
on the boundary and a finished floor level difference of 5m.
27
The fence and the respective difference in heights would prevent overlooking of the rear dining
room (main), kitchen/bedroom (secondary) and utility room window in this application and from the
lounge (main), and bathroom window (non-habitable) in plot 4 of the approved 2014 planning
application 14/00062/FUL. Whilst the minimum distance of 21m can’t be achieved from a main to
main room window giving a shortfall of 7m or the secondary to main distance of 18m with a
shortfall of 4m, the boundary treatment and the difference in heights based on the cross sections
indicate that the 1st floor windows in the proposed house would face the roof of plot 4 rather than
its windows, and the ground floor windows would be screened by the boundary fence. On balance
the relationship of the two houses is one that would not cause any significant overlooking or loss of
privacy/amenity.
To the front/east of the property a lounge (main) and bedroom windows are proposed as well as
an ensuite bathroom window. From the proposed main lounge window a distance of 23m can be
achieved to the kitchen window and bedroom window in 10 Stonecliffe, and 28m to the dining
room window in 10 Stonecliffe. From the proposed bedroom windows and bathroom window a
distance of 23m and 28m to the kitchen, bedroom and dining room windows again can be
achieved in 10 Stonecliffe. These distances are in accordance with the guidance in policy BE2,
Annex A.
The left/south gable elevation has a blank elevation that would be 14m to the side aspect windows
of 9 Wakefield Road. These distances are in accordance with the guidance in policy BE2, Annex
A.
On the right/north gable elevation a blank elevation is proposed that would be 9m to the secondary
lounge window and 13m to the secondary dining room window in 4 Wakefield Gate. A second
window to a dining or lounge is termed as a secondary window, the policy distance from a
secondary room window to a side or blank elevation is 9m therefore the distance can be met.
The proposal is considered to comply with the Replacement Unitary Development Plan policy BE2.
Highway Considerations
Policy BE5 seeks to secure highways and accesses whose design and layout ensure the safe and
free flow of traffic in the interests of highway safety and to provide an attractive environment.
Policy T18 seeks to ensure there is adequate off street parking facilities for each of the dwellings.
The Highway Network Manager was consulted on the application and is aware that an amended
layout plan has been submitted which shows a wider egress point off Wakefield Gate and has
updated his comments to state:
“The amended plan shows an improvement for the means of access to the site showing
visibility onto the highway. The previous objection is therefore withdrawn subject to several
conditions to restrict development within 2.0m of the highway to create adequate visibility,
to secure a vehicular access 2.7m wide in the form of a footway crossing linked to the
existing footway and that development should not be occupied until the garaging/off street
parking facilities shown on the permitted plans have been constructed and surfaced using
permeable surfacing materials.”
28
Drainage
Policy EP14 of the RCUDP aims to secure appropriate levels of drainage for new development.
Policy EP20 of the RCUDP states development will not be permitted if it would increase the risk of
flooding due to surface water run off, and EP22 of the RCUDP says development proposals shall
incorporate sustainable drainage systems.
In terms of drainage, standard drainage conditions relating to the submission of details of the foul
and/or surface water and/or sustainable drainage if feasible and/or sub-soil drainage for the
development is requested for written approval. Subject to conditions, the proposal would be
acceptable in terms of RCUDP policies EP14, EP20 and EP22.
CONCLUSION
The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions specified below. The
recommendation to grant planning permission has been made because the development,
including the recommended conditions, is in accordance with the policies and proposals in
the National Planning Policy Framework and the Replacement Calderdale Unitary
Development Plan set out in the ‘Key Policy Context’ section above and there are no
material considerations to outweigh the presumption in favour of such development.
Geoff Willerton
Date: 29th October 2014
Further Information
instance:- Sara Johnson (Case Officer) on Tel No: 392212 or Lisa Deacon (Team Leader) on Tel
No: 392233
Conditions
1. Notwithstanding any details shown on the permitted plans the development shall not begin
until details of the proposed facing and roofing materials have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Before the development hereby
permitted is first brought into use, the development shall be constructed in accordance with
the details so approved and shall be so retained thereafter.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (and any order revoking and re-enacting the order) no windows
or other openings shall be formed in the dwelling without the prior written permission of the
Local Planning Authority.
3. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall
not begin until full details of the foul and/or surface water and/or sustainable systems of
drainage if feasible and/or sub-soil drainage and external works for the development (taking
into account flood risk on and off site and including details of any balancing works, off-site
29
works, existing systems to be re-used, works on or near watercourses and diversions) have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details so
approved shall be implemented prior to the first operation of the development and retained
thereafter.
4. There shall be no development within 2.0m of the highway (Wakefield Gate) that shall
obstruct visibility above 0.780m in height.
5. The dwelling shall not be occupied until a vehicular access 2.7m wide in the form of a
footway crossing linked to the existing footway has been constructed and completed and
this access shall be so retained thereafter.
6. The development shall not be occupied until the garaging / off street parking facilities
shown on the permitted plans have been constructed and surfaced using permeable
surfacing materials where any surface water shall be directed to sustainable drainage
outlets or porous surfaces within the curtilage of the development. These facilities shall
thereafter be retained for this purpose for the occupiers of and visitors to the development.
7. The dwelling shall not be occupied until a close boarded screen fence 1.8m high, has been
constructed on points A-B as shown on the permitted plan. The screen fencing shall
thereafter be retained.
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 2008, (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order) no
development falling within Classes A-G of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the said order shall be
carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.
Reasons
compliance with policy BE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.
2. To safeguard the privacy and amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties and to ensure
compliance with policy BE2 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.
3. To ensure proper drainage of the site and to ensure compliance with policy EP14 and EP22
of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.
4. To ensure adequate visibility in the interests of highway safety and to ensure compliance
with policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.
5. To ensure that suitable access is available for the development and to ensure compliance
with policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.
6. To ensure that adequate off-street parking is available for the development and to ensure
compliance with policy T18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.
7. In the interests of amenity and privacy and to ensure compliance with policy BE2 of the
Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.
8. To ensure the residential amenity of neighbouring property in accordance with policy BE2 of
the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan
30
31
Time Not Before: 1530
Application No: 14/00976/LBD Ward: Todmorden

Area Team: North Team
Proposal:
Demolition of single storey 25 bay Weaving Shed and remove culvert roof to return
Walsden Water to open flow (Listed Building Consent to Demolish)
Location:
Hollins Mill Rochdale Road Todmorden Calderdale
Applicant:
V Power Limited
Recommendation: REFUSE LISTED BUILDING CONSENT
Highways Request:
Parish Council Representations: Yes No Objections
Representations: No
Consultations:
Building Control (E)

English Heritage (HUB)
Todmorden Town Council
West Yorkshire Archaeology Service
Ancient Monuments Society
The Georgian Group (E)
SAVE Britains Heritage (E)
Society For Protection Ancient Buildings (E)
Council For British Archaeology (E)
Victorian Society - Dale Dishon
Community Services (E)
Twentieth Century Society
Design Council & CABE
Todmorden Civic Society
Ancient Monuments Society
32
The application relates to Hollins Mill on Rochdale Road in Walsden, Todmorden. The application
proposes the demolition of the Grade II Listed North Light Building, a 25 bay former weaving shed.
The application is not supported by any proposals for any replacement building.
The reason that the application has been brought to Committee is because the Head of Planning
considers that the application should be referred to the Planning Committee for determination
because of the significance, impact or sensitivity of the proposal.
Hollins Mill was listed at Grade II on 16th August 2002.
The following applications are relevant, both of which were withdrawn, and both of which proposed
part demolition of the building.
08/01553/LBC Proposed part demolition of north light shed (Listed Building Consent) – Withdrawn
09/00843/LBC Proposed demolition of part of existing north light shed (Listed Building Consent) -
Withdrawn
A further application for the total demolition of the former weaving shed was refused on 10th
December 2013. (13/01281 LBD)
The latest application for total demolition of the former weaving shed was withdrawn on 6th June
2014 (14/00595/LBD).
Key Policy Context:
National Planning Policy Framework 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic

environment
Decision-taking
Implementation
RCUDP Designation Primary Employment Area
Wildlife Corridor
Regeneration Priority Area
RCUDP Policies BE 15 Setting of a Listed Building
BE17 Demolition of a Listed Building
Consultations
English Heritage – Objects

West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service (WYAAS) - Objects
Amenity Bodies – Objections from Victorian Society and Ancient Monuments Society
Council for British Archaeology - Objects
Building Control – Comments received
Business and Economy – No objection
Todmorden Town Council – Recommends Approval
Todmorden Civic Society – Comments received
33
The application has been advertised by means of neighbour notification letters, site and press
notices. In response 4 letters of objection, one being a petition with 19 signatures, 3 of support and
1 neutral representation has been received.
Summary of Points Raised
Objection
 The Association for Industrial Archaeology notes with concern to the proposals to demolish
the 25 bay, single storey weaving shed at Hollins Mill stating that the Mill is a robust stone
building and its importance lies in the following: the ashlar surrounds to the windows are
typical of the Calder valley but they are also relatively rare on mills which more usually have
plain windows; the importance of the weaving shed lies in the fact that it forms part of a
complex which included both spinning and weaving. The engine house was so located
because it was designed to provide power to both the spinning sections and the weaving
sections of the premises. Therefore to remove the weaving shed would be detrimental to
the integrity of this integrated cotton mill site.
 It is also noted that there is no actual replacement proposed and therefore para 136 of the
NPPF is not satisfied. Therefore there will be substantial harm to the listed complex without
any public benefit, and this would be contrary to Para 133 of the NPPF.
 There is still no structural engineer's report confirming the extent of the structural instability
and therefore any public danger. The fact that it is in poor condition does not remove its
importance as forming part of a site which included both spinning and weaving with
appropriate power.
 Should demolition be approved the building should be adequately recorded in accordance

with Para 141 of the NPPF.
 The applicant has provided a lengthy justification which admirably documents the neglect
this important structure has suffered. It attempts unsuccessfully to justify demolition on
economic grounds and ignores the importance identified in the listing that this mill shows
weaving sheds and spinning mills on the same site. It concentrates on the supposed visual
advantages of demolition without understanding that other issues should be considered. I
therefore ask you to reject this application again.
 Petition signatories are concerned that the removal of the culvert roof and returning
Walsden Water to open flow will further increase flooding in an area already subject to
flooding on a yearly basis
 This proposed consent to demolish the above property does not include any information on
the potential impact on biodiversity. The building lies within a Bat Alert Layer and the
building and underlying culvert both have potential to be roosting sites for bats. The
application should be accompanied by a bat survey and assessment. The culvert also has
potential as a lying up site for otters and a detailed inspection needs to be undertaken and
mitigation put forward. The eroded stonework has potential to be used by breeding birds
and an assessment of the bird habitat should be undertaken and appropriate mitigation put
forward.
34
Support
 I fully support the demolition of the weaving shed with the potential development of a useful
building that can provide more jobs. A common misconception seems to be that patching
the roof up will suddenly make it a useful building. However just sticking some lats and
horsehair up is not going to make it suitable under current health and safety standards nor
is it going to change the impracticality of the current structure or the materials used in the
old design. The whole building needs sorting from the ground up and that makes it
financially unviable.
 The design of the shed is not suitable for today's use, too many support beams and the low
ceiling height make it impractical and vulnerable to theft and vandalism.
The listing itself quotes 2 references to the building saying it was a great example of such a
mill, however these comments were made well before the development of the sixties where
the entrance arches were demolished and the various buildings were permanently annexed
into separate units and are hardly valid now!
 I know the owner has only submitted a provisional plan in this application and that is
because over the last 9 years various organisations have expressed great interest in their
own designs on this property, even threatening compulsory purchase orders. The Highways
dept wanted to make the junction safer with better visibility, Regeneration dept. wanted to
turn it into a car park, Tod Pride wanted a "gateway" and the Environment Agency wanted
to open the river up, whether permanently or just to access and remove the weir under the
junction which seemed to be a cause of local flooding.
 Mr Power is resigned to the fact that, as things stand, he apparently has no say on what he
can do with his building and knows that future development cannot be finalised until all the
various parties have had their say and they will not commit time/resources properly until the
crucial decision whether to demolish is made. You can't put the cart before the horse and
the decision to demolish must be made before the multi-agency debates start on future
development.
 As a grade 2 listed building the shed is afforded no grants or funding and the banks are not
interested in investing money in such a building. The chance for investment is available
now!
 Support pulling down the Mill and opening up the river; remove the culvert roof in order to
return Walsden Water to open flow.
Neutral
 No objection in principle, however should be noted that the neighbouring attached property
will become exposed as external wall as a result of the demolition. A condition should be
attached requiring making good of the remaining listed structure.
 The 3 optional proposals for redevelopment indicate a riverside walk which discharges onto
Hollins Mill car park where no agreement has been made with the land owner.
 Proposal 3 creates a service court and parking to the back of business units which would
be less attractive for future uses of the mill.
35
If the recommendation is to refuse the application Cllr Jayne Booth requests the application be
heard by Planning Committee for the following reasons:
 Preservation for preservation sake doesn’t fit the profile of this building.
 If the Mill is demolished there can be stipulations within any subsequent planning
application that celebrates the heritage of the building
 The Mill is in dilapidated state and must be seen as at risk of collapse. I make reference to
the walls which are cracked and may fall onto the road. We have seen this happen with the
Cinder Hill mill only a few years ago.
 The Mill is situated above a culvert that is a key position for the EA to carry out
maintenance to reduce the impact of flooding in Walsden
 The building is an eyesore and therefore if demolished the land can be used in a more
innovative way that enhances the regeneration of Walsden and Todmorden and has the
potential of bringing employment and business opportunities to the area and local
communities.
 It is not financially viable to repair the Mill and the Mill has been on the market for a lengthy
period and has not attracted a buyer.
Policy Implications and Requirements
Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF sets the
Government’s national planning policies with regard to the historic environment. These policies
emphasize that that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a
manner appropriate to their significance. Para 126 states that local planning authorities should
take into account:
● the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting
them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
● the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the
historic environment can bring;
● the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and
distinctiveness; and
● opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the

character of a place.
36
Para 128 states that local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the
significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The
level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to
understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant
historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using
appropriate expertise where necessary.
Furthermore, para 129 states that local planning authorities should identify and assess the
particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by
development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and
any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the
impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s
conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
Following assessment of significance, NPPF para 131 states that in determining planning
applications, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and
enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their
conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to
sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development
making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
The following NPPF policies are particularly relevant to this application, given that substantial
demolition is proposed.
Para 132 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance
of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more
important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through
alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets
are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial
harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional.
Para 133 state that where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of
significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent,
unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial
public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:
● the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and
● no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through
appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
● conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is

demonstrably not possible; and
● the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.
Further to this, para 136 states that local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or
part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will
proceed after the loss has occurred.
As well as assessment of the national policy, Policies BE15 and BE17 of the Replacement
Calderdale Unitary Development Plan are relevant to the application and reflect the above
requirements of the NPPF.
37
Policy BE 15 (Setting of a Listed Building) states that development will not be permitted, where
through its siting, scale, design or nature, it would harm the setting of a Listed Building. Policy BE
17 (Demolition of a Listed Building) states that there is a presumption in favour of the preservation
of listed buildings and total or substantial demolition of a listed building will only be permitted
where all the following criteria can be demonstrated or in other exceptional circumstances:
 it is not possible to continue to use the building for its existing or a previous use;
 no other reasonable beneficial use can be found for the building;
 demolition will not cause harm to the setting of any other listed building or the
character or appearance of a Conservation Area; and
 demolition and subsequent redevelopment will result in a community benefit.
Assessment of Significance
The grade II listed Hollins Mill complex is significant as it is possibly the best recorded example of
integrated cotton, spinning and weaving mill. It was built between 1856 and 1858 and extended by
1890. The four-storied spinning mill contained 30,000 spindles, and the shed had 600 looms: both
buildings were powered by an engine house attached at one side at their junction. A warehouse
and offices may have been part of the original plans, and a mechanics' shop was built at the same
time as the main part of the site. Late in the nineteenth century, the owners and operators,
Abraham Ormerod and Brothers, were described as involved in the 'whole process of manufacture
from raw cotton to woven fabric ready for the finisher', exclusion of the finishing stages being
typical of the cotton industry.
The 25 bay weaving shed at Hollins Mill, as part of the integrated mill complex, reflects the above
description that industrial buildings for cotton processing including spinning and weaving were on
the same site. Weaving sheds tell a critical part of the industrial story and should be kept in
integrated sites to show the full process. The fact that it forms part of a complex which included
both spinning and weaving is an important aspect of the weaving shed’s significance, as is its
relationship to the complex’s other elements. The engine house at Hollins Mill was so located
because it was designed to provide power to both the spinning sections and the weaving sections
of the premises. Therefore to remove the weaving shed would be detrimental to the integrity of this
integrated cotton mill site.
As well as the industrial relationship, the significance of the weaving shed’s architecture reflects
the different nature of the work housed within the building. The weaving shed’s north light design is
architecturally high characteristic and shows the necessity of an even natural source of light
maximised throughout the day for weavers. This produces the distinctive dogtooth façade which
faces the road and explains lack of vertical windows, replaced instead by the segmented
transparent roof, contributing greatly to the character and appearance of the streetscene.
Whilst there is a great variety in the detail of their construction, the north light shed is an essential
characteristic of the 19th century textile industries of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The weaving shed
at Hollins Mill is unusual in being a fully iron framed structure comprising cast iron columns, cast
iron beams, iron valley gutters between the bays and, originally, cast iron north light window
frames. The extensive use of iron in shed structures is more often recognised as a feature of
contemporary worsted mills. Cotton mills are relatively rare in West Yorkshire as a whole, although
not uncommon in the western part of the county. Hollins Mill, as a large fully developed and
integrated example is of national significance and the weaving sheds, due to their structure,
38
location over a culvert and contribution to the setting of the mill complex as a whole, add to this
significance.
The consultation responses from English Heritage, WYAAS, The Victorian Society, The Ancient
Monuments Society, the Council for British Archaeology and the representation from the
Association of Industrial Archaeology have all referred to the important significance of the weaving
sheds in their own right, in relation to the Hollins Mill complex as a whole and the effect of the
setting of Hollins Mill. These have been amalgamated in the assessment above.
Whilst the weaving sheds in themselves are not the only example extant in the north of England,
the assessment of significance and values have not been demonstrated in the Demolition
Statement. Indeed, the Demolition Statement states that demolition of the weaving shed at Hollins
Mill will not detract from nor affect the character and setting of the other buildings in the mill
grouping. There is a cumulative opinion by all conservation advisers and students of the industrial
heritage (of cotton mills) that the whole site which incorporates the weaving sheds is of national
importance. In line with NPPF paras 132 and 133 great weight should be given to its conservation
and only substantial public benefits with clear and convincing justification need to be demonstrated
to outweigh the harm of demolition.
Assessment of Justification
The proposed demolition would amount to substantial harm to the significance of Hollins Mill, as
the very nature of the significance of the mill is the combination of all the textile process buildings
on one site. The applicant contends that the structural condition of the building is beyond repair, at
risk of collapse, and has provided indicative sketches of possible development schemes for the
site.
Condition
In relation to the building’s condition, the justification provided for this demolition is that the building
is not structurally sound and that the culvert that runs beneath the weaving shed requires
maintenance that necessitates the removal of the weaving shed. The consultation responses from
English Heritage, WYAAS, The Victorian Society, The Ancient Monuments Society and Council for
British Archaeology all consider that the evidence provided is not sufficient to demonstrate that
demolition is necessary. Furthermore, English Heritage, Victorian Society and Council for British
Archaeology all comment that without a structural engineer’s survey to support the claim that the
building is as structurally precarious as claimed they cannot accept this allegation.
In the absence of a structural engineer’s report, further advice was sought from Building Control
who undertook a site visit. The Officer comments that after an internal inspection it was shown that
the building is in a very poor state of repair. There is evidence of cracked cast iron beams and
columns together with an overall lean of the building towards Rochdale Road. There are a number
of temporary props throughout the building and although it is not considered to take emergency
action regarding a dangerous building, to prevent it becoming dangerous then a major scheme of
either temporary works or a full refurbishment should be undertaken immediately. The 2010 report
from Arup refers to scouring and voids under the foundation of the external wall adjacent to
Rochdale Road. Any repairs to the building must include suitable work to remedy this problem.
The buildings have deteriorated substantially at least during the past 7 years and possibly for
longer, with little evidence that anything but cursory attention to the occasional leak or weakness in
the roof structure have been attended to. The interior supporting iron column structure and roof
support grid have previously been de-nuded of their overhead drive-lines but evidence of their
fixing positions remains. The Demolition Statement refers to corrosion "in some places" at the
39
base and at the top of some of the columns, but this is not quantified. The Building Control Officer
acknowledges that repair is required but the building is not classed as a dangerous structure. The
state of the underside of the roof is lamentable, but whilst this is a cause of significant concern
(regarding the lack of care and maintenance of the building) that lack of care cannot be used to
justify demolition.
In addition to this, the Ancient Monuments Society comments that it is disappointed that the
building's condition has deteriorated to the extent that the applicant fears there is a risk of collapse.
Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that:
Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated
state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.
While the Ancient Monuments Society could not find evidence of immediate danger of collapse
from the documents supplied, there was concern that the building's condition might deteriorate
further if certain issues such as stone erosion and the cracking in some cast-iron columns were not
addressed. It would be useful to know what programme of maintenance, if any, has been carried
out over the past few years.
The condition of the wall bounding the A6033 Rochdale Road is certainly very poor in parts and
requires a detailed assessment regarding its stability. The Demolition Statement does not actually
provide this, it merely alludes to it. Below this zone along the boundary of the site, the building roof
stretches over a covered culvert which requires detailed examination. The Demolition Statement
only partly covers this requirement, and if considerable works to attending to this element are
indeed required, that does not in itself justify the total demolition of the weaving sheds.
This has been highlighted by both the Victorian Society and the Ancient Monument Society who
state that the culvert beneath the weaving shed requires, or will at some point require, remedial
work to be undertaken. However, the report on its condition clearly states that the necessary works
could be carried out without recourse to demolishing the weaving shed. The condition of the
culvert which runs beneath it does not seem to call for the demolition of the building; in fact the
structural report argues that demolition could lead to complications which might be difficult and
costly to address as referred to in para 3.4 of appendix 3 of the Demolition Statement.
Whilst there are structural problems with the shed’s frame and boundary wall it is not considered
total demolition, with the substantial harm to the listed mill and its setting, is a proportionate
response and all consultees recommend remedial works and additional support as a more
appropriate course. The evidence used to justify the application is not robust enough to support
the demolition of the heritage asset and is contrary to paras 128, 131, 132 and 133 of the NPPF.
Indicative development
The applicant has provided indicative sketches showing that the site could be redeveloped for
either business units or a care home, providing public benefits that supposedly outweigh the harm
caused by the loss of the building. However, as with the evidence on the condition, all the
consultees named above do not consider this sufficient to demonstrate any public benefit that
would be achieved.
Their comments can be summarised as follows:
No firm proposal has been brought forward for the site. The plans for the reuse of the site are
outline at best and do not constitute a genuine redevelopment proposal. These indicative
proposals are also of a scale and massing of that could represent gross over-development of the
site, bearing no visual relationship with the historic site. There are therefore no calculable public
40
benefits that would be gained by the vague redevelopment proposals envisaged. There is no
associated application for redevelopment and without the benefit of a planning application, which
would be subject to a full assessment of all the issues relating to the development of the site, no
case for public benefit has be made or could be achieved. This application therefore cannot
comply with paras 133 and 136 of the NPPF.
The lack of a credible development scheme for the site is a significant disappointment as a
potential way forward retaining at least some of the existing grid format of the north-lights and roof
and columnar structure, was suggested by the local authority and regional heritage advisors. This
lack of a scheme prevents any assessment that the application as it now stands is worthy of
consideration in terms of recognising and protecting the special architectural and historic interest
of the site and its complex of buildings.
Whilst the state of the building causes considerable concern, there has been no demonstrable
public or community benefit evidenced in the Demolition Statement. The applicant’s indicative
redevelopment proposals do not meet the requirements of paragraph 136 of the NPPF.
Furthermore, without a robust redevelopment proposal the four criteria required by para 133 to
demonstrate that harm or loss is necessary, cannot be met. The application is contrary to paras
131, 132, 133 and 136 of the NPPF.
Conclusion
The proposal differs from the previous submission 13/01281/LBD only in as much as it
includes a costed list of structural repair works and alternative sketch schemes for
potential redevelopment uses of the site. The application is insufficient in analysis, terms of
reference, research, opportunities to produce evidence of public benefit, or indeed any
community advantage, to justify the buildings' demolition.
The demolition of the weaving shed would cause substantial harm to the significance of
Hollins Mill, removing almost without trace this important element of the site, and harming
the setting of the remaining buildings. The significance of the site has not been properly
demonstrated by the applicant and, as there are no accompanying redevelopment
proposals, the applicant is not able to demonstrate that there are sufficient public benefits
arising to offset this harm.
From the above comments it is clear that there is much concern from the English Heritage,
WYAAS, The Ancient Monuments Society, Victorian Society, and Council for British
Archaeology that the proposed demolition of the north light building is not at this point in
time justified by the submitted evidence and all object and recommend refusal of the
application. Whilst it is clear the building has deteriorated over time, it is not a dangerous
building under the Building Act, and the evidence submitted is not considered to be
compelling evidence that could justify the complete loss of the building, nor in the absence
of any comprehensive redevelopment proposals can it be said to be justified in the public
interest. The application therefore remains contrary to the above national planning policy
framework.
Having regard to the above policy statements and consultation responses, demolition
would cause substantial harm to the significance, character, appearance and setting of the
grade II listed Hollins Mill. The application is therefore contrary to criterion iii) of Policy
BE17. Notwithstanding the submitted evidence, it is not considered that it has been
conclusively demonstrated that there is no other reasonably beneficial use for the building.
Neither have any firm redevelopment proposals been advanced that could evidence
community benefit. The application is therefore also contrary to criteria i), ii) and iv) of
41
Policy BE17. In the absence of formal proposals for the replacement of the building, its
demolition would be highly likely to leave a site that would be vacant for some considerable
time, and this would be harmful to the setting of the remaining mill complex, contrary to the
requirements of Policy BE15 (Setting of a Listed Building).
It should be noted by Members that should they see fit to recommend approval of the
application, in light of the objection from English Heritage the application would be
required to be determined by the Secretary of State.
CONCLUSION
The proposal is not considered to be acceptable. The recommendation to refuse Listed

Building Consent has been made because the demolition, in the absence of proposals for
redevelopment, is not in accordance with Policies BE 15 (Setting of a Listed Building) and
BE 17 (Demolition of Listed Building) of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development
Plan and guidance contained within Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic
environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework).
Geoff Willerton
Date: 26th September 2014
Further Information
instance:-
L Clarkson (Case Officer) or Lisa Deacon (Senior Officer) on Tel No: 392233
Reasons
1. In the absence of sufficient and compelling evidence to justify the complete demolition of
the building, and in the absence of any firm proposals for the redevelopment of the site
following its demolition, the application would lead to substantial harm to a designated
heritage asset and its setting that is not justified in the public interest. The application is
therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies BE 15 (Setting of a Listed Building) and
BE 17 (Demolition of a Listed Building) of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary
Development Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.
42
43
Application No: 14/01082/LBC Ward: Skircoat

Proposal:
Create new opening to rear for patio door (Listed Building Consent)
Location:
Clover Hill House Haworth Close Halifax Calderdale HX1 2NQ
Applicant:
Dr I Rangzeb
Recommendation: REFUSE LISTED BUILDING CONSENT
Highways Request:
Representations: No
Consultations:
The site is a natural stone built detached house, formerly a mortuary situated to the north and
within the former Halifax Royal Infirmary hospital site. The building is listed by curtilage.
The proposal is to create new opening to rear for patio door (Listed Building Consent).
The application is presented to Committee at the request of Councillor Tagg.
14/00421 - Create new opening to rear for patio door (Listed Building Consent)
04/02160 - 79 Residential Units into existing buildings (Lodge/ Joseph Whittaker Ward/Clover Hill
House/ Link/Central/ Edgcumbe) and 8 No residential units into new build (Princess) - permit
04/02161 - The alteration to existing buildings (Lodge/ Joseph Whittaker Ward/ Clover Hill House/
Link/ Central/ Edgcumbe) to form 79 residential units (Listed Building Consent) - granted
44
Key Policy Context:
Replacement Calderdale New Housing Site, Conservation Area

Unitary Development Plan
Designation
National Planning Policy Conserving and enhancing the historic
Framework (NPPF) environment
Paragraphs 131, 132, 134, 136
Requiring good design
Paragraphs 60, 61, 63 and 64
Replacement Calderdale BE1 – General Design Criteria
Unitary Development Plan BE14 - Alteration & Extension of Listed Buildings
Policies
Consultations
Conservation Team
Building Control
The application has been advertised by means of a site notice and no letters of objection, support
and/or representations have been received.
Ward Councillor comments:
‘When this property was in its former use there was a large door at this point of the house it is
clearly visible from the stonework that closed off the door. The proposed door would be beneficial
to the applicant as a secondary exit in case of emergencies such as fire.’
MP comments:
 None received
 Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay;
and
permission unless:
example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats
45
the NPPF. The closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight
they may be given.
Principle
The Council's Preferred Options for its Core Strategy were published in October 2012. This
Conservation Issues
Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 indicate
that in considering whether to grant listed building consent for works, special regard must be given
to the desirability of preserving the building and its setting or any features of special
architectural/historic interest.
The property is a Grade 2 Listed Building and therefore of relevance to the NPPF and policy
RCUDP BE14.
NPPF Paragraphs:-
131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:
 the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting
them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
 the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable
communities including their economic vitality; and
 the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and
distinctiveness.
132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated
heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the
asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or
destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are
irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm
to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or
loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments,
protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks
and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.
134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a
designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the
proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
136. Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset
without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has
occurred.
61. Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important
factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations.
46
Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and
places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.
Policy BE14 states that any alteration or extension of a Listed Building will only be permitted where
it does not have an adverse effect on the architectural and historic character or appearance of the
building or its setting, and it respects the individual details of the building which contribute to the
character of the listed building.
Policy BE1 states that development should contribute positively to the quality of the local
environment or at very least, maintain that quality. Where feasible, development should:-
respect the established character of existing buildings in terms of layout, scale height, density,
form massing, siting, design materials, boundary treatment and landscaping; retain features/views
that contribute to the amenity of the area, retain a sense of local identity, should not intrude on key
views/vistas, should not significantly affect privacy, daylighting & amenity of residents should
incorporate trees/landscaping, should be energy efficient & consider security/crime prevention
needs.
In terms of materials for the triple light opening framework would be aluminium with stone head,
jambs and cill. The finish has not been stated but this could be conditioned. Once conditioned the
materials appear to be appropriate and acceptable.
However in terms of scale, design and siting the 2004 plans showed there were two flat roofed
extensions constructed to the rear and two to the side that were demolished as part of the
alterations approved. The existing floor plans showed an opening between an internal room and
one of the rear extensions. However this was an ‘internal’ opening and not an ‘external’ one and
therefore not forming part of the external visual character of the building. Also this internal opening
may have been formed historically and not forming part of the original building.
The Heritage Statement states that the property has plenty of character and this is undisputed.
The Statement also states that the intention is to create a direct access to the garden. This could
be accomplished by inserting a standard single timber door opening which would help to retain this
‘plentiful character’.
The Conservation Officer has stated:-
‘This building is considered to be a curtilage building to the former Infirmary buildings, listed grade
2.
The proposal is to install a new opening to the rear elevation. The proposed opening would be a
large aluminium-framed triple glazed door 2.5 metre wide, taking up most of the rear elevation on
this wing of the building. It is considered that this new opening represents a detrimental alteration
to this simple, symmetrical façade, which retains architectural interest particularly with regard to
the pointed arched windows at higher level.
Evidence suggests that there was a large opening here previously, when an extension existed to
this rear part of the building. However it is unlikely this was original given the design and
symmetry of the building, but instead was an inappropriate alteration carried out subsequently
along with the large flat-roofed extension.
It is accepted that as this property is now a dwelling a rear access is a reasonable requirement,
however in order to minimise harm to the character of this curtilage building any new opening
should be smaller and more discrete than that proposed (just a single door width rather than triple
width and preferably timber framed). Such an alteration would be more likely to be considered to
be acceptable.’
47
The proposal would not be of a good design and fail to respect and conserve the established
historic character of the grade II Listed Building.
In this respect the proposal fails to comply with policies BE1 and BE14.
Building Control Officers have confirmed that a further means of escape in case of fire is not
necessary.
CONCLUSION
The proposal is not considered to be acceptable. The recommendation to refuse planning

permission has been made because the development is not in accordance with the National
Planning Policy Framework and Policy BE14 (Alteration & Extension of Listed Buildings) in
the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan, nor have there been any material
considerations to indicate that an exception should be made in this case.
Geoff Willerton
Date: 27.10.2014
Further Information
instance:-
S Emery (Case Officer) on Tel No: 392213 or Lisa Deacon (Senior Officer) on Tel No: 392213
Reasons
1. The proposed development would, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, fail to
enhance or preserve the character and appearance of the Grade II Listed Building and, as
such, would be contrary to policy BE14 (Alteration & Extension of Listed Buildings) of the
Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and section 12 (Conserving and
enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework.
48
49
Application No: 14/10036/ADV Ward: Town

Proposal:
One wall mounted LED screen (Advertisement Consent)
Location:
12 - 16 Market Street Halifax Calderdale HX1 1PB
Applicant:
Elysium Marketing Solutions Ltd
Recommendation: REFUSE CONSENT
Highways Request:
Representations: No
Consultations:
Highways Section
Paul Mcrae
The site is a predominantly concrete block built building situated at the corner of a block natural
stone built buildings one of which is the important grade II star listed Halifax Market and Arcade.
Closely sited to the north is a another grade II star listed Tudor style building No.1 Woolshops, with
the grade II characteristic listed buildings Pallatine Chambers. The site is also situated centrally
within the Halifax Town Conservation Area.
The proposal is to seek advertisement consent to site one wall mounted LED screen to the angled
cut corner of the building above the shop entrance.
The application is presented to Committee at the request of Councillor T Swift.
13/10057 - Three internally illuminated fascia signs and two externally illuminated projecting signs
(Revised Scheme to 13/10031) (Advertisement Consent) – granted
50
13/10031 - Three internally illuminated fascia signs and two internally illuminated projecting signs
(Advertisement Consent) – refused on that the grounds of colours, design and materials of the
signs , as well as the proposed levels of illumination, would have formed a most discordant and
intrusive feature on the building and the streetscene as a whole.
Key Policy Context:
Replacement Calderdale Town Centre, Conservation Area, Primary Shopping

Unitary Development Plan Frontage, Halifax Residential Amenity Zone
Designation
National Planning Policy Requiring good design
Framework (NPPF) Paragraph 67
Replacement Calderdale EP5 – Control of external lighting
Unitary Development Plan
Policies
Consultations
Highway Network Manager (Highways)

Head of Housing & Environment - Environmental Protection Section (Env. Health)
Business Section
Conservation Team
Marketing (Communities)
Regional Strategy & Policy (Economy and Environment)
Digital Innovation Programme Manager (Chief Executive)
The application has been advertised by means of a site notice and no letters of objection, support
and/or representations have been received.
Ward Councillor comments:
Councillor Swift has stated that ‘the planning application statement makes a good case for why this
application should be approved. It seems to me that this is an application where there is a decision
to be made between the economic benefits provided by allowing the screen versus the potential
impact on the conservation area and listed buildings in the vicinity.
In addition, the potential for further risk to the character of the neighbourhood can be minimised by
considering an initial time limited approval say for three years to allow the benefits and impact to
be evaluated, whilst the use of the ‘cumulative impact’ assessment allowed for in the NPPF would
enable the Council to avoid further unwanted advertisements being approved.’
MP comments:
 None received
51
 Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay;
and
permission unless:
example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats
the NPPF. The closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight
they may be given.
The Council's Preferred Options for its Core Strategy were published in October 2012. This
Principle
Paragraph 67 of the NPPF states that: Poorly placed advertisements can have a negative impact
on the appearance of the built and natural environment. Control over outdoor advertisements
should be efficient, effective and simple in concept and operation. Only those advertisements
which will clearly have an appreciable impact on a building or on their surroundings should be
subject to the local planning authority’s detailed assessment. Advertisements should be subject to
control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts.
In terms of public safety the Highway Network Manager (Highways) has stated ‘No objections in
principle located within the town centre where this would be no worse than other town centre
activities also the traffic flows would be behind the sign and not towards.’
In terms of amenity, in particular visual amenity, the Planning Statement submitted by the applicant
states that ‘the multimedia screen, whilst being unusual and novel in the type of information it will
display, is not large or conspicuous enough to have an appreciable impact on either the building or
the surrounding area to raise concerns about visual amenity or harm to heritage assets.’ However
in the public safety section it states that ‘the screen is easily visible from large parts of the wide
pedestrian zone.’
52
Notwithstanding these comments, in terms of materials the LED would installed in a galvanised
steel cabinet and look similar to flat screen tv. In terms of scale and siting however the LED screen
would be at an elevated upper floor level above the main entrance, measure nearly 4m in height
and 2m wide. It’s proposed siting at this location would result in it being visually prominent from
Market Street, Russell Street, the Woolshops and from Northgate House and Library to the north
of the site, and therefore it would be conspicuous and have an appreciable impact on its
surroundings.
The first advertisement consent application in 2013 for proposed signage for Heron Foods (the
company currently occupying the building) was refused on the grounds of colours, design and
materials of the signs , as well as the proposed levels of illumination, would have formed a most
discordant and intrusive feature on the building and the streetscene as a whole. Council officers,
including the Conservation officer, worked closely with the applicant and agent to address the
issues which resulted in much better design, colours illumination and consequently a much
reduced impact on a building sited close to important listed buildings.
The proposed LED would undo that reduced impact achievement. This is because the LED would
resemble in scale a hoarding but with a large visually moving pictures which in itself would be
much more visually conspicuous and prominent than the existing static signs. There would be a
much greater level of illumination also than the existing signs particularly at night.
Conservation
In terms of the impact of the LED on the closely sited grade II star and grade II listed buildings the
Conservation Officer has stated:-
‘The site is located within the Halifax Town Centre Conservation Area. It is also close to a number
of listed buildings including the grade 2* Borough Market (the associated arcade to the market
being adjacent to this site) and the grade 2* number 1 Woolshops (Coffee Cali). Much of the block
immediately to the north-west of the site is also listed grade 2. It is therefore a highly sensitive site
from a conservation point of view.
Although the building on which the LED screen is proposed to be located might be considered to
be one of the least attractive in the vicinity, it forms part of the wider town centre scene sitting as it
does amongst some of the finest buildings in Halifax.
The proposed display screen would be large and at a higher level than many advertisements (1st
floor), and due to the nature of the images to be displayed (moving images, bright colours etc),
would be a very prominent feature. Whilst it is appreciated that the facility may provide benefits for
local businesses and events, the proposed screen would in effect be a large advertisement with
moving images. Given the efforts which have taken place in recent years to try to ensure a level of
quality in advertisements in this and other conservation areas, there is concern that this proposal
would detract from these efforts made and could also set something of a precedent for this kind of
advert on other properties in the future.
Some discussions have taken place and alternative locations considered - it is difficult as Halifax
Town Centre is so rich in listed buildings that almost any location would be likely to impact on
nearby listed buildings. However the proposed advertisement in this proposed location is
considered to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Halifax Town Centre
Conservation Area and to the settings of nearby listed buildings.’
53
Control of External Lighting
RCUDP policy EP5 states that in urban areas, development involving the provision of external
lighting will only be permitted where the lighting scheme is designed to limit the lighting levels of
those required for the specific working purpose of the scheme. As well as this, the design needs
to minimise glare and spillage of the light from the site, especially into the night sky, residential
areas and onto the highway.
The Head of Housing & Environment - Environmental Protection Section (Environmental Health)
has stated ‘Opposite the proposed development on Russell Street are apartments at first and
second floor. I have concerns that light trespass maybe detrimental the internal amenity of these
properties. However, given the angle of the building where the sign is to be mounted, the light
should not propagate directly into these properties.’ A condition is however suggested for the
intensity of the illumination of the sign.
Consultation Responses
Business Section
‘Fully support this application, this proposal will add something different to the street scene of Halifax
which should add to the town centre offer and help the local economy by its uniqueness to the town. It
will also offer a service for local businesses to advertise to a wider audience again helping the local
economy. The site is currently a blank space which does nothing for the current street scene on market
Street so is a good idea.’
Marketing (Communities)
Regional Strategy & Policy (Economy and Environment) has stated:-
‘Calderdale has a digital change programme. We would like to have digital symbols that demonstrate
we are progressive. The LED screens in the right place are a good example of moving forward in terms
of digital technologies as well as supporting creative enterprise.’
Digital Innovation Programme Manager (Chief Executive) – no comments received at the time the
report was written.
The comments of Councillor Swift have been taken into consideration and it is considered that the
significant visual impact of the LED screen on the surrounding important listed buildings and within
the Halifax Town Conservation Area clearly outweighs any suggested benefits the Marketing
Company has stated in its Planning Statement.
Other Considerations
The Planning Statement states that the LED is display a mix of standard advertising and public
information (local adverts, public messages). However the content of the advertisements cannot
be controlled by conditions.
Although the LED should be assessed on its own merits there is a danger that the LED would set a
precedent for more LED screens which would further impact on the Halifax Town Conservation
Area as a whole.
54
CONCLUSION
The proposal is not considered to be acceptable. The recommendation to refuse planning

permission has been made because the development is not in accordance with the National
Planning Policy Framework and Policy EP5 (Control of external lighting) in the Replacement
Calderdale Unitary Development Plan, nor have there been any material considerations to
indicate that an exception should be made in this case.
Geoff Willerton
Date: 27.10.2014
Further Information
instance:-
S Emery (Case Officer) on Tel No: 392213 or Lisa Deacon (Senior Officer) on Tel No: 392233
Reasons
1. The proposed LED sign by reason of its scale, siting, nature and level of illumination would
form a most discordant and intrusive feature on the building and the streetscene as a whole.
It would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character and visual appearance of the
Halifax Town Conservation Area in which the site is located, as well as and would harm
setting of the closely sited grade II star and grade II listed buildings. For these reasons the
proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 67 of section 7 (Requiring good design) of the
The National Planning Policy Framework and EP5 (Control of external lighting) of the
Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.
55

Planning Committe 1 - 18.11.14

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planning Committe 1 - 18.11.14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6

CALDERDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

WARDS AFFECTED: MORE THAN THREE

Date of meeting: 18 November 2014

Chief Officer: Head of Planning and Highways.

APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION RE PLANNING PERMISSION, LISTED BUILDING

(i) Executive Summary

3.1 Planning Policy

These are set out separately in each individual application report.

3.3 Equal Opportunities

Reference: 6/00/00/CM Geoff Willerton

Geoff Willerton TELEPHONE :- 01422 392200

DOCUMENTS USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT:

1. Planning Application File (numbered as the application show in the report)

DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT:

Planning Services, Northgate House, Halifax HX1 1UN.

NON EXEMPT DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT:

Economy and Environment Directorate, Planning Services, Northgate House, Halifax

Telephone 01422 392237 to make arrangements for inspection.

Time App No. Location Proposal Ward Page No.

1500 14/00954/CON Hebble House Conversion of Calder

1500 14/00179/FUL Land South Of 4 Detached dwelling. Sowerby

1530 14/00976/LBD Hollins Mill Demolition of single Todmorden

1600 14/01082/LBC Clover Hill House Create new opening Skircoat

1600 14/10036/ADV 12 - 16 Market One wall mounted Town

+ Head of Planning & Highways recommends Refusal

Application No: 14/00954/CON Ward: Calder

Hebden Royd Town Council

Relevant Planning History

Key Policy Context:

RCUDP Designation Town Centre

Summary of points raised:

Reasons for objection

Reasons for Support

Parish/Town Council Comments

Ward Councillor Comments

Councillor Janet Battye has made the following comments:

National Planning Policy Framework

Loss of Community Facilities

Non Allocated Sites (Residential Use)

Conservation Issues, Layout, Design & Materials

Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) paragraph 56 of the NPPF states:

Paragraphs 60, 61, 65 and 66 are also relevant and go on to say:

Paragraph 123 states that:

“Planning policies and decisions should aim to:

The Highways Network Manager has made the following comments:

Access for All

Date: 4 November 2014

4. The fire escape shall be finished in black and so retained thereafter.

2. To ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure

Application No: 14/00179/FUL Ward: Sowerby Bridge

Flooding And Land Drainage

Description of Site and Proposal

Key Policy Context:

RCUDP Designation Primary Housing Area

National Planning Policy Framework Section 7- Requiring Good Design

 Obstruct views (the loss of a view is not a planning matter)

In relation to non-allocated housing sites RCUDP Policy H9 states:

Materials and Design

The proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policy BE1 of the Replacement

Date: 29th October 2014

Application No: 14/00976/LBD Ward: Todmorden

Recommendation: REFUSE LISTED BUILDING CONSENT