1

6 CALDERDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE WARDS AFFECTED: MORE THAN THREE Date of meeting: 4 September 2018 Chief Officer: Director of Regeneration and Strategy. 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 Director of Regeneration and Strategy 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 Director of Regeneration and Strategy.

3. IMPLICATIONS ARISING FROM REPORT 3.1 Planning Policy

These are set out separately in each individual application report.

2

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 Richard Seaman For and on behalf of Director of Regeneration and Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________

3

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS REPORT CONTACT: Richard Seaman TELEPHONE :- 01422 392241 Corporate Lead For Planning Services 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: www.calderdale.gov.uk. You can access the Councils website at the Councils Customer First offices and Council Libraries.

4

List of Applications at Committee 4 September 2018 Time App No. Location Proposal Ward Page No. & No.

14.00 18/20073/TPO Land Rear Of 6 Hebble Cottage Long Lane Wheatley Halifax Calderdale

Fell one tree (Tree Preservation Order)

Ovenden

5 - 10

14.00 18/00282/HSE 13 Prospect Court Halifax Calderdale HX2 0NR

Two storey extension to side (west) elevation and single storey to front (north) and side (east) elevations (revised scheme to 17/00471)

Warley

11 - 18

14.00 18/00026/HSE Hollin Top Cottage Clough Lane Midgley Sowerby Bridge Calderdale

Single storey extensions to front and rear elevations

Calder

19 - 27

14.30 17/00660/OUT Stansfield Mill Stansfield Mill Lane Triangle Sowerby Bridge Calderdale

Demolition of Mill Building and construction of 20 apartments in a single block, plus provision of parking area (Outline.)

Ryburn

28 - 43

5

Time Not Before: 14.00 - 01 Application No: 18/20073/TPO Ward: Ovenden

Area Team: North Team Proposal: Fell one tree (Tree Preservation Order) Location: Land Rear Of 6 Hebble Cottage Long Lane Wheatley Halifax Calderdale

Applicant: Ms Chriss Duffy Recommendation: GRANT CONSENT Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: No Departure from Development Plan: No Consultations: Description of Site and Proposal The site is situated to the north of Halifax Town Centre in an area consisting of residential properties, open fields, trees situated between dwellings as well as nearby woodlands. The application is to remove one Sycamore tree. The tree is situated to the south of the applicants dwelling on an area of land which slopes down to Hebble Brook. Although the tree is between the applicant’s property and Hebble Brook, the tree is actually in the ownership of 53 Hebble Vale Drive which is on the opposite side of Hebble Brook.

6

A number of trees are situated on either side of Hebble Brook and they form an attractive amenity feature that starts at the wooded hillside near the old viaduct to the west along Hebble Brook to Brackenbed Lane and wooded area to the east. The Sycamore tree which is the subject of the application can be seen from Long Lane as well as being glimpsed between the dwellings when viewed from Hebble Vale Drive. When requesting consent to undertake works to trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), the applicant must provide a justification for the works. In this instance the applicant has advised that the tree is to be removed as it is causing damage to and preventing the rebuilding of a stone retaining wall which is in urgent need of repair. When the justification for the proposed works involves structural damage, written technical evidence is required from an appropriate expert. The applicant has provided an Engineers report. The main observations are summarised as follows.

Main movement of the wall occurred at the location of the tree.

The tree appears to be moving and taking the bottom part of the wall, probably due to the rotation of the rootball.

The movement of the rootball is causing the ground drop and a slip circle is forming in the garden.

Recommend the tree is removed.

If the tree falls is will affect the property opposite.

Failure of the tree will result in total failure of the wall and loss of a significant portion of the garden.

Once the tree is removed further investigation to determine the ground conditions and requirements for rebuilding the wall.

A copy of the full report is available for inspection. The application is being presented to Members as an objection to the proposed removal has been received and therefore, under the Council’s Constitution, the decision needs to be made by Planning Committee if the recommendation is to support all or part of the application and it relates to the felling of trees. Relevant Planning History A previous application was considered to undertake pruning works to the trees to the rear of 6 Hebble Cottage in 2001 (01/20144/TPO). The application was approved. Key Policy Context:

RCUDP Designation

Wildlife Corridor Primary Housing Area

RCUDP Policies

NE20 Tree Preservation Orders

When considering the application this Council makes the recommendation in accordance with the Government Planning Practice Guidance which sets out the main issues in considering applications for work to trees included within a TPO.

7

Publicity/ Representations: The application has been advertised by means of a site notice and neighbour notification letters. One letter of objection has been received from the owner of the tree via their agent. They have provided an arboricultural report and a structural appraisal of the retaining wall. The objection is summarised as follows:

Object to the loss of the tree following the results of independent and professional arboricultural and structural engineer’s reports.

The two submitted reports are summarised as follows; Arboricultural report

The tree roots help to stabilise the banking.

No movement of the tree was visible.

The tree leans then self rights, which is not uncommon.

No significant defects visible.

Minor deadwood noted but does not indicate a decline in the health of the tree.

Adjacent retaining wall showed cracking and bulging and should be assessed by a structural engineer.

Structural report

The wall has a large outwards bulge and large cracks.

Likely candidate for the failure of the wall is overturning. (Failure through sliding is defined as the sum of the disturbing forces overturning movement forces exceeding the sum of the resting forces returning movement forces. Failure through overturning is characterised by largely unaffected lower ground levels, a wall which leans outwards, and the upper ground level drops and tension cracks are formed).

The wall is not suitable for purpose.

Possible, but unlikely, that the leaning of the tree has affected the wall.

Retaining wall is in a very poor state and requires demolition and re-building prior to its probable imminent collapse on neighbouring land.

Full details of the reports are available for inspection. Assessment of Proposal TPOs are a means of protecting specific trees, groups of trees and woodlands of amenity value so as to prohibit removal, pruning or damage occurring to them without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. It does not however mean that trees, which are the subject of an Order, should not have any works carried out to them if it is considered appropriate or not detrimental to the amenity of the area. When assessing the application this authority takes into account the current Planning Practice Guidance. Authorities are advised to:

To assess the amenity value of the trees and the likely impact of the works on the character and appearance of the area;

In light of their assessment above, to consider whether or not the works are justified, having regard to the reasons put forward in support of it;

8

Consider whether any loss or damage is likely to arise if consent is refused or granted subject to conditions;

Consider whether any requirements apply in regard to protected species;

Consider other material considerations, including development plan policies where relevant and;

Ensure that appropriate expertise informs its decision. It should be noted that trees do create an attractive amenity feature, however all trees are living things and require work at some time in order to keep them in good condition, irrespective of whether they are protected by a TPO or not. At some stage in a tree’s life works will be required, whether it is removing dead or dangerous limbs, or removing completely because it is in a dangerous condition or declining condition. Good arboricultural management of trees should be supported, as this will maintain the trees in a healthy and safe condition. The circumstances as to why the tree or trees were protected or the land use adjacent to the trees may have also change and therefore the removal of trees or pruning works may be considered more appropriate even though the trees are in a healthy condition. It should also be taken into account that the higher the amenity value of the trees, and the greater the impact of the application on the amenity of the area, the stronger the reasons needed before consent is granted. However, if the amenity value of the trees is low and the impact of the application in amenity terms is likely to be negligible, consent might be granted even if the authority believes there is no particular arboricultural need for the work. The Local Planning Authority may also refuse consent for some of the requested works, while granting consent for other parts, which are considered acceptable, subject to this being clearly identified on the decision notice. This allows for acceptable works to be undertaken without the need for a new application, and the applicant retains the right of appeal against that part of the application, which has been effectively refused. IMPACT The Sycamore tree is one of a number of trees which are situated in a large group of trees that are growing adjacent to Hebble Brook. Due to the area covered, the trees as a whole can be seen from a number of locations. The Sycamore to be removed forms part of a general tree canopy and can not be clearly identified when viewed from a distance. Therefore it is considered that the loss of the tree will have some impact, but due to the adjacent trees and the other trees within the area, the loss of the one tree will not have detrimental impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public. JUSTIFICATION The applicant wishes to the removal the Sycamore tree due to the fact that they wish to rebuild the stone retaining wall which is in a poor condition and could fail resulting in the loss a large part of the garden down the banking into the Hebble Brook. As commented above if the trees are of significant amenity and the loss or works will have a major impact on the area, then stronger reasons are needed before consent is granted. However, if the amenity value of the trees is low and the impact of the works in amenity terms is likely to be negligible, consent might be granted even if the authority believes there is no particular arboricultural need for the work.

9

Applicants must provide reasons for the proposed works, and they should demonstrate that the proposal is a proportionate solution to their concerns and meets the requirements of sound arboriculture. In this instance the removal of the tree in order to provide suitable foundations and rebuild the wall it is considered to be appropriate and therefore the loss is considered to be justified. (See inspection Expertise). LOSS OR DAMAGE Authorities should bear in mind that they are liable to pay compensation for the loss or damage as a result of refusing consent or granting consent subject to condition. However, if the authority believes that some loss or damage is foreseeable, it should not grant consent automatically. It should take this factor into account alongside other key considerations, such as the amenity of the trees and the justification for the proposed works, before reaching a final decision. PROTECTED SPECIES Although the site is within a bat alert area, the applicant does not have to provide a bat survey to validate the application. Therefore should the application be approved applicants will be advised by way of an informative of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and of their duty to take into account protected species such as bats and nesting birds and to seek appropriate advice before undertaking the works. POLICIES Notice is taken of current policies although the works to the trees are not considered to be development works and in view of the reasons and limited impact of the works they are considered to be good arboricultural practice. INSPECTION EXPERTISE The tree has been inspected by a suitably qualified person, and the wall has been inspected by two Council Building Control Officers. With reference to the overall condition of the tree, a general inspection has been undertaken by walking round the tree were possible. The inspection was from ground level and split into three areas. The rooting area was inspected looking for signs of wind rock of the root plate, visible surface roots, and signs of recent excavations adjacent to the tree root plate as well as any evidence of fruiting bodies. Secondly the stem was inspected to look for signs of disease or decay, splitting of the stem and stem junctions. Finally the crown was inspected to check for die back, damage to the crown or any other factors which may influence the condition and safety of the tree. Following the inspection the trees was found to be in a reasonable condition. The tree did have a leaning stem but had self-righted. No major defects were noted in the stem and although some deadwood was present in the crown this is not uncommon in trees of this age. Although the tree appears healthy it should be noted that all trees are living things and therefore subject to change. No tree can be absolutely safe in adverse weather conditions and the risk of failure can never be entirely discounted. Although the Sycamore tree has obviously withstood many years of storms and inclement weather to date, concern is raised due to potential excavation works in order to provide suitable foundations for the rebuilding of the wall, which could have a major impact on the stability and safety of the tree.

10

With reference to the Building Control Officers inspection both officers are in agreement that the wall is in a poor state of repair and requires attention in the near future. They also agree that the tree may have had some influence on the wall along with other factors. Comments however differ on whether the tree can be retained while the works to rebuild the wall take place. While one officer is of the opinion the tree can be retained, the other advises that during any works to rebuild the wall it is likely the tree would be affected and therefore it would be common-sense to remove the tree which would assist in rebuilding a suitable structure. CONCLUSION Both the Structural Engineers and the Councils own Building Control Officers agree that the wall is in a poor condition and requires repair before it collapses. There is however a disagreement on the actual cause of the damage to the wall and whether the tree has actually had any influence of not. It is considered however that the cause of the damage is not now the matter of concern, but how to resolve the issue so that a suitable retaining wall can be built. In order therefore to rebuild the wall it is considered that the most appropriate course of action to prevent would be to remove the tree before construction works take place, therefore eliminating the possible failure of the tree and damage to the adjacent properties below. The recommendation to grant consent to fell one tree has been made because the adjacent wall is in a poor condition and does require rebuilding by constructing new foundations and wall. Although there are good reasons to keep the tree, the removal will allow the safe dismantling and rebuilding of the wall. Due to the number of trees in the immediate area it is not proposed to require replacement planting. This recommendation is made in accordance with the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government current Planning Practice Guidance which sets out the main issues in considering applications for work to trees included in the TPO. Should Members support the recommendation it should be noted that approval does not supersede the rights of the tree owner and they would still need to give their consent before the applicant can undertake the works. Also the approval does not imply one way or the other what has caused the failure of the wall or who is responsible for any costs. These are private matters between the applicant and owner of the tree and each party should seek their own professional legal advice. Richard Seaman For and on behalf of Director of Regeneration and Strategy Date: 6 August 2018

Further Information Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:- Keith Grady (Case Officer) on Tel No: 01422 392218 or Lisa Deacon (Lead Officer) on Tel No: 01422 392233

11

Time Not Before: 14.00 - 02 Application No: 18/00282/HSE Ward: Warley

Area Team: North Team Proposal: Two storey extension to side (west) elevation and single storey to front (north) and side (east) elevations (revised scheme to 17/00471) Location: 13 Prospect Court Halifax Calderdale HX2 0NR

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Akram Recommendation: PERMIT Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: No Departure from Development Plan: No Consultations: Highways Section Description of Site and Proposal The site is a red brick built detached dwelling with detached double garage (site area approximately 325sq.m) situated within a cul-de-sac just off Vicar Park Drive within the Roils Head area of Halifax. The cul-de-sac consists of similarly designed detached and semi-detached dwellings.

12

Planning permission is sought for the construction of a two storey extension to the side (west) elevation and a single storey wrap round extension to the front (north) and side (east) elevations (revised scheme to refused application 17/00471). The application has been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Baker. Relevant Planning History An application for a single storey living room extension with shower room, conservatory to rear and detached garage was permitted under delegated powers 19 January 1990 (application number 89/03674/FUL). An application for a two storey extension to front and side was refused under delegated powers 19 July 2017 on the grounds of cumulative scale of development and obtrusive design of gable, as well inadequate provision within the site for the parking of vehicles (application number 17/00471/HSE). An appeal was lodged 15 November 2017 and refused 12 December 2017 on grounds that the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and to the Prospect Court street scene, but concluded that proposal would not cause material harm to the safety of highway users including pedestrians. Key Policy Context:

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan Designation

Primary Housing Area

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan policies

H2 Primary Housing Areas BE1 General Design Criteria BE2 Privacy, Daylighting & Amenity Space T18 Maximum Parking Spaces

National Planning Policy Framework 12 Achieving well-designed places

Other relevant planning constraints none

Publicity/ Representations: The application was publicised with neighbour notification letters. 16 letters of objection and 6 letters of support were received. Summary of points raised: Objections:

3m projecting extension to front corner would cause obstruction to traffic moving up and down Prospect Court

already a problem with parked cars on pavements and the extension would add to road safety for the elderly and children

front extension is out of character with the rest of the houses in Prospect Court and impact on open feel to character of properties within Norton Tower area

The proposed extensions will still extend exactly the same distance as the previously refused extensions and would harmful to character of the host dwelling

13

loss of light, overbearing and loss of view by two storey side extension to no.14 Prospect Court

the extensions would create more cars resulting in restricted access for emergency vehicles and add to existing over parking in cul-de-sac

current garage is not used for parking but storage only

extensions would leave very little outdoor space

overlooking to 7 Prospect Court and neighbours either side, restricting views and daylight

significant impact by construction vehicles over a period of time

revised plans do not sufficiently address the refusal reasons of previous application

canopy would be detrimental to visual aesthetics of the design and would not be subordinate in scale to the appearance of existing structure

site is prominent corner plot, elevated and on an inclined road

the openness of the site warrants preservation. Support

the extensions will enhance and maintain the characteristics of the property

the extensions have been reduced and the obtrusive gabled design removed

there is adequate space for parking within the site

extensions to accommodate their children. Ward Councillor Comments Councillor Baker requests that the application is referred to Planning Committee if the recommendation is to permit and makes the following comments:

“Having met with Mr Akram and neighbours we were hoping that a revised plan that came out 1M rather than 2m with canopy could be put forward. This would have the advantage of being agreeable to current objectors and saving Mr Akram in some of the build costs. The concerns that residents have raised with me with the revised plan is still that it comes out too far at the front elevation. This would then be contrary to policy BE1 of the replacement unitary development plan, as it would not fit with the rest of the houses on the cul de sac that all have more space around them. Particular concern here is the proximity of the proposed extension to the North East corner of the plot. Here there is a concern that it would obscure the view of traffic coming up and down Prospect Ct. So these are my two reasons for objecting, the highway consideration and the overbearing nature of the 2m extension with a canopy in addition to this, and the impact it has in relation to BE1 good design requirements. In terms of off-street parking there is a garage and space for off-street parking within the existing property, and with the proposed extension.”

Assessment of Proposal Principle of Development The National Planning Policy Framework was first published on 27 March 2012 and revised on 24 July 2018. 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

14

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. The closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight they may be given. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means: approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. In this case, the site does not lie within an area where the framework indicates that development should be restricted. The site is located on land designated as Primary Housing Area. RCUDP policy H2 states that:

Primary Housing Areas are defined in the main settlements of Calderdale as shown on the Proposals Map. Within these areas proposals for new housing on previously developed land will be permitted, along with changes of use to housing and the improvement and extension of existing housing provided no unacceptable environmental, amenity, traffic or other problems are created and the quality of the housing area is not harmed, and wherever possible, is enhanced. Proposals for new housing on vacant land not previously developed and for other uses in Primary Housing Areas will be assessed against the relevant UDP policies.

The principle of the proposed development would be acceptable. However further consideration of the proposal can be seen under the policies below. Residential Amenity Policy BE2 establishes that development should not significantly affect the privacy, daylighting or amenity space of existing and prospective residents and other occupants. Annex A sets out guidelines to help assess whether such impacts arise. RCUDP policy BE2 states 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 (Annex A sets out guidelines to help assess whether such impacts arise).

Overlooking The openings to the side (east) would remain unchanged;

15

To the front (north) elevation there is a proposed study, entrance door, bedroom window and dining room window at ground floor. The distance from the proposed windows to nos. 6 and 7 Prospect Court opposite the site would be 21m and would be acceptable against policy guidelines. To the west elevation there is a proposed utility window and bi-fold door at ground floor that would face directly onto the boundary wall and garage belonging to the applicant. There are also two 1st floor bedroom windows proposed, one of which would be closest to 10 Vicar Park Drive and this window would fall within the primary sector of their rear conservatory to the rear and at a higher ground level to it. However given this proposed bedroom window would be at an angle to the conservatory and partially obscured by the garages to both sites, and this neighbour has not objected to the proposal, the window would be marginally acceptable. To the rear there is a utility room window at ground floor that would face directly onto a brick wall only of no. 14. There is also a new bedroom window shown to the 1st floor of the existing property, however this could be carried out under permitted development. Light/overbearing The site is to the north of no.14 Prospect Court (one of the objectors), and the proposed two storey would be 5m away from their side elevation. Therefore no significant loss of light or overbearing would occur to this neighbour. The extensions would fail to cause loss of light or overbearing to neighbouring properties because of their siting and distances away from them. In this instance the proposal would comply with policy BE2. Layout, Design & Materials RCUDP policy BE1

Development proposals should 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. Where feasible development should:- i. respect or enhance the established character and appearance of existing buildings and the surroundings in terms of layout, scale, height, density, form, massing, siting, design, materials, boundary treatment and landscaping; ii. retain, enhance or create any natural and built features, landmarks or views that contribute to the amenity of the area; iii. be visually attractive and create or retain a sense of local identity; iv. not intrude on key views or vistas; v. not significantly affect the privacy, daylighting and amenity of residents and other occupants; vi. incorporate landscaping and existing trees that contribute significantly to the amenity and nature conservation value of the local environment as an integral part of the development site’s design and where appropriate incorporate locally native plants and create wildlife habitats; vii. be energy efficient in terms of building design and orientation; and viii. include consideration of the needs of security and crime prevention.

The existing property is a brick built detached dwelling sited at a corner plot within a cul-de-sac where there are 13 semi-detached properties, and therefore quite prominently located.

16

In terms of proposed materials the walling would be brick, the roof concrete tiles and the windows and doors white upvc to match the existing windows and doors. All these materials would be appropriate and acceptable against the existing property. In terms of scale, design and siting, the plans have been revised since the refused application (dismissed at appeal), as well as the original plans submitted for this application. The obtrusive gable, previously shown to the north elevation, has been removed and the previous 3.1m projecting front two storey extension has been reduced to project 2m with an overhanging canopy projecting a further 1m from this extension. The canopy then wraps around the side (east) elevation where there is already a 2m projecting extension. The site layout plan shows the extension and canopy would now be set slightly further back off the corner of the boundary by 1m, but more importantly the amount of extensions have been significantly removed and reduced from the front (north) elevation and would now appear of a much more complimentary design to the original property. The canopy would alter the appearance of the property, but the end result would be a much improvement on the scale and design of the proposals of the refused application. The proposed two storey side (west) extension would now project 4.5m which is 1.5m more than the 3m extension shown on the refused application. However extending out to the side would be more beneficial visually than extending out at two storey to the front. Following the demolition of the conservatory and dining room extension, this new side extension would be to the same ridge and eaves heights. Following the shifting of the footprint of the extensions more to the west elevation, the original property, along with the proposed extensions and wrap round canopy, would still occupy a considerable amount of the site at a prominent corner plot and would transform the existing property. However the reduction in scale of the extension to the front would result in more build to plot proportion and would leave more amenity space surrounding the extended property. The dominate appearance (that would have resulted if the previous application was approved), is now considered to be acceptable when viewed in relation to the semis in the cul-de-sac as a whole. In terms of design, the proposed windows and doors appear visually complementary to the existing features of the property. Consequently the scale, design, siting and materials of the extensions and canopy would be visually complimentary to original dwelling, and would not harm the visual appearance of the residential plot in the streetscene and surrounding area. The proposal would therefore comply with policy BE1. Highway Considerations RCUDP policy T18 states that:

New development should provide parking not in excess of the maximum allowances set out below. 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

17

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; Parking provision above these allowances will not be permitted.

For dwellings this amounts to 1 space per dwelling PLUS 1 space per dwelling where parking is available within the curtilage of the dwelling. The Assistant Director (Strategic Infrastructure) has been consulted on the application and has commented as follows:

Mindful of the most recent Planning Inspectorate judgement regarding a previous application at this location, I would offer no highway objections to this application as submitted. The existing parking is adequate for a development of this type.

The proposal would therefore comply with RCUDP policy T18. Other Issues raised The loss of view comment from the objectors is not a planning consideration. Concerns have been raised by one of the objectors relating to the impact of construction vehicles on highway safety. It is acknowledged that there is likely to be some disruption to local residents created by the development, however any disruption caused during the construction process will be of a temporary nature and does not constitute grounds for the refusal of this application. CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions specified. The recommendation to grant planning permission has been made because the development is in accordance with the policies and proposals in the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework set out in the ‘Key Policy Context’ section above and there are no material considerations to outweigh the presumption in favour of such development.

Richard Seaman For and on behalf of Director of Regeneration and Strategy Date: 17 August 2018

Further Information Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:- Steven Emery (Case Officer) on 01422 392213 or Richard Seaman (Lead Officer) on 01422 392241.

18

Conditions 1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the schedule of approved plans

listed above in this decision notice, unless variation of the plans is required by any other condition of this permission.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) (England) Order 2015 (and any order revoking and re-enacting the order) no further windows or other openings shall be formed in the side (west) and rear (south) elevations of the two storey extension without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons 1. For the avoidance of doubt as to what benefits from planning permission and to ensure

compliance with the Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework. 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.

19

Time Not Before: 14.00 - 03 Application No: 18/00026/HSE Ward: Calder

Area Team: North Team Proposal: Single storey extensions to front and rear elevations Location: Hollin Top Cottage Clough Lane Midgley Sowerby Bridge Calderdale HX2 6XB

Applicant: Mr Gillard Recommendation: PERMIT Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: No Departure from Development Plan: No Consultations: Countryside Services (E) Wadsworth Parish Council Description of Site and Proposal The application relates to a semi detached dwelling formerly a cottage with attached barn. It occupies a remote rural setting between Midgley and Luddenden. There is an attached property located to the north east. A public footpath is located to the south west of the site. The property is undergoing a programme of modernisation and the applicant seeks planning permission to replace two single storey extensions to both the front and rear with structures that are more suitable for domestic storage and family accommodation. Originally the submission included a raised patio area, but this has now been removed from the application.

20

The application has been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Dave Young. Relevant Planning History 04/02355/HSE - Proposed two-storey extension and conservatory approved by Planning Committee in 2005. 05/01466/HSE – New Porch, two-storey extension and conservatory to east elevation approved in September 2005. Key Policy Context:

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan Designation

Green Belt Special Landscape Area

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan policies (RCUDP)

GNE1 Containment of the Urban Area NE12 Special Landscape Area BE1 General Design Criteria BE2 Private Amenity

National Planning Policy Framework Sections

8.Promoting healthy and safe communities. 12. Achieving well designed places. 13. Protecting Green Belt Land. 15.Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

Other relevant planning Constraints None

Publicity/ Representations: The application was publicised by site notice and one neighbour notification letter. Six objections have been received, three of which are from the adjoining neighbour. Summary of points raised: Objections

Concerns were raised with regard to impact upon private amenity and visual impact upon the landscape of the large raised patio area that was submitted on the original drawing.

The raised patio area has been removed from the scheme to address concerns with regard to inappropriate size and design and possible privacy issues, in relation to the established character of the cottage and adjoining farm.

Potential overlooking from the proposed conservatory to the front into main aspect windows at Hollin Top Farm

The size and bulk of the extensions and cumulative development in terms of proportional increase against the original volume of the cottage.

21

Design of the proposed conservatory and rear porch extensions in relation to the established vernacular character of the former agricultural dwelling and adjoining former barn

Water supply issues and underground stream and drainage situation directly below where significant new concrete foundations would be built.

Ward councillor comments: Councillor Dave Young has requested that the proposal go before Planning Committee and submitted the following comments:

As a Calder Ward Councillor I wish to object to the above Planning Application a) Proposed extensions are too large compared to the original footprint b) Green Belt & Special Landscape Area c) Overlooking issues. I have read the comprehensive objections raised by a constituent on the Calderdale Portal and fully agree with their objections. If the Planning Officers recommend refusal then that is OK but if the Planning Officer recommend approval then please can this application be referred to the Planning Committee for a decision following a site visit.

Parish/Town Council Comments The development is located within the boundaries of Wadsworth Parish Council. The Parish Council made the following comments:

Wadsworth Parish Council believe the overwhelming dominance of the proposed development is out of keeping in terms of size/scale and materials with the existing property and the landscape within which it sits.it also threatens to compromise the privacy of the neighbours by having unshielded views over their property. Councillors request that Planning regard the views and opinions of the co-owners of this shared property and request that the application is rejected in full for the reasons given by the Parish Council and those outlined in the documents of objection.

These comments related to the original submission which included a large raise patio area on the rear. The revised drawing 17:11:7038:03 F, shows the proposed extension with the raised patio removed in an attempt to address the concerns of the objectors, however the following further comments were received from Wadsworth Parish Council:

Wadsworth Parish Council wish to confirm that the alterations to the plans haven't altered the Council's position

Assessment of Proposal Principle of Development The National Planning Policy Framework was first published on 27 March 2012 and revised on 24 July 2018. 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

22

weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. The closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight they may be given. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means: • approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or • where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: - i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; [for example…land designated as Green Belt…] or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. As the proposal is within the Green Belt, the NPPF indicates that development should be restricted and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. Given the Green Belt location, it is necessary to establish whether development is appropriate. The Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan (RCUDP) policy GNE1 states “The plan will seek to restrain development outside the urban areas through the general extent of the Green Belt”. However, RCUDP policy NE1, which was the specific Part Two Policy relating to development within the Green Belt, was not saved when the RCUDP was amended by Direction of the Secretary of State on 25 August 2009. Policy NE2 relating to Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings in the Green Belt is not a saved RCUDP policy. RCUDP policy NE3 (Extensions and Alterations to Other Buildings in the Green Belt) is not relevant as it relates to buildings other than dwellings. Paragraph 133 of the NPPF states:

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence..

Paragraph 134 of the NPPF establishes that the Green Belt serves five purposes are:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other

urban land Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states:

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states:

When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. “Very special circumstances” will

23

not exist unless the potential harm to Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Paragraph 145 of the NPPF establishes that new buildings are inappropriate development, with some exceptions including:

c) the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building

Assessment of paragraph 145 c) of the NPPF There is no definition of what constitutes a disproportionate addition, but an assessment of an extension can include measurements of footprint as well as volume. Doubling the size of an original building can be assessed as a disproportionate extension. However, the larger the original building, there is potential to have a substantial extension in size alone, compared to a smaller original building. A two storey extension and conservatory have already been constructed, with the benefit of planning permission which was granted in 2005. These extensions were considered to be appropriate additions at that time and were described as a 29% addition to the floorspace. However, a volume calculation of the proposed additions over the original building is approximately 70%. However, the proposed extensions are in themselves modest in scale and essentially replacing existing (albeit slightly smaller) structures, which have been in place for some considerable time. Furthermore, the proposed extensions are tucked into corners of the property and are single-storey in height. Overall, when looking at the specific circumstances of the property and making a visual assessment of the existing and proposed situation, it is therefore clear that the extensions will not in themselves result in disproportionate additions to the existing property and therefore the proposals are considered to be appropriate development. Furthermore, the rear extension would be set down from the footpath within the established rear garden area and screened by the existing mature hedging. The conservatory is 1m wider and the floorspace of the rear porch is around 10m² greater than the existing one. It is considered that the additional space (over that which already exists) would have very little additional impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. Any Other harm Residential Amenity RCUDP policy BE2 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. The only dwelling that would be affected by the replacement extensions is Hollin Top Farm, the adjoining former barn, now converted to a single dwelling. The proposed rear extension that would replace the existing timber porch structure is larger than the current arrangement (existing floor area is 1.65m x 2.2m and the replacement building is 3.3m x 4.28m). However, it is to the rear where adjacent windows are of secondary aspect. The adjoining dwelling has a kitchen within a former stone outbuilding. This wraps around the rear of the cottage and has a kitchen window in the side elevation that gives views directly onto the rear entrance of the site. The proposed extension would be constructed in close proximity to this window with a blank elevation and the distance is 0.9 m instead of 2 m for the existing arrangement. Guidance in Annex

24

A to policy BE2 of the RCUDP suggests the distance between secondary to side windows is 9 m. The existing arrangement is well below this. However, it is small subsidiary window (0.8 m wide) and there is an existing large window on the rear elevation serving the kitchen of the adjacent property. Given the blank elevation there is no overlooking. It is considered therefore that the extension will not have a significant effect on daylighting to the adjacent kitchen. It is worth noting that whilst the side elevation would be in close proximity to the neighbouring subsidiary kitchen window, the extension would project only marginally (0.3m) further from the rear elevation than what would be allowed under Permitted Development Rights (ie development not requiring an express planning permission). To the front, the proposed conservatory extension would replace a similar structure. When the existing conservatory was assessed on application 05/01466/HSE, it was considered that the side elevation did not need to be obscure glazed, as the opportunity for overlooking into the dining room windows adjoining the boundary was minimal given the difference in levels between the two dwellings. The drawings show a small section of solid wall where the conservatory is attached to the principal elevation. The proposed conservatory would come nearer to the joint boundary (pulled back from the original submission through negotiation) and the adjoining neighbour has expressed concerns with regard to the impact upon the main aspect windows adjacent to the site. It is considered that it would be appropriate to condition obscure glazing in the side elevation facing Hollin Top Farm to reduce any potential overbearing impact upon Hollin Top Farm when the conservatory is occupied. A condition requiring no further windows without the consent of the Local Planning Authority is also considered appropriate to protect privacy of the neighbouring property. Given the details above, subject to conditions, the proposed extensions are considered acceptable in terms of RCUDP policy BE2. Visual Amenity, Layout, Design and Materials Policy BE1 of the RCUDP 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 12 Achieving well-designed places of the NPPF establishes that:

The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. God design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.

There is currently a lean-to fully glazed conservatory (approved application 05/01466/HSE) to the side of the two-storey extension on the principal elevation. This structure is proposed to be replaced by a more modern extension on a slightly extended footprint. The original drawing showed a structure with a dual pitched roof, which although reflected the profile of the existing development, appeared bulky and jarred with the existing extensions to this traditional farm cottage. Negotiations resulted in the submission of drawing 17:11:7038:03 Revision F showing a change to the roofline including a single pitched roof and of a more simple and subservient design.This is now considered to be acceptable.

25

To the rear elevation there is a somewhat dilapidated timber storm porch which appears to be in a dangerous structural condition and is currently being supported by emergency internal steelwork. The proposed replacement extension to this elevation would be more generous in proportion, however it would accommodate a utility area and storage for tack and feed together with fuel pellets for the onsite biomass boiler. Concerns have been raised by the objectors in relation to design of the porch extension, particularly to the hipping of the roof structure away from the main building. However, it does include a pitched roof with glazed lantern on a small extension and it would allow the retention of the first floor window to the house bathroom. Matching materials are proposed to the existing property which include natural stone and natural stone slates. The design and layout are considered to be acceptable and the proposal is considered to meet policy BE1 and Section 12 of the NPPF. Special Landscape Area RCUDP policy NE12 discusses development within the Special Landscape Area and establishes that development which would adversely affect landscape quality will not be permitted. Special attention should be paid to conserving and enhancing the visual quality and minimising the environmental impact of development in the area through detailed consideration of siting, materials and design of new development. The NPPF supports this in Section 15 paragraph 170 where it states amongst other things that:

Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and

soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the

development plan)

Given the existing development within the site and the established residential use, acceptable design and use of matching natural materials, it is considered that the replacement extensions to the front and rear would not have a detrimental impact on the visual quality of the Special Landscape Area. Given the above the proposal is considered to satisfy RCUDP policies NE12 and Section 15 of the NPPF. Public Footpath issues Section 8 Promoting healthy and safe communities, paragraph 98 of the NPPF highlights that panning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users. A public footpath runs to the south west and west of the site. The proposed extensions are within the site and do not encroach onto the footpath. Although there are views of the extensions from the footpath, the proposals are not considered to have a detrimental impact on the footpath. The design and layout are acceptable such that views from the footpath of the proposal are acceptable. The proposal is considered to comply with paragraph 98 of the NPPF.

26

Other issued raised Concerns have been raised regarding water supply and underground drainage issues. This is an existing property and the proposed extensions are replacing existing ones and there are existing drainage systems in place. The foul and surface water drainage is a matter for Building Regulations. Furthermore, issues relating to private water supplies/drainage are private legal matters and not planning matters for consideration. CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions specified. The recommendation to grant planning permission has been made because the development is in accordance with the policies and proposals in the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework set out in the ‘Key Policy Context’ section above and there are no material considerations to outweigh the presumption in favour of such development.

Richard Seaman For and on behalf of Director of Regeneration and Strategy Date: 22 August 2018

Further Information Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:- Lisa Deacon (Lead Officer) on 01422 392233 or Sally Rose (Case Officer) on 01422 392277 Conditions 1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the schedule of approved plans

listed above in this decision notice, unless variation of the plans is required by any other condition of this permission.

2. 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.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) (England) Order 2015 (and any order revoking and re-enacting the order) no windows or other openings shall be formed in the side elevation of the rear extension facing Hollin Top Farm without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

4. The windows in the side elevation facing Hollin Top Farm of the conservatory hereby

permitted shall be glazed in obscure glass, which shall be to the standard minimum level 3

27

obscurity, and installed prior to the first occupation of the conservatory and shall be so retained thereafter.

Reasons 1. For the avoidance of doubt as to what benefits from planning permission and to ensure

compliance with the Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework. 2. To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure

compliance with policy BE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 3. 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. 4. In the interests of the privacy of neighbouring occupiers and to ensure compliance with

policy BE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

28

Time Not Before: 14.30 Application No: 17/00660/OUT Ward: Ryburn

Area Team: South Team Proposal: Demolition of Mill Building and construction of 20 apartments in a single block, plus provision of parking area (Outline.) Location: Stansfield Mill Stansfield Mill Lane Triangle Sowerby Bridge Calderdale HX6 3LZ

Applicant: Bradmill Joinery Recommendation: PERMIT (OUTLINE) Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: No Departure from Development Plan: Yes Consultations: Countryside Services (E) Highways Section Highways Section Highways Section Environmental Health Services - Pollution Section (E) Yorkshire Water Services Ltd Community Engagement Tree Officer Lead Local Flood Authority West Yorkshire Police ALO Countryside Services (E) Highways Section

29

Delegated report on application 17/00660/OUT Description of Site and Proposal The site is located to the north of Stansfield Mill Lane, within a semi-rural area of Triangle. It has a total site area of 0.26ha. It contains a single storey (from road level) workshop, which appears to have been part of the original Stansfield Mill complex, which in the most part has now been demolished or converted to residential. The building appears to have been constructed in three stages, with the roadside building constructed post-1855, the east facing extension constructed post 1912, and the west facing extension constructed post 1948. The current use is stated to be a joiner’s workshop. The lane slopes downwards to the east where it meets the River Ryburn and then climbs back up on the other side of the valley. The existing building appears to follow the topography, and has varied floor levels. To the west of the building there is an area of undeveloped land, which forms part of the application site. It is covered by vegetation, although there are some areas of bare earth near a gated access, and there are a number of mature trees that are covered by a group Tree Preservation Order (87/00270/C). Stansfield Mill Lane joins Rochdale Road, which is a classified A road, to the west of the site. At the junction there are stone boundary walls on either side, and the group of protected trees to the north. There is a single storey garage to the north of the site, which uses the same access from Stansfield Mill Lane and is outside the application boundary. It is registered as a business with the Valuation Office Agency, but there is no apparent planning permission and without any planning conditions there is no planning restriction on the hours of use or noise emissions. To the east of the site there is a group of residential properties, including a converted mill building. 1-2 Stansfield Mil Lane is within the application boundary, and they are adjoined by 3-4 Stansfield Mill Lane. Stansfield Grange (flats) and Orchard Cottage are to the south of the site. The proposal seeks to demolish the existing building and construct a single block apartment building containing 20 apartments. The parking for the apartments would be provided on the undeveloped land to the west. Outline permission is sought with access as a matter for consideration. Appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for future consideration. Parking would be provided on land to the west of the building. The following documents have been submitted with the application:

Bat Survey

Groundsure report (environmental data)

Planning Statement

Surface Water and Flood Risk Form

Ecological Appraisal The application is referred to the Planning Committee due to the significance of the proposal. It is deferred from the previous meeting (14th August) for administrative reasons.

30

Relevant Planning History

An application for change of use of existing warehouse to light industry was permitted on 29 April 1980 (application number 80/01242/COU).

Key Policy Context:

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan Designation

Green Belt Village Envelope Open Space Wildlife Corridor

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan policies

H9 Non-Allocated Sites H10 Density of Housing Developments H11 Mix of Housing Types H15 Lifetime Homes OS5 The Provision of Recreational Open Space in Residential Development GBE1 The Contribution Of Design To The Quality Of The Built Environment 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 GT4 Hierarchy of considerations T18 Maximum Parking Allowances T19 Bicycle Parking Guidance GCF1 Infrastructure and Other Needs Arising From Development GNE1 Containment of the Urban Area NE7 Development Within the Named Village Envelope in the Green Belt NE15 Development in Wildlife Corridors NE16 Protection of Protected Species NE17 Biodiversity Enhancement EP8 Other Incompatible Uses EP14 Protection of Groundwater EP20 Protection from Flood Risk EP22 Sustainable Drainage Systems

National Planning Policy Framework 4. Decision-making 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 9. Promoting sustainable transport 12. Achieving well-designed places 13. Protecting Green Belt land 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Other relevant planning constraints Bat Alert Area Contamination Site

31

Private Water Supply

Publicity/ Representations: The application was publicised with site and press notices because it is a major application. In addition thirty-two neighbour notification letters were sent. Fourteen letters of objection and one letter of representation were received. Summary of points raised: Objection

Impact on the character of the area – the form and scale is not in keeping with the character and previous development in Triangle (e.g. The Herons).

Stansfield Mil Lane is a single track road with few passing places, a significant gradient and limited footpath, and already poses a safety risk to pedestrians and drivers: the road cannot cope with an increase in traffic from the apartment block.

Traffic from The Herons, but little business-related traffic from the current premises: the generated traffic will not be offset by the loss of traffic from B2 use.

28 parking spaces are not realistic and there is no more space for parking in the surrounding area.

Poor visibility accessing Wakefield Road and junction not wide enough.

Increase in delivery vans and trucks.

Periodic traffic congestion from events at the cricket club, fishing lake, primary school and nursery.

Scale of the building: it will impact on both privacy and light for Herons Estate.

The rear is 4 stories with numerous windows and balconies on view.

Loss of privacy.

The drainage system overflows.

Substandard level of broadband for Triangle residents, will be exasperated by development.

Trees on east boundary and proximity to the development – concern trees will be removed.

The road has been rendered impassable by snow and ice.

Increase in air pollution.

Impact on local wildlife including by runoff into the river and displacement by demolition.

Surface of the car park will be ugly and not fit in with natural beauty of the area.

Underground water course below Stansfield Mill Lane, the proposed development, 3 and 5 Stansfield Mill Lane, and 3 The Herons into the River Ryburn.

Current issue of flooding due to rain water run off.

Sewage problem yet to be resolved and polluting the river following heavy rain.

Impact on spring water supply.

Reconstituted stone not in character.

Heavy plant vehicles during construction will cause distress to residents.

No elevators – Disability legislation.

Conflicting information about number of bedrooms.

How will construction vehicles gain access.

Impact of construction vehicles on underground pipes.

Access for emergency vehicles.

Lack of provision for refuse vehicles.

Light pollution from exterior lights at the car park.

Local electricity sub station is problematical – may become overloaded.

1 bed apartments doesn’t fit family/needs demand for the area.

32

The overall footprint is greater.

Lack of pedestrian pathway and traffic calming measures.

Notification of Committee meeting not given in sufficient time.

Report not available and was not possible to download documents.

Length of time taken – assumed the application had been determined. Representation

Main concern is traffic and the junction between Rochdale Road and Stansfield Mill Lane: difficult sight lines, speed of vehicles on Rochdale Road, cars parked opposite junction.

Suggest new entrance onto Rochdale Road, traffic lights or sufficiently widen Stansfield Mill Lane, and change speed limit in Triangle to 20mph.

Greenbelt therefore will need to consider whether appropriate development or if special circumstances apply.

Number of proposed developments off Stansfield Mill Lane refused for smaller volumes of traffic, therefore hope there are appropriate measures for volumes of traffic and the impact on the area.

Parish/Town Council Comments The development is not located within a parished area. Assessment of Proposal

Principle of Development The National Planning Policy Framework was first published on 27 March 2012 and revised on 24 July 2018. 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. The closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight they may be given. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means:

approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or

where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

- i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; [for example…land designated as Green Belt…] or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

RCUDP policy GNE1 states “The plan will seek to restrain development outside the urban areas through the general extent of the Green Belt”. However, RCUDP policy NE1, which was the specific Part Two Policy relating to development within the Green Belt, was not saved when the RCUDP was amended by Direction of the Secretary of State on 25 August 2009.

33

RCUDP policy NE7 is the relevant development plan policy for development in village envelopes, however it is considered to be out-of-date as it is too prescriptive and conflicts with paragraph 145 of the NPPF. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF establishes that the Green Belt serves five purposes are:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states:

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states:

When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. “Very special circumstances” will not exist unless the potential harm to Green belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Paragraph 145 of the NPPF establishes that new buildings are inappropriate development, with some exceptions including:

e) limited infilling in villages g) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would:

‒ not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or

‒ not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.

The site is within the designated Village Envelope around Triangle. However, the proposal is not considered to be infill given that it is not sited in between existing development, and does not fill a gap. However, the application site is also previously developed land as it contains an existing building (Stansfield Mill), and therefore the proposal is redevelopment of a previously developed site. Whilst the application is outline indicative plans have been submitted with the aim to establish that a development could be achieved without having a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The agent has also submitted a Planning Statement (PS) specifically addressing the issue of the impact of the proposed development upon the openness of the Green Belt. The reserved matters application would deal with appearance, layout and scale. The PS advises that the existing building has a significantly larger footprint than the proposed development: the existing building footprint is said to be 756sq.m, and the proposed footprint would be 491sq.m. The proposed total floor area is 1268m2, whereas the existing floor area is 700m2: industrial buildings typically have less floors but higher rooms to accommodate machinery etc whereas apartment buildings would have more floors, and as such the floor area is not

34

necessarily a good indication as to the size of a building. The proposed volume is also said to be slightly less, as shown in the table below;

Existing Building m3 Proposed Building m3

Industrial Unit 4160 Basement/lower ground floor 550.80

Offices, toilets etc 350 Ground / 1st floors 2651.40

Loading bay 30 2nd Floor 1180

Total 4540 4382

The current building is one to two stories and it follows the gradient of Stansfield Mill Lane. The indicative plans suggest that the development would be a single block over 3-4 floors, therefore concerns were raised about the height. An indicative streetscene (drawing number 10205/17/05) has been provided that shows the development in relation to the height of the existing building at 1-2 Stansfield Mill Lane, and also shows the outline of the existing mill. The indicative scale of the development would be higher than the existing mill, however it would not be comparatively greater in height than the adjacent dwellings. Paragraph 133 of the NPPF states “The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.”. Whilst the NPPF does not include a definition of openness, case law has established that “The concept of “openness” here means the state of being free from built development, the absence of buildings – as distinct from the absence of visual impact”. [R (Lee Valley Regional Park Authority) v Epping Forest DC [2016] EWCA Civ 404, Treacy, Underhill, Lindblom LJJ]. It also states that whilst visual impact is part of the concept of openness, openness is a spatial as well as a visual concept and lack of visual impact does not mean that there would be no harm to openness. The site is within the centre of Triangle, which is semi-rural and contains a number of buildings and areas of hardstanding areas which would have been used in association with the mill; the site itself already contains a building; and it is within a group of existing buildings that sit along Stansfield Mill Lane. Whilst the increase in height would result in a more prominent building it is considered that in the context of the neighbouring buildings and the adjacent area it would not appear to further urbanise the area. Furthermore, the parking, access and turning head appear to be within the curtilage of the existing mill, where activities such as parking, including the parking of commercial vehicles, storage of goods/containers etc may have taken place. There is an extensive area of mature trees to the west. It is considered that the communal parking and turning areas proposed for the apartment block in the semi rural environment would not be of “domestic appearance” such as the provision of individual garden areas, fences, sheds, etc. It would not therefore have a greater impact on openness than the previous use and activities in this area. As such it is considered that the indicative development would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would be constructed on the footprint of the existing building, it would re-use previously developed land, and it is not within a historic town: for these reasons it is considered that the development would not conflict with these purposes. It is considered that the proposal, which is the redevelopment of a previously developed site, would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt or its purposes and as such it is appropriate development. The development is therefore considered to be appropriate development in the Green Belt and acceptable in principle.

35

Housing Issues Paragraph 11, footnote 7 of the NPPF establishes that, for applications involving the provision of housing, the policies which are most important for determining the application should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, unless the policy protects areas or assets of particular importance and provides a clear reason for refusing the development, such as those relating to land designated as Green Belt. The Council does not have a 5-year housing land supply. The current position is that Calderdale has 2 year housing supply. Notwithstanding this, the National Planning Policy Guidance establishes that unmet housing need (including for traveller sites) is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the “very special circumstances” justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Green Belt. RCUDP policy H9 regarding housing on Non Allocated Sites is a principle consideration, however, in view of paragraph 11, it recognised that it is now out-of-date and non-compliant with the NPPF. Although this policy is not an irrelevant consideration, one can infer from paragraph 213 of the NPPF that the weight to be given to policies will be less where they are not consistent with the NPPF. It is also recognised that the policy is not consistent with the NPPF in respect of the reference to residential development only being acceptable on previously developed, brownfield sites. The NPPF encourages the re-use of brownfield land but does not preclude new residential development on undeveloped greenfield land. There is a bus stop within walking distance of the site, c.145 on Rochdale Road, with buses to Halifax running regularly. There is also a post office and local shop on Rochdale Road, across from Stansfield Mill Lane. It is considered that infrastructure can cater for this modest sized development; there are no constraints on development; the development is not within a Conservation Area or the setting of a Listed Building; there are no problems created by the development and it complies with the other relevant UDP policies as discussed further under the headings below; and it is previously developed land. As such, whilst little weight is given to policy H9, it is considered that the development would comply with it. Residential Amenity Policy BE2 establishes that development should not significantly affect the privacy, daylighting or amenity space of existing and prospective residents and other occupants. Annex A sets out guidelines to help assess whether such impacts arise. 1-2 Stansfield Mill Lane is east of the site and its west gable would face the proposed development. The Herons is southeast of the site, and it is at a lower ground level. The nearest house is over 21m from the proposed development, and it is considered that the privacy of residents would not be significantly harmed. Orchard Cottage is south of the site, and it would be c. 21m from the development. The cottage is screened from the development by planting, but in any case annex A recommends 21m between main aspects so there would not be detrimental impact on the privacy of residents.

36

There are no buildings to the west of the site; this land will form the car park. To the north there is a commercial garage, but no immediate dwellings. Section 12 of the NPPF (Achieving well-designed places) seeks to ensure better places are provided. It is considered that the development complies with this policy and policy BE2. RCUDP policy EP8 states;

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.

Paragraph 170 (e) of Section 15 of the NPPF establishes that planning decisions should prevent new and existing development from contributing to or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution. There is no planning history for the garage to the north but it would appear to be in commercial use. Aerial photographs suggest that the current building has been there since at least 2006, and possibly earlier, and as such it could become lawful through the passage of time, if an application for a Lawful Development Certificate was submitted. As there is no planning permission there are no planning controls over matters such as the hours of use, noise emissions or odours. The Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods was consulted on the application and they have not formally commented, however the Senior Environmental Health Officer has verbally advised that a noise survey is required to inform the extent of noise insulation required and that consideration should be given to the business and that it could be curtailed due to noise, odours from paint spraying etc. A noise survey has not been undertaken, however in order to mitigate the impact on the development a condition is proposed requiring that the development is constructed so that the indoor ambient noise levels for living rooms and bedrooms are in accordance with BS8233:2014. As the design of the development is a reserved matter it will allow for any necessary measures to be designed in to the building. If the building is designed to keep habitable room windows away from the garage this would assist in mitigating the impact from noise, and also from odours. It is considered that with appropriate measures, through conditions, the potential adverse impacts from noise and odour could be mitigated against and therefore the proposal complies with policy EP8 and paragraph 170 of the NPPF. Furthermore, it would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the provision of dwellings towards the Council’s supply of housing. Layout, Design & Materials RCUDP Policy BE1 calls for development to 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. This is also reflected in Section 12 of the NPPF. Appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are all reserved matters but indicative site plans, floor plans and elevations have been submitted. The indicative elevations suggest a maximum four storey building, which includes accommodation in a blue slate Mansard roof. The elevations are reconstituted stone, with a different stone around the lower ground floor and basement to create some articulation in the elevation. The windows are

37

regular in their layout. Bi-fold doors are proposed to the living rooms. It is considered that the design is not reflective of the existing character of the site, or the surrounding area, however this can be addressed with the submission of the reserved matters application for appearance, layout and scale. Highway Considerations RCUDP Policy BE5 seeks to ensure that new development provides for safe and efficient movement by pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists. Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) of the NPPF at paragraph 108 seeks to ensure safe and suitable access to sites. RCUDP Policy T18 sets out maximum parking allowances for new development, which for new residential developments with communal parking are 1.5 spaces per dwelling. However, the policy is considered to be out of date as it does not comply with paragraph 106 of the NPPF, which states “Maximum parking standards for residential and non-residential development should only be set where there is a clear and compelling justification that they are necessary for managing the local road network, or for optimising the density of development in city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport” The parking standards in the policy were taken from Regional Spatial Strategy policy T5, which no longer exists following the abolition of Government Offices. Amended plans have been submitted to address the comments of the Assistant Director – Strategic Infrastructure (ADSI), including amendments to the Stansfield Mill Lane junction with Rochdale Road. The ADSI now considers the drawings to be acceptable subject to conditions requiring the implementation of a white lining and signage scheme as shown on drawing 10205/17/08; laying out of the access prior to construction; provision of sightlines and parking prior to occupation; details of a contractor’s compound; a scheme for the prevention of mud onto the public highway; and details of existing and proposed ground levels. Subject to these conditions it is considered that the development complies with policy BE5. The ADSI advises that 34 spaces for 20 apartments, which is above the maximum, would be acceptable. The proposal is considered to comply with BE5 and T18 and Section 9 of the NPPF. Paragraph 110 (e) of the NPPF establishes that development should be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations. In accordance with this, a condition is proposed requiring the installation of a suitable facility to permit the recharge of an electrical battery powered vehicle that may be used in connection with that dwelling. Flooding and drainage RCUDP Policies EP14 and EP20 establish that ground and surface water will be protected and development will not be permitted if it would increase the risk of flooding due to surface water run-off or obstruction. Section 14 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) paragraph 163 of the NPPF seeks to ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere. For major developments the Secretary of State’s Written Ministerial Statement, dated 18 December 2014, establishes that sustainable drainage systems for the management of run-off should be put in place, unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. RCUDP Policy EP22 also establishes that sustainable drainage systems should be incorporated where appropriate.

38

Applicants will need to demonstrate that adequate foul and surface water drainage infrastructure is available to serve the proposed development and that ground and surface water is not adversely affected. The Lead Local Flood Authority has considered the proposal and recommends conditions requiring details of the foul and surface water drainage. Subject to this condition the proposal complies with Policies EP14, EP20 and EP22 and in compliance with the NPPF. Ground conditions RCUDP policy EP10 establishes that where there is minor contamination or a slight possibility of contamination planning permission will be condition to ensure that a site contamination survey is carried out and approved remediation measures are completed prior to the commencement of development. Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) paragraph 178 seeks to ensure the site is suitable for its proposed use taking into account ground conditions and any risk arising from land stability and contamination. Paragraph 179 of Section 15 of the NPPF establishes that where a site is affected by contamination, it is the developer and/or landowner’s responsibility for securing a safe development. A Phase 1 Report and Groundsure Report are submitted with the application. The Groundsure Report identifies a ‘sand pit’ as being potentially contaminative, although the Phase 1 Report states that the walk-over of the site “revealed no evidence of a ‘sand-pit’, and there was “no evidence of removal or deposition of material” on the land. The building is said to have been used as a joiners’ workshop and other industrial uses prior to this, and the walk-over revealed no potentially contaminative elements within the building, and there was no evidence of the storage of potentially contaminative chemicals or oils. The Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health) has been consulted however they have not formally responded. The applicant’s Phase 1 report asserts that there is no evidence of contamination and the Local Planning Authority has no evidence to dispute this. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policy EP10 and Section 15 of the NPPF. Wildlife Conservation The proposal is in a Wildlife Corridor. It is considered that the redevelopment of a previously developed site will not damage the continuity, function or nature conservation value of the Corridor and it is in accordance with RCUDP policy NE15. RCUDP policy NE16 establishes that development will not be permitted where it would harm protected species or their habitat. RCUDP policy NE17 establishes that where appropriate development will be required to enhance biodiversity. Section 15 paragraph 175 of the NPPF seeks to avoid significant harm to habitats and biodiversity. The site is within a bat alert area, and as the proposal involves demolition of a building a bat survey has been submitted. An Ecological Appraisal for Bats has been submitted, which concludes that it is not anticipated that bats are roosting in the buildings. The Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods considers the assessment to be satisfactory, but recommends enhancement by means of two permanent bat roosting features (to be conditioned).

39

A pipistrelle roost was identified at 2 Stansfield Mill Lane and therefore it is recommended that any exterior lighting on the development is kept to a minimum, as such a condition is proposed requiring the submission of details of external lighting. Subject to these conditions it is considered that the development complies with policies NE16 and NE17 and Section 15 of the NPPF. Trees and Landscaping The land on the north side of the site, which is to form the car park, contains trees that are covered by a Tree Preservation Order (87/00270/C). RCUDP policy NE20 establishes that development will not be permitted where it would result in the removal or damage of protected trees unless it is in the interests of good arboricultural practice or the benefits of the development outweigh the harm. The Council’s tree officer has considered the proposal and states:

“Although the submitted details say that protected trees are to be retained, pruning works will be required as currently the crowns will prevent the proposed parking of vehicles. I would not however object to the lifting of the crowns to a maximum of three metres to allow suitable clearance. The details concerning the surface for parking appear acceptable. To prevent the storage of materials close to the trees while building takes place I would suggest suitable protective fencing is put in place until the works to the car parking take place.”

Subject to a condition requiring protective fencing it is considered that the development complies with policy NE20. Public Health Paragraph 92 of Section 8 of the NPPF states:

To provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should: …

b) take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well-being for all sections of the community;

Paragraph 170 of Section 15 of the NPPF states:

Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air

The Planning Practice Guidance establishes that when deciding whether air quality is relevant to a planning application considerations could include whether development would significantly affect traffic including generating or increasing traffic congestions, significantly changing traffic volumes etc. It is considered that the proposed development is well served by existing highway

40

infrastructure and the proposed number of dwellings would not result in a significant impact on air quality from the resulting vehicle movements. Notwithstanding this, the Air Quality & Emissions Technical Planning Guidance suggests that most developments, however large or small, can “contribute to overall air quality and provides for a proportionate level of mitigation to be put in place to achieve sustainable development”. In this case, facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra low emission vehicles will be conditioned in accordance with paragraph 110 of the NPPF and it is considered that this would provide appropriate mitigation. The proposal also meets paragraph 92 and 170 of the NPPF. Infrastructure and other needs RCUDP policy GCF1 establishes that all infrastructure and other needs, including education and open space, which arise from development should be provided by the developer either on or off site. Section 4 (Decision-making) of the NPPF paragraph 57 highlights where up to date policies have set out the contributions expected from development planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable. Policy OS5 requires all new residential developments to provide for the recreational needs of their residents in accordance with standards set by the Council. As of 6 April 2015, the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations restrict the use of pooled tariff style contributions achieved through section 106 agreements; no more may be collected in respect of a specific infrastructure project or a type of infrastructure through a section 106 agreement if it is a type of infrastructure that is capable of being funded by the levy. As such, it is not possible for the Council to request pooled developer contributions towards education or open space in this instance. In the future, such infrastructure would be partly funded through the Community Infrastructure Levy, once a charging schedule has been adopted. In the absence of a 5 year housing land supply, the application should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. It is considered that the benefits of providing additional housing, particularly when the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, outweighs the harm from the lack of provision towards education and recreational needs. CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions. The recommendation to grant planning permission has been made because the development is in accordance with the policies and proposals in the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework set out in the ‘Key Policy Context’ section above and there are no material considerations to outweigh the presumption in favour of such development. Richard Seaman For and on behalf of Director of Regeneration and Strategy Date: 1 August 2018

41

Further Information Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:- Claire Dunn (Case Officer) on 01422 392155 or Anne Markwell (Senior Officer on 01422 392257. Conditions 1. The development shall not begin until full details of the following matters as defined in the

Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority :

(a) appearance; (b) landscaping; (c) layout; and (d) scale The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details so approved and

so retained thereafter. 2. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the disposal of surface water

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The aforementioned scheme shall make provision for the disposal of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance, unless it is first demonstrated through an assessment (submitted as part of the aforementioned scheme) that a sustainable drainage system is inappropriate under the guidance at paragraphs 82 to 85 of the National Planning Practice Guidance.

Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall include: i. Details of the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control

the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;

ii. A timetable for its implementation; and iii. A management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall

include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

The approved scheme (including all physical measures and the management and

maintenance measures) shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and shall be so retained thereafter in a functioning and effective state.

3. The development shall not begin until full details of the foul drainage for the development

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. The building construction works shall not begin until the new vehicular access has been laid

out and constructed to base course. The access shall be completed in accordance with the permitted plans before any part of the development is brought into use and shall be so retained thereafter.

42

5. No dwelling shall be occupied until sightlines of 2.4 x 33m have been provided in both

directions at the centre point of the access road at its junction with Stansfield Mill Lane and these sightlines shall be kept free of any obstruction to visibility exceeding 0.9m in height thereafter.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 4, Class A of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country

Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, before construction works commence, details shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority in respect of the provision of a contractors compound and staff car parking area within the site. Such details shall include the provision of protective fencing to the boundaries of the construction site. The details so approved shall thereafter be implemented in advance of construction works commencing and shall be retained for the duration of construction works unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7. Prior to commencement of works at the site, a scheme for the prevention of mud or other

material being deposited onto the public highway, including full details of any equipment on the site used to clean the hardstanding areas, access, wheels and chassis of vehicles, equipment location and means of drainage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The permitted scheme shall be implemented on commencement of works. The scheme shall be updated where the local planning authority consider mud on the road to be a recurrent problem by the operator or their agents in liaison with and to the written approval of the local planning authority. The updated scheme shall be implemented within a timescale to be agreed. In the event of mud or other material being deposited onto the public highway, immediate remedial and preventative action shall be taken, including suspension of operations if necessary.

8. The development shall not begin until plans of the site showing details of the existing and

proposed ground levels, proposed floor levels, levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas and the height and finish of any retaining walls within the development site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in complete accordance with the details so approved and shall be so retained thereafter.

9. The development shall not be occupied until the white lining and signing scheme at the

junction of Stansfield Mill Lane and Rochdale Road shown indicatively on drawing 10205/17/08 has been implemented, and shall be so retained thereafter.

10. Prior to the substantial completion of the development details of two bat roosting features to

be installed within the fabric of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any dwelling and shall be so retained thereafter.

11. Prior to the installation of external artificial lighting details shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and so retained thereafter.

12. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling the site layout, internal design and building specification of the development shall be such that the Indoor Ambient Noise Level within living rooms and bedrooms with the windows closed, assessed in accordance with BS8233:2014, does not exceed;

o 35dB LAeq in living rooms and bedrooms from 07:00 to 23:00,

43

o 30dB LAeq from 2300 hours and 0700 hours in bedrooms, and o 55dB LAeq on balconies and in gardens at any time. and shall be retained thereafter.

13. In connection with any vehicle hardstanding prior to the first occupation of any of the apartments, there shall be installed a facility to permit the recharge of electrical battery-powered vehicles. Unless otherwise required by the location the installation(s) shall comply with IEE regulations, IEC 61851-1 Edition 2, and BSEN 62196-1. The facility shall be so retained thereafter.

Reasons 1. The application is in outline only, and details of the matters referred to have been reserved

for subsequent approval and to ensure compliance with the policies of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

2. To ensure proper drainage of the site and to ensure compliance with policies EP14, EP20

and EP22 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 3. To ensure proper drainage of the site and to ensure compliance with policies EP14, EP20

and EP22 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 4. To ensure that suitable access is available for the development and to ensure compliance

with policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 5. To ensure adequate visibility in the interests of highway safety and to ensure compliance

with policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 6. To ensure that adequate off-street parking is available during the construction period and in

the interests of visual amenity. 7. In the interests of highway safety. 8. To ensure that the works are carried out at suitable levels in relation to adjoining properties

and highways in the interests of visual amenity and highway safety,and to ensure compliance with policies BE1 and BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

9. In the interests of highway safety and to ensure compliance with policy BE5 of the

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 10. In the interests of protected species and biodiversity enhancement and to ensure

compliance with policy NE17 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 11. In the interests of protected species and their habitat and to ensure compliance with policy

NE16 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 12. In the interests of the aural amenity of the occupiers of the apartments. 13. In order to promote sustainable transport and low carbon emissions and to ensure

compliance with paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework.