Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence, or details of substitutions to Committee membership.

Apologies were received from Councillor Bill Armer.

To approve the Minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 24 March 2022 and 25 May 2022.

Approved.

The minutes of the meetings held on 24^th March and 25^th May 2022 were agreed as a correct record.

Committee Members will advise (i) if there are any items on the Agenda upon which they have been lobbied and/or (ii) if there are any items on the Agenda in which they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, which would prevent them from participating in any discussion or vote on an item, or any other interests.

Councillor Davies advised that he had been lobbied in relation to Application 2021/92003.

Most agenda items will be considered in public session, however, it shall be advised whether the Committee will consider any matters in private, by virtue of the reports containing information which falls within a category of exempt information as contained at Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

All items on the agenda were considered in public session.

To receive any public questions.

In accordance with:

-       Council Procedure Rule 11 (3), questions regarding the merits of applications (or other matters) currently before the Council for determination of which the Council is under a duty to act quasi judicially shall not be answered.

-       Council Procedure Rule 11 (5), the period for the asking and answering of public questions shall not exceed 15 minutes.

No questions were asked.

The Committee will receive any petitions and hear any deputations from members of the public. A deputation is where up to five people can attend the meeting and make a presentation on some particular issue of concern. A member of the public can also hand in a petition at the meeting but that petition should relate to something on which the body has powers and responsibilities.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10 (2), Members of the Public should provide at least 24 hours’ notice of presenting a deputation.  

No deputations or petitions were received.

Reserved matters application pursuant to outline permission 2021/91544  for erection of health and research innovation campus comprising: Class F1(a)-education; Class E(e)-medical/health services; Class E(g)(i)-offices; Class E(g)(ii)-research/development of products/processes; multi storey car park; Class E(a)-display/retail of goods; Class E(b)-sale of food/drink; Class E(d)-indoor sport/recreation/fitness Southgate/Leeds Road, Huddersfield.

(Estimated time of arrival at site – 10.35am)

Ward affected: Dalton

Contact: Nick Hirst, Planning Services

Site visit deferred.

Erection of 61 age-restricted apartments, ancillary accommodation and associated external works (within a Conservation Area) at Prickleden Mills, Woodhead Road, Holmfirth.

(Estimated time of arrival at site: 11.00am)

Ward affected: Holme Valley South

Contact: Victor Grayson, Planning Services

Site visit undertaken.

To receive, for information.

Contact: Ellie Worth, Planning Services

Noted.

The report was noted.

Erection of 61 age-restricted apartments, ancillary accommodation and associated external works (within a Conservation Area) at Prickleden Mills, Woodhead Road, Holmfirth.

Ward affected: Holme Valley South

Contact: Victor Grayson, Planning Services

Refused for the reasons set out in the officer report.

The Committee considered Application 2021/92003 in respect of the erection of 61 age-restricted apartments, ancillary accommodation and associated external works (within a Conservation Area) at Prickleden Mills, Woodhead Road, Holmfirth.

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 37, the Committee received representations from Hamish Gledhill (in support).

RESOLVED –

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed development, due to its design (including its heights and massing), location and relationships with designated heritage assets, would be visually overbearing in relation to adjacent existing development and the River Holme, would appear overdominant in views in this part of the valley, would harm the character and appearance of the Holmfirth Conservation Area, and would harm the setting of listed buildings, contrary to policies LP24 and LP35 of the Kirklees Local Plan, objectives A, B and C and policies 2 and 3 of the Holme Valley Neighbourhood Development Plan, Sections 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (chapters 12 and 16), the National Design Guide and the Housebuilders Design Guide SPD.

2.       The proposed development, due to its design (including its heights and massing), locations of habitable room windows, and proximity to site boundaries and adjacent homes and gardens, would result in losses of privacy, outlook and natural light for neighbouring residents, contrary to policy LP24 of the Kirklees Local Plan and guidance set out in the Housebuilders Design Guide SPD.

3.       The proposed development includes inadequate provision of off-street parking spaces for residents and visitors and for users of the four parking spaces displaced from the terminus of Lower Mill Lane. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy LP22 of the Kirklees Local Plan and guidance set out in the Highway Design Guide SPD.

4.       In the absence of adequate supporting information relating to flood risk and drainage, it has not been demonstrated that those material considerations have appropriately informed the proposed development, nor that the proposed development does not pose unacceptable flood risk and risks to public safety. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies LP27 and LP28 of the Kirklees Local Plan and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

5.       The proposed development, due to its lack of on-site affordable housing and open space, lack of related financial contributions to address these requirements off-site, and lack of other necessary provisions, would not sufficiently meet known housing need, would not provide adequate, usable outdoor space for its residents, and would not sufficiently mitigate its impacts. Furthermore, with insufficient measures to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport, to ensure land and infrastructure is managed, and to secure public access to the riverside walk, the proposed development would not be sustainable, and would not sufficiently mitigate risk in relation to drainage and maintenance, and would not ensure that a connected, permeable neighbourhood would be created. This would be contrary to policies LP4, LP11, LP20, LP24, LP27, LP28, LP47  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Erection of agricultural building and demolition of existing building at Upper Blacup Farm, Upper Blacup, Halifax Road, Hightown, Liversedge.

Ward affected: Cleckheaton

Contact: Callum Harrison, Planning Services

Approval delegated to the Head of Development and Master Planning.

The Committee considered Application 2022/90078 relating to the erection of an agricultural building and demolition of existing building at Upper Blacup Farm, Upper Blacup, Halifax Road, Hightown, Liversedge.

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 37, the Committee received representations from Blair Clarke (in support).

RESOLVED -

That approval of the application and issue of the decision notice be delegated to the Head of Development and Master Planning, in order to complete the list of conditions, including those contained within the report, as set out below:

1.   Development to commence within 3 years.

2.   Development in accordance with the approved plans.

3.   The existing buildings to be demolished within 6 months of the completion of the proposed building.

4.   Reporting of unexpected contaminated land.

5.   Intrusive site investigation to be undertaken.

6.   Submission of confirmation the site is safe prior to occupation.

A recorded vote was taken, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 42(5) as follows:

For: Councillors Davies, Hall, Pattison, Pinnock, Sokhal and Thompson (6 votes)

Erection of agricultural building at Mug Mill Farm, Mug Mill Lane, Thornhill, Dewsbury.

Ward affected: Dewsbury South

Contact: Callum Harrison, Planning Services

Development control functions devolved to Wakefield Council for determination of the application.

The Committee considered a report in respect of Application 2022/91065 relating to the erection of an agricultural building at Mug Mill Farm, Mug Mill Lane, Thornhill, Dewsbury.

RESOLVED-

That, in accordance with Section 101(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council’s development control functions be devolved to Wakefield Council in respect of Application 2022/91065.

A recorded vote was taken, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 42(5) as follows:

For: Councillors Davies, Hall, Pattison, Pinnock, Sokhal and Thompson (6 votes)

Reserved matters application pursuant to outline permission 2021/91544  for erection of health and research innovation campus comprising: Class F1(a)-education; Class E(e)-medical/health services; Class E(g)(i)-offices; Class E(g)(ii)-research/development of products/processes; multi storey car park; Class E(a)-display/retail of goods; Class E(b)-sale of food/drink; Class E(d)-indoor sport/recreation/fitness Southgate/Leeds Road, Huddersfield.

Ward affected: Dalton

Contact: Nick Hirst, Planning Services

Noted.

The Committee was presented with a Position Statement in respect of Application 2022/91456; a reserved matters application pursuant to outline permission 2021/91544 for the erection of a health and research innovation campus comprising: Class F1(a)-education; Class E(e)-medical/health services; Class E(g)(i)-offices; Class E(g)(ii)-research/development of products/processes; multi storey car park; Class E(a)-display/retail of goods; Class E(b)-sale of food/drink; Class E(d)-indoor sport/recreation/fitness at Southgate/Leeds Road, Huddersfield.

Under the provisions of Council procedure Rule 37, the Committee heard a presentation from Tim Thornton (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Huddersfield University) and Robert Hopkins (Architect).

The Committee noted the contents of the report and presentation and made comments on the proposals.