6 CALDERDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING ... · Hipperholme Brighouse Calderdale Detached dwelling and garage Hipperholme And Lightcliffe 16 - 30 1430 - 01 17/01453/OUT

1

6 CALDERDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE WARDS AFFECTED: MORE THAN THREE Date of meeting: 20 March 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.

2

3. IMPLICATIONS ARISING FROM REPORT 3.1 Planning Policy

These are set out separately in each individual application report. 3.2 Sustainability

Effective planning control concurs with the basic principle of sustainable development in that it assists in ensuring that development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Through the development control system, the Council can enable environmental damage to be minimised and ensure that resources are used efficiently and waste minimised. Particular sustainability issues will be highlighted in individual reports where appropriate.

3.3 Equal Opportunities

All applications are considered on their merits having regard to Government guidance, the policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and other factors relevant to planning and in a manner according to the Development Control Code of Conduct for officers and members as set out in the Council’s Standing Orders.

Planning permission in the vast majority of cases is given for land not to an individual, and the personal circumstances of the applicant are seldom relevant.

In particular however, the Council has to have regard to the needs of people with disabilities and their needs are a material planning consideration. Reference will therefore, be made to any such issues in the individual application reports where appropriate

Furthermore, the Council also attempts wherever possible/practical to apply good practice guidance published in respect of Race and Planning issues.

3.4 Finance

A refusal of planning permission can have financial implications for the Council where a subsequent appeal is lodged by the applicant in respect of the decision or if a case of alleged maladministration is referred to the Local Government Ombudsman or a Judicial Review is sought through the Courts.

In all cases indirect staff costs will be incurred in processing any such forms of ‘appeal’.

However, there is no existing budget to cover any direct costs should any such ‘appeal’ result in ‘costs’ being awarded against the Council. These would have to be found by way of compensatory savings from elsewhere in the Planning Services budget.

Reference: 6/00/00/CM 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.

http://www.calderdale.gov.uk/

4

List of Applications at Committee 20 March 2018 Time App No. Location Proposal Ward Page No. & No.

1400 - 01

17/01340/FUL Swales Moor Farm Swales Moor Road Halifax Calderdale HX3 6UF

Agricultural building Northowram And Shelf

5 - 15

1400 - 02

17/01349/FUL Former Refuse Tip Leeds Road Hipperholme Brighouse Calderdale

Detached dwelling and garage

Hipperholme And Lightcliffe

16 - 30

1430 - 01

17/01453/OUT Land Adjacent To Langlaaghte Wood Bottom Lane Brighouse Calderdale

Residential development of three dwellings (Outline)

Brighouse

31 - 39

1430 - 02

17/01466/FUL 10 Northedge Lane Hipperholme Brighouse Calderdale HX3 8JZ

Proposed detached dwelling

Hipperholme And Lightcliffe

40 - 49

1500 17/01496/MIN Spring Hill Quarry Rochdale Road Greetland Elland Calderdale

Mineral extraction for a 15 year time period, with subsequent restoration of land.

Greetland And Stainland

50 - 64

___________________________________________________________________________

5

Time Not Before: 1400 - 01 Application No: 17/01340/FUL Ward: Northowram And Shelf

Area Team: North Team Proposal: Agricultural building Location: Swales Moor Farm Swales Moor Road Halifax Calderdale HX3 6UF

Applicant: Leo Sawrij Limited Recommendation: PERMIT Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: Yes Departure from Development Plan: No Consultations: Highways Section Animal Welfare Highways Section Environmental Health Services - Pollution Section (E) West Yorkshire Police ALO Lead Local Flood Authority

6

Yorkshire Water Services Ltd Environment Agency (Waste & Water) Description of Site and Proposal The site is located on agricultural land to the east of Swales Moor Road, opposite a group of industrial buildings operated by the Leo Group. Swales Moor Farm is located in an elevated position on a high plateau in a rural location north of Boothtown. The proposal is for an agricultural building to the east of Swales Moor Road. The building is required for housing livestock – sheep and cattle - during winter and space to store feedstock and farming equipment. The proposal is accompanied by a:

Supporting Planning Statement

Surface Water Drainage Form

Supporting information regarding farming activities

The application is brought to committee at the request of Cllr Caffrey Relevant Planning History Extensive history linked to the industrial business on the opposite side of Swales Moor Road but no previous applications on this site. Application 13/00947/FUL for the installation of a single turbine, with a maximum height to the tip of 77m was refused at committee on 6th December 2013. The application was refused as it was considered to constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt for which no very special circumstances had been demonstrated; harm to visual amenity including to the Special Landscape Area; and harm to the setting of important heritage assets. There are two planning permissions (10/01320/FUL for an Office Extension, Garage Building Extension, Replacement Shed 4 Building, Replacement Shed 2 Building (Part Retrospective), Food Store Building, Canteen Building, Extension to Shed 5 Building, Extension to Woodchip Area (Retrospective) and alterations to internal bunding with addition of retaining wall, and 10/01264/FUL Extension to Pet Food Building and construction of plant building and machinery (Retrospective) which have regularised the activities and buildings on the site. There are no restrictions relating to hours of operations, numbers of vehicles or measures to control odours from vehicles (which is not a planning matter and this has been confirmed by the Local Government Ombudsman). These are detailed below. The Planning Committee on 26 April 2011 was mindful to permit the application subject to referral to Secretary of State for office extension, garage building extension, replacement shed 4 building, replacement shed 2 building (part retrospective), food store building, canteen building, extension to shed 5 building, extension to wood chip area (retrospective) and alterations to internal bunding with addition of retaining wall (application number 10/01320/FUL).

7

The Planning Committee on 26 April 2011 was mindful to permit the application subject to referral to Secretary of State for Extension of Pet Food Building (Shed 3) and construction of plant building and machinery (retrospective), application number 10/01264/FUL. Both applications were not called in by the Secretary of State and decision notices were issued in July 2011. Amendments to planning permission 10/01320 followed and were permitted on 11November 2011, pursuant to a fire on the site. These included a new waste transfer shed which has subsequently been constructed. Key Policy Context:

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan Designation

Green Belt Wildlife Corridor

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan policies

GNE1 Containment of the Urban Area BE1 General Design Criteria BE5 Design and Layout of Highways and Accesses E16 Agricultural and Equestrian Development NE12 Development within the Special Landscape Area NE15 Development in Wildlife Corridors EP8 Other Incompatible Uses EP14 Protection of Ground Water EP20 Protection from Flood Risk EP22 Sustainable Drainage Systems T18 Maximum Parking Allowances

National Planning Policy Framework Paragraphs

3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy 7. Requiring good design 9. Protecting Green Belt Land

Other relevant planning Constraints

Publicity/ Representations: The application was publicised by site and press notices and 10 neighbour notification letters. Ten letters of objections were received. Summary of Objections

Impact on the skyline of the Shibden Valley

No landscaping or screening proposed that would mitigate the impact of the building in the landscape;

Concern that if permitted the building would change to another industrial building;

Proposal is a continuation of development by the Leo Group;

Development will make the ridge of the valley turn into an industrial looking Green Belt;

8

Scale of the proposal;

The proposed building is industrial not agricultural

Spoil the openness of the Green Belt;

Spoil the setting of a historic building, Scout Hall Grade II*

Interested to understand how the run off and management of waste from any farm animals in this area would be appropriately managed

Red beck is below the area

The implications are significant if animal husbandry and waste/water run off is not correctly assessed.

It seems counter intuitive to house animals in a shed on the side/top of a valley - the waste has to run somewhere and that would be downwards.

Detract from the Special Landscape Area;

Shibden Valley popular recreational area

The proposed shed is not subtle and will be obvious in the landscape;

The proposal would conflict with paragraph 109 of the NPPF and RCUDP policy NE12

More considered approach to development requirement

Previous permissions on the site opposite have not been developed in line with conditions concerning landscaping and screening.

Materials not agricultural

Application will lead to the industrialisation of the ridge above the valley

Proposed building would have less impact if situated further north;

Within the most sensitive of the Special Landscape Areas;

The building is higher than it needs to be Parish/Town Council Comments The development is not located within the boundary of a Parish Council. Ward Councillor Comments Comments from Councillor Caffrey: “I have not noticed any farming activity in this location or the immediate vicinity and am not clear therefore why an agricultural is required. This is greenbelt land and part of a special landscape area overlooking the Shibden Valley. The proposed shed would be visible on the skyline and detract form the nature of the area. If therefore Calderdale Council is mindful to approve this application at officer level I request that it is referred to planning committee the members of which are also requested to visit the proposed location.” Assessment of Proposal Principle of Development The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012. 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:

9

Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless: - Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole; or - Specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted (for

example…land designated as Green Belt…) The framework indicates that development should be restricted in the Green Belt, so the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. According to the NPPF, 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. The NPPF goes on to establish that the purposes of the Green Belt are:

to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land The NPPF states in paragraph 89

A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are (amongst other things):

buildings for agriculture and forestry…

In addition the site lies within a Special Landscape Area and therefore policy NE12 of the RCUDP applies. This states that “Within the Special Landscape Area, 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 the siting, materials and design of the new development.” A number of objections were concerned with whether the building would become an extension of the industrial premises across Swales Moor Road, and the scale of the proposed building, the impact on the Green Belt and the Special Landscape Area, especially in regards to the Shibden Valley. The proposed development is for the construction of a new agricultural building which will measure 37.2m x 28.25m and have an eaves height of 4.6m and ridge height of 7.2m. Information submitted by the applicant provides evidence that the building would support a legitimate farming business, and the numbers of sheep and cattle that the farm typically manages at present. The Council’s Animal Welfare Officer states that “The construction of a building to house cattle at Swalesmoor will allow greater flexibility within the farming business, a building of this size is not disproportionate for the extent of the farming activity”. The scale of the building is therefore not considered to be disproportionate given the use of the building is for storage of implements to look after the land and for the wintering sheep and cattle. Further information is provided in the section below regarding the farming enterprise.

10

The building will be clad in Yorkshire boarding to all elevations. The roof will be covered in profiled cladding panel system in juniper green with Perspex roof lights. The proposal is considered to be appropriate development being for agricultural purposes in the Green Belt. The building is proposed on a site in an elevated plateau in a rural location north of Boothtown. There are significant concerns over the visual impact of the proposed building, especially in regard to the Shibden Valley and the associated Special Landscape Area. However, the proposed location would mean that the agricultural building would be viewed in association with the existing industrial building across Swales Moor Road, and this would to some extent mitigate the impact. In addition, a condition is proposed in order to screen the eastern elevation of the proposed building in order to further soften the impact on the landscape. The proposed use is considered to be acceptable in the Green Belt and would support a legitimate farming business in dealing with animal welfare issues, and the visual impacts of the proposed building would be mitigated through the relationship with the existing buildings and the proposal. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle and would satisfy RCUDP policy GNE1, NE12 and Section 9 of the NPPF. Agricultural Development Policy RCUDP E16 discusses Agricultural and Equestrian Development and establishes that agricultural and equestrian developments will be permitted provided that:- i. any buildings and other facilities are of good design reflecting, where appropriate, local building traditions, the characteristics of the site and the use of appropriate materials; ii. the proposal would not have an adverse impact on sites of recognised ecological, geological or conservation importance; iii. the proposal would not result in any unacceptable environmental, amenity, safety, highway or other problems; and iv. where appropriate, adequate screening and landscaping is provided. As discussed under the ‘Principle of Development’ the scale and materials of the building are considered to be acceptable in this location. The building will be constructed out of Yorkshire boarding and profiled sheeting to the roof which is acceptable in a rural setting. Amenity and Highways are discussed below, however neither are considered to conflict with policy E16. Overall, the proposal is considered to satisfy RCUDP policy E16. Section 3 of the NPPF discusses supporting a prosperous rural economy and states in paragraph 28 that (amongst other things):

Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;

promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses…

The site is part of a holding of approximately 64 acres at Swalesmoor Farm. The applicant has provided evidence in respect of the agricultural business.

11

In terms of livestock numbers, there are typically between 200 and 400 sheep, but at some times that can rise to as many as 550 sheep, and between 40 and 70 cattle. In the last year, the premises has only had sheep on the land, with 345 sheep moved to the land in late September and 200 of these moved to market by the end of November. The building is required as to date the livestock are grazed in the summer but have not been wintered, but as land has been added to the farming business and livestock numbers increased, there is now a need for a facility to keep animals inside. The applicant states that there are 300 new lambs around the farm and because of wet conditions they have become prone to foot foul. The vet has recommended they are kept on dry ground and treated with antibiotics. In relation to machinery, a lot of that is stored outside but as the size of the agricultural holding has grown, more machinery has been purchased and to keep it in good order the Applicant wants to be able to store and carry out routine care and maintenance inside. The proposal would help support a local agricultural business, which although adjacent to, is separate from the businesses on the west of Swales Moor Road, and the proposed materials are acceptable in a rural location. As such the development would support the principles of section 3 of the NPPF. Residential Amenity RCUDP policy EP8 deals with other incompatible uses and establishes “where development proposals could lead to the juxtaposition of incompatible land-uses, they will be only permitted if they do not lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity caused by odour, noise or other problems. Where development is permitted, appropriate planning conditions and/or obligations will be added as necessary to provide landscaping, screening, bunding, physical separation distances or other mitigation measures. The nearest third party dwelling would be approximately 150m away and as such there would be no amenity concerns for third parties. The Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health) was consulted and stated “I have no objections to the proposed development”. As such the proposal is considered to satisfy RCUDP policy EP8. 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 7 Requiring good design paragraph 56 of the NPPF establishes that:

The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

12

The design, materials and siting of the building are set out above under ‘Principle of Development’ and ‘Agricultural Development’. The building will be situated close to Swalesmoor Road, and a stone wall. In addition the proposed building will have a strong relationship with those existing buildings across Swales Moor Road. The eastern elevation which will be open to the Shibden Valley will be subject to a condition to ensure appropriate screening is adopted to minimise the impact of the proposal. The need for the building has been demonstrated and the proposed materials are considered to reflect other agricultural buildings in the Green belt, and Calderdale. Given the above the proposal is considered to satisfy RCUDP policies BE1 and section 7 of the NPPF. Highway Considerations RCUDP policy BE5 seeks to secure highways and accesses whose design and layout ensure the safe and free flow of traffic in the interests of highway safety and to provide an attractive environment. RCUDP policy T18 seeks to ensure there is adequate off street parking facilities for dwellings.

The Assistant Director – Strategic Infrastructure (Highways) has been consulted and stated “there are no highway objections to this amended application as now submitted. The development is utilising an existing access to the highway which affords the correct visibility splay required.” Given the above the proposal is considered to comply with policies BE5 and T18 of the RCUDP. Wildlife and Ecology

The site falls within a Wildlife Corridor which is considered under RCUDP policy NE15 and establishes that development will not be permitted if it would damage the physical continuity of the Corridor.

The proposal will be located close to an existing highway within a rural location, and opposite an established industrial site. In the context of the Wildlife Corridor it is an isolated building and as such is not considered to harm the Wildlife Corridor use and is therefore considered to satisfy RCUDP policy NE15 of the RCUDP.

Flooding and Drainage Some objections raised concerns over the proposed drainage of the site and the associated animal waste could lead to the potential contamination of Red Beck, however, any contamination of a water supply would be dealt with by other legislation.

Policy EP14 of the RCUDP aims to secure appropriate levels of drainage for new development. Policy EP20 of the RCUDP states development will not be permitted if it would increase the risk of flooding due to surface water run off, and EP22 of the RCUDP says development proposals shall incorporate sustainable drainage systems.

Lead Local Flood Authority was consulted and raised no objections to the proposal, whilst providing a number of informatives for the scheme to consider adopting.

13

In terms of drainage, standard drainage conditions relating to the submission of details of the foul and/or surface water and/or sustainable drainage if feasible and/or sub-soil drainage for the development are requested for written approval.

Subject to conditions, the proposal would be acceptable in terms of RCUDP policies EP14, EP20 and EP22.

CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions specified below. The recommendation to grant planning permission has been made because the development 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: 7th March 2018

Further Information Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:- Paul Copeland (Case Officer) on 01422 392195 or Lisa Deacon (Lead Officer) 01422 392233

14

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 the first use of the building details of the treatment of all external timber boarding shall

be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

3. Before the first use of the building details of screening the eastern elevation as indicated on

the plan referenced 2426-17-01D, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

4. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of screening shall be carried

out in the first planting and seeding season following the first use or completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and shall be so retained thereafter unless any trees or plants within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased. These shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and these replacements shall be retained thereafter.

5. Prior to the construction of the foundations of the building hereby approved full details of the

foul and/or surface water and/or sustainable systems of drainage if feasible and/or sub-soil drainage and external works for the development (taking into account flood risk on and off site and including details of any balancing works, off-site works, existing systems to be re-used, works on or near watercourses and diversions) shall be 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.

6. Prior to the construction of the foundations of the building hereby approved 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.

Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall include but not limited to:

i. Details of the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site, the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters and increasing flood risk to downstream land;

ii Design details of all components and in accordance with CIRIA report C753 The SuDS Manual

iii. A timetable for its implementation; and iiii. 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 building and shall be so retained thereafter in a functioning and effective state.

15

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. In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure compliance with policy BE1 of the

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan 3. In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure compliance with policies BE1, and NE12 of

the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 4. In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure compliance with policies BE1 and NE12 of the

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan 5. In the interests of flood prevention and protection of groundwater and to ensure compliance

with policies EP14, EP20 and EP22 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

6. In the interests of flood prevention and to ensure compliance with policies EP20 and EP22 of

the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

16

Time Not Before: 1400 - 02 Application No: 17/01349/FUL Ward: Hipperholme And Lightcliffe

Area Team: North Team Proposal: Detached dwelling and garage Location: Former Refuse Tip Leeds Road Hipperholme Brighouse Calderdale

Applicant: Mr Richard Oakes Recommendation: REFUSE Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: No Departure from Development Plan: No Consultations: Highways Section Environmental Health Services - Pollution Section (E) Environment Agency (Waste & Water)

17

The site is located on land north off Whitehall Road (A58) on a former refuse tip between Hipperholme and Norwood Green close to the junction with Rookes Lane and approximately 1.5km north east of Hipperholme centre. The site is in a semi-rural location on land allocated as Green Belt in the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. East of the site is Rookes Lane with the nearest buildings being in agricultural use. North of the site are open fields and a menage. A wooded area is located to the west with two large detached dwellings accessed off a private drive located to the south of Whitehall Road. The proposal is for a detached dwelling and garage consisting of a circular design with an internal courtyard garden. The detached garage is located to the west of the site approximately 41m away from the dwelling. Access to the site is north off Whitehall Road. The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents:

Planning Report

Transport Statement

Phase 1 report

Foul Drainage Assessment

Surface Water and Drainage Form

Flood Risk Assessment

The proposal is brought before Planning Committee following a request by Ward Councillor George Robinson. Relevant Planning History Application 15/00804/FUL was withdrawn for a dwelling following discussions with the case officer regarding concerns regarding Green Belt and lack of very special circumstances along with highway safety concerns. Although the applicant considered there were Very Special Circumstances regarding the innovative design of the dwelling this was considered to be subjective and there was nothing to back this up. The applicant decided to put their design forward to the design council in order to receive support regarding their design. The application was withdrawn by the agent on the 30 October 2015 to follow this up. Application 16/01002/FUL was withdrawn for a detached dwelling on the 7 November 2016 for the same reasons as above. Key Policy Context:


Green Belt Unstable Land Wildlife Corridor


GNE1 Containment of the Urban Area GP2 Location of Development BE1 General Design Criteria BE2 Privacy, Daylighting and Amenity Space BE5 Design and Layout of Highways and Accesses T18 Maximum Parking Allowances EP9 Development of Contaminated Sites

18

EP10 Development of Sites with Potential Contamination EP11 Development on Potentially Unstable Land EP13 Development Involving Non-Mains Drainage EP14 Protection of Groundwater EP20 Protection from Flood Risk EP22 Sustainable Drainage Systems NE15 Development in Wildlife Corridors NE16 Protection of protected Species NE17 Biodiversity Enhancement

National Planning Policy Framework 4. Promoting sustainable transport 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design 9. Protecting Green Belt land 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Other relevant planning constraints Potential historic Coal Mining (Low Risk) Bat Alert Area

Publicity/ Representations: The application was publicised by site notice, press notice and eight neighbour notification letters. No letters of representation have been received apart for a request by Ward Councillor George Robinson the comments of which are set out below. Ward Councillor Comments Councillor George Robinson requests that the application is referred to Planning Committee if the recommendation is to refuse and makes the following comments:

“Would it please be possible to call in a planning application to planning committee on behalf of Mr Richard Oakes. The site is just west of the junction with Rookes Lane on Whitehall Road East and the application number is 17/01349/FUL.

It's of my opinion that members should have the ability to express a view on the innovative design of the planned property.”

Parish/Town Council Comments The development is located outside a parished council.

19

Assessment of Proposal Principle of Development The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012. 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. Under paragraph 14, for decision taking this means:



benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole; or - Specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted (for

example…land designated as Green Belt…) The framework indicates that development should be restricted in the Green Belt, so the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. In relation to inappropriate development, the NPPF states that:

87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 88. 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 the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed [my underlining] by other considerations.

In the case of Doncaster MBC v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2002) (relating to an unauthorized gypsy caravan site), the court explained that it is very important that full weight is given to the proposition that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Relevant policy (at that time set out in PPG2, now expressed in essentially same terms in the NPPF) is a reflection of the fact that there may be many applications in the Green Belt where the proposal would be relatively inconspicuous or have a limited effect on the openness of the Green Belt, but if such arguments were to be repeated the cumulative effect of many permissions would destroy the very qualities that underlie the Green Belt designation. Hence the importance, the court pointed out, of recognising at all times that inappropriate development is by definition harmful, and then going on to consider whether there will be additional harm by reason of such matters as loss of openness and impact on the functions of the Green Belt. It is therefore evident that an assessment of a proposed development’s harm involves two separate considerations

20

According to the NPPF, 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. The NPPF goes on to establish that the purposes of the Green Belt are:

to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land The proposed development is for the construction of a detached dwelling and garage. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that:

A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are (amongst other things):

limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

The proposal is not considered to be infill development as the site would not be defined as a small gap in a group of buildings or otherwise continuously built up frontage, bounded by buildings on at least two sides and although the site was used as a former tip this was a significant number of years ago and therefore the site has greened over and has become a greenfield site within the Green Belt. As such the proposal site is not considered to be previously developed brownfield land. Given the above the proposal does not fulfill any of the criteria set out within paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF and as such is inappropriate development. As identified above inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and as such should not be approved unless very special circumstances apply. Substantial weight shall be given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed [my underlining] by other considerations. The agent considers that the unique design that has been through the design review process should be considered as Very Special Circumstances. Details of this are set out below. Very Special Circumstances The applicant has taken the proposal’s design to Integreat Plus design review service that performs this function for nineteen planning authorities in Yorkshire. The latest review was the third time the applicant had presented their proposal before them. Previous reviews resulted in suggestions to improve the design and the applicant addressed the suggestions and took the proposal back to Ingreat Plus for further comments. The latest review included a detailed review of highways matters which tried to address the highways concerns in a revised design. The latest review was held on the 17 May 2017 and the report of that review included the following comments: “The overall design quality of the proposed scheme is exceptional and

the Panel congratulate the Design Team for progressing the design to such a high standard to meet the NPPF para 55 criteria.

21

This brings to a successful conclusion from the panel’s point of view the ambitions for an exceptional design quality for a responsive house on this site to meet both the client’s specific requirements and also to accord with the spirit of the NPPF Para 55 criteria for new dwellings in otherwise protected countryside or green belt locations.”

The Planning Support Statement (PSS) establishes that the review endorsed the engagement of a highways consultant to establish the best approach to allay any highways concerns of the LPA. The PSS establishes that the agent believes that the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF have been fully addressed in the application scheme and have been endorsed by an independent design review body. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF establishes that:

“To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as (amongst other things)):

the exceptional quality or innovative, nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a design should: - be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in

rural areas; - reflect the highest standards in architecture; - significantly enhance its immediate setting; and - be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area

In view of the above the agent believes that the application now deserves full support. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) does not dispute that the design of the dwelling is of a high standard, however the location of the proposal would not enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and it is not considered to be within a settlement or village. The LPA notes that para 55 can also apply in the Green Belt, however, the agent had not specifically addressed the precise requirements of the Green Belt policy test:

“Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

The agent was contacted for further clarification as they had omitted to explain what the harm was to the Green Belt (i.e. by reason of inappropriateness, as well as any other harm). They also had not demonstrated the circumstances passed the threshold of clearly outweighing this harm. In response to this the agent has provided further information to assess the harm.

22

The revised Very Special Circumstances included that the agent considered the application scheme did not compromise any of the fundamental five purposes of Green belt as set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF. The agent considers that as the design review body has confirmed that the application meets the requirements of paragraph 55 and that paragraph 55 is applicable in the Green Belt, the scheme is not inappropriate. Impact on Openness of the Green Belt In terms of other harm the agent considers that there could only be the openness of the Green Belt that may be affected by the proposal as it does not compromises any of the five fundamental purposes of Green Belt. The agent goes on the say with regard to openness that certain development is permissible in Green Belt under certain circumstances. They consider that one of these is:

“a scheme that meets the stringent requirements of paragraph 55...”

They go on to say other circumstances may give rise to agricultural or recreation related buildings which will inevitably affect the openness of the Green Belt but which are accepted as passing the exception tests. With reference to the above ‘a scheme that meets the stringent requirements of paragraph 55’, is not considered to be an appropriate development in the Green Belt as set out in paragraphs 89 and 90 and as such is inappropriate development which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Although paragraph 55 does not specifically exclude Green Belt this on its own does not warrant Very Special Circumstances as other harm has to be considered. The agent considers that the scheme would affect the openness but other appropriate development in the Green Belt such as agricultural would also affect the openness. The difference with this is that agricultural development (for example) is appropriate development whereas a new dwelling in the Green Belt is inappropriate development. In terms of the impact on the openness the proposal is considered to harm the openness of the Green Belt due to the fact that the proposal would measure 26.6m in diameter and would be 6.8m at its highest point. Furthermore, the proposed garage would measure 15m x 7.5m and have a maximum height of 4.2m and would be 48m away from the proposed dwelling resulting in encroachment into the open countryside. The extensive proposed curtilage would further add to the impact on the openness of the Green Belt due to the associated paraphernalia and proposed turning and access areas that would be included as part of the development. Other Harm In terms of other harm and as discussed in more detail below under ‘Highway Considerations’, the proposal is not located in a sustainable location and future residents would be reliant on a private car for their day to day needs. Furthermore, the proposed access is substandard and is also considered to be unsafe. Along with these concerns there are also safety concerns as set out below. Although the agent has stated that they have worked with the Design Council and the previous highway concerns have been addressed as part of the latest review, the development would result in significant highway safety issues resulting in other harm.

23

In this particular case the proposed scale of the development and associated domestic paraphernalia would encroach into the open countryside, creating an incongruous feature which would be viewed in close proximity and in wider views by users of the adjacent road. The extent of the proposed curtilage and the expanse of the development with the garage being 48m away from the proposed dwelling would also impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In terms of other harm, the proposal would result in highway safety concerns. The agent considers that the unique design of the dwelling should be considered as very special circumstances that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. The LPA considers that no Very Special Circumstances have been provided that clearly outweigh the harm that would be created to the loss of the openness of the Green Belt, the encroachment into the open countryside and the highway safety concerns and unsustainable location of the proposal which are considered to result in other harm. In accordance with paragraph 88 of the NPPF set out above, substantial weight is given to this identified harm to the Green Belt. For the reasons given above, the principle of the development is not considered to be acceptable. No very special circumstances have been established which justify the inappropriate development in Green Belt sufficient for an exception to be made. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Section 9 of the NPPF. Housing Issues As this is an application for housing development, paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework applies. It establishes that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The requirement to maintain a rolling 5-year supply of deliverable land for housing is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The current position is that Calderdale has 2 years housing supply. It is therefore recognised that RCUDP policy H9 regarding housing on Non Allocated Sites is now out of date and non-compliant with the NPPF. Although this policy is not an irrelevant consideration, one can infer from paragraph 49 of the NPPF that the weight to be given to out of date policies for the supply of housing will normally be less than the weight due to policies which provide fully for the requisite supply. The presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF does, however, not apply in this case as the site lies in the Green Belt where the Framework indicates development should be restricted. Instead, the guidance contained within Section 9 (Protecting Green Belt land) of the NPPF is relevant. While the inability to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land is an important material consideration that weighs in favour of granting permission, this should not override all other considerations. It is necessary to consider all other relevant issues and weigh these in the overall planning balance.

Notwithstanding the lack of a 5 year housing land supply, the on-line 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.

24

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 7 Requiring good design paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that:

The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

As stated above under the ‘Principle of Development’, the proposed dwelling would measure 26.6m in diameter and would be 6.8m at its highest point. Furthermore, the proposed garage would measure 15m x 7.5m and have a maximum height of 4.2m and would be 48m away from the proposed dwelling. The dwelling would have a footprint of approximately 485m2 and an additional courtyard of 79m2. The proposed dwelling will be constructed out of natural stone and will have a zinc roof. The dwelling consists of four bedrooms, lounge, dining room and kitchen and associated rooms eg bathroom, cloaks, study, boiler plant etc. Details of the garage materials have not been identified but would appear to be of natural stone and a slate roof but can be conditioned if approved. The circular design of the dwellings allows for an internal courtyard. A lawned area and landscaping is proposed around the dwelling and a permeable sealed surface is proposed for the parking and turning area adjacent the proposed garage. There is an existing access to the site towards the eastern end of the site frontage. The application scheme proposes closing this access and creating a new one further west along the site frontage with Whitehall Road where the agent considers the visibility is better. The applicant has taken the proposal to Integreat Plus design review service that performs this function for nineteen planning authorities in Yorkshire. The latest review was the third time the applicant had presented their proposal before them. Previous reviews resulted in suggestions to improve the design and the applicant addressed the suggestions and took the proposal back to Ingreat Plus for further comments. The latest review included a detailed review of highways matters which tried to address the highways concerns in a revised design. The latest review was held on the 17 May 2017 and the report of that review included the following comments: “The overall design quality of the proposed scheme is exceptional and

the Panel congratulate the Design Team for progressing the design to such a high standard to meet the NPPF para 55 criteria.

Given the above the proposed design is not necessarily in keeping with other properties in the area but as these are few and far between the dwelling would not be out of keeping with the established character of properties in the immediate vicinity. The use of natural stone is considered to be acceptable and the proposed planting would improve the appearance of the overgrown site. As such the proposal would be in the spirit of RCUDP policy BE1 and guidance set out in Section 7 of the NPPF.

25

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. The nearest property would be over 60m away from the site at Lower Rookes Mount and as such there would be no overlooking or privacy issues. Given the above the proposal would satisfy Annex A and policy BE2 of the RCUDP. Highway Considerations RCUDP policy BE5 seeks to secure highways and accesses whose design and layout ensure the safe and free flow of traffic in the interests of highway safety and to provide an attractive environment.

The Assistant Director – Strategic Infrastructure (Highways) has been consulted and has made the following comments:

“There is a highway authority objection to the application on the grounds of highway safety and because it does not meet local and national guidance on sustainable transport to new development.

Sustainability

The site is not in an accessible location in terms of local facilities such as schools and

convenience shopping.

The bus stops within 400m walking distance on Rookes Lane are served by only 2 buses

between Halifax and Norwood Green on a weekday. There is just one service on a Saturday

and no Sunday or evening services. The proposal is therefore contrary to both the RCUDP

and NPFF in that it and will result in residents being reliant on the private car for their day to

day needs.

Access Location

The proposed access is substandard and is also considered to be unsafe.

The A58 is a strategic road and this length is subject to a 50mph speed limit, hence the

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges guidance is applicable. This section of the A58 has

historic speeding problems and a poor accident record. This is probably related to the

substandard forward visibility on the westbound approach for traffic travelling from Wyke

towards Hipperholme. There is an advisory 40m speed limit on this approach; however the

stopping sight distance is well below 120m.

26

Westbound vehicles presently approach the proposed access in excess of the stopping sight

distance. Therefore even if a complaint access could be achieved, there are safety concerns

with the increased risk of rear end shunts associated with vehicles decelerating as they

approach the new access.

Ghost Island Right Turn Lane Geometry

The proposed access drawing 2988(0-)15A indicates a 51m distance from the centre line of

the access to the start of the hatched taper (for the critical westbound direction). For an 85kph

design speed a 10m turning length plus a 55m deceleration lane length is required. The

proposed 2.8m wide right turn lane requires an additional 70m taper length giving a required

total length of 135m from the centre line of the access.

Should a speed survey to the east of the proposed access indicate that a lower 70kph design

speed was appropriate, then the deceleration lane would be reduced to 40m and the taper

length to 56m. This would give a giving a required total length of 106m which is still

significantly greater than that proposed.

Other Issues

Safety concerns are also generated by refuse vehicles stopping on the A58 which would

require vehicles to overtake in the hatched area of the proposed right turn lane. The running

lane widths would be reduced by the proposal to 3.25m which is insufficient for HGVs to pass

cyclists safely. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that approaching vehicles would have

insufficient forward visibility of a vehicle waiting in the right turn lane.

A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit would normally be required for a direct access onto a high speed

road particularly where substandard geometry is proposed. However given that there is an

in-principle objection the applicant is not required to submit an Audit”

Given the above the proposal would be contrary to RCUDP policy BE5. Paragraph 35 of the NPPF establishes that development should be designed where practical to incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra low emission vehicles. As such a condition is proposed if approved 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 should the proposal be approved. Flooding and Drainage The proposal involves the construction of a new dwelling and no drainage details have been identified on a plan. The applicant proposes a new package treatment plant as there is no mains supply in the vicinity. RCUDP Policies EP20 and EP22 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. Sustainable Drainage Systems should be incorporated where appropriate.

27

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. A condition requiring the submission of full drainage details for approval could be included if the application were to be approved. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted as part of the scheme a there is an area to the west of the red line plan included within flood zones 2 and 3. Only a small proportion of the site is considered to be within Flood Zones 2 and 3. These areas are not within the development area, and the entire proposal lies within Flood Zone 1. The ground levels at the building location are at least 7m above those within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The Environment Agency has been consulted and has no objection to the proposal given that the development site where actual building works are being carried out is not within flood zones 2 and 3. Subject to condition the proposal would satisfy RCUDP policies EP13, EP14, EP20 and EP22. Ground Conditions The site falls within an area with a low potential of historic Coal Mining Activity. As such, standing advice will be included as an informative. Given the above and subject to condition, the proposal would satisfy RCUDP policy EP11 which discusses development on potentially unstable land. The site also falls on land with potential contamination. RCUDP policy EP9 and EP10 discuss land with potential and contaminated land. A Phase 1 report has been submitted in support of the application. The Phase I report suggests that further investigation to determine if any ground contamination is present on the site could pose a risk towards the proposed end users and /or to the environment , and that such investigation should be completed prior to commencing with any future redevelopment works. If the application is approved a condition could be attached requiring further investigation and a Phase II intrusive site investigation report to be submitted to the LPA for approval as follows:

Where site remediation is recommended in the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report development shall not commence until a Remediation Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the Remediation Strategy so approved. In the event of contamination not previously considered being identified the local planning authority shall be notified of the extent of that unforeseen contamination and of the further works necessary to complete the remediation of the site.

Following completion of all remediation measures a Validation Report shall be submitted to the local planning authority. No part of the site shall be brought into use until such time as the remediation measures for the whole site have been completed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy and a Validation Report in respect of those remediation measures has been approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Subject to a condition as set out above, the proposal would satisfy RCUDP polices EP9 and EP10.

28

Wildlife and Ecology The site falls within a wildlife corridor and bat alert area. There are no existing buildings on the site where bats may potentially roost and although there are numerous trees on site, no trees are proposed to be lost as part of the development. Given this a bat survey was not required. The Council’s Wildlife Conservation officer has requested in line with biodiversity enhancement requirements, a single permanent bat roosting feature to be installed within the fabric of the garage on the south east aspect but not directly above proposed windows. Furthermore, no removal or management of any tall vegetation including trees and shrubs shall be carried out between 1st March and 31st August unless a suitable qualified and experienced ecologist has undertaken a bird survey and confirmed no birds will be harmed or disturbed. Given the above and subject to condition and an informative if recommended for approval, the proposal is considered to satisfy RCUDP polices NE15 which discusses development in wildlife corridors, NE16 which discusses the protection of protected species and NE17 which deals with biodiversity enhancement. Trees and Landscaping RCUDP policy BE3 discusses landscaping whereas NE21 discusses trees and development sites. The application is supported by a proposed landscape scheme and existing survey of the site. There are numerous trees within the site especially towards the west of the site. However, no trees are proposed to be removed as part of the scheme. The landscape scheme identifies a lawned area and meadow and densely planted native trees on the south-east boundary of the site which will help with screening. A terrace and garden courtyard are also proposed along with a permeable sealed parking and drive area to the west adjacent the proposed garage. The Council’s tree officer has considered the site and although a tree report has not been submitted the trees have been plotted on a topographical survey. The proposal is not considered to have a significant impact on the existing tree cover and if approved a condition relating to the retained trees being protected during construction will be imposed. If trees following a tree survey are identified for removal, details shall first be submitted to the LPA. Given the above the proposal subject to condition will be in accordance with RCUDP policies BE3 and NE21. Balance of Considerations The proposal is for a new dwelling and garage on Green Belt greenfield land. Given this the proposal does not fall under any of the categories set out in paragraphs 89 sand 90 of the NPPF that are considered to be appropriate development. As such the applicant has had to provide Very Special Circumstances as to why the proposed development should be allowed. In providing their Very Special Circumstances the applicant will have to address the precise requirements of the Green Belt policy test:

“Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

The agent has had the proposal approved by the Design Council and as such considers it is:

“a scheme that meets the stringent requirements of paragraph 55...”

29

The agent considers that as the design review body has confirmed that the application meets the requirements of paragraph 55 and that paragraph 55 is applicable in the Green Belt, the scheme is not inappropriate. With reference to the above ‘a scheme that meets the stringent requirements of paragraph 55’, is not considered to be an appropriate development in the Green Belt as set out in paragraphs 89 and 90 and as such is inappropriate development which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Although paragraph 55 does not specifically exclude Green Belt this on its own does not warrant very special circumstances as other harm has to be considered. In terms of the impact on the openness the proposal is considered to harm the openness of the Green Belt due to the extensive proposed curtilage which contains the proposed dwelling and remote garage which along with the associated paraphernalia and proposed turning and access areas would impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In terms of other harm and as discussed in more detail above under ‘Highway Considerations’, the proposal is not located in a sustainable location and future residents would be reliant on a private car for their day to day needs. Furthermore, the proposed access is substandard and is also considered to be unsafe. Along with these concerns there are also safety concerns. The LPA considers that no Very Special Circumstances have been provided that clearly outweigh the harm that would be created to the loss of the openness of the Green Belt, the encroachment into the open countryside and the highway safety concerns and unsustainable location of the proposal which are considered to result in other harm. In accordance with paragraph 88 of the NPPF set out above, substantial weight is given to this identified harm to the Green Belt. It is acknowledged that the proposal would contribute to the Council’s housing supply and this carries weight in favour of the proposal. However, the Government has made it clear however that unmet housing need is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute Very Special Circumstances. As such, only limited weight can be attributed to the benefits of providing housing in the balancing exercise, especially in this semi-rural location. Looking at the case as a whole, it is considered that the benefits that a potential dwelling of such innovative design would bring would not outweigh the harm by reasons of harm to the openness of the Green Belt, encroachment into the open countryside and highway safety concerns. CONCLUSION The proposal is not considered to be acceptable. The recommendation to refuse planning permission has been made because the development is not in accordance with policy BE5 (Design and Layout of Highways and Accesses) of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and Sections 9 (Protecting Green Belt land) paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework, nor have there been any material considerations to indicate that an exception should be made in this case.

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

30

Date: 5 March 2018

Further Information Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:- Gillian Boulton (Case Officer) on 01422 392232 or Lisa Deacon (Lead Officer) on 01422 392233 Reasons 1. The site lies within the Green Belt as designated in the Replacement Calderdale Unitary

Development Plan wherein there is a presumption against development for purposes other than those categories specified in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposal falls outside these categories as it is for a new dwelling and garage in the Green Belt which does not fall within any of the categories of development not inappropriate as set out in paragraphs 89 and 90. As such the proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. In addition to the harm by definition, the proposed new dwelling would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt due to the siting, scale and remoteness of the garage from the dwelling together with the domestic curtilage and parking areas encroaching into the open countryside on this greenfield site. Furthermore, in terms of other harm the development would result in highway safety concerns due to the location of the dwelling and proposed access off Whitehill Road. The benefits of providing one additional dwelling of such an innovative design would not outweigh the harm by reasons of harm to the openness of the Green Belt, encroachment into the open countryside and highway safety concerns and no Very Special Circumstances have been established which clearly outweigh these harms. The proposal would therefore cause demonstrable harm to the Green Belt and as such is contrary to the guidance contained within Section 9 (Protecting Green Belt land) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposed layout would be substandard in terms of the visibility of approaching vehicles

on the A58 and the length of the right turn deceleration lane. Furthermore, the proposed lane width reduction would be unacceptable given that the road carries a high proportion of heavy goods vehicles. The proposals would therefore be contrary to policy BE5 (The Design and Layout of Highways and Accesses) of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

3. The proposed dwelling is not in a sustainable location and future residents would be reliant on

the private car for their day to day travel needs. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy GP2 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and paragraphs 30 and 37 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

31

Time Not Before: 1430 - 01 Application No: 17/01453/OUT Ward: Brighouse

Area Team: South Team Proposal: Residential development of three dwellings (Outline) Location: Land Adjacent To Langlaaghte Wood Bottom Lane Brighouse Calderdale

Applicant: Mr R Bottomley Recommendation: PERMIT Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: No Departure from Development Plan: No Consultations: Countryside Services (E) Environmental Health Services - Pollution Section (E) Highways Section

32

Description of Site and Proposal The site is located to the south east of Langlaagte off Wood Bottom Lane Brighouse. It has a former use a small holding with a number of sheds located upon it. It is situated within the Primary Housing Area. Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of three detached houses. Approval of access is only sought at the current stage with all other matters reserved. The proposed access is located to the south east corner of the site frontage and the houses would be arranged in a row. The application has been referred to Planning Committee due to the sensitive nature of the application. The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents:

Bat Roost Potential Assessment Form

Surface Water Drainage and Flood Risk Relevant Planning History An application for the construction of a detached bungalow and garage was refused consent under delegated powers on 25/07/1980, (application number 80/01959/FUL). Impact on the Green Belt and Access issues. An application for the construction of an agricultural workers dwelling was refused consent under delegated powers on 10/08/1980, (application number 80/03290/OUT). Green Belt issues and no justification to support an agricultural workers dwelling. An application for the construction of an agricultural workers dwelling was refused consent under delegated powers on 19/08/1981. (Application number 81/01141/OUT). Green Belt issues and no justification to support an agricultural workers dwelling. Key Policy Context:


Primary Housing Areas Wildlife Corridor


H2 Primary Housing Areas H9 Non Allocated Sites BE1 General Design Criteria BE2 Privacy, Daylighting and Amenity BE5 The Design and Layout of Highways and Accesses T18 Maximum Parking Allowances NE15 Development in Wildlife Corridors NE16 Protection of Protected Species EP14 Protection of water sources EP22 Sustainable Drainage

National Planning Policy Framework 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes

33

Other relevant planning constraints Bat Alert Area

Publicity/ Representations: The application was publicised via neighbour notification letters. Seventeen letters of objection were received. Summary of points raised: Objection

Contrary to Local Policies the houses are not affordable housing

The site is classed as Green Belt

The development will increase the noise levels

Will have an impact on the privacy of my home

Scale of dwellings will be out of character with neighbours

Narrow lane is not suitable for increased traffic particularly during construction

Properties have been damaged by large vehicles going past

Unsuitable to use residents drives as passing points as no others

Road in poor state of repair

Junction with Mill Hill Lane and Halifax Road is dangerous

Emergency vehicles need to get past

No footpath for walkers/cyclists/horse riders etc.

Bats have been seen in Spring to Autumn

Planning has been refused 3 times on this site.

Assessment of Proposal Principle of Development The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012. 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 (as set out in paragraph 14):



benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole; or - Specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted.

The site does not lie within an area, or contain other constraints where the Framework indicates that development should be restricted.

34

The site lies within the Primary Housing Area where RCUDP policies H2 (Primary Housing Areas) and H9 (Non Allocated Sites) are relevant. It is recognised however that the references in H2 and H9 to residential development only being acceptable on previously developed, brownfield sites, are not compliant with the NPPF. The NPPF encourages the re-use of brownfield land but does not preclude new residential development on undeveloped greenfield land. As such, the presumption in favour of development applies and the principle of the proposal is acceptable. Housing Issues As this is an application for housing development, paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework applies. It establishes that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Council does not have a 5-year housing land supply. The current position is that Calderdale has 2 year housing land supply. It is therefore recognised that RCUDP policies H2 and H9 are out of date with the NPPF in this context also. Although these policies are not an irrelevant consideration, one can infer from paragraph 49 of the NPPF that the weight to be given to out of date policies for the supply of housing will normally be less than the weight due to policies which provide fully for the requisite supply. The application site is located within a Primary Housing Area. Halifax Rd is 370m away to the east and has a good public transport network - Brighouse Town Centre lies 1.3Km away to the south east. The use of the land as a former small holding does not render the site previously developed land and therefore the application site is considered to be greenfield. However as explained above, the NPPF does not preclude development of greenfield sites and the presumption is in favour of the development. While the inability to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land is an important material consideration that weighs in favour of granting permission, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply should not override all other considerations. It is necessary to consider all other relevant issues and weigh these in the overall planning balance. Environmental, amenity, traffic and other relevant issues, are considered further below. The proposed development is acceptable in principle. 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. The application has been submitted in outline with only access at this stage to be considered. However it is considered at this stage that the three dwellings would be able to satisfactorily comply with policy BE2 given the distance to boundaries.

35

Layout, Design & Materials 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 application has been submitted in outline with only access to be considered at this stage. There are existing dwellings to the SE which are large terraced dwellings with long front gardens, to the NW are dwellings arranged in series of 4 terraced blocks. These are of an average size. It is considered that a subsequent application for reserved maters would be likely to be able to meet with the requirements of policy BE1. Highway Considerations Policy BE5 states that the design and layout of highways and accesses should:- i. ensure the safe and free-flow of traffic (including provision for cyclists) in the interest of highway safety; ii. allow access by public transport where appropriate; iii. provide convenient pedestrian routes and connectivity within the site and with its surroundings; iv. incorporate traffic calming, and speed management and reduction measures where appropriate; v. provide an attractive environment which respects the local character of the area; vi. take account of the Hierarchy of Consideration of Policy GT4; and vii. help to reduce opportunities for crime. Policy T18 establishes new development should provide parking not in excess of the maximum allowances set out below. For all houses the maximum parking allowance is 1 space per dwelling PLUS 1 space per dwelling where parking is available within the curtilage of the dwelling otherwise 1 space per 2 dwellings, (giving a total of 1.5 spaces per dwelling on developments where communal parking is provided. Larger dwellings, in excess of 5 bedrooms will be assessed separately. The Assistant Director – Strategic Infrastructure has commented,

“The proposals are for a residential development of three dwellings with visitor car parking spaces on land adjacent to Langlaaghte accessed from Wood Bottom lane in Brighouse. The proposal is for outline permission with access approval requested, the other details within the site could therefore change as part of the reserved matters.

36

The proposals are for three number five bedroom dwellinghouses, although there are generous living spaces proposed that could be used as additional bedrooms. Each dwellinghouse is proposed to be provided with a garage, the dimensions of the proposed garage of 5.5m wide and 6m length and therefore are only considered big enough for one vehicle. To be considered adequate for two vehicles, the garages would need to be 6m wide and 6m length. The Replacement Calderdale UDP states that for upto five bedrooms two car parking spaces can be provided. Private driveways are proposed and therefore it is considered that adequate parking is proposed for the dwellinghouses. Access for the dwellings is proposed to be taken from a 3.5m access road within the site. The proposed road is not wide enough to allow simultaneous access and egress but it is considered that the driveways will act as passing places for the residents and for a low number of dwellings this is deemed acceptable. Access to the houses is proposed to be via the existing access to the site. A bin store and four visitor car parking spaces are provided in close proximity to the access and it is considered that there is adequate space for these vehicles to turn around within the site and exit in forward gear. Wood Bottom Lane itself is a narrow adopted highway which is in a poor state of repair in some locations. A site visit confirmed that the road is signed as access only. There is no segregated footpath and therefore pedestrians were noted on street in the vicinity of the site. Local bus stops are on Halifax Road close to the junction with Mill Hill Lane. It is not considered that the additional dwellings would create a significant traffic increase that would be detrimental in terms of current guidance, either Calderdale policy BE5 or national guidance in the NPP, subject to usable off-street parking. It is considered that the existing sight lines are acceptable for the proposed use, the boundary treatments are relatively low and the road alignment and narrowness restricts vehicle speeds. It is not considered that the restricted capacity of the highway constitutes a severe cumulative impact and therefore there are no objections to the proposals on highways grounds subject to conditions”

The application is considered to comply with policies BE5 and T18 subject to conditions to secure 2 parking spaces per dwelling, and further details regarding the existing and proposed levels of any paths, drives garages and parking area, details of the construction and specification for the access roads, details of a scheme for hard surfacing of the first 6 metres of the site access from the adopted highway boundary on Wood Bottom Lane, and details of a scheme for the management of construction traffic. Flooding and drainage Policy EP14 states that ground and surface water will be protected. Development will not be permitted if the drainage from it poses an unacceptable risk to the quality or use of surface or ground water resources. 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.

37

Policy EP22 states where possible and appropriate, development proposals shall incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems. Where this is not appropriate and possible, an acceptable alternative must be incorporated. No comments have been received from the Assistant Director – Strategic Infrastructure, however a standard drainage condition would be sufficient in this location. The application is this considered to comply with policy EP14 and EP22 subject to conditions. Wildlife Conservation Policy NE 16 states that development will not be permitted if it would harm the habitat requirements of legally protected, rare or threatened wildlife species and the species themselves unless provision is made to protect those species and their habitats. The application is located within a bat alert area. The application has been accompanied by a bat roost potential assessment form and photographs. The Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods has commented,

“I am satisfied that the photographs demonstrate that there is a low chance of an adverse impact on roosting bats. I do not believe a bat survey to be required. No removal or management of any tall vegetation, including brambles, ivy, trees and shrubs or removal of buildings, should be carried out between 1st March and 31st August inclusive unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a bird survey immediately before such works have bene carried out and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed or disturbed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting birds on site. Any such written confirmation should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. In line with the biodiversity enhancement requirements set out in the NPPF, a single permanent bat roosting feature should be installed within the fabric of each of the proposed dwellings.”

The application is thus considered to comply with policy NE16 subject to conditions. Trees and Landscaping Trees and landscaping are not to be considered under the outline planning process they are to be assessed under reserved matters. It is however noted that there are no protected trees on the site or any particular specimens of any merit.

CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions specified below. The recommendation to grant planning permission has been made because the development 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

38

Date: 28th February 2018

Further Information Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:- Sara Johnson (Case Officer) on 01422 392212 or Lisa Deacon (Lead Officer) on 01422 392233. Conditions 1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the schedule of approved plans


2. 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 (as amended) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority :

(i) appearance (ii) landscaping (iii) layout (iv) scale The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details so approved

and so retained thereafter. 3. Prior to the construction of the foundations of the dwellings hereby approved full details of the

foul and/or surface water and/or sustainable systems of drainage if feasible and/or sub-soil drainage and external works for the development (taking into account flood risk on and off site and including details of any balancing works, off-site works, existing systems to be re-used, works on or near watercourses and diversions) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be implemented prior to the first operation of the development and retained thereafter.

4. In connection with any garage, driveway, vehicle hardstanding or car-port hereby approved

for construction within the boundary of a dwelling, prior to the occupation of that dwelling, there shall be installed a facility to permit the recharge of an electrical battery-powered vehicle. 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.

5. Before the dwellings hereby permitted are occupied the two parking spaces per dwelling and

visitor parking spaces shall be constructed, sealed and drained such that surface water does not drain onto the adjacent highway and shall be so retained thereafter.

6. Before any works take place to the access the construction and specification for the access

roads shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be fully implemented before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter.

39

7. A scheme for hard surfacing of the first 6 metres of the site access from the adopted highway boundary on Wood Bottom Lane shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and agreed in writing and shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development. This surfacing shall be either bitumen macadam, hot rolled asphalt or equivalent.

8. Before any construction traffic is brought to the site, a scheme for the management of

construction traffic shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the commencement of construction and retained in operation for the duration of the works.


compliance with the Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The application is in outline only, and details of the matters referred to have been reserved for

subsequent approval and to ensure compliance with policies H2, BE1, BE2 and BE3 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

3. To ensure proper drainage of the site and to ensure compliance with policies EP14 and EP22

of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 4. In the interests of the sustainability of the development and to ensure compliance with policy

EP25 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 5. To ensure that adequate off-street parking is available for the development and to ensure

compliance with policy T18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 6. To ensure that suitable access is available in the interests of highway safety and to ensure

compliance with policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 7. To ensure that suitable access is available for the development and to ensure compliance

with policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 8. To ensure that adequate off-street parking is available during the construction period and in

the interests of visual amenity and to ensure compliance with policy T18 and BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

40

Time Not Before: 1430 - 02 Application No: 17/01466/FUL Ward: Hipperholme And Lightcliffe

Area Team: South Team Proposal: Proposed detached dwelling Location: 10 Northedge Lane Hipperholme Brighouse Calderdale HX3 8JZ

Applicant: Mr And Mrs S Ingham Recommendation: PERMIT Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: Yes Departure from Development Plan: No Consultations: Highways Section Highways Section Highways Section Countryside Services (E) Tree Officer

41

Description of Site and Proposal The site is located in the garden of no 10 Northedge Lane, Hipperholme, in a built up residential area. The site is surrounded on all three sides by residential properties. To the north of the site is the host property, to the east are properties along Groveville, to the south are properties at the head of Brodley Close, and to the west are properties along East Royd. Planning permission is sought for the construction of a single detached dwelling. The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents:

Surface Water Drainage and Flood Risk Form The application is brought to committee at the request of Cllr Raistrick Relevant Planning History An outline planning application (77/00631/OUT) for residential development was permitted under delegated powers on 3rd May 1977. An application ( 77/02439/FUL) for a detached house was permitted under delegated powers on the 9th November 1977. An application (96/00678/FUL) for a second storey extension to 10 Northedge Lane was permitted under delegated powers on 29th April 1986. Key Policy Context:


Primary Housing Area


H2 Primary Housing Area H9 Non Allocated Housing Site BE1 General Design Criteria BE2 Privacy, daylighting and Amenity Space BE5 The Design and Layout of Highways and Accesses T18 Maximum Parking Allowances EP14 Protection of Ground Water EP20 Protection from Flood Risk EP22 Sustainable Drainage Systems NE16 Protection of Protected Species NE21 Trees and Development Sites

National Planning Policy Framework Presumption in favour of sustainable development. 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring Good Design 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

Other relevant planning constraints

42

Publicity/ Representations: Thirty neighbour notification letters were sent. Fifteen letters of objection were received and one neutral letter. Summary of points raised:

Right of way not shared by host property;

Proposed access is on land outside of applicants ownership;

Access drive is built over land not in applicants ownership

Moving the lighting column will leave access to Northedge Lane in darkness at night;

Incorrect information on application form

Impact on wildlife;

Concern over capacity of sewers and drains;

Impact on Trees;

Flood Risk;

Impact on existing properties on East Royd and Groveville;

Increase congestion on Northedge Lane;

Loss of privacy for existing residents;

Highway safety;

Proposed dwelling too big;

Visibility splay makes too many assumptions;

Access may be blocked for existing residents along East Royd;

Disruption during construction phase;

On road parking will be reduced;

Concerns with being overlooked especially from the first floor;

Concern over what is meant by a workshop on the plans;

Telephone wires pass across the site;

Waste storage;

Parish/Town Council Comments The development is not located within a parished area Ward Councillor Comments Councillor Colin Raistrick provided the following comments: “I share the highway concerns of some of the other objectors. Parking on Northedge Lane is only on the southern side. The houses to the north (Mayfield) have parking to the rear. To add an exit onto this road, without proper sight lines and unwanted parking restrictions, would seem ill advised.”

43

Assessment of Proposal Principle of Development The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012. 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:



benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole; or - Specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted

The site does not lie within an area, or contain other constraints where the Framework indicates that development should be restricted. The site lies within the Primary Housing Area where RCUDP policies H2 (Primary Housing Areas) and H9 (Non Allocated Sites) are relevant. It is recognised however that the references in H2 and H9 to residential development only being acceptable on previously developed, brownfield sites, are not compliant with the NPPF. The NPPF encourages the re-use of brownfield land but does not preclude new residential development on undeveloped greenfield land. As such, the presumption in favour of development applies. The principle of the proposal is acceptable Housing Issues As this is an application for housing development, paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework applies. It establishes that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The requirement to maintain a rolling 5 year supply of deliverable land for housing is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The current position is that Calderdale has a 2 year housing land supply. It is therefore recognised that RCUDP policies H2 and H9 are out of date with the NPPF in this context also. Although these policies are not an irrelevant consideration, one can infer from paragraph 49 of the NPPF that the weight to be given to out of date policies for the supply of housing will normally be less than the weight due to policies which provide fully for the requisite supply.

44

The application site is located within a Primary Housing Area in a sustainable location close to many essential facilities such as shops, schools etc. The use of the land for garden does not render the site previously developed land and therefore the application site is considered to be greenfield. However as explained above, the NPPF does not preclude development of greenfield sites and the presumption is in favour of the development. While the inability to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land is an important material consideration that weighs in favour of granting permission, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply should not override all other considerations. It is necessary to consider all other relevant issues and weigh these in the overall planning balance. The development is therefore supported and the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. Environmental, amenity, traffic and other relevant issues, are considered further below. Residential Amenity Along with objections in relation highways access, a significant number of objections related to the loss of privacy that would result from the proposed development. 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. To the north a secondary elevation of the proposed dwelling will be at a distance of 21m from the nearest elevation of the host dwelling which is a secondary elevation. All other secondary aspects are in excess of 18m from the host dwelling and therefore the distances are considered acceptable with regards to Annex A and the host dwelling. Away from the host dwelling, a blank side elevation of the proposed dwelling is 12m from the main elevation of no. 4 East Royd and no. 3 East Royd, which meets the Annex A guidelines. In addition, no. 5 East Royd is also 12m from the blank side elevation of the proposed dwelling, whilst the same property is 22m from a secondary elevation, which is proposed to house a studio, store and workshop. Some concerns were expressed by objectors with regards to what was intended by a workshop and studio; however the applicant has stated that these are not for commercial purposes and would be intended to be used for hobbies and crafts and therefore would not bring any industrial uses into the development. To the east of the proposed dwelling are properties along Groveville. A secondary elevation of the proposed dwelling is approximately 20m from the main elevations of those dwellings along Groveville. The windows in this elevation are intended to be for a dressing room, and a bedroom to the ground floor, and two roof lights to a bedroom on the first floor. The proposed separation distances from this elevation are in excess of the Annex A guidelines. In addition to meeting Annex A guidelines, the plans show these windows are to be glazed and this, along with the proposed 1.8m fence are considered to be acceptable. To the south, the main elevation is 21m from the nearest property at the head of Brodley Close.

45

The proposed dwelling meets the recommended guidelines in Annex A. In addition, the design of the development is such that where ground floor windows in a secondary elevation could impact on privacy, a boundary fence will reduce such impacts, and given the first floor is proposed to only have roof lights the proposal would be considered acceptable in relation to Policy BE2 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. Layout, Design & Materials Policy BE1 seeks development that contributes positively to the local environment through high quality design, respecting the established character of the area in particular scale, design, materials, appropriate landscaping, being energy efficient and includes consideration for crime prevention. Section 7 of the NPPF states that “the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.” The site forms the garden area of no. 10 Northedge Lane, in a built up residential area of Hipperholme. The site is flat and surrounded on all sides by residential development. The materials for the walls of the proposed dwelling are proposed as being a mix of natural stone and through colour render, and stone feature quoins. The roof materials are proposed as being artificial blue slate roof. Windows and doors will be UPVC. Whilst the host dwelling is built from natural stone, the proposed use of a mix of materials for the proposed dwelling reflects not only this but also other neighbouring properties which are a mix of render and stone. Internally, the ground floor as proposed consists of a lounge, a snug, entrance lobby and hallway, a utility room, an open plan kitchen and dining area, a dressing room, and a master bedroom with en suite and store. The ground floor internal accommodation is completed with a studio, store and workshop. To the first floor, there are two further bedrooms, a living room, and a bathroom. To the south elevation the property’s dining area opens up to a covered patio area which leads to the garden. The dwelling will have a height to eaves of 3.2m with a height to ridge of 5.9m. The dwelling’s eastern elevation has a total length of 24m, and at its widest the dwelling is 14m. The total internal ground floor area is 184m2, and the internal first floor area is 78m2. The total site area is 513m2. Access to the proposed dwelling will be via an access road off Northedge Lane. The applicant has proposed that part of the host dwelling is to be removed in order to achieve a suitable access. There are no TPOs on or adjacent to the site, and part of the garden to the south of the host dwelling is to be retained to provide a garden area for the proposed dwelling. The boundary of the site is proposed to consist of a 1.8m high fence to the east of the site, whilst to the west the stone wall and existing shrubbery will be retained to provide screening. Overall the design, scale and massing of the dwelling as proposed shown on plan respects the established character of the area and would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby residents. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the Replacement Unitary Development Plan Policy BE1 and section 7 of the NPPF.

46

Highway Considerations A number of objections centred on the access to the proposed dwelling and highway safety. There were objections to initial proposals with regards to the access going over private land. In order to avoid this, the applicant submitted amended plans, to the effect of taking away part of the host dwelling in order to achieve an access to the site. The Assistant Director – Strategic Infrastructure (Highways) was consulted and initially raised objections to the scheme on highways safety grounds. The applicant submitted a number of revisions to the layout and subsequently the consultee provided the following comments on the final proposed layout: “The amended plan has widened the proposed driveway with no other significant changes to the application already commented upon. My original comment remains valid and there are no highway objections to this application as submitted subject to condition. The right of access mentioned by several objectors remains a matter for the applicant to determine. It is not a public right of way and I am unable to comment on its use in that respect. The street lighting will be moved to a location agreed with this authority.” The amended scheme alters the length of the access along the lane at the side of the host property and therefore this alleviates the objection with regards to the access being private land. Subject to a condition relating to the provision of parking areas prior to the occupation of the dwelling the proposal is considered suitable in relation to policies T18 and BE5. 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 the surface water run-off or obstruction. Sustainable Drainage Systems should be incorporated where appropriate in accordance with RCUDP Policy EP22. 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.

With regards to drainage the applicant proposes to connect to the existing drainage system.

A condition requiring the submission of drainage details for approval is proposed. Subject to this condition the proposal complies with policies EP14, EP20 and EP22. Wildlife and Ecology Some objections referred to the impact on wildlife resulting from the proposed development. The site is not within a Bat Alert Area, nor is it within a Wildlife Corridor. The Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods (Conservation) was consulted and raised no objections to the proposal, but requested a condition to provide a swift or house sparrow nesting feature. Subject to the above, the proposal is considered to accord with RCUDP policy NE16.

47

Trees and Landscaping There are no trees subject to a TPO either within or adjacent to the site. Subject to a condition to ensure any retained trees are protected during any construction work, the proposal accords with policy NE21. CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions specified below. The recommendation to grant planning permission has been made because the development 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 7th March 2018

Further Information Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:- Paul Copeland (Case Officer) on 01422 392195 or Lisa Deacon (Lead Officer) on 01422 392233

48

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


2. Prior to the construction of the foundations of the dwelling hereby approved full details of the

foul and/or surface water and/or sustainable systems of drainage if feasible and/or sub-soil drainage and external works for the development (taking into account flood risk on and off site and including details of any balancing works, off-site works, existing systems to be re-used, works on or near watercourses and diversions) shall be 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.

3. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the off street parking and turning facilities shown on

the permitted plans for that dwelling have been provided, surfaced, drained and made available for the occupiers of that dwelling. These facilities shall thereafter be retained.

4. 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 elevations of the dwelling without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

5. Prior to the construction of the foundations of the dwelling hereby approved no construction

materials, plant or machinery be brought onto site until the trees to be retained are protected by suitable fencing as recommended in British Standards 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction. This fencing shall be retained until the completion of the development and no materials, plant or equipment shall be stored, no bonfires shall be lit nor any building or excavation works of any kind shall take place within the protected fencing.

6. One permanent swift or house sparrow terrace nesting feature should be integrated into the

fabric of the building as close to the north elevation gable apex as possible (but not directly above windows or doors). The nesting feature shall be retained thereafter.


compliance with the Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework. 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 that adequate off-street parking is available for the development and to ensure

compliance with Policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 4. 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. 5. To ensure compliance with policy NE21 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development

Plan.

49

6. In the interests of ensuring protected species are not harmed and environment enhancement and to ensure compliance with policies NE16 and NE17 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

50

Time Not Before: 1500 Application No: 17/01496/MIN Ward: Greetland And Stainland

Area Team: South Team Proposal: Mineral extraction for a 15 year time period, with subsequent restoration of land. Location: Spring Hill Quarry Rochdale Road Greetland Elland Calderdale HX4 8PS

Applicant: Mr Ollerenshaw Recommendation: PERMIT Parish Council Representations: N/A Representations: No Departure from Development Plan: No Consultations: Highways Section Environmental Health Services - Pollution Section (E) Environment Agency (Waste & Water) Yorkshire Water Services Ltd Countryside Services (E)

51

Description of Site and Proposal

The site consists of a small quarry which has been active since the 1960’s. Part of the historic area has been backfilled and restored. It is located 35 metres to the north of Spring Rock Inn on the north side of Greetland Road at the point where it changes to Rochdale Road. It comprises approximately 0.97 ha. The quarry is accessed directly off Greetland/Rochdale Road and is designated as Protected Land and Mineral Working Site (Sandstone (Sandstone/Gritstone Workings M27a) within the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan (RCUDP). The site is within the Green Belt.

The site is bounded on the north by pasture land and on the north east by a dry stone wall and track to Spring Head Farm and Norland Moor. The track is also used as a footpath leading to a network of footpaths crossing Norland Moor. The Spring Rock Inn and its car park lie beyond the track. The southern boundary abuts Greetland Road and is screened from the road by previously restored quarry workings and trees.

This application is for an extension of time to extract the remaining reserves, and change of use of land north of the quarry for ancillary operations.

In 2001 it was estimated that stone reserves amounted to 43,000 tonnes which were projected to take 10 years to extract. Planning permission 01/01033/MIN required extraction to cease by 31January 2013. There was a down turn in the economy in 2007 and subsequent reduction in demand for building stone. An extension of time was granted in 2012 under condition 2 of that permission which allows for an extension of time to be granted in writing by officers under the clause “unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority”.

The extension of time was agreed given the low level of working at that time and the timescale was not considered to be significant. An extension of time was agreed for extraction to 31 January 2018 with restoration of the site to be meadow with wetland area and wooded slopes to be completed by 31 March 2019.

It is now estimated by the applicant that approximately 21,500 tonnes of reserves remain. Based on an annual extraction rates over the pervious 18 years it is estimated they would take 15 years to extract, that is until 2033.

The application is brought before the Planning Committee as it seeks to extend the period of time for working significantly over and above that which was granted by the Planning Committee under permission 01/01033/MIN on 14 January 2003.

No changes are proposed to the quarrying activities, the site is worked in three phases. Phase one is 90% worked, phase 2 is 50% worked, phase 3 has been stripped of soils and subsoil. Block stone is removed from site for sawing elsewhere. The flaggy gritstone remains on site and is worked by hand to produce stone, cills, mullions, lintels, walling stone or crazy paving. Waste stone is crushed and screened on site for onward sale. Stone is pulled out by backactor assisted by drilling and splitting as necessary, there will be no blasting on site.

52

This application proposes an extension to the site area of 2,995sq meters to allow ancillary operations such as aggregate stockpiles to take place outside the quarry void. No extraction will take place in this area.

Upon completion of extraction, minerals waste and overburden would be spread evenly over the floor of the quarry to raise the finished levels by approximately 2 metres followed by retained soil. It is proposed to restore the site to grassland, with trees and areas of slopes to provide rough grazing and a variety of habitats. The ancillary area would be regraded and brought back into agricultural use.

The application was not accompanied by an Environmental Statement. The application has been screened under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 as the proposal has the potential for being an EIA development, being a development, which falls within Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

The Minerals Planning Authority considers that the development described above is not an EIA development. A notification of this Screening Opinion was issued and uploaded on 1 February 2018.

Relevant Planning History

Planning permission expired in 1967 for extraction of minerals.

The reopening of the quarry was granted consent by the Planning Committee in 2003 (planning reference 01/01033/MIN) which required extraction to cease by 31January 2013. An extension of time was granted under condition 2 of that permission in 2012 which extended extraction to 31 January 2018.

Key Policy Context:

RCUDP Designation

Green Belt

Working Mineral Site (M27a) Spring Hill Quarry, Greetland

Special Landscape Area

National Planning Policy Framework NPPF

1. Building a strong, competitive economy

3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy

9. Protecting Green Belt Land

10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change.

11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

13. Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals.

Technical Guidance to the NPPF – Minerals Policy

National Planning Policy Guidance (Minerals) NPPG

53

National Planning Policy Guidance (Minerals) (NPPG)

RCUDP Policies

GM1 Minerals Strategy

M1 Criteria for assessing all mineral working proposals

M4 Safeguarding mineral resources.

NE12 Development within Special Landscape Area

BE5 The Design and Layout Highways and Accesses

Publicity/ Representations:

The application was publicised with a site notice, press notice and neighbour notification letters. No letters of representation were received

Ward Councillor Comments

None received

Assessment of Proposal

Principle of Development

The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012. 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 the development plan without delay; and

• Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless:

- Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole; or

- Specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted (for example…land designated as Green Belt…)

The framework indicates that development should be restricted in the Green belt, so the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

54

According to the NPPF, 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. The NPPF goes on to establish that the purposes of the Green Belt are:

• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

• to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

• to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

• to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

• to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

In relation to development in the Green Belt, the NPPF states that:

90. Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These are:

• mineral extraction

Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework, entitled Facilitating the Sustainable Use of Minerals (paragraph 144) requires MPA’s to:

ensure in granting permission for mineral development that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality.

The National Planning Practice Guidance on Minerals states that they make an essential contribution to the country’s prosperity and quality of life. Planning for the supply of minerals has a number of special characteristics that are not present in other development and these include amongst other things:

Working is a temporary use of land, although it often takes place over a long period of time

Working may have adverse and positive environmental effects, but some adverse effects can be effectively mitigated.

Since extraction of minerals is a continuous process of development, there is a requirement for routine monitoring, and if necessary, enforcement to secure compliance with conditions that are necessary to mitigate impacts of minerals working operations; and

Following working, land should be restored to make it suitable for beneficial after-use.

Policy GM1 Minerals Strategy of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan (RCUDP) states:

Provision will be made for a continuing supply of minerals including aggregates and recycled and secondary materials in accordance with national and regional guidance, having regard to the need to encourage the efficient use of aggregates and minimisation of waste and safeguard the environment and protect local communities.

Measures will be undertaken to ensure that mineral working does not create unacceptable environmental, amenity, traffic, safety and other effects on the landscape, environment and local inhabitants and that sites are restored to a beneficial after-use

Policy M1 in the RCUDP includes 16 considerations to be assessed when dealing with new or extended mineral workings including: local amenity, duration of working, final appearance, impact on landscape, impact on heritage assets, effect of working and restoration, impact of viability of agricultural holding, suitability of restoration and after-care, effect on traffic generated, provision of adequate access, potential for non road transport, quantity and quality of mineral and contribution to local economy, implications for local employment, cumulative impact of past mineral working and

55

other site and all other relevant RCUDP policies. These considerations have been taken into account during the consideration of this planning application.

The principle of minerals extraction is acceptable, subject to an assessment of the impacts detailed above and these are set out below.

Residential Amenity

The site lies to the north of hamlet of Greetland Wall Nook. The nearest residential property is Spring Hill Farm approximately 35 meters west of the site this is occupied by the operator. Spring Rock Inn and its car park lie to the south beyond the quarry access and the track which provides access to Spring Head Farm and Norland Moor.

A close boarded fence runs along the boundary of the site with the track and further screening is proved by soil and overburden bunds. There will be no blasting on site. Operational machinery would be located in the quarry void

The proposal provides suitable noise and dust mitigation to protect residential amenity and the amenity of the footpath. Conditions 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16, are recommended and seek to ensure the effects of the quarrying operations on residential amenity are not unacceptable. Condition 13 is recommended and relates to hours of operation and these are: 0800 to 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays and no working on Sundays Public or Bank Holiday. Condition 18 is recommended in order to seek to prevent any importation of stone for dressing, sawing or onward sale directly from the site. The proposal is considered to meet Policy M1 of the RCUDP in relation to amenity.

Planning Services have not received complaints regarding noise, disturbance or dust. The Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods has been consulted but no comments have been received.

Visual Amenity

The main public views of the site are from the north east and south. The activities which might be visible are the crusher, screener and associated stock piles of aggregates. Views from the public right of way to the northeast are restricted by soil mounds and close boarded fence. Views from Greetland Road are glimpsed through existing vegetation, however these are mitigated by activities being at a lower level than surrounding land.

Conditions 14, 15 and 16 seek to protect visual amenity. Condition 17 is recommended to seek to ensure the stone perimeter boundary is retained and maintained and condition 27 relates to the protection of trees. Conditions 28, 29 and 30 relate to restoration and Condition 31 relates to aftercare.

The proposal is considered to comply with policy M1 of the RCUDP.

Special Landscape Area

Policy NE12 of the RCUDP seeks to protect Special Landscape Areas from development which would adversely affect landscape quality. Whilst the development would cause short term negative impacts the topography of the site minimises impacts to the immediate area.

56

Conditions 14, 15, 16 and 17 seek to reduce the visual impact of the development. The restoration scheme would provide for enhancement of visual quality of the area.

Conditions 28, 29 and 30 relate to restoration and Condition 31 relates to aftercare.

It is therefore considered that the impacts on the Special Landscape Area would be shot term and reversible.

Highway Considerations

Policy BE5 of the RCUDP seeks to secure highways and accesses whose design and layout ensure the safe and free flow of traffic in the interests of highway safety and to provide an attractive environment. Policy T18 seeks to ensure there is adequate off street parking facilities.

The 2001 permission restricted HGV movements to 20 in and 20 out per week (40 in total). Currently the vehicle movements are lower and take the form on Light Goods Vehicles. However, the applicant has agreed that the condition is repeated here, in order to give the operator flexibility.

The site has been operating as a quarry for number of years and the current arrangements provide safe access and egress from Greetland Road to the satisfaction of Assistant Director - Strategic Infrastructure (Highways). The activities undertaken on site are low key: stone is exported off the site and sold to the local market and the majority of vehicles are Light Goods Vehicles rather than HGVs.

Conditions are recommended in order to manage highway safety and Conditions 5, 6 and 7 deal with this. Condition 4 deals with prevention of mud and detritus being taken onto the highway.

Condition 3 stipulates that all vehicles be sheeted where particles are less than 225mm in the vehicles, which although can assist with highway safety, will also assist with ensuring amenity is protected.

The development is considered to accord with policies BE5, T18 and M1 of the RCUDP.

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 the surface water run-off or obstruction.

Surface water drains and collects at the base of the quarry and seeps through the quarry floor into groundwater, no surface water therefore drains from the quarry into adjacent water course or drain.

No new surface water or flooding issues would arise as a result of the continuation of extraction. Protection of groundwater during operations is covered by recommended Conditions 21 and 22. It is therefore considered that the development accords with RCUDP Policies EP141, EP20 and M1.

57

Ecology & Wildlife

There are no protected species present on the site the proposed restoration scheme would provide for a mosaic of habitats to benefit wildlife.

Conditions 28, 29 and 30 relate to the restoration and Condition 31 relates to aftercare and these are recommended to ensure that the site is restored in an acceptable manner.


Trees and Landscaping

There are no trees which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order, however, from a visual and ecological aspect it is considered appropriate to protect the trees. Mitigation measures have been provided to ensure protection of existing trees within the site. Further tree planting is proposed as part of the restoration scheme.

Conditions 27 relates to the protection of trees and hedgerows on site. Condition 17 relates to retention of and maintenance of perimeter stone walls.


Restoration

The site is part of a wider agricultural holding, classified as Grade 4 agricultural land. Topsoil stripped is to remain on site and together with overburden used in the proposed restoration scheme. The proposed restoration scheme provides for a low level restoration to meadow and wetland with wooded slopes with a five year scheme of maintenance this is considered appropriate for the location and biodiversity.

Conditions 28, 29 and 30 relate to restoration and Condition 31 relates to aftercare.


Other Issues

The site is within the Green Belt and Special landscape Area. The NPPF acknowledges that Minerals can only be won where they exist and mineral extraction is not inappropriate in the Green Belt. The application is supported by a scheme of mitigation and restoration. Due to the short term nature and low key nature of the development it is considered that the proposed extension in time is appropriate and will not cause any demonstrable planning harm and is in accordance with the NPPF, NPPG (Minerals). Condition 1 is recommended to allow extraction to 31 January 2034 with a low key restoration to be completed by 31 March 2035. Any extraction beyond this date would require a further permission.

58

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to the conditions specified below. The development is appropriate development in the Green Belt. Visual impact of the development will short to medium term; conditions to mitigate the operational phase and provide for restoration of the site have been set out below. 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: 12 February 2018

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Information

Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact:

Anita Seymour (Case Officer) or Telephone 01422 392480 or

Lisa Deacon (Lead Officer) on Telephone 01422 392233

Conditions 1. Mineral extraction shall cease by 31 January 2034 and restoration of the site to meadow with

a wetland area and wooded and scree slopes shall be completed by the 31 March 2035. 2. Mineral extraction shall only take place in the area marked on plan no MFH/21253/4 entitled

Phasing Plan 3. All vehicles leaving the site loaded with minerals of a size less than 225mm shall be securely

sheeted prior to entering the public highway 4. Effective steps shall be taken by the operator to prevent the deposition of mud, dust and other

materials on the adjacent public highway caused by vehicles visiting and leaving the site. Any accidental deposition of dust, mud or any other material from the site, on the public highway shall be removed immediately by the operator.

5. The sole means of access shall be via the existing access shown on plan number

MFH/21253/4 entitled Phasing Plan, and maintained and kept in a clean condition free of obstruction for the duration of the development

59

6. The areas marked on plan MFH/21253/3 'vehicle turning and loading' and 'visitor parking' shall be retained in good repair for these purpose only throughout the lifetime of the development.

7. The visibility site lines at the site access road at its junction with Greetland Road/Rochdale

Road shall be retained and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development 8. The maximum number of HGV trips to and from the site shall not exceed 20 inward and 20

outward per working week 9. There shall be no blasting on site 10. At all times during the carrying out of operations authorised or required under this best

practicable means shall be employed to minimise dust. Such measures may include;

water bowsers, sprayers whether mobile or fixed, or similar equipment;

All vehicles used for movement of materials within the site shall be equipped with exhausts pointing away from the ground (above the horizontal);

All relevant heavy plant shall be fitted with radiator fan deflector plates. A log of complaints from the public and a record of the measures taken shall be kept and

made available to the Minerals Planning Authority on request. 11. Noise emitted at any time from the site during normal operations must not exceed LAeq (1

hour) 55dB (free field) when measured at the boundary of the site except during temporary works (soil an over burden removal, noise attenuation bund formation)

12. Silencers shall be fitted to, used and maintained in accordance with manufacturers'

instructions on all vehicles, plant and machinery used on the site. No machinery shall be operated with the covers open or removed.

13. (a) Except as provided at (b) - (c) below no operations authorised or required by this

permission shall be carried out on the site except between the following times: 0800 - 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays; 0800 - 1300 hours Saturdays. (b) No servicing, maintenance and testing of plant shall be carried out except between the

following times: 0800 - 2200 hours Mondays to Saturdays; No servicing, maintenance and testing of plant shall be carried out on Sundays or on

Bank/Public Holidays. (c) The above time restrictions shall not apply to environmental monitoring. (d) There shall be no working on Sundays, or on Bank/Public Holidays. (e) This condition shall not apply in cases of emergency when life, limb or property are in

danger. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be notified, in writing, as soon as possible after the occurrence of any such emergency

60

14. The 2.4m metre close boarded fence along the eastern boundary of the site shall be

maintained in good order throughout the life time of the development. 15. All screening and crushing operations shall be undertaken within the area defined in condition

2 of this permission in the quarry void. 16. No stockpiles of crushed aggregate, stone, quarry waste, overburden or soils shall exceed

3m in height above natural ground level 17. All the stone walls forming the perimeter boundary of the site shall be retained and

maintained throughout the life time of the development 18. No stone shall be imported to the site for the purposes of dressing, sawing or for onward sale,

directly from the site. 19. Stone shall not be extracted below the levels shown on drawing number MFH/ 21253/5

entitled Sections - Excavated Levels 20. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 17 Class H and I of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 or, in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no waste material other than top soil for restoration shall be imported onto the site

21. No works shall be carried out to any watercourse and no surface water run-off from the quarry

shall be discharged into any watercourse or drain 22. Any fixed or free standing oil, fuel tanks lubricant and other potential pollutants shall be

surrounded by a fully sealed impermeable enclosure with a capacity not less than 110% of that of the tanks so to fully contain their contents in the event of any spillages. All filling points, vents and sight glasses shall be within the sealed impermeable enclosure; and there shall be no drain through the impermeable enclosure.

23. The site shall be worked so as not to cause instability to adjoining land and shall be worked in

accordance with the written statement and approved plans numbers MFH/21253/5 entitled Excavation Levels and MFH/212536 entitled Restoration Levels

24. The striping, movement and placement of soils shall only take place during dry weather

conditions and when the soils are in a dry friable condition 25. All top soil and subsoil shall be stripped in advance of working and separately stored in stacks

free from the risk of mixing and contamination, in the locations indicated on drawing number MFH/ 21253/3 entitled Working Plan and shall not exceed 3 metres AOD.

26. Any topsoil or subsoil stacks which are planned to be in position for 12 months or longer shall

be seeded down with grass and suitably maintained for their duration 27. For the duration of the development hereby permitted, appropriate steps shall be taken to

protect all existing trees and / or hedgerows on the site which are outside the approved operational areas from wilful damage or destruction and no trees and / or hedgerows shall be lobbed, topped or felled without the prior written approval of the Minerals Planning Authority. Any tree and / or hedgerow removed without such approval or dying or being severely

61

damaged or becoming seriously diseased before the end of that period shall be replaced with trees/plants of such size and species as may be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority.

28. Within six months of the date of this permission a scheme of restoration for the 'ancillary

operations' area as shown on plan no 1046 01A entitled Location Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority

29. The quarry void shall be restored in accordance with the plan approved under planning

permission 01/01033MIN ref MFH/21253/7 entitled Restoration Plan. 30. Details of the soft landscape scheme including implementation timescales to provide

restoration of the quarry void and operations area in accordance with approved schemes of restoration required under conditions 28 and 29 of this planning permission shall be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority on completion of extraction in phase 2 as shown on drawing number MFH/21253/4 entitled Phasing Plan Soft landscaping works shall include;

Planting plans which provide for native tree and shrub planting, and grassland;

Written specifications for remedial works and preparation of soil particularly to remove compaction (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), correction of nutrient deficiencies and / or toxicities and

Schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate and implementation programme.

The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in the approved timescale 31. An aftercare scheme which promotes the use of the site for agricultural and amenity use shall

be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority six months prior to the commencement of aftercare on all or part of the site. The submitted details shall then be implemented as approved.

The submitted scheme shall specify the steps to be taken and state the five year period during which they are to be taken and shall make provision for;

a) A detailed annual programme of implementation including the steps as may be necessary to bring the land up to the required standard;

b) Maintenance arrangements to include such amendments to drainage patterns, and replacement of failed planting and/or control/management of grassland, hedgerows and tree planting as required; and

c) Appropriate levels of: i) cultivation; ii) post-restoration secondary soil treatment; iii) drainage; iv) tree planting and maintenance; v) protective fencing and its maintenance, pest control; and vi) weed control. 32. Topsoil previously stripped from the site shall be spread evenly to a minimum depth of

100mm over the reinstated subsoil so as to form the final approved contours. The restored surface shall be ripped during a period when the soil is dry, in such a manner as to disturb the whole soil profile to a depth of 350mm any rock, boulder or stone of more than 150mm in any dimension shall be removed from the surface.

33. Within six months of the completion of restoration set out in conditions above all haul roads,

buildings, plant and equipment, including foundations, shall be removed from the site and the site reinstated in accordance with the restoration requirements in the conditions above

62

34. In the event of the premature cessation of mineral extraction on the site for whatever reason then within 12 months of such cessation a revised scheme of restoration and aftercare shall be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority for approval. Restoration of the site shall thereafter proceed in accordance within the revised scheme and shall be completed within 12 months from the date of approval of the revised scheme.

Reasons 1. To limit the extent and duration of the permission in the interests of amenity and to permit the

land to be restored/redeveloped. 2. To limit the extent and duration of the permission in the interests of amenity and to permit the

land to be restored/redeveloped. 3. In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to problems of material/dust on the

adjoining public highway in the interests of general highway safety/amenity and to ensure compliance with Policy M1 of the Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

4. In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to problems of mud/dust on the

adjoining public highway in the interests of general highway safety/amenity and to ensure compliance with Policy M1 of the Calderdale Unitary Development Plan

5. In the interests of road safety and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement

Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 6. In the interests of road safety and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement

Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 7. In the interests of road safety and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement

Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 8. In the interests of general highway safety/amenity and to ensure compliance with M1 of the

Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 9. In the interests of local amenity and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement

Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 10. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of the amenities of neighbouring properties

and pollution prevention and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

11. In the interests of local amenity and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement

Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 12. In the interests of local amenity and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement



Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

63

15. In the interests of local amenity and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

16. In the interests of local amenity and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement


Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 18. To limit the extent of the permission in the interests of amenity and to permit the land to be

restored/redeveloped and to ensure compliance with Policy M1 of the Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

19. To limit the extent of the permission in the interests of amenity and to permit the land to be


20. To limit the extent of the permission in the interests of amenity and to permit the land to be


21. To ensure that the development does not give rise to drainage problems and to ensure

compliance with M1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 22. To ensure that the development does not give rise to problems of pollution to underground

strata or adjoining watercourses and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

23. In the interests of local amenity and to ensure compliance with Policy M1 of the Calderdale

Unitary Development Plan 24. To prevent damage to soil structures and subsequent reduction in the quality of site

restoration and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

25. In order to maximise the quality of restoration works carried out. 26. In the interests of local amenity, and to maintain soil quality and to ensure compliance with M1

of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 27. In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that all trees/shrubs not

affected by the development are protected and retained in a healthy and safe condition and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

28. To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of

amenity and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

29. To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of

amenity and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

64

30. To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and to ensure compliance with M1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan.

31. To enable the envisaged after uses to become established and to ensure compliance with m1

of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 32. In order to ensure that the land is suitable for cultivation and to ensure compliance with M1 of

the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 33. To enable restoration of the site to a beneficial after use and to ensure compliance with M1 of

the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan. 34. To ensure that in the event of premature cessation of activities the land shall be satisfactorily

restored to beneficial use and to ensure compliance with Policy M1 of the Calderdale Unitary Development Plan

Documents

6 CALDERDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING ... · Hipperholme Brighouse Calderdale Detached dwelling and garage Hipperholme And Lightcliffe 16 - 30 1430 - 01 17/01453/OUT