The Assistant Director – Planning, Transportation and Highways will submit a report (Document “AH”) in relation to a planning application for a mixed use development at Bridgehouse Mills, Bridgehouse Lane, Haworth – 15/07479/MAF and an associated application for Listed Building Consent for partial demolition and alterations to this Grade II Listed building complex – 15/07481/LBC.

 

The development would comprise the change of use for residential purposes; the alteration, conversion, extension and partial demolition of the existing mill buildings to develop 45 retirement living apartments; the construction of 77 new dwellings including associated access arrangements; the construction of an extension to the existing industrial building accommodating Airedale Springs; the construction of a new factory for Wyedean Weaving; junction improvement works; landscaping works; flood water storage works; provision of parking and links to public footpaths.

 

The report states that, as part of the site is within the Green Belt, if the Committee is minded to approve the planning application (15/07479/MAF) the Secretary of State will have to be consulted to allow him to call-in the application for determination if he considers this to be necessary.

 

Recommended –

 

(i)        15/07479/MAF

 

(1)       That the application be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009 and, subject to him deciding not to call-in the application for determination, it be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

 

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of:

 

(i)            The provision of 5 units at a discount of 20% on the open market value of the properties, subject to occupancy restrictions           (properties to be offered to people who have not previously been a home buyer and want to own and occupy a home and who are below the age of 40 at the time of purchase) and appropriate restrictions being put in place to ensure that these starter homes are not re-sold or let at their open market value for five years following the intial sale,

(ii)          The maintenance and management of the Public Open Space and Flood Storage Area provided as part of the development and described as Bridgehouse Beck Park, in accordance with details which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

(ii)       15/07481/LBC

 

Recommended –

 

That the application for Listed Building Consent be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

 

(John Eyles – 01274 434380)

Worth Valley

 

The Assistant Director – Planning, Transportation and Highways submitted a report (Document “AH”) in relation to a planning application for a mixed use development at Bridgehouse Mills, Bridgehouse Lane, Haworth – 15/07479/MAF and an associated application for Listed Building Consent for partial demolition and alterations to this Grade II Listed building complex – 15/07481/LBC.

 

The report explained that the development would comprise the change of use, alteration, conversion, extension and partial demolition of the existing mill buildings to develop 45 retirement living apartments; the construction of 77 new dwellings including associated access arrangements; the construction of an extension to the existing industrial building accommodating Airedale Springs; the construction of a new factory for Wyedean Weaving; junction improvement works; landscaping works; flood water storage works; provision of parking and links to public footpaths.

 

The report stated that, as part of the site was within the Green Belt, if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application (15/07479/MAF) the Secretary of State would have to be consulted to allow him to ‘call-in’ the application for determination if he considered this to be necessary.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Assistant Director indicated on the plans and photographs which parts of the mill goit had already been lost, those that would be lost as a result of the proposed development and the part that would be retained, exposed and interpreted.  He also explained that:

 

·         38 of the 122 dwellings proposed would be sited within the Green Belt.

·         It was not known how long the Eastern mill buildings had been empty.  Most of the Eastern building was unoccupied.  A full survey of the state of the building and various structural surveys had been submitted so the condition was known and parts had been deemed to be unsafe.  Historic England had also surveyed the buildings.

·         The keystones in the archway (at the entrance) had slipped.  There was a culvert underneath the area which had collapsed and there had been significant differential movement.

·         There was an immediate need for remedial work to be undertaken to make the building safe.

·         Flood modelling had been undertaken by the applicant.  The culvert under the railway line was a restricting point.  The storage that would be provided upstream would compensate for the area being built upon with a net nil effect upon flood risk downstream and no increase in risk in the immediate vicinity.

·         The drainage system would connect into Bridgehouse Beck with flow at a limited rate of 5 litres per second per hectare mimicking what currently came off the site.

·         Remedial work had been undertaken to the building after a fire in 2001 but full reinstatement had not been possible and the upper floor had been lost.  This would be reinstated as part of this application along with associated features.

·         A phasing plan would be required; the new industrial building would have to be provided, to allow the relocation of the existing manufacturing company, prior to the mill buildings becoming fully vacant.

 

A Ward Councillor was in attendance at the meeting. In the interest of transparency she declared that she lived in Haworth but would not be directly affected by the development. She then made the following comments:

 

·         The application would lead to 38 houses being built within the Green Belt and it was not believed that the ‘very special circumstances’ required to permit such development had been demonstrated in this case.  This appeared to be proposed for purely financial reasons.

·         A review of the Green Belt was being undertaken and it would be premature to allow this development to take place.

·         The scheme would involve changes to the junction of Brow Road and Bridgehouse Lane leading to a loss of three parking spaces that were well used by customers of nearby local businesses.  No mitigation had been proposed.  In addition this junction was used as a turning place for HGVs and buses, it was questioned what the impact would be if this were no longer possible?

·         The proposed access through a single track archway was a safety concern.  How would emergency access be achieved if the archway became obstructed?

·         The site was proposed to be a mix of residential and industrial uses and the access would have to accommodate all the associated traffic.

·         The proposals made by Highways Development Control in respect of the internal access roads had not been included so the Council would not adopt these roads; this could lead to problems in the future in respect of maintenance.

·         The improvements to the design from the initial plans were welcomed but the proposed three storey new properties with roof terraces were out of keeping with the character of Haworth. Inappropriate development near to the Conservation Area could have a detrimental impact on its character and setting.  It was considered that the houses were of a suburban design and insufficient effort had been made to ensure that they blended into the village.

·         Bridgehouse Mill was listed and any development adjacent to it should not harm its setting.  Historic England had raised concern in relation to the proposed additional housing affecting both the mill and the Conservation Area.

·         There was considered to be a lack of clarity in respect of the iron footbridge and any proposed works to it.

·         The Keighley and Worth Valley Railway ran alongside the site and the proposed three storey suburban properties would overshadow it.  The last view of Haworth from the train would be of a modern housing estate, this was not in keeping with the village’s heritage status.

·         The site was within Flood Zone 3.  The proposal included a plan to create a park area to act as a recreational facility but also a water storage area.  This was not considered to be safe.  If the land flooded contamination would be left behind.  The Council had not agreed to undertake the maintenance of this area and there was no maintenance agreement in place; this could lead to environmental, health and safety and flooding issues.

·         Building on the flood zone was a major concern for local residents and businesses that had suffered flooding in the recent past.  It was believed that it could exacerbate flooding further downstream.

·         All the existing trees were proposed to be removed and they contributed to reducing flooding.  The design was considered to be poor with no plans to provide landscaping to soften the impact of development and help it to blend into the village.

 

The Assistant Director explained that:

 

·         Planning applications could be submitted at any time and the Council had a duty to consider each on its merits.  There was no timescale for the review of the Green Belt to be concluded and it would not be possible to postpone a decision on this proposal indefinitely.

·         Officers considered that very special circumstances had been demonstrated to justify development in the Green Belt.

·         The Council’s Architect Planner had been involved in the design process.

·         A number of different options had been considered as part of the pre-application process.  The principle of the design was to provide a strong building line fronting onto the beck with no space for residential clutter.  The proposed building line would reflect development in the area and reference an industrial feel rather than a more suburban character.

·         Two and a half storeys were proposed in order to give some presence and massing to the development.  It was considered that the design was appropriate to the character and setting.

·         It was acknowledged that there would be some harm to the setting of the listed building but a viability appraisal had been submitted with the application that showed that the project was not viable without the inclusion of the new build housing. The appraisal had been assessed and deemed acceptable by the Council’s Economic Development Section.

·         Future Maintenance would be secured through a Management Agreement.

·         The Flood Zone 3 designation was established by the use of the Environment Agency Flood Map but this was quite a rudimentary tool. The applicant had provided detailed mapping which had indicated that less of the site was within that zone than indicated by the national map.

·         A flood compensation area would be provided that would mean that the area was only at risk in a one in 100 year flood event.

·         A management company would be responsible for future maintenance and clearing up the site after any flood event.

·         In terms of the railway bridge culvert this was a controlling factor of flow downstream and flows would not be made worse by this development.

·         Further discussion had taken place with regard to the internal access roads and over 90% would reach adoptable standards.

·         A second point of access was not required for a development of this size and a separate pedestrian access would be retained.

·         The archway would be raised.

·         Two of the existing three parking spaces at the junction of Brow Road would be lost in order to accommodate a mini roundabout but it should be noted that there was no right to park on the highway.  In terms of HGV turning manoeuvres, if this was quite a rare movement and the assessment concluded that the layout would function safely for 98% of the time then a balanced judgement had to be made.  Overall it was considered that the proposed junction arrangement would function safely.

·         The indicative design showed the use of a raised thermoplastic island which would permit extraordinary loads to manoeuvre as necessary.

 

A Parish Councillor, tabled photographs illustrating the site post flooding and put forward the following points:

 

·         Flooding was of concern as was future maintenance of the land.  A lot of silt was carried down the beck and there was concern that the storage would get filled up and allow flooding to re-occur.  The proposals may reduce the problem initially but for how many years?

·         There had been three major floods of the area in a 70 year period; two within the last 12 years.

·         Comments had been made within the Flood Risk Assessment in respect of this development flooding if there was a structural failure of the reservoir upstream.

·         The archway (at the point of access) and there being only one point of access was a real concern; how would egress be achieved in the event of a fire or flood?  It was also not understood how a fire engine would reach the site.

·         Haworth was a heritage site, a jewel of the area, and the quality of design was very important within or next to a Conservation Area which this site abutted. As proposed the properties would tower over the beck; they would look like blocks of flats and would be out of character with the rest of the village.  It was not understood why they were to be placed immediately adjacent to the beck.

·         Half the new housing would be within the Green Belt. 

·         The officer’s report said that the applicant was unable to afford to contribute towards educational infrastructure. Had having fewer houses on the site been discussed.  It was considered that units on brownfield land were acceptable but the others would cause harm to the Green Belt.

·         The Design Officer had expressed the view that the scheme constituted overdevelopment of the site and the Parish Council agreed.

·         The development would also affect the adjacent railway.

 

In response to the points raised and additional questions from Members, the Assistant Director explained that:

 

·         The maintenance and management of the recreational/flood storage area would be secured through a Section 106 legal obligation and specific reference could be included in respect of clearing the site further to any flooding and the regular removal of silt, if this was considered appropriate.

·         Different opinions had been expressed in relation to the design but he considered the current proposals to be appropriate.

·         The viability appraisal demonstrated that the proposed level of development within the Green Belt was necessary.

·         The beck was classified as a main river so the flood storage area would be under the control of the Environment Agency and it would be their responsibility to ensure that it operated as it should.

·         In terms of the potential failure of a reservoir, these structures were designed to a level of 1 in 10,000 chance of flooding.  They were all owned and maintained by Yorkshire Water

·         Current standards required the provision of one point of access for up to 200 units; this proposal was for 122 and there was an additional pedestrian access. 

·         The Fire Service carried hoses of sufficient length that even if the tender was only able to reach the archway they would still be able to gain the necessary access.

 

The Council’s Economic Development Officer confirmed that the proposed volume of development was necessary in order to generate the income required to undertake refurbishment of the mill and the work to the culvert.

 

A representative of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway (KWVR) raised the following points in opposition to the application:

 

·         The KWVR was a leading heritage railway which carried more than 100,000 passengers a year.

·         It was an important location for television and films and was the second most visited tourist attraction in the district. It contributed £8.5 million to the local economy.

·         The railway relied on income from visitors and was run by volunteers.

·         The site ran parallel to the railway line and was only separated from it by the beck; the development would therefore have a significant visual impact on it.

·         There was no objection in principle to redevelopment of the mill site but there was to the extension of the development into the Green Belt and the unsympathetic design proposed.

·         The original objection from KWVR had not been included in the report.

·         There were two key issues; there must be very special circumstances to justify development in the Green Belt and the Local Planning Authority (Local Planning Authority) had a duty to enhance and preserve the Conservation Area and listed buildings.  The applicant asserted that the costs of restoring the listed buildings was sufficient but this was a matter of judgement.  English Heritage had strongly recommended that the Local Planning Authority consider if the benefits outweighed the harm; the Council’s own Heritage Officer said that they did not.

·         The viability relied on a lot of development outside the original site.

·         The level of the site had been artificially raised over the last few years.

 

Two other objectors spoke briefly with the following concerns:

 

·         Access and egress for people with disabilities needed to be considered.

·         The scheme would restore the old mill and looked good.

·         Had there been a fire risk assessment in respect of people with impaired mobility?

·         The re-positioning of the bus stop was of concern.

·         There would be a loss of privacy for an adjacent bed and breakfast business.  In the original plans windows on the East elevation had been shown as being of obscure glass but were not so on amended plans.

·         The front elevation of the mill would also have a detrimental impact on this property.

·         The arch was to be raised to accommodate larger lorries but how would these mix with the residential use?

 

The Assistant Director said that:

 

·         The bus stop was proposed to be relocated 7 metres to the west and would be no less accessible.

·         It was understood that the windows to the east elevation were to be obscure glazed but a condition could be imposed in this regard.

·         Accessibility was addressed as part of the Building Regulations process. There would be detailed discussion with the Fire Service at the time that the building control plans were drawn up and a Fire Strategy would be produced.  It would be possible for a fire engine to pass through the archway.

·         The West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority had been notified of the application on two occasions and no comments had been forthcoming.

·         This was no different to many other developments with a single point of entry other than there was an archway over the access point.

·         It had been requested that the height of the archway be raised to reduce the likelihood of refuse vehicles hitting it not to facilitate the access of larger commercial vehicles.

 

The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application:

 

·         Paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that Local Planning Authorities should  work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improved the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

·         Numerous amendments had been made to this scheme in response to the issues raised and further to negotiation.

·         Listed buildings needed to be in use and regularly maintained to ensure their future and unfortunately this had not happened in this case.  The problems were compounded by the fire which had led to the loss of the upper floor.

·         The application now under consideration proposed bringing the buildings back into use, restoring the lost upper storey and extensive repairs to the windows and the arch at the entrance (which had been damaged due to the failure of the existing culvert).  The arch would also be raised to facilitate access for larger vehicles visiting the site.

·         Historic England had no objections in respect of the proposals for the listed buildings.

·         The scheme would also provide an extension for an existing business and a new purpose built unit for another business located on the site. This would facilitate them staying in the local area where most of their workforce was based.

·         The 122 dwellings would make a contribution towards the district’s housing needs, as explained within the officer report.

·         The concerns raised in respect of the design of the houses, the use of Green Belt land and flooding had been addressed by the Assistant Director in his technical report.

·         The views of the Parish Council, the KWVR and other interested parties were understood but in the absence of public sector funding for the maintenance of listed buildings this fell on the private sector.  It would also be the private sector who would have to fulfil the national and local need for housing.

·         The costs associated with the listed building were significant and the scheme as a whole had to be viable.  The Council’s Economic Development Service had confirmed that the viability appraisals submitted with the application were robust. The scheme came as a package.

·         The proposed flood storage area would be developed as Bridgehouse Beck Park and would have open public access. In lieu of the Council being able to take on responsibility for the park and its future maintenance a Management Company would be set up to undertake this work and part of the contract would be to remove any debris in the event of there being water ingress to the park area.  This would be secured through a Section 106 legal obligation.

·         Agreement had now been reached with Highway Development Control in respect of the adoption of the roads within the site.

·         Paragraph 173 of the NPPF was also relevant in this case in respect of viability and deliverability.  If approved these objectives would be met and the benefits of this scheme, as negotiated over the last twelve months, would be delivered.

 

Members commented that:

 

·         The scheme would achieve two objectives; the retention of employment in the locality and the retention of the listed mill. It appeared that there was an almost immediate danger of collapse of part of the mill and there was no public funding to allow repairs to be undertaken.

·         New building within the Green Belt was not desirable.

·         There was not considered to be any immediate danger in respect of the collapse of the reservoir infrastructure and this was not an issue that only affected this site.

·         Officers had considered, with the developer, the number of houses necessary in order to achieve the employment aims and the retention of the mills and it was believed that the only option was to approve their recommendations.

·         The circumstances were difficult, building in the Green Belt required the demonstration of very special circumstances and the validity of the viability appraisals was an important consideration.  The scheme would provide three dwellings for each one that would be on Green Belt land.  The maintenance and protection of heritage assets was very important; if these buildings did collapse then this would be detrimental to the Conservation Area.

·         It was important to ensure that the management company set up to maintain the park/flood storage area removed any debris and silt that may accumulate.

·         This appeared to be a good use of existing listed buildings and a well thought out scheme.  There would be some impact on the Green Belt but overall it was considered that there would be benefits for the local area including the retention of local employment.

 

Further to which it was:

 

Resolved –

 

(i)        15/07479/MAF

 

(1)       That the application be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009 and, subject to him deciding not to call-in the application for determination, it be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report further to the inclusion of an additional condition as set out below:

 

None of the residential units to be formed within the existing Bridgehouse Mills buildings, as shaded in red on drawing 3901-02 PL01, shall be brought into occupation until details of the level of obscurity of the windows to be provided to the eastern elevation of the eastern building wing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved obscurely glazed windows shall be fully installed in accordance with the approved details before any of the residential units are occupied and the approved level of obscurity shall be maintained whilst ever any of the residential units remain in occupation.

 

Reason: To prevent overlooking, in the interests of amenity, in accordance with saved policy UR3 of the replacement Unitary Development Plan.

 

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of:

 

(i)            The provision of 5 units at a discount of 20% on the open market value of the properties, subject to occupancy restrictions           (properties to be offered to people who have not previously been a home buyer and want to own and occupy a home and who are below the age of 40 at the time of purchase) and appropriate restrictions being put in place to ensure that these starter homes are not re-sold or let at their open market value for five years following the intial sale,

(ii)          The maintenance and management of the Public Open Space and Flood Storage Area provided as part of the development and described as Bridgehouse Beck Park, in accordance with details which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing, such maintenance and management details shall include provisions for removing any silt and debris which accumulates within the Public Open Space and Flood Storage Area following a flood event and for the inspection of the Public Open Space and Flood Storage Area following any flooding event which occurs or, where no such event occurs in any given year, on an annual basis,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

(ii)       15/07481/LBC

 

Resolved –

 

That the application for Listed Building Consent be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

                        City Solicitor