Why plan to demolish building and have 5 homes take its place was refused by council

An application to demolish a Brighouse home and outbuildings and build terrace of five new houses in their place have been rejected by planners,…

Why plan to demolish building and have 5 homes take its place was refused by council

What is the Public Notice Portal?

The Public Notice Portal carries statutory public notices published in local newspapers and is the fastest and most effective way of finding out what is happening in YOUR neighbourhood.

Search the Public Notice Portal An application to demolish a Brighouse home and outbuildings and build terrace of five new houses in their place have been rejected by planners, citing its heritage importance and setting.

Late last year C. Wilcocks had applied to Calderdale Council seeking outline planning permission to make the changes at the Jesmond Dene, Bradford Road, Bailiff Bridge, site.

But council officers say the house is an important hallmark of the development of Bailiff Bridge.

They said: “The building is of particular historic interest by virtue of its apparent relationship with the neighbouring Branxholme and Victoria Mills.

“Its date, substantial scale, detached form, siting and associated curtilage are consistent with a relatively high-status dwelling constructed in association with the area’s 19th-century industrial development, potentially as accommodation for an owner or manager of the neighbouring mills.

“In this regard, Jesmond Dene provides tangible evidence of the historic social and economic development of Bailiff Bridge.”

The plans received three objections, including one from Bailiffe Bridge J and I School.

The school said they were concerned because the application proposed demolishing the existing two-storey home that shares a boundary wall with the school and replacing it with five houses of between two and a half and three stories high.

“While I appreciate that the proposed three-story dwellings will be set back slightly further than the existing property, there are concerns that they will overlook and even potentially dominate the schoolyard, intimidating some children,” they said.

The school was also concerned about proposals to replace the stone wall with a wooden fence.

“It should also be acknowledged that part of the boundary wall forms part of the structure of an external building within the school grounds.

“A wooden fence is unlikely to provide the same level of security and may be more susceptible to deterioration over time and damage from the children playing football in the yard,” they said.

Another objector said putting five homes in there would be “a tight squeeze” and was also concerned about loss of the boundary wall.

The new homes being three storey was an issue raised by a third objector and also by one neutral commentator.

Supporting statements with the application indicated the five new homes would be three-bedroom homes with the option for adding a fourth bedroom on the ground floor.

Agent for the application, Roger Lee Planning Ltd, had argued the plans meet requirements of both national and local planning policies and urged the council to approve the application.

But council officers were most concerned about heritage impacts of the proposal, resulting in their decision to refuse the application permission.

Planning officers noted the building is a “substantial detached dwelling historically known as Woodland House, dating to the mid-to-late 19th century.”

It was a non-designated heritage asset of architectural and historic interest, and the development would result in its “complete and irreversible” loss, they said.

Demolition of Jesmond Dene and replacement with a materially larger residential development would also erode the setting of the nearby Grade II-listed former St Aidan’s Mission Church, which is 80 metres away, said the officers.

Conservation officers considered Jesmond Dene to make “a positive contribution to the setting and significance of the listed church, representing one of relatively few surviving historic buildings within its immediate surroundings,” they noted.

The public benefits – the new homes – did not outweigh the harm, they concluded.