Appeal over Calderdale Council's refusal for homes to be built in Brighouse is dismissed by planning inspector

Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now
A planning inspector has rejected an appeal against Calderdale Council’s refusal of planning permission for two new homes which would have used land it says is for community use.

Mr J. Rawson had applied for planning permission to build the detached homes at land off Stratton Park, Brighouse.

But the council rejected the proposals in September 2021.

A majority of those commenting on the original application objected to it including Rastrick ward councillors Regan Dickenson and Sophie Whittaker – although there were also supporting comments too.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad
Among objectors to the homes proposal was Rastrick ward councillor Regan DickensonAmong objectors to the homes proposal was Rastrick ward councillor Regan Dickenson
Among objectors to the homes proposal was Rastrick ward councillor Regan Dickenson

Many objectors said the land had social value, and “open space” provided for in the application would not replace it adequately, in their view.

Dismissing the appeal, Inspector F. Rafiq said the main issue concerned this social provision.

Relevant policy in the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan seeks to protect open spaces from development and sets out that development proposals located in such areas will only be permitted if one of the circumstances defined by the policy apply, he said.

These include the space being replaced by equivalent or better provision in quantity and quality.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad
Calderdale councillor Sophie Whittaker (Con, Rastrick)Calderdale councillor Sophie Whittaker (Con, Rastrick)
Calderdale councillor Sophie Whittaker (Con, Rastrick)

Reference had been made to a financial contribution towards play and gym equipment, but there was little further detail on this, including for ongoing maintenance of this equipment.

“There is furthermore no mechanism before me to secure this contribution.

“The alternative, whilst providing a greater level area, would not therefore be an appropriate equivalent or better provision in terms of quality,” the inspector concluded, rejecting an assertion the land was not used by the community.