Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a Listed Building Application to reduce the height of the existing chimney at Stonebridge Mills by six metres at Unit 15, Stonebridge Mills, Stonebridge Lane, Farnley, LS12 4QN.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for a Listed Building application to reduce the height of the existing chimney at Stonebridge Mills by six metres at Unit 15, Stonebridge Lane, Farnley, LS12 4QN.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

Previous applications relating to the re-development of the site have been considered by both South and West Plans Panel and City Plans Panel in which a scheme to create 112 dwellings was approved.

The application seeks to reduce the chimney by a total of six metres along with installing new steel structural bands to the bottom 8-10 metres of the chimney.

The Planning Officer presented the application and provided Panel Members with the following information:

·  Site and surroundings of the proposals.

·  Images of the chimney in question, street views and elevations.

·  The proposed reduction of the chimney equates to 2 runs of the scaffold.

·  The proposed steel banding to confine existing cracking and to add stability to the bottom sections.

·  The Councils bridging section agree with the findings of the structural report.

·  There are a total of 6 objections, based on the harm created by visual amenity, the historical importance and local landmark and comments that the chimney should be built to its existing height.

·  There are 2 late objections received from Councillor Forsaith and former Councillor A Blackburn that the chimney be reinstated to its existing height.

·  A further condition is to be added, to ensure the steel banding is synthetic and samples are to be provided to the Council before recommending approval on final details.

A local ward Councillor addressed the Panel with objections to the application. Comments were made in relation to the significant local importance and existing key issues with the site in terms of the mill pond and old cottages that were re-built. The Civic Trust also deem that the listed building is a significant feature of the surrounding area. Further comments were made in terms of alternative solutions to retain the chimney to its existing height, and observations that structural issues could’ve been dealt with before placing houses on the site.

In response to questions from Panel Members, Cllr Blackburn explained he did not understand why proposals hadn’t been submitted earlier if the applicant had prior knowledge of structural issues. Additionally, Cllr Blackburn felt that the chimney added significant historical importance by retaining the chimney to its existing height in part because at its current height it can be seen from the Farnley side of the ring road.

The applicant addressed the Panel. Issued raised highlighted the following:

·  The chimney has stood for 150 years at its current height.

·  The bottom of the chimney structure could not be accessed previously due to buildings surrounding it. Once inspected, the bottom of the chimney was narrower than expected and the wind assessment highlighted that wind loads will cause overturning moments at the base of the chimney.

·  The top of the chimney is in poor condition and the applicant have previously said it was required to be re-built.

·  The lining of the chimney has collapsed and cracking below banding level.

·  It is unlikely that the chimney will stand for another 50 years.

·  The applicant has applied to reduce the height of the chimney on grounds of public safety and will preserve the maximum amount of the chimney to how it was. Albeit the top of the chimney will be repaired, and banding added to repair the cracking.

In response to questions from Panel Members, the following information was confirmed:

·  The weak point of the chimney is at the bottom, and this is where the wind load will try and push the chimney over. The taller the chimney, the bigger the overturning point will be at the bottom.

·  Alternative options have been considered but are not practical. Taking the chimney down and re-building the structure has been considered but will lose the heritage value of what is being retained. Options such as strengthening the middle of the chimney have been considered, but there are safety implications with doing so.

·  The bottom of the chimney was first viewed in January 2021, and after that an application was submitted to reduce the chimney by 6m.

·  The loading report has been submitted and reviewed by the Councils bridges section and the conclusions of the report were agreed.

·  The vertical cracking on the chimney will need to be restrained with banding.

In response to questions from Panel Members, officers confirmed the following information:

·  There were no objections submitted by conservation and bridges officers, hence the non-attendance of such officers. The council’s bridges section have commented on the structural report but it is not for them to consider alternatives to demolition.

·  Officers engaged with the applicant at pre-application stage and provided generic advice on design and heritage elements. Officers do not assess structural details with pre-applications.

·  The Civic Trust have not commented on the structural ability of safety elements of the proposal.

·  The proposal before Panel Members is the only alternative to retain the heritage value.

·  The applicant withdrew their application in 2018 to reduce the chimney, as officers would not have supported the reduction. The applicant was asked to provide alternative solutions and come back with another application.

·  When the application was considered the council’s conservation team did not object to the loss of the chimney because the proposal, at the time, was to retain it.

Comments from Panel Members included:

·  Consider the reduced height chimney would retain its historical value.

·  Safety concerns regarding the proposal leaving a significant structure in place for wind load implications.

·  The chimney is deteriorating and is worth saving due to its heritage value.

·  Would have liked to have heard from council’s heritage and bridges teams and to have had a discussion of the loading report. Felt the applicant’s expert could also have been involved earlier.

·  Acknowledgement that the chimney cannot be maintained in its current state and the solution provided ensures that some of its heritage value is maintained.

·  The chimney should not be demolished and re-built as it would not be the same.

·  There are a number of people living around the proposed site, and the solution provides a safe chimney. Albeit comments were further relayed that the applicant can consider alternative solutions whilst maintaining the safety of its local residents.

·  Concern regarding Council policies in relation to identifying issues prior to getting to this stage in the process.

Following a vote on the recommendation, it was moved and seconded:

RESOLVED – That approval be granted.