King James’ School, Almondbury

Planning application 2021/93535

King James’ School, Almondbury

Discharge of condition 9 (materials) of previous permission
​
To see the full planning application click here.

Comments made on behalf of Huddersfield Civic Society.
​
HCS is disappointed and concerned that Kirklees’ own developer, DPP Planning, is looking to discharge a planning condition on King James School requiring ‘natural stone facing’ by the use of reconstituted stone.

Not only does the proposed building lie within the curtilage of the Grade 2 listed school but it sits within Almondbury Conservation Area, one of the most historic and architecturally significant conservation areas within West Yorkshire.

Kirklees Council has a clear policy regarding the use of natural coursed York stone in such areas.  Indeed, the council’s own Conservation Area assessments state:

‘An area, with conservation area status, imposes a duty on Kirklees Council to preserve and enhance the quality and character of a conservation area.’

It is a known fact that a facing of artificial stone, over a period of time, does not retain the quality nor patina of natural stone, the latter having a distinctive quality and a proud pedigree of being quarried locally.

If Kirklees accepts the requested variation this would:

• Circumvent its own planning condition (determined after due consideration as a requirement of approval).
• Set an unwelcome and worrying precedent for other developers to follow.
• Effectively establishing a policy which would lead to a ‘race to the bottom’ on the quality of construction in conservation areas.

Kirklees Council has a duty to set high standards, particularly in regard to its own developments, which support adherence to the use of quality, design and materials in a conservation area.
In conclusion, the application should be refused and the original condition reaffirmed.

Postscript

Following receipt of further information, HCS has withdrawn the above objection following further information received. It appears the variation envisaged is not to substitute the ‘local’ stone as originally specified with artificial stone but with Spanish stone. It appears that the Spanish stone is identical to the York stone previously specified.

Therefore, it is assumed little can be done in planning terms to reject this amendment, although the use of Spanish is clearly regrettable in terms of the availability of locally quarried stone and the carbon footprint of importing such a material.