MCA representation on Menston Hall

7th February 2010
Arshid Zaman,                               
Planner Officer
Planning Service,
3rd Floor Jacobs Well,
Bradford,
BD1 5RW

Dear Arshid Zaman,

New Build and Conversion Menston Hall Ref 09/04891/FUL

The Menston Community Association has reviewed the latest amended development plans for this site dated 14th January 2010.

We support much of the proposal which includes the latest amendments to build in natural stone, move the block of new build flats 27-31 to reduce risk to the adjacent trees and the replacement of boarding on the boundary fencing with a high hoop dark green metal fence.

We still have some concerns as follows:

1. Design Issues

The buildings will be an important visual feature in Menston and every reasonable effort should be made to ensure that they are in accordance with Menston Supplementary Guidance Document (MSPD) 5.04 that “New development must be attractive in its own right and sympathetic with the design and materials of the nearby properties” which in this case particularly applies to Menston Hall itself:

a. The design of the building lacks mullions about the windows. If mullions were incorporated into the design of all the proposed new build not only will it more closely relate to Menston Hall and the adjacent buildings, which all have mullions, but would provide a further break in the large quantity of stone work in the facia of these buildings and so increase interest visual interest and we think apparent quality of build. It is worth noting the buildings opposite in Farnely Road have mullions that do not frame the window but are internal to the window which still achieves the objective above.

b. It is not clear from the plans but in order to sympathetically match the buildings about this proposed development   the windows should be inset and not flush with the stonework. Again this will also improve the attractiveness and character of the building

c. We are also concerned that there will be a sharp and disagreeable visual clash between the well weathered Menston Hall stone and the stone of the new build. We think either the stone work of Menston Hall should be  cleaned up if using new stone in the new build or use old weathered stone in the new build. Any new stone we would expect to be dressed and laid in courses (not random).

d. In the connection of MSPD 5.04 we are baffled as to why the dormers have been squared off and the decoration removed in the new amendments when the original proposal more sympathetically matched the dormers already in Menston Hall. We accept that some of the thinking contained in MSPD 5.08 may have been applied in this decision which in this case may be considered inconsistent with the demands of MSPD 5.04 in its failure to “acknowledge traditional architectural character”. We would however have supported support these changes if they were more attractive and visually innovative but they are, in our opinion, not so. Further there is no visual break on the roof line of the new build due to the lack of chimneys etc and the decoration on the dormers, as originally proposed, would have helped to break this stark visual  feature.

2. Other Issues

a. Adequacy of Car Parking.
We are concerned that the car parking may prove to be inadequate as each flat has one space and there is only one space for visitors. The assumption must be that some of the occupiers do not have cars and this may be so but as the design is for predominately mobile elderly,(ie no lifts in the development) and younger people getting perhaps a first foot on the housing ladder, then this assumption is clearly at risk. Under no circumstances should this development result in overflow parking onto adjacent streets as per  MSPD 5.10. It is worth noting that according to the UDP Policies Appendix C para C3  an average of 1.5 spaces per unit should be available over whole development. It is noted that more restricted parking policies may apply to properties of multi-occupancy providing it does not add to significant road safety or on – street parking problems.

b. Village Greenspace
We would like confirmation that none of the proposed new build is in conflict with the  note in the UDP Revised Proposals S/OS7.2  which states that the former grounds of Menston Hall are designated Village Greenspace.

c. Existing Wall.
We have seen no mention of making good the wall to the south of the development adjacent to Farnley Road, which if not done will materially diminish the overall attractiveness of the development, particularly from the key visual direction of  Main Street .

d. Trees
We assume the new trees will be both decorative, and local in character.

e. Priority of Occupation.
Finally we consider it important that there is a condition attached to this development such that there is a priority of occupation which offers first consideration to people who live or have close connection with Menston or Burley in Wharfedale,  then to perhaps other people in Wharfedale or Baildon etc. In the first instance we also consider that the previous occupants of Menston Hall are given first refusal on occupation of these apartments.

f. Section 106 Money.
We consider that any section 106 money arising from this development should be applied to the upgrading of community facilities within the village of Menston.

Taking these considerations into account we believe this development should be only approved when the above issues have been satisfactorily incorporated into the revised plans for this site.

Yours Sincerely

Peter D Ward (On behalf of the Menston Community Association.)

Best regards,
 
PD Ward
2010-02-08