Hipperholme developer Crosslee Properties Ltd given permission to remove planning condition for new 106-home site

A developer has been given permission to remove a planning condition for a connecting footpath from a major £60 million homes, supermarket and retail unit development.

Last year Calderdale planning councillors green-lighted the Crosslee Properties Ltd proposals for the 10.9 hectare former Crosslee tumble dryer factory site at Brighouse Road, Hipperholme.

The 106-home development will also include a care home and 24-bungalow retirement village.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But one planning condition was that homes could not come into use before designs for a connecting footpath from the site to some local facilities had been approved by Calderdale Council.

Last year Calderdale planning councillors green-lighted the Crosslee Properties Ltd proposals for the 10.9 hectare former Crosslee tumble dryer factory site at Brighouse Road, Hipperholme.Last year Calderdale planning councillors green-lighted the Crosslee Properties Ltd proposals for the 10.9 hectare former Crosslee tumble dryer factory site at Brighouse Road, Hipperholme.
Last year Calderdale planning councillors green-lighted the Crosslee Properties Ltd proposals for the 10.9 hectare former Crosslee tumble dryer factory site at Brighouse Road, Hipperholme.

However councillors were told this week the developer had been unable to secure necessary agreement from Network Rail, who were reluctant to agree to a request which would have necessitated it going through the wing wall of a rail bridge linking the new route to an existing public footpath.

Attempts to secure alternative land with another third party were also unable to be realised, so Crosslee were asking for the condition to be removed, the council’s Planning Committee heard.

Highways officers said it was disappointing the link path could not be achieved.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But they said “whilst the link would have provided a more direct access to certain local facilities it would be difficult to argue that it was necessary to make the development acceptable in terms of national planning guidance” and did not oppose the request.

Three letters of objection believed the condition should not be removed while two letters of support argued there is plenty of access by road and foot and it would be unreasonable to get the owner to deliver this when it is not in their power to do so.

Objectors told councillors they felt their views were being over-ridden while recommendations to remove the condition seemed to be “bending over backwards” for the developer.

Coun David Kirton’s reservations about losing this linking path remained with alternate routes being dimly lit.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Councillors, while not happy, felt the company had done its best to take the linking path, which they felt would provide a safer route, forward albeit unsuccessfully, and agreed the condition could be removed.