Mixed-use mill redevelopment at Turnbridge Mills, Quay Street, Huddersfield

“Part of the footprint of the proposed new buildings would overlap with the existing location of Building B. The remainder of the area which is currently occupied by the existing listed Building B is proposed to be used as a parking and service yard area for the development, which would be served by a new vehicular entrance which is proposed from the eastern end of Quay Street to the south of the site.”

“The existing vehicular access between Buildings D1 and E is proposed to be removed, and a new vehicular access is proposed to be created slightly further to the west, providing access to a small parking area (10 parking spaces, including 1 disabled parking bay) in the south western corner of the site.”

“The site is comprised of two non-contiguous areas of land, which have a total area of around 0.4 hectares. The site contains a number of existing buildings, most of which are part of a historic mill complex, and others of more recent construction. The buildings within the site, and several buildings on adjacent and nearby land to the north and south of Quay Street, are each referred to by a specific letter in the applicant’s submissions.”

“The site includes a grade II listed building, referred to in the list description as ‘Spinning Block, Turnbridge Mills (Hirst’s Mill)’. This listed building is referred to as ‘Building B’ in the applicant’s submissions, and within this report.”

“The public benefits of the proposed development are set out in paragraphs 10.5 – 10.27. As has been considered above, the public benefits are considered to be significant, and outweigh the identified substantial harm to building B.”

“As a summary, it is imperative that the proposed public benefits be delivered to justify the demolition. Without the public benefits, the substantial (and less than substantial) harm to the heritage assets would be caused without reason, which would be wholly unacceptable. However, by clear necessity, the demolition of building B must take place early in the operation of the site’s development works (i.e., before the new building can be built and operated).”

“Therefore, although the proposed new buildings would be simple and functional in their appearance, reflecting their intended use as a modern manufacturing, research and warehouse facility, it is considered that they would not preserve or enhance the settings of the nearby designated heritage assets (the listed chimney, listed John Brierley’s Mill and scheduled Turn Bridge), compared with the listed Building B which is proposed to be demolished.”

“Drawing those threads together, for the reasons given, it is considered that the proposed development would result in substantial harm to Building B due to its total loss. It is also considered that the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the grade II listed chimney within the site, the setting of the grade II listed building, John L Brierleys Mill, and the setting of the Turn Bridge scheduled monument.”

“Concerns raised regarding design of proposed warehouse building. Loss of Hirst Mill would also increase prominent of south elevation of existing modern warehouse building to the north (Building A), “which has limited architectural or historic merit”. Concerns about proposed use of ‘modern cladding’ materials to southern elevation of Building A.”

“Historic England were reconsulted following receipt of the council’s Independent Assessor’s review of the proposal, with comments received 25/11/2025. Their assessment of the proposal’s impacts remains the same as above. They provide a commentary on the Independent Assessor’s review, before setting out the following:”

“As the re-publicity end date is after the committee report publication date, any further comments received between the publication of this report and the date of the planning committee will be reported to Members of the committee via the written update pack.”

“(1) That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to approve the application and issue the decision notice in order to:”

“A recorded vote was taken, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 42(5), as set out below: For: Councillors Armer, Firth, Homewood, Lee-Richards, Pinnock, Scott and Thompson (7 votes) Against: 0 votes…”

“Package of obligations to provide security for the delivery of the identified public benefits, to include: a) The lease agreement to be signed between the owner and the intended occupant (the two applicants in this case); b) Confirmation of the agreement for grant funding from West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA); c) Confirmation of the arrangement and agreement of any other external funding which would be necessary to allow the development to take place (e.g.”

“(2) That, in the circumstances where the Section 106 agreement has not been completed within three months of the date of the Committee’s resolution, the Head of Planning and Development shall consider whether permission should be refused on the grounds that the proposals are unacceptable in the absence of the mitigation and benefits that would have been secured and, if so, the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to determine the application and impose appropriate…”