Retaining wall details at Land at Blue Hills Farm, Whitehall Road West, Birkenshaw

What was proposed

The applicant sought approval for the retaining wall’s height and materials, together with tinting and soft landscaping in front of it.

“Already-implemented works: The retaining wall (with approval of its height and materials sought); and • Proposed works: The tinting of the wall and implementation of soft landscaping in front of it.”

“The height of the retaining wall varies, reaching a maximum height of 3.45m at its southern corner (measured from the top of the soil bank, which at that point rises 1m above the adjacent shared footway/cycleway). At the centre of the tinting sample panel (in front of plot 7) the wall is 1.22m high (again measured from the top of the soil bank).”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a sloping housing development beside Whitehall Road West, with a large retaining wall and 12 dwellings already built behind it.

“To the northeast of the application site is the West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service headquarters – this large adjacent site is enclosed by stone walls, and includes the Grade II listed former Oakroyd Hall, several other buildings, trees protected under Tree Preservation Order 19/92/a1, and soft landscaped areas.”

“As part of the recent (and ongoing) development of the application site, a large retaining wall has been erected along the site’s Whitehall Road West frontage. Behind this wall, at a higher level, 12x 2-storey dwellings have been erected. The footway of Whitehall Road West directly in front of the application site has been widened to provide a shared footway/cycleway.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

Earlier permissions did not show the wall as built, a previous discharge application was refused, and enforcement action followed construction before approval.

“The drawings approved under Reserved Matters application 2022/91047 did not show the retaining wall that has since been built at the site. Some of the approved drawings showed and/or annotated a retaining wall along the site’s Whitehall Road frontage, but not to the height or design it has been built to, and the RediRock product used in the wall’s construction was not referred to in the approved drawings and documents.”

“The previous Discharge of Conditions application was submitted on 12/07/2023, prior to the retaining wall being erected. However, the applicant commenced construction of the retaining wall prior to that Discharge of Conditions application being determined.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because tinting and planting would reduce the wall’s visual harm to an acceptable level, while highway concerns were resolved.

“Separately to the planning process, the retaining wall has received an Approval in Principle (AIP) from the council. This was necessary as the wall supports land adjacent to the highway.”

“Given the previously-issued AIP, and the comments of KC Highway Structures (relating to this Discharge of Conditions application) reported above, the retaining wall and the tinting and planting now proposed raise no concerns in relation to highway structures considerations.”

Officer report

The main visual concern

The wall’s height, stark concrete appearance and prominent position were considered visually obtrusive, overdominant and inconsistent with the surrounding character.

“From a visual perspective, the design and height of the retaining wall (in its current form, in the absence of measures to soften its impact) is not considered acceptable. The pre-cast grey concrete blocks (a product named RediRock) used by the applicant have resulted in large feature that does not appear in keeping with the surrounding character and appearance.”

“The proposed tinting of the retaining wall would involve the application of a tint which would be hand-mixed on site to achieve an appropriate colour match. The tint is a potassium silicate solution with an added pigment. The tint would give the concrete blocks a buff colour. A sample panel has been provided on site to part of the retaining wall, in front of plot 7.”

Officer report

Consultation and local views

Highway officers accepted the structural details, while councillors objected to the wall’s appearance, deterioration, maintenance and impact on Birkenshaw’s entrance.

“Only the other day I got another comment about how it is ruining an entrance to Birkenshaw. Surely a stone wall that is in keeping with both houses and environment would be better.”

“KC Highway Structures – Condition can be discharged. The designs for two structural retaining/burr walls (affecting the safety of the highway) were agreed retrospectively, and can be evidenced by AIPs and design and check certificates signed by the TAA. No structural amendments have been made to the proposal in the resolution of the aesthetic issues.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A representative speaking on behalf of the applicant addressed the committee.

The decision

Authority was delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to approve the application and issue the decision notice.

“RESOLVED - That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to approve the application and issue the decision notice.”

Minutes