Luxury Bed Manufacturer Ordered to Demolish Factory Extension Following Failed Appeal
A luxury bed manufacturer in Ossett has been instructed to dismantle an extension to its factory after losing a crucial planning appeal. Wakefield Council has enforced a demolition order against Sleep Factory, following the dismissal of its appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.
Council Rejects Retrospective Planning Application
In November 2024, Wakefield Council turned down a retrospective planning application submitted by Sleep Factory to expand its premises on St Oswalds Place. The decision was based on highway safety concerns, with planning officers citing risks associated with HGV deliveries in the area.
Nine local residents lodged formal objections to the new structure, highlighting that large vehicle deliveries were creating hazardous conditions on nearby roads. The council's refusal was upheld after a thorough review of the site's constraints and community feedback.
Planning Inspectorate Dismisses Appeals
The business owner appealed both the council's decision and an enforcement notice demanding the extension's removal. However, a planning inspector visited the site earlier this month and dismissed both appeals.
The inspector's report emphasized a "lack of manoeuvring space" for HGVs exiting the site, stating: "The representations of neighbouring occupiers attest to the problems with HGVs reversing out of the site. Such manoeuvres are potentially hazardous due to the nature of St Oswald's Place."
Furthermore, the inspector concluded that no conditions could mitigate the identified safety risks, given the site's limitations.
History of Planning Disputes and Extension Details
Sleep Factory has faced previous planning issues, including complaints from residents in 2018 about nighttime noise disturbances. At that time, the council's planning committee approved an expansion of 255 square meters to address space shortages.
However, subsequent plans revealed the extension was actually built to 285 square meters, exceeding the approved dimensions. This discrepancy contributed to the current enforcement action.
The firm argued that the extension was necessary due to operational needs, but authorities prioritized public safety and adherence to planning regulations.
