DCSIMG

Mirfield homes plan could go back to square one

GET BACK Peter Morgan (front) wants plans to go back to committee.

GET BACK Peter Morgan (front) wants plans to go back to committee.

Approved plans to build 34 houses on a site in Mirfield might have to go back to planning committee, Kirklees Council has admitted

An application for the houses off Lady Heton Drive was approved during a Heavy Woollen Planning Sub-Committee meeting in April.

But Lady Heton Action Group has argued the plans put forward by Ben Bailey Homes went against the council’s own guidelines.

A meeting between action group leader Peter Morgan and Kirklees Council chief executive Adrian Lythgo took place two weeks ago to discuss the issue.

A spokeswoman for Kirklees Council said this week: “The chief executive has not written to Ben Bailey Homes on this matter specifically.

“However, officers in legal services and planning have been discussing the issues with the developer and their agent. As the current application has not yet been formally determined, a revision can still be made to the current application.

“If that happens there will be a period of re-consultation and local residents can make their comments known.”

She confirmed this meant the plans would be going back to the committee.

Policy BE12 in the council’s Unitary Development Plan states that there should be 21 metres between habitable room windows on opposite-facing houses.

Mr Morgan said 29 of the 34 homes breached that rule.

“Our campaign groups wholeheartedly support referring an amended plan back to the sub-committee,” he said.

“This would help to restore our trust and confidence in the planning process and local government democracy.”

Plans had originally been passed during a heated sub-committee meeting on April 24. Campaigners packed out the meeting room and spoke passionately against the proposals.

A Ben Bailey Homes spokeswoman said: “We are currently discussing our proposals with Kirklees Council and hope to address some of the comments made by local residents.”

 

Comments

 
 

Back to the top of the page