A councillor has criticised their local authority for “one of the worst cases of heritage vandalism”.

In recent weeks, historic paving stones were stolen from outside of the Grade II*-listed St Mary’s Church in Mirfield, with the gate piers and boundary wall railings also impacted by the vandalism, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) understands, with these listed in their own right.

The way the council has handled the matter has caused further outrage for a local councillor.

Instead of replacing the stones, the council opted to tarmac the pavement.

A photo showing the tarmacked pavement outside St Mary\'s Church, Mirfield

placeholder image — A photo showing the tarmacked pavement outside St Mary\'s Church, Mirfield

According to Councillor Martyn Bolt, the council said it did not have the cash for a replacement.

Kirklees Council also confirmed that its property insurance does not cover theft or damage to highway assets, with Coun Bolt questioning this approach.

He said: “I’m disgusted at the actions of Kirklees Council with regard to three listed historic structures in the immediate area. It is one of the worst cases of heritage vandalism second only to the people who stole them in the first place…”

Planning legislation states that preservation of the surroundings of a Listed asset should be given special consideration as this can affect the overall setting. With this in mind, Coun Bolt accused the council of “hypocrisy”, saying that the council expects developers making planning applications to uphold this regulation while “flouting” it themselves.

A Kirklees Council spokesperson said: “We were notified of the stone theft from the adopted highway network around St Mary’s Church, Mirfield. The council has property insurance in place but this does not extend to theft or damage to highway assets.

“A highways technician visited the site to assess repairs needed to make the footpath safe for users. The stolen stone was not within the curtilage of the listed buildings nearby, so a like-for-like replacement was not required.

"The repairs carried out did not need planning permission or listed building consent, and were completed in line with our statutory duties under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980.”