'No means no' - Campaigners battle developer's fifth bid to build on Yorkshire field
Campaigners who are opposed to a fifth plan to build houses on a field in West Yorkshire have said "enough is enough" – 43 years after the first plan was submitted.
Bellway Homes has, since 1983, submitted a series of applications for houses on land off Woodward Court, Mirfield, next to Crossley Fields Junior and Infant School. The previous four schemes were either withdrawn or refused.
The new plans, submitted to Kirklees Council, would see 75 new homes on a 4.7 hectare site.
Cheryl Tyler, chair of the Save Mirfield group, claims access to the area would prove a "dangerous bottleneck", adding: "They keep coming back with the same ideas to the same place – over and over again.
"There needs to be a definitive answer that says it's not safe."
The land was previously safeguarded in the council’s Local Plan, meaning it was deemed acceptable for housing but no development would take place until at least 2031.
But with the council now unable to prove a five-year housing supply, sites such as this one can be considered for "sustainable" development.
Bellway said this changes the planning landscape – and its development would meet critical need with an acute shortage of housing.
Acknowledging previous plans, the housebuilder insists this one has "changed significantly", with one entry way and two highway exits added in light of concerns.
Its surveys found there is 12-14 per cent less traffic on the road post-Covid, reflecting a "common trend" with more people working from home. With the new exit, and less traffic, this is the "exact type of material change" to overcome some of the council’s previous reasons for refusal, it states in planning documents.
Consultations have already drawn around 300 comments. Among dozens of objections from residents are concerns over "gridlock" and "carnage" on the roads surrounding the site.
One comment said: "What has changed from the previous application, which was declined, to make this new one with even more houses now better?"
Another said the concerns over highways issues are still valid: "The traffic figures quoted by the applicant bear no relation to the problems we experience on a daily basis."
Save Mirfield has described the ongoing battle as "testimony to community resolve over corporate persistence".
Bellway's bid for a second exit to the site isn't a "material change" but "even more dangerous", they insist.
Ms Tyler said: "The area was never intended to carry modern traffic that we have to contend with today. People just want consistency. It can't be unsuitable four times in a row and then fine on the fifth occasion."
The Coal Authority has raised concerns, saying the field is likely to have seen unrecorded coal mining and with even shallow shafts posing a significant risk.
Bellway said it has undertaken additional surveys to identify any such shafts and says appropriate ground works would make it safe.