Dewsbury: Controversial 181-home development plan rejected despite previous approval

The plot of land makes up part of a much larger development plan that is split across two sites referred to as “Chidswell and Heybeck”. Combined, the land is earmarked for around 1,500 homes. Today’s (December 4) application was concerned with the smaller Heybeck site and sought outline planning permission to construct up to 181 homes.

The circumstances surrounding this application were unusual given that outline planning permission had previously been secured back in October 2024. However, this permission was quashed in a judicial review which was pursued by local campaigners from the Chidswell Action Group (CAG) who have spent years fighting tirelessly against the plans. This was on the grounds that Kirklees Council had failed to publish the Section 106 agreements in advance of the planning permission.

When a subsequent application was submitted and the Section 106 published as required, council officers had initially not seen the need to bring the application back to the planning committee for a decision. However, the levels of objection remained high, with a total of 115 representations made in response to the latest version of the application alone. Due to this and referrals from Cllr Cathy Scott (Community Alliance, Dewsbury East) and Cllr Habiban Zaman (Community Alliance, Batley East), the application had to be decided by the committee.

The meeting heard from elected representatives and members of the public speaking in opposition to the plans. Speaking on behalf of residents, Cllr Zaman, said that locals aren’t opposed to housing, development or growth, but are opposed to this development, believing it would cause “real, lasting and irreversible harm”. Concerns were raised over harm to the ancient woodland and an “inadequate” buffer to it, biodiversity net gain, drainage and loss of agricultural land.

MP for Dewsbury and Batley, Iqbal Mohamed, said residents of Dewsbury and Batley had been living with the “dread of destruction and loss” of the “highly valued” Heybeck site for over a decade. He said the site provides a “rare green lung” for communities, with it “critical” that access to this open space and nature be maintained for the community’s health and wellbeing. He urged the committee to reject the application.

Head of Strategic Land at the Church Commissioners for England – the applicant – Matthew Naylor, said the commissioners had been “naturally disappointed” by the outcome of the judicial review but accepted the legal process followed. He said they “firmly believe” concerns around biodiversity net gain in Dum Wood and the future management of the ancient woodland had been addressed in planning documents and that no new material planning conditions had been raised.

When it went over to the committee, a number of concerns were raised around biodiversity net gain, the impact on the ancient woodland and the resulting loss of agricultural land. After some discussion, Cllr Eric Firth (Labour, Dewsbury East) felt matters following the judicial review had been dealt with and questioned why points previously raised were being “rehashed”. Chair of the meeting, Cllr James Homewood (Labour Ashbrow), suggested that the application be approved, with this seconded by Cllr Firth. However, this fell, with five votes to two.

Councillor Scott moved the refusal of the application with this seconded by Cllr Mark Thompson (Con, Birstall and Birkenshaw). This went against the recommendation of council officers who believed there were “no compelling reasons” to change their view from the last time the application was heard.

Councillor Scott proposed several reasons for refusal including: deterioration of the “irreplaceable” ancient woodland; lack of biodiversity net gain on site; an “insufficient” buffer zone; “insufficient certainty” around drainage; loss of agricultural land; and any housing benefits being “significantly and demonstrably” outweighed by ecological harm and risk to the ancient woodland.

A draft for refusal was then drawn up by officers, with this to be finalised following the meeting. In the vote, councillors Scott, Andrew Pinnock (Lib Dems, Cleckheaton), Sue Lee-Richards (Greens, Newsome), Thompson and Bill Armer (Con, Kirkburton) voted for the refusal of the application, and councillors Homewood, and Firth voted against.