Plans for '21st century eyesore' hotel and cafe on top of Castle Hill in Huddersfield are approved

A new hotel building variously described as a public benefit and a 21st century eyesore has been approved for the top of Castle Hill in Huddersfield.

But the 15-year wrangle over the iconic site will not end there, as campaigners have already made a request to the Government to formally “call in” the plan for review.

That means Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick will make the final decision on the new proposal for a low-lying cafe/restaurant with bedrooms and interpretation facilities for visitors plus a 77-space car park,

Read More
West Yorkshire's Tier 3 standoff with Government intensifies as council leader s...
Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It was a close-run thing when the contentious scheme was debated at a meeting of Kirklees Council’s Strategic Planning Committee (Oct 28).

But by the end of the discussion four Labour members – Carole Pattison, Cathy Scott, Mohan Sokhal and Steve Hall – voted in favour.

Voting against were Conservatives Donna Bellamy and Nigel Patrick as well as Lib Dem Andrew Pinnock.

The Labour quartet voted for a low-lying cafe/restaurant with bedrooms and interpretation facilities for visitors plus a car park.

A new hotel building variously described as a public benefit and a 21st century eyesore has been approved for the top of Castle Hill in Huddersfield.A new hotel building variously described as a public benefit and a 21st century eyesore has been approved for the top of Castle Hill in Huddersfield.
A new hotel building variously described as a public benefit and a 21st century eyesore has been approved for the top of Castle Hill in Huddersfield.
Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Three members argued that there was a public benefit to having facilities such as toilets on the site, and that there was “positive weight” attached to the development presented by the Thandi Partnership.

Whilst recognising the controversy that has surrounded the Castle Hill saga, Clr Cathy Scott (Lab, Dewsbury East) said she spoke for the “silent voice” of people who might be in favour of the plan but who were not represented at the meeting.

She highlighted the employment opportunities and investment that the site offered and said the applicant had worked with the council.

She added: “Yes, mistakes have been made but people keep harping back to the past. You can’t do that. It’s the application that’s in front of you today that you are deciding on. You can’t continually hold it against an applicant.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“We need to embrace the investment and, the people of Huddersfield, this is investment for you.”

The debate kicked off with a lengthy list of speakers mainly opposing the plan.

Martin Kilburn of Huddersfield Civic Society described the development as “wholly inappropriate” and said the site should be preserved, not turned into a commercial hospitality venue.

Clr Alison Munro (Lib Dem, Almondbury) questioned the reported “public benefits” of the scheme, calling them “flimsy”. She said the access road to Castle Hill was “potentially dangerous”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Clr Bernard McGuin (Con, Almondbury) likened the new zinc-roofed building to “a branch of McDonald’s”. He said local ward members such as himself had not been involved in discussions about “the alleged public benefits” of building on Castle Hill.

He warned the committee: “If you pass this you will be guilty of condoning vandalism on a much-loved site.”

His comments were echoed by Clr Paola Davies (Lib Dem, Almondbury), who said: “Please don’t paint paradise to put up a cafe”.

Clr Sue Lee-Richard (Green, Newsome) urged the committee to “be guardians, protecting and preserving this wonderful site for future generations, not desecrating it.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

There was a strong attack by the Greens’ Clr Andrew Cooper (Newsome). He said: “I would love to see the old pub back [on Castle Hill] but the applicants wantonly demolished it 15 years ago believing they were above the law.

“Now they want us to trust them with a place which is sacred to the people of Huddersfield.”

He said toilets and an interpretation centre were being offered “as a Trojan Horse” for the “desecration” of a place the people of Huddersfield hold dear.

He added: “They are not very ‘special circumstances’; they are simply an inducement to accept the unacceptable.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Clr Donald Firth (Con, Holme Valley South) slammed the proposed new building as “totally featureless” and a “21st century eyesore”.

Speaking after the decision Clr McGuin, who has been vocal critic of plans for the Castle Hill site, said: “Shame on those who voted for this.

“Historic England could put a block on this particular plan. If they don’t block it I hope the Secretary of State listens to our arguments and stops it.”

Architect Kevin Drayton has previously described Castle Hill, which includes the 1890s Victoria Tower, as “the premier heritage asset of Kirklees and certainly the most prominent”.

He said the public benefits of the scheme “are enormous in themselves but they may be the catalyst that sparks a beneficial wave of general regeneration.”

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.