Plans for a £3.75 million visitor centre with bedrooms on Castle Hill have been approved again by Kirklees Council – on the casting vote of the planning committee chairman.

Hundreds of people had objected to development on the Scheduled Ancient Monument which dates back over 4,000 years.

The six councillors on the Strategic Planning Committee were split and the vote was tied at 3-3 but approval went through on the casting vote of Labour councillor and committee chairman Clr James Homewood.

Former council leader Clr Cathy Scott (Community Alliance) proposed approval, seconded by Labour’s Mohan Sokhal.

Clr Andrew Pinnock (Lib Dem), Clr Susan Lee-Richards (Green) and Clr Bill Armer (Conservative) all voted against.

The seventh member of the planning committee, Tory councillor Mark Thompson, did not attend the meeting and there was no substitute sent in his place.

At the start of the meeting Clr Homewood said: “We’re all here apart from Clr Thompson. We’re not sure, we think maybe he’s not coming. But we’re not 100% but there’s nobody substituting at the moment.”

Image by: Huddersfield Hub photographer SEAN DOYLE

Given the public interest, Victoria Leam, principal planning officer and legal advisor, reminded councillors they had to review the application with fresh eyes and listen to the arguments.

She said councillors couldn’t approach the decision with a “closed mind” or “fixed intention” to vote.

Councillors also had to disclose if they had been lobbied by objectors or the applicant, and if they had responded.

At one point, there was anger in the council chamber when Clr Sokhal began to read what sounded like a prepared statement expressing support for the plans.

A member of the public shouted: “Reading a speech written before the meeting does not show that the meeting is being approached with an open mind.”

There was no intervention by Ms Leam – or any other official – to indicate that any rules had been breached.

The Thandi Partnership secured planning permission from the council for a similar development in 2020.

However, planning permission expired as Scheduled Monument Consent wasn’t received within the three-year timeframe and new plans for a visitor centre, 70-cover restaurant, café, bar and six bedrooms was submitted.

Council planning officers recommended approval, saying weight had to be given to the fact permission had been granted previously.

They said that while ‘harm’ would be caused to the ancient site, which is Green Belt and includes the listed Victoria Tower – that was outweighed by the “public benefit” of an interpretation room and free public toilets.

Nick Hirst, planning team leader for major developments, admitted “public benefit” was a “judgement” call and others may take a different view.

Several objectors spoke at the meeting and a powerful statement was also read out on behalf of Poet Laureate Simon Armitage – a Freeman of Kirklees – who described building on “Huddersfield’s most famous location” as “incongruous and unnecessary.”

Simon Armitage CBE (centre) when he was granted the Freedom of Kirklees in 2024

He added: “Castle Hill is iconic. Its tower is a proud, reassuring beacon above the valleys below. The hill silhouette is etched into our subconscious as a mark of identity.

“Its profile represents a place of imagination and contemplation. A landmark in both a geographical and psychological sense, and a place of escape and belonging at the same time.

“The geological feature connects the contemporary population with our historical ancestors and represents a point of continuity going back thousands of years.

“In an era where there is so much natural landscape being degenerated, exploited and made private, this is a site that should be treasured, preserved as free and public land, and maintained for its original characteristics.

“The tower itself may not be an architectural wonder of the world, or especially ancient. But it was built by builders using local stone to celebrate an historical national occasion.

“Over time, local people have taken emotional ownership of it and embraced it as a symbol of their territory.

“As a forward-thinking council, Kirklees should do everything they can to uphold the integrity and the dignity of Castle Hill and act as guardians of one of the nation’s semi sacred hilltop locations.”

Another objector, John Mitchell, questioned why the council would persist with such an “inappropriate development.”

He referred to the council’s 90-page report and the conclusion which admitted the development was “harmful” to the Green Belt and the “heritage assets” of the hill and Victoria Tower but said the “public benefits” of the public toilets and interpretation room “carry sufficient weight to outweigh this harm and non-compliance with relevant planning documents.”

Mr Mitchell described that as “nonsense” and said Castle Hill already had free public benefit with the open space “shared by multi-generational, large family groups, playing cricket, flying kites and having picnics.”

He said there was “no need for a restaurant” and added: “Multi-lingual university students show off the best view in Huddersfield to parents and friends.

“Castle Hill is a magnet for cyclists, walkers and amateur historians. All of this, without WCs, without interpretation rooms.”

Others were concerned about the narrow lane to access Castle Hill and the road safety danger. There was also concern about security when the night-time barrier at the bottom of the lane was removed.

Questions were also raised about the business viability given the struggles of the hospitality industry.

Green group leader Clr Andrew Cooper also spoke out strongly against the development and said: “Castle Hill, the site of an Iron Age hill fort, is also a local wildlife site, a site of special geological interest and is a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

“I often refer to Castle Hill as our Glastonbury Tor or Stonehenge and no council would even consider building anything like this development on those sites.

“It is a place in our landscape that is deeply embedded in the psyche of Huddersfield people.”

Clr Pinnock, who voted against the development, said the decision was “finely balanced” but the fact it was a Scheduled Ancient Monument was key.

He referred to the alleged public benefit of toilets on top of Castle Hill and quipped that as an older man that might be useful but public toilets weren’t sufficient reason to approve the application.

After the meeting Clr Cooper said: “I find it hard to fathom that some councillors can’t appreciate the heritage, history and landscape of Castle Hill.

“This is not over. The applicants still don’t have Scheduled Monument Consent and they have to comply with a raft of conditions.

“Many of us will be watching and ensuring that no planning conditions are avoided by the applicants.”

Final approval for the plans has been delegated to the council’s head of planning.