Controversial plans to build 62 new homes in Denby Dale – dubbed a potential “environmental disaster” for the village – have been approved by a Government inspector.

Three planning applications for the land in Cliff Hill, off Cumberworth Lane, had been turned down by Kirklees Council amid concerns about damage to the environment.

The sloping grassland site is in a former coal mining area and it was feared the removal of coal and reinstatement would involve a damaging environmental impact and hundreds of HGVs going to and from the site.

It was said the works would create an “opencast coal mine” with enough coal to fill at least two Olympic-sized swimming pools needing to be removed.

Denby Dale Tory councillor Tim Bamford was strongly opposed and previously warned: “This development has the potential to cause an environmental disaster for Denby Dale by destabilising the site and releasing contamination and posing a flood risk.”

Fellow Denby Dale ward councillor Will Simpson (Labour) questioned whether houses would be built at all, telling a planning committee meeting: “It’s a Trojan horse for an opencast mine.”

The applicant, Urban Group York Ltd, appealed against the refusal to the Secretary of State and written representations were submitted in February 2025.

Now, a year later, an appeal inspector has overturned the refusal and will allow the development to go ahead.

Nick Hirst, Kirklees Council’s planning team leader for major developments, told the Strategic Planning Committee of the appeal decision at a meeting last week.

He said there had been “significant local objection” including opposition from Denby Dale Parish Council and Dearne Valley Environmental Trust.

He told the committee: “Local concerns related to many matters, including the environmental impact and of the development, as well as the remediation of the site.

“Members will recall that remediation in the form of removal of material and grouting, which would involve significant HGV movements to and from the site, would have been necessary, given the area’s coal mining history, and the coal that remained present at the site.

“The appeal inspector noted that there would indeed be environmental impacts but that their temporary nature – and the proposed conditions – were acceptable.”

It had been feared that coal would have been burned on the site but conditions would be in place to prevent that.

Mark Lane, who spoke for the applicant at a previous planning committee, said: “This will not be a coal mining operation, it will be work simply to stabilise the land to allow housebuilding.”

He said the coal would be removed as “waste” and not be a commercial extraction.

In her decision notice, planning inspector Beverley Wilders said: “Many of the council’s concerns appear to relate to the environmental effects of the remediation/mitigation phase of the development.

“There is no doubt given the scale and nature of the remediation/mitigation works and the position of the site relative to nearby dwellings that this phase of the development will be disruptive to nearby residents.

“It will result in noise and disturbance as well as vibration and dust that will likely affect air quality.

“However, although the amount of remediation/mitigation works required on this site may be greater than what might be required on other sites not affected by the same ground conditions, it appears from the evidence that such works are not uncommon in the area given the underlying geology and presence of coal and former mine workings.

“The works by their very nature will be temporary, though given the nature of the works and the scale of the site are anticipated to last for some months, with these works being followed by the construction phase of the development which will also cause some disruption for residents.

“However, this is not unusual for developments of this type and scale, and several measures are proposed to help to minimise and mitigate against any effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties arising from noise and disturbance, vibration, dust and any subsequent reduction in air quality.”

No costs were sought or awarded at the appeal.