Ten homes at Rear of 23 to 43 Moor Lane, Gomersal, Cleckheaton

What was proposed

The application sought approval for ten homes, access changes, landscaping and details for six conditions under an earlier outline permission.

“Date: 11-Jun-2026 Subject: Planning Application 2025/92713 Reserved matters application pursuant to outline permission 2023/92079 for erection of residential development of 10 dwellings, demolition of existing extension at 27 Moor Lane, widening of existing access and realignment of boundary walls and discharge of details reserved by conditions 4 (noise), 5 (BEMP), 6 (Arboricultural Impact Assessment), 7 (safety and security), 8 (landscape), 9 (LEDS) Rear of, 23 to 43, Moor…”

“The application seeks reserved matters approval for the erection of 10 dwellings off Moor Lane at Gomersal pursuant to outline application ref 2023/92079. The reserved matters under consideration as part of this application are appearance, scale, layout and landscaping. The principle of development and access were considered at outline stage.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was vacant, vegetated land surrounded by homes, with mature and protected trees, near a conservation area and listed building.

“The application site red line boundary measures approximately 0.44 hectares, and comprises an area of vacant, vegetated land to the north of Moor Lane which is bounded on all sides by existing residential dwellings on Moor Lane, Summerdale, Ventnor Close, Richmond Grove, and Knowles Lane.”

“The site is unallocated within the Kirklees Local Plan and is located outside of the Cleckheaton Conservation Area, the boundary of which lies to the west of the site, and south of Moor Lane. To the west of the site, is a grade II* Listed building located within the Conservation Area boundary.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier applications for housing were withdrawn or refused before outline permission was granted for ten homes, while a related conditions application remained pending.

“2023/92079: Outline application for erection of residential development of 10 dwellings, demolition of existing extension at 27 Moor Lane, widening of existing access and realignment of boundary walls – Conditional Outline Permission…”

“2025/92737: Discharge of details reserved by conditions 10 (Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report), 11 (Remediation Strategy), 14(a) (coal mining activity), 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (drainage), 21 (CEMP), 23 (estate roads), 24 (acoustic barrier) on previous permission 2023/92079 for outline application for erection of residential development of 10 dwellings, demolition of existing extension at 27 Moor Lane, widening of existing access and realignment of boundary walls –…”

Officer report

What local people said

Residents objected to the development’s size, Plot 10, highway safety, drainage, flooding, trees, ecology, contamination, privacy and cramped layout.

“- There are established trees which support a variety of wildlife. Concern about significant habitat loss and disruption to the local ecosystem. - The AMS fails to correctly show trees on neighbouring property. A TPO does not seem to have been acknowledged, the status, size and quantity of cherry trees are inaccurate and trees and root balls shown smaller. Concern the development does not protect the root ball of TPO trees.”

“- By reason of the number of dwellings and layout, the proposal would result in a cramped and intensive form of development out of keeping with the character of the area. - Concern ridge height is in keeping with street scene, and eaves level restricted to keep the mass in proportion with neighbouring properties and maintain the street scene. All houses follow the general land gradient until plot 10. Plot 10 ridge is higher than plot 9 by approximately 500mm.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Local residents and a representative for the applicant addressed the committee.

The committee vote

The committee voted six in favour and one against deferring the application.

“RESOLVED - That consideration of the application be deferred to a future meeting and that the Head of Planning and Development be asked to negotiate with the applicant to consider the size of the units, in particular the size and location of Plot 10, and to consider the length of the unadopted road (whether the attenuation tank could be relocated) to reduce the bin drag distances.”

“For: Councillors Amjad, Armer, Hardie, Kapsa, Knight and Pinnock (6 votes) Against: Councillor Smith (1 vote)”

Minutes