Houses to be built on Mirfield floodplain after developer wins planning appeal

People living on Granny Lane in Mirfield were jubilant last year when Kirklees Council’s strategic planning committee voted to throw out proposals by Wakefield-based Miller Homes for a 67-home estate on the ancient floodplain.

However, planning inspector Chris Baxter said whilst Granny Lane was likely to flood in future, access to the estate would not be made impassable for long periods and a planned alternative access would still allow people to get in and out of their homes.

The decision came exactly a year after councillors threw out the plan and just days after Mirfield was battered by Storms Dudley, Eunice and Franklin.

The three extreme weather events led to the River Calder bursting its banks with Granny Lane, Steanard Lane and neighbouring streets swamped by flood water.

The irony was not lost on campaigners Granny Lane Area Action Group (GLAAG) and Save Mirfield.

A spokeswoman said: “The flooding was worse than it’s ever been.

“We had two red warnings, which is unheard of, and ambulances couldn’t get through.

“We were completely cut off in Mirfield. Just stranded. How on earth could the inspector say that that is safe?”

She said the severity of the storms prompted one family to evacuate an elderly and frightened woman in her 80s from her home.

She added: “That’s what it’s like, and it’s only ever going to get worse.”

The controversy over the Granny Lane plan has been rumbling on for three years.

It was first approved in December 2019 but was returned to committee after campaigners said the decision to green-light the scheme was based on inaccurate flood zone information.

It was consequently refused in February 2021.

Members of GLAAG said they were “so disappointed” by the inspector’s appeal ruling and felt he had ignored much of the evidence they had presented, including video of Storm Ciara two years ago.

They were also scathing about Kirklees Council, which sent staff to defend the committee’s decision during an online meeting that lasted seven-and-a-half hours.

One said: “The council put in the worst defence you could think of.

“They were supposed to be defending the committee’s decision to refuse but it was very poor. There was no legal representation from the council.

“It felt like they didn’t want to win and that we were doing all the work.”