Huddersfield Civic Society Executive Committee Meeting, July 14, 2025

The meeting was held at Westins, St Andrews Road, Huddersfield, at 7pm.Westins

1) Welcome: Attendees, Apologies and Committee Membership (HS as Meeting Chair)

– update on Trustees

2) Chair Role (All)

– Volunteers to take turns to Chair remaining 2025 meetings – currently Ann for Sept 8, Sylvia for Nov 10

– Volunteer(s) to edit next newsletter(s) please

– Getting a new Chair

3) Previous Meeting – 12 May 2025. (HS as this meeting’s Chair)

– Approval of Minutes

– Actions Arising from previous mtg minutes but not on this meeting’s agenda

4) Membership, incl updates on renewals, corporate membership and attendance at events (HS)

9 July 2025
Member type	Individual/U25	Joint	Corporate	Total	Changes
Totals – ALL CATEGORIES	127	18	24	169	10
*Total ACTIVE members*	94	12	20	*126*	*-13*
Paid (correct amount)	59	8	16	83	12
Paid (wrong amount)	17	2	0	19	-1
Free/Rollover	2	0	1	3	0
New this report	5	0	3	8	8
Not yet paid	11	2	0	13	-29
Resigned this Year	6	0	1	7	0
Lapsed this Year	24	5	3	32	20
Deleted (corrected) this year	3	1	0	4	3

– HU event feedback (HS)

5) Interim Treasurer’s Report 2025 (GR)

– Proposals for expenditure: Sylvia HODs donation + Kaye plaque, Geoff re Arts&Crafts book, Others?

6) Recent Transport Announcements (GH)

7) Planning report – see also supporting papers (a) to (g)

Update on recent cases + applications still not on weekly lists (RT)
Moldgreen (RT)

George Hotel (GH)

Turnbridge Mills (?SJ)
Castle Hill (GR)
Waverley House (GH)
Station to Station, incl Northumberland Street makeover and Gasworks Site future use (GH)
Clayton Fields and Freedom of Informationrequest (GH)
Where next on our campaign re the many local listed buildings ‘at risk’? (HS)

8) Any progress following recent HCS / Kirklees Council meetings (GH)

– Still none at time of writing this agenda. Next steps…..

9) Publications

Sales update on existing publications (RT)
Update on David Griffiths Arts & Crafts houses book (GH)
Updating HCS Leaflet (AB? HS)

10) Linked initiatives

– Huddersfield BID Event feedback (?RT)

St Peter’s Gardens Plaque/interpretation board for grave of Joseph Kaye (SJ)
Chris Marsden’s Stones – moving to care of University (MW)

11) HCS Peter Stead Award 2025 (YG/GR/SJ)

– Feedback and maximising publicity

12) HCS and Blue Plaques (RT)

13) Events (?SJ to lead)

Feedback on Daphne Steele visit (15 May), Penistone walk (21 May) Sunnybank Mills (12 June), (ALL)
‘Mills Transformed’ talk by Neil Horsley (joint HODs talk with HLHS) +John Lamb intro– Wed 17 Sept (GH)
Possible Turnbridge Mills visit (HS)
Tolson book talk Oct/Nov? (AD)
‘Arts and Crafts’ book launch (GH)
‘Christmas’/January Social (All)
Others please! (All)

14) AOB

15) Future 2025 HCS Committee meeting dates (all 19.00 at Westin House – check): (HS)

– Mon 8 Sept, Mon 10 Nov: Check availability or consider change of date(s)

– Pattern of dates for 2026: should we continue 2^nd Mon of Jan, Mar, May etc?

Geoff Hughes 9 July 2025

Supporting Papers re Planning –

Robert Email Subject: Planning applications to the 6th July

All

Note below a brief introduction to the application at J.L Brierley as mentioned by Geoff earlier this week

2025/91021

The new “Lidl”

New Nth Rd

Numerous variation conditions to the original planing application’

The headline description to this variation mentions retail office as well as 229 residential units, but doesn’t seem to include any actual detail about these items?

2025/91381

33-37 King St

Former “Foot-asylum to become “Chopstix”

New Noodle bar/restaurant.

The application is for an illuminated facia on the listed building, within the Conservation area.

I can only assume that the broader planning alterations are covered in a separate application as this only asks for the Illuminated signage.

The previous occupant had large signage so would expect this application to proceed without question, unless the specific detail needs reconsideration?

2025/91604

Huddersfield bus station

This Variation highlights a plan for a new entrance canopy, public realm improvements and a new cycle hub.

With regard to the “Cycle hub”, “Active travel” have declined to offer comment and trust highways succeed with construction.

Not sure if that offers a link to other cycle routes or offers connectivity to the Rail station?

The new canopy and outside seating piazza look to improve the aesthetics of the current tired concrete block.

2025/91645

J.L Brierley and Paxman Coolers

Turnbridge Mills

Listed building consent along with wider plans to convert the whole mill site around the chimney into a new “State of the art” premises for Paxman Coolers to sit along site the University Health and welfare campus.

The full application is a little long-winded for me to fully grasp, but I suspect that now Historic England have chosen to list the large mill block, that all parties can agree a final design that is suitable and affordable to the two businesses.

It doesn’t serve any purpose to list the mill building to only watch it decline further.

Those with a greater understanding of the building detail can comment further.

Moldgreen Development

From: Robert Taylor <>
Sent: 23 June 2025 20:28
To: Geoff Hughes <>
Subject: Re: Is anyone able to keep an eye on this site?

Just for the record.

I visited the site this evening and it’s true that overgrown grass and shrubs have been cut, however there’s no sign of any building work.

Had a chat with some residents who are probably those referred to in the press articles.

The original planning application referred to there not being any trees, but there is a quite spectacular willow tree on the corner of the plot.

I’ll keep an eye out.

Regards
Robert Taylor
07938 266934

On 18 Jun 2025 07:28, Geoff Hughes <> wrote:

All,

This looks a worrying case – is anyone able to keep an eye on this site, please?

Huddersfield residents’ fears after work starts clearing building site after planning permission expires

Huddersfield residents are fearing for their privacy, safety and local wildlife after work started to clear a housing development site despite planning permission expiring.

Back in 2021, plans were approved to build a block of 10, one-bed apartments on a plot of land to the rear of 315a Old Wakefield Road, Moldgreen, despite several strong objections from locals. With work failing to begin within three years of planning permission being granted, this has expired. The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) understands that the land has since been sold and now belongs to a new owner although it is not clear who this is.

However, residents told the LDRS that on June 12, contractors began work on the site, clearing the lawn, and two days later advised they would be tearing down fences, cutting down trees and preparing to build eight flats.

As the council has confirmed, there is no planning permission in place for the site. The local authority says there has not been any breach of planning control at this moment in time, though residents fear this will be imminent after being informed of the workers’ intentions.

This has left those living in the vicinity hugely concerned, not least due to the nesting birds in the willow trees on the site. When permission was granted for the 2021 plans, locals say the council denied the existence of the site’s mature trees but now, the police’s wildlife unit have reportedly attended since the clearing began, photographing nesting birds using thermal cameras.

On top of the loss of habitat that would result from the felling of trees, a loss of amenity, privacy, shading, enjoyment and potentially house value, as well as increased noise levels, are among the other concerns of residents. One said they feared the implications of development could result in “tremendous suffering” for people in the area.

They added: “Residents are not happy. We, as concerned residents, want to know exactly what action the council are doing with regards to the land, the lack of correspondence issued, the lack of concern over the issues raised at the time of planning, and unlawful permissions granted for planning.”

Flooding is also a concern for locals, due to a culvert running diagonally underneath the site, as is access for emergency vehicles. In addition, some fear that the developer will ultimately go ahead and build on the site and apply for planning permission retrospectively, bypassing any public consultation.

Councillor Graham Turner, Cabinet Member for Finance and Regeneration, said: “Our Planning Team has been informed of some initial works carried out by contractors who came onto the site to fell trees. We understand that this was stopped by an attending Police Wildlife Crime Officer, who is the appropriate authority for the protection of nesting birds.

“We can confirm that there is no current planning permission for the site. However, until any development works are carried out there has been no breach of planning control.”

Geoff

Turnbridge Mills emails

From: <>
Sent: 03 July 2025 11:37
Subject: RE: Turnbridge Mills Planning application now in 2025/65/91645/W – request to volunteer…

Dear all

Thanks Geoff. I have not looked at all the documents but have read some, and all of the Heritage Statement.

They say in particular: Retention, repair, renovation and reuse of Building D. Renovation works will include the return of the

fenestration in the Engine House to its original form, and the reinstatement of the loading doors of

Building D. The ashlar stonework from the boiler house arch base will be retained where it joins to Building

D, and will be reconstructed to form the other side of the service yard entrance. These works are heritage

enhancements as they provide a new use that secures the long term sustainable future of this historical

building with a design and appearance that will improve the legibility of the original uses of the buildings

here that have been eroded through unsympathetic 20th century alterations.

▪ The new two storey office building to be built to the west of Building D in reclaimed natural stone

The mill complex has been economically unsustainable for many years with underutilised buildings

falling into increasing disrepair and insufficient funds to keep the listed buildings and others in good

order. By making the site viable, it will allow investment into the repair and maintenance of the

listed buildings and give them a long-term sustainable future.

I would support this application.

Best wishes

Sylvia

From: Geoff Hughes <>
Sent: 02 July 2025 22:15
Subject: Turnbridge Mills Planning application now in 2025/65/91645/W – request to volunteer…

All,

We now have the anticipated submission of a formal application by John L Brierley & Paxman Coolers Ltd for Turnbridge Mills, Quay Street, Huddersfield, described in https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/major-huddersfield-mill-revamp-plans-31963298?ruid=1ca739bb-1ec6-479b-8772-ec86acb7c931&hx=c258c464c71861cc9fa281a2dea43ef599efdc583f2f2dfaf96aabe5da4dab14 . It involves demolition of some of the existing buildings for which, I understand, Brierley had long been having great difficulty finding a potential customer. This is a historic area of our town, next to the Turnbridge Lift Bridge over the Huddersfield Broad Canal, but is also within the ‘Station to Stadium’ development corridor, albeit that we are still waiting for any clear statements from Kirklees Council on designations, priorities or plans for this area.

I suggest HCS may well wish to comment and, given many of us are having holidays alongside a ‘Public consultation end date’ of 18 July 2025 and an ‘Initial target date’ of 18 August 2025, I thought it best not to leave starting on this to Robert’s planning slot at the 14 July HCS committee meeting!

The application can be viewed at https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/planning-applications/search-for-planning-applications/detail.aspx?id=2025/91645 . The Heritage Assessment submitted by the applicant to support the above application looks to be a good starting read – https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/planning-applications/search-for-planning-applications/filedownload.aspx?application_number=2025/91645&file_reference=1092754 with pages 8 and 9 showing clear plans of which building and which block is which.

As background, the chimney in this mill complex was listed Grade 2 in May 2012 https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1409815?section=official-list-entry and is, I presume, unaffected by the proposed development. Also, in May 2025 the ‘spinning block’ in this mill complex was also listed https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1492710?section=official-list-entry . I suspect some of these blocks are affected and are requested for demolition with newbuild planned.

Please could anyone with a clear head and a bit of time please volunteer to analyse these documents in advance of our 14 July committee meeting?

Best wishes,

Geoff

Huddersfield Examiner 7 July report Castle Hill development update as ‘new’ applicant seeks to rebuild confidence

The development represents a £3.75m investment

“Confidence must be rebuilt”, says the applicant behind the latest plans for Castle Hill, as new information is brought to light.

The development of the historic site has a controversial past, with the Thandi brothers securing permission to refurbish the Castle Hill Hotel in 2002. During construction, planning conditions were breached and an enforcement notice was issued. The council ultimately ordered the demolition of the newly-built structure.

Now, Indy Thandi – the new Managing Partner of the Thandi Partnership – who is leading current development efforts, has acknowledged the concerns arising as a result of the earlier scheme, with a new supporting document – an ‘Executive Summary’ – on his behalf acknowledging why confidence must be rebuilt with the public. None of the parties involved in the earlier development have any involvement in these plans, it adds.

The current development is to be self-funded, with a £3.75m investment planned and no public cash required. It will be delivered through a Community Interest Company and is designed to serve more than 443,000 people across Kirklees. The summary adds: “It [the plan] plugs a gap in KMC’s heritage offering that has been sadly neglected for too long.”

Revenue will be generated through the restaurant, café, bar, coffee shop and overnight accommodation, among other income streams. The applicant says that 65% of all surplus will be reinvested into the site, educational programmes, conservation and local community initiatives.

However, it hasn’t all been plain sailing, with an application to construct a visitor centre with six rooms, café and bar first approved by the council back in February 2022. Three years passed and permission expired, with the applicant failing to secure Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC). This additional permission from Historic England is required due to the site’s status and archaeological significance.

An application was then submitted seeking to extend the previously granted permission in December 2024 but now, further plans, which are essentially a resubmission of the originals are awaiting a decision from Kirklees Council. As of May 2025, SMC had yet to be applied for, with further details ‘needing to be resolved’ before a submission is made.

Under the latest plans some “minor” changes have been proposed, incorporating a reception desk, larger interpretation space, gift shop, accessible toilet facilities and a slight reduction in the floor space of the bedrooms. The applicants say this will “improve visitor flow and functionality”.

A supporting document dated May 2025 on behalf of the applicant adds: “Castle Hill is the most important heritage asset within Kirklees. It is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and the Victoria Tower, sited on top of the Hill is a listed building. Castle Hill is not just a local attraction; it has the potential to become a flagship heritage site for Kirklees and the wider West Yorkshire region.

“However, without essential visitor infrastructure, its ability to fulfil this role remains limited. This development would allow Castle Hill to be a key stop in heritage trails linking other historical sites, such as Huddersfield’s industrial heritage, Yorkshire’s National Parks, and nearby archaeological sites.”

The Executive Summary from last month concludes: “Castle Hill has waited long enough, this is the moment to do it right and for the right reasons.”

A round of public consultation on the plans has come to a close, with a “sharp decline” experienced in public objections, falling from 321 to 45 in February 2025, according to the Thandi Partnership. Among them, there are objections from Historic England and the Victorian Society.

Historic England urged the council to reject the proposals on heritage grounds. The public body objected to the previous application and has reiterated its stance – that the public benefit of the scheme is unclear and specific heritage concerns have not been addressed in the application.

However, in the document published last month, the applicant says it has been working with Historic England and Kirklees Council, and ensure compliance with the relevant legislation.

Originally, a decision was expected to be made on the plans by the council by March 2025. It is unclear when a decision is due.

Waverley House, Highfields

From: Geoff Hughes <>
Sent: 08 July 2025 12:19
To: ‘Howard Smith’ <>; ‘Sylvia Johnson’ <>; ‘Gideon Richards’ <>; ‘michael.woodward’ <>; ‘Bernard Ainsworth’ <>; ‘Ann Denham’ <>; ‘Amanda Boothroyd’ <>; ‘Robert Taylor’ <>; ‘John Eastwood’ <>; ‘Yun Gao’ <>; ‘a.pitts’ <>
Cc: ‘Cid Jackson’ <>
Subject: FW: Waverley House, Waverley Road, Huddersfield – Request for update regarding Enforcement by Kirklees Council

All,

Fyi.

This is a most frustrating case which those on the HCS committee about three years ago may remember from the beginning. It has long been on our list of cases where we have been asking for Enforcement and have had no positive news to report. The fact that the illegal use here is as a Muslim religious establishment ought have no bearing on how this case is handled. Neither really should the fact that the applicant has used threats against individuals objecting, including myself.

Recently, HCS member, Cid Jackson – who lives close to the site – has forwarded me emails from KC Enforcement Officer, Jessica Irwin, which prompts this email as I suggest the current approach could set a worrying precedent…..

Geoff

From: Geoff Hughes <>
Sent: 08 July 2025 12:07
To: ‘’ <>
Subject: Waverley House, Waverley Road, Huddersfield – Request for update regarding Enforcement by Kirklees Council

Jessica,

I am the Secretary of Huddersfield Civic Society, an organisation of volunteers keen to help care for and improve Huddersfield – for more details please see https://huddersfieldcivicsociety.org.uk/what-we-do/ We are actively involved in various local matters related to planning, regeneration, development and conservation and regularly review and comment on planning and enforcement cases.

We have been concerned for some time at developments at Waverley House, Waverley Road, Huddersfield. The most recent planning application for this historic former office building, which is in the Greenhead Park Conservation Area, on the Kirklees Council website is dated 2021: https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/planning-applications/search-for-planning-applications/detail.aspx?id=2021/91283 .

This application was refused on 16 March 2022.

Nevertheless, several mature trees have been felled, several new car parking places have been created and the building has had a variety of non-office users. The Civic Society has therefore long regarded this as a straightforward enforcement case where Kirklees Council ought be enforcing the planning law and its own past decisions. I understand you are an enforcement Officer currently handling this case.

We are concerned to hear from one of our members that Kirklees Council, rather than belatedly undertaking enforcement for the illegal change of use, tree felling, creation of car parking spaces etc, may now be asking the owner to submit a retrospective planning application. We find it difficult to understand how it would be possible to consider an application in a case such as this now as we had understood a retrospective application to be intended more to rectify an accidental minor breach, rather than to legalise a major breach of a lawful council decision!

Please could you advise the Council’s position regarding how it now plans to handle the breaches of planning law in this case?

Geoff Hughes

Secretary, Huddersfield Civic Society.

Station to Stadium Update – Geoff Hughes 2 July email re “Gasworks” Site

From: Geoff Hughes <>
Sent: 02 July 2025 22:54
Subject: Keeping up with proposals around the Gasworks site off Leeds Road!

All,

If, like me, you have been wondering why there has been so much publicity recently about Ken Davy, various councillors and many signatories of a recent petition wanting the town’s former gasworks site along Leeds Road to be the site of a new rugby stadium when KC has always stated the Station to Stadium Corridor to be its major industrial/business/office development area, then here could be the answer: https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/owners-gasworks-site-favoured-huddersfields-31971277?utm_source=yorkshire_live_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=main_examiner_newsletter&utm_content=&utm_term=&ruid=1ca739bb-1ec6-479b-8772-ec86acb7c931&hx=c258c464c71861cc9fa281a2dea43ef599efdc583f2f2dfaf96aabe5da4dab14

The above states “…The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) can report that the Giants’ preferred site – the former gasworks – continues to be under the ownership of Kirklees Stadium Development Ltd (KSDL) – the company which manages the Accu Stadium. Shares in the company are still held by the council (40%), Huddersfield Town Association Football Club (40%) and Huddersfield Giants Rugby League Football Club (20%)…”.

Who could the owner of Huddersfield Giants be but Ken Davy. Ho ho!!!

My apologies to those who may already know this.

Geoff

P.S, For anyone who missed it, Huddersfield’s footy stadium changed its naming sponsor last week and is now the Accu Stadium, Do keep up!

Tree – felling at Clayton Fields, Edgerton

Item 1) Dismay over felled trees at landmark Clayton Fields housing site in Edgerton Posted by Andy Hirst | May 11

A major new housing development has just started at a well-known Huddersfield site … and the developer has owned up to cutting down a tree with a preservation order on it. Jones Homes is building 40 four and five-bedroomed detached homes on Clayton Fields off Halifax Road and Queen’s Road in Edgerton … a banking beloved over the years as a great place to sledge in winter.

Contractors had felled several trees at the side of the development next to a footpath running from Halifax Road through to Birkby – a move Huddersfield Civic Society believes has led to far more trees being lost than needed to go. The develop- ment called Clayton Manor is in the Edgerton Conservation Area which means the trees there have Tree Preservation Orders on them. Kirklees allowed them to fell several but contractors for the developers accidentally cut one down that did not have permission. Jones Homes alerted Kirklees Council immediately they realised a mistake had been made.

A spokesperson for Jones Homes said: “As part of our Clayton Manor development, existing trees and hedgerows on the site are being retained wherever possible. “However, in order to facilitate construction work it has been necessary to remove some trees at the site and we have secured the appropriate consent from the local planning authority to do this.

“Experienced contractors were appointed by the company to undertake the consented tree removal. However, unfortunately, in the process of removing some of these trees, an additional tree which did not have consent to be removed was inadvertently cut down. “Once the error was realised our contractors reported this immediately to the council’s tree officer and we were given consent to continue work. “As part of our already approved landscaping plans, supplementary tree and shrub planting is to take place on the site. The development will also include two significant areas of public open space. “This will be available for the use of the wider community in addition to the residents who move into the 40 new homes being built there.”

Clr Munir Ahmed, Cabinet member for environment and highways, said: “Many of the trees in Edgerton Conservation Area are protected under Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) which are designed to prevent harm to trees that have environmental significance. “Trees in conservation areas are afforded some protection and a notice of intent must be submitted to the local planning authority for any works proposed to trees in these areas. The local planning authority is then required to make the decision as to whether the tree or trees should be protected by a TPO.

“After securing permission from the council to fell 32 trees at this site, the contractor removed an additional tree which was protected under a TPO. They took no time in contacting tree officers at the council about the situation and a thorough investigation into what happened followed. “We believe this was a genuine mistake and we are working with the contractors to mitigate the loss. “We are dedicated to protecting the heritage and natural environment of all our conservation areas and I would like to thank Huddersfield Civic Society and the local community for their support in safeguarding our green spaces.”

Huddersfield Civic Society secretary Geoff Hughes said: “While I understand the need to fell trees in this conservation area where houses are to be built, I’m sad that the council has also granted permission to fell many further mature trees that simply lined the popular nearby right of way from Edgerton to St Patrick’s school in Birkby. “I do not believe that any felling request notice was placed onsite or that Kirklees residents were offered the opportunity to comment on whether the path-side trees ought be retained. “I have also asked in vain for Kirklees Council to provide notice of the consent notice given to fell specific trees alongside the path. I hope that, in future, should a developer, or our council, wish to fell mature trees it will follow a more open process.”

Item 2) Geoff Hughes email (latest) to Kevin Walton, KC Enforcement 19 May

From: Geoff Hughes <> Sent: 19 May 2025 23:04
To: ‘’ <>
Cc: ‘’ <>; ‘Mathias Franklin’ <Mathias.Franklin @kirklees.gov.uk>; ‘Robert Taylor’ <>; ‘michael.woodward’ <>
Subject: Felling of mature trees in Edgerton Conservation Area – request for confirmation of Kirklees Council approval

Kevin,

Since my last email to you, I note that in a Huddersfield Hub article https://huddersfieldhub.co.uk/dismay-over-felled-trees-at-landmark-clayton-fields-housing-site-in-edgerton/ Clr Munir Ahmed, Cabinet member for environment and highways, is quoted as saying “After securing permission from the council to fell 32 trees at this site, the contractor removed an additional tree which was protected under a TPO”.

My reading of the soft landscape plan (see email below) suggests that rather more than one of the felled trees were marked to be retained. Whilst I agree the need to fell trees at this site so that land could be levelled (now done) for houses to be built at Clayton Fields, I do not understand the logic of felling additional trees alongside the popular nearby PROW, all of which were outside the site safety sense barrier. A walk now along the PROW shows multiple felled tree stumps alongside the path, all outside the construction area fence and well away from the individual levelled house base sites.

I note there is still no decision notice on the public website for the application regarding condition 5 (arboricultural matters) on https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/planning-applications/search-for-planning-applications/detail.aspx?id=2025%2f90373.

Please would you point me at:

– the “permission from the council” for the 32 trees to be felled?

– which is the ‘additional tree’ (eg the position on the applicant’s submitted soft landscape plan) that was felled by mistake?

– what the proposed, or agreed, mitigation is, as referred to by Clr Munir Ahmed?

I really appreciate your response,

Geoff Hughes

Secretary, Huddersfield Civic Society

Item 3) Geoff Hughes Freedom of Information Request 14 June 2025 FS-Case-723002476

This is a request to be sent documents relating to the felling of 14 trees, or groups of trees, in the Edgerton Conservation Area alongside PROW (Public Right of Way) 345/20 from Halifax Road, Edgerton to George Avenue. This issue relates to planning applications 2024/70/92167/W and 2025/44/90373/W. As at 14 June 2025, there is no decision on the latter application on the publicly accessible Kirklees Council planning website.

In a Huddersfield Hub article https://huddersfieldhub.co.uk/dismay-over-felled-trees-at-landmark-clayton-fields-housing-site-in-edgerton/ Clr Munir Ahmed, Cabinet member for environment and highways, is quoted as saying “After securing permission from the council to fell 32 trees at this site, the contractor removed an additional tree which was protected under a TPO”.

Please would you send me documents relating to

– the request to fell trees alongside this PROW, incl plan(s) showing the individual trees requested to be felled

– the “permission from the council” for trees alongside this PROW to be felled (presumably among the “32 trees” mentioned above) with plan(s) showing which individual trees these are?

– which is the ‘additional tree’ (eg indicated on a plan) that was felled by mistake?

– the proposed, or agreed, mitigation as referred to by Clr Munir Ahmed?

Thank you.

Item 4) Kirklees Council FOI Acknowledgement 16 June 2025 FS-Case-723002476

From: Freedom Info <>
Sent: 16 June 2025 11:59
To:
Subject: RE: 39190- Planning applications 2024/70/92167/W and 2025/44/90373/W

Dear Geoff Hughes

I confirm receipt of your information request and that we are dealing with this and will respond to you in due course.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 allow up to 20 working days for responding to information requests.

If you are not content with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Requests for internal reviews should be addressed to the Monitoring Officer, PO Box 1720, Huddersfield HD1 9EL. Alternatively, you can send an email to: . Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of any review you have the right under section 50 of the 2000 Act to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision as to whether your request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The Information Commissioner’s website is at www.ico.org.uk and gives more information about the role and duties of the Commissioner. The ICO telephone helpline on 0303 123 1113 or 01625 545745 is available between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday.

Regards

Sarah Dyson Information Governance Team Kirklees Council