PLANS for a Huddersfield cemetery have been thrown out.

The controversial proposal for the new cemetery at Hey Lane near Berry Brow was refused yesterday despite being recommended by Kirklees council officers.

Councillors sitting on the Kirklees Council’s Planning Sub Committee voted against the plans – raising flooding concerns, lack of public transport to the site and no public amenities.

Huddersfield is currently served by three cemeteries which are nearing capacity and no new graves are expected to be available at the sites within two years.

The proposals for the Hey Lane site were drawn up last year after extensive investigations into other possible locations.

But many people had objected to the plans.

Many argued the exposed site was far from ideal for mourners at funerals.

Newsome ward councillor Andrew Cooper told the Examiner after the meeting: “The argument against was very strong. We had some real concerns regarding drainage and highways and I am glad that councillors recognised that.

“There is an issue that we are running out of space but that is not an excuse to make bad decisions.

“We must now go back to the drawing board and hope that the council does not appeal the decision.”

He dismissed a 2,000-strong petition in favour of the proposal, claiming residents had signed it calling for a new Huddersfield burial site and not specifically for the Berry Brow site.

During the meeting at Huddersfield Town Hall scores of objectors stated that the site was ‘totally unsuitable’.

Clr Nigel Patrick said: “It is clear over the last 10 years that Kirklees Council has not had the strategy in place to address burial needs.

“There needs to be places found for 200 burials in the next two years and the council is now desperate.

“There is no plan B. This has left councillors with a very difficult decision and under pressure to approve it.”

Clr Christine Smith said she had received a lot of concerns from residents. She said: “I am appalled that there is no provision for public toilets. There is also no onsite drainage. This is a totally unsuitable site.”

Clr John Cook drew from his own experience of ploughing the field many years ago.

He said: “The rotavator would not go through it. It was just mud, shale and clay.

“This site has standing water on the top of the land. If you want to bury them at sea then go to this site.”

Concerns were also raised regarding the visual impact on the landscape and the substantial distance, on limited public transport, from Huddersfield town centre for mourners to travel.

John Lockwood, of Castle Hill Associates, told the meeting: “This is an example of creeping urbanisation into greenbelt.

“Castle Hill is soon to become a nature reserve and this would have a negative affect on the visual landscape.”

The proposed scheme included lawned burials, car parking, seating and a shelter and landscaping to promote the natural openness of the area, and a spoil area.

The Environment Agency has said it was satisfied that the site design will mean little or no risk of contamination of nearby watercourses.