A KIRKLEES councillor’s remark in the heat of a planning row – that a tractor workshop was a “far better use of the Green Belt than solicitors sat in their posh houses” – has been described as unfortunate by a top judge.

But Clr David Sheard was entitled to his “robust” views and his words were not enough to undermine the planning permission granted for the controversial workshop in the Green Belt off Wool Row Lane at Shelley, Judge Langan QC decided.

The planning application had brought stiff opposition from some residents – including barrister, Naeem Siraj, who took particular exception to Clr Sheard’s remark, made during a planning committee meeting in September 2007.

“The meeting was clearly somewhat heated and, in particular, fuel was added to the fire by a remark made by Clr Sheard”, said Judge Langan.

Although his words had not been recorded precisely, the judge said they were to the effect that: ‘I cannot think of a better use of the Green Belt than mending tractors... far better use of the Green Belt than solicitors sat in their posh houses.”

Criticism of Clr Sheard’s words formed part of Mr Siraj’s High Court challenge to the council’s decision to grant planning permission for the tractor workshop to local father and son agricultural engineering team, Timothy and Steven Bennett.

Judge Langan said: “I say at once that the remark made by Clr Sheard was an unfortunate one.

“It is wholly understandable that Mr Siraj, both as a local resident and as a lawyer, should have felt disquiet, whether in the heat of the meeting or on calmer reflection afterwards.”

But he added: “Here, one is dealing with a throwaway remark by one member of a group of about 12 councillors.

“Robust though Clr Sheard’s mode of expression may have been, it has to be said that his view can be regarded as one which might fairly be held of the relative merits of different types of development in the Green Belt.#

“Councillors who are called upon to decide planning applications are not required to leave their political and other opinions outside the door of the committee room.

“There is no basis for supposing that the decision ultimately reached was arrived at on a ‘closed minds’ basis.

“In my judgement, there is no way in which the decision could be upset on the basis of actual or perceived bias.”

Mr Siraj’s legal team had mounted a broad attack on the council’s decision to grant planning consent for the workshop, arguing it was a totally inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

However, Judge Langan said the council had found “very special circumstances” justifying the grant of planning permission: The Bennetts’ business was the only agricultural machinery engineering firm in a wide area and

hundreds of farmers depended on their service.

Rejecting Mr Siraj’s challenge, the judge said none of his criticisms, “individually of collectively”, served to undermine the council’s decision and arguments that Kirklees had failed to apply the correct legal test for Green Belt developments “clearly failed”.

The judge rejected arguments relating to Clr Sheard’s remark and also dismissed claims that the council’s decision was “perverse” and not properly reasoned.