Highways officers are to look into road safety to protect children attending a proposed new infant school in Cleckheaton.

Councillors deferred a decision on re-siting Whitcliffe Road First and Nursery School until a report on road safety had been drawn up.

At the Heavy Woollen planning sub-committee meeting in Dewsbury yesterday, councillors heard it could be built on undeveloped Spen Valley Industrial Park land, off Rawfolds Way in Cleckheaton.

Jarvis Construction (UK) Ltd submitted the outline application to Kirklees Council but there were objections from Spen Valley Civic Society and Cleckheaton Labour Party as well as businesses at Rawfolds Way.

John Enright, who works at haulage contractors Reg Nayor Ltd on the nearby Spen Valley Industrial Park, told the meeting: "We operate a fleet of 25 HGVs. An HGV travelling at 1mph striking anyone, be it an adult or child, will cause damage. It is not suitable for a school."

John Newhaven, managing director of Norwood Textiles on the industrial park, said he was "terrified" at the thought of young children being anywhere near the company.

And Andrew Crowther, managing director of Custom Fittings on the industrial park, said 300 people worked on the site. He said: "Industry and small children do not go hand-in-hand."

Objections given included losing employment land by building on the site, that the land was contaminated by flood waters from the river Spen, and road safety issues. Terry Tordoff, representing Spen MP Mike Wood, said Mr Wood was not against a new school, but not off Rawfolds Way, as it was surrounded by dangerous industry.

But Karen Vickers, headteacher of the existing school, said teachers and the governing body were in favour. She said it would improve the school's facilities, with playing fields, a playground, covered play area, computer suite, multi-purpose room and wildlife area.

"The children have an entitlement to a better curriculum than we can offer them now," she said.

Michael Ellis, speaking on behalf of the parents' action group, said there was no good reason why a school could not be built on the site.

A planner's report accompanying the application stated that at least 14 other sites had been considered for the replacement school but this was the best available.