Council’s big concerns about Government’s planning proposals

At the first meeting of full council since the coronavirus lockdown began, Calderdale Council’s Labour and Liberal Democrat groups agreed a composite motion, which was backed after debate by a majority of councillors, to voice their concerns to the Government.

The Government’s paper, Planning For The Future, indicates zoning land for “growth”, “renewal” or “protection” and argues the aim is to remove obstacles to homes being built.

Supporting the motion proposed by Labour’s Coun Jane Scullion (Lab, Luddenden Foot), Coun Ashley Evans (Lib Dem, Greetland and Stainland) said the Government White Paper was “utterly vacuous” and would not address housing problems.

“It will almost certainly lead to many green fields and open sites brought back into plans,” he said.

Scrapping Section 106 agreements, through which councils have received money to spend on infrastructure in lieu of developers doing it, would give the latter “far too much wriggle room,” said Coun Evans.

Coun Scullion had said no-one was denying the planning system needing some improvements, but the White Paper was not it.

“It is too simplistic and tips the balance away from local people towards large developers,” she said.

But Coun Scott Benton (Con, Brighouse), who is now also an MP representing the Blackpool South constituency, said it was ironic Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors were proposing this motion and talking about power being taken out of local people’s hands.

Calderdale was one of only a handful of authorities which had not had its Local Plan passed, showing why Government was stepping in with new proposals nationally, he said.

He renewed criticisms of Calderdale’s Local Plan – about which Coun Scullion indicated the second phase of hearings might begin on October 6 – and said the views of residents in his ward had been ignored by the council.

Coun Benton has been critical particularly of proposals in the Local Plan to develop garden suburbs in south east Calderdale which were opposed by residents.

“Quite frankly, what about the 2,000 residents of Clifton who have been disenfranchised by local development planning which isn’t fit for purpose?

“That is the real travesty here,” he said.

Coun Scullion said she was alarmed by the contempt Coun Benton was showing local councillors.

“Is he speaking as a local councillor or as an MP? But that’s a conversation for another day,” she said.

Coun Paul Bellenger (Lib Dem, Greetland and Stainland) supported the motion and said if that bit of democracy was taken away from residents, they would have no say in how their areas changed over time.

But his ward colleague Coun Marilyn Greenwood (Lib Dem) said the Local Plan proposed to build a lot of housing in her ward despite what people had said, so she reserved her opinion on the matter.

Coun Jenny Lynn (Lab, Park) and Coun Pat Allen (Lib Dem, Elland) raised issues about the type of housing needed, for example social housing, affordable housing and smaller homes which would allow older people to downsize.

Meanwhile, Coun Mike Barnes (Lab, Skircoat) said the problem with the current system was not the planning process itself but issues like developers “land banking.”