Just because we expect Tory MPs to speak with forked
tongues, we should not rule out the fact that this time they are talking a load
of rubbish because they don’t understand. One should expect more from a
Barrister and Journalist (does anyone else find it ironic that our two Tory MPs
come from professions that are only a smitten behind politicians in the public
distrust stakes). But to be generous, few people do understand what POL is.
POL stands for Provisional Open Land. It may be a green
field that has never been developed but it is not green belt. The last time
that the allocation of land was decided, the UDP, Unitary Development Plan the
council had to decide what land it wanted to see housing on, what land was
reserved for Industry and what it wanted to see left undeveloped, to stop towns
joining up, “Green Belt”. There are a few other designations, but understanding
these will do for now. POL is the land that was decided would be developed when
the allocations were used up and the decision as to when the land is deemed to be
used up, is set down in planning law. The presumption was always that POL land
would be developed, the only point in question was when?
Our Tory MPs seem to be saying that the Fat Controller is
telling us to ignore the law, or to interpret it in a way that is not set out
in statute. He is not telling us he will pick up the bill when his inspector
awards costs against the council for not obeying his law. He is not saying he
is willing to change the law, what he is saying is, I will cover up the mess he
has created by making announcements then not doing what I said I will do.
The Planning Inspectors work for Eric, they impose his will,
he can over rule any decision they make as a result of a public enquiry on a
whim. He can make his decision behind closed doors and does not have to give a
reason, raising the question, should one person have so much power? It is said
that Power Corrupts and that Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.
Summary comments to the media are;
1. The Pickles letter does not contain anything new, the
council cannot arbitrarily use the latest ONS data set to pluck out of the air
a lower housing number to get under the five year supply rule.
2. The five year supply is based on the latest tested
housing numbers i.e. the UDP and Planning Inspectors will not accept any other
data set.
3. Future numbers in the LDF will be based on delivery,
ONS population growth, migration and economic growth, these will tie in with
neighbouring authorities.
4. The lack of a LDF is due to government prevarication
on the abolition of RSS and that the Inspector insisted that Kirklees council
apply the previous RSS figures in the LDF Core Strategy.
5. Reevel campaigned for abolition of the LDF, so in
effect the POL sites would be at risk, if Reevel had delivered on his election
pledge.
6. Reevel is misleading local people and should lobby
government to reduce the five year rule to three years.
