Cllr Peter McBride outlines Housing Delivery under the Local Plan

The Local Plan approved 11 months ago gave us the authority and momentum to build 31,000 houses in the next 15 years. It also laid down policies to achieve a number of associated objectives e.g. that at least 20% of the total are affordable and that we would aim to deliver extra care provision throughout the borough. We stated even greater expectations for large sites and on land that we owned including master planning by local councillors and communities. We stated our expectation of delivering 10,000 in the first 5 years of the plan  and we sought to provide a significant number of houses using prefabricated manufactured units that would minimise energy usage. The report updates on the strategy to achieve those objectives and on early reports of delivery.

It shows how we have used our own land, worked with voluntary and private sector to speed up delivery using some smaller council owned sites, brought in grants from Homes England and from the City Region Local Growth Fund to ensure viability on the more difficult sites.

The report shows exactly what we have planned for all our major sites and gives us an update on success so far.

The evidence is strong that the momentum of the Plan and the delivery programme of the council are quickly coming to fruition. In December at one meeting of Strategic Planning, approval was given for 600 additional housing units. This plan shows how the Council is bringing its power and influence to bear to ensure those approvals turn into deliveries and to ensure our other social ambitions are realised in the execution of our planning strategy.

THE LOCAL PLAN - WHAT NEXT?

The Local Plan – What Next?

You may be aware, if you are interested, that last week the Council decided that the plan prepared by the planning officers did comply with the guidelines set by National Planning Policy and as a consequence agreed that the next stage should be started.

The Cabinet had decided that the plan put to the Government Inspector needed to be sound as it was thought vital by all Groups on the Council that we do get a plan agreed by the government. As we have explained earlier, not to have a plan offers no protection to green fields however allocated.

At the Council meeting the Liberal/Democrats and the Conservatives argued that the plan was not “Political” enough, and they had not been given the opportunity to change the recommendations in their own wards. Though we then listened to pleas to take out allocations we were given no indication as to where the allocations would be moved to. For instance the Conservatives argued that two of the largest allocations should be removed, they didn’t say that the only way land for the 6,000 homes would probably have to be found in Conservative wards.

There will now be a period of where the plan will be tested as to “soundness” (does it comply with Govt. guidelines), this will take us into the New Year. If no snags are found it will then be passed to the Government who will employ a Planning Inspector who will hold public hearings, probably through the summer, where anyone can argue about the plan in general or about specific sites.

At this stage, no doubt there will be people arguing for sites to be excluded or included. We hope the Inspector will deliver his findings at the back end of the year, if he does the Council will be asked to confirm the plan early 2018.

If that all happens, that does not mean any site has planning permission, all it does is remove in some cases and impose in others reasons to allow the Planners or the Planning committee the right to oppose development. Sites will still have to meet all the requirements set out in planning guidance, such as access requirements and infrastructure requirements.

This plan is supposed to last for 15 years. If development occurs at a faster rate than anticipated, we will have to go through the process again sooner than planned. If development does not happen at the anticipated rate the process could be delayed, but it must be clear without something drastic that causes a decline in population the land will be developed eventually.  

Cllr Naheed Mather - speech to Council on the Local Plan

Housing supply helps us to deliver on our key priorities that we have set out in the Kirklees Economic Strategy, and housing and business growth will help Kirklees to become more resilient and be better equipped for future challenges. The Housing proposals within the Local Plan are an important step on that journey.

Housing delivery in Kirklees has been underperforming for many years and unless we build more homes of the types that we need, and respond to needs in different areas in Kirklees, we cannot meet the housing needs of the district. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (or ‘SHMA’) evidences the need to build 1700 new homes every year. In recent years affordable housing delivery has averaged only 178 units per year!

Until we accelerate housing supply, partners working with the Council will not be able to address the scale of the challenge and deliver the new homes that we need. Having a supply of new homes is essential to building stable communities and improving our residents’ health and well-being, particularly where we can also achieve a pipeline of affordable housing- The Local Plan is an important step on that journey.

Housing is part of the broader business economy and it will help to build better places and life chances for our residents. Here in Kirklees over 60% of households earn less than £26,000 a year, so in return for allocating sites in the Local Plan, we need partners’ help and innovation to provide a broad range of homes in the housing ladder that are financially accessible. We need to provide access to affordable housing for households whose life chances, health and wellbeing will be helped by being able to access an affordable home to rent or buy.

It’s easy to forget that housing is also a key economic driver and for every £1m invested in housing, 7 full time, and 5 part time jobs are generated. So we need people who will build the houses, People need to furnish their homes; they need services, shops and leisure; and we want people to earn, and spend their money in the area too.

In Conclusion -The Local Plan provides a policy framework and allocates land to help partners, communities, businesses and the Council to work together to grow Kirklees and help it to become a great place to invest, work, live and play.

James Homewood: My speech to Council on the Local Plan

I want to speak today about the proposed development in the Bradley area of Ashbrow ward, specifically the site which encompasses Bradley Park Golf Club.

As part of the draft local plan a number of sites were allocated for development in Ashbrow Ward. As Councillors for the area we have made clear to residents the need for housing and have argued the case for development in the ward. In the case of Bradley, despite many understandable concerns about further development, in what is an already densely populated area, we have sought to work with all parties to understand what reasonable housing development could take place here.

Part of the site had previously been earmarked for a new secondary school building, we are happy that this can be developed as housing. Additionally, part of the site is land a farmer has expressed interest in developing. Again we would be content with that.

This area borders the conurbations of Brighouse and Huddersfield. It is an extremely small buffer between these towns. It is the classic Green Belt, the very reason the concept of Green Belt was first introduced to our planning system. We should also remember Calderdale Council is also developing its Plan and it is likely to include development at the other side of the M62 reducing this separation further. The only justification for the removal of this small buffer has to be that there is no non Green Belt land left. This is not the case.

Bradley Park is a fantastic facility which provides excellent golfing provision at an affordable cost for the whole area. It is the only municipal course in Huddersfield and currently makes a profit for the Council. The loss of the course would be of great detriment to the local area and Kirklees as a whole. There seems to be a misconception that the only people who make use of the course are golfers, this may be true at other courses but certainly isn’t the case at Bradley. I have spoken to many residents who use the course for walking, footgolf and enjoying the local wildlife.

I think it is important to remember what we are being asked to consider, whilst a lot of emphasis is being put on the vote today the function of this is to decide whether to publish the plan in order to begin the “soundness” consultation and to send to the Secretary of State for independent examination. We also need to consider the implications of the plan not progressing further and the potential impact this has on green belt sites including Bradley Park.

From my perspective the key issues with the inclusion of the Bradley site come down to how the technical assessment was completed which found Bradley to be more appropriate than other potential sites and how the judgement has been made that the course is surplus to requirements, in line with Paragraph 74 of the NPPF. During the public consultation period there were over 800 objections to the site many of which focussed on these issues. It is clear from the position that we are in today that those who have created the plan have had ample opportunity to consider these points and feel confident in their assessment. My feeling is that there is still a strong argument to be made on these points and members of the public have made this clear in the representations they have made to the council today.

 
The current situation leaves Ashbrow ward councillors in a difficult position. My view is that it is not in the best interest of Kirklees for the progression of the plan to be stopped at this stage. I believe that the best course of action is to allow further relevant arguments to be made to the Council and independent inspector where consideration can be given to these outstanding concerns.  

Cllr Graham Turner - my thoughts on the local plan

This is a copy of the speech that I would have delivered at the Council meeting on the 12th of October when we discussed the local plan, but decided not to after been goaded by one of the Tory opposition to respond to his remarks.

 

Mr Mayor

Thank you

I rise this evening to support this plan.

It would be impossible to have a local plan that was perfect as we all have a different idea of what we want from the plan and where we would like it to be.

However this plan does meet all the technical requirements placed on us by Government.

Which is vital as the one thing that we can’t afford to do this evening is to fail to agree a plan.

If we can’t deliver a plan that meets the government’s requirements then we will have failed our residents by passing control of our economic strategy and housing needs to a bunch of faceless Whitehall civil servants and ministers

I don’t believe that civil servants based in London will act in the best interests of the residents of Kirklees as I believe they are more likely to listen to large developers, and landowners who as we know simply want to develop sites that are easy and cheap to develop and from past experience are likely to greenbelt.

This plan does protect as far as is possible the green belt and places the majority of land allocated for housing in areas where we believe it is most needed.

It is simply not possible to protect all the greenbelt if we are to provide the amount of land allocation for homes the government say we need but this plan protects the green belt far better than not having a plan.

I do have some concerns about some sites in my own ward one of which is the site that has been added since the last round of public consultations and that is the site in Clayton west for housing on what is currently the site for Adare.
 

Adare is a highly successful printing company and is at the cutting edge of security printing and has a highly skilled local workforce.

I have discussed this issue with officers who have assured me that they are doing all they can to ensure that these jobs are not lost to Kirklees and clayton west and that the site is not lost as a manufacturing site and replaced by a potential site for housing, and I would urge officers to maintain a dialogue with Adare to protect these much needed jobs.

I share residents’ concerns about the potential scale of the proposed mineral extraction in Birdshedge and intend to speak with officers in the coming weeks to clarify the rules on mineral extraction as I believe that local residents will have some questions on this that they would like answering.

I am pleased that officers have clearly taken notice of residents’ concerns following the public consultation and modified the plan to remove some of the sites that where not suitable.

Should we accept this plan tonight its worth pointing out that the public and elected members will have the opportunity to make representation to the inspector at the public examination of the plan next year.

Finally I would hope that Council will agree this plan and allow us to shape the Kirklees of the future and not Whitehall.

 

 

Cllr Paul Kane - Speech to Council on the Local Plan

Mr Mayor we are being asked today to accept the soundness of the Local Plan. This debate is supposed to be about the integrity of the plan.

Anyone that has anything to do with Planning will not have to be reminded that we need to have a Local Plan that is sound and robust, as for the last four years we have been held to ransom by ruthless and greedy developers who have challenged us every step of the way, over our lack of a 25 year housing supply.

These are the very same developers who get applications and sit on them until the lack of housing means their sites quadruple in price.

The very same developers that fight tooth and nail not to give anything back to the communities where they wreak havoc, aided and abetted by this government, who allow them to use a viability argument which allows the developer 25% profit before they sell a property.

These same developers fight not to supply affordable homes of any sort to young families from the areas where they develop.

For this reason it is vitally important we support the plan today.

With regard to individual sites, 4 years ago when speaking about the ill-fated previous Local Plan, I said that there are many members in this chamber who are thanking God that their areas have not been put forward for development; I still believe now that the areas for development could have been shared out more equally.

Although I believe that overall the Plan does something to get Dewsbury back to some form of prosperity, along with other things that are happening.

To the people of Shaw Cross, I say that although most of the proposed development and access is located in Batley East, it will affect our area.

To the people of Chidswell, I say “this is not approval of a Planning Application, it is a plan of intent and I will support our communities through all the years to come” - We will ensure that the developers treat our communities with respect and listen to their concerns and work with them to maximise all the opportunities that will be forthcoming.

In conclusion, although this was not my first choice for development in my area and I have doubts about the deliverability of the numbers and the enabling infrastructure, I reluctantly do support the plan, as it offers us support to stop unrestricted development and offers great opportunities for growth in Dewsbury.

Cllr Cathy Scott - Dewsbury East - Local Plan

Nobody wants to think that what they considered an idyllic view from their window is going to be blocked, ruined or spoiled by a new housing estate.

But the plain fact is that Kirklees like many other councils in this country have been instructed by the Government to deal with an unprecedented housing shortage.

We have tried to use existing premises in built up areas, like old mills, factories, hospitals, churches, even public houses to provide flats for those seeking housing accommodation.

That is alright for single people or young married couples without children, but families need larger accommodation, and we have no choice but to provide it.

There is a critical shortage of land for housing and this is why the Conservative government is now releasing green belt. They have told us we have to build houses in the next.....years

We have been told by the government that if we have any land in our ownership which we refuse to build on, then they will take it from us and give to builders free of charge.

Most of our much-needed housing estates, built in Dewsbury during the slum clearance schemes of the 1950s and 60s, were built on what would now be called Green Belt.

Indeed, thousands upon thousands of people in Dewsbury now live in houses which were once pastoral, like Thornhill, Whitley, Chickenley, and Dewsbury Moor.

Indeed, something like a thousand privately owned houses in the Bennett Lane area of Hanging Heaton were built on farmland belonging to the Savile Estate.

I have sympathy with the residents of Chidswell – I am one of them – and I too don’t want to lose the view from my kitchen window which I have enjoyed for the past 17 years.

But in many ways we are helpless in our choice as to where we now build houses, but we have to ensure that where houses are to be built have to be thoroughly looked into. We will do that.

We also have the infrastructure to consider, roads and drainage etc..., and we will ensure that in this rush to build houses, now going on throughout the country, we will not overlook these important issues. They will be thoroughly looked into and as many issues raised by residents we must try to minimise, resolve or overcome.

 

Personally I pledge to do that.  I believe we should find some way to involve nearby residents in what we are doing, involve them in the process.  Their voices should be listened to. Their fears allayed, because I don’t think their complaints are just about losing idyllic views.

They have fears that they will lose their privacy, fears of being overlooked, fears of heavy traffic and noise during the building process.

Will there be enough school places to accommodate the children moving in, increased traffic, access etc.

We must not ignore their fears. We must listen to them. This should not be a battle which someone will win and others will lose.

We cannot be seen as the villains of the piece, greedily grabbing every piece of land and riding rough-shod over people who have lived in a community all their lives.

Even the tiniest piece of land is now being scrutinised to see if houses can be built on it. The Government is watching to make sure we do this.

In my ward alone, Dewsbury East I have seen houses and flats built on areas of land which at one time I would not have thought possible. I doubt if years ago they would have even been given planning permission. Today it is different.

 

At the top of Chickenley Lane, where a church once stood, I saw in no time at all after its demolition houses were built there.

On land adjoining the Rams Stadium, houses were built and are occupied as quick as they are built. In Batley Carr, two churches have been pulled down in recent months and

Houses built there....Where Dewsbury General Hospital once stood; hundreds of houses have been built.

Where the Municipal Buildings were situated, there are now apartments, further down the road where Mark Oldroyd’s Mill stood, there are many, many more apartments, and across the road where Machells Mill stood, there are flats.

Even parts of Caulms Wood has been used for housing and in Crackenedge Lane, a housing association has provided flats to provide sheltered accommodation.

 

Pieces of land in built-up areas have been utilised and I  have seen houses built in places where I thought houses could never have been built – on tiny pieces of land..

Even landmark buildings like the Reporter Office, are now apartments, and so are many of the buildings nearby.

There is a housing revolution going on, and I am concerned that we deal with this crisis  in the right way.

Almost every available piece of land is being utilised for housing. There is none left in built-up areas. That is the stark fact.

We are being forced to move into the Green Belt and the government is urging us to do so.

Large old houses which still have much life in them are being demolished to make way for more houses to be built in their gardens – five houses where once there was one. Incredible.

The bedroom tax imposed on us by the Government is just one example of the wrong kind of thinking to tackle this crisis, now proved to be unlawful.

We have to think long and hard where we now build houses. Yes, houses have to be built. We cannot ignore that fact, and land has to be found.

Tragically, great swathes of lovely unspoiled land, some of them local beauty spots, may have to be used. Where else can we build?

The way we now live our lives has contributed to the housing shortage, as well as newcomers coming to live in this country.

When marriages split up – two houses have to accommodate a man and his wife, children leave home early and want to live on their own, something which never happened in the past.

People live longer and therefore they live in their homes longer. Our world is changing – but an English man’s home is still his castle and we ignore that at our peril.

Build by all means but do it sensitively.  Do not allow as many houses as possible to be built on a piece of land.

If we own the land, we must not try to get the highest price just to balance our books, but must work with the builders to get the best possible houses as possible.

Let us not forget that when we were building council houses in the 1950s and 60s we built them to the highest standard, much better than houses being built in the private sector.

We have to look at ways of working with the developers to make sure they are not skimping and building houses where they will overlook the houses of those who will be losing their views.

We should not be building, one on top of the other, we must think – “What would we as a council build here if we were going to be the landlords or owners?”

Instead of asking developers to give us money to put back into the local community, let them use that money to make the area look attractive to those who are overlooking it.

 
If that sounds like pie in the sky I am sorry. I think it is possible. We have to think what we would feel if it was happening on our doorstep, devaluing our property, affecting our peace of mind.