Kirklees Council EGM - Tuesday 6th March 2012

On 23rd November 2011 the Council approved the basis of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy proposals for locating land for 22,470 new houses and 37,500 new jobs.
On 6th March 2012 an Extraordinary General Meeting was held to ratify amendments to the document before submitting it to the Government Inspectorate for approval.
As in November, the public were invited to speak to the Full Council, and these are some of the main points raised:

• Residents pleaded with the Council to listen to their reasoned presentations.  All along they have wanted to work with the Council rather than against it, but there is a strong feeling that the whole thing was sewn up before anyone's view had been heard. The overwhelming message from the speakers was "Please listen to us, and vote with your conscience, not your party".
• Green Belt loss has caused the greatest outrage.  Councillors should remember what it is there for. Do they know the areas in question? How many have ever seen the land which their vote will condemn to concrete and tarmac? Are they aware of the effect on people in the area? (The land behind the Three Nuns is the largest site, and it seems that the Council is prepared to ignore the fact that it is the most beautiful and of great historic interest.)
• Brownfield and derelict land should be used first. We believe there is over 150 hectares (370 acres) of it, which Kirklees Council seems reluctant to acknowledge. Have they lost it, or are they trying to conceal it? After all, Councillors have admitted that they want to offer developers Greenfield land because it is 'easier' to work. People are tired of seeing rubble and scruffy land wherever they travel in Kirklees, and these area are destined to remain 'grot spots' for decades if developers have access to Green Belt. There is concern about 'black holes' being left in towns as businesses close down. Surely these should be recycled? Neighbouring councils have targets for re-use of Brownfield of 60%-88%. Kirklees has a target of 49%.
• Concerns about traffic have not been addressed. The sites for jobs have been concentrated into two large areas near motorway junctions (Cooper Bridge and Chidswell).  This will add to yet more road congestion as people travel to work in these these areas from across Kirklees. Or will the jobs attract people from other towns and cities, adding to the pressure on the overcrowded motorways?
• How were the figures for houses and jobs arrived at? They have not been updated to meet current projections.  Does Kirklees Council have access to a crystal ball which allows them to see 15-18 years ahead?
• Why has the LDF has been rushed through with such indecent haste? What is the Council's motive? Why not wait until the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is published later in the month?

During the Council debate which followed, some Councillors were once again dismissive and critical of the abilities and motives of the public speakers, even saying that people had spent 15 minutes researching facts on the internet and 'thought they knew it all'! The Mayor had to halt proceedings several times when speakers complained that some Councillors were talking or tweeting during their presentations. Council leader Mehboob Khan said it was important to use social media to keep the wider electorate informed.

The vote was cast and the result was as follows:

For:           37 (Labour, Lib Dem, Independent)

Against:   25 (Conservative, Green, 2 Labour)

Absent:    7    (3 Lib Dem, 2 Conservative, 1 Labour, 1 Independent)