Kirklees Council had little choice but to withdraw its major LDF planning proposals after it failed at its first reading by the Planning Inspectorate.

It has now been revealed that letters between the Inspectorate and the council have been published which show the Inspector told Kirklees to “give consideration to withdrawal”.

The Inspector, Roland Punshon, said his “initial concerns” about Kirklees Council’s LDF were:

Evidence of the council’s duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities – a legal requirement – was unclear.

The housing strategy, including lower than expected housing numbers and land allocation – such as developing green belt before greenfield – may fail a soundness test.

Mr Punshon said other councils were bringing forward a coordinated approach to housing similar to a now-abolished Regional Strategy, but “the exception appears to be Kirklees Council”.

He adds: “... the duty to cooperate requires more than consultation with adjacent councils and specified bodies.

“It requires a coordinated process of securing sustainable development and resolving strategic issues.

“From the evidence which I have seen I consider that the council’s approach to the capture of ‘beyond the plan area implications’ falls short of fulfilling the ‘duty to cooperate’.”

Kirklees began working on its LDF early in 2009 and a legal duty to cooperate was enforced 18 months before the LDF was submitted in April.

Mr Punshon’s further critique relates to the council’s housing strategy.

Mr Punshon writes that he wished to see “clear, objective evidence to justify:

Why the council has chosen to allocate sites subject to the national green belt designation when other edge of settlement, non-green belt land is available;

Whether the council’s strategy of reliance on ‘brownfield’ land is likely to be financially viable and is likely to deliver housing numbers to meet trajectories”.

A council spokeswoman said they were now in talks with the Planning Inspectorate, adding: “The council is currently considering its options for progressing the Core Strategy which is important to the long term planning of development in Kirklees.”

LDF AT A GLANCE

New land for employment: 122 hectares, to be provided in current green belt at: Cooper Bridge, Huddersfield (42 hectares), A653 north-east of Dewsbury (35 hectares), Birstall area (15 hectares), Cleckheaton area (10 hectares), Clayton West (15 hectares), Meltham (5 hectares)

New homes to be provided by 2028: 22,470 new homes – 7,600 in Huddersfield, 6,700 in Dewsbury and Batley (including 1,500 in current green belt), 2,900 in Birstall, Cleckheaton, Heckmondwike and Mirfield, 5,300 in smaller towns and villages.

The LDF proposal was backed by 37 councillors including Labour, the Lib Dems and two Holme Valley North independents. – 25 councillors, including the Conservatives and the Greens, voted against.

PROTECTING open land is key for senior councillors after Kirklees Council’s LDF blueprint failed its first reading.

The Kirklees Conservatives blasted their Labour colleagues for the Local Development Framework (LDF) “sham” after a Planning Inspector hinted it should be withdrawn.

They were responding to comments the council Leader, Clr Mehboob Khan, made in Monday’s Examiner criticising the government’s “dictat”.

Clr David Hall, deputy leader of the Kirklees Conservatives, said: “The LDF under this council’s Labour control has been a sham from start to finish.

“It is because of their incompetence that significant areas of green belt across Kirklees have come under threat, and to try to blame the Conservatives for the mess over which they have presided is sheer bloody mindedness.

“It is the last Labour Government that told Kirklees to provide land for 37,000 homes and the fact that this council failed to challenge the Government proposals is down to local Labour incompetence and it is coming back to haunt Kirklees.”

Clr Andrew Cooper, leader of the Greens and Valley Independents, said Kirklees should call the government’s bluff.

He said: “We’re in a bizarre situation where we’re told by the government that we as a council have control over planning but the reality is we haven’t.

“The reality is through the Planning Inspectorate, a government-appointed quango, they are going to determine the figures that we have locally.”

Clr Cooper, a member of the Huddersfield planning committee, said: “The one thing that the council has overlooked is the potential that exists from developing landfill sites, that we need to accept.

“There are also quite a lot of brownfield sites out there with planning permission but developers are sitting on them.

“One is in my ward, Newsome Mills, and we’ve done everything to get that site moving and still nothing.

“The threat to green belt, greenfield and Provisional Open Land (POL) will exist while developers sit on suitable sites.”

He also said the government’s green light for developers to scale back affordable housing set by Kirklees councillors was at odds with Localism powers.

“At the last meeting where we discussed the LDF I said we should go in with a lower number and call the government’s bluff,” Clr Cooper added. “We should take advice, but I think we should hold out on this.”

Clr Nicola Turner, Liberal Democrat deputy and a former planning committee member, said: “We looked at this in great detail and felt that the housing number was appropriate based on economic factors and the number of houses that had been built previously.

“We felt that sacrificing some green belt in order to release brownfield was a sacrifice worth making to encourage industry.

“I think now we should have a policy which means we will only release green belt at the end of the period.

“We must make it clear brownfield development comes first.

“The other thing I am keen to safeguard is POL, green spaces between villages and in urban spaces. If we don’t we’ll end up with massive problems.

“In my constituency (Colne Valley) the infrastructure in roads, junctions, schools, doctors and dentists isn’t there for 300 new homes.

“If we do need to think again maybe we need to concentrate our efforts in one area.

“Whatever happens I’m going to fight to preserve as much greenbelt for as long as I possibly can.”

Clr Mehboob Khan, Labour and council leader, said the government moved the goal posts and put at risk green spaces residents have been fighting to save.

“We are having to find space for an extra 6,700 homes and if the Planning Inspectorate wants greenfield sites they are places in urban areas people have been fighting to save.

“Clayton Fields in Edgerton, Churchfields in Denby Dale, Jim Lane in Marsh and greenfield around Ainley Top are all places people want to protect. But they’re also greenfield sites.

“A one size fits all national planning policy does not work, it doesn’t take into account the demographic, topography and local housing requirement.”

Clr Khan also questioned how democratic it was that neighbouring council leaders could determine Kirklees planning numbers: “The duty to cooperate came in 18 months before we submitted the LDF. We have consulted our neighbouring local authorities and while they are submitting higher housing figures in line with old Regional Strategy, we now need agreement off them about housing provision here.

“Is that what local democracy is? Are Kirklees residents happy that we need the leaders of Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield and Calderdale to decided this?”

Clr Khan also said the Kirklees Tories wanted a lower housing number in the LDF and “now their government is telling us we went in too low.”