Plan will see thousands more homes built than it will need
CALDERDALE COUNCIL’S plan for thousands of homes as part of its long-term development vision is based on unevidenced assumptions about huge levels of future migration, according to campaigners.
The local autority is aiming to deliver homes for four times as many people by 2033 than projections from the Office for National Statistics say are needed based on expected population growth levels.
The Labour-run authority, whose Local Plan setting out its development blueprint for the next 15 years is being examined by government inspectors, proposes to build 997 homes a year on average.
This is based on analysis by a consultancy firm, Turley, which “deliberately allows for increased in-migration to grow the labour force rather than simply continuing the demographic trends recorded locally in Calderdale”.
It suggests that official household projections take no account of local development aims, policies on growth, or other economic factors that could impact the population. And it concludes that the population in the district could grow by as much as 19,320 by 2033, compared with the increase of 4,221 projected by the ONS.
The council has defended its approach, saying Calderdale has only delivered half the new homes needed in recent years, meaning that “in some areas the housing stock is not fit for purpose, especially for growing families”.
But residents Amanda Tattersall, who is participating in the Local Plan consultation, and Lyndsey Ashton, who is campaigning against hundreds of homes being built in the village of Greetland, have questioned the analysis that underpins the document.
Of the 15,000 homes that need to be built to meet the Local Plan requirements, nearly 7,000 will need to be built on protected Green Belt land. Campaigners say brownfield sites which have already been used should be prioritised before building on the Green Belt.
Mrs Ashton, a stay-at-home mother who helped set up the Greetland Pressure Group, is worried about the impact of a proposed large housing development of 600 homes in her village and what this would mean for air pollution around local schools.
She said: “I knew that I had to do something to save our natural heritage. I have rallied thousands of supporters, organised protest walks, written planning objections, given verbal evidence at hearings. None of which I’d ever done before.
“Housing should not be allocated in locations that best serve developer return in investment; home building should and must be sustainable.
“My house backs onto the public right of way and the river side walk, and I have never seen the walk as popular as it has been over the course of the pandemic. “It has offered a physical and mental lifeline to residents during an incredibly hard time.”
The Government, which has a target of building 300,000 homes a year, revised its planning formula for calculating housing need in December so that more homes would be built in major cities in the North and Midlands. It came after a huge backlash from Conservative MPs regarding plans for the formula – dubbed a “mutant algorithm” – which would have focused housing in high value and rural areas in the South-East.
The new algorithm proposes 20 of England’s largest urban areas will have their housing targets increased by 35 per cent.
Calderdale Council’s corporate lead for planning, Richard Seaman, stressed that housing stock in parts of the district is “not fit for purpose” and more homes are needed for families and to meet the needs of growing businesses in the district.
He added; “Calderdale is tightly constrained by a Green Belt that has remained largely unaffected by development for many decades. The Local Plan has prioritised brownfield and other land in urban areas.
“However, it is simply not possible to meet our needs without some loss of the Green Belt. It is important to put this in context though – about 98 per cent of the Green Belt will remain free of development.”
Housing should not be allocated in locations that best serve developer return in investment
WHAT DO YOU THINK What do you think of the findings and are too many houses being proposed? Contact us via EMAIL/ONLINE/TWITTER