Councillors considering refusing permission to build 230 homes warned of “multiple six figures” for wrong decision

Councillors considering refusing a developer permission to build 230 homes were warned by a planning chief it could cost the authority “multiple six figures” if they get their decision wrong.

A majority of Calderdale Council Planning Committee members were considering refusing Keyland Developments Ltd’s outline application – with a more detailed application to come later – to build homes at land south west of Ellistones Lane at Greetland.

The proposals have been very controversial, with more than 400 objections.

After a lengthy questions session, and hearing from objectors and the developer, they were considering several proposals, including Coun Gordon Thorpe’s that permission be refused, against officers’ recommendation that they be mindful to permit the application.

Coun Thorpe (Reform UK, Ovenden) said he had “serious concerns” about drainage and flood risk relating to the site, about health issues including noise relating to a long-established neighbouring local business, about impacts on the road network and traffic numbers, and impact on nature and biodiversity.

His proposal followed a lengthy and at times emotive debate, with officers addressing the issues raised.

Coun Thorpe said the committee had to be satisfied that impacts of the development could be adequately mitigated.

“Having reviewed evidence, I am not satisfied that those tests have been met,” he said.

But the council’s lead planning officer, Richard Seaman, said members needed to make their decision very carefully.

“What members can’t assume is that by refusing planning permission today it will prevent the development from going ahead.

“In all likelihood, the applicant would appeal against refusal – although I should add we would have to refer this to the Secretary of State anyway, we couldn’t actually refuse it at this meeting – but the applicant would appeal against refusal and the council would have to defend every ground of refusal.

“If we fail to put credible evidence forward, the Planning Inspector who would consider such an appeal would in all likelihood award costs against the council.

“Those costs for a public inquiry of this sort of scale would easily run into six figures, could be multiples of six figures,” he said.

Mr Seaman said in terms of defending reasons for refusal, to every point being made by objectors, other representatives and members of the committee where they have asked questions, officers “have been able to provide a clear and cogent response.”

Earlier, objectors including ward councillor Coun Tom Garnett (Reform UK, Greetland) had been very critical and sceptical about responses they received.

But Mr Seaman said: “What you could not do at a public inquiry against considering refusal is simply to turn up at that inquiry and say ‘we’re not convinced, we don’t accept the evidence.’

“Clearly, it’s a significant issue that could have quite major financial consequences for the council,” he said.

Mr Seaman said assessments made by officers had used standard methodologies and for refusal they would have to demonstrate there were methodological errors in these.

Officers had not been able to identify any such errors, he said.

They recommended councillors should be mindful to permit the application subject to planning conditions and legal agreements.

Other proposals included Coun Katie Kimber’s (Lab, Luddenden Foot) to follow officers’ recommendations, and committee Chair, Coun Steve Mycroft’s (Reform UK, Brighouse) proposal that the application should be deferred for the grounds of refusal to be fully explored and explained in a report for a future meeting.

Members agreed to defer the application for this to be prepared.

Earlier, councillors had heard objector Giles Walker raise concerns about drainage and flooding risk – the local lead flood authority had stated the condition of culverts has not been determined and it was unknown if they would be suitable, or costings given for suitable mitigation, he said, outlining major flooding incidents in the area.

“You can’t say something can be done if you haven’t quantified the thing that you’re trying to do.

“In 2020, I personally took footage of flooding in the valley bottom and Greetland, the same critical drainage area we’re discussing today.

“That footage was so shocking it was used by the BBC One Show, it was shown on national television.

“That problem isn’t going to go away.

“There’s no evidence to demonstrate it is achievable.

“Existing homes and businesses are at great risk.

“The people downstream, intrinsically linked to them, are at risk.

“The problem might be OK on the ground on the site – what about the people down in West Vale, Elland and further afield?” he said.

Former councillor Christine Prashad raised concerns about the financial viability of the scheme, including related issues of social housing numbers – 20 per cent required.

Planning officers said they were satisfied drainage can be achieved, with a pre-commencement planning condition for a detailed scheme to be required from the developers.

The developer was not seeking a viability appraisal and was “not trying to get out of the obligations”, said officers.

Coun Garnett said it was “disgraceful” the planning department had shoehorned the site into the Local Plan.

He was highly critical of officers – calling their work “shoddy” – comments for which committee member Coun Chris Wadsworth (Lib Dem, Warley) later admonished him.

Coun Garnett said the application raised posed “blatant road safety issues” to human life.

He said there had been two tragic fatal incidents in the first six months of this year alone – the junction concerned was not inconvenient, “it is unsafe,” he said, and unsuitable for more traffic.

Coun Garnett said officers had admitted there was a basic flaw in the transport model regarding the capacity of the junction, which was at odds with the council’s own evidence to the Local Plan inquiry which said the West Vale junction’s capacity exceeded 100 per cent.

Coun Garnett said: “When mistakes are literally life and death, I am not alone in labelling the recommendation to permit development as appalling,” he said.

Highways officers, who had also answered questions from planning councillors about highways mitigations relating to the application, said the proposals had been fully assessed.

There was no significant accident pattern in the area – information had been assessed using data from partners including the police – with the two accidents referred to resulting from human error, not road safety-based.

“We’re happy that the road safety and the traffic impacts of the development are acceptable and that they might be mitigated accordingly back to a scenario, and that there is no significant road safety aspects of the development,” said an officer.