Residents shouted “you do not know what you are doing to our community,” and chanted “shame, shame, shame”
Five police cars were dispatched to a heated council meeting as anger broke out over plans to build more than 16,000 homes in the West Lancashire.
More than 100 people attended the cabinet meeting at the council’s chamber in Ormskirk last night, with many turned away when no space was left in the room. Councillors inside the meeting were booed and heckled as residents expressed anger over the proposed Local Plan, which was unveiled last week.
Some residents complained bitterly of a lack of information, stating farmers had not been properly notified and called for the consultation to be postponed. They also pinpointed the lack of public transport and other facilities in the proposed plans.
No arrests were made, with Lancashire Police saying they were called to reports of “shouting and arguing”.
The council’s director of development and regeneration, John Harrison, pointed out that the meeting was just the start of a six week consultation process, adding, “This is not a finished project.”
But when councillors approved the consultation process, tempers frayed and the meeting erupted into chaos.
Residents accusing councillors of riding roughshod over communities, shouting comments such as “you do not know what you are doing to our community,” and “this will squash Bickerstaffe.”
There were bangs and boos as several councillors walked out of the meeting. The council’s chief executive, Kim Webber, then spoke in a hushed, dignified voice, appealing for calm.
She said: “Please be quiet so that the meeting can continue. I’m sorry but this is not appropriate.”
But her pleas were met with chants of “shame, shame, shame.”
Despite the backlash, the proposed Local Plan Preferred Option, which covers a period until 2050, was given approval by the council’s cabinet and will go before a public consultation through October and November.
Opposition groups had earlier slammed the proposals, which will also create new garden villages near Skelmersdale , as “irresponsible” and based on a “wing and a prayer”.
As a result of the plans, 1,500 acres of land would be removed from the Green Belt.
The plans were approved by the Labour-run council’s cabinet, despite opposition from the Conservative group and the Our West Lancashire (OWL) group of independent councillors.
OWL leader Cllr Adrian Owens, who previously led the council as a Conservative, argues there is no need for such dramatic changes to the existing Local Plan, which runs until 2027.
With many of the planned homes being created to meet the housing needs of the Liverpool city region, Cllr Owens also criticised the plans for not guaranteeing transport links were improved in exchange for this.
He said: “The current Local Plan is working well. It’s delivering new homes faster than we anticipated while protecting almost all of our Green Belt. In my own ward, more than 250 new homes have been built this decade with more under construction.
“Instead of a light touch review, the Labour-run council has embarked on wholesale changes. Their plans, finally revealed last week would see 16,000 houses built, many of them on prime farming land.
“One proposed development of 1,100 houses is so big that four council wards are affected while the 6,000 houses proposed to the west and south west of Skelmersdale would change this rural area out of all recognition.
“The council has currently allocated enough land for development until 2027.
“The only reason that Labour are having to allocate so much additional land for housebuilding now, is because they have chosen to meet the housing needs of Merseyside authorities to the tune of around 6,500 homes and run the plan over an enormous 38-year period.”
Conservative leader Cllr David Westley dismissed the proposal as “crazy”.
He said: “The official figure for population growth in West Lancashire is 6,000 by 2041 and this can be met by the existing Local Plan, yet Labour want to triple this rate of growth by attracting large numbers into the borough from neighbouring areas.
“The Conservatives insist that land for future housing in the borough should be strictly limited to that required to meet the local need with the maximum use being made of brownfield sites. Releasing Green Belt land should only be done as a last resort.
“Labour’s plans are irresponsible and if implemented, would have a devastating impact right across West Lancashire.
“They simply do not appreciate the importance of our greenbelt.”
In response, council leader Cllr Ian Moran said that the plan gave the borough a greater say on its future.
He said: “This draft Local Plan is about homes planned for by West Lancashire Borough Council, built in West Lancashire, for ownership and occupancy by West Lancashire residents, paying West Lancashire council tax and contributing to the West Lancashire economy and infrastructure improvements.
“It incorporates the housing numbers from the existing plan, which was approved by all of the opposition councillors, and looks to meet the ongoing needs of West Lancashire residents in the years beyond 2027.
“Taking a longer term view will give us greater control over what gets built and when, rather than allowing developers to cherry-pick sites, as they tried to do by bringing Parrs Lane forward prematurely, resulting in us having to make a successful legal challenge.
“We will also have greater control over infrastructure improvements, requiring them to be built into new developments at the outset, rather than allowing developments to take place and then dealing with the consequences of increased traffic and demand for services afterwards.
“This Local Plan is designed to meet the housing needs of West Lancashire residents and to ensure that West Lancashire businesses can take full advantage of the opportunities afforded by the growth of the Liverpool city region.
“The majority of development in the next 30 years will be in the Skelmersdale area, which will significantly strengthen our case for infrastructure improvements such as the new railway station.”
Article originally appeared on LiverpoolEcho
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case.
