Posted by: Jason McCartney | January 31, 2011

Local Development Framework

Kirklees Council are looking to impose thousands of new homes on our green spaces. They have launched a consultation which runs until 13th February 2011.

I oppose these top down house building targets in areas where the infrastructure is already creaking at the seams with clogged roads and full schools. I believe local communities should have a real say in what development goes on their area which I why I support the Government’s Localism Bill which is currently going through Parliament. Why rush this LDF consultation through now when new legislation is just around the corner?

I strongly urge all my constituents to have their say, via this link:



  1. The timing probably isn’t the best but isn’t the whole point of the LDF to allow the implications of future developments to be considered well in advance including allowing issues relating to infrastructure to be addressed? An “Infrastructure Delivery Plan” forms part of the LDF so I don’t think it is fair to imply that Kirklees are planning to release land for development where “infrastructure is already creaking at the seams”. Without an LDF, Kirklees may struggle to refuse applications for development in areas where the infrastructure might be a problem. The idea of the LDF is to prevent development in unsuitable areas, not facilitate it as seems to be the suggestion.

  2. Why rush through the LDF? Because there is instruction from Central Government to do continue to develop plans as ‘a matter of urgency’.

  3. I am against new builds in the Meltham area and to let the GREEN belt go is not on, there has been alot of new builds in meltham and most of them are not SOLD, also the school are too small and no High school in this are.

  4. Dear Jason,
    I am pleased that you are opposed to the taking of Provisional Open Land in Meltham. As this is a long term plan Kirklees Council could in fact, as suggested above, improve the present infrastructure, ie, enlarge our existing schools to an impossibly large size or take more open land to build another school;I shall certainly oppose the future development on the grounds of the present infrastructure not being able to support such a large development. However, it also needs to be pointed out that the two proposed developments at Highfield Crescent and between Helme Lane and Mean Lane both reduce the corridor between the conservation area of Helme by enlarging Meltham. Anything that has an impact on a conservation area and Grade 2 listings (houses and structures) needs to be opposed. Secondly, we need to keep our Provisional Open Land for such developments of leisure, recreation and possible allotments. I am treasurer of Friends of Meltham Greenway and one of the people behind hopefully providing a BMX/Skateboard track for the young people of Meltham. We have had an extremely difficult task of finding a suitable open site away from residences, with there being only one choice. We need to keep our open spaces and with the potential of more young people coming to Meltham with any extra housing on a large scale the problem will grow. As it is we have not enough ameneties for our existing young people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: