THE process of planning for the future development of housing and jobs would appear an almost impossibly complex job, but Paul Whitehouse attempts to make sense of Barnsley Council's problems with its forthcoming Local Plan.

By Paul Whitehouse
THE name Local Plan in itself might be seen as something of a Trojan Horse - a Plain Jane identity for a document that is, in fact, potentially packed with dynamite.

Behind the dull name is what may turn out to be the single most controversial document Barnsley Council will produce in a generation.

It has no choice in the matter, every local council has to have one. In short, it is a blueprint for deciding where new homes and businesses will go in the district until 2033.

In itself, that might sound innocent until the details emerge - and in Barnsley that means swathes of green field or green belt land being taken up to accommodate new employment land and new homes.

That has brought the inevitable protests from residents who will see their much-loved and fiercely protected open spaces disappear under bricks and tarmacadam, if the changes go ahead.

But the realities of the process are far more complex than just a David and Goliath wrangle between nimbys and their local council.

The local authority has a duty to tread a path which meets the needs of the area’s future, while preserving what is most valued.

Residents who have been critics of the council’s plans may find themselves quietly supporting the local authority's approach.

Before the Local Plan can be adopted as policy, it has to be approved as being ‘sound’ by an external planning inspector and her early input may well not please those who thought their communities safe from development.

She has suggested council estimates for the need for new homes in the years ahead have been underplayed - meaning more sites will be needed.

More worrying still for some, she has questioned why more new housing hasn’t so far been suggested in the villages which surround Barnsley.

The council now accepts it will need to provide around 1,600 extra new homes over the life of the plan.

That figure could have been substantially higher, however, had the council not reviewed the likely number of new jobs expected by 2033 - and come up with a lower figure than that produced when the numbers were last crunched in 2014.

All well and good, except that the updated statistics have infuriated developers on the other side of the process.

It could be seen as a love-hate arrangement, where each side needs the other but also have some different priorities.

By the time the cabinet met to discuss the latest changes on Wednesday, members had already been sent a letter on behalf of development firm Yorkshire Land which said it was ‘aghast’ at the reduced projections for job creation and described the approach as ‘grossly unfair to all parties who have spent considerable time and financial resources taking part in the examination process over many months’.

The firm said the council's decision to revisit the figures ‘makes a mockery’ of the examination process, which is intended to test whether the propose plan is ‘sound’, or up to the job.

Yorkshire Land said: “We do not consider it reasonable for the council to significantly reduce the employment and housing targets at this advanced stage of the examination process.

“Continually updating the targets and the evidence will result in further delays.”

The next round of questions over one of the most controversial sites, a green belt area bounded by Pogmoor, Higham and Claycliffe, is scheduled for next month.