PRESS RELEASE Green Councillor proposes making Government Insulation scheme free to all.

Green Councillor proposes making Government Insulation scheme free to all.

The Government has announced a scheme to start in September that would provide grants of up to £5000 for insulation work on peoples homes but still leaving them to find a third of the costs

Kirklees Councillor and Green Party Energy Spokesperson Andrew Cooper has proposed making the scheme free to boost the take up by householders, ensure quality work is carried out and so help reduce fuel bills and carbon emissions.

Councillor Cooper said

"This scheme falls well short of the Green Party's proposal for a Green New Deal in terms of funding and scope but there are still positive things we can do to improve the scheme announced by the Chancellor."

“When Kirklees ran the free Kirklees Warm Zone project between 2007 and 2011 we insulated over 50,000 homes and it was the biggest scheme of its kind in the country. What really made the scheme fly was the Green Party amendment to the 2007 Council Budget  that made the scheme free for all applicants. This is what we should be doing with this scheme.”

“With the cost of capital borrowing so low at present the Council can use its financial leverage to top up the Government proposal ensuring people don’t have to dip into their pockets during a time of recession and job losses. Really the Government should make the scheme free but in the absence of that Councils like Kirklees and across the Country could fill the gap and make the difference. Existing funding via Regional Sources such as the West Yorkshire Combined Authority could also play a big role in financing such a scheme ”

“For householders the hundreds they will save oon their energy bills  means more money in their pockets at a time of huge financial uncertainty. The impact on reducing our carbon emissions will also be significant,”

“The involvement of local councils in the scheme will help with local promotion and also provide local accountability helping ensure quality of work”

“ This level of funding could allow us to carry out insulation work on hard to treat cavity walls, provide external wall insulation, attic room and under floor insulation. It is a huge opportunity if done properly wih a focus on quality work.”

“ Kirklees has the opportunity once again to be a national Leader in action on Climate Change and show through example what can be achieved with imagination and political commitment. If other Councils follow our lead we could make the scheme free for millions across the UK. “

Kirklees Green Group - 2020/21 Kirklees Council Budget proposals

Last year Kirklees declared a climate emergency in response to the clear message from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that we have a limited time to reduce carbon emissions to levels consistent with a viable environment for human civilisation. This amendment aims to take Kirklees on to the next stage of our journey to become a Net Zero Carbon Local Authority in line with the 2038 target set for us through our membership of the Leeds City Region. We also need to ensure that regional funding is not used to provide tacit support to Leeds Bradford Airport expansion plans that threaten the viability of our emission reduction targets.

Kirklees New Build Passivhaus support fund

 Current informed estimates suggest a 5%  - 7% uplift in the capital cost for buildings built to Passivhaus standards when part of a consistent policy. This fund would ensure that all projects commenced on Kirklees owned land were properly resourced to achieve that higher energy efficiency standard, be they lead by the Council or part of a partnership arrangement using council owned land.

Kirklees Green New Deal Demonstrator

Following the Kirklees Warm Zone programme the next significant energy efficiency goal would be to carry out significant work on hard to treat properties particularly those with cavities that can only be filled using polyurethane foam. There is also a need for a room in the roof insulation project for homes that cannot receive mineral fibre wool insulation due to attic rooms. The aim would be to provide free insulation to 4000 properties as a showcase to other local authorities and national government. Within this project we would also expect 25% of the funding to be allocated to properties in fuel poverty and that they benefit from a whole house approach aimed at achieving the ‘Enerphit’ standard.

This project will demonstrate to national government the benefits and practicalities of applying ‘HS2’ levels of funding to domestic energy efficiency to achieve our Paris Climate goals, address fuel poverty, create skilled jobs and regenerate local economies.

Kirklees Neighbourhood Housing Carbon Reduction Fund

Following years of energy saving initiatives this Fund will be used to carry out pathfinding work to demonstrate how we will drive down emissions still further to levels consistent with a 2030 zero carbon target. The aim will be to achieve as close to the Enerphit standard as is practical. We are also calling on Kirklees Neighbourhood Housing to transfer homes to a low cost green energy provider when they become void.

Community Climate Action projects – Place based working 

We propose that the next round of Place based working funding is to be allocated for community lead climate action projects. This could support a range of community lead projects e.g. tree planting, reducing the carbon impact of community owned buildings, flood alleviation, community transport initiatives.

Purchase Renewable Energy 

We are calling on Kirklees to ensure that the Council’s electricity is sourced from verifiably renewable sources.

Schools Climate Change Education Project

This project will provide grants to schools promoting projects that reduce their carbon emissions linked to an education package. It is anticipated that projects such as the installation of solar panels, energy saving measures and tree planting in school grounds

Join the Global Covenant of Mayors

The Global Covenant of Mayors is where local governments in alliance with partners accelerate ambitious, measurable climate and energy initiatives that lead to a low-emission and climate-resilient future. This will allow us to assess our progress with international partners and collaborate with our peers in Europe and beyond. This does not mean lots of air travel but is about learning from best practice and hopefully demonstrating our best practice on a bigger stage. Kirklees is not a leader in action to reduce carbon emissions yet. We can learn a lot from others.

Conversion to electric vehicles project

There is a large potential for conversion of petrol/diesel vehicles to electric at a fraction of the cost of a new vehicle. This proposal is to establish a pilot project to demonstrate the potential for this in the Kirklees District.

Support the establishment of the Kirklees Climate Commission – through funding the secretariat and supporting analysis and reporting

Kirklees Green Motion to Full Council on Proportional Representation in Local Elections

The General Election. Tories lack a majority of votes but get a majority of MPs

Motion submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 14 as to Proportional Representation in Local Elections

To consider the following Motion in the names of Councillors Cooper, Lee-Richards and Allison;

This Council notes that;

The electoral system used for local elections in England and Wales, First Past the Post (FPTP), is not a fair system, because it means that votes do not have equal weight and many votes are wasted. This leads to voter apathy and a feeling of disconnection from local democracy. Certain parties are over-represented, the most extreme example in May 2019 being Havant, where the Conservative Party

took all of the seats up for election on Havant Council with just 43.9% of the vote.

The alternative to FPTP is a system of proportional representation (PR), where votes cast for parties translates more or less directly into seats won. There are many variants of PR. The Single Transferable Vote system (STV) variant of PR is already in use for local elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland. With this system, voters rank candidates and those who receive the most backing

(including second and subsequent choices) are elected to serve in multi-member wards.

Kirklees Council (in common with most other Metropolitan councils) already has multi-member wards and thus the transfer to a similar system would be easier than if the wards were single-member.

The introduction of PR for local elections in Scotland has led to an increase in turnout, which was 47% at the last elections, held in 2017. In contrast turnout in Kirklees in 2019 was 33%.

A move to a system of PR for local elections would necessitate moving to all-out elections every four years, rather than the current one-third system. This would benefit the council and Kirklees residents too, since it would mean more time for decision-making.

This Council believes that a move to the use of proportional representation for local elections would boost turn-out, make the council more representative of the political make-up of its residents,

and improve the quality of its decision-making, thereby benefiting all Kirklees residents.

This Council resolves to;

- write to the Minister responsible for Housing, Communities and Local Government requesting that Kirklees be allowed to pilot a system of Proportional Representation on the Scottish model at the earliest possible election

- signal our interest to be a pilot area for Proportional Representation to the Electoral Commission

- work through the Local Government Association to promote Proportional Representation more widely in English and Welsh Local Authorities.

Andrew Cooper Speech to Kirklees Full Council 15/1/2020 - Corporate Peer Challenge - Kirklees Council

The Corporate Peer Challenge Report on Kirklees Council produced during their visits back in July is a really interesting read conducted by Councillors and Senior Officers from around the country. As you would expect it is a mixture of good and less good and areas for improvement. That is the point of the exercise. There’s praise in the report for the Chief Executive and the Council Leader and recognition for the ambition in the Huddersfield Blueprint. There are also observations and  suggestions for changes.

One of the most perplexing statements in the report for me was this one,

“ The Cabinet and senior leadership team work well together, however sharper delineation of roles between Cabinet Members and senior officers needs to be articulated as there is some confusion between the roles of Members and officers. Members should develop policy and officers should implement and deliver it.”

Talk about stating the rather obvious! What could have prompted such a statement. Perhaps things like when senior officers do the media and TV interviews particularly when there is bad news. It also indicates to some degree that there is a lack of political direction in the cabinet or parts of the cabinet. This is worrying. People go to a lot of trouble to get elected So if and when they are and they don't have an agenda and are simply officer lead it is disappointing and a waste of peoples valuable votes.

The action to address this point that the Council has decided to take makes no reference to the Cabinet at all and instead defaults to addressing the relations between all members and officers. This is wilfully and conveniently misinterpreting the recommendation from the Peer Review Team.

Another part of the report states that

"The business community is keen to work with the Council and its voice needs to be strengthened as currently they feel outside the tent."

I guess this may reflect the poor communication that many indoor market traders feel they have had regarding their future in the Huddersfield Blueprint. Or perhaps the creation of One Huddersfield and the excellent work they do is partly a reflection of the need for business to develop a stronger voice when dealing with the Council. Of course there is a danger that if you have a "We know best" approach you are by your very nature going to exclude all sorts of people, businesses, Councillors from other parties and anyone who disagrees with you. Maybe the statement in the Report that says there is a

"outmoded paternelistic approach which the peer team heard still exists in some parts of the organisation"

is a big part of the problem and if that is reflected in some Senior Politicians then that is a cause for concern and stands in the way of us being a modern forward thinking Council that is open not only for business but for fresh ideas and approaches.

The Peer Report also asked us to review our electoral arrangements

"Consider reviewing the electoral cycle to bring it in line with councils that have adopted a longer, more stable electoral pattern with the strong leadership model".

The UK Government has a 5 year cycle (usually!) North Yorkshire County Council has 4 year electoral cycle, many Principal Councils have a 4 year electoral cycle, our Parish Councils have a 4 year electoral cycle but not us. I appreciate the arguments made about accountability to electors but former leaders and Chief Executives of this Council have identified the continual cycle of annual elections as a barrier to good and sometimes difficult decision making. I also think we will have better quality elections if we have them every 4 years. Parties will be able produce manifestoes that demonstrate a programme of activity that could seek radical and positive change. Timidity and risk averse decision making would be less likely. As the report says

"The peer team identified a lack of risk appetite in the Council, which could constrain the Council’s pace and ambition. A bolder approach to risk and opportunity is required throughout the organisation and existing governance processes should be strengthened to support this.” 

So my suggestion would be that we establish as well as the Corporate Risk Register we already have a Corporate Opportunities Register where we systematically look at the opportunities that this Council could take to put up front to Councillors showing what we could do if we had the capacity and political will to do so.

Kirklees prepares for Zombie Apocalypse or something like that.

This week a generator was installed in the new blockhouse adjacent to Civic Centre 3 in Huddersfield Town Centre.

The idea is to make the building reslient as an HQ during a time when we might have a major loss of electrical power. When unexpected events happen the Council together with the Emergency Services will stand ready to react and as the lights go out across Huddersfield the Civic Centre will stand as a shining beacon of hope. Council Officers will be stoically working to reestablish Western Civilization/'start again' while surrounded by confused citizens wanting answers and reassurance. We will then see what happens next after the meteor/nuclear strike on Heckmondwike or a catastrophic flood, or extraterrestrial invasion or zombie apocalypse.

Disasters and social collapse are mostly of the serious but often mundane, day to day nature like the 'boiled frog' of climate change. The slow but perceptible nature of the change leads the wilfully uniformed/misleading to question whether it is actiually happening at all, but if we don't act it surely will.

The new 'resilient' Civic Centre is all about preparing for the reaction to a crisis. To prevent climate change we need to make all buildings resilient through insulation/ energy efficiency measures and making best use of onsite renewable energy (usually solar). That's not just good for the homes that have such measures but for wider society that is less reliant on dirty and generally imported fuels such such as natural gas and uranium. It puts more money in peoples pockets who have less to fork out for energy bills. This would be a good aim of public policy in so many ways but also ensures that when disaster does strike that half a million people don't turn up at Civic Centre 3 to try to get their phones and electric toothbrushes recharged.

Here's 'Its The End of The World as we know it' by R.E.M.



                                                                                               

Kirklees Question Time - Thursday 12th October 2017

Got a question for our local politicians? Come along to this live Question Time style event: https://t.co/4EUngikpbY #KirkleesQT #ELDW2017 pic.twitter.com/4rrY6cLhmg

— Kirklees Democracy (@kirkdemocracy) September 12, 2017

No reduction to the Council Tax Reduction scheme

Kirklees is currently contemplating reducing the Council Tax subsidy for vulnerable groups to save just over £1million each year. The proposals would see lone parents with young children and people in receipt of a range of Disability benefits and war pensions having to pay around an additional £1.50 to £2.00 per week. To people who are on low incomes already this is not an insignificant amount.

It is important to recognise why the Council is even considering this drastic move. Huge cuts by central government have limited Kirklees ability to properly fund services people expect of their local council. The additional £14million cut Kirklees received last year when  government failed to honour the level of funding we secured from the Council Tax freeze grant was particularly difficult for Kirklees.

Understanding why Kirklees is proposing such cuts is not the same as agreeing with them however. I don't believe our local Council should be in the business of making poor people poorer. Kirklees Council should operate according to a set of values and principles rather than simply being an organisation which manages an ever dwindling amount of resources. We need to find other ways to make the books balance. Always easier said than done but if regard this as acceptable it opens the door to further cuts for this same group of people in future years. The genie would be well and truly out of the bottle. So I am opposing this proposal and I would be disappointed if a Council that is led by the Labour Party somehow found this acceptable.

The Consultation on the proposal runs till October 15th I urge as many people as possible to respond on the link attached https://www.snapsurveys.com/wh/s.asp?k=150289138626

Andrew Cooper – Green Party Leader Speech to Kirklees Council on the Draft Report of the Democracy Commission

The Democracy Commission Report is significant and its recommendations can take this council further forward with our engagements with local citizens. There are however some real missed opportunities that could have made this report even more far reaching than it is. 

There are 4 areas I’d like to highlight which I guess form my minority report.

Proportional Representation for Local Elections

In Scotland they have just had their local elections using the tried and tested Single Transferable vote method where the percentage of votes more closely align with the number of elected Councillors.  Proportional Representation. This fairer system doesn’t favour particular parties it favours the electorate and their wishes. So under a First Past the Post System in Scotland at the last elections all but 3 MPs came from the Scottish National Party whereas in the local elections that they have just had the number of Cllrs elected reflects the vote and bizarrely one of the beneficiaries of this system was the Conservative Party who would have had far less representation in the traditional archaic electoral system we have for local elections in England. I’ll leave that there and to be fair it was always a non starter as a recommendation sensible though it would be.

Other potential recommendations should have been less controversial.

Local Elections every 4 years

As Commissioners it was our role to go where the evidence took us and the vast majority of it said that all out elections every 4 years were good for the governance of public bodies like the Council. Of course there is concern about how accountable this makes us politicians but there lots of precedents for elections every 4 years e.g. County Councils, the Greater London Assembly, Scottish Local Authorities, Doncaster Council, Rotherham Council and our own Government. This Council can be in a state of almost constant electoral warfare. No sooner have we finished one election than we start another. Difficult decisions that need to be made due to financial pressures get fudged. We need to be able to present a programme to citizens for a four year term so people can really judge how well their council is over a reasonable amount of time. Local elections every four years could become event not the usual trek for the faithful few to the polling station. This is not one of the recommendations before you and in my view it is a shame.

Reducing the number of Cllrs

Another recommendation that is not here is to reduce the number of Councillors. Some good arguments have been put as to why we need to maintain the number of Councillors we have and to be fair I agree with those arguments. So what is the proble?m. Well I also agree that we should not be cutting funding for roads. I also believe that we shouldn’t be shutting Libraries. I firmly believe that many of the 1000s of people that have left the Council’s employment were doing a good job and I think perfectly good arguments could have been made to keep many of them. The problem is that our budgets have been slashed hugely by the Government. We need to demonstrate to show the public that elected representatives share the organisations pain. It is about giving people confidence that we as Councillors don’t regard ourselves as untouchable or insulated from harsh realities

Huddersfield Town Council

The last thing I’ll mention is not specifically excluded from the report and that gives me hope and that is establishing a Huddersfield Town Council. Next year will be the 150^th Anniversary of the founding of the County Borough of Huddersfield and it would be marvellous if we could make some real progress to establishing a new council for the area. Town Councils have recently been established in other areas. They have access to funds we don’t. By their nature they are closer to the people and have a stronger local connection by their very nature. As Kirklees considers the abolition of district committees, as funding is cut back we need to provide people with hope and show them that there is a plan to not simply manage decline from Kirklees Council but find new forms of democracy that they can identify with, be part of and know is on their side.

Together these 4 proposals would provide a radical and I believe popular change to Democracy in Kirklees that would capture local peoples imagination, trust and enthusiasm

Reflections on the 2017 Kirklees Budget meeting

Last Wednesday's Budget Council meeting was a fairly bad tempered one. There was the usual bearpit stuff that I'm used to. It's a bit of theatre a lot of the time and the absurd and occasionally the insightful are on display. What marked this one out was the rude and sometimes quite offensive comments made by certain members. I like the interplay between Cllrs, the ribbing and people expressing their opinions based on their beliefs. If you've got different views of the world you are going to clash. There were a lot of things at the meeting that didn't bother me. My old sparring partner Cllr Andrew Palfreeman claiming (wrongly as it happened) that the Green Party amendment was unconstitutional. It wasn't but it saw the Council adjourned for 15 minutes while the Mayor, Chief Executive and the Councils Head of Legal Services considered the dubious points made. Cllr Palfreeman had dramatically explained how our amendment was so calamitous that it could see Kirklees in the Supreme Court. Once the amendment was cleared for debate Cllr Palfreeman went to argue how our legally dangerous amendment was now insignificant and unimportant. Did this bother me? Not particularly. I found the whole thing just part of the entertaining absurdity of what happens at Full Council. Pointless you could argue and it could irritate you if you let it, but not offensive.

For me the annoying thing about the meeting was when certain Tory members started asking what 'bungs' the Green Group had taken in the past for voting for Labour's budget. The reason Greens have voted for Labour, Liberal Democrat and yes even Conservative Budgets over the last 17 years is because of the amendments we have put to Council being accepted. This is transparent, in full view and in no way can be described as a 'bung'. One bug bear they have is that the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny is a Green Party Councillor and that they believe that as the largest opposition group they should have that role. This may be what they regard as 'a bung'. The fact is that Scrutiny is supposed to be a non political role and shouldn't be used as a tool of opposition to the administration but instead be a non partisan 'critical friend' to the Adminstration. Sometimes Scrutiny will be challenging to decisions made by the Cabinet and offer alternatives. It isn't however another route for expressing the politics of opposition. The fact that certain Conservatives fundamentally misunderstand the role means that they really shouldn't be in that position. My colleague Julie Stewart-Turner is both hardworking and scrupulous in ensuring the independence of the Scrutiny function from Party politics and I can't think of anyone better for the role. As someone who is not a member of any of the larger political groups, and isn't seen as combative in Council meetings, Julie has a particular advantage in not being perceived as having any axe to grind.

Back to the meeting itself. I proposed the amendment because I wanted to see some real hope injected into a very depressing Council Budget. There was rightfully some discussion over the appalling financial settlement we have received from central government that offers us a real challenge with £14million dropping out of our budget next year on top of the millions we have already lost from central govt. The  Conservatives were in full denial mode which any objective observer would regard as an untenable position. They said that the Council would not be in the financial situation if we had followed their advice in previous budgets but then offered no substantial evidence to back up this claim. It was simply an assertion. The fact that they were part of the All Party delegation to the Communities Minister to ask for our £14 million back rather implies they knew the reality of the situation. The fact they also put no amendment was also very telling. They argued the budget was 'unamendable'. The reality was at it was only unamendable for their more right wing members who illogically would vote against any Council Tax rise while wanting at the same time to not see any services cut. Their Government had made the rules of the game but they didn't want to play. Easier for them not to play! So they voted against our amendment, the budget and everything. It was a denial of reality and denial of their Party's responsibility for the mess Local Government is in.

Conservative Councillor Andrew Palfreeman was 'spot on' in saying that we need more trust between Councillors across Party and the people referring to 'bungs' whichever Party they were from was not going to encourage that trust. Wise words from an old hand but there are other old hands in their group and they appear to hold the sway and some (not all) of the newer members seem to take their lead from them. The Labour group have also not been short of their own problems, the factions, the suspensions and on the positive side some committed Cabinet members and the Leader David Sheard, soldiering on. I don't demean  them by saying they are 'soldiering on' and goodness knows we need that at the moment! We also need more. We need ideas and political direction that shows we are not simply managing decline but reshaping and redefining what Kirklees Councils role is. Our proposal for a Local Housing Development Company is part of that but it is only one idea from one Party on the Council. We need people across Party to demonstrate some goodwill to each other and towards the future of the Council. If we can develop a Party of Goodwill on the Council we would achieve much and give real meaning to the Kirklees motto 'Together we serve'.

Councillor Andrew Cooper speech to 2017 Budget Council on the Motion

We had an all Party delegation to see the Government as represented by Junior Minister Marcus Jones MP on the 10^th of January.  As well as 4 Kirklees Party Leaders we also had Jason McCartney Tory MP and Tracy Brabin Labour MP there to support our case.
It was a strange meeting. We put our case, the Junior Minister and his civil servants silently heard it. They didn’t contradict us or say we were wrong. They just said sorry there’s no money.  All the meeting amounted to was just Tea and sympathy only they didn’t offer us any tea.

So what was our case.  Simply put because we had taken Government advice on taking their Council Tax Freeze Grant the Council is over £14 million worse off than we would have been.  All parties represented here supported taking the freeze grant and no one expected the Government to penalise us for taking that  grant leaving us high and dry. But they did.

So is it just bad luck that we took the grant. Well not so for all councils. Does anyone remember last years so called ‘Transitional funding’ for councils - £300 million was made available. This is what some Councils got.

Surrey - £24.1m/ Hampshire - £18.7m/ Hertfordshire - £15.6m/ Essex - £13.9m/             West Sussex - £12.4m/ Kent - £11.4m/ Buckinghamshire - £9.2m /Oxfordshire - £8.9m/ Leicestershire - £6.6m/ Cambridgeshire - £6.4m/ Wiltshire - £6m/ Warwickshire - £6m/ North Yorkshire - £6m/ Cheshire East - £5.9m/ Dorset - £5.9m/ Richmond upon Thames - £5.8m/ Devon - £5.6m/ Staffordshire - £5.6m/ East Sussex - £5.4/ Worcestershire - £5m

So how much did Kirklees get?

Zilch, Nada, Zero , nothing!

The need of the leafy Tory Shires was obviously somehow greater than ours.

So this year Tory Surrey comes with the begging bowl again and comes up Trumps again. The threat of a referendum on a 15% Council Tax rise receded quicker that £350million/week pledge to the NHS post Referendum

I’m sure they didn’t get a meeting with a nodding hand wringing functionary like we did.

So for all those reasons I believe that we should send an invoice to UK Government for £14million for taking their advice which has cost the people of Kirklees dear.

It stinks doesn’t it? No amount of smoke and mirrors from the Conservative Group can hide the fact that the people of Kirklees have been stuffed by their Government. There will be sound, from them there may even be fury, but we all know that sound and fury signifies nothing. Which is why they can offer nothing - no ideas, no rabbits out of hats. Nothing.

Still not putting a Budget Amendment in which would inevitably expose the lack of options Kirklees has and the real necessity to raise the Council Tax means the Tory’s don’t have to have anyone go off on Budget Sick Leave. Offering Nothing and doing Nothing except talk.

Green Party Amendment to the 2017/18 Kirklees Council Budget

This Council agrees to develop a Local Housing Development Company as a special purpose vehicle to deliver new housing on land identified for development in the Council’s Local Plan. This would be as a minimum cover Kirklees but could be developed at scale with our neighbours. This will ensure this will ensure that we can work with the Homes and Communities Agency and Registered Social Landlords, developers and institutional investors who can lever in additional resources as well as keeping the income generated from new development within Kirklees to help to support local services.

 

The company would deliver new housing on council land that has been identified for development in their Local Plans.

 

There are a number of reasons why this may be attractive to Kirklees. 

• At a time of diminishing balances Central Government is encouraging Councils to develop new housing to fund local services through the New Homes Bonus and new Council Tax revenue income. If the Council is in partnership with third parties developer profit from new development would be shared amongst the partners involved and could be used to help fund Council Services.
• There are occasions when the Council has granted Planning Permission on land but frustratingly developers with which the Council has no relationship have dragged their feet, sometimes for years, leaving areas blighted. The Council would have more control over development if it was itself part of the development vehicle.
• There is the opportunity to use the newly merged KNH and Building Services as  a vehicle for  Housing Development utilising existing skills in electrical and gas services
• The standard of new build housing in the private sector is variable and some Councillors have had cause to tackle substandard housing with developers. If the Council can put pressure on the market – control of building will be more effective. Cutting corners and reducing the quality of build to reduce costs will be avoided.
• The opportunity to promote higher energy efficiency standards, such as Passivhaus development could be pursued by such a company. The embedded Quality Assurance in Passivhaus developments will ensure a quality build as well as very high energy efficiency standards. Householders benefiting from very low energy bills will have more money in their pockets to spend locally helping them to pay rents and mortgages more easily.
• With a substantial portfolio of work over a number of years partnerships with educational institutions could provide a rich source of local employment for apprentices working in a range of building jobs.

 No income has been put against this budget amendment as it is too early to say how substantial the potential income could be to the Council. However, any revenue income generated above that required for the core purposes of the Housing Development Company would be utilised to support valued services in town and village centres that provide contact and services to people in our communities. This amendment does however show that there are alternatives to simply managing decline at a time when central government is starving the Council of funds.

 

If this amendment is passed the expectation would be that the Council establishes a Project Team to quickly establish the Local Housing Development Company before the 2018/19 Budget so projected incomes can be factored in to the Councils hard pressed finances.

Andrew Cooper - Local Plan Speech Kirklees Full Council - 12/10/16

So here we are again with a vote on the Kirklees Local Plan.

 Let’s remember how we got to this point. The last time we had the then Local Development Framework in front of us. That Plan was withdrawn through a vote of this Council due to concerns expressed by the Planning Inspectorate. The reason that was given from the Government Planning Inspector was that we had not fulfilled the ‘duty to cooperate’ with other Local Authorities but in reality the truth was that there were simply not enough houses in the Plan to satisfy Government demands. The Green Party voted not to withdraw the plan, to call the Government’s bluff to show that we didn’t really have any say over how many houses needed to be built in our area. If we had kept the plan then the ball would have been in the Governments court. It would have been up to them to overrule the wishes of our democratically elected Council just as they have done with the Fracking Planning Application that was recently refused by Lancashire County Council. We are not the masters of our own destiny. Government sets the rules of the game and we have to follow.

Between 2008 and 2011 developers gave 3.3 million pounds to the Conservative Party during that time they and later their Government was formulating what became the National Planning Policy Framework where we see the guiding principle behind all Government Policy – the presumption in favour of development. Did the construction industry give money to the Conservative Party because they are philanthropists and it was a toss up between the Tories and the Save the Children Fund who they gave their brass to? Of course not they wanted something in return.    Since the Coalition and now a Conservative Government has been in power we have seen a weakening of the planning powers of Local Authorities and a strengthening of the hands of developers. It is because of Conservative Government rules that developers are able without a Local Plan to apply to build anywhere in Kirklees. So we are caught between a rock and a hard place. Produce a Local Plan with more houses than are needed to satisfy rapacious developers or have no plan and let those very same developers have a free hand to put planning applications in anywhere in Kirklees. So I say to the Conservatives this planning shambles is of your own making, your fingerprints are all over it, you’ve taken the money and you have been seen leaving the scene of the crime.  So much as it would be convenient to blame the Labour Administration of this Council a Conservative Administration would be in the exact same situation.

 So what about the Plan itself. There are some real positives and of course negatives. On the positive side we are very pleased that the Green Belt has been extended down from Castle Hill to the stretch of land bordered by New Laithe Hill and High Lane at Newsome. The people of Taylor Hill Road can rest a little easier knowing the Council will not be pursuing the threat of building housing on their back gardens. In Highfields the Community Orchard bordered by Wentworth Street and Mountjoy Road will be redesignated as a Local Green Space protecting it for local kids and the Community to use as they already are doing. We are disappointed that land at Jackroyd Lane , Newsome has not been removed from the plan as it is part of a green corridor of land leading up to Castle Hill and is part of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust Stirley Farm Estate. We are however pleased that land at Newsome Mill, the former Stile Common School site, Cambridge Road have been allocated for development. We hope that they will be high quality properties with Passivhaus energy efficiency standards and will be available to people on lower incomes to rent or buy.

We have played a full part as a group negotiating the best we could for the communities we serve and represent. We will continue to do so but let us be under no illusion the negatives here are those created by the policy direction given by this Government. No attempting to wriggle, to shift the blame will wash. This isn’t Labour’s Plan, it’s not really even Kirklees Plan, in reality it isn’t not even the Conservative Government’s Plan but is the Plan of their paymasters  - the developers.

Kirklees Democracy Commission - A Huddersfield Town Council?

Huddersfield's Coat of Arms

  As part of our evidence gathering for the Democracy Commission we took evidence from a representative from the National Association of Local Councils. This body represents the myriad Parish and Town Councils around the country from the very small village councils (the Dibley Model) to Councils representing many thousands of people. The largest Town/Parish Council in the country is the newly created Sutton Coldfield Town Council which has a population of around 75,000 electors and came into being following its first elections this year.  It occurred to me as we received the presentation that there may be some mileage in applying a Town Council model to Huddersfield and perhaps other separate Town Councils for the other large towns in Kirklees.

Kirklees Council will never be loved. It is an artificial construct of disparate communities and towns brought together under local government reorganisation in 1974. Kirklees has done some marvellous things and made some mistakes over the years but it we'll never achieve the semi mythical status of the Huddersfield Borough Council in the eyes of many older/voting resident. Comparisons aren't really fair as the pressures and responsibilities of the old Huddersfield Council doesn't compare with that of modern day Kirklees. You also have the misconception in North Kirklees that all the money goes to Huddersfield and in Huddersfield that all the money goes to North Kirklees. Around the margins some areas may get a bit more money based on whoever happens to be running the Council at the time but largely the increasingly meagre pot of money is distributed according to need. As funding for the services Kirklees provides is withdrawn by Central Government a greater proportion of that funding will have to be directed at those in the greatest need and so the Council will be largely funding adult social care and vulnerable children's services. Funding for things people care about in their communities such as libraries , museums, roads, street cleaning will all diminish hugely. It doesn't look like Kirklees Council will be loved any more any time soon! Nor will it be abolished. Requests to halve it quarter it and establish new councils have been rejected by Governments of all hues over the years. Love it, or more likely, loathe it, Kirklees isn't going anywhere fast!

So why and how a Huddersfield Town Council? We have a Town Council in Kirklees now. Meltham is a Town Council. We also have Parish Councils in Mirfield, Kirkburton, Holme Valley and Denby Dale. In Kirkburton through a  Green Party initiative, supported by Independents and most Parties, we developed a successful plan to save Kirkburton Library (there was no other plan!) Without the Parish Council it is unlikely that the building would have remained open and would probably have ended up as a large private bungalow or a small supermarket. Similarly in Skelmanthorpe there has been another asset transfer of the Library to Denby Dale Parish Council. So these bodies can act as lifeboats for the retention of local facilities and services and to be a way of promoting more local priorities.

Attempts at devolving power to Area Committees and now District Committees covering different parts of Kirklees have never really worked and I guess never will. However enlightened and willing teh chairs and members of Huddersfield District Committee are they are still beholden to the Kirklees Cabinet and have to operate within their priorities. Whoever happens to be in power at the time. Issues like the future of Huddersfield Town Centre are regarded as outside the scope of the District Committee and responsibility for it is jealously guarded by the Cabinet. A new political body representing Huddersfield once established could see responsibilities and some funding transferred to it from kirklees as part of new political settlement for our area. Whatever decisions were made by Huddersfield Town Council would be those established by the representatives elected by Huddersfield people. Town Councils have the same status as  charities and voluntary organisatuions and are able to apply for funding that Kirklees would not have access to. So we could get more 'bang for our buck' than we ever would with KMC.

Highly symbolic, but nethertheless real, would be the moment the Council was established and it adopted the coat arms of the old Borough Council of Huddersfield. The people of Huddersfield could begin to believe they had got their Town back and greater control of their own destinies.