Coun. John Hodson, who holds the Borough Council planning portfolio, has replied to the original questions posed by Gavin Rattray of the Burscough Flooding Group which were posted on QLocal Ormskirk this morning

And that's led to even more questions from Mr Rattray...

First, Coun. Hodson's response:

'Good morning Gavin, in response to your points, I do not, as Portfolio holder have the right to veto or 'direct' how Planning applications come forward. The issue of Safeguarded land is a complex and difficult one as the Government keep moving the goalposts, always to the advantage of developers I'm afraid. However, I will try to address the issues you rightly raise:

The possibility or otherwise of Safeguarded land being placed back into green belt can only be theoretically done within a Local Plan review. As we have only just embarked on the next LP with the first consultation on the Issues and Options and even given the accelerated timescale of the new LP to be completed by late 2019 if possible, there is some way to go before we address such matters. These would have to be argued during the Examination part of the new LP which, as you will be aware, come at the end of the process, ie. 2019 as they would only be considered as 'draft' until agreed by the Planning Inspector.

In the meantime we are bound by the existing LP which as I have explained to you before, we cannot alter. The principle of 'safeguarding' is one which we are looking very closely at in the new LP as it often is the case now that we are hostages to fortune due to the loophole created by para 49 of the NPPF which allows developers to challenge the LPA if they argue that it is failing in delivering a 5 year housing supply, this is what happened with the Parrs Lane application. Because the HLS is monitored annually it is done so on a rolling basis and so the numbers change as sites do or indeed as in this case do not come forward. It is my understanding that the main Yew Tree site has not yet come forward, for what reason I do not know. Just to further complicate matters, the government has finished its consultation on and has before Parliament a new provision which gives it the power to designate LPA's as failing if they refuse applications of minor and major size which amount to 10% of the volume on applications respectively, which are subsequently overturned on appeal. In our case, last year there were 40 such major applications in West Lancs which means only 4 would need to be successfully overturned, the consequences being that WLBC would be placed in 'special measures' having its Planning powers taken away and developers able to apply directly to Government with their applications, the consequences of which would be considerably worse for West Lancs should that happen. The Council would then have to put forward an action plan in order to win back its Planning powers in order for 'local democracy' to be resumed.

My understanding is that we are currently just above the 5 year HLS and therefore are under tremendous pressure to deliver to the numbers produced during the current adopted LP.

As you may appreciate by this response, we desperately need a change of direction and I believe that this will only come with a change of government. We are having to operate within incredibly tight constraints, both financially and Planning wise and so, increasingly decisions have to be taken within the context of the whole borough and not just site specific.

I was going to call and see you as it is always better to discuss these matters face to face if possible and I still will if you or any of the above wish so?

In the meantime I realise this response is of small comfort but I hope that it goes some way by explanation of the position we are all in at present.'

From Gavin Rattray:

'Dear Councillor Hodson

I’m afraid your explanation is not reasonable. You are a portfolio holder within a council that continues to behave in a rather unusual way, where nothing can be taken at face value.

First of all you forgot to mention the financial benefits of £880,000 for new homes bonus WLBC will receive and the £1,400,000 CIL which WLBC have already voted to spend where they wish in the borough. Have the Labour party earmarked where they intend to spend their ill-gotten gains yet?

I have numbered the points in your letter to correspond with my response for clarity:

Your explanation of how safeguarded land is treated does not explain why you said that the council were looking at putting it back into greenbelt. Why did you say this when it is clearly not the case?

You are treating Burscough differently to Aughton and I can’t see any reason why residents should accept that as fair. Can you explain why?

Because every large development in Burscough overseen by WLBC has flooded or caused flooding it should be in special measures already. Can you explain why Burscough residents are being burdened with yet another large development that contravenes the special drainage conditions within the Master Plan?

My understanding from your explanation, is that WLBC already have more building land available than required so there is no need to release additional sites early and that is exactly the argument WLBC used to protect Aughton. Burscough fought long and hard to protect its greenbelt including holding a parish poll in which 97% of voters opposed Yew Tree Farm. Thousands of residents also petitioned against it and the petition was presented to parliament. WLBC ignored that legally held poll and the petition and told residents that the only way we would see improvements to our sewer system was by massive development. We have accepted massive development because we had no choice but we now find that the special planning conditions, to prevent the current widespread sewer flooding problems becoming worse (not improve the situation), are being undermined/ignored. Given WLBC have failed to keep the flooding problems secret from residents, can you think of any reason why existing and new residents will accept more sewer flooding just so that WLBC can get a bigger government pay out?

It is very convenient to blame central government for local failings that are within your control. Why not fight to protect the current local plan, as you did for Aughton?

Finally, you imply we are all in the same boat and that is simply not true. Comparatively, you are in beautiful Sunseeker floating on the Mediterranean, whereas Burscough residents are bobbing about in a septic tank.'