Leeds City Council has today (27 February 2018) issued a Factual Statement in relation to the Holbeck Neighbourhood Plan Referendum in response to a leaflet circulated widely in the area by the Democrats & Veterans Party.
The leaflet produced by Bill Palfreman, who stood as UKIP’s candidate for Leeds Central in last year’s General Election, calls on voters to reject the Holbeck Neighbourhood Plan and vote ‘No’ in Thursday’s referendum.
The Council statement says: “The material includes a number of inaccurate and misleading statements. To help local people to make an informed decision on whether to vote “yes” or “no” there are a number of claims that require clarification.”
It goes on to say that the following claims in the leaflet are “inaccurate and misleading”:
- “Council Tricks”
- “Managed Prostitution Zone Stays”
- “Parking Permits Everywhere”
- “Destroy The Motorway Junction”
- “Blocking Development”
- “rubbish tips and incinerators”
You can read the plan in full on the Holbeck Neighbourhood Forum website. Below is the full text of the Council’s Factual Statement (NB this is a revised version issued on 28 February 2018):
Leeds City Council
Press Notice to correct inaccuracies in material published by William Palfreman in relation to the Holbeck Neighbourhood Plan Referendum
In accordance with Regulation 5 (3) (b) of the Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations 2012 this Notice is published in order to correct inaccurate information in material published by the Democrats and Veterans Party in connection with the Holbeck Neighbourhood Plan.
The Council has a responsibility to correct inaccurate statements in connection with the Plan, which will be subject to a Referendum on Thursday 1st March 2018 at The Holbeck WMC, Ingram Road Primary School and Ingram Gardens Community Centre 7.00AM-10.00 PM.
Promotional material by the Democratic and Veterans Party
Material published by the Democratic and Veterans Party in relation to the Holbeck Neighbourhood Plan includes factual incorrect statements. This Notice seeks to correct those inaccuracies as follows:
1. “Council Tricks”
The material states that the Council are holding a “quick and dirty” referendum on the Holbeck Neighbourhood Plan. This is inaccurate.
The timetable for the preparation of the Plan commenced in October 2013 and has been set by the, not by the Council. Once the Holbeck Neighbourhood Forum submitted the Plan to the Council for independent examination the Council was required by law to publicise the Plan and other submission documents for a minimum of 6 weeks, appoint an independent examiner, issue a decision notice on the Plan in response to the report of the independent examiner and arrange the referendum. The Neighbourhood Planning Referendum Regulations.
2. “Managed Prostitution Zone Stays”
The material states the Plan will impact on the managed prostitution area stating that it “will stay” if the Plan is made. This is an inaccurate. The Plan has no relevance or impact on the managed area as it is not governed by the Plan or Planning policy. It is entirely outside the scope of a neighbourhood Plan to set policy on issues covering prostitution.
Reference to the managed area within the Plan (Project E-c) does not relate to whether the managed area is retained or revoked.
3. “Parking Permits”
The material states that if the Plan is made there will be “parking permits everywhere”. This is inaccurate. While the Plan does refer to local parking solutions there are no policies in the Holbeck Neighbourhood Plan relating to parking permits.
4. “Destroy the Motorway Junction”
The material states that the Holbeck Neighbourhood Plan will close the M621 Junction. This is inaccurate. Project T-b in the Plan, page 68 sets out an aspiration of the Holbeck Neighbourhood Forum but it is not part of a policy within the Plan. This means that the neighbourhood plan cannot have bearing on whether the junction will be closed or not. It is outside the remit of a neighbourhood Plan to make a decision on whether a motorway slip-road should be closed. The decision can only be made by the Highways England and the Plan clearly states this.
5. “Blocking Development”
The material states that a policy in the Plan (Policy G1 ‘Strategic Green Initiative’) will block employment (“industrial units”) or homes. This is an inaccurate. The policy will not stop development of industrial units or homes, it t is intended to help ensure that any development that does take place helps improve the identified green corridor.
Policy G1 Strategic Green Infrastructure and Local Green Corridors (in the neighbourhood plan) states:
“Development of land which lies within or alongside the strategic green infrastructure (identified on the Policies Maps 4 and 9) and/or includes or lies alongside the proposed local green corridors in the following locations (also identified on the Policies Maps 4 and 9) should include the provision of green space and/or planting appropriate to the scale of development, including street trees, safe cycling routes and footpaths where possible:
- SG1 – Viaduct;
- SG2 – Land west of Ingram Road;
- SG3 – Matthew Murray Site;
- SG4 – Tilbury Road;
- LGC1 – Elland Road;
- LGC2 – Brown Lane;
- LGC3 – Holbeck Moor Road/Creskell Road/Nineveh Road/Sweet Street;
- LGC4 – Sweet Street/Marshall Street;
- LGC5 – Bridge Road.”
The reference to Strategic Green Infrastructure relates to that identified as a Green Infrastructure Opportunity in the adopted Leeds Core Strategy, see page 108: https://www.leeds.gov.uk/SiteAllocationMaps/Core%20Strategy/Adopted%20Core%20Strategy%20Final%20Nov%202014.pdf .
If you have any questions on any of the information in this Notice or require further clarity on the Holbeck Neighbourhood Plan Referendum please contact Policy and Plans at Leeds City Council (0113) 378 7653 or email email@example.com
2 Replies to “Holbeck Plan vote: ‘No’ leaflets are “misleading””
Hopefully this will get more to read the plan and vote ‘Yes!’ There has been far too much good work undertaken to get this done. Hours of volunteering from Holbeck residents and interested neighbours over 5 years!
It’s just trouble causing and not at all helpful. Sigh. Such uncaring meddling.
Comments are closed.