Kirklees Council's Green Party raises concerns around the Government-proposed Investment Zones

Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now
Kirklees Council's Green Party has raised concerns that Government-proposed Investment Zones will be detrimental and called for the authority to have a final say on the initiative.

Kirklees Council’s Green Party representatives have spoken out against the government’s proposed Investment Zones and their implementation in the district.

Party members have also called for the council to have the final say on whether Kirklees participates in the initiative.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Investment Zones are an initiative put forward last month by then-Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng.

The Investment Zones initiative was put forward last month by then-Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng. Photo: Getty ImagesThe Investment Zones initiative was put forward last month by then-Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng. Photo: Getty Images
The Investment Zones initiative was put forward last month by then-Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng. Photo: Getty Images

According to the government, Investment Zones will “drive growth” and “unlock housing,” boosting the economy in the areas that participate and of the UK as a whole. One of the ways the government will input this is through a “radically streamlined” planning process which has left some organisations feeling concerned.

A total of 79 organisations including the RSPB and the National Trust have signed an open letter addressed to the Prime Minister Liz Truss. The letter states that the government’s plans to impose relaxed planning rules in Investment Zones would be detrimental to the environment, reading, “Simply stripping away the rules would not solve problems like the chronic pollution of our rivers; it would be a smokescreen for continued environmental harm.”

Coun Andrew Cooper (Green, Newsome) echoed such worries saying: “We have significant concerns over the Government proposals for Investment Zones. They threaten to ride rough-shod over agreed local planning priorities, further damage the environment and nature, and reduce commitments to affordable homes and community facilities. Some Councils have already informed the Government that they will not participate in Investment Zones for these reasons and Kirklees should follow suit.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He went on to say: “The Government wants to remove current legal requirements which protect nature during the planning process. Even worse, it suggests Investment Zones could be allowed in National Parks like the Peak District, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other protected environments. The legal requirement to achieve Net Zero by 2050 has also been completely ignored.”

Leader of Kirklees Council Shabir Pandor.Leader of Kirklees Council Shabir Pandor.
Leader of Kirklees Council Shabir Pandor.

Coun Cooper and the Greens on Kirklees Council propose that the final say on whether Investment Zones are implemented in Kirklees should come from the full council.

At a council meeting last week, Coun Cooper asked Leader of the Council Shabir Pandor to justify his support for Investment Zones when “planning controls will be disregarded, environmental protection is reduced, net zero ambitions are ignored and the requirement for affordable housing is swept aside.”

Coun Pandor, a Labour councillor for Batley, responded saying: “As far as my view goes is that the Investment Zones are a way to kickstart the economy, it’s also a way to ‘level-up.’ A lot of the investment that takes place is down South and I’m not saying for one minute that we need to actually sort all the rules and regulations all the lobbies that are putting pressure on us, to just ignore that and go rough-shod through the planning process, but one thing I will support is where government invites any council including Kirklees to put forward their ideas and their plans where we can actually benefit from government funding, then I will not say no and I think any leader in my position who actually puts communities, regeneration, housing, employment, jobs, and skills [first] would do the same thing.”