There have been more than a fair share of letters about the controversial local plan, so it's surprising when The Champ doesn't publish one.

That's the case for Eric Lupton of Bickerstaffe whose original letter was 'too long' according to sub editor Frank Martin; his shortened version was then left out of this week's edition.

QLocal is delighted to publish the correspondence written as a rebuttal to claims by Tarleton councillor Gail Hodson over aspects of the local plan and its 'holistic' nature...

'Gail Hodson describes the Local Plan as a ‘longer term holistic plan’, however a study of the guidelines for drawing up plans, and the input from planners of adjoining authorities, show that it is an example of incompetence and deceit.

That's best summed up by Knowsley planners in their response to the options document: ‘With respect to the options for Local Plan periods proposed we note that the second option being considered is a period which runs to 2050.

This is considered to be an extremely lengthy period well beyond usual Local Plan timescales.

Indeed, as this is beyond the period covered by the SHELMA (to 2037) WLBC May find it difficult to forecast in spatial terms the need for housing and employment-development up to 2050...

Given this, we consider that the option period up to 2050 has a high-risk of being considered unacceptable.

This is due to the lack of authority regarding needs and demands for new housing and development so far in the future, and the subsequent difficulty in meeting the NPFFs ‘exceptional circumstances’ test to release land from the Green Belt’.

Sefton Council give similar warnings in their Preferred Options response; it appears WLBC are the only council in the country that's chosen to interpret the Local Plan guidance in the way it has - I can’t find any other Local Plan set to run past 2037.

Incompetence or something more sinister? Sefton’s response suggests the latter.

Despite their supposed need for housing being factored in to the Plan they have no need to consider WLBC land till 2037, obviously they wouldn’t know past 2037 for the reasons explained by Knowsley.

We cannot check planner Harrison’s 'guesstimate' for Liverpool’s requirements as they did not submit a response; however, given the way this Plan process has progressed; Mr Hodson getting it through the Planning Committee by stealth, secrecy regarding minutes of meetings and the lack of meaningful public consultation in the preparation of the document, we should be very sceptical about the figures that have been used.

This isn’t about a pressing need from adjoining authorities for WLBC Green Belt land, it is a deliberate policy by Harrison and Hodson to ‘pimp out’ our Green Belt land to our neighbours to further their own master plan.

WLBC residents losing their homes and livelihoods is mere collateral damage, and far from praising them, we should be asking the Local Government Ombudsman to look at their actions.

Eric Lupton
Bickerstaffe'