'Over my dead body' – Government planning reforms fiercely criticised by Wolverhampton Council leader

Councillor Ian Brookfield branded the white paper, which puts forward a raft of planned changes to the process for building new homes, a "sham" which would result in a "return to 1960s and 70s slums".

The issue was discussed at a Wolverhampton Council cabinet meeting where the authority’s official response to consultation on the document.

In August, the "planning for the future" consultation was launched with Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick declaring them a "once in a generation" opportunity to radically transform the complex process.

The minster said the plans would remove red tape, deliver much needed homes quickly while protecting valued Green Belt land.

Among the measures proposed included abolish the requirement for affordable housing for developments of less than 40-50 homes, remove Section 106 agreements and replace them with a national levy and offer 30 per cent discounts to first time buyers. There will also be a national target of 300,000 new homes per year.

Fierce opposition

But the reforms have been met with fierce opposition with Councillor Brookfield, saying leaders across the UK and of all political parties are in agreement over this.

He said the reforms in their current guise would threaten what little Green Belt is left in Wolverhampton.

His comments were backed by his cabinet colleagues Stephen Simkins, Dr Michael Hardacre and deputy leader Louise Miles and a formal response setting out the authority’s concerns was agreed.

Councillor Brookfield said: “Never have I seen a white paper in the last generation that is being universally condemned right across the country by all political parties, all local authorities have seen it for the sham it is.

"It is a developer’s charter which might end up with us having a return to the 60s and 70s slums built then.

"This only came to us in August and it is done on the back of a fag packet. It’s dodgy and if it sounds dodgy, it usually is.

"It’s an ending to the Section 106 and the introduction of a national levy. This would mean we would lose the ability to say ‘we would like a school there, we would like a clinic there, we would like a better road infrastructure and street fittings’. Instead we would have to bid into a national pot.

"We’ve only got 11 per cent of Green Belt left in our city and we’ve got plans for all our brownfield and yet these proposals say we’ve got to build more and faster and without local decision making.

"That means only one thing to me, they are pushing forward for building on our Green Belt. Well, sorry, over my dead body are they going to be doing that to us."