Brownfield land site claims sparks row in Wolverhampton

A meeting of the full council last night sparked a heated debate across the chamber after Conservative councillor Ellis Turrell put forward a motion questioning claims that the council had included “every inch” of brownfield land available for potential new housing.

Councillor Turrell told members: “The long-awaited Brownfield Land Study commissioned by West Midlands Mayor Andy Street has been published. Contrary to the claims from the leader of the council that “every inch” of brownfield land in the city has been included in the draft Black Country Plan, the study outlines that there is a significant amount of additional brownfield capacity in Wolverhampton for 4,458 homes.

“This study completely blows apart the claims that every inch of brownfield land in Wolverhampton has been included in the draft Black Country plan. Anybody can see for themselves the derelict sites around the city, but mainly in the city centre, that have been left to languish for years – if not decades.

“In Wolverhampton alone there is capacity for another four and-a-half thousand new homes on brownfield sites. This is a staggering number considering that the council has proposed over 500 new homes on green belt in Bushbury and over 300 homes on green belt land next to Wood Hayes Road.

“More specifically, the study identifies nearly 500 homes that could be built from employment land release and 750 homes on additional sites in strategic centres in the city,” he added.

“But what I think is the most shocking figure in this report is the 812 new homes that could be built in the city centre from upper floor conversions. Not only do we have empty retail units on every street, but the upper floors are unused and empty as well,

“Having these homes in our city centre would add immense value to our local economy and would give a much-needed boost to trade.”

Councillor Turrell’s motion called for the council to retract the statement that every inch of brownfield land has been utilised to be retracted.

It was seconded by Councillor Sohail Khan who said: “It’s time for the council to implement these recommendations and protect our green belt and enact an actual ‘brownfield first’ policy.”

However, council leader Councillor Ian Brookfield said the study wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.

“This report is commissioned by the mayor, not the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA). It has not been through a board of the WMCA. So the mayor has either paid for it himself from his private pocket or his £1 million office allowance,” he told the meeting.

“And I have to say, he’s wasted his money because unfortunately the person who has written this report doesn’t actually understand what the requirements are for that type of Black Country plan.

“What they’ve done is to say ‘I can find you lots of homes – just change the employment land and build homes on it’. There’s only one problem – these sites have got tenants and businesses on.

“We’re also short of 80 hectares of employment land, so what it’s saying is we’d have plenty of houses but no jobs. We’re always looking at city centre living and estates such as the Canalside South development. We’re not getting rid of employment land and will fight to save every bit of green belt land,” added Councillor Brookfield.

Leader of the Conservatives Councillor Wendy Thompson said: “The point of this motion is that green space is enormously important in Wolverhampton – we have only 11 per cent.

“The spirit of this study is clear. It is to ask how much has the council really looked into these sites? If you look at social media you will see that there is a great deal of unhappiness amongst residents about buildings in the city centre, and to be fair there are attempts being made to do something with one or two of them.

“It’s very clear that residents are saying they are not happy seeing derelict buildings. What they do care about very much is green space and housing. I would ask the controlling group to look at this in the spirit that it is intended.”

The motion failed to be carried after the Labour group voted unanimously against it.