A COUNCIL has overwhelmingly backed a motion urging the Government to return more power to its planning committee.

In a heated night-time debate at the historic Town Hall, Stockton Borough Council backed coun Mike Smith’s motion after hearing that more than 2,000 homes could now be built across South Stockton.

An alternative motion, supported by a 2,500-strong petition, laying the blame on the council itself, has been forced on the agenda by campaign group Save Stockton South (SSS) and will be discussed at a future Full Council meeting.

Coun Smith’s motion discussed on Wednesday explained the Government had changed the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) rules to make it easier for developers to win approval to build on greenfield sites. At the same time money had been withdrawn to help councils and housing developers prepare brownfield, or industrial, land to build new homes.

Coun Ken Lupton, former council leader, member of the planning committee and leader of the Conservative group, criticised the motion. He argued the authority should challenge the NPPF guidelines, reject more applications and take a stronger line against developers. He said: “We have not challenged the process or the detail…this is a blatantly political motion.”

But in turn coun Lupton was criticised by former Conservative colleague, now UKIP, Yarm councillor Mark Chatburn. Coun Chatburn said that in fact it was coun Lupton changing his mind that allowed a plan for a US-style retirement village on Leven Bank to be approved by a single vote.

Coun Chatburn backed the motion but said the authority’s planning committee had also been badly inconsistent. “It’s a plague on both your houses,” he said, before criticising both of Stockton’s MPs, Alex Cunningham and James Wharton for “not even bothering” to attend a House of Commons debate on the issue.

Later in the debate coun Jim Beall, Labour, said that if the council took coun Lupton’s advice and rejected more applications that, under the current rules, it would lose on appeal every time, costing the Stockton tax-payer £30,000 on every occasion. The authority was one of 50 per cent of councils that had not met a five-year housing plan. When the council got close to meeting it, the Government changed the number.

“We warned this (the Government’s rule changes) would lead to a free for all,” he said. “And we were right. This is a developers’ charter. It is a disgrace, a disaster.”

Coun Maureen Rigg, a Liberal Democrat for Eaglescliffe, said that even when a developer wins approval for hundreds of homes often it will only build a few at first. That meant it was even harder for the council to meet its five-year housing supply obligation and meant the developers could get more applications passed.

In the end the motion to criticise the Government was passed with only three votes against.