This meeting followed weeks of campaigning by campaign group Keep Penrith Special and there was a large turnout from campaigners and residents in the public gallery on the night. Council meetings are the bread and butter for a local reporter and this was definitely a crunch vote over a proposed masterplan for Penrith.

THE proposed masterplan for Penrith, which has generated a large amount of opposition, could go out for full public consultation following a knife edge vote at Thursday’s meeting of Eden Council.

Councillors were debating a public engagement update for the masterplan and it had been recommended that they simply noted the contents. However, some felt uncomfortable about the move as it would appear they fully endorsed any steps which were taken in the future.

There were also concerns that this was the first opportunity they had had to discuss the masterplan, which until then had been steered mainly by the executive.

Council leader Kevin Beaty (Con, Skelton) said he had heard the executive described as a “dictatorship” but added that the next steps should be investigated by the scrutiny committee. “I don’t want to hear ‘this is a dictatorship’. I want scrutiny,” he said.

Michael Eyles (Lib Dem, Penrith East) proposed an amendment to the recommendation, which read: “In consideration of the widespread criticism of the masterplan and public dissatisfaction with the executive’s engagement exercise, the council recommends to the executive that the current version of the masterplan be subject to an official public consultation with the option to reject it.”

During the time set aside for questions for councillors, Mr Eyles asked if the masterplan would be subject to a formal public consultation?

Eden development portfolio holder John Owen (Con, Shap) said: “The Penrith masterplan in its original form was the subject of a public engagement exercise over an eight-week period between September and October last year.

“This masterplan itself will not be the subject of a formal public consultation. The results of the public engagement are intended to inform a review of the recently adopted Eden local plan and it is this review of the local plan that will be the subject of a formal public consultation process, possibly commencing in the latter part of this year.”

Mr Eyles asked whether the council had received any complaints from members of the public about the legality of its engagement process with regard to the document.

Mr Beaty replied: “No such formal complaints have been received through the council’s complaints procedure.”

The move to refer the matter back to the executive followed legal advice from the council’s deputy chief executive, Matthew Neal, who said the full council did not have the power to authorise it.

Mr Beaty said he understood what Mr Eyles was saying but he felt the proposal was “premature and grandstanding”. He added: “We haven’t analysed the data.”

The responses to the public engagement exercise were being independently analysed by a team from the University of Cumbria in Lancaster.

Mr Eyles said people felt questions in the initial engagement process were biased towards the masterplan and added that his proposed amendment was “the correct way to go”.

Deb Holden (Lib Dem, Penrith North) said she could not agree with the original recommendation because councillors had not been involved in the development process of the masterplan.

Scott Jackson (Con, Penrith North) said it was apparent what the public thought of the masterplan but added: “The next steps require more detailed evaluation. We aren’t going to know that until we analyse the responses.”

When Mr Eyles’s amendment was put to the vote, those for and against were tied at 16 each. Council chairman Mary Robinson’s (Ind, Kirkoswald) used her casting vote in favour of the amendment.

The debate followed a discussion over a petition which opposed the masterplan and was submitted to the council by campaign group Keep Penrith Special towards the end of last year.

It collected 2,536 signatures for its online petition which urged councillors to reject the masterplan in its entirety. In addition, there were 420 written signatures and 1,489 postcard responses expressing opposition to the masterplan.

The protest was organised during the council’s eight-week consultation over proposals to build three new villages to the north of the Beacon woodland and create 73 hectares of employment land by 2050.

Plans to also include some low density development within the Beacon woodland itself were withdrawn by landowner Lowther and Lonsdale Estates, in view of public opposition.

Group spokesman Adrian Hill, from Brougham, was allowed five minutes during Thursday’s meeting to address councillors about the petition.

He said: “Our petition is simply that you reject the masterplan. It’s not a petition asking you to fudge it. No half in, half out, half a plan.”

He added that it was a petition with overwhelming support in Penrith which urged the council to go back to square one.

He described the public engagement as a “fake consultation” with biased leading questions.

“The people are of one voice, they want you to reject the masterplan. Is it that difficult just to vote it down? They want an organic plan that doesn’t stifle sensible growth in their villages, and which consolidates the considerable growth already planned for this town,” he said.

Mr Hill called for more social housing, care places, starter homes and flats to be included in the masterplan. “If you don’t bin the masterplan you aren’t going to be here. You are going to find Keep Penrith Special-endorsed independent candidates standing in the May council elections,” he told councillors.

From the Cumberland & Westmorland Herald on Saturday, January 12, 2019.