Agenda and draft minutes

The monitoring officer briefed the committee around the situation of the chair standing down therefore the committee would have to vote for the chair of the committee for this meeting only.

Councillor Rydeheard was put forward to chair the meeting and a vote commenced, all members present voted for Councillor Rydeheard to be the chair for the meeting, these being Cllr Bayley, Cllr Birchmore, Cllr Rahimov, Cllr Pilkington, Cllr Ryder, Cllr Chaudhry, Cllr Sheppard and Cllr Southworth

Cllr Roith sent his apologies for the meeting and Cllr Haroon was absent for the vote.

Apologies are noted above

Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee are asked to consider whether they have an interest in any matters on the agenda and, if so, to formally declare that interest.

The following declaration(s) of interest were made…

Councillor Birchmore declared an interest as being on the committee for Bury Folk Keep it Green in relation to the Local Plan, Elton Reservoir Development Framework and the Walshaw Development Framework.

Councillor Sheppard declared an interest as being a member of Bury Folk Keep it Green

A period of 30 minutes has been set aside for members of the public to ask questions on matters considered at the last meeting and set out in the minutes or on the agenda for tonight’s meeting.

The following questions were receive by three members of the public attending

Danielle Davis asked Before adopting the Simister Bowlee Development Framework, can officers confirm whether any strategic assessment has been undertaken demonstrating that the proposed development can be accommodated within existing highway and drainage networks during the first five years of delivery? If such an assessment exists, where is it published within the evidence base; if not, why is the Council satisfied that the SPD provides a robust framework for development?

Councillor O’Brien responded In terms of evidence to date, the frameworks are largely reliant on the evidence documents that were produced at the Public Examination stage, which sought to assess the cumulative impact of all of the site allocations over the nine Greater Manchester districts. This included strategic evidence relating to highways and other infrastructure, with the Inspectors concluding that existing or new infrastructure could accommodate the level of growth proposed

This conclusion did not just relate to the first five years of the plan, but the full proposed development within the plan period.

The evidence produced for that plan was strategic and the Inspectors concluded that all of the proposed development in the employment and housing supply could be accommodated within the geographical area.  This included highways and other infrastructure. The strategic evidence supporting the PfE can be found on the Combined Authority’s web pages. 

The Council is satisfied that this evidence is proportionate to where the sites are in the planning process, given the fact the frameworks are largely providing clarity on policy requirements and setting out the future evidence that will be needed to address detailed issues.  It is a robust document because adopting it will give the local planning authorities greater control to shape and influence development across the sites.

For example, future planning applications will need to be accompanied by site wide Transport Assessments that will assess the impact of the development on the highway network and to identify appropriate mitigation measures are put in place.  Likewise, appropriate measures will need to be put in place to deal with flood or drainage issues. 

James Tierney asked The councils own consultation report acknowledges there is no public foul sewer capacity serving the area. Can the cabinet confirm whether united utilities has identified costed and funded a foul drainage solution capable of serving All 1550 proposed homes

Councillor O’Brien replied Wastewater network reinforcement for large development sites is assessed in stages, with clear responsibilities for funding.

Broadly, on-site foul drainage infrastructure (such as pipes within the development and connections to the network) is the responsibility of the developer. Off-site reinforcement to the public sewer network, where required to accommodate additional flows, may be delivered by United Utilities and is funded through the infrastructure charging regime paid by developers when connecting to the water and wastewater network.

For allocations such as Simister and Bowlee, a fully costed and defined foul drainage solution is not established at this stage; instead, this is progressed once a foul drainage  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC.100

Questions are invited from Elected Members about items on the agenda. 15 minutes will be set aside for Member Question Time, if required.

The following question was submitted in advance of the meeting by Councillor D Vernon

Given that the adopted Places for Everyone Plan and the emerging Bury Local Plan are intended to provide a comprehensive and plan-led approach to meeting the borough's housing needs, what is the Council's position on speculative development proposals and pre-application discussions on Green Belt land outside the sites allocated through PfE, particularly concerning land off Starling Road, bordering my ward.

Response from Councillor O’Brien The Places for Everyone Plan does provide a plan led approach that has released land to meet the Borough’s long term housing needs. 

By working with the other 8 districts in PfE, we were able to minimise the amount of land that was needed and, as a result, a have a lower housing target than would otherwise have been the case if we were not part of the plan.  Nearly 25% of our housing targets are now being met elsewhere in the conurbation.

Nevertheless, we still need to demonstrate that sufficient land and development is coming forward in the Borough and if we are unable to bring sites forward as envisaged in trajectories, then this does put other land at threat of development.

That is why it is critical to get these strategic sites moving, with the Development Frameworks paving the way forward for future planning applications and delivery of housing.

Councillor Vernon asked furthermore, can the Cabinet Member confirm whether the Council will robustly resist any attempts to secure additional Green Belt releases through speculative applications, where those sites are not allocated within the adopted development plan and where no evidence has been presented demonstrating an unmet housing requirement beyond that already provided for through PfE?"

We cannot stop planning applications being submitted on land that is not identified as development land.  This includes applications that may come forward as Green Belt land.

Each planning application will be considered on its merits, against national, regional and local policy.

Unfortunately, we cannot comment on speculative applications, which will need to go through the statutory planning process.

However, it can be said that the Council stands a much greater change of resisting such proposals if it can demonstrate that housing sites are coming forward and meeting the short term and longer-term housing needs of the Borough. 

This is why we want to get these Development Frameworks in place, to allow these sites to come forward but to come forward in a manner that we want.

Minutes from the meeting held on 10^th February 2026 are attached.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10^th February 2026 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To note it was raised around a request from the previous meeting that there should have been an additional meeting to scrutinize the development frameworks which was missed from the minutes, this was noted and explained this did not happen due to pre-election periods. The minutes will not be altered but it was noted that this was missed off the actions.

Each committee meeting is required to have a nominated Corporate Parenting Champion; they will receive training from Childrens Services and will be responsible for advocating for Corporate Parenting matters in each committee. Champions will be appointed by each Committee at their first meeting of the municipal year.

Councillor Pilkington agreed to be the corporate parrenting champion for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Report of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Eamon O’Brien is Attached for information at the request of the previous Chair of the Committee Councillor D Vernon

The item was included for information following the request from the previous chair, the report was taken as read and wasn’t presented.

Cllr Southworth asked about the timescales for the Travel Plan and whether a phased approach would be adopted, recognising that some elements may be easier to deliver in the early stages whilst others, particularly those relating to schools, may need to come forward later. He suggested that flexibility would be required as the proposals develop.

Cllr Bayley welcomed the additional transport capacity proposed and sought clarification on how many tram services could ultimately operate between Bury and Manchester. He noted that limitations in the electricity supply and overhead line infrastructure had previously been identified as barriers to increasing service frequencies and asked how these issues would be addressed. He also queried whether frequencies could be increased to four-minute intervals and asked about TfGM’s investigation of underground options and how the growing communities along the route were being considered. Cllr Birchmore commented that infrastructure improvements had already been undertaken in some locations to accommodate double-tram operation.

In response, the Leader stated that both the necessary infrastructure and electricity supply would need to be considered as part of future capacity improvements. He added that the Council should be proud of the work being undertaken in relation to renewable energy, which would support future transport ambitions.

Cllr Pilkington, as Corporate Parenting Champion, asked what opportunities the proposals would create for looked-after children and care leavers. The Leader responded that TfGM would be exploring funding opportunities and increasing the number of placements and employment opportunities associated with major projects. He stressed the importance of ensuring that looked-after children benefit from these opportunities and suggested this could form a stronger part of the Council’s Social Value Strategy.

Cllr Rydeheard highlighted the importance of ensuring that policies were aligned with the build-out of developments and argued that overarching policy commitments should be agreed before, or at least concurrently with, development taking place. He expressed concern that commitments should not be allowed to fall away once development had progressed.

Referring to page 49 of the report, Cllr Rydeheard asked for further detail on the proposed fully accessible walking and cycling route and specifically where it would connect in relation to Darlington Street. The Leader responded that further details would emerge through the preparation of draft plans and future public consultation exercises. He emphasised the need to maintain a balance between the requirements of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, and committed to considering the detail in an open and transparent way. Cris Logue added that work was taking place between the Council’s Highways Team, TfGM and wider city-region transport partners.

Cllr Rahimov asked whether the proposed Metrolink stop at Elton Reservoir would operate as a park-and-ride facility and whether that position could change. The Leader advised that a park-and-ride facility reflected TfGM’s current intentions for the site and had therefore been included within the plan.

However, he emphasised that the proposal remained indicative and was not fixed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC.104

Report of the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Growth is attached.

The Chair invited Councillor E. O’Brien, Cabinet Member for Strategic Growth, to present a brief overview of the report that had been circulated in advance of the meeting. Councillor O’Brien outlined the next steps in progressing the Local Plan site allocations and the associated Development Frameworks, emphasising their role in bringing forward strategic housing sites and supporting the delivery of the borough’s housing requirements.

Councillor Southworth raised concerns regarding a number of outline planning applications in Bury North on land currently designated as Green Belt, where applicants were seeking to classify sites as “grey belt”. He asked whether one of the aims of the PfE strategy was to reduce infilling within existing communities and ease pressure on local infrastructure, and what incentives existed for developers to prioritise allocated PfE sites.

In response, Councillor O’Brien stated that every planning application must be determined on its own merits against national, regional and local planning policy. He explained that the Council must demonstrate delivery of housing sites to meet both short-term housing supply requirements and longer-term housing needs. Progressing the Development Frameworks would help bring forward strategic housing sites and strengthen the Council’s ability to resist development on unallocated sites.

Councillor Birchmore queried the Council’s approach to “grey belt” land and whether there were any adopted criteria for identifying such sites. It was explained that the National Planning Policy Framework defines grey belt land as Green Belt land that is either previously developed or does not strongly contribute to the purposes of preventing unrestricted urban sprawl, preventing neighbouring towns from merging, or preserving the setting of historic towns. The Council had not conducted a specific assessment to identify potential grey belt sites, but this could be considered in the future.

Discussion then moved to monitoring arrangements within the Local Plan. Members heard that a comprehensive suite of key performance indicators would be used throughout the life of the Plan, covering a wide range of measures including housing delivery, climate change and biodiversity. Officers advised that the monitoring framework would provide early indications where policies or approaches may require adjustment, although significant changes were not anticipated.

Councillor Sheppard asked several questions relating to housing delivery targets within the Local Plan. Officers confirmed that the housing requirement of 452 dwellings per year between 2025 and 2030 was not linked to any specific dwelling type, although both PfE Policy JP-H3 and emerging Local Plan Policy LP-H3 promote a suitable mix of housing sizes and types.

Members were advised that there had been 836 housing completions between 2022 and 2025, exceeding the PfE requirement of 738 dwellings over the same period, meaning there was no housing shortfall. It was further confirmed that the housing land supply includes sites identified within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), including major brownfield opportunities such as East Lancs Paper Mill.

In response to a question regarding the make-up of the 836 housing completions, officers highlighted that the largest contributors included developments at Mountheath in Prestwich, the former Andrews Textiles site  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC.105

Report of the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Growth is attached.

The Chair advised that the Committee would consider the Simister and Bowlee, Elton Reservoir and Walshaw Development Frameworks as a continuation of the same item, given the common themes arising from the consultation responses, including transport, infrastructure, ecology, public engagement and planning policy considerations.

A report from Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Strategic Growth, had been circulated in advance of the meeting and Councillor O’Brien was invited to provide an overview of the report and the proposed amendments following consultation.

Councillor O’Brien outlined the purpose of the Development Frameworks and explained that the proposed amendments sought to strengthen existing positions, respond to consultation feedback and provide greater clarity for future planning applications. He advised that many of the changes reflected concerns raised by residents and stakeholders, whilst remaining consistent with the Places for Everyone strategy and wider planning policy requirements.

The Committee considered issues relating to access arrangements at Simister. Members heard that access through Simister village would be carefully managed and that Simister Lane was not considered suitable for significant construction traffic or as a primary access route. Councillor O’Brien explained that access arrangements would be developed in greater detail through subsequent planning stages but that the intention was to protect the village from inappropriate through traffic. Improvements would be required elsewhere, including around Bluebell Lane, and the Framework made clear that Simister Lane would not operate as a principal route into and out of the development.

Councillor Bayley questioned what measures would prevent motorists from using any future bus gate and suggested that enforcement measures and fines should be referenced. Councillor O’Brien acknowledged that while bus gates could be considered, a range of options remained available, including physical measures such as bollards. It was noted that detailed access arrangements would be further explored through subsequent design work, with an emphasis on balancing accessibility and protection of local communities.

Discussion took place regarding the differences in affordable housing percentages across the strategic allocations. Councillor O’Brien explained that these differences reflected existing and emerging planning policies together with viability considerations and did not represent different approaches to affordable housing provision.

Councillor Rydeheard raised concerns regarding the protection of Grade II listed assets and heritage features located within or close to development sites. In response, Councillor O’Brien advised that heritage considerations had been reflected throughout the revised documents and that the consultation process had strengthened several policy areas. He noted that the Development Frameworks reinforced the planning principles already established through Places for Everyone and would assist in ensuring that future planning applications appropriately considered heritage impacts.

Members discussed consultation responses relating to biodiversity and ecology. Councillor O’Brien acknowledged that development proposals could impact biodiversity and that the Council’s role was to ensure impacts were avoided where possible and otherwise mitigated or compensated in accordance with planning policy. It was noted that several consultation responses had sought stronger protection for ecological assets and that revisions had been made where appropriate. Officers explained that ecological considerations  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC.106

Report of the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Growth is attached.

This item was covered during discussions on the previous item and it was agreed to;

Recommendations

The Committee resolved to recommend to Cabinet that:

1. The post-consultation revisions to the Development Frameworks be endorsed.

2. Overview and Scrutiny:
   • Notes the responses to the public consultation and the proposed post-consultation revisions set out in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of the report.
   • Notes the recommendations contained within the reports presented in the agenda pack.

Report of the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Growth is attached.

This item was covered during discussions on the previous item and it was agreed to;

Recommendations

The Committee resolved to recommend to Cabinet that:

1. The post-consultation revisions to the Development Frameworks be endorsed.

2. Overview and Scrutiny:
   • Notes the responses to the public consultation and the proposed post-consultation revisions set out in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of the report.
   • Notes the recommendations contained within the reports presented in the agenda pack.

Any other business which by reason of special circumstances the Chair agrees may be considered as a matter of urgency.

There was no urgent business.