Questions are invited from members of the public about the work of the Cabinet.
Notice of any question must be given to Democratic Services by midday on Monday, 5 September 2022. Approximately 30 minutes will be set aside for Public Question Time, if required.
Minutes:
The following question was asked at the meeting by a member of the public, Stephen Cluer:
Why did the council wait until March 2022 to publicise plans for the town centre masterplan and the purchase of the Millgate? Deals like these take months to finalise and the council must have known that this would affect our housing supply numbers. We are now in a situation where any modifications to Places For Everyone have to be approved at the examination in public by the inspectors and I feel this could have been avoided. So why were modifications not made to the PFE before submission to government in February 2022 based on these pending plans?
Responding, Councillor Eamonn O’Brien reported that the Council were unable to propose a modification to PfE before it was submitted in February as the due diligence associated with the purchase of the Mill Gate was not complete and the outcomes of the consultation on the new Bury Town Centre Masterplan was not known at that time and we could not make assumptions on the impact that either of these would have on the evidence on housing numbers.
Regarding the scale and pace of the work, the Mill Gate estate coming on to the market was beyond the Council’s control, and we started the process as early as possible when on 17 November 2021 Cabinet approved, in principle, the Council entering into a joint venture with Bruntwood for the purposes of acquiring and developing the Mill Gate estate as part of the regeneration of Bury town centre. Once all of the necessary due diligence was complete, a further report was brought to Cabinet on 22 March 2022 seeking approval for the Council to enter into a joint venture with Bruntwood and to subsequently acquire the Mill Gate estate. This was beyond the PfE submission date.
In December 2021, Cabinet approved a draft of the new Bury town centre masterplan for six-week consultation period, running from 4 January to 15 February 2022. Once the consultation responses had been analysed and appropriate changes made to the masterplan, the final version of the masterplan was brought back to Cabinet on 9 March 2022.
The sign-off of both the Masterplan and the formal Joint Venture arrangement were beyond the Council decision in July 2021 to submit the PfE after the consultation on the Publication version of the plan. The Publication version was subsequently consulted on and formally submitted on 14 February 2022, after all of the necessary documentation was compiled.
As stated in the Cabinet report, the information that was used to support the PfE submission was the 2020 version of the strategic housing land availability assessments. Bury’s 2020 SHLAA did identify housing numbers in Bury Town Centre but could not have foreseen the potential that has arisen through the acquisition of the Millgate.
The nine districts have now updated this supply information and the 2022 versions identifies the housing supply position as at the 31st March 2022. These are comprehensive assessments of all housing supply in each of the nine districts and they will face a rigorous review at the Examination. Given the comprehensive nature of these documents, they take time to produce and they were only completed in August 2022.
Fundamentally, it has been necessary to await the outcome of the updated Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment in Bury to understand and provide a robust evidence base for the residential development on town centre sites and elsewhere in the Borough. We could not have done this any earlier as, until this was completed, the Council was not in a definitive position in terms of its housing supply and the potential implications for PfE.
A further supplementary question was submitted:
A lot of focus has been placed on residential developments in the greenbelt but the assessment of employment land is just as important. Your own topic paper in 2014 just before the spatial framework began outlined a loss of 4.88 hectares of employment land per annum between 2003 -2013. Your own assessment outlined that between 2001 – 2013 average land take up for new employment land was 2.64 hectares per annum. The council concluded that due to fluctuations in the employment sector a gross amount of 13.81 hectares of employment land would be required over a 16 year period in Bury. Even if Bury experienced nothing but growth going forward your own calculations equate to 39 hectares of new employment space. Can you please explain how you can justify 310 hectares in the places for everyone plans and what employment opportunities and businesses are driving such a dramatic increase in the amount of greenbelt land required up to 2037?
Councillor O’Brien reported that figures are correct, but that the document that is being referred to is the Bury Employment Land Review from April 2013, and the business need of the Borough has changed since that point. Part of this document involved the identification of future needs for employment land in Bury and used an approach that was based on a now withdrawn Government guidance note. The approach simply forecasted need based on historical take-ups rates as opposed to wider policy or strategic aspirations.
The other aspect is that the council’s aspirations have grown. The PfE is a plan for the nine participating districts and one of the key aims of the plan’s spatial strategy is to rebalance the Greater Manchester economy by addressing the current disparities between the north and south of the conurbation. To do this, PfE seeks to significantly boost the competitiveness of and economic output from the northern districts and the proposed employment site at the Northern Gateway is a key part of this strategy.
The location of this site will generate significant investment with an estimated £1.1 billion in GVA for the Greater Manchester economy each year with around 17,000 quality new jobs generated throughout the lifetime of the project and £600 million in wages generated per year. This will offer substantial benefits to Bury and our residents.
The documentation to support the spatial strategy on employment land can be found at https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning-and-housing/places-for-everyone/supporting-documents/?folder=\05%20Places%20for%20Jobs#fList
The following question was asked at the meeting by a member of the public, Philip Smith-Lawrence:
Taken the significant increase in the land supply in Bury since the Places For Everyone plan was submitted to the Government in Feb 2022, can the Cabinet please state if the proposed housing building allocations for Elton Reservoir and Simister are also now to be removed from the Places For Everyone plan, and the housing allocations on these sites be replaced with existing Council controlled land/sites, an example being; the housing allocation at the proposed regeneration site in Prestwich? And if not, why not?
Responding, Councillor Eamonn O’Brien reported that the Council has identified additional housing land supply in the 2022 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment update, including sites in the Bury Town Centre Masterplan and as a result of the acquisition of the Millgate. This reduces the amount of Green Belt required to meet the proposed housing target in the PfE, and as a result the Council is proposing to request a main modification to the plan to remove the Walshaw allocation. However, the housing assessment did not identify sufficient additional brownfield sites to replace all of the proposed Green Belt housing allocations.
The housing land supply assessment includes a review of all of the sites that have been identified as suitable and available for housing development within the plan period. This include the proposed regeneration site in Prestwich as well as other Council owned and private brownfield sites that are being brought forward. Many of these sites have been included within the existing land supply for a number of years and are already accounted for when assessing the amount of Green Belt land required for housing development.
The identification of brownfield sites reduces our need for Green Belt release, however it is not enough to meet our housing targets so some Green Belt land is still required, including the land at Elton Reservoir and Simister.
A further supplementary question was submitted:
The following is stated in the report to Cabinet, section 3:10 - "Importantly, all the additional sites that have been identified are in Council control and the Council is committed to securing the delivery of new residential development in a timely manner." - Why has the Council NOT retained brownfield land and sites across the borough to be developed to meet the borough's housing needs, land and sites which were in the Council's control, and are suitable for housing developments?
Councillor O’Brien reported that the vast majority of Council-owned brownfield land sites are going to meet the housing allowance. The Council is bringing forward a number of brownfield land sites to meet the Borough’s housing needs through disposal to developer partners, including the East Lancs Paper Mill, Green Street and School Street in Radcliffe; Wheatfields in Whitefield; and William Kemp Heaton in Bury, as well as the proposals for Bury and Prestwich Town Centres.
However, the Council also has to consider the need for other uses including those which will provide jobs and economic growth to our Borough. As a result, it is appropriate for some sites (such as the former Bury Fire Station) to be developed for alternative uses.
The following question was asked at the meeting by a member of the public, Matthew Dawber:
Does Cabinet believe that undertaking a significant strategic change to the Places for Everyone Plan, including the removal of a sound allocation at Walshaw, without any apparent consultation is an appropriate and legally defensible approach for the Council to take?
Responding, Councillor Eamonn O’Brien reported that as set out in the Cabinet report covering this issue, Section 20(7C) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act requires the Inspector to recommend Main Modifications if asked to do so by the Local Planning Authority, provided that these modifications are necessary to make the plan sound and legally compliant.
Given the increased supply and the subsequent excessive buffer for Bury, it considered that a request to the Planning Inspector(s) to make the modification reflects good planning and is an appropriate and legally defensible approach.
Assuming that Cabinet make this decision, it is likely that the proposed modification will be debated as part of the Examination of the Plan and the Inspector(s) will need to form a view on this. It should be noted that the Inspector(s) will need to consider such a proposed modification against all other elements of the Plan and the Examination (e.g. robustness of the housing supply across the nine districts).
Any modifications that the Inspector(s) feel are needed to make the plan sound will be subject to approval by the Cabinet/Executives of each of the 9 participating local authorities, and if approved subject to public consultation for at least six weeks before the Inspectors can recommend them in their final report.
A further supplementary question was submitted:
In order to make the process as fair as possible, will the Cabinet consider deferring the decision to allow for proper consultation and scrutiny of the evidence to be taken commensurate with the change? Consultation at main modification stage is a long way down the line after the examination has taken place.
Councillor O’Brien reported that he wouldn’t speak for colleagues, but it would not be his recommendation to defer this, for reasons touched upon in previous questions. While everyone hasn’t always agreed, it is important to acknowledge that there is a lot of public view expressed on this already and there is consensus that when we can take sites out and use brownfield sites first to reduce the impact on the greenbelt, we should. In terms of process, there is reassurance that there is consultation still to come, there is rigorous public examination and I remain confident that we are doing something that is legally defensible and maintains a sound plan.
The following question was asked at the meeting by a member of the public:
My question is to Councillor Tariq and the Chief Executive: I have sent you several letters over the last two or three months which you have refused to acknowledge or reply to. Why have you not responded? I want a meeting with you both agreed tonight.
After some disturbance, Councillor Tariq thanked the individual for attending and advised that responses have been given. The issues you raise have been looked at, there are links with your GP practice and information has been provided (not appropriate to share in a public forum). I appreciate you have made several visits to the Town Hall, but it is unrealistic to expect to meet with the Chief Executive, Leader or Deputy Leader at the moment of your choosing and we are unable to accommodate this. We understand the concerns contained in your letters and we are looking into them. There has been some breakdown in communication owing to the way you address Council staff and staff at your GP practice, but we are still looking into the issues and, on behalf of the Adult Care and Health team, I will ensure you are given an adequate response and we can support you in the best way possible.