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, 09th June 2025. Approximately 30 minutes will be set aside for Public Question Time, if required.
Minutes:
The following question was submitted in advance of the meeting by a member of the public, Alex Abbey:
Too high a concentration of HMOs in any one area is a bad thing in respects of increased crime, social cohesion, litter and parking issues. Would councillors consider a Salford style scheme where HMOs can only make up 10% residential properties within a 100 metre radius including small HMOs that Bury council don't even currently register? I would plead with those that don't currently think this is an issue, to act before it becomes one.
Responding, Councillor O’Brien acknowledged the importance of the issue and noted that while national planning policies must be followed, the Local Plan allows for local guidance. He emphasised the council’s desire to maintain a balanced housing mix in Bury and confirmed that restrictions are necessary.
Councillor O’Brien referenced Salford’s approach but stated that Bury intends to go further, proposing a 100-metre threshold rather than 50 metres. He cautioned against labelling all HMOs as problematic but confirmed that the draft Local Plan is taking the issue seriously and aims to provide more flexibility at the local level.
Alex Abbey asked a supplementary question asking if smaller HMO’s of less than 5 residents will be considered in future decisions.
Councillor O’Brien advised Regarding smaller HMOs (those with fewer than five residents) and acknowledged the difficulty in forming a planning policy without accurate data. While only one HMO was officially registered in a particular area, residents reported six or seven. The draft Local Plan will explore registering smaller HMOs to better understand and manage their impact. He reiterated the need to remain compliant with national planning frameworks while addressing local concerns.
In addition, three additional members of the public attended and asked questions of the Cabinet.
Daniel Jacobs asked whether the Leader could confirm if the Council had obtained a Section 123 exemption from the Secretary of State to sell the Pinfold Lane Library site for less than best consideration, or whether the Council was asserting that the price agreed represented the highest achievable value for the site.
In response, the Leader referred the question to the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Jacqui Dennis. Ms. Dennis explained that Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 requires local authorities to obtain the best consideration reasonably obtainable when disposing of land. She clarified that a general consent, which acts as an exemption, is only necessary if best value is not achieved. In this case, the Council had examined the matter in detail, obtained independent legal advice from Counsel, and secured an independent valuation of the site. Based on this, the Council was satisfied that it had met its duty under Section 123 and had achieved the best consideration reasonably obtainable. Therefore, it was not necessary to seek a general consent, although the transaction may have qualified for one. The Council strongly believed that the requirements of Section 123 had been fully discharged.
The Leader added that in making decisions of this nature, the Council must always consider what constitutes best value for residents. While in some cases this means maximising the capital receipt, in others it involves weighing broader strategic priorities. In the case of the Pinfold Lane site, the Council considered how the land could support the ambitions of the Whitefield Town Plan and meet the needs of NHS colleagues. The Uplands Medical Centre, which the NHS currently uses, is not fit for purpose, with parts of the building condemned and others requiring significant capital investment. The Council took into account the independent valuation of the site and the potential for the sale to contribute to the delivery of the Whitefield Town Plan and improved NHS services. The Leader stated that he believed the Council had followed the appropriate procedures, achieved fair market value, and delivered a positive outcome for the residents of Whitefield. He acknowledged that other interested parties may be disappointed with the outcome but stood by the decision as being in the best interests of the borough and the Whitefield community.
Ryan Sidle asked the Leader to clarify how the Council defines the term “1 to 1 basis,” noting that it appeared frequently in internal correspondence disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act but lacked a clear public explanation. He suggested that a formal definition would help improve transparency in asset discussions.
The Leader invited Roger Frith, Head of Land and Property, to respond. Mr. Frith explained that the term “1 to 1 basis” is used in two main contexts. One relates to internal staff meetings, and the other refers to direct land sales to individuals, supported by an independent Red Book valuation. These transactions typically involve local residents seeking to purchase garden plots or businesses wishing to expand into adjacent land. Each case is assessed individually and must be justified by an independent valuation.
In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Sidle, Mr. Frith confirmed that the “1 to 1” refers to the party purchasing the land, not the valuer, who is always independent.
Rebecca Partridge asked the Leader to confirm whether all competitive offers for the Pinfold Lane site were formally logged, considered, and shared with Cabinet prior to the agreement of the sale price. If not, she asked why this had not occurred.
The Leader responded that as part of the disposal process, all offers and expressions of interest are received by the Land and Property Team. For strategic sites such as Pinfold Lane, these are taken into account when final decisions are made. However, Cabinet does not oversee the procurement process itself; rather, it receives the outcomes and recommendations from officers. The Leader emphasised that officers are responsible for advising Cabinet on the best course of action, and that other bids and considerations are factored into that advice.
Ms. Partridge asked whether a representative from the relevant department could provide further clarification. Roger Frith confirmed that while there had been a number of expressions of interest in the site over the years, no formal offers had been submitted prior to February 2025.
Finally, it was asked whether the deal had been completed. The Leader confirmed that Cabinet had accepted the recommendation to dispose of the site as outlined in the February 2025 Cabinet Report, and that the Council was currently awaiting final sign-off from the NHS to complete the sale.