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 Friday, 26 June 2026. Approximately 30 minutes will be set aside for Public Question Time, if required.
Minutes:
The following question was asked by a member of the public, Amanda Foster:
In the meeting we had with Cris Logue (Assistant Director of Strategy, Planning & Development) a few days ago I asked about Brownfield sites in relation to Simister Bowlee. He told me that 80% of the Brownfield sites were allocated, but I did some research and according to the latest Bury SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) – which only goes up to 2024 – it’s stated at 44%. Can you clarify where you got the 80% from? Can you evidence it? Is this since 2024?
Responding, Councillor Eamonn O’Brien reported that at their meeting last night, Overview and Scrutiny Committee had a comprehensive discussion regarding Brownfield sites, with the vast majority of developments from the last few decades being built on Brownfield land. Councillor O’Brien advised that the 44% reflected the Brownfield allocation for strategic sites in the Places for Everyone Plan, whilst the 80% reflected the figure for completions.
The following question was asked by a member of the public, Daniel Jacobs:
Last year at Cabinet you stated you had many meetings about Section 123 discussions and the library disposal. I then went on to do a Freedom of Information Request and it came back that there was no information held for any meetings or minutes. Subsequently in a Subject Access Request I found information that you and Councillor Rubenstein were WhatsApping about my personal data and a Key Decision. I haven’t received that information and I wanted to understand why Key Decisions were being discussed through informal channels.
Responding, Councillor Eamonn O’Brien responded that Key Decisions weren’t being discussed on WhatsApp. The WhatsApp you refer to from Councillor Rubenstein says, ‘I’ve received an email, it relates to the library site’ and I said in response that the Council had produced a response and I would share it with him. That was the end of the correspondence. It was not a discussion around the 123, nor around the Key Decision; it was a colleague asking for some advice, bringing something to my attention, and I don’t see this as contrary to how we make decisions at the Council. With regards to the meetings about the library site, we have numerous discussions in a variety of forums which aren’t necessarily minuted, but when we make decisions in public there is a record, it’s fully transparent, and this is the standard we’re held to.
The following question was asked by a member of the public, Angus Park:
At Cabinet last year Mr Frith (Assistant Director of Corporate Assets & Facilities Management) said one-to-one deals were done mostly for small patches of land and garden transfers and very occasionally for a commercial deal. Why then has almost every major disposal bypassed open marketing since 2021? It’s totally at odds with what has been said at previous Cabinet meetings. Can you explain please?
Responding, Councillor Eamonn O’Brien responded that he did not agree with the characterisation and that the last 5 years the vast majority of sites have been open to the public, several through auction sites, and several gone on open market. It’s true to say that the vast majority of one-to-one sales are of a smaller nature, but of the sites I’m recalling from memory they go out through a rigorous public process. Paul Lakin (Executive Director of Place) added that the Council used multiple ways to dispose of sites including active marketing for larger sites, for others it’s more appropriate to go to auction where anyone can turn up and bid, but for small parcels of land this wouldn’t be appropriate. The method depends on the size and scale of the site as seen in the Accelerated Land Disposal Programme.
The following question was asked by a member of the public, Rebecca Partridge:
The Council has used an Accelerated Land Disposal Programme and from what I can see several major property disposals have bypassed open marketing. Each one may have been justified as an exception because of specific or urgent circumstances, but when open marketing is bypassed repeatedly, the public is entitled to presume that the exception has effectively become the rule. This pattern also appears wider than just the land disposal programme; the £20m Millgate Shopping Centre acquisition and the £100m Prestwich Town Centre regeneration deal also appear to have gone ahead without going to open marketing or competitive process. My question is: across these major property decisions, what mechanism has replaced open marketing or competition to make sure the Council is still achieving best value for the public?
Responding, Councillor Eamonn O’Brien responded that the Millgate and Prestwich the Council were purchasing the sites, so would not be responsible for marketing. When we have gone out to tender works, this has been part of well-established competitive, open processes. As in the previous answer, we use a variety of ways to dispose of sites, all of which can be analysed and checked. The Accelerated Land Disposal Programme for example was an open public display and demonstration of land we were looking to dispose of, came through open reports to Cabinet and Scrutiny, and it received a lot of public interest. If we’re approached on the back of one of those sales, I regard that as an open way of going about it. Unless there are specific examples you want to give, I want to give reassurance that when we dispose of sites we have legal duties put on us and we have to follow those processes. Every avenue we’ve been tested on we’ve been found to be acting in accordance with the law, openly and transparently, and will continue to work in that way.