Brakes hit for 1,500 Oldham homes as councillors make major PfE change
All strategic allocations from the Greater Manchester spatial framework will now require supplementary planning documents in the borough, thanks to a motion from opposition councillors – with delays expected for a series of other projects.
The motion had been introduced by Conservative Cllr Beth Sharp last week, with the 1,500-home Broadbent Moss/Beal Valley proposals as the instigator.
These plans, put forward by Grasscroft Property, Barratt Redrow, Kellen Homes, Casey, and Wain Homes, would see 11 acres of employment land, an east-west link road between Heyside and Moorside, Cop Road Metrolink stop, and 222 acres of green space delivered in addition to the homes.
The 169-acre Broadbent Moss/Beal Valley is earmarked for 2,000 homes within Places for Everyone. A masterplan and spatial design code for the area was meant to be approved at the cabinet meeting yesterday. Under PfE policies, those two guidance documents were all that was required for the area.
Sharp had successfully argued that requiring an SPD for the sites would ensure greater transparency and enforceability, and put into place greater safeguards for residents who oppose projects.
Grasscroft Property director Mike Coulter had attempted to dissuade councillors from the motion, sending a letter to members prior to the council meeting last week. In it, he noted that the masterplan had undergone significant consultation already – including additional sessions that the council had requested.
He also added that not having an SPD or a masterplan is not grounds for refusing a planning application, instead it opens the doors for future developments that do not include infrastructure promises that the masterplan would have required.
Coulter’s letter detailed how Homes England funding for affordable housing delivery was also contingent on projects starting on site within the next financial year. Waiting until an SPD is adopted would put this at risk, he warned.
It was not enough to dissuade councillors. Sharp’s motion was approved 30 to 25, with all Labour Party members voting against.
Converting the Broadbent Moss/Beal Valley masterplan and spatial design code will take until September to complete, Oldham cabinet members were informed yesterday.
“It does not particularly add anything, but it does certainly create a lot more work for planning officers,” noted Labour Cllr Elaine Taylor, Oldham Council’s deputy leader and cabinet member for neighbourhoods at the cabinet meeting.
Leader Cllr Arooj Shah agreed. “It’s really regrettable how far some people will go to try to stop development when we know residents need homes,” she said.
Taylor added that due to the increased workload, there would be a series of knock-on delays to other projects – notably the Saddleworth Neighbourhood Plan, which has been pushed back six months.
Sharp’s motion was not the first time Oldham councillors had voiced opposition to Places for Everyone. The local authority had written to government requesting permission to withdraw from the spatial framework in February. This request was denied.
It appears Stockport and Oldham Councils are having some sought of weird face-off to see who can be the most anti development LPA in Greater Manchester. It reflects badly on both of them unfortunately.
By Depressed Latic
Stall baby stall! What a waste of time and money with already stretched planning resources.
By Bash the Housebuilder!
I suspect Oldham are about to find out, as Stockport already are, what happens when you prevaricate over your plan. If Places for Everyone allows them to go ahead in certain circumstances and those circumstances have been met, then they’ll be in receipt of applications regardless of any council motion requiring an SPD to be prepared. And if the council don’t grant permission for an application which is in accordance with Places for Everyone “without delay” then there will inevitably be an appeal, which will almost certainly be allowed, regardless of any council motion saying that there needs to be an SPD. Because political showboating does not equal a legitimately prepared policy.
By Anonymous
and of course it pushes decisions out past next May’s elections, where Labour are almost certain to lose ground in local government. I can see why Steve Reed is thinking about that 150 dwelling decline rule.
By Rich X
Clr. Sharp should be ashamed of herself, stopping much needed housing and putting affordable housing funding at risk for the sake of political point scoring. She needs to look at the Boroughs housing waiting list and then justify her decision. Shameful!
By Anonymous
Surely if the application is in accordance with current planning policy (i.e. PfE), it should be approved without delay. Officers / members couldn’t refuse it on the basis of not complying with a future SPD that hasn’t even been drafted yet! I suspect we will see an appeal on non-determination and costs awarded against the Council. Deservedly so as well! It’s time we took politics out of planning decision-making. It makes a mockery of our ambitions for growth as a country.
By Anonymous
As a Stockport resident, I’m glad that we are no longer the most dysfunctional lpa in GM. However our draft plan only meets 80pc of the housing target, so the chance of being found sound is miniscule.
By Peter Black
They are absolutely going to suffer from opportunistic piecemeal developments and lost planning appeals as a result of this short-sighted decision, but I expect the councillors are aware of that and simply don’t care – they get to mislead residents that they’ve stuck up for them now, and will seek to push the blame onto the government when they lose at appeal
By Anonymous
Surely the National Design Codes and required site-specific Design Codes submitted with the larger applications already answer a great deal of what would be added to an SPD in any event? It is not a logical thing (of course it isn’t) to require a SPD, which is crucially guidance only anyway (not policy). It is going to backfire.
By Jim
Once again narrow minded councillors delay much needed housing scheme, not fit to hold the office of councillor. Maybe the introduction of surcharging the councillors for the stakeholders time and money wasted and the cost’s incurred due to their idiotic behaviour will make them act responsible and with a decree of professionalism in the future.
By Russell P
Is that the anti-business Tory party again? Shock horror. They should all be thinking long and hard about how they destroyed Britain over 14 long years of misery with them in charge, not trying to ruin the next 14 years as well!
Yet another strong reason for local authority reform. These parochial, out of touch and out of ideas councillors need substantially less power to ruin the economy with their ineptness
By Anonymous
When are these councillors and planning departments going to stop swallowing up every green belt area left just to build homes all over them? As long as they create even more money from future Council Tax payers and property developers etc they don’t give a damn!
I speak as someone who has seen hundreds of new homes built in my own area including green belt land so please don’t call me a NIMBY!
Yes people do deserve homes but not on land sites like this!
By Anonymous
An SPD is a non-statutory document. It does not form part of the development plan, so what will this achieve? Not to mention that any SPD needs to be written, consulted upon, and adopted by next summer, after which no new SPDs can be introduced as per the LURB.
By Anonymous
Oldham’s brownfield areas are not sought after like Manchester’s. The only way to get people to live in Oldham,is on developments near Metrolink stops, and with a bit of green. Oldham doesn’t have an Ancoats, or a Castlefield. The best bits are semi-rural.
By Elephant
Shameful, Beth Sharpe should stop showboating, who is she anyway?
By Anonymous
I wouldn’t let some councillors run a bath yet alone run a local council.
By Russell P
Just build affordable homes and Drs etc
By Dennis Street
@anon 1.38pm Actually PfE requires development at these sites to be “in accordance with a masterplan and spatial design code”. The residents have a right to be consulted on it. For example, the consortium has proposed a dangerous interim highway through an existing urban development but has not even had the courtesy to address the concerns of the people who live on that street. If they or the council had run a proper consultation there would have been no need to go down the SPD path.
By Hincler
Traffic is herendous now, what will it be like with 1500 new homes?
By Anonymous
Dawson
By Jack
As always local cllrs in it for themselves not thinking about time and costs of taxpayers money who will end up paying for appeal costs and pointless SPDs. It’s just grandstanding from a cllr no one has ever heard of.
By Mj
I don’t agree, with All this House Building, on Greenbelt Land. Labour Government are purposely building houses on nearly all the Greenbelt Land. Which in most cases, should be Protected Land, from being built on.
And the Local Council Planning Officers , should be in charge of all Planning Applications, and should listen to local people, about these matters. There is other Land, that could be used, to build houses on.
And Greenbelt Land Should have Protected Rights, against Housebuilding, the same as Grade 2, listed buildings.
By Trish
It should be noted that the motion was proposed by Councillor Sharp (who deserves to be congratulated, not castigated) and supported by councillors belonging to several different groups and independents. The telling phrase in this account is “with all Labour members voting against” the motion. Labour members is a euphemism for Andy Burnham stooges, who wish to turn all the independent boroughs of Greater Manchester into one big indistinguishable conurbation serving the interests of Manchester and Burnham’s ego. There are many well built empty houses that could be refurbished and existing properties that could be converted into accommodation in Oldham to provide the housing needs of existing residents instead of concreting over green spaces, adding to road congestion and placing unsustainable pressure on public services such as schools and GP surgeries as well as hospital provision, by expanding the population, as such schemes will inevitably do. Most existing residents are emphatically opposed to the the tendentiously named “Places for Everyone”, which has been imposed from outside. The public in Oldham will have the opportunity to oust many of the Burnham stooges next May. I hope they grasp that opportunity.
By Sapere Aude.
Mike Coulter claims that there has already been “significant” consultation. This is smoke and mirrors. I am a local resident and went to one of the organised local consultation meetings. The consultants at the meeting could not provide answers to most of my questions and residents were consulted individually and not as a group making it very easy to shall we say misrepresent their views and concerns.
By David Whitehead
Sapere Aude – I suggest you tell the people on Oldhams housing waiting list that a councillor should be congratulated for stopping affordable housing being built. Shameful!
By Anonymous
What a bunch of morons! I despise Barratt reddrow style rabbit warren estates but still, this is ridiculous stuff. All in the name of votes.
By dan
How will this affect the delivery of smaller sites that are so crucial in adding to the housing allocation and infilling the urban grain, will it add yet another nail to the coffin?
By Reform Planning