Oldham looks to jettison Places for Everyone
Ignoring officer recommendation that such a move would be “legally perverse”, councillors voted to proceed with plans to write to secretary of state Angela Rayner requesting the local authority’s removal from the Greater Manchester spatial framework.
Such a move would be unprecedented, according to a council report. It is understood that before a letter is written, there will be further discussions to take place.
Places for Everyone is a joint development plan for nine out of the 10 Greater Manchester boroughs. It was formally adopted in March and outlines where future homes and employment spaces will be built over the next 15 years.
The decision for Oldham to leave the PfE has been cooking for a while, with Thursday’s vote building upon a motion first submitted in July. That motion was amended to give time for research to be done regarding what the legal risks would be to writing to the secretary of state.
The subsequent report from the local authority’s officers was condemning. It noted that if the letter was written, the council would open itself up to a judicial review.
Upon a judicial review, the officers alleged that the council could not win its case. The officers wrote that it would be determined that the decision to leave PfE “would be considered legally perverse and unreasonable, and consequently, the reasons for the revocation request would be unlawful”.
They also added that there would be financial consequences and reputational damage if the council proceeded to write the letter to the secretary of state.
“Officers cannot foresee any justifiable or rational reason as to why the [secretary of state] would agree to the revocation of PfE as it relates to Oldham,” the report continued.
Councillors were unmoved, however, voting on Wednesday 30 to 29 to reject the report’s findings and continue with the proposals to write the secretary of state.
Reasons cited for why Oldham should leave PfE included the plan’s use of decade-old housing targets, lack of guarantee for the delivery of affordable and social rental homes, the loss of Green Belt, and the fact it was conceived as a “developer-led” plan.
Cllr Sam Al-Hamdani, a Liberal Democrat representing Saddleworth West and Lees, was one of those who spoke out in opposition to PfE at the council meeting.
He noted that the revised housing targets from the Labour government had effectively killed the plan anyway.
“We are going to have to revise Places for Everyone and we’re going to lose the protection it provides very, very soon,” he said. “At best, it is a stay of execution.”
He also added that the current method for building homes in the borough was “nonsense” as it currently stands.
“This whole system is broken and wrong. It is not delivering for the people of Oldham,” he said.
Oldham Council Leader Cllr Arooj Shah argued that pulling out of PfE would only hurt the borough.
“Remaining in Places for Everyone is not just vital it’s crucial for the borough,” she said.
“It’s the only way to guarantee the hard-fought protection we’ve secured over Green Belt sites…,” she continued. “Let’s be clear that getting rid of Places for Everyone will give developers the freedom to build wherever they want and whenever they want.”
Shah pointed out that there was a massive demand for homes and these homes would get built one way or another.
“For those thinking that removing Oldham from this Greater Manchester approach will help stop building in Oldham, they’re wrong,” Shah said.
“All that will happen is more building in places that we don’t want.”
Reflecting on Wednesday’s vote, an Oldham Council spokesperson said that the local authority was considering next steps.
They defended PfE, noting that through the framework Oldham had reduced Green Belt reduction from 7.5% to 2.5%.
“Leaving PfE would be an incredibly risky course of action for Oldham because it means our Green Belt land and other green spaces would no longer benefit from the protections that PfE provides, making it easier for developers to build on them,” the spokesperson said.
I’m afraid this just reinforces Oldham’s position as one of the most ‘anti-development’ places in GM. A very sad state of affairs – particularly because some of their PfE and town centre plans are genuinely regenerative and exciting for the town.
By Depressed Latic
Councilors ought to be held accountable when the legal bill lands…
By Deja
OMG, what are 29 out of 30 councillors thinking? After all the money already spent on GMSF and then PFE to then reverse makes a mockery of them, the planning process etc. They are right, they need to find more sites but to say they won’t honour their plan means they can’t be trusted to write a plan
By Astounded
Stockport Mk2, and purely performative. If Rayner refuses they can blame her for the PfE greenbelt release, if they fall out of PfE they’ll get an even bigger greenbelt release, but they can blame Rayner for that too. Won’t be the last LA to call her bluff.
By Rich X
Roughyeds – be careful for what you wish for. Just look at the position Stockport now finds itself in. Creek and paddle come to mind.
By Anonymous
As previously mentioned, the only way to stop things like this happening is to personally hold Councillors accountable for their actions. All they are focused on is getting votes and looking good to their neighbours / locals. It is an absolute disgrace that this has even been considered after adoption. Angela should refuse their proposal to withdraw and come down on them hard for even proposing it in the first place!
By Anon
Please help. If this move is motivated by issues of releasing Green Belt land then what “protection” does PfE offer the Council from the proposed new Standard Method for assessing housing needs that the Government are currently consulting upon? If coming out of PfE means that they have deliver more housing as a result of the proposed new Standard Method then it is a bonkers proposal. Can someone who knows the figures please put them out there.
By Anonymous
Fewer houses ain’t gonna regenerate Oldham lads
By Anonymous
Is it even possible to revoke allocated sites?
By PIL
Pressure from the parochial White Rose Society, is probably behind this. They don’t want houses In Saddleworth, even though most of them are neither from Lancashire or the West Riding but come uppers from other areas. Shah for once is right.
By Elephant
Oh dear, trouble in Burnham’s paradise.
By Anonymous
Another example of rogue councillor’s politicising the planning framework. It is a generally accepted principle the officers make recommendations and members vote in favour of those recommendations. The officers are after all the professionals.
Consequently, its high time members were held accountable for their actions by being made to pay the legal costs this will entail. It is the only way they will learn that wasting public money on vanity decisions is unacceptable.
By Grumpy Old Git
This is bizarre – we will have to start calling Oldham ‘Stockport’!
By Peter Black
Oldham councillors want Oldham to continue struggling. The definition of weak, in-it-for-themselves politicians.
By Anonymous
So in other words, the Lib Dems need to win a couple more seats next May for their ragtag coalition to take control of the Council and therefore any progress Oldham has made bringing in investment can go out the window, along with the opportunity to help balance the books by increasing the Council Tax base, and residents can pay all the legal bills when the wheels fall off their cunning plan, once the local elections are out of the way?
Or will they just drag this out a few months and then blame the hated Labour Government/Mayor for cruelly thwarting the will of the people, costing Oldham only its reputation and the confidence developers need to commit to anything in the future?
Sounds like a plan…
By Tommy Fields
What is the point of Planning Officers if you ignore their serious professional recommendations? You don’t know what your doing!
By Anonymous
Oh to be a fly on the wall as this is explained to Angela Rayner.
By Anonymous
Clueless councillor involvement in the planning system yet again. Trump-like behaviour from Sykes, kowtowing to the home owning Green Belt edge dwellers, not caring a jot about the Oldham youth or those striving to get on the property ladder. The elites of Uppermill and Saddleworth will be toasting the silver fox as their saviour, the protector of their house prices and the subjugator of those desperate to live in their own home.
The youth of Oldham, remember this when any of the Lib Dems are up for re-election.
By exasperated Oldhamer
Places for Everyone requires Olham to build 772 homes per year. Under the new standard method this increases to 1049 per year. Those politicians in Oldham who voted for this should be voted out at the next local elections – not doing Oldham any favours at all. The Chief Executive of the Council needs to get a grip and spell out the consequences of their decision to the 30 Councillors responsible for trashing their Borough.
By Anonymous
I fully appreciate there’s a housing crisis which needs addressing and as such, more houses need to be built. The opposition to the PfE is that in its present form it does not provide the right type of housing – social housing to rent as well as truly affordable housing to buy, and run, for the local people, all built on brownfield sites…if there are any brownfield sites left which haven’t been sold off by Councils?
Let’s see what happens with the impending legal challenge to the PfE plan brought by the collective groups of GM looking to protect the greenbelt!
By Philip Smith-Lawrence
@Philip Smith-Lawrence – Nonsense. All of the allocations for Oldham in PfE require affordable housing to be delivered in accordance “with relevant local plan requirements”. If the local plan is not fit-for-purpose, then they should be updating the local plan, not withdrawing from PfE.
By Anonymous
Like Stockport this sounds like the Lib Dems playing politics which is at odds with the best interest of the people of Oldham who they are supposed to represent.
By Anonymous
Just got triggered a bit by Philip Smith-Lawrence because when you stand back from places like Oldham and Rochdale the thing they really lack is a bigger middle class. You can’t revive the economy of a town if you don’t have a more people with a higher level of skills and education to attract new employment, more local spending power, people who support higher performing schools. As Manchester continues to grow both places have a one-time opportunity to leverage their greenbelt and their rail and tram connectivity to rebalance their populations.
By Rich X
Excellent news. One by one they fall. This chaotic nonsense of a plan has hung around longer than the dinosaurs and like the rest of the dinosaurs needs finally to disappear.🫠
By Anonymous
We need the GMCA/Mayor to have more power devolved up to them. Local councillors are far too myopic, parochial and ‘small-town’ in their thinking. Like it or lump it, these places are all part of a larger growing metropolis and there’s really very little that small-time tiny-box career councillors can contribute to that vision. Move over and let some proper politicians do the job instead.
By Anonymous
Rich X is right. I was born in Oldham,and it has basically been written off. As Manchester powers on, the old milltowns,are like another country.
By Elephant
The planning system needs to be entirely removed from local councillors hands, they are far too uneducated and have zero personal accountability for the problems they cause. How much money is wasted going against officers views? How many years delay to sites languishing in appeal?
By Common Sense
We had Brexit we will have exit from Greater Manchester by towns in Greater Manchester like Oldham if voters believe housing development is being pushed on them by diktat of central control in Manchester.Of course the London establishment and Starmer would love this as they absolutely loathe Burnham and would like to weaken and destroy him.
By Barbara Roche
I’d be interested to hear Anonymous 11.40 am alternative plan.
By Anonymous
Barbara Roche quotes that Oldham had Places for Everyone “pushed on them by diktat of central control in Manchester” – er NO.
Places for Everyone was voted on and supported by Oldham Council at everyktage of its evolution.. They could have opted out like Stockport. And remember it is not “Manchester” but “Greater Manchester”. Oh and just wait to see how Stockport fares when the new NPPF is announced in the New Year!
By Anonymous
Sadly another example of the terrible legacy being unleashed on Oldham by “independent” and opposition councillors. Only interested in playing politics instead of partaking in their role as an elected official. Tribal, student approaches to their roles is undermining the extremely hard work of the planning officers and staff. Having watched the Council meeting online, there are a number of those councillors who should be extremely embarrassed.
By Unsurprised
Those of us like @elephant who were born and brought up in Rochdale and Oldham you can see how they’ve been politically de-stabilised by poverty and the way that has played through different communities who struggle. That’s left them open to all kinds of grifters and bad actors. The idea that there are people in politics who want to do anything other than grow their economies just fills me with despair. Maybe it’s fate that the final arbiters of this will be Angela Rayner and Jim McMahon. I think GM misses an electoral cycle next year so there’s a 2 year window to get stuff done before political character of GM starts to change (and maybe swing against an incumbent Labour government like it would normally do).
By Rich X
And this ladies and gents is why we’re all doomed leaving the delivery of housing in the hands of committees with no relevant professional experience who think they know better than the professionals. No denying that there is a need for housing and the social and economic cost of not providing that housing is huge costing councils and tax payers millions.
By Anonymous