This is utterly, utterly bizarre. I spent quite a lot of time in Oldham planning the Metrolink line, and have a lot of sympathy for a hard-pressed but proud town. Oldham has suffered enough and doesn’t deserve this current debacle. If the rebel politicians have their way, in supposedly defending open land from development, they will actually facilitate MORE development of open land than if they had not tried to withdraw from PfE – this is exactly the situation that happened in Stockport where after withdrawal from PfE, the Council is faced with much higher housing figures, that bite immediately (adoption of PfE gives all the other GM districts a significant amount of respite from the new targets), and where the Council is already losing on Green Belt appeals – Maybach Fields, and soon Gately Golf Course, with more to follow.
In the case of Oldham, the additional development will not be urban regeneration, but green field houses near motorway junctions for people who have jobs elsewhere. They will contribute little to the life of Oldham, but establish unsustainable travel patterns based on car dependency. It shows that the opportunistic desire for power (LibDem in this case, but other desperate parties are available in other areas) is greater than any feelings for the good of Oldham. They should hand their heads in shame.
My guess is that officers in the end will refuse to send a letter that they know is nonsensical (as you explained) and has no legal effect. If the LibDems push it, this would result in some hefty losses at an Employment Tribunal, so I expect the Council Leader to send it himself to save face – but the Government will simply ignore it. None of this will leave Oldham in a good place.
Hey Peter - thanks for this, really interesting insight re: travel patterns etc. Didn't mention in the newsletter, but there is talk of PfE's update being brought forward by two years (so, 2027 instead of '29) if government decide it wants housing targets to bite sooner to try and make sure they're hit on time.
It'd also mean a look at how distribution of the housing target for GM is being distributed sooner. If Oldham were to look like it were shouldering an unfair share (which looking at the figures, feels unlikely) it could then have conversations about other boroughs helping out, instead of just pulling out entirely.
Another thing to consider is a whitepaper coming out this month on devolution, which could include statutory requirements for “larger than local” plans like PfE, meaning no more opting out. Will be interesting to see how that affects the conversation (and how it would affect Stockport retrospectively).
Yes, all true. The Government have published updated housing targets which in most cases are higher than current ones. For instance Stockport's goes up from 1,097 to 1,906 per year which is a big problem considering their housing delivery 20/21 to 22/3 averaged 536 per year. That means a LOT of extra building on the Green Belt. As part of PfE, Stockport had transferred 5,000 houses (over the total plan period) to Salford, who wanted to build them. But this is only available if a Council is part of PfE. Oldham will have exactly the same issues. However it seems unlikely they would be legally able to withdraw without collapsing the whole PfE - so the whole thing could just be sabre-rattling from the Oldham Leader to secure political advantage without any real intention to leave PfE - particularly as there seems to be no legal way to do this.
There is a more fundamental problem in Oldham, which the Leader alluded to. In most cases the cost of building a house in Oldham is less than its sale value. This means the only places that are viable (without grant-aid to private builders or subsidised build from social housing providers) will be easy greenfield sites near existing main roads. Currently potential developers are put off by the difficulty of getting permission on the Green Belt. But this constraint would disappear overnight if Oldham were allowed to leave PfE. And this would leave Oldham as an even more desperately hollowed-out town than it sadly is now. As I wrote, none of this will leave Oldham in a good place.
Just on the PfE review - the Government will allow authorities with plans adopted or at an advanced stage protection for a couple of years from the new housing figures. There are transition arrangements which give LPAs time to review their existing plans. This is why the PfE review is being brought forward.
Just to clarify. Places for Everyone is not just a ‘giant housing plan’. It’s a full development plan covering all sorts of other stuff. Including Atom Valley, part of which falls in Oldham. That might also be affected by their recent decision. In the unlikely event that Angela Rayner would agree to their withdrawal. But it does put her on the spot, no doubt to the delight of the Lib Dems.
Hey Jim - yep that is fair to point out. Thought it best to keep things focussed on the housing side seeing that's the main gripe for cllrs in Oldham. But true PfE also includes growth locations like Atom Valley, which makes the idea of the plan getting pulled seem even more remote. Thanks for commenting!
The PfE plan, which is the third iteration of the plan after GSMF 1 & 2 failed, is not only contentious in Oldham! There's opposition to this plan across Greater Manchester.This Labour driven 'Master Development' plan (one of a few), is not only being opposed by some Oldham Councillors but groups all across GM under the umbrella group Save Greater Manchester's Greenbelt. The rhetoric from the Labour 'journeymen' Councillor and those supporting the PfE in this article is a constant in this issue. The opposition from the various groups to the PfE, is also a constant, and one which is growing. Opposition which now includes an impending collective legal challenge in the High Court against the PfE plan.
This is very much a political issue being pushed by Labour Councillors, a Labour MP and the Labour Mayor in GM. Over here in Bury we have seen the Bury Folk Keep It Green group grow to over 11,000 members, a local independent Councillor present a petition against the PfE plan containing over 6,000 signatures to current Council Labour Council leader; a petition he promptly ignored. All across GM there is ongoing opposition to the planned decimation of certain areas of the Greenbelt. In Bury we have witnessed local Labour Councillor candidates, supported by a now elected Labour MP, use a very duplicitous campaign tactic in the last local election by making the claim publicly that they will 'Take Walshaw Out' of the plan for Places for Everyone! This was their (Labours) campaign strategy to get their councillor candidates elected, knowing full well they didn't have any chance whatsoever of taking the site in Walshaw out of the PfE plan! This is just one example of the tactics which Labour Councillors in Bury are prepared to use...what other tactics are being employed across other areas of GM by Labour to maintain the level of power needed to railroad the PfE plan through?
The opposition to the PfE plan is not only about protecting certain areas of the greenbelt in GM, it's also about shining a light on a plan which favours private developers, and the manner in which those in power intend to keep their 'Master Development' plans(s) alive.
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 legal challenge to the PfE plan!
Having been the Cabinet Member responsible for producing the final wersion of Place for Everyone which radically reduced the proposed greenbelt take and protected 97.2% of Oldham's Greenbelt, I can only agree with Peter Black. The reality is that leaving PfE would open up 100% of Oldham's greenbelt to developers with none of the safeguards about providing infrastructure in the plan. And there were developers lined up for both Thornham Old Road and Hanging Chadder in Royton - tyhey even submitted objections to the Planning Enquiry. It is also interesting to look at what was actually agreed at July's Council meeting: That Council requests that the relevant council officers
deliver an all-member workshop in September (after
recess to ensure maximum opportunity to enable all
members to attend) to understand the issues, options and
opportunities associated with Oldham Council seeking
revocation of its involvement in the Greater Manchester
Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (PfE).
2. That on the back of the workshop, Council requests that
the relevant council officers to requested to present a
thorough and full report to Council in November 2024 to
inform a decision in writing to the new Secretary of State
to revoke PfE insofar as it relates to the Borough of
Oldham.
3. That should the request be approved Oldham Council’
withdraw engagement and support for the defence of the
judicial review of ‘Places for Everyone’.
4. That if the Plan is revoked the Green Belt boundaries
should be restored to their pre-adoption state.
5. That if the Plan is revoked Officers be asked to develop
an Oldham-led housing strategy that prioritises brownfield
and ex-industrial sites, while protecting greenbelt and
green spaces for future generations.
The report voted down in November asked Council to note the contents of the report from officers arguing that leaving PfE would be counter productive. I can't see a resolution to write to the Secretary of State who would have to agree to any request as PfE is a statutory plan.
This is political game playing of the most cynical kind that puts all of Oldham's green spaces at risk.
This is utterly, utterly bizarre. I spent quite a lot of time in Oldham planning the Metrolink line, and have a lot of sympathy for a hard-pressed but proud town. Oldham has suffered enough and doesn’t deserve this current debacle. If the rebel politicians have their way, in supposedly defending open land from development, they will actually facilitate MORE development of open land than if they had not tried to withdraw from PfE – this is exactly the situation that happened in Stockport where after withdrawal from PfE, the Council is faced with much higher housing figures, that bite immediately (adoption of PfE gives all the other GM districts a significant amount of respite from the new targets), and where the Council is already losing on Green Belt appeals – Maybach Fields, and soon Gately Golf Course, with more to follow.
In the case of Oldham, the additional development will not be urban regeneration, but green field houses near motorway junctions for people who have jobs elsewhere. They will contribute little to the life of Oldham, but establish unsustainable travel patterns based on car dependency. It shows that the opportunistic desire for power (LibDem in this case, but other desperate parties are available in other areas) is greater than any feelings for the good of Oldham. They should hand their heads in shame.
My guess is that officers in the end will refuse to send a letter that they know is nonsensical (as you explained) and has no legal effect. If the LibDems push it, this would result in some hefty losses at an Employment Tribunal, so I expect the Council Leader to send it himself to save face – but the Government will simply ignore it. None of this will leave Oldham in a good place.
Hey Peter - thanks for this, really interesting insight re: travel patterns etc. Didn't mention in the newsletter, but there is talk of PfE's update being brought forward by two years (so, 2027 instead of '29) if government decide it wants housing targets to bite sooner to try and make sure they're hit on time.
It'd also mean a look at how distribution of the housing target for GM is being distributed sooner. If Oldham were to look like it were shouldering an unfair share (which looking at the figures, feels unlikely) it could then have conversations about other boroughs helping out, instead of just pulling out entirely.
Another thing to consider is a whitepaper coming out this month on devolution, which could include statutory requirements for “larger than local” plans like PfE, meaning no more opting out. Will be interesting to see how that affects the conversation (and how it would affect Stockport retrospectively).
Thanks again for the comment!
Yes, all true. The Government have published updated housing targets which in most cases are higher than current ones. For instance Stockport's goes up from 1,097 to 1,906 per year which is a big problem considering their housing delivery 20/21 to 22/3 averaged 536 per year. That means a LOT of extra building on the Green Belt. As part of PfE, Stockport had transferred 5,000 houses (over the total plan period) to Salford, who wanted to build them. But this is only available if a Council is part of PfE. Oldham will have exactly the same issues. However it seems unlikely they would be legally able to withdraw without collapsing the whole PfE - so the whole thing could just be sabre-rattling from the Oldham Leader to secure political advantage without any real intention to leave PfE - particularly as there seems to be no legal way to do this.
There is a more fundamental problem in Oldham, which the Leader alluded to. In most cases the cost of building a house in Oldham is less than its sale value. This means the only places that are viable (without grant-aid to private builders or subsidised build from social housing providers) will be easy greenfield sites near existing main roads. Currently potential developers are put off by the difficulty of getting permission on the Green Belt. But this constraint would disappear overnight if Oldham were allowed to leave PfE. And this would leave Oldham as an even more desperately hollowed-out town than it sadly is now. As I wrote, none of this will leave Oldham in a good place.
Just on the PfE review - the Government will allow authorities with plans adopted or at an advanced stage protection for a couple of years from the new housing figures. There are transition arrangements which give LPAs time to review their existing plans. This is why the PfE review is being brought forward.
Just to clarify. Places for Everyone is not just a ‘giant housing plan’. It’s a full development plan covering all sorts of other stuff. Including Atom Valley, part of which falls in Oldham. That might also be affected by their recent decision. In the unlikely event that Angela Rayner would agree to their withdrawal. But it does put her on the spot, no doubt to the delight of the Lib Dems.
Hey Jim - yep that is fair to point out. Thought it best to keep things focussed on the housing side seeing that's the main gripe for cllrs in Oldham. But true PfE also includes growth locations like Atom Valley, which makes the idea of the plan getting pulled seem even more remote. Thanks for commenting!
The PfE plan, which is the third iteration of the plan after GSMF 1 & 2 failed, is not only contentious in Oldham! There's opposition to this plan across Greater Manchester.This Labour driven 'Master Development' plan (one of a few), is not only being opposed by some Oldham Councillors but groups all across GM under the umbrella group Save Greater Manchester's Greenbelt. The rhetoric from the Labour 'journeymen' Councillor and those supporting the PfE in this article is a constant in this issue. The opposition from the various groups to the PfE, is also a constant, and one which is growing. Opposition which now includes an impending collective legal challenge in the High Court against the PfE plan.
This is very much a political issue being pushed by Labour Councillors, a Labour MP and the Labour Mayor in GM. Over here in Bury we have seen the Bury Folk Keep It Green group grow to over 11,000 members, a local independent Councillor present a petition against the PfE plan containing over 6,000 signatures to current Council Labour Council leader; a petition he promptly ignored. All across GM there is ongoing opposition to the planned decimation of certain areas of the Greenbelt. In Bury we have witnessed local Labour Councillor candidates, supported by a now elected Labour MP, use a very duplicitous campaign tactic in the last local election by making the claim publicly that they will 'Take Walshaw Out' of the plan for Places for Everyone! This was their (Labours) campaign strategy to get their councillor candidates elected, knowing full well they didn't have any chance whatsoever of taking the site in Walshaw out of the PfE plan! This is just one example of the tactics which Labour Councillors in Bury are prepared to use...what other tactics are being employed across other areas of GM by Labour to maintain the level of power needed to railroad the PfE plan through?
The opposition to the PfE plan is not only about protecting certain areas of the greenbelt in GM, it's also about shining a light on a plan which favours private developers, and the manner in which those in power intend to keep their 'Master Development' plans(s) alive.
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 legal challenge to the PfE plan!
Having been the Cabinet Member responsible for producing the final wersion of Place for Everyone which radically reduced the proposed greenbelt take and protected 97.2% of Oldham's Greenbelt, I can only agree with Peter Black. The reality is that leaving PfE would open up 100% of Oldham's greenbelt to developers with none of the safeguards about providing infrastructure in the plan. And there were developers lined up for both Thornham Old Road and Hanging Chadder in Royton - tyhey even submitted objections to the Planning Enquiry. It is also interesting to look at what was actually agreed at July's Council meeting: That Council requests that the relevant council officers
deliver an all-member workshop in September (after
recess to ensure maximum opportunity to enable all
members to attend) to understand the issues, options and
opportunities associated with Oldham Council seeking
revocation of its involvement in the Greater Manchester
Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (PfE).
2. That on the back of the workshop, Council requests that
the relevant council officers to requested to present a
thorough and full report to Council in November 2024 to
inform a decision in writing to the new Secretary of State
to revoke PfE insofar as it relates to the Borough of
Oldham.
3. That should the request be approved Oldham Council’
withdraw engagement and support for the defence of the
judicial review of ‘Places for Everyone’.
4. That if the Plan is revoked the Green Belt boundaries
should be restored to their pre-adoption state.
5. That if the Plan is revoked Officers be asked to develop
an Oldham-led housing strategy that prioritises brownfield
and ex-industrial sites, while protecting greenbelt and
green spaces for future generations.
The report voted down in November asked Council to note the contents of the report from officers arguing that leaving PfE would be counter productive. I can't see a resolution to write to the Secretary of State who would have to agree to any request as PfE is a statutory plan.
This is political game playing of the most cynical kind that puts all of Oldham's green spaces at risk.
Oldham’s policy is already Brownfield First