To receive Questions from the Public, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.
Minutes:
There were two public questions received.
1. Question received from Karen Murray:
“North Chadderton local councillors have supported the removal of the North Chadderton limited greenbelt, for the purposes of building industrial units. There is strong opposition to the proposed plans amongst local residents, and although local councillors are accountable to residents, they repeatedly fail to engage with the local community on this matter.
Can the North Chadderton members explain and justify why they have taken the decision to remove North Chadderton greenbelt for the purposes of building unnecessary industrial units. Their answer should make specific response to the following points:
· There is no evidence of demand for industrial units in this area, including that there is in excess of a 50% vacancy rate at the Stakehill and Kingsway Business Parks, which are in very close proximity to the proposed site.
· Oldham Council has failed to complete any analysis of projected demand for industrial units. They have also failed to suggest what might cause a change to the current situation, where there is considerable surplus of vacant industrial units, including those directly adjacent to the proposed site in North Chadderton.
· Oldham Council have failed to complete impact and risk assessments concerning the proposed North Chadderton development, and the proposed developments in the adjacent areas of North Oldham and Rochdale. There has been no analysis of the effects of the proposed developments on pollution, CO2 emissions, congestion, road safety, infrastructure, the health and well being of residents and further political and environment issues, etc.
· Councillors have determined that they only want to focus on removing the greenbelt in Chaddeton, Shaw and Royton. This is inequitable. Oldham Labour Council, including the North Chadderton Councillors, are demanding that only North West Oldham relinquishes the bulk of its greenbelt for industrial and housing development. Why are North Chadderton Councillors failing to challenge this inequity?
· If the need for industrial units in Oldham/along the M62 corridor is ever evidence, then the optimal site for any development of industrial units and new housing would be the far more suitable site at the Saddleworth Junction of the M62. Housing Officers’ have stated that the Saddleworth Junction/Denshaw site was dismissed at a very early stage of planning. They state that this was due to transport links. However, the reality is that this area is positioned directly adjacent to the motorway, there are local roads and bus routes to the area, and there is the option to include further transport development via the GMSF. Development here would greatly offset increased congestion and pollution in the already congested and polluted areas of Chadderton, Royton and Shaw. What stopped North Chadderton councillors from challenging the development of industrial units in Chadderton, in favour of the more suitable development site at the Saddleworth junction of the M62?
· Have North Chadderton councillors challenged the Council’s failure to adhere to Greenbelt policy in North Chadderton. Permission to utilise greenbelt for development requires ‘exceptional circumstances’, and has described here, this has not been proven for North Chadderton:
o There is no evidence of demand for the proposed industrial units in the North Chadderton area.
o There have been no assessments to analyse the expected, and considerable, negative impact for the local government and population.
o There has been no concern for the significant urban sprawl that would result in North West Oldham and the adjacent Rochdale wards. There will no longer be green spaces between towns.
Please ensure that response do not waste time referring to central government budgets, or the broader GMSF, as these are not relevant to my question. My question only concerns the councillor’s conduct and responses regarding omissions in local processes, and the decisions made by councillors and council officers at an OMBC level.”
Councillor Brownridge, Chadderton North Councillor, responded that that a decision had not been taken to remove any type of land out of the green belt, but that it was part of the GMSF consultation process. There was an obligation to provide land for employment purposes and residential purposes. Planning had produced a draft for public consultation. A final draft would then be produced for public examination which will have be justified and subject to discussion. This would be a 30-year strategy. Vacant units were no longer relevant. It was known that Chadderton had lost good quality developments as the sites were not available. Councillor Brownridge referred to the Stakehill site which was tired and past its sell by date. Remodelling of sites could not happen overnight. The fact was that the Greater Manchester economy was skewed to the south. The north of the region had been disadvantaged with no great development people could not access jobs. There were concerns about pollution. The Council wanted to identify the creation of opportunities for other parts of the borough and capitalise on the M62 network. Saddleworth was not appropriate, it was difficult to get to Saddleworth. The GMS was only draft consultation at this stage and no one had made a decision at this time.
2. Questions received from Ms. Tracy Woodward:
“Do you feel that OMBC have complied with the Statement of Community Engagement in ensuring that as many residents as possible in Chadderton are aware of and know how to respond to the proposals? Can you give details of how they achieved this compliance?”
Councillor Shuttleworth, Chair of the District Executive, responded that Paragraph 4.37 of the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (adopted March 2016) set the minimum requirements for consultation on Local Plan documents. These were as follows:
a. Public notice which outlined details of the Local Plan will be published.
b. Press release with details of the Local Plan document will be issued.
c. The Local Plan document will be published on the Council’s website.
d. The Local Plan document will be made available at public libraries.
e. The Local Plan document will be made available at the Council’s Principal Offices, i.e. Planning Reception.
f. The Local Plan document will be sent to all relevant Statutory Consultees electronically.
g. All Oldham Council Councillors will be sent a copy of the Local Plan document electronically.
h. The Oldham Partnership will be sent a copy of the Local Plan document electronically.
i. A letter or email will be sent to those relevant parties on the Local Plan mailing list, or those that have expressed a particular interest, which explained that the Local Plan document was available for consultation.
These minimum requirements were also set out in the Draft SCI which had recently been out for consultation. Together, Oldham Council and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority have met these minimum requirements.
Paragraph 4.38 and Table 1 of the SCI then go on to set out other consultation techniques that the Council may make use of over and above this minimum, if appropriate and resources permitted. This included focus groups and public meetings. The Council, as part of the consultation on the GMSF, have held 11 drop-in sessions across the borough. These have provided an opportunity for people to view the document and to talk to planners about the proposals. The Council had also publicised the GMSF and consultation sessions through social media and leaflets had been distributed via the District Co-ordinators.
Chapter 6 of the SCI also set out how the community and other stakeholders would be involved in the preparation of the GMSF.
Both the SCI March 2016 and the Draft SCI 2018 were available to view on the Council’s website at https://www.oldham.gov.uk/info/200709/documents_in_the_local_development_framework/253/statement_of_community_involvement
3. Question received from Ms. Tracy Woodward:
“Can you give details of how the current ‘Brownfield Sites Register’ has been used to inform the decision to use Greenbelt in North Chadderton for employment / industrial space?”
Councillor Shuttleworth, Chair of the District Executive, responded that the Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017 required local authorities to prepare, maintain and publish a register of brownfield land. The register should identify previously developed sites in the borough that were considered to be appropriate for residential development having regard to the criteria set out in Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017.
The Brownfield Register is therefore a subset of, and has helped to inform, the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The SHLAA forms a key component of the evidence base which underpinned housing policies and land allocations in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) and Oldham’s Local Plan. It identified the development potential of land that could be capable of delivering dwellings through an assessment of suitability, availability and achievability and indicates when it may come forward for development.
Both the current SHLAA and Brownfield Register, which were as at 1 April 2018, were available to view on the Council’s website at: http://www.oldham.gov.uk/info/200709/documents_in_the_local_plan.
4. In the revised GMSF, para 6.28 states the supply of warehousing is to be considerably higher than the requirements. Given that greenbelt is to be lost in order to build an over-supply of warehousing (i.e. empty), do the councillors agree with this proposal?”
Councillor Shuttleworth, Chair of the District Executive responded that paragraph 6.28 set out that the GMSF made provision for an industrial and warehousing supply considerably higher than the overall development requirement, reflecting the need to compete internationally for investment and provide sufficient choice and flexibility to respond to the varied needs of different businesses. Oldham’s economy had failed to benefit fully from growth at a Greater Manchester level, in many ways which included the number of business start-ups, wages and skills, therefore, there was a need to plan for future employment needs so that Oldham became a key economic contributor within the sub-region and could balance the economy. Oldham needed to retain its skills young people by having jobs that encouraged them to live and work in the borough rather than relocating elsewhere for employment opportunities.
In order to achieve this, sites were need that were attractive and suitable to key sectors. Priority sectors in the growth of Oldham’s economy were expected to include: construction, health and social care, digital industries, business and professional services, logistics and some sub-sectors of the manufacturing sector. Many existing employment sites in the borough did not meet the modern locational or premises requirements of these priority sectors, whether it was access arrangements, neighbouring uses or generally not being fit for modern businesses to operate from. Indeed, Oldham was losing key employers in the borough to other areas as the requirements of those employers were not be met by Oldham’s employment sites.
As part of the GMSF the Council wanted to grow Oldham’s economy and provide good quality jobs, to do this the Council was allocating sites for employment purposes that would be attractive to the market due to their scale, location and accessibility. In doing so, the Council will rebalance Oldham’s economy, increasing the competitiveness and providing good quality jobs for residents. It was therefore important that the Council was able to provide sufficient choice and flexibility for a range of opportunities for future employment development.
RESOLVED that the questions and responses provided be noted.