Agenda item

(time limit 15 Minutes)

To consider questions submitted by members of the public.

1.    Question from Shona Farnworth

What are the plans for accessible homes for those with visible and non- visible disabilities as we the public do not know what the plans are around the lack of accessible homes stock within the council as the Tommyfield market should become this space?

 

Councillor Taylor, Statutory Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Decent Homes repliedthanking Ms Farnworth for her question, noting that all newly constructed dwellings have to be built to the ‘accessible and adaptable’ standards by law, so new homes being built will be easier to adapt for use by those with visible and non-visible disabilities.

The Council’s Local Plan is in the final stages of development and may include further planning policies to provide homes specifically for those with disabilities, and we would welcome input and suggestions on how this could be done as we progress through the final stages on consultation.

Councillor Taylor undertook to email Ms Farnworth about her specific ideas and suggestions so we can review them as part of this ongoing work.

 

2.    Question from Lewis Farnworth

What Support for Full time unpaid carers as the government budget left out full time unpaid carers living on £81.90 for 90+ hours a week care we provide as we are struggling. We have to choose whether to pay bills or eat?

Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Health, Social care and Wellbeing replied, thanking Mr Farnworth for his question, adding that the Council has a strong commitment to carers to support them in their caring role.

We have put together a comprehensive package of support to make sure that no Oldhamer goes hungry or cold this Winter. We have used Household Support Funding from the Government to bolster our offer. This includes funding our Warm Homes Team to provide emergency fuel vouchers for pre-paid meters and to provide advice and guidance on reducing energy consumption. We have also invested in emergency supermarket vouchers to support residents to purchase food and essential items as well as funding Oldham Foodbank to maintain stock levels.

We will contact Mr Farnworth and offer support for schemes that he is eligible for this winter.

Additional support for carers includes support from the carers service who are able to complete an updated Carers assessment.  An option to contact Adult Social Care for the cared for to request or a reassessment if it is felt this appropriate

It is also advisable to contact Age UK/ Citizens Advice Bureau/DWP to check you are on the right benefits and if there are any additional support services you can approach. 

However I reiterate our message of support this winter, please don’t hesitate to call our Helpline on 0161 770 7007.

 

3.    Question from Phillida Ship

Can the Cabinet Member for Decent Homes explain what the process would be for developing a new Local Plan if Oldham withdraws from Places for Everyone?

How long would it take from starting the process again to the adoption of a Plan and how much would it cost?

What restraints would there be on developers applying to build on Green Belt and Local Green Spaces while the Local Plan is being drawn up.

 

Councillor Taylor, Statutory Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Decent Homes replied thanking Phillida Ship for her question.

If Places for Everyone was revoked for Oldham, the Council would need to start a brand-new Local Plan which could need to include the new higher housing and employment targets set by Government.

This new approach would involve several stages of public consultation starting with a fresh call for sites and a review of the Green Belt, because there is not enough brownfield land available to meet the new requirements.  We would need to consult on the options and opportunities, then again on the draft plan, and then again on the final plan before submission for examination and adoption.

Overall, this process would likely last a minimum of 5 years depending on the feedback and engagement from the different consultation stages.

With regards to the costs for producing a new plan – this would be in the region of about £500,000 (five hundred thousand pounds / half a million pounds) for the evidence base and examination, with additional costs for officer time over this time period.

In the meantime, without PfE, the council would not be able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and so even Green Belt and local green spaces would potentially be vulnerable to applications for housing development if they demonstrate that they are sustainable.

 

4.    Question from Mike Rooke

I read in the Mill that Cllr Sykes in justifying his support for withdrawing from Places for Everyone said “I'd like to think we have all these people sitting on the boundary of Oldham waiting for this to happen… But we haven't. If we were in a place where we had plenty of developers and planning applications, I'd be a lot more worried.”

Can the Cabinet Member for Decent Homes confirm which developers made representations at the Planning Enquiry seeking to get sites currently protected from development included or extended?

 

Councillor Taylor, Statutory Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Decent Homes replied thanking Mike Rooke for his question.

Be in no doubt - big developers are licking their lips at the thought of Oldham being out of PfE.

There is prime greenbelt across Oldham that could be developed at the click of the fingers, with no consideration of proper infrastructure which we could be powerless to prevent.

What is happening in Liberal Democrat Stockport is simply a glimmer of what could happen in Oldham where there is so much more green space that is easy to develop without the protection of PfE.

The developers aren’t keeping this secret as you can see their responses to planning inquiry for Places for Everyone.

 

5.    Question from Hannah Roberts

Everyone agrees that the priorities for Oldham are to build on previously developed land – Brownfield sites – and increase the numbers of affordable and social homes. Oldham Council has increased the number of brownfield sites in the Town Centre and by adopting the Mills Strategy.

Are there other brownfield sites that haven’t already been identified and included in the SHLAA and Places for Everyone?

And what is the projected land supply over the next 10 years compared with the revised housing targets?

Where will these homes be built if brownfield sites don’t exist?

 

Councillor Taylor, Statutory Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Decent Homes replied thanking Hannah Roberts for her question.

Every year the council updates the following documents - the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), the Brownfield Land Register and the Housing Land Supply - to ensure that they reflect the most up to date position and feedback from landowners, developers and agents.

As part of this process, new sites may be added if they are considered deliverable and developable, including those submitted through the council’s open Call for Sites. Including numerous calls for brownfield sites to be put forward during the many rounds of consultation for Places for Everyone, and no sites were put forward by those who are incorrectly claiming we can meet our targets without building on the greenbelt.

As of 1 April 2024, there was land to accommodate approximately 8,230 homes over the next 10 years (including greenfield sites).  This figure drops to only 6,048 homes when including sites that are brownfield (or part brownfield).

The Government adopted a new standard method for calculating housing requirements last week, and these would require Oldham to deliver 910 homes a year, which equates to 9,100 homes over ten years.  This is significantly higher than the average annual requirement under Places for Everyone (680 homes a year).

As both the adopted Places for Everyone housing requirement and the Government’s new housing requirement cannot be met on deliverable and developable brownfield sites alone, Oldham has to enable development on greenfield sites as well to ensure there is enough housing for all, and there would be increased pressure on our protected open spaces and Green Belt land under the new housing requirement.

 

6.    Question from Dominic Wall

Can the Cabinet Member for Decent Homes estimate the cost to Oldham of turning down planning applications for housing which are later approved at appeal?  Is it possible to say, for example, what the cost to the Council would be of turning down an application to build on Hanging Chadder which was later approved at appeal?

 

Councillor Taylor, Statutory Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Decent Homes replied thanking Dominic Wall for his question.

It is not possible to accurately estimate what appeal costs may be, as each planning application is different and the application for costs by an appellant will vary depending on the specific matters covered in an appeal and whether the appeal is heard by a Public Inquiry or not.

However, where an application involves a large housing development, and the appeal is held through a public inquiry, it would be expected that appeal costs would usually involve six figure sums (hundreds of thousands of pounds) if the appeal is upheld (and the Council decision is overturned) and the costs are awarded against the Council.

 

7.    Question from Kathryn Phillips

Can the Cabinet Member for Decent Homes confirm what would happen to the 97.5% of Oldham’s Greenbelt currently protected by Places for Everyone if Oldham withdraws from the plan?

 

Councillor Taylor, Statutory Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Decent Homes replied thanking Kathryn Phillips for her question.

Currently 97.5% of our beautiful greenbelt land is protected under PfE. If we withdraw, all of it is under threat. We can see what is happening in Stockport - our land is so much better here in Oldham and developers are licking their lips at the chance to build build build.

The protection is lost because it means we wouldn’t have an up-to-date development plan and we would need to create a new one. This would take a minimum of five years.

In the meantime we would be expected to deliver more homes than what is under Places for Everyone due to the protection as explained in an earlier question – putting even more greenbelt at risk.

 

8.    Question from Diane Wrall

Could the relevant cabinet member please tell me why even if people object to large masts being put in certain locations, the permitted developments still ride rough shod over residents’ voices in this borough?

Also why is it that officers of this council who apparently work for us and the borough, quite happily have weekly meetings with IX, but feel that it isn't necessary or want to meet with residents who are rightly concerned about this issue and about IX acting as has been found out in the past in contravention to Health and Safety laws?

 

Councillor Taylor, Statutory Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Decent Homes replied thanking Diane Wrall for her question.

This is a complicated area of planning law, but essentially our hands are tied as – in summary – the national rules about these permitted development rights means that there are only very specific circumstances where we can intervene.

All of the details on this are on our website if you want to understand the technicalities of this.

What we absolutely have done is to ensure that where IX Wireless have been doing things which are unsafe we have suspended their work until they make it right.

With regards to meetings with residents, this does happen as both Officers and Councillors have met with various local residents when it has been needed.  Officers and Councillors also engage extensively on email with residents. We acknowledge the local frustrations and concerns being raised, and to try explain where we can do so.

 

9.    Question from Peter Webb

I would like to ask the relevant cabinet member the following question,

Back in May 2024, I voted for my local Labour councillor based on the promise made in a leaflet distributed to residents of North Chadderton. 

The leaflet stated that £50,000 would be allocated for road safety improvements around St. Herbert’s School and the cemetery on Middleton Road. 

It has now been six months since the councillor's re-election, and residents, including parents, have yet to hear any updates on these plans. 

Could you please confirm if any progress has been made or if there are concrete plans to follow through on this commitment? 

Or was this simply a pre-election promise with no intention of being fulfilled? 

Additionally, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and commend St. Herbert’s School for their proactive efforts in keeping children safe in the absence of these promised improvements. Would the council join me in congratulating the school for their initiative?

 

Councillor Goodwin, Cabinet Member for Don’t Trash Oldham replied, thanking Mr Webb for his question.

Taking your points in reverse order, many thanks for commending the work being undertaken by St Herbert’s School, which of course the Council will endorse.

I can confirm that progress is being made to review the road safety concerns around this school.  Council officers have been communicating with Ward Members and St Herbert’s School directly on the various options available to tackle the concerns being raised.

Officers are currently developing the details of the road safety scheme and public consultation on the proposals will commence early in the new year.

We will ensure there is an update provided to parents via the school newsletter and can I ask Ward members to assist with ensuring local residents are kept informed of progress please.

 

The Deputy Mayor advised that the unanswered questions, that had been submitted, would be published to the Council’s website, with written answers, in due course.