Back to News
Local Government & Planning

Government rejects council’s request to withdraw from PfE

The UK government has rejected Oldham's request to withdraw from the Greater Manchester housing plan, Places for Everyone (PfE), citing no justification for the withdrawal. The plan aims to build 11,500 homes in Oldham, raising concerns over greenbelt land loss.

Oldham will remain part of Greater Manchester’s controversial Places for Everyone housing plan after the government rejected the council’s bid to withdraw from the scheme.

Housing minister Matthew Pennycook delivered the decision in a letter published Tuesday on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government website, stating there was “no justification” for Oldham to exit the agreement that will bring 11,500 new homes to the borough.

The rejection follows a narrow vote by opposition councillors at an extraordinary council meeting on February 12, where 31 of 60 councillors supported withdrawal amid concerns over greenbelt development. The scheme targets nine Greater Manchester boroughs for tens of thousands of new homes, with development planned for Beal Valley, Bottom Field Farm, Broadbent Moss, south of Coal Pit Lane, and south of Rosary Road.

“On the basis of the information you have provided, I have determined not to use the Secretary of State’s discretionary powers to approve your requested revocation of Oldham’s sections of PfE,” Pennycook wrote on behalf of Secretary of State Angela Rayner. “PfE is an example of authorities doing the right thing - adopting a robust local plan only a year ago, which reflects strong cooperation between authorities across the plan area, including cross-boundary allocations such as the Stakehill site that Oldham shares with a neighbouring authority.”

The minister emphasized the government’s push for “universal local plan coverage as quickly as possible,” noting that Oldham had already voted to join PfE in 2024. The council is now developing an additional “complimentary” local plan to establish planning priorities beyond the Places for Everyone framework, which could include protections for green spaces.


Source: Read original article

Read Next