Bury council has confirmed it will press ahead with plans to dispose of Milton Meadow, a community green space in Radcliffe, to make way for a pupil referral school, even after admitting the original decision was based on a 'flawed' and 'undercooked' report.
The authority's cabinet initially opted last month to dispose of the land off Milton Road for a school that could cater for 136 children. The facility would be a non-mainstream setting for pupils with additional educational and behavioural needs. The council said it was bound by a legal agreement with a local school trust to build the facility by 2028, and it does not believe there is an appropriate alternative site.
Objections Overlooked in Original Report
The decision was called in for scrutiny by Radcliffe First councillors Judi Sheppard and Carol Birchmore after they discovered the report on which the cabinet based its ruling was missing 28 of the 48 objections lodged by residents.
Those objections raised concerns including the loss of open space, crime, safety, traffic, and the impact on residents without gardens. Volunteers have spent 'hundreds of hours' transforming the land over recent years, clearing it, trimming hedges and planting flowers, with the aim of turning it into an 'oasis' in the middle of what has been described as a 'very depressing estate'.
Scrutiny and Cabinet Reconsideration
At a scrutiny meeting last week, cabinet member for finance Sean Thorpe labelled the report 'flawed' and 'undercooked', admitting it contained 'significant omissions'. Members of the overview scrutiny committee told Labour leaders to look again at the decision while taking into account the missed objections. They also demanded a review of consultation processes to ensure responses are dealt with 'appropriately' and that the failings are not repeated.
The following evening, the cabinet reconsidered the proposals before ultimately opting to reconfirm the original ruling that the land should be disposed of for the new school.
Addressing the cabinet, Coun Birchmore said she felt the system had 'failed' the residents who spoke against the plans. She added: "If people take the time and effort to engage on an issue, even if they maybe do so in disagreement with our recommendations, their voice has to be heard."
Making his recommendation to the cabinet, Coun Thorpe said: "It was discovered that 28 objections submitted by local residents had not been included in the report, which we concluded meant that the original decision was flawed [...] The decision required tonight, therefore, in the light of this information, including the overview and scrutiny recommendations, is whether to proceed with the original decision."
He added: "The decision centres on weighing the loss of amenity for local people, weighed against the benefit of the wider community in terms of a potential end-use that would still have to go through a number of checks and balances, including the planning process, prior to implementation."
Coun Thorpe also said: "It's disappointing and unfortunate that the original errors were made, particularly given the sensitivity of the situation whereby people are seeing something that they value being potentially taken away from them. Those voices should always be heard in weighing decisions."
His recommendation was to proceed with the decision based on weighing the local objection against the clear benefit for the broader community, noting that mitigation could be brought forward to help communities stay involved and retain some ownership over parts of the field, as well as to enhance areas that are 'a little bit tired' at the moment. The cabinet ultimately reconfirmed the original ruling.
