Marple Pool and other matters
Marple Lib Dems
News and comments making Marple a better place to live, work and play Learn more
August news from Marple Lib Dems
Some coronavirus information (6th January 2021)
Marple Pool and other matters
August news from Marple Lib Dems
Some coronavirus information (6th January 2021)
GMSF and planning in Stockport
by Geoff Abell on 21 October, 2016
Update – detailed map of High Lane area. (Thanks to some High Lane residents for this.)
Click here to download full file (note it’s 168Mb big) http://gmsf.objective.co.uk/ file/4216139
Consultation page for residents and others at –
The proposed GMSF (Greater Manchester Spatial Framework) plans have been published yesterday. This translates the need for housing locally into a plan. By 2035, Manchester will build 55,000 plots, mostly as flats. In Stockport the number is over 19,000.
The proposal is that this will be accommodated by 4 big plots: one by the A34 in Cheadle, 2 near Heald Green and a 4,000 plot near High Lane (see above – Stockport is bottom right). There is also an expansion proposed to the Bredbury Industrial Park to allow for the increase in business needs.
Make no mistake, after decades of decline, Greater Manchester is expanding (as business comes North) and we need to take account of this. If we in Stockport do not have a plan, the government will impose one on us. But the site near High Lane is on Green Belt, a concept designed in 1947 to stop urban sprawl, and the proposal is to reduce Green Belt from 46% in total on Stockport land to 43%.
Officers have informed us that these figures are derived from projected growth (derived from the Office for National Statistics) along with a planning requirement called the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN). But these are big numbers, require big infrastructure support and proper planning.
Brownfield sites still exist; we should and must use them first. But some town planners and developers say we still don’t have enough space.
The government, currently Conservative, are controversially pushing ahead with other Green Belt developments in this country. In April, Greg Clark (Communities Secretary) approved 1,500 houses in Perrybrook near Gloucester in a landmark decision under similar circumstances.
The local Lib Dem councillor, Cllr Sue Ingham, said she understood the need for more housing, but “we are vehemently opposed to development in the green belt. High Lane and Marple have a unique rural character which would be destroyed if the green belt were encroached upon”.
This currently only a proposal and will very soon be open to consultation for 8 weeks from the public. (31 Oct until Christmas) So far only the areas and numbers have been proposed.
These are Greater Manchester wide plans.
We will keep you up-to-date with any developments.
In the meanwhile, please let us know what you think, by commenting or emailing us.
GMSF site https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/gmsf
Stockport GMSF http://www.stockport.gov.uk/gmsf
Manchester Evening News article http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-green-belt-gmsf-12053737
This is important – please let us know your views.
30 Comments
They could build on Stockport Golf Club’s land without spoiling our enjoyment of the Green Belt!
I am very much opposed to any building on green belt. Marple and High Lane are congested enough with traffic and cannot support more commuters.
I support Counsellor Sue Ingham’s statement. Before Greenbelt land is encroached upon it is my view that Brown field sites should be identified , cleaned up if necessary and used to develop housing and communities to breathe back life into areas laid waste by declined industry.
An ever increasing population need more houses. The last 30 years has seen all governments neglect their responsibility in the housebuilding sector. Provided green belt development is not given priority over brownfield site development I think we have to bite the bullet and build.
However more houses MUST come after improved and extended transport infrastructure development. Travelling in and out of Marple and High Lane during the rush hour(s) is horrific! An expanded, more efficient public transport network is a prerequisite to any large scale building program in order to accommodate the additional population.
This is one of the many passionate and rational comments we’ve got within hours of posting the article. I personally cannot disagree with a single point made so far. We will take these back and use them in our challenge to these proposals. Please keep them coming.
I totally agree with David Skelly and others who have raised the issue of greenbelt sites and traffic congestion. Brownfield sites should always be used in the first instance. Mr Skelly is right in saying that Marple cannot accommodate more housing until the extreme traffic problems have been addressed. Travelling in and out of Marple is horrific, and the so-called rush hour is now almost day-long!
Unfortunately the issue of a second supermarket appears to have been shelved – the present situation does not appear to suit local needs and this further adds to road congestion.
Wherever building takes place, we MUST have the infrastructure to go with it, whether better roads, more stations or new schools.
Like you I strongly object to development on Green Belt land. The rural feel of Marple and High Lane is its most appealing feature. Developers will always choose Green Belt sites over Brown Field, and we should strongly challenge any supposed claims that there is no alternative to further concreting over our countryside.
Whereabouts exactly is the “4000 plot near High Lane”
I will aim to get a more detailed map, but it extends from the A6 and Threaphurst Lane in a northwards direction.
This is a major problem which our political leaders, local and national WILL NOT FACE! In truth, there is absolutely no need to attack the GREEN BELT – there is more than enough brown belt land available but for one reason or another it is ignored. The local and national politicians should concentrate on using all that land first. Once that has been done, people may be more willing to accept the use of green belt land BUT NOT NOW!
I asked the Council about why not build on brown field first at one of their consultation events last night. They said they were doing and the consultation GMSF is very clear on that but only very limited brown field in Stockport – it is all very well saying build on brown field first but nobody says where the brown field land for building 12100 houses on is that isn’t already being used for other things.
Even if we build on all available brownfield sites, our planning officers say that only accounts for some 70% of the housing need until 2035. In addition, from 2017, the government are withdrawing the grant to clean up contaminated sites. And in any case, the usual big developers prefer not to use odd-shaped pre-built sites.
Where are the brownfields? Goyt Mill in Hawk Green is still massively under utilised. The canal side in Marple is a smaller area where smaller houses can be sited. But as I said this won’t produce the numbers.
If you look across GM, many councils are proposing sites near motorways, which has poor environmental factors: noise, air quality, etc. At least Stockport aren’t proposing that.
“The usual big developers prefer not to use odd-shaped pre-built sites.” – Oh really? Tough!
The argument about a housing shortage is ridiculous. The people who are really in need of good housing will be unable to afford houses on the new developments even if the developers build “affordable” housing. The affordable housing rule is, in itself, a farce – developers can easily wriggle out of providing it.
It’s about time Stockport council stopped shilly-shallying around and told these developers what they can do rather letting the developers strong-arm the council.
I’m sure many of us remember the Paulson scandal which broke in the early 1970s……
I need more info on the plan .We are desperate for housing but green spaces also need protecting
For me the pivotal issue is the provision of social housing in the borough in particular small accommodation, studio or bedsit. Homelessness unit are saying to customers that Stockport has essentially no property in this range, though it has homeless people in the borough. The number of points achievable unless you are a priority homeless person is likely to be about 135. This will offer them very little chance of housing even in the areas of Brinnington, Cheadle Heath, Lancashire Hill and Adswood which are the areas recommended by the homelessness team to bid if you are in the 130-140 point range. As far as I can see from current legislation for homelessness if we do not increase this sort of property then we will see an increase in tension between immigrant and non-immigrant communities. There have already been very worrying incidents of abuse of not just immigrants but anyone who is seen to be assisting them. You have also the problem of smaller houses for younger couples and suitable housing for our older citizens in Marple who need to downsize but also need to remain in the community they are most at home. If these needs can be met without sacrificing the Greenbelt then I will cheer but if the Greenbelt is to be sacrificed without social housing I think I’ll be going back to my placard waving days. Greenbelt is not sacrosanct but to me people chances in life are.
The building of new housing should clearly use brown field sites. This would provide the required new housing and also improve the environment by cleaning up what would otherwise turn into ‘waste ground’. There should also be adequate provision for services (shops, schools etc) and ready access to public transport (railways, bus routes) to avoid even further traffic congestion. Building on green field sites is simply a lazy ruse to allow short-term gain (ie optimising profit) and is environmentally unacceptable.
It is true that big developers that do big plots prefer non-brownfield sites, but there are other developers. The problem with brownfield is the awkwardly sized sites and any possible clean-up costs, and that is why I think we need extra funding to incentivize such redevelopment.
In addition, we need in Stockport an extra 12,100 dwellings in addition to the estimated 7,200 likely to be built. This is approx. 965 per year. over double the rate in the last ten years. Brownfield can only provide about 2/3 of that.
Like many of the other respondents, I think it is important to build on Brownfield sites first. We do need extra housing but our “Green and pleasant land” is a wonderful feature of our country which should not be sacrificed until all other options have been explored. We need careful long term planning. For example, many schools were closed because of the falling birth rate and not so long afterwards there was a shortage of school places in many of these areas because of more families coming into the country. Housing, schools, doctors, roads – everything needs looking at as a whole otherwise chaos ensues. But lets preserve our green belt and only use it as a very last resort.
I’m surprised at the generally stance on the prospect of building new homes in the area – which to be accurate appears to be more of an extension of Hazel Grove out towards Threaphurst Lane.
Like it or not the population of the UK will continue to grow and people need somewhere to call home.
Fixing the size of towns & villages within current boundaries is an arbitrary and selfish position to adopt, not to mention hypocritical – presumably most objectors have no issue with the fact that their own house was once a green field site!
It’s widely accepted that there is a massive housing problem in this country and although politicians have talked a good game over the years (decades?) they’ve singularly failed to address it.
The housing stock simply isn’t enough big enough, demand outstrips supply. Shortage of supply means the cost of most houses is out of reach of first time buyers looking to get on the housing ladder.
In short we need to build a lot more houses.
I fully support the proposals to build more houses in the area for three reasons;
i) It would help to alleviate the chronic housing shortage
ii) More people in the area would be a massive boost to local businesses
iii) More homes would mean extra income for SMBC via council tax
The timescale of the proposed development is ludicrous – by 2035! We need this development now.
The only negative I can see in the proposal would be if the new housing developments were not supported by proper infrastructure – by which I mean decent roads with proper provision for cars as well as public transport. That infrastructure will be under the control of local politicians and their track record (no pun intended) is not good as a glance at the state of existing roads will bear witness so they’d need to up their game.
I advocate building on brown fields sites but there will come a time when they are all full of housing. As long as the population expands more land will be built on until there is none left…..and then what will we do? We’ll fight each other for it. We already do that with oil. The sustainable long term solution is to stabilise the population or even reduce it. Less people means less demand for resources like housing and land to build on. Business won’t like that because less people means less consumers to buy their products. Smaller economies of scale mean prices will increase but we’ll have a better quality of life at the cost of standard of living because we won’t need to build on the green belt.
We are never going to reach any targets for more houses if people persist in the NIMBY approach, which the Not on Green Belt land objection seems to suggest. The new era in the UK needs bold thinking and previously entrenched attitudes need to change.
Travel by train from Manchester to London and you see miles and miles and acres and acres of empty land, which suggests that our country is not overcrowded. Let us use some of it.
Are these 4000 dwellings single occupancy (hence childless) and for people without cars?
If only 75% have jobs outside the local area there could be up to 3000 cars a day added to the A6 and A626 through Marple that double as car parks from 7 am – 9 am (plus return journeys from 4 pm to 7 pm). The car parks at Marple & Rose Hill railway stations are already full so no help there,
Irrespective of how many occupants the proposed homes are intended to support, there would not be a condition of celibacy attached so there will children, probably significantly exceeding the expectations of the planners. Where will they go to school, swim, play sport etc? So it is not just building 4000 homes, there is the question of what else has to be added to and taken from the area in order to support the occupants of 4000 homes.
It is not enough to say that the population is growing and people need somewhere to be housed so let’s build houses – people actually need to live a life.
I agree – transport, schools, GPs etc need to be provided and plans in place before development. If indeed we need this development at such a place and in such a size.
Developing brownfield sites is the sensible approach. Stockport should have examined its plans to build the new complex on the town centre park next to the motorway. So many empty shops can be seen in Stocjkport already. This area could have been used solely for extra housing.
We have been told by planning officers that brownfield sites would only give us 70% of the need.
The problem for me is that if you give developers the chance, they will develop on virgin greenfield before brownfield, and under current law you cannot force one before the other. I believe we should change that; we are not the only authority with this threat!
not in greenbelt ever
Lazy thinking on behalf of the planners in my opinion. Use Brownfield for the 2/3rds and then use Greenbelt if necessary for the remaining 1300 properties but not 4000. 4000 home’s equals 8000 cars (on average) and a further 12000 people. To put some scale on things, the old Woodford aerodrome site will have 900 houses on it and that’s a big site. High Lane and Marple will not cope. I object to the plans, Marple will be changed (for the worse) forever.
With my wife and young family, I had the pleasure of moving to Romiley two years ago. Romiley is my wife’s home town/village and we wish to move back closer to her parents. It took us 3 years to find a property that was of a moderate size that could accommodate us. So little was on the market and those properties that did come to the market that were suitable shifted in days. We were gazumped on 3 occasions and when we did find a property we had to pay £25k over the asking price to secure it. No new homes where being built at the time and no where near enough family homes have been built in the Stockport area for the last 10 years. It is all very well saying ‘save the Green Belt’ but people need places to live that are in sustainable locations. Romiley is just that. It has an excellent train service, all the shops you could need on a regular basis, schools, parks, etc but I note not one new home is being proposed in the village through this plan. Why? Ultimately, I would like my children to have the option to stay in the village if they wanted to. There is no way they will be able to afford one if we continue to build nothing. If that means releasing a few fields, which most existing homes would have once utilised, so be it.
Your comments make a lot of sense.