Cole and Fox Interior Design Marple | Romiley | Stockport

Author Topic: SEMMMS Refresh (Part 1) – Public Consultation on Stockport Transport Issues  (Read 9539 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

andrewbowden

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
"In the next 20 years we need 227,200 homes"

this figure depends on who you ask

That figure comes from the draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.

jimblob

  • Guest
"In the next 20 years we need 227,200 homes"

this figure depends on who you ask

amazon

  • Guest
Perhaps you can offer some alternative solutions rather than criticising other people's ideas?
Yes the bredbury by pass for one .

amazon

  • Guest
I'm not entirely sure how you square this circle.  There are multiple problems with building housing near where people work.

I speak - and can only really speak - as an office worker.  I actually work from home, although if I did work from my employer's local office then I'd be working in Salford Quays.  I could live in Salford Quays - be right near the office.  But I have a young family and who wants to bring up a young family in an area with no decent sized supermarket, few schools, doctors etc.  Yet alone lack of having any outdoor space.  It's right for some - I know people who live out there - but it's not right for everyone.  So where do I live to be near that office that gives me the lifestyle I want?

And what happens if and when I move job?  People move jobs, no matter what they do.  The job for life doesn't exist any more.  Companies go grow, shrink, go bust.  They relocate.  Twice in my career I have been working in jobs where the employer makes a major move of its offices.  Both organisations moved to offices eight or nine miles away from their previous one.  The second employer was months away from another (less drastic) move before I left. 

Companies move for all sorts of reasons.  To consolidate their locations.  To gain bigger - or smaller - premises.  To get people to work for it.   Although I work from home, most of my team are based in West London.  We struggle to hire people because of the location.  It's a pain in the backside to commute.  One of my previous employers moved from West London to Central London for exactly that reason.  It was easier to fill vacancies.  Said company went to the extent of moving its UK HQ from Slough to Central London because it couldn't get the staff.  Not enough people wanted to work - or commute to - Slough.  Lots of people would commute to Central London.

Just think of all those people who did live in Slough.  Who had - perhaps - moved to be near their employer.  I'm talking office work here, but factories relocate.  Warehouses do.  It can happen in any role.

Another factor we haven't even got close to is that when people are in a relationship, it's common for both to work.  The days when the husband was the breadwinner whilst the wife stayed at home and cleaned/looked after the children are gone.  What do we do when couples work in completely different locations.  I've never worked that close to where my partner works.

Building houses near where people work seems like a sensible idea.  But it's one fraught with problems on a practical level.  And that's why commuting happens.  What we need are better commuting links because it's always going to be needed.


Incidentally, this seems a good point to mention why places like High Lane are likely targets for housing.  There is land there.  Every politician worth their salt shouts "BUILD ON BROWNFIELD FIRST!" because it's what the electorate want to hear.  But what happens when the brownfield land potentially available to build housing on, will provide less than 50% of the housing you need.

Welcome to Greater Manchester's problem.  In the next 20 years we need 227,200 homes.  The brownfield sites identified as having options for building?  That will provide 100,000 homes if all built on. 
https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/brownfield-register-only-meets-50-of-housing-need-says-barton-willmore/

Of course the more brownfield sites we build on, the less land we have in towns for business where people can work... 

Perhaps if we all suddenly stopped wanting box houses with a garden and all moved to apartment blocks instead, it could work.    But somehow I don't see that happening either.
Exelent article .

Newbie1

  • Guest
With regards to brownfield sites and infill housing developments, I think far more could and should be done to ensure that these developments meet housing needs.

 Take the development opposite me on Manor Road as an example.  One house has been demolished to create 7 new houses, so a net gain of 6 homes from this site in Stockport.  However, the prices for these homes start at £400k.  Anyone who can afford to buy a £400k home doesn't have a housing problem.  I also suspect that the homes on this development are likely to appeal to couples downsizing, rather than young families moving up the housing ladder which might free up starter homes for first time buyers. 

My fear for the future is that we will end up with roads and housing developments all over the Greenbelt and we will still have housing and traffic problems at the end of all the destruction.

andrewbowden

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
That's a good analysis @andrewbowden I also work from home and everything I do is done via my broadband connection. When I have to travel to see my customers I go to the airport or the railway. My office is in Warrington, but to get there for 9am I would need to leave at 7:30am and it also takes ninety minutes for the return journey. What's the point? Why would I waste 3 hours a day in the car when I can do exactly the same work by walking for fifteen seconds from my kitchen to my home office? For knowledge workers who collaborate across significant distances, then communications infrastructure is the most important thing.

The final estimated cost of HS2 will be £80b (yes...billion). I wish the government had allocated that money to running fibre broadband to every existing property in the country and then mandating every new property musty have the same. The increased communications capability would lead to significant improvements in technologies such as video conferencing and collaborative working. The savings from sticking huge amounts of carbon in the air from saved journeys and congestion on the road would be huge.

I have fibre broadband.  It's certainly noticeable that I have far fewer connection problems than some of my colleagues when they work from home!  It really should be the standard.

Equally as someone who spends a lot of time on trains to London, I wish we had HS2 now.  There are times when face to face contact is far better than video conferencing. But a day trip to London requires an early start, and a late finish.  The intercity railway network in Britain is appalling to many countries.  France, Germany, Spain, Japan, Switzerland, they're all way ahead of us on this.  In France the TGV network has destroyed most of the internal flights.  They're just not needed.

Incidentally the cost of HS2 is £56 billion.  £80 billion is a figure that's been bandied around a lot, but that's not the budget of HS2.  The 'missing' £24bn is things like enhancing tram links in Nottingham, and regeneration schemes around stations. 

Newbie1

  • Guest
@Howard you make an excellent point about improving communications which would enable more people to work from home and work collaboratively with colleagues.  (I read through Green Party policies prior to the election and your points are all in there somewhere!)

@andrewbowden I hear what you are saying.  There isn't an easy solution to the problem.  I'm not suggesting building executive detached houses with individual gardens in Salford Quays or the centre of Manchester.  I do think some new developments in these areas should be designed with families in mind.






Howard

  • Guest
That's a good analysis @andrewbowden I also work from home and everything I do is done via my broadband connection. When I have to travel to see my customers I go to the airport or the railway. My office is in Warrington, but to get there for 9am I would need to leave at 7:30am and it also takes ninety minutes for the return journey. What's the point? Why would I waste 3 hours a day in the car when I can do exactly the same work by walking for fifteen seconds from my kitchen to my home office? For knowledge workers who collaborate across significant distances, then communications infrastructure is the most important thing.

The final estimated cost of HS2 will be £80b (yes...billion). I wish the government had allocated that money to running fibre broadband to every existing property in the country and then mandating every new property musty have the same. The increased communications capability would lead to significant improvements in technologies such as video conferencing and collaborative working. The savings from sticking huge amounts of carbon in the air from saved journeys and congestion on the road would be huge.

andrewbowden

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
New housing developments also need to be built close to where people work.  New commuter villages such as the development proposed in High Lane are absolutely the wrong way to address the housing problems we face.

I'm not entirely sure how you square this circle.  There are multiple problems with building housing near where people work.

I speak - and can only really speak - as an office worker.  I actually work from home, although if I did work from my employer's local office then I'd be working in Salford Quays.  I could live in Salford Quays - be right near the office.  But I have a young family and who wants to bring up a young family in an area with no decent sized supermarket, few schools, doctors etc.  Yet alone lack of having any outdoor space.  It's right for some - I know people who live out there - but it's not right for everyone.  So where do I live to be near that office that gives me the lifestyle I want?

And what happens if and when I move job?  People move jobs, no matter what they do.  The job for life doesn't exist any more.  Companies go grow, shrink, go bust.  They relocate.  Twice in my career I have been working in jobs where the employer makes a major move of its offices.  Both organisations moved to offices eight or nine miles away from their previous one.  The second employer was months away from another (less drastic) move before I left. 

Companies move for all sorts of reasons.  To consolidate their locations.  To gain bigger - or smaller - premises.  To get people to work for it.   Although I work from home, most of my team are based in West London.  We struggle to hire people because of the location.  It's a pain in the backside to commute.  One of my previous employers moved from West London to Central London for exactly that reason.  It was easier to fill vacancies.  Said company went to the extent of moving its UK HQ from Slough to Central London because it couldn't get the staff.  Not enough people wanted to work - or commute to - Slough.  Lots of people would commute to Central London.

Just think of all those people who did live in Slough.  Who had - perhaps - moved to be near their employer.  I'm talking office work here, but factories relocate.  Warehouses do.  It can happen in any role.

Another factor we haven't even got close to is that when people are in a relationship, it's common for both to work.  The days when the husband was the breadwinner whilst the wife stayed at home and cleaned/looked after the children are gone.  What do we do when couples work in completely different locations.  I've never worked that close to where my partner works.

Building houses near where people work seems like a sensible idea.  But it's one fraught with problems on a practical level.  And that's why commuting happens.  What we need are better commuting links because it's always going to be needed.


Incidentally, this seems a good point to mention why places like High Lane are likely targets for housing.  There is land there.  Every politician worth their salt shouts "BUILD ON BROWNFIELD FIRST!" because it's what the electorate want to hear.  But what happens when the brownfield land potentially available to build housing on, will provide less than 50% of the housing you need.

Welcome to Greater Manchester's problem.  In the next 20 years we need 227,200 homes.  The brownfield sites identified as having options for building?  That will provide 100,000 homes if all built on. 
https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/brownfield-register-only-meets-50-of-housing-need-says-barton-willmore/

Of course the more brownfield sites we build on, the less land we have in towns for business where people can work... 

Perhaps if we all suddenly stopped wanting box houses with a garden and all moved to apartment blocks instead, it could work.    But somehow I don't see that happening either.

Howard

  • Guest
   Dream world

Perhaps you can offer some alternative solutions rather than criticising other people's ideas?

amazon

  • Guest
I think we have discussed this before... improve public transport, car share schemes, cycle and walking paths.  Basically reduce dependency upon car usage.   There are many excellent suggestions in the SEMMS refresh consultation.

New housing developments also need to be built close to where people work.  New commuter villages such as the development proposed in High Lane are absolutely the wrong way to address the housing problems we face.
   Dream world

Newbie1

  • Guest
I think we have discussed this before... improve public transport, car share schemes, cycle and walking paths.  Basically reduce dependency upon car usage.   There are many excellent suggestions in the SEMMS refresh consultation.

New housing developments also need to be built close to where people work.  New commuter villages such as the development proposed in High Lane are absolutely the wrong way to address the housing problems we face. 

amazon

  • Guest
@amazon you seem fixated upon bluebells since I mentioned the group walk along the route of the proposed bypass a while ago, which happens to be called the annual bluebell walk, as it happens in May when the bluebells are out.

Those of us who oppose the bypass do so for many reasons.  The bluebells are very low down on the list.

Roads lead to more traffic.  More traffic leads to increased air pollution and climate damage.  Increased air pollution leads to serious health problems which places even more demand upon our massively underfunded NHS.  I suspect that those most at risk from air pollution are likely to be poorer, and less likely to be able to pay for healthcare should this become necessary in the future when the NHS is totally destroyed.

There have been reports published recently which show how green spaces improve our health and mental well-being.  Here in Marple, we have an abundance of green spaces which aren't currently under threat as far as I know.  I don't think that people living closer to the route are as lucky.


The report says on p69 that traffic will increase if the A6-M60 bypass is built and a High Lane/Disley bypass will be needed to alleviate this.  I can see that this would facilitate the mass housing development in High Lane on the Greenbelt.  4000 extra homes in High Lane would then generate more traffic as those people are highly unlikely to be working in High Lane.  The benefits of the bypass would quickly dissipate, and there will be calls for yet another bypass unless we start to think about things differently. 

The habitat of a wide range of wildlife will be destroyed by the A6-M60 bypass and there are several sites of special interest along the route.   There is plenty of information on the Goyt SOS Facebook page and Stockport Bypass Facts website if anyone wants to know more.
So how are you going to alevenate the trafic jams at bredbury and marple in a morning .

Newbie1

  • Guest
@amazon you seem fixated upon bluebells since I mentioned the group walk along the route of the proposed bypass a while ago, which happens to be called the annual bluebell walk, as it happens in May when the bluebells are out.

Those of us who oppose the bypass do so for many reasons.  The bluebells are very low down on the list.

Roads lead to more traffic.  More traffic leads to increased air pollution and climate damage.  Increased air pollution leads to serious health problems which places even more demand upon our massively underfunded NHS.  I suspect that those most at risk from air pollution are likely to be poorer, and less likely to be able to pay for healthcare should this become necessary in the future when the NHS is totally destroyed.

There have been reports published recently which show how green spaces improve our health and mental well-being.  Here in Marple, we have an abundance of green spaces which aren't currently under threat as far as I know.  I don't think that people living closer to the route are as lucky.


The report says on p69 that traffic will increase if the A6-M60 bypass is built and a High Lane/Disley bypass will be needed to alleviate this.  I can see that this would facilitate the mass housing development in High Lane on the Greenbelt.  4000 extra homes in High Lane would then generate more traffic as those people are highly unlikely to be working in High Lane.  The benefits of the bypass would quickly dissipate, and there will be calls for yet another bypass unless we start to think about things differently. 

The habitat of a wide range of wildlife will be destroyed by the A6-M60 bypass and there are several sites of special interest along the route.   There is plenty of information on the Goyt SOS Facebook page and Stockport Bypass Facts website if anyone wants to know more.



amazon

  • Guest
There are many excellent ideas in the document.  The A6-M60 bypass is not one of them however, and the report admits it will lead to more traffic and require yet another bypass to be built. 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=944622635707518&id=544896215680164
The sooner it is built the better never mind the bluebells