Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Elections and Council Matters => Topic started by: Salex on September 11, 2016, 10:19:15 PM
-
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/thousands-homes-could-built-greater-11872866
-
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/thousands-homes-could-built-greater-11872866 (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/thousands-homes-could-built-greater-11872866)
Interesting map attached to that article. Mentions a plan to build at least 16 homes where Lower Fold meets Glossop Road. Can't quite visualise where that would be - behind the Windsor Castle, replacing the existing play park area ?
-
Interesting map attached to that article. Mentions a plan to build at least 16 homes where Lower Fold meets Glossop Road. Can't quite visualise where that would be - behind the Windsor Castle, replacing the existing play park area ?
Possibly on the field next to the W/Castle?
-
Possibly on the field next to the W/Castle?
its the field next to the recreation ground .up the recreation ground was left to the councill as a gift to be used as such it cant be built on .
but its suposed to be maintained as a recreation ground the state of it .now well .no further comment.
-
Interesting map attached to that article. Mentions a plan to build at least 16 homes where Lower Fold meets Glossop Road. Can't quite visualise where that would be - behind the Windsor Castle, replacing the existing play park area ?
There has been a lot of work on the area opposite the Windsor Castle junction - removing trees, etc. But the land slopes away quite steeply I think so would it be suitable for housing? I know the builders of the existing houses adjacent to the land managed to overcome such problems but that was 100+ years ago!
-
The full Greater Manchester Spatial Framework map gives more detail of the area suggested:
http://mappinggm.org.uk/call-for-sites/development-sites.htm (http://mappinggm.org.uk/call-for-sites/development-sites.htm)
But the MEN map has the following notes too:
Site
Land At Marple Bridge
Address
Land bound by Lower Fold and Glossop Road, Marple Bridge (Site Location Plan Attached).
Current use
Open
Planned use if known
Part of the site makes a significant contribution to the local environment, providing a landscaped valley. Indeed, due to the gradient and presence of mature woodlands it is not being proposed that the entire site be brought forward for development, bit rather those parts that are well located immediately adjacent to existing development with direct access on to either Lower Fold or Glossop Road. Depending on the scale of any allocation for housing, there would be potential to make a contribution towards affordable housing and also, building on the Governments current agenda, properties suited to first time buyers. An indicative plan (attached) shows the sites potential to deliver c 8 homes off Lower Fold and a similar development could be brought forward from a new access, from Glossop Road, close to the junction with Cote Green Road. As a minimum we would suggest the site could deliver at least 16 homes, retaining an enhancing the remainder of the site as an attractive green corridor.
I'm not sure if they are talking about the darker purple or lighter purple areas.
You need to read the T&Cs and Disclaimer too!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
There has been a lot of work on the area opposite the Windsor Castle junction - removing trees, etc. But the land slopes away quite steeply I think so would it be suitable for housing? I know the builders of the existing houses adjacent to the land managed to overcome such problems but that was 100+ years ago!
Henrietta please stop spreeding rumours part of that land belongs to highways .the rest bute house thats the house near the bus stop .if you would like to stop when your passing
on your horse and have a look .you will see what belongs to highways its fence off .as i said the land next to the recreation ground on glossop could be built on .but thats been down for building land the last thirty years .if you would like any more info please post on the website .
-
Another site of interest is the Greater Manchester Open Data Infrastructure Map (http://mappinggm.org.uk/gmodin/), showing different mapping data to the one posted by admin/Mark Whittaker (which highlights land sites promoted by owners/developers).
By selecting the 'Green Belt' layer under the Planning menu it is clear that the area highlighted in the previous mail is classified as greenbelt land. I wonder what political gymnastics will take place for the developers to reclassify the land as 'residential'.
-
What about the land south of Brickbridge Road? (The cut-through from All Saints Primary down to the canal and Strines)
(https://s14.postimg.org/57qllrh29/Screen_Shot_2016_09_16_at_14_33_56.png)
SITE
Land South of Brickbridge Road, Marple
ADDRESS
Land South of Brickbridge Road, located in the southern part of Marple. The site occupies fields south of Brickbridge Road between the built up area of Marple and the Peak Forest Canal.
CURRENT USE
Agriculture
PLANNED USE IF KNOWN
Approximately 180 dwellings. Housing mix and tenure to be determined. Will be market-led.
"WILL be"? Did I miss something? :o
-
Regardless of whether you think new houses are good or bad, its very quiet on here, do people understand?
-
PLANNED USE IF KNOWN
Approximately 180 dwellings. Housing mix and tenure to be determined. Will be market-led.
"WILL be"? Did I miss something? :o
Just checked the planning applications on the Council website. It appears that no application has been submitted for that site.
-
Regardless of whether you think new houses are good or bad, its very quiet on here, do people understand?
Probably because we all know we are completely powerless to affect whether houses are build or not. No amount of campaigning one way or the other; no elections we can vote in; no councillors or MP we may elect will make the slightest bit of difference to what eventually happens.
-
My point is how many people enjoying the countryside along the Top Lock to Strines canal have any idea about this?
My limited understanding is that this is a long term planning framework up to 2030. Once it has been approved it then means that any planning application would be more difficult to oppose as the land has been allocated for residential development. Can others confirm that this is the case?
Councillors also very quiet.
-
Regardless of whether you think new houses are good or bad, its very quiet on here, do people understand?
I thought that too. This is an issue that will affect large numbers of people in Marple/ Marple Bridge and destroy vast swathes of countryside, but the lack of activity on this thread (one relating to the refurbishment of benches in the town centre has generated six times as many views, for example) suggests people aren't fully aware of its subject matter.
A suggestion to admin - could the title of the thread be amended so it reads: 'Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites'.
-
A suggestion to admin - could the title of the thread be amended so it reads: 'Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites'.
That's done @barndoor
These purple sections on the plans seem to be a great big brain-dump by land owners and prospective developers.
It's important to read the Terms and Conditions on the site to understand what's going on. Here's just a small bit of it:
These sites are promoted by owners/developers and have no endorsement as sites for future development by Greater Manchester and its constituent 10 districts. Decisions on whether sites will or will not be supported will be made as we develop the GMSF. The draft plan in October will provide the first opportunity to comment on the proposed spatial strategy and this will continue to be developed in the light of the consultation responses.
The worry is how will all this be used? What will the draft plan in October show? And how on earth do local people have any say? It would seem that the formation of a Neighbourhood Forum could be more important than some people thought perhaps?
-
Henrietta please stop spreeding rumours part of that land belongs to highways .the rest bute house thats the house near the bus stop .if you would like to stop when your passing
on your horse and have a look .you will see what belongs to highways its fence off .as i said the land next to the recreation ground on glossop could be built on .but thats been down for building land the last thirty years .if you would like any more info please post on the website .
And you might learn some manners
-
And you might learn some manners
and why say things you dont know anything about .you are just asuming .
-
A few aerial photos of the areas that have been proposed around Marple/ Marple Bridge. Note the caveats that (1) the red line is approximate, and (2) none of these locations are - yet - a done deal:
Glossop Road/ Ley Lane/ Hollins Lane:
(http://i63.tinypic.com/ww1boo.png)
Dan Bank Farm/ Marple Brook:
(http://i68.tinypic.com/1tr32b.png)
Brickbridge Road/ Strines Road/ Ridge Road:
(http://i64.tinypic.com/14m4z81.png)
-
Thanks for this Barndoor, they will represent some of the most valuable residential building sites in Greater Manchester, if they can get permission.
-
Councillors also very quiet.
Councillors are quiet as there is currently no plan or proposal to say anything about. I am glad people are aware it is coming in the next few weeks and then they can have their say in any plan. As has been said already on the forum, the call for sites was to give GM authorities an idea of land that was available for development. This is what i know of it at this stage -
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) will determine where housing development can take place across Greater Manchesters 10 Boroughs between now and 2035. One of its stated aims is to “achieve a step change in the rate and quality of development.”
The priority is to maximise the contribution that brownfield sites can make to meeting the need, but it is already known that the existing land supply will not be enough to meet what is needed (220,000 new homes needed between now and 2035), meaning potential development on Green Belt land.
Our local MP has provided his position which is that he will oppose mass development on green belt land and that brownfield sites should be utilised first. I agree with this and do not want mass development on the greenbelt in Marple or surrounding areas.
We shall wait and see what the GMSF Plan is but it is open for consultation in Autumn 2016 and I encourage you to have your say on these proposals by visiting mappinggm.org.uk.
-
Where are all these new families going to send their kids to school and which doctors are they going to use ?
-
Where are all these new families going to send their kids to school and which doctors are they going to use ?
A lot of it wont happen .its only a consultation .
-
Protect Our Greenbelt!
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework will determine where residential development can take place in the Marple area. It has the potential to see large areas of the Greenbelt, which surrounds our communities, built upon.
I am very concerned by the real prospect of thousands of properties being built on previously protected land. Greenbelt land is an important barrier to prevent urban sprawl.
There are also significant doubts that our already stretched infrastructure of roads and amenities can support such large scale building.
The fact is we need more housing. However, the areas which should be developed first are those known as 'brownfield sites'. These are sites that have previously been used for commercial or industrial purposes, but are now vacant. Stockport has so many of these sites which have not yet been developed for housing.
You can see which areas near you have been suggested for potential development proposals by visiting www.mappinggm.org.uk
I would urge you to show your support for our Greenbelt by SIGNING MY PETITION HERE: http://williamwraggmp.wixsite.com/protectourgreenbelt
If anyone has any questions they'd like to ask me, please do not hesitate to contact me by:
Email: william@williamwragg.org.uk
Call: 0161 427 0660
Write/Visit: 13 Stockport Road, Marple, Stockport, SK6 6BD.
Thank you for your time.
William.
-
manchester evening news website tonight proposed buildings houses in greater manchester .a lot to read if you have some spare time .
-
Looks like the reports and consultation are now published. There's a lot to absorb!
http://gmsf.objective.co.uk/file/4216152
http://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/GMSF
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-green-belt-gmsf-12053737
Just one small snippet:
They have allocated land for up to 4,000 (homes) on fields around the A6, Windlehurst Road, Threaphurst Lane and Torkington Road in High Lane
-
Good to see the tram-train to Rose Hill in there, deep in the small print of the first document.
-
Good to see the tram-train to Rose Hill in there, deep in the small print of the first document.
No its not good Dave, only a fully electrified railway with decent trains and 400 plus seats running at high frequency will give us the system that we need, similar to Merseyrail. But let's not repeat the same argument.
If I read it right there is 4000 new homes for High Lane, the only public transport they are offering is tram trains from Rose Hill with less seats than existing trains. Its quite a walk from High Lane to Rose Hill, so almost all will drive, where are they going to park?
What about new park and ride stations on the Buxton line which runs near to High Lane, why aren't these considered?
As for the new airport relief road, its going to soon fill up so I'm not sure its going to relieve congestion as some on here have claimed in the past.
-
But let's not repeat the same argument.
Agreed. But let's get our facts straight. Hatter writes:
the only public transport they are offering is tram trains from Rose Hill with less seats than existing trains.
Current seats per hour from Rose Hill to Piccadilly (based on two class 142 trains per hour): 240
Future seats per hour from Rose Hill to Piccadilly (based on five tram-trains per hour): 300
The above is for the purpose of making a direct comparison, acknowledging that both class 142s and tram-trains sometimes operate as double units.
I think hatter is dead right here though:
Its quite a walk from High Lane to Rose Hill, so almost all will drive, where are they going to park? What about new park and ride stations on the Buxton line which runs near to High Lane, why aren't these considered?
As for this:
only a fully electrified railway with decent trains and 400 plus seats running at high frequency will give us the system that we need.
In your dreams......... ;)
-
I've read it in more detail this morning and it looks like the developers of the 4000 new High Lane houses will have to pay a fee to pay for the Rose Hill tram trains. The Middlewood way goes right through the middle of the development.
I may be completely wrong here and this is pure guess, but is there a plan to extend the line to High Lane?
-
For all the talk about "consultation", there isn't and hasn't been the slightest chance of stopping this and similar developments unfortunately.
-
I may be completely wrong here and this is pure guess, but is there a plan to extend the line to High Lane?
I don't think so - but it would be a good idea. Even without a new development at High Lane, parking at Rose Hill is going to be a nightmare. I fear no-one has thought that through properly yet.
Of course, you could always build a new car park on the allotments........ :o
-
Perhaps this could be amalgamated with the 'Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites' thread so that replies relating to the same topic are in one place?
-
I don't think so - but it would be a good idea. Even without a new development at High Lane, parking at Rose Hill is going to be a nightmare. I fear no-one has thought that through properly yet.
Of course, you could always build a new car park on the allotments........ :o
Great idea, because encouraging more traffic into Marple, where routes in and out are already incapable of handling traffic volumes is a really smart idea. The whole point of public transport is to remove the need for people to use their cars; not build park and rides that no one will use (Hazel Grove!) or tarmac over allotments and create more traffic. As nice as Middlewood Way is, it's original function as a railway, linking Macclesfield to Marple served us far better. Still can't believe when they re-built the recycling centre there they didn't use the railway to take the full skips away... There is track to Bredbury main recycling centre linked directly to Rose Hill! No, too obvious; lets throw a dozen extra heavy goods vehicles onto Stockport Road every day and make sure all that structural work done on Dan Bank a few years ago gets trashed a little sooner.
The sooner we realise that our town planning and highways departments are run by idiots the sooner we can quit anxting over this and get on with our lives, accepting a string of poor short term fixes whilst our tax-funded "thinkers" ponder over their liberal ideologies that will ultimately never come to fruition, but at least allow those strategists to make out they tried to do the right thing.
-
I've read it in more detail this morning and it looks like the developers of the 4000 new High Lane houses will have to pay a fee to pay for the Rose Hill tram trains. The Middlewood way goes right through the middle of the development.
I may be completely wrong here and this is pure guess, but is there a plan to extend the line to High Lane?
To quote the document:
"Provide financial contributions towards the delivery of a tram/train extension from Rose Hill Marple potentially linking to Hazel Grove. "
This means extending from Rose Hill to the New Development. Potentially linking to Hazel Grove could mean chord to the Hazel Grove/Sheffield line, could even extend to Stepping Hill and Stockport, or alternatively to East Didsbury Metrolink.
"Contribution to refreshed SEMMMS" may mean towards the A6 M60 link as well.
-
Back to my earlier rant on liberal ideologies and the delusional aspirations of some access schemes....
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/park-ride-hazel-grove-opens-9560401
the above was pitched to remove 6000 cars a month off the A6, 200 per day! A year on, I've never seen more than a couple of dozen cars in the park and ride, (31 days x 24cars = 744). Who's going to drive to Hazel Grove (painful enough already) and THEN opt to get on a bus rather than remain in the comfort of their own car?
£3M would have bought us a few extra hundred yards of SEMMS (the important bit we need from H-G to the M60) or paid to move Hazel Grove Station to where the park and ride is and make it of some use.
As for £70M + on improving access to Stockport, yeah, cos that's gonna pay off! Keeps Bethel's bricklayers in work though:
http://www.bethell.co.uk/0-7m-stockport-retaining-wall-latest-tcap-scheme-for-bethell/
£700k on bricks!
-
Back to my earlier rant on liberal ideologies and the delusional aspirations of some access schemes....
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/park-ride-hazel-grove-opens-9560401
the above was pitched to remove 6000 cars a month off the A6, 200 per day! A year on, I've never seen more than a couple of dozen cars in the park and ride, (31 days x 24cars = 744). Who's going to drive to Hazel Grove (painful enough already) and THEN opt to get on a bus rather than remain in the comfort of their own car?
£3M would have bought us a few extra hundred yards of SEMMS (the important bit we need from H-G to the M60) or paid to move Hazel Grove Station to where the park and ride is and make it of some use.
As for £70M + on improving access to Stockport, yeah, cos that's gonna pay off! Keeps Bethel's bricklayers in work though:
http://www.bethell.co.uk/0-7m-stockport-retaining-wall-latest-tcap-scheme-for-bethell/
£700k on bricks!
There was about ninety cars there the other morning .when did you look was it sunday .
-
The MEN has today published the news item: 'The 57 developments that would transform every Greater Manchester borough by 2035' (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/see-every-site-greater-manchester-12078925#rlabs=2%20rt$sitewide%20p$3) on its website.
As it covers the whole of the Greater Manchester area there's a lot of information on the one page; the area closest to Marple has the sub-heading 'High Lane: 4,000 new homes'. There are links within grey boxes named, 'We can finally reveal which parts of Greater Manchester's green belt could be built upon' (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-green-belt-gmsf-12053737) and a second link, 'All the sites developers want to build on across Greater Manchester – mapped' (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/sites-developers-want-build-across-11874886), which some of us will already be familiar with. The second link is not a very satisfactory one as it shows the proposed sites as the centre point of each location, making it hard to get a sense of the size of proposed developments. A better map - showing the areas as polygons, not points - can be found here (http://mappinggm.org.uk/call-for-sites/development-sites.htm).
There's an awful lot of 'green and pleasant land' going to be dug up if all the proposed schemes get the go-ahead...
-
There was about ninety cars there the other morning .when did you look was it sunday .
90 cars on weekdays, comes to 450 per week, 1800 per month. That's still less than a third of the projected 6000 cars taken from the A6, and also assumes some of those 90 aren't just using the space because they work somewhere in Hazel Grove or at Stepping Hill. (you need a second mortgage to park there!).
-
The whole point of public transport is to remove the need for people to use their cars; not build park and rides that no one will use (Hazel Grove!)
Let's be clear what we are talking about. There are two park and rides in Hazel Grove: the one by the station, which is packed with cars every day, and the newer one by the bus terminus at the Rising Sun, which is generally empty.
Park and ride works with railway stations, because trains are a relatively quick and convenient way to travel in congested urban areas. They are useless with buses, because buses are slow and uncomfortable, and despite bus lanes, buses are almost as subject to traffic congestion as cars are.
The success of the park and ride at Hazel Grove station, and at many other suburban railway stations throughout the world, suggests that this would also be an excellent development at Marple and/or Rose Hill.
-
Just had notification that there will be an extra-ordinary meeting of the Marple Area Committee to be held on Wednesday 30 November 2016 at 6pm in Marple Senior Citizens Hall in the Memorial Park to consider the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
Further information can be viewed on the Combined Authority website: www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/GMSF
Councillors are extremely keen that residents attend so please spread the word.
-
90 cars on weekdays, comes to 450 per week, 1800 per month. That's still less than a third of the projected 6000 cars taken from the A6, and also assumes some of those 90 aren't just using the space because they work somewhere in Hazel Grove or at Stepping Hill. (you need a second mortgage to park there!).
completely agree...
as per my original post on this thread.
"Who's going to drive to Hazel Grove (painful enough already) and THEN opt to get on a bus rather than remain in the comfort of their own car?"
I might however consider using a bus to get to a station rather than risk leaving my car in in an unsecured car park every day.
-
completely agree...
as per my original post on this thread.
"Who's going to drive to Hazel Grove (painful enough already) and THEN opt to get on a bus rather than remain in the comfort of their own car?"
I might however consider using a bus to get to a station rather than risk leaving my car in in an unsecured car park every day.
Have I missed something, or are you completely agreeing with yourself?
-
Firstly if I recall correct, the Hazel Grove park and ride was paid for by the bus company.
I expect there will be buses from there to the airport once the new road opens aimed at airport workers etc.
As to parking at the P&R and then getting the 192, this can save someone the cost of parking in town and save them the walk from the car park to their employment depending where they are working. But it takes time for people to change their travel habits.
Hopefully bus lane will be put all long the A6 as soon as the new roads takes some of the cars, hence speeding up the buses.
-
and you really think the new road will remove traffic from the A6 in Hazel Grove... ? the very fact that there are mitigation measures in place by Stockport Council suggests they think otherwise as well.
-
completely agree...
as per my original post on this thread.
"Who's going to drive to Hazel Grove (painful enough already) and THEN opt to get on a bus rather than remain in the comfort of their own car?"
I might however consider using a bus to get to a station rather than risk leaving my car in in an unsecured car park every day.
no, I'd leave my car at home and get a bus to the station, but not drive to a park and ride and THEN get on a bus.
-
Just had notification that there will be an extra-ordinary meeting of the Marple Area Committee to be held on Wednesday 30 November 2016 at 6pm in Marple Senior Citizens Hall in the Memorial Park to consider the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
Further information can be viewed on the Combined Authority website: www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/GMSF
Councillors are extremely keen that residents attend so please spread the word.
Update it will be held at High Lane Village Hall on 30 November 2016 at 6.00pm
-
Update it will be held at High Lane Village Hall on 30 November 2016 at 6.00pm
That's a pity (but understandable). I was definitely going to go when it was in Marple; just a short walk from home, but I'll have to think about it now.
-
That's a pity (but understandable). I was definitely going to go when it was in Marple; just a short walk from home, but I'll have to think about it now.
ditto
-
The email I received says that the extraordinary meeting of the Area Committee on 30 November is at High Lane Village Hall starting at 6.00pm; but it also says that the issue will be discussed at the scheduled meeting of the Area Committee in Marple Senior Citizens Hall on 14 December 2016 at 6.00pm.
It says Council Officers will be in attendance at both meetings to make a presentation and answer any questions you may have.
On the council web site agendas page it shows a meeting at High Lane on 23 November but nothing on 30th at the moment, so I assume this needs to catch-up?
-
The email I received says that the extraordinary meeting of the Area Committee on 30 November is at High Lane Village Hall starting at 6.00pm; but it also says that the issue will be discussed at the scheduled meeting of the Area Committee in Marple Senior Citizens Hall on 14 December 2016 at 6.00pm.
It says Council Officers will be in attendance at both meetings to make a presentation and answer any questions you may have.
On the council web site agendas page it shows a meeting at High Lane on 23 November but nothing on 30th at the moment, so I assume this needs to catch-up?
Thanks for that Mark
-
Here's a lengthy but eye-opening video touring the perimeter of the countryside that the proposed site at High Lane will cover.
Entitled: Destruction of Greenbelt farmland at High Lane in Stockport
https://youtu.be/YDAJZFDJdi0 (https://youtu.be/YDAJZFDJdi0)
-
Thanks for this video Admin - very informative. The proposed housing will cut a swathe through countryside in Windlehurst and High Lane that Mrs bd and I enjoy walking through; and the scenery is stunning. Even on a grey, drizzly day.
I've recreated a plan of the site (below). The red line marks the approximate boundary of the site and (for context) the blue line represents the canal.
One building site quickly leads to another nearby, and depressingly I believe that this is only the start of a major housebuilding plan for the area.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/143nh5i.png)
-
Here's a lengthy but eye-opening video touring the perimeter of the countryside that the proposed site at High Lane will cover.
Entitled: Destruction of Greenbelt farmland at High Lane in Stockport
https://youtu.be/YDAJZFDJdi0 (https://youtu.be/YDAJZFDJdi0)
What a video .whats the music from .
-
The opening music is from Carmina Burana by Carl Orff. I don't know what the rest is.
It would be very interesting to know who made that video, which is put together like a piece of extremist political propaganda! Everything about it - the photography, the sinister artificial voice over, the threatening music, is designed to convey a very powerful message.
No doubt there is a very good case to be made against this proposed development, but this video is way over the top!
-
The GMSF is a proposition of mass environmental vandalism, the like of which has never been seen before. It is a 'plan,' (and I use the term loosely) that although taking years to formulate has just not been thought through properly. It will destroy large areas of greenbelt in Stockport in general and in Maple in particular. Marple will be changed for the worse forever and we will never recover from this criminal urbanisation.
The sad irony of this in Stockport is that there are many Brownfield sites that could be used for housing some of these sites have had planning permission granted for years yet no attempt to build upon them has ever been started. Our local councillors could start their resistance by bringing a list of these sites to the Area Committee.
Speaking of local councillors, I have thought now for a long time that the only way to resist this urbanisation in Stockport is for the borough to opt out of the GMSF, nothing has yet been finally agreed so this is a real possibility. I was therefore pleasantly surprised to hear that at the last Full Council Meeting, such an action was proposed as a motion amendment by the Lib Dems, proposed by Cllr Mark Hunter and seconded by Councillor Lisa Smart. The amendment was lost and was voted against by Labour and the Tories combined.
The question is begging, where were Marple's Conservative councillors on this, why didn't you support the motion. Towing the party line again? Putting party before constituents whilst lipserving...."save the greenbelt?
-
The opening music is from Carmina Burana by Carl Orff. I don't know what the rest is.
It would be very interesting to know who made that video, which is put together like a piece of extremist political propaganda! Everything about it - the photography, the sinister artificial voice over, the threatening music, is designed to convey a very powerful message.
No doubt there is a very good case to be made against this proposed development, but this video is way over the top!
Disagree... I think it conveys the severity of this proposal all too clearly. We're spending millions on improving access into Stockport and leaving acres of brownfield sites within Stockport undeveloped that already have planning permission, yet are suggesting to build on green belt land outside of Stockport and create a whole new transportation problem. It really doesn't add up!
-
I have thought now for a long time that the only way to resist this urbanisation in Stockport is for the borough to opt out of the GMSF,
Would that be 'Stexit'? ;)
I don't disagree with jimblob - it is a seriously unwelcome proposal. However, the video is so ridiculous that it risks undermining the very case which it is trying to make. So instead of taking the intended message seriously, there is a danger that some people will just laugh at it.
-
Simone as usual has hit the nail on the head.
What we are going to witness over the next twenty years is the urbanisation of Manchester's city region or the 'Londonisation' of Manchester as I heard it called the other day.
If we want DevoManc and the Northern Powerhouse (and I personally don't) then we have to provide the infrastructure that supports it. That means people and everything that supports them. There is no way out of it. It is really all for future generations and what have future generations ever done for me?
There is also a secondary party political spin off to this plan, especially in Stockport, but whilst people continue to vote for political parties and we have no independent politicians then that will always be there. I'm just thankful for the small mercy that I don't live in High Lane,which is quite simply going to be transformed int Croydon if they are lucky, Slough if they are not. I'll bet that High Lane Residents are not concerned with the speed of the cars on Windlehurst Road now.
As for neighbourhood plans and civic societies etall - Bless Em!
-
The GMSF is a proposition of mass environmental vandalism, the like of which has never been seen before. It is a 'plan,' (and I use the term loosely) that although taking years to formulate has just not been thought through properly. It will destroy large areas of greenbelt in Stockport in general and in Maple in particular. Marple will be changed for the worse forever and we will never recover from this criminal urbanisation.
The sad irony of this in Stockport is that there are many Brownfield sites that could be used for housing some of these sites have had planning permission granted for years yet no attempt to build upon them has ever been started. Our local councillors could start their resistance by bringing a list of these sites to the Area Committee.
Speaking of local councillors, I have thought now for a long time that the only way to resist this urbanisation in Stockport is for the borough to opt out of the GMSF, nothing has yet been finally agreed so this is a real possibility. I was therefore pleasantly surprised to hear that at the last Full Council Meeting, such an action was proposed as a motion amendment by the Lib Dems, proposed by Cllr Mark Hunter and seconded by Councillor Lisa Smart. The amendment was lost and was voted against by Labour and the Tories combined.
The question is begging, where were Marple's Conservative councillors on this, why didn't you support the motion. Towing the party line again? Putting party before constituents whilst lipserving...."save the greenbelt?
Simone as usual has hit the nail on the head.
I am afraid I do not agree. What you both fail to mention is that:
1) The Lib Dems and ex Leader Sue Derbyshire were the main instigators of the GMSF in the first place.
2) Local authorities working together on planning IS a good idea
3) Stockports housing requirement is for 22,000 homes, but by being in GMSF others are providing some of this, so only 19,000 in Stockport. If not in GMSF we would need to provide 3,000 MORE homes. Nearly another High Lane development. Where do Councillors Hunter and Smart suggest these are built?
4) The night before the full council meeting all 6 Marple councillors had agreed to work together on the proposals, then the LibDems pulled the above political stunt. This explains why only 2 of the three LibDems voted in favour. Sue Ingham voted against the LibDem amendment as it was so poorly thought out. Just a political stunt.
5) Work is being done to try and find brownfield sites to reduce/remove need to use greenbelt. The Stockport planing officers would love to know of any they are not aware of.
I suggest you look at the more nuanced and thoughtful comments made in Westminster by William Wragg and others here http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/15dca4d1-5d28-491a-889d-b559fc1f0a01
The consultation period on the GMSF has been extended to 16th January. Please make your views heard.
-
I am afraid some of the laughter might be directed at you, Dave.
The video is excellent and many thanks to those who took the time and trouble to produce it. There is nothing, no amount of studying maps, reading the draft plan, reports, appendices, experts opinions etc , that is so effective in demonstrating the sheer size of this proposed Green Belt development and its threat to the wellbeing of the people of Marple and High Lane.
I get the impression, Simone, that you have not been following this very closely. I am politically independent but I think we owe a great deal to our Conservative councillors. I, and many others, had never heard of GMSF until Kenny Blair and Tom Dowse called a public meeting on 12th November. They led the meeting very effectively and had obviously done their homework. Annette Finney, Geoff Abell, Sue Ingham, and one or two others who I did not recognise were on the platform but were effectively bystanders. Councillors from both parties stated that their differences were to be set aside and they would work together to oppose the development. As far as I am aware all Marple South councillors have attended subsequent meetings but I believe that Kenny Blair was the only local councillor to attend the meeting in Manchester organised by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Certainly he was the only one to make his presence known.
Unfortunately the minutes of the SMBC meeting on 1st December have not yet been published so I don’t know the wording of the motion or the amendment. However the following day Lisa Smart circulated an email in which she said “The chance to keep our Greenbelt safe was scuppered last night”…,”Plans which jam thousands of new houses onto local greenbelt….are still going ahead…..local Conservatives and Labour joined forces… to push them through…”
I find this rather confusing. There was no plan. There was, and still is,only a draft which, at the time of that meeting was halfway through a period of public consultation. It seems totally premature to bring this amendment at that stage. Are not the public to be allowed to complete their response to the consultation?
Given the speed with which the condemnation of the Conservatives and Labour was published I suspect that the amendment was put forward in the knowledge that anyone with any sense would oppose it, thus giving the LibDems the opportunity to run for the high ground. So much for their public promise.
Incidentally, do you have any suggestions as to where the party line might be towed to ?
-
The time limit for the consultation has just been extended? I paid £6.45 today for a next day delivery to make sure my response was in on time!!
-
Whilst I understand the concern regarding 4000 additional houses on the edge of High Lane / Marple, we really do need to consider why they are being proposed and not just knee jerk, object to them on principle. John Bates' post is extremely pertinent in terms of setting out the level of additional houses that Stockport Borough is required to accommodate over the GMSF period. Finding space for 19,000 homes is not easy and realistically brownfield land is not going to be enough. So being pragmatic, where are these houses going to go? That's a significant part of the debate that we should be having and not just look at High Lane in isolation.
Statements like '4,000 houses at High Lane represents a threat to the well being of the people of Marple' also don't help in my view. Exactly how is my well being as a Marple resident going to be affected? I just cant see how. Life moves on, new houses get built. Take a good look at High Lane, a huge proportion of that village is made up of 1960 & 1970's housing. What was that built on? Did the people of Marple suffer a huge loss of well being at that time?
Remember Green Belt is a 1960's planning invention - whereby planners at that time, rather like now with GMSF, were tasked with trying to predict and plan for town and city growth. Arguably in many cases the green belt represented a politically motivated green collar round towns - representing feel good planning wins, but really representing places where planners didn't feel that development was likely to be needed anytime soon. 50 years later, the need for further future long term planning is here and the Green Belt of all that time ago, is under pressure. Hardly surprising. Green Belt isn't sacrosant and nor is it immovable, it has to reflect the times and we do need to plan properly for our future.
By the way, this isn't a pitch for development at High Lane, but more of a plea for the community to take a look at the bigger picture and think about how the Borough as a whole moves forward. Just simply saying 'no' and refusing to accept reality will backfire in the long run. Its fine that the local councillors are all objecting at this stage, but can they tell us what is their alternative? Where do they think all this housing which is needed should go? Or is it just not in our back yard? I really hope they are not going to peddle the politically safe answer of 'brownfield sites'. If so, which brownfield sites please and whiles you are at it demonstrate how they will provide 19,000 homes of the required mix. Also can they also set out who is going to pay the remediation costs to make some of these sites usable? Are we as tax payers prepared to assist in funding such locations to make them commercially viable? That's a big call and potentially just as unpalatable as green belt development.
Planning is an extremely difficult and complex equation and one that has to take account of a multitude of viewpoints and perspectives. Seeking to protect the green fields of High Lane is just one part of that equation and if successful there will be repercussions elsewhere and similar concerned locals. The need for new housing is not going to go away, we do need to respond to it properly.
-
I am afraid I do not agree. What you both fail to mention is that:
1) The Lib Dems and ex Leader Sue Derbyshire were the main instigators of the GMSF in the first place.
I can't argue with that and have no wish to. I do wish we could keep party politics out of this though.
2) Local authorities working together on planning IS a good idea
In principle, yes. It does depend on which local authorities though. Stockport in general and Marple in particular have very little connection with the so called Greater Manchester. While working with one or two of the neighbouring authorities in 'Greater Manchester' makes sense, so does working with Cheshire East and Derbyshire. A plan for 'Greater Manchester' as a whole is a mistake, as 'Greater Manchester' is a figment of central and some local goverment's imagination. Unfortunately, this fictional place has become fixed to a large degree by bizarrre things like the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the even bigger nonsense of the Mayoral election next year.
3) Stockport's housing requirement is for 22,000 homes, but by being in GMSF others are providing some of this, so only 19,000 in Stockport. If not in GMSF we would need to provide 3,000 MORE homes. Nearly another High Lane development. Where do Councillors Hunter and Smart suggest these are built?
As you must have gathered from the area committe meeting, a lot of people regard this figure as total fantasy. Unfortunately, as I pointed out at the meeting, even if 100% of the population of the borough rejected this figure, it wouldn't make a scrap of differerence, as it is imposed by government, who it appears couldn't care less about what people here think. This does make much of the consultation a complete waste of time, as it will be ignored.
4) The night before the full council meeting all 6 Marple councillors had agreed to work together on the proposals, then the LibDems pulled the above political stunt. This explains why only 2 of the three LibDems voted in favour. Sue Ingham voted against the LibDem amendment as it was so poorly thought out. Just a political stunt.
It does sound like a party political stunt, and indeed there seems to be too much party political goings on in this area. If we had all independent councillors, we would be much better off.
5) Work is being done to try and find brownfield sites to reduce/remove need to use greenbelt. The Stockport planing officers would love to know of any they are not aware of.
Good. I wonder if they take into account the large number of empty houses and houses which have been for sale for several years into account when working out how many houses to build.
-
JohnBates,
When it comes to party politics, I wouldn't expect you to do anything else but 'do not agree.' Your own slavish devotion to the Conservative party is well known on this forum and I have to say that you are entitled to it. Thank you for your response but it does sound very much like the latest Tory Party election leaflet.
Franz,
Are you actually from Maple? Have you just moved into the area? Did you and your fellow meeting attendees genuinely not know about this plan until it was unveiled to you a few weeks ago by two Tory sprog councillors? Do you never go into the pubs cafés and shops in Maple? This plan has been around for at least two years that I know of and I do not claim to be in the know. Furthermore, do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that this so called 'public consultation' will make any difference to what is going to happen? Do you not realise that the plan is already in place and that public consultations are just a motion to go through on the way? As you seem to like spelling pedantry, its FINNIE not FINNEY.
Belly
Your post sounds exactly like that of a Planning Officer who has completely lost touch with all human consequences. I suspect that you are actually a Planning Officer - ARE YOU?
Condate,
You are obviously a newcomer to Maple with little understanding of its local political history. Though you make two good points about these quotas being government imposed and also about independent councillors.
-
Many thanks to Belly for his thoughtful and rational contribution - a welcome antidote to the hysterical 'horror movie'!
There is a national and regional shortage of housing - everyone knows that. And there is not enough brownfield land to meet the demand for new homes. And there are a number of other factors at work - for example the 'hoarding' of building land by some of the biggest building companies, such as Barratt and Taylor Wimpey. See http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21710853-companies-are-accused-driving-up-house-prices-land-banking-are-british-housebuilders.
I have great sympathy for High Lane folk, who understandably don't want a massive new housing estate on their doorsteps. But we need to find another solution, and putting our heads in the sand and pretending there isn't a housing shortage, or imagining that we can meet our housing needs entirely from brownfield sites, simply doesn't address the problem.
-
Why is there no map of brownfield sites across the region showing how much space there is, listing any issues that need to be addressed, such as contamination etc, and how many houses could be built on them? Or is there such a thing somewhere?
-
Why is there no map of brownfield sites across the region showing how much space there is, listing any issues that need to be addressed, such as contamination etc, and how many houses could be built on them? Or is there such a thing somewhere?
Good question Admin .come on someone produce a map there must be some info somewere .
-
All human consequences Simone? That's exactly what I'm talking about. The need for housing has significant human consequences. Why do you think there needs to be a plan to deliver such housing? And if we fail to provide what then?
My point is if not High Lane then where? And if somewhere else, will there not be a load of similar local people in those places screaming blue murder about environmental vandelism, traffic gridlock, etc. This is not just a local issue and to pretend it is totally misses the point.
Btw no I'm not a planning officer, just someone who doesn't take the immediate knee jerk view that all development is bad as a point of principle. Some is, some isn't and quite a lot is simply 'necessary' for us as a nation to move forward. I also understand that the nimby response to such proposals is a flawed approach and to succesfully fight such schemes you need to make sense and prepare a rounded case that addresses the big issues. Just saying 'no' lacks credibility.
-
What if we did not house people from the rest of the world…..
What if we did not pay more benefits to single mothers when they had a child….
What if we did not pay more benefits to people who choose to have children when they can’t afford them…
"Needing" more homes is a choose that has been made, we could make other chooses so we did not need to build new homes.
However I need these children to become tax payers, as someone has to pay for the NHS in my old age.....
-
Simone, I have lived in Marple for just short of 40 years and I have been, and I still am, an active member of it clubs, societies, groups, and “Friends of…”. I do admit that I very rarely use its pubs, cafes or shops.
There is no “plan”, just a draft and, yes, many people, myself included were not aware of this draft until Cllrs Blair and Dowse called a public meeting. The draft was published this October, not two years ago.
As far as the effect of public response is concerned, the first step taken by many people was to contact AGMA, SMBC and the other local authorities and complain about the length and timing of the consultation with a successful result. Also the public consultation on A6MARR (SEMMS) resulted in several changes to those plans.
Given your lack of success with assumptions I am not surprised to learn that Belly is not a planning officer and, by the way, it is MARPLE not MAPLE. Don’t worry, you will get used to it.
Are the quotas imposed by the government? Given the quantity of information on GMSF on the internet (somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 pages I would think) it is difficult to cover every angle but the OAHN was established by AGMA (Strategic Options Background Paper 3). The projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government are no more than a starting point. Projections from Oxford Economics and the use of Edge Analytics Popgroup software seem to have played a major part in the calculations.
I was very pleased to read that Sue Ingham voted against the LibDem amendment. She obviously meant what she said when she made a public commitment to working with other parties on this issue. I wouldn’t know Lisa Smart from Eve if I met her but I don’t think she was present to make that commitment in which case she is free to turn this into the usual point scoring exercise which we all dislike so much.
Opposing this plan and recognising the need for housing are not mutually exclusive and we do need to look at the bigger picture. I have so far found no reference in the draft plan or supporting documentation relating to UK immigration. Between 2002 and 2015 the UK welcomed 7,323,000 migrants (University of Oxford Population Watch) . Between 2001 and 2015 the population of Stockport increased by 2,275. Why then a projected increase of 27,687 in the period to 2035, particularly taking into account the anticipated drastic reduction in immigration? The current people per household in Stockport is 2.32pph. Why then assume a pph of 1.43 in future planning?
The answer could be the emphasis that is being placed on HS2 and “Northern Powerhouse”. HS2 still plods along but it is remains under attack, recently from those (including an infrastructure financier) promoting the case for diverting the funds to BML2 in the south east. In just the last couple of months Bristol, Bath, Oxford, and Hull have all seen the plans for electrification of their railways scrapped.
“Northern Powerhouse” remains little more than a vision, and a weaker vision since the removal of George Osborne from office and the recent resignation of Lord Neill of Gatley. The people of the Irish Republic had a vision in the middle of the last decade and that ended in hundreds of hectares of half built houses standing in fields of weeds.
Turning to High Lane and my reference to “a threat to the wellbeing of the people of Marple and High Lane”; the first thing that comes to mind is traffic. The development could put another 6,000 cars onto our local roads, plus the additional commercial traffic to be associated with a development of this size. Planning for a High Lane/Disley bypass started in 1970 and was abandoned in 1996. Since 1970 traffic on the A6 must have increased manyfold and it is soon to take the additional traffic resulting from SEMMS. Estimates of the likely increase range from 13% to 30% and there is to be negligible mitigation. Increases in traffic along Windlehurst Road and Hibbert Lane from both GMSF and SEMMS are likely to exceed the increase that might have resulted from the building of a supermarket in Hibbert Road.
The new development is likely to block the only route for an A6 bypass and I see no solution for the A6 traffic problems. There are other traffic related issues such as air pollution which is already significant.
Then there is infrastructure. The tram/ train is a “prerequisite” which should mean that it has to be in place before the development. One of the problems is that it would not give the access to Stockport that is needed (assuming it is routed via Rose Hill). In theory it could be routed via Middlewood and Hazel Grove but the operational problems on that route would probably be prohibitive.
What about Stepping Hill? I haven’t been following its fortunes lately but no doubt it is suffering the same problems as the rest of our bloated health service. High Lane is not the only GMSF major development that would increase its workload and then there was the recent scare about Macclesfield running down its services and referring A & E to Stepping Hill.
There are other points in posts on this thread that are well worthy of consideration and debate. I could go on and on, my submission is many times the length of this post, but I wont.
-
Belly,
I am not the one who is 'knee-jerking.' You, have totally knee-jerked yourself into total acceptance and you are now trying to solve the problem of where these houses actually go. Leave it to others, don't be so accommodating.
All I am saying is, this is the urbanisation of Marple and as D.H. Lawrence said of urbanisation..." it's ugly, ugly,ugly."
I know there is a housing shortage, it's all over the media so it must be true.
Who says we need 25,000 houses in the borough? Show us the projections this premise is based on. Is it the same person making them who decided to close down those three schools in Marple? As I recall, this act was based on "projections." Where are all these people going to shop? Where are their cars going to go? What schools are their kids going to attend, who will look after their medical needs? Da de Da de Da! Well, we'll just build more schools, roads, hospitals, it' easy, great isn't it? So let's all look forward to this urbanisation, Yippee!
How many empty houses have we got in the borough? Where are the Brownfield sites located? Where is this information?
I'm not trying to fight anything, "successfully" or otherwise. I live as far away from these schemes it as you can get - at the moment that is.
There is no fight to be had, the authorities will do as they wish anyway. They are not going to take any notice of Franz's consultation response, BLESS!
Anyway, I'm off to the Canaries for a few weeks, providing I can find a plane that's running, so argue amongst yourselves, see you all in late February.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
-
Have a good holiday Simone.
I'm not trying to decide where the houses go, but I'm pretty much convinced that we need them. The background to GMSF makes that case pretty robustly - we can all argue about the exact number, but rest assured its going to be a big one to cater for the next 20 years of growth in our area. Which afterall is a popular place to live.
Council's can bury their heads in the sand and pretend that their portion of national targets don't apply if they want, but that ends in disaster. Look at Cheshire East over the past few years. They made a mess of their plan (much of this being politically motivated) and for quite a while haven't the required housing supply. The result? A free for all for developers supported by national planning policy and the appeals process and lots of lovely greenfields disappearing all over the (ex) County - all to the sound of the wailing and gnashing of teeth by those local people affected.
-
Apologies Franz,
But I just don't have time to read your post. Nevertheless, I'm sure it's very eloquent. I thought I'd put 'Maple' in just to give you something to hang your hat on.
-
What if we did not house people from the rest of the world…..
What if we did not pay more benefits to single mothers when they had a child….
What if we did not pay more benefits to people who choose to have children when they can’t afford them…
What a lovely post.
What if we slammed the door in the faces of people fleeing war and starvation. ...
What is we allowed children of single mothers to go hungry or without heat or clothes....
You can tell it's the season of peace on earth and goodwill to all men, can't you.......... ::)
-
You are too gracious Simone, I've just tried to read Franz's post. The last thing it is, is 'eloquent.' Rambling, Tedious, Verbose, yes, but elequent no. I gave up half way through it and I'm not revisiting it.
I first heard of the GMSF when the AGMA constitution was finally passed, which was in 2008. So yes, you are correct, it has been around a long time. The fact that Franz has just heard about it says little for his informed opinion. You have said in three words what Franz has been unable to say in three hundred. It is exactly that, the 'urbanisation of Marple.'
As I'm sure you know, whether it goes ahead or not will be outside the influence of the people of Marple. Council's take little or no heed of consultations . They are usually collated and processed by the most junior clerk and council leaders rarely look at them, they are just a tick-box exercise in the process.
Just to throw something else into the mix, Andy Burnham, the Combined Authority Mayor elect, is on record as saying that any/all houses built on greenbelt should be social housing. So in theory we could see a 4000 house council estate appear gradually in High Lane.
-
There's an E petition on Stockport councillors website. "No to 4000 new homes Hazel Grove". Whilst it's not connected in any way to the consultation process for the GMSF, I don't think it can do any harm if we can get as many people signing it as possible, assuming of course that you'd prefer not to have High Lane greenbelt land destroyed.
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=79&RPID=7521797&HPID=7521797
-
Having had a look at that petition, my concern is that it is so weak and simplistic that it could even be counter-productive - rather like the ridiculous 'horror movie' with its 'voice of doom' commentary!
A credible case against the possible High Lane development needs to include realistic counter-proposals as to where the tens of thousands of houses that we need can actually be built. And saying 'build them on brownfield sites' doesn't just cut it - there simply are not enough of those.
We're talking about homeless people here, of course, and ever since Thatcher's right-to-buy scheme slashed the council house stock, we have desperately needed more social housing. But we are also talking about people who just want to get on the housing ladder but are stuck in rented accommodation. My adult children have good jobs but they can't afford to buy a house, and the main reason is that the law of supply and demand means that the shortage of housing inflates property values.
Sadly, it may become inevitable that we have to build on green belt land. As long as it's not on the bit that's near us, of course......
-
What a lovely post.
What if we slammed the door in the faces of people fleeing war and starvation. ...
What is we allowed children of single mothers to go hungry or without heat or clothes....
You can tell it's the season of peace on earth and goodwill to all men, can't you.......... ::)
The only other option is to build tens of thousands of houses EVERY YEAR for many years to come and give up on having green belt etc. We have to choose one or the other option.......
-
I very occasionally wonder whether a critic has actually read the piece he is criticising and Hoffnung’s honest and frank admission is welcome. What it means for the significance of the criticism will be a matter of opinion. I am sorry for causing problems with your attention span, perhaps I should try and include some pictures, and I wish you better luck with irony in future.
Andy Burnham has certainly expressed his interest in council housing, how about Abbott Avenue and Corbyn Close, SK6?
This online petition is a problem. Dave’s email is the first I have heard of it. It apparently opened on 20th November and only has four petitioners. As it closes tomorrow it will need a last minute rush to reach double figures and that will be counter-productive, unlike the excellent video with its spoof humour, perhaps too subtle for some. I believe William Wragg’s petition was presented to Parliament last week. Hopefully it carried a little more weight.
I don’t think this is about homelessness. The draft plan runs to 242 pages and, so far, I have not found any mention of homelessness. If anyone else can find a reference in the plan or hundreds of pages of reports and appendices I would like to hear about it.
It seems to be all about facilitating exceptional economic growth in Greater Manchester following “Northern Powerhouse”, HS2 and Brexit. It is anticipated that these will result in increased inward migration to satisfy a demand for a larger labour force and it is largely these factors, not homelessness, that have resulted in the “Objectively Assessed Housing Need”
-
I don’t think this is about homelessness.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/true-scale-greater-manchesters-homelessness-12255784
-
I am not sure what your point is here. I am not saying that homelessness is not a big problem. You don't have to spend more than a few minutes in central Manchester to be aware of that. I am saying that GMSF appears to take no account of it and make no mention of it. It doesn't seem to attempt to deal with it and focuses instead on anticipated issues arising from a vision of economic growth.
-
No one can deny we have an immediate housing crisis and that it should be solved. Quoting from the MEN article;
"For the sake of future generations we must pull together to end this crisis, and refuse to rest until every child has a place to call home.” End the crisis being the key point here, not perpetuate it!!!
In reference back to earlier comments which were met with some derision referencing people who choose to have more children than they can afford, essentially because they know society will provide for them if they do so, if we allow, indeed financially encourage our future generations to grow uncontrollably, we're burying our head in the sand and avoiding the root cause of the problem. That's not to say we turn folks out on the streets now, but we cannot build for ever and we cannot have fewer and fewer people providing homes for an exponentially growing population.
-
In reference back to earlier comments which were met with some derision referencing people who choose to have more children than they can afford, essentially because they know society will provide for them if they do so, if we allow, indeed financially encourage our future generations to grow uncontrollably, we're burying our head in the sand and avoiding the root cause of the problem. That's not to say we turn folks out on the streets now, but we cannot build for ever and we cannot have fewer and fewer people providing homes for an exponentially growing population.
There's a misunderstanding here. The UK population has been growing by about 0.6% a year in recent years, but there is little if any increase in the birth rate. Instead, by far the biggest element (335,000) is net migration (i.e. the difference between the number of emigrants and the number of immigrants). The other factor is increased life expectancy.
The problem is not people giving birth to too many children - it's because we're not building enough houses.
-
There's a misunderstanding here. The UK population has been growing by about 0.6% a year in recent years, but there is little if any increase in the birth rate. Instead, by far the biggest element (335,000) is net migration (i.e. the difference between the number of emigrants and the number of immigrants). The other factor is increased life expectancy.
The problem is not people giving birth to too many children - it's because we're not building enough houses.
I'd say the biggest problem is the increased life expectancy - at both ends of the scale. Children aren't dying young of childhood diseases like they used to, so whilst the birth rate hasn't really changed, the number who survive to adulthood has significantly increased.
At the other end of the scale, we're living longer, and are in a better state of health whilst we do so. A while back a politician created a bit of an outcry when they talked about "house blockers". But they had a point. How many houses do you think there are in Marple with significantly more bedrooms than residents? I know that my parents, their neighbours, and my childhood friend's parents, all still live in Marple, in the 3 or 4 bedroom houses they had when we were kids, and there's now just one or two of them living there.
It's a much more complex problem than just blaming it on dole scroungers with too many kids, or too many immigrants, etc, etc.
-
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/true-scale-greater-manchesters-homelessness-12255784
Assuming the figures are correct, then we are still building far too many houses for the needs of the region. What's more, the very real problem of homelessness is not going to be solved by building houses. Any solution needs to be more complex that. The idea that "we have N homeless people, so let's build N houses and that solves the problem" just doesn't work. Indeed, building 100N houses wouldn't solve the problem; there is much more too it than that and it's too important an issue to try and solve with simple solutions.
I don't believe that this plan to build grossly excessive houses in the region, is anything to do with homelessness to any great degree.
-
It is certainly all of this below coupled with the belief that one’s house is an investment or pension.
If the markets weren't as volatile and economics and employment allowed the ordinary person to invest savings elsewhere then we wouldn't have seen the massive rise in house prices which has made a house unobtainable to those on the average salary as well as keep people in houses which are too big for their needs.
The problem is that we have had Neo-Liberal governments and economic policies since the late 70s which ultimately haven't served the majority of the populous.
(Written as someone whose Parents live in a large Marple house with just the two of them in it)
I'd say the biggest problem is the increased life expectancy - at both ends of the scale. Children aren't dying young of childhood diseases like they used to, so whilst the birth rate hasn't really changed, the number who survive to adulthood has significantly increased.
At the other end of the scale, we're living longer, and are in a better state of health whilst we do so. A while back a politician created a bit of an outcry when they talked about "house blockers". But they had a point. How many houses do you think there are in Marple with significantly more bedrooms than residents? I know that my parents, their neighbours, and my childhood friend's parents, all still live in Marple, in the 3 or 4 bedroom houses they had when we were kids, and there's now just one or two of them living there.
It's a much more complex problem than just blaming it on dole scroungers with too many kids, or too many immigrants, etc, etc.
-
Some years ago, I shared an office with a lovely lady. The only thing was, if you asked her the time, she made you a watch. Ever since then, loquacity has always caused problems for my 'attention span.' Nevertheless i accept your apology.
I don't recall who it was who introduced the subject of homelessness to this thread but it is a complete red-herring. The GMSF and homelessnes have no connection whatsoever. The people who devised this plan have given no consideration to homelessness.
There are between 3000 & 4000 homeless people in the city region. It is difficult to be more precise with the numbers. Manchester has about 50% of them but Stockport has a rapidly escalating number of 350 plus. None of these homeless people should be children. If a child becomes homeless, he is taken into the care system and looked after by the Coroporate Parent. In relation to providing roofs over heads. The construction of 4000 one/two bedroomed flats would solve that problem in a blink and right across the Combined Authority. There are ample brownfield sites across Greater Manchester, to facilitate this. Yet not one borough out iof ten has demonstrated any will nor ability to resolve this. They wouldn't even have to do that. There are something like 25,000 houses across the region which lie empty. All that would have to be done would be to bring a fraction of them in to local authority management, homeless problem solved. Even if these houses were to be built/made available, as Condate says, this would not resolve the homeless issue, it is much more complex than a housing shortage.
As Franz says the GMSF is to do with envisaged, exceptional economic growth within the region. It has nothing to do with homelessness.
Despite what Andy Burnham says, these houses will be the three/four bedroomed, double garage type that we all know and love.
-
There are ample brownfield sites across Greater Manchester, to facilitate this. Yet not one borough out iof ten has demonstrated any will nor ability to resolve this
@Hoffnung I keep seeing people writing that Brownfield sites are available. @JohnBates also wrote it here:
5) Work is being done to try and find brownfield sites to reduce/remove need to use greenbelt. The Stockport planing officers would love to know of any they are not aware of.
Have you told Stockport where these "ample" brownfield sites are?
-
A lot of interesting posts here.
GMSF has been around as a concept for a while but by May of this year the only bit of useful information available to the leaders of GMCA was the numbers of houses proposed; in Stockport's case this was the 21,000+ figure. (I know this as I've asked.)
Councillors were briefed on the now-published plans in strict confidence a few weeks earlier than the general public. But the idea of building in High Lane, Cheadle and twice in Heald Green (along with the industrial park in Bredbury) and the size of these developments was a surprise. The logic of "we must build big, so it must be in green belt (currently 46% of SMBC), so we must build big in green belt" was a surprise too.
I don't live in High Lane; it's not in my "back yard". But I cannot see the justification of the erosion of green belt, created in the 50s and 60s to provide the lungs for the city and to prevent urban sprawl. It's simply lazy planning.
So where else? We were told even if all brownfield were used, it'd only be 70% of the OAN need (the 21,000 figure above). But we were also told we don't know where all the brownfield sites are. And at least try to use some of it! Perhaps the Neighbourhood Plan could play a part here?
We still have the 21,000 number ( @Dave was perhaps the only one to question this.) We still have the same planning team, who I see regularly and hold in high regard. I also understand that big developments can demand better infrastructure, whether rail, health or education. I also get the threat that if we have no plan, the government can impose one. I also realise that everywhere was a green field at one time.
But that is precisely why, with resident's passion in my ears at least, we tried to do something about it in the last Full Council. The idea was to adopt a local plan outside the GMSF, local to Marple and to Stockport. That was the plan @simonesaffron was referring to. Deeds not words. But ultimately it's about mobilising residents. And finding common ground between all parties. All 6 Marple councillors agree that this is an oversized plan. It's about finding an alternative and everyone backing it. Let's absolutely work together.
And as the consultation has been extended (sorry to people who paid for registered post!) I do encourage more to respond and provide rational arguments. Otherwise the London urban sprawl will come here.
Sorry for the long post - a lot of points to raise and this is quite an important topic.
Link to the GMSF portal via Marple Lib Dem website:
http://marple.mycouncillor.org.uk/2016/12/18/gmsf-update/#page-content
(http://marple.mycouncillor.org.uk/2016/12/18/gmsf-update/#page-content)
-
Howard,
Why don't you read Hoffnung's post properly? Even the whole paragraph?
He said there are ample Brownfield sites across 'Greater Manchester.' To facilitate the building of 4000 one/two bedroomed flats. Which would eliminate the insufficient housing stock problem for the homeless question.
-
With communication and modern mapping systems the way they are today, the idea that we don't know where the Brownfield sites are, is laughable.
The least you can do Councillor Geoff is to insist that the Planners publish a list and map and some details of these sites in this forum.
-
(Written as someone whose Parents live in a large Marple house with just the two of them in it)
Perhaps Andy, your parents consider it their HOME.
-
Hoffnung, I am pleased to see that we are in broad agreement on some of the issues relating to this discussion.
I agree, homelessness is not relevant to the GMSF draft plan. It accounts for less than 1 page of the 237 pages of the GM Strategic Housing Market Assessment published in October and I was surprised to see that there has, in recent years, been a dramatic decline in homelessness in GM. Between 2004/05 and 2015/16 the number of homeless in priority need, including those in temporary accommodation, in GM fell from 8.9 to 3.2 per 1000 households (Stockport down from 5.1 to 1.9). I recently had a look at a “tented village” in central Manchester and it appeared to be wholly occupied by young men of European extraction who, I would imagine, are not going to be there very long and would not be regarded as “in priority need”
According to the MEN there are 11,000 long term empty (ie more than 6 months) homes across GM, including 1059 in Stockport, and, at the time of the 2011 census 73.58 % of Stockport houses were “under occupied” (ONS)
A map of Stockport brownfield sites is available for those who bother to look at http://mappinggm.org.uk/gmodin/lyrs=brownfield_stockport#open_street_map/10/53.5068/-2.3202 and a copy of a register of those sites, showing their present status, size, housing potential, owners, possible contamination, etc, etc should be available on request from SMBC.
Local councillors are aware that there is a widely held view that there are a lot of brownfield sites in Stockport and they have appealed to those who hold that view to contact them with details to ensure that the current map is complete.
I would not be quite so dismissive of the potential Andy Burnham effect. He will have significant powers and influence and has clearly expressed his appetite for council housing. One of the significant factors in the calculation of the OAHN is “affordability”, ie the relationship, borough by borough, between incomes and house prices. Apparently Stockport fares badly in this respect so we need more affordable housing to bring us in line with other boroughs, ie not so many of those 4 beds/double garages. That’s what they seem to be saying.
That’s it for now. Simone is not the only one off to the Canary Islands.
-
(Written as someone whose Parents live in a large Marple house with just the two of them in it)
Perhaps Andy, your parents consider it their HOME.
As do mine.
But that doesn't change the fact that there are an awful lot of "bedrooms" are going unoccupied, especially in places like Marple, where the demographics skew older.
If we were building 21,000 two bedroom retirement homes/flats, instead of 3/4 bedroom family homes, we wouldn't need to use half as much green belt land to do it.
I know it's a touchy subject, but it is one that's probably going to need to be addressed within the next 20yrs or so.
-
BTW the GMSF consultation has been extended to 16 Jan if you haven't seen via other social media pages.
-
I agree, homelessness is not relevant to the GMSF draft plan. It accounts for less than 1 page of the 237 pages of the GM Strategic Housing Market Assessment published in October and I was surprised to see that there has, in recent years, been a dramatic decline in homelessness in GM. Between 2004/05 and 2015/16 the number of homeless in priority need, including those in temporary accommodation, in GM fell from 8.9 to 3.2 per 1000 households (Stockport down from 5.1 to 1.9). I recently had a look at a “tented village” in central Manchester and it appeared to be wholly occupied by young men of European extraction who, I would imagine, are not going to be there very long and would not be regarded as “in priority need”
I walked the Trans Pennine Trail from Stockport to Parrs Wood a couple of weeks ago and discovered that there are now a number of people living in tents in the passageways of the Pyramid roundabout and beneath the bridges crossing the Mersey. Not too long ago there were a large number of tents of homeless people at the rear of the church in Stockport Marketplace. I know nothing of the origins or ethnicity of the occupants of the tents but their existence is a reminder that homelessness is a problem which also affects Stockport. A number of years ago I worked overlooking Heaton Norris recreation grounds adjacent to the motorway and remember the discovery of the body of someone who had been 'sleeping rough' after a particularly cold night not unlike last night. This particular problem is not one to be addressed by the Spatial Framework discussions but the comment that the homeless in tents
are not going to be there very long and would not be regarded as “in priority need”
seems to me to be a thoughtless generalisation which attempts to sweep the problem of homelessness beneath a carpet of indifference.
-
I was surprised to see that there has, in recent years, been a dramatic decline in homelessness in GM.
http://www.supportsolutions.co.uk/blog/client_groups/homelessness/six_fold_increase_in_homelessness_in_greater_manchester.html
-
As do mine.
But that doesn't change the fact that there are an awful lot of "bedrooms" are going unoccupied, especially in places like Marple, where the demographics skew older.
If we were building 21,000 two bedroom retirement homes/flats, instead of 3/4 bedroom family homes, we wouldn't need to use half as much green belt land to do it.
I know it's a touchy subject, but it is one that's probably going to need to be addressed within the next 20yrs or so.
I tend to agree & this is something our elected representatives could do something about. When green belt was considered for building on in Whaley Bridge a couple of years ago there was a survey (sorry don't have the details to hand) which showed a clear demand from local residents for 1/2 bed flats/ houses both to allow down sizing and people to have a chance of buying a first home. The developers however wanted 3/4/5 bedroom accommodation because it is these that maximise their profits.
-
Howard,
Why don't you read Hoffnung's post properly? Even the whole paragraph?
He said there are ample Brownfield sites across 'Greater Manchester.' To facilitate the building of 4000 one/two bedroomed flats. Which would eliminate the insufficient housing stock problem for the homeless question.
There are a plethora of local authority owned / managed empty office space that could be converted into 1/2 bedroom flats. In addition, there is plenty privately owned empty office space accross GM.
Reality is, if we removed all housing benefit we'd see the demand shift to cheaper housing and the market will respond. Currently, if you have your rent subsidised, the attitude is to get the best, some poor taxpayer is paying for it.
-
Cheaper housing? Where would that be? Oh, I know - on Planet Duke! 😊
-
Cheaper housing? Where would that be? Oh, I know - on Planet Duke! 😊
It's easily done, give developers an incentive, cheaper fast track planning for cheaper homes.
As I say, remove housing (or at least cap it at a realistic level) benefit and you reduce demand, the market reacts accordingly.
-
It's easily done, give developers an incentive, cheaper fast track planning for cheaper homes.
Indeed. But until that happens (don't hold your breath!) Duke's idea is pie in the sky and would just lead to even more homelessness and misery.
-
Indeed. But until that happens (don't hold your breath!) Duke's idea is pie in the sky and would just lead to even more homelessness and misery.
You ignore the issue of benefits. We need to stop the incentive of reliance on the state, the state is forcing rents and housing costs up, to pay for the benefits the state has to tax those working more and thereby leaving the working person with less money to pay those increasing housing costs.
Also Duke's idea is not Duke's idea, it's just a market economy and whilst I'm incredibly clever, I'd not claim to invented such a brilliant evolution. However, if we're lobbying local authorities, they need to look at their idle properties within heir own estate. Take Stockport, it has a plethora of local authority of government agency owned buildings standing idle or under-utilised. I'd like to see government tax the local authorities on empty non-domestic property as it does the private sector.
-
I'd like to see government tax the local authorities on empty non-domestic property as it does the private sector.
I'd also like to see the government help with our local authority duty of care towards the old (via social services) but by 2020 I think the government expect all authorities to raise finances locally. As there is no local income tax here, that means a less-progressive taxation, i.e. a heavier burden on businesses and the poor. It is true that SMBC after a period of no council tax on vacant domestic properties, do tax them more heavily than occupied properties to try to get more residents living there.
"incredibly clever"? Published many papers lately?
-
I'd also like to see the government help with our local authority duty of care towards the old (via social services) but by 2020 I think the government expect all authorities to raise finances locally. As there is no local income tax here, that means a less-progressive taxation, i.e. a heavier burden on businesses and the poor. It is true that SMBC after a period of no council tax on vacant domestic properties, do tax them more heavily than occupied properties to try to get more residents living there.
"incredibly clever"? Published many papers lately?
That is interesting, SMBC levy tax on vacant property in the private sector but does not pay any on it's own empty property? Nor does it tax the former government agencies on their empty property.
I agree with you about a local income tax, council tax and business rates should be removed on all but empty property and local income taxes should be introduced (or perhaps a sales tax for business). The poll tax was a great idea had it have been income related and I think the Lib dems were championing this up until the 2010 election - for me, this was a policy they could & should have got into the coalition agreement and far more important than the tuition fees issue.
As for my incredible cleverness being rated in published papers, I think that only works in academia and I'm a long time out of uni - the rest of us simply don't have the time for such nonsense.
-
Duke, teasing aside - I do value your contributions to these pages. As I do others who argue rationally and can put themselves in the shoes of others.
-
Reality is, if we removed all housing benefit we'd see the demand shift to cheaper housing and the market will respond. Currently, if you have your rent subsidised, the attitude is to get the best, some poor taxpayer is paying for it.
As a landlord, I can tell you there are few areas left in Stockport where someone on housing benefit can afford to live. There are even fewer landlords that are willing to rent to people on benefits due to the legal system always being on the side of the tenant....
-
As a landlord, I can tell you there are few areas left in Stockport where someone on housing benefit can afford to live. There are even fewer landlords that are willing to rent to people on benefits due to the legal system always being on the side of the tenant....
what's Adswood for in that case?
-
Adswood is largely council houses and other forms of social housing, of which there is a shortage, so you have to go on a waiting list, and /or qualify through a points system, which prioritises those in greatest need.
But Duke knew that all along.......
The problem is perfectly simple - there isn't enough housing to go around. So we need to build more, or convert other property into housing. That's all
-
The problem is perfectly simple - there isn't enough housing to go around. So we need to build more, or convert other property into housing. That's all
Or admit that most people living in Marple would rather that people where homeless elsewhere so as to keep our nice country side…..
-
Or admit that most people living in Marple would rather that people where homeless elsewhere so as to keep our nice country side…..
Exactly right, I spotted the Reddish mp a couple of years or so ago campaigning against new houses but his election pamphlets included a signed declaration to build thousands of houses?
We also need to stop paying people to procreate.
I guess we'll see a reduction in demand from March as we press the Brexit button.
-
It was great to see so many people out on the protest rally opposing the GMSF from High Lane today. I noticed Geoff Abell was supporting the rally at the Town Hall. One nil to the Lib Dems from Marple. The organisers stated prior to departure from High Lane were emphatic that the rally was to be apolitical but presumably all of the Conservatives who were told this at High Lane didn't realise that this meant that their Conservative stickers were not meant to be on the banners. No sign of William Wragg MP surprise, surprise. How about making my day by informing me about any other Conservative/Labour/LibDem/Other Marple Councillor, MP or prospective councillor/ MP bothered to turn out to show their support?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
My apologies: Kenny Blair attended. Lib Dems 1- Conservatives 1.
-
To be fair there were both Lib Dem and Conservatives there, but it was the residents and organisers who made it happen. A great day! Lots of support from cars on the A6 too.
-
Cllr @TomDowseMarpleSouth was there as well
https://twitter.com/SydLloyd/status/820350153299230720
-
The problem is perfectly simple - there isn't enough housing to go around. So we need to build more, or convert other property into housing. That's all
Quite, there are many empty buildings and brownfield sites which could be used for housing. However, neither the large house building companies which dominate the sector, not the current Government, see any value (both in terms of profit or votes) to make this happen.
-
Should we build any new homes required on the flood plains?
-
Quite, there are many empty buildings and brownfield sites which could be used for housing. However, neither the large house building companies which dominate the sector, not the current Government, see any value (both in terms of profit or votes) to make this happen.
house builders would love to convert old offices etc. the obstacle is usually the local authority (even worse when its a Labour authority)
-
Should we build any new homes required on the flood plains?
Perhaps that question should be directed to people who bought houses on the flood plain site of the old Strines printworks and the Marple Community Forum photos showed us what happened there last year. I wouldn't mind betting that the house building company stated that the probability of flooding was once every hundred years!
-
house builders would love to convert old offices etc. the obstacle is usually the local authority (even worse when its a Labour authority)
Given building regs requirements for thermal and sound insulation, it is now often cheaper to knock down and start again. However converting an old office allows the developer to bypass having to pay a sections 101 (I think I got the number right) payment.
-
A selection of photos from Saturday's protest march have been added to the Marple Website Virtual History Tour:
http://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/thumbnails.php?album=lastup&cat=-36
(http://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/albums/uploads/new/events/StocWalk1411_47.JPG)
(http://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/albums/uploads/new/events/StocWalk1411_04.JPG)
(http://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/albums/uploads/new/events/StocWalk1411_127.JPG)
-
Today is the last day to have your say in the GMSF Consultation:
https://gmsf-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/2016consultation/gmsfoct16
-
Following PM Question Time this week, is the High Lane proposal dead in the water?
https://www.facebook.com/wragg4HG/videos/1407532059318796/
-
Following PM Question Time this week, is the High Lane proposal dead in the water?
Not on the basis of that answer it's not.
She didn't rule out building on greenbelt land, just that the local authority must have examined all other options first - which is what the current rules say anyway isn't it?
-
Not on the basis of that answer it's not.
She didn't rule out building on greenbelt land, just that the local authority must have examined all other options first - which is what the current rules say anyway isn't it?
I'd agree - just stating the obvious. Green Belt is last on the list, but its not sacred. Two politicians mouthing platitudes. Meanwhile in the real world......
-
And our MP will have expected exactly that answer. But still needed to ask the question, to protect his own back with his constituents.
-
Quite right, it is just a platitudinous exchange between two politicians. One will have had notification of the content of the others question and will have had ample notice to frame her answer.
As far as GMSF is concerned, there is no doubt in my mind that providing DevoManc goes ahead ( and it may not do ) in the ambitious way that it was envisaged, then in order to drive the economy towards its goal and change the financial structure from a cost centre to a contributor, a lot of extra people will be needed. People need houses to live in and we all know that we haven't got any. There is no way out of this Fait accompli other than to build some and in large quantities.
High Lane has been identified as the site, and plans, will in theory, already be well advanced. A couple of marches, a few posters dotted around and a rehearsed question in Parliament will do little to change the minds of our political masters. Especially when they are already made up.
Whether it is 3000, or 4000, or 5000, who knows?
But if DevoManc happens then a large quantity of houses in High Lane will follow.
-
But if DevoManc happens then a large quantity of houses in High Lane will follow.
Let's hope it doesn't then, or if it does, it excludes Marple and/or Stockport.
-
Hope is a good quality to have Condate.
DevonManc can't exclude Stockport as each borough has to take responsibility for the provision of so many houses. The big question is - where is the land to accommodate them? It seems, in Stockport's case, a large chunk of it is in High Lane.
-
A couple of marches, a few posters dotted around and a rehearsed question in Parliament will do little to change the minds of our political masters.
Simone is dead right. I have nothing but sympathy for people living close to the proposed site of this huge development. But marching and banners will achieve nothing, I fear. The housing is desperately needed, and the only effective way to oppose the scheme is to come up with a realistic alternative site.
-
Personally I think we should be building high quality flats (with good sound proofing and thermal insulation) 5 stories high on blocks like Barcelona using the “Superblock” system. (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/17/superblocks-rescue-barcelona-spain-plan-give-streets-back-residents)
Firstly this takes up a lot less land, it also has a high enough density of hosing that public transport works well. By putting offices and shops on the first two floors, you can even out the commuting so the trams are not empty in one direction. There are large area of Manchester within cycling distance of the center that would be improved by replacing most of their low quality housing.
Let each block be owned by a different company completing for tenants, so that market forces leads to good quality homes.
-
Simone is dead right. I have nothing but sympathy for people living close to the proposed site of this huge development. But marching and banners will achieve nothing, I fear. The housing is desperately needed, and the only effective way to oppose the scheme is to come up with a realistic alternative site.
I think the key thing is to emphasise that the figures for how many houses are required in the area are complete nonsense. While some housing is certainly needed, there is no need for anything like the figures proposed. This was raised at the area committee meeting, where several people mentioned the absurdity of the targets, but sadly, they are set by government which makes them hard to change. However, it's important to try. I think it's a mistake to concentrate on getting these house built elsewhere; they shouldn't be built at all in the numbers proposed.
-
Sounds like a good idea for Barcelona Ringi. I'm not quite sure it would be welcomed in High Lane.
Unfortunately Condate, it is the government's view that usually prevails. I do agree though we should try and change this view but it is also important that we don't become self deluded with what we can achieve. In addition to this, I haven't heard of anybody in an official capacity challenge the numbers.
If these plans go ahead then wholesale planning permission will need to be granted at local level. Are our local Councillors going to defy their own party directives and vote against these proposals? What do you think?
-
Interestingly Stockport Council are now appealing for people to tell them about Brownfield sites suitable for building on:
https://www.stockport.gov.uk/news/stockport-council-seeking-more-brownfield-sites
There is more info here and you can register a site via the link: https://www.stockport.gov.uk/brownfield
I guess it answers my question about whether there is a comprehensive register of Brownfield sites.
-
This issue has not gone away.
Officers from SMBC and GM are sifting through all the consultation replies. But still on the table are 4 areas for development of houses and 1 expansion of an industrial estate, much of it currently designated as Green Belt. I have been talking to many in planning, both inside and outside the authority.
As many have pointed out, it's not just the housing - it's the associated transport, schools, medical facilities and clean air. This is why the Lib Dems proposed not just talking but doing: pulling out of the flawed GMSF completely and using a local plan to accommodate 15-year expansion rather than 20 years. One of the Tory S Marple councillors agreed in principle this might be the right thing to do, but wanted to see the result of the consultation. Trouble is, that is at the back of this year, we're months closer to the build on High Lane.
Sorry to be a little political here, but I think most people want the same result (there were Tory and Lib Dem cllrs who protested on that march) - it's just how to get there and how to explore the alternatives. Ideas like @ringi suggested in Barcelona are useful. Urban design and re-use are critical. (Btw, Section 106 monies (Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) means we can finance local things like parks from local developments.)
Also there is a move to call the ward of Marple South "Marple South and High Lane". What do people think of that?
-
Requiring very high density of homes with no parking within 200 meters of all tram stations (and rail stations with a service at least every 10 minutes), including being willing to buy up low density homes to replace them with flats may help.
It does not help that a lot of employment is moving into the center of Manchester, so the employer can have the largest choose of candidates, and them companies like Amazon are using sites that force all workers to drive. Hence puting large peak time demands on our transport systems, with people mostly travelling in the same direction.
But at the end of the day, I don’t know if I like the concept of making the North more like London, I think I would rather have less money to live on in exchange for having less people getting in my way.
-
In addition to this, I haven't heard of anybody in an official capacity challenge the numbers.
If these plans go ahead then wholesale planning permission will need to be granted at local level. Are our local Councillors going to defy their own party directives and vote against these proposals? What do you think?
I have challenged the numbers in my official response and also challenged them during the first public meeting that was held on the subject that I organised.
On your point about Planning Permission, not sure if you understand the process or if I have misunderstood the point you are trying to make? Councillors don't vote on planning applications based on party directives. They are based on application of Planning law at the time of application and each is judged on their own individual merits.
-
As many have pointed out, it's not just the housing - it's the associated transport, schools, medical facilities and clean air. This is why the Lib Dems proposed not just talking but doing: pulling out of the flawed GMSF completely and using a local plan to accommodate 15-year expansion rather than 20 years. One of the Tory S Marple councillors agreed in principle this might be the right thing to do, but wanted to see the result of the consultation. Trouble is, that is at the back of this year, we're months closer to the build on High Lane.
Morning Geoff, just to remind you it was the Lib Dems who put us into the 'flawed' GMSF in the first instance. You also know that local Councils have to have their own Local Plan anyway, whether or not the GMSF goes ahead. If by doing rather than talking you mean the fact the Lib Dems voted against starting the Stockport Local Plan in December you are correct. You also know that by pulling out of the GMSF at this stage and with no up to date local plan, that Developers would be queuing up to submit speculative planning applications, which the Council would likely refuse but that they would most likely win on Appeal. Thus the ill thought out Lib Dem political stunt would actually have led to less protection of the greenbelt than remaining in the GMSF at this stage and also mean Stockport would have to find allocations for approx 1,000 more dwellings, as other Boroughs are taking some of the load for Stockport at the moment.
Which Marple South Cllr has agreed in principle? As it wasn't me, I can only assume you mean Cllr Dowse, so I will check with him. I have stated from the start that the GMSF in principle is a good idea, but what is currently contained within it is unacceptable. If it is not significantly amended to remove the mass development on the Greenbelt in the next revision, then as per the Conservative motion at Council, we should then pull out of the GMSF, and our Local Plan (that you voted against starting) will be further through the process, if not nearly complete.
-
The whole thing is a mess. We are faced with the prospect of thousands of houses in Maple and an infrastructure that doesn't exist.
Meanwhile our local councillors who are powerless in action, serve up distraction by bouncing party political points off each other.
OR debating the major issue of whether Maple South should be called just that or 'Marple South & High Lane.' ...Now let me think....
-
We are not faced with the prospect of thousands of houses in Marple, the proposal is for 4,000 in High Lane. Cllr are not debating whether it should be called Marple South or Marple South & High Lane, it is a proposal that will go to consultation.
You call it distraction, I call it setting the record straight. People always bang on about politicians being dishonest and I wholeheartedly agree that they need to do more and stop the spin. But when you try to set that record straight, it is political point scoring. All parties had agreed to work constructively on the GMSF proposals together, which was promised in front of 250 people at a meeting in High Lane. Then the Liberals unilaterally went against that the very next night with their ill thought out proposals, for that very reason you seem to dislike so much - political point scoring.
Should we just sit back and let them tell people what they want to, safe in the knowledge they wont be held to account for what they say, for fear that it may be seen as political point scoring? I dont think so.
As for Cllrs being powerless, we get the final say on whether the GMSF goes ahead or not, I wouldnt call that powerless. The feedback I have is that the GMSF will have to be drastically re-written, at least as far as Stockport is concerned, to get it through Stockport Council.
-
Kenny,
As far as I am aware, (contrary to the view of the High Lane Residents Association) High Lane is not an independent state nor a republic. It is in the political ward of South Marple. Therefore it is being proposed that 4000 houses be built in Marple. If you want to be pedantic, that's your choice, but pedantry won't do anything constructive for the people of Marple, north or south, or whatever you decide to call it.
Why don't you consider calling it 'Marple South with High Lane, Hawk Green & The Ridge
That way nobody gets left out and the ridicule can continue.
..."a proposal that will go to consultation." Consultation with whom? Residents of Marple? Residents of South Marple? Just the Residents of High Lane? Are you going to propose a motion about it to Full Council?
No councillor, instead of putting the 'record straight' as you call it, I call it party politicking. It's all I hear and see from you. You could try keeping a dignified silence, about your political opponents and use your energy on something else. Some of your colleagues seem able to achieve this.
"The feedback I have." Feed back from whom, can you tell us or is it a secret?
..."the GMSF will have to be drastically re-written." In what way, by whom, please tell us? Do we have your word on that?
-
Just as an aside I understand part of the land attached to Marple Dale Care home has been sold for the development of housing. This was not unexpected as there are several old units on the site which are not economically repairable. From what I understand it will be used for larger luxury homes rather than providing much in terms of numbers, the issue is access.
-
Requiring very high density of homes with no parking within 200 meters of all tram stations (and rail stations with a service at least every 10 minutes), including being willing to buy up low density homes to replace them with flats may help.
This is exactly what is happening in my old neck of the woods in South West London. Blocks are springing up all the time. They have no parking facilities and as most of the nearby streets have permit parking, residents are banned from having permits.
It works. It works well because car ownership in London is substantially lower than the rest of the UK, and because the public transport is extremely good. When you know buses and tube trains run every few minutes, fares are simple and coordinated, and you can get everywhere, why own a car? I didn't in the 16 years I lived there.
It works. If you have the public transport. Greater Manchester does not have that level of infrastructure and it could take decades to get there.
I am not anti flat by any means. If you look at other big cities in the world, they almost always have far more flats in their suburbs than British ones do. But as a nation we expect our detached house and garden. We demand a style house that's not space efficient. And that's one of the reasons why there is this pressure to build on greenbelt.
We do need to reset expectations. We need more flats. But it will be a long time at current rates before I think we can make them car free.
-
..."a proposal that will go to consultation." Consultation with whom? Residents of Marple? Residents of South Marple? Just the Residents of High Lane? Are you going to propose a motion about it to Full Council?
No councillor, instead of putting the 'record straight' as you call it, I call it party politicking. It's all I hear and see from you. You could try keeping a dignified silence, about your political opponents and use your energy on something else. Some of your colleagues seem able to achieve this.
"The feedback I have." Feed back from whom, can you tell us or is it a secret?
..."the GMSF will have to be drastically re-written." In what way, by whom, please tell us? Do we have your word on that?
Sorry, I can't address you by your first name as you hide behind your onscreen persona. If you are interested in the consultation and where it will be held, it was discussed at the last Marple Area Committee and the webcast is available on the Stockport Council website. No I wont be proposing a Full Motion at Council.
You call it what you like and I will call what I like, if you want to be spun a yarn without it being corrected, then that is your choice. But Labour, the Conservatives and the Indepedents all agreed the Lib Dems were playing a political trick for their own gain.
As for holding a dignified silence, as I said, I will aim to set the record straight and I dont see you holding any dignified silence ever. You are constantly on here criticising everything.
Finally on the GMSF, the feedback is from various sources and I wont break their confidence. As for it being drastically re-written, the statement was that the feedback I have had is that it will have to be drastically re-written to get it through Stockport Council. Do you want my word that it will be drastically re-written? In which case, No I cant give you my word. Do you want my word that it will not get through Stockport Council if it is not drastically re-written? No, I cant. I can give you my word that if it is not drastically re-written and the proposals for mass development in High Lane are not removed, then I will vote against it and will lobby all of the other Councillors to reject it like they all voted they would do at the Council meeting earlier in the year.
I am sure that answer won't be good enough for you, but then, no answer is as far as you are concerned.
-
Stockport Council has now published a register of Brownfield sites but it only includes two small sites in Marple.
They are 10 Manor Road, Marple, Stockport, SK6 6PW and Orlando House, 11 Compstall Road, Marple Bridge, Stockport, SK6 5HH.
I'm amazed that this doesn't include the Westwood Trading Estate (between Eastwood Drive and Throstle Grove off Cross Lane). This site, which is probably the most significant in Marple, has been derelict for years and if it is not included on the list how many other sites of its kind are missing too?
Maybe it's because of the government criteria for a Brownfield site, which includes that a site "must be available for development" or maybe it is because the list is only just getting started.
What do our local councillors and election candidates think about the list and this site? Should it be subject to compulsory purchase?
Here's a link to the full list: https://www.stockport.gov.uk/brownfield/brownfield-land-register (https://www.stockport.gov.uk/brownfield/brownfield-land-register)
@CllrKennyBlair @CllrGeoffAbell @TomDowseMarpleSouth @Malcolm Allan @Steve Gribbon @ChrisGleeson @chriswallis labour @ColinMac
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
That site is a complete eyesore. I'm surprised they didn't clear it when they built the new estate across from Peacefield.