Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: Dave on April 10, 2021, 10:49:22 AM
-
Does anyone know anything about this: https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/stockport-prepares-to-advance-lcr-station-plan/
It appears to be the latest development in a scheme set out in this glossy brochure: https://lcrproperty.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Greater-Manchester-Alliance-Prospects-2021.pdf
It's not obvious where a new housing estate at Rose Hill could be located. The allotments? The tip?? Maybe on the nearby farm land west of the Middlewood Way.
-
First I've heard of this @Dave
I recall that when sites were being nominated for the GMSF (which Stockport has now opted out of I think) Josh Robinson's plot was tagged for potential development but that is hardly an estate, more like a couple of houses. Do you know if those Spatial Framework maps are still accessible online? They may give some clues to this.
I can't find them atm and can't remember but I think the fields to the south of Marple Brook were tagged on those too.
-
Maybe one of our councillors might be able to throw some light on it?
-
I've found a map here - yes it shows the land S of Marple Brook, but nothing nearer to Rose Hill Station. Couldn't help noticing that land near Lower Watermeetings Farm, Compstall, is identified. I suggest whoever builds there supplies free wellies!
https://mappinggm.org.uk/call-for-sites/#os_maps_outdoor/15/53.4005/-2.0677 (https://mappinggm.org.uk/call-for-sites/#os_maps_outdoor/15/53.4005/-2.0677) - go to the "View The Map" link.
-
Thanks for the link Cyberman. I suppose it could possibly be the site south of Marple Brook. On the other hand, the article in my first link refers to ‘a total of six underused railway sites across the boroughs of Trafford and Stockport.’ You’d hardly call that bit of land an underused railway site!
-
The sites I was thinking of were hidden in different layers on that map you found @Cyberman
This capture includes the Josh Robinson site that I recalled.
As @Dave says, it doesn't really stack-up with what is described in the article.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
My understanding of the situation given the withdrawal of Stockport from GMSF was that the government is now looking at land it itself owns to provide land for housebuilding to satisfy the the towns future housing needs. As the government still owns a lot of railway land I would initially be looking at old railway land around Rose Hill to get some idea of where might be being considered.
-
The most important thing about the withdrawal from the Spacial Framework is that Stockport now needs to build thousands more homes than it was going to in the framework. Part of our quota - defined by government - was going to other boroughs.
-
As the government still owns a lot of railway land I would initially be looking at old railway land around Rose Hill to get some idea of where might be being considered.
You are right Wheels - I've not been able to find any maps of railway owned land but it looks like you can find out via FOI requests (others have done this). However, the council do have maps showing their assets. Looking at this, the railways obviously own the car park and station land and may own the land used by Josh Robinson and Pearson Fuels (or they may own it themselves). It certainly doesn't amount to much without the council owned land.
The council own the Jewson's site, the tip, the access road with parking (all in yellow), the allotments and the Middlewood Way (in green) - see attached.
Personally I would not like to loose the tip and have to go to Bredbury and definitely wouldn't like to see the allotments built on either.
I've added a satellite view too. If Jewson's, the tip, the allotments and woodlands were used it would provide a significant area to build on. Is that what they are thinking?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Maybe one of our councillors might be able to throw some light on it?
Good morning
I have 2 meetings this week where this will be discussed, CRMG tomorrow evening where I am guesting and Economy and Regeneration which is a scrutiny panel I chair. Both meetings can be viewed live via the Stockport.Gov website and I will report back on here accordingly after the 2 meetings. I will also catch up with my Councillor colleagues Becky Senior and Malcolm Allan regarding this matter.
Kind regards and stay safe
Steve
-
Many thanks Steve. We’ll look forward to your report.
-
I'm also at the meeting that Steve is at on Tuesday. Both are "scrutiny" meetings where papers are considered for comment in advance of further progress. The paper is the same for both committees and is publicly available on the Council web site via the committee agenda. One is "Corporate Resource, Management and Governance" http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/g27168/Public%20reports%20pack%2013th-Apr-2021%2018.00%20Corporate%20Resource%20Management%20Governance%20Scrutiny%20Commi.pdf?T=10
and the other is "Economy and Regeneration".
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/g27186/Public%20reports%20pack%2015th-Apr-2021%2018.00%20Economy%20Regeneration%20Scrutiny%20Committee.pdf?T=10
The paper indicates four stations have been looked at in principle so far and two preferred for further investigation, neither of those being Rose Hill.
-
This is to be expected now that the Lib Con groups took Stockport out of the GMSF - Stockport has to find a greater number of housing plots from within borough, these will fall in the areas where there is more green space and where developers can make extra cash. It'll be nice to see some councillors acknowledge that this is what they voted for but I fully expect them to start blaming everyone apart from themselves.
The 4k houses in high lane may become a self fulfilling prophecy, but only after a long and costly legal battle where the council will spend thousands trying to stop the inevitable.
We can expect this going on for a long, long time.
-
Thanks to Malcolm for posting those links to committee papers.
If you click on either of those links and scroll down, you'll reach a supporting committee paper called Stockport Stations Alliance.
There are no maps, unfortunately, so it's still not possible to work out the site or scale of the proposed development. However, here are a couple of key excerpts: 'Part of the development option with partners is to assume no parking loss at these stations' And 'a degree of third party land will be needed.'
So that does throw a very small amount of light on the scheme: that the development won't be on the Rose Hill station car park (or if it is, alternative parking will be provided). And it may partly be on land which is not currently publicly owned by the council, the government or Network Rail.
-
Very interesting to read this.
As long as the train station is still there, and Middlewood Way and fields aren't affected, I don't see any problems with new housing. But surely the industrial estate opposite Peacefield or half of the site of the Dale school would be simpler to build on?
-
Good afternoon
This week Malcolm Allan and I have attended scrutiny meetings where the Rail Alliance was discussed. Questions were raised about how the 4 stations had been chosen and why 2 (Cheadle Hulme and Hazel Grove) have been put forward for further work. We also questioned and expressed disappointment as to why this information had got into the public domain before being presented to scrutiny panels which has been accepted. Last night I asked about whether any landowners had been contacted with a view to selling land due to some land acquisition may be required to progress stations, Council officers did not know the answer to this and are finding out this information.
During the scrutiny meetings it was made clear that all stations are subject to scrutiny and all could indeed be investigated further in due course, this also works the same way that no stations could be subject to any work, the scheme is very much in its infancy.
Malcolm and I have also requested that the lead officer with the scheme meet with us privately to discuss matters further and this has been accepted and we will involve our fellow Councillor Becky Senior in any future discussions. We will of course keep residents updated accordingly.
Kind regards, Steve Gribbon
On behalf of myself, Becky Senior and Malcolm Allan.
-
Good afternoon
This week Malcolm Allan and I have attended scrutiny meetings where the Rail Alliance was discussed. Questions were raised about how the 4 stations had been chosen and why 2 (Cheadle Hulme and Hazel Grove) have been put forward for further work. We also questioned and expressed disappointment as to why this information had got into the public domain before being presented to scrutiny panels which has been accepted. Last night I asked about whether any landowners had been contacted with a view to selling land due to some land acquisition may be required to progress stations, Council officers did not know the answer to this and are finding out this information.
During the scrutiny meetings it was made clear that all stations are subject to scrutiny and all could indeed be investigated further in due course, this also works the same way that no stations could be subject to any work, the scheme is very much in its infancy.
Malcolm and I have also requested that the lead officer with the scheme meet with us privately to discuss matters further and this has been accepted and we will involve our fellow Councillor Becky Senior in any future discussions. We will of course keep residents updated accordingly.
Kind regards, Steve Gribbon
On behalf of myself, Becky Senior and Malcolm Allan.
Thank you for the update @Steve Gribbon and we look forward to more in the near future.
Is it possible to say at the moment if the allotments are definitely safe and that they are not contemplating closing the recycle centre and building on it?
-
Thank you for the update @Steve Gribbon and we look forward to more in the near future.
Is it possible to say at the moment if the allotments are definitely safe and that they are not contemplating closing the recycle centre and building on it?
Hi admin team
Thanks for this message. There was no discussion about allotments and/or the recycling centre which was the same for any individual areas at other locations. From a personal point of view I would not want to see either of these well used facilities being brought into question and would be against any changes that could affect us in a negative way.
Kind regards
Steve
-
Hi admin team
Thanks for this message. There was no discussion about allotments and/or the recycling centre which was the same for any individual areas at other locations. From a personal point of view I would not want to see either of these well used facilities being brought into question and would be against any changes that could affect us in a negative way.
Kind regards
Steve
Personally, I think the location and activity levels at the recycling centre are incongruous to the locale. It generates a lot of noise and traffic in a largely residential area. A recent BS 4142:2014 environmental noise investigation last year concluded that 25% of the time, there is are "significant adverse impacts" from noise generated at the site at weekends, measured over 100m away from the site. It's opening times until 8pm through summer, 7 days a week are invasive when you're having relaxing time in the garden at 7pm on a Sunday evening and listening to a 27 tonne JCB crushing waste in an open container. Railway Road is also too narrow to accomodate the contaienr vehicles and there have been recorded instances of near misses where these vehicles are concerned.
-
Personally, I think the location and activity levels at the recycling centre are incongruous to the locale. It generates a lot of noise and traffic in a largely residential area. A recent BS 4142:2014 environmental noise investigation last year concluded that 25% of the time, there is are "significant adverse impacts" from noise generated at the site at weekends, measured over 100m away from the site. It's opening times until 8pm through summer, 7 days a week are invasive when you're having relaxing time in the garden at 7pm on a Sunday evening and listening to a 27 tonne JCB crushing waste in an open container. Railway Road is also too narrow to accomodate the contaienr vehicles and there have been recorded instances of near misses where these vehicles are concerned.
Sorry but I completely disagree, it is situated in what is effectively a small industrial estate, next to two building yards and a coal merchants, the first two at least generate a lot of industrial noise and traffic. The traffic problems are similar to any of the local schools or college, all of which are in residential areas too.
-
Sorry but I completely disagree, it is situated in what is effectively a small industrial estate, next to two building yards and a coal merchants, the first two at least generate a lot of industrial noise and traffic. The traffic problems are similar to any of the local schools or college, all of which are in residential areas too.
We are all entitled of course to an opinion. The opinion of Stockport’s planners and Viridor in 2007/08 seemingly that they clearly felt this IS a “predominantly residential area” by the inclusion of section 11 CDH1.2 of Stockport’s Unitary Development Plan into the planning application (ref DC-028177) and the associated environmental impact assessment (EIA) that was conducted at the time.
Ref…
CDH1.2 NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Non-residential development will be permitted in Predominantly Residential Areas where it can be accommodated without detriment to the residential amenity of adjacent dwellings or the residential area as a whole. In particular account will be taken of:
(i) noise, smell and nuisance
(ii) traffic generation and safety and accessibility by sustainable transport modes
(iii) parking
(iv) hours of operation
(v) proximity to dwellings
(vi) the scale of the proposal
(vii) whether or not the character of the area will be changed. Most large-scale, non-residential development will be inappropriate in Predominantly Residential Areas.
In attemtping to mitigate against the above as identified in the EIA, they built 6m sound barriers around the three sides of the site!
Surprising they’d go to all these lengths if they considered it an industrial estate, … In my opinion!
-
In local government elected members and officers who you complain so much about would be require to declare an interest if they had one in the prospect of any building near to them. Here people can moan away seeking to influence others views without any such declaration of personal interest. A strange double stand some adopt.
-
In local government elected members and officers who you complain so much about would be require to declare an interest if they had one in the prospect of any building near to them. Here people can moan away seeking to influence others views without any such declaration of personal interest. A strange double stand some adopt.
Not a double standard @wheels , it's called democracy!
-
Not a double standard @wheels , it's called democracy!
No it's not you are seeking to influence people's views without giving them the full picture and declaring your personal interest in the issue. That's not at all my understanding of how democratic debate takes place.
-
No it's not you are seeking to influence people's views without giving them the full picture and declaring your personal interest in the issue. That's not at all my understanding ding of how democratic debate takes place.
which piece of the picture am I missing @wheels
-
which piece of the picture am I missing @wheels
As usual the bit that doesn't fit your purpose.
-
As usual the bit that doesn't fit your purpose.
Please elaborate @wheels
This is a democratic forum where all opinions can be voiced.
-
We are all entitled of course to an opinion. The opinion of Stockport’s planners and Viridor in 2007/08 seemingly that they clearly felt this IS a “predominantly residential area” by the inclusion of section 11 CDH1.2 of Stockport’s Unitary Development Plan into the planning application (ref DC-028177) and the associated environmental impact assessment (EIA) that was conducted at the time.
Ref…
CDH1.2 NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Non-residential development will be permitted in Predominantly Residential Areas where it can be accommodated without detriment to the residential amenity of adjacent dwellings or the residential area as a whole. In particular account will be taken of:
(i) noise, smell and nuisance
(ii) traffic generation and safety and accessibility by sustainable transport modes
(iii) parking
(iv) hours of operation
(v) proximity to dwellings
(vi) the scale of the proposal
(vii) whether or not the character of the area will be changed. Most large-scale, non-residential development will be inappropriate in Predominantly Residential Areas.
In attemtping to mitigate against the above as identified in the EIA, they built 6m sound barriers around the three sides of the site!
Surprising they’d go to all these lengths if they considered it an industrial estate, … In my opinion!
Not sure what my apparently different "opinion" is supposed to be. I have stated that the tip is situated in what is effectively an industrial estate, in a residential area. (See my quote below.) This is entirely factual. My point is that if people chose to buy a house or live near a pub/school/tip/train station etc then there will be associated noises.
I currently live opposite a primary school (which is next to ANOTHER primary school) and the traffic and noise for 2 hours a day is horrendous. Not to mention the parking. I have just bought a house in central Marple, ten seconds from Stockport Road, and so have likewise knowingly chosen to live with the effects of traffic noise and pollution from that immediate area. Possibly even music/noise from 2 pubs both just 30 seconds away, although I'm pleased about this!
Sorry but I completely disagree, it is situated in what is effectively a small industrial estate, next to two building yards and a coal merchants, the first two at least generate a lot of industrial noise and traffic. The traffic problems are similar to any of the local schools or college, all of which are in residential areas too.
-
My point is that if people chose to buy a house or live near a pub/school/tip/train station etc then there will be associated noises.
@royal_marple I always knew I was buying a house near to a recycling centre and my due-dilligence at the time, assured me that the planning consent and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was such that noise and traffic issues were under control. The EIA identified noise as a key operational issue and as a result, significant noise mitigation measures were incororated into the design of the site. The situation now however is that those mitigations that formed the basis of the planning approval are proving inadequate given higher numbers of visitors than were projected for a 10 year period, which in turn means more waste, more container pickups and more waste compaction. That waste compaction and container activity is generating higher noise levels than were estimated in the Environmental Assessment and that were the basis for the planning approval. The conditions of the planning approval are arguably being breached! Because of this, Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) have instructed Wood to conduct a noise investigation and it's findings have comfirmed that which is stated above in terms of "severe adverse impacts" to the surrounding area. GMCA have aknowledged the problem and commited to do something about it.
I felt this needed stating before somebody else decides I'm merely on some kind of Victor Meldrew styled rant with my own personal agenda.