Paving and Driveways in Marple, Stockport

Author Topic: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites  (Read 36211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Howard

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 912
    • Personal Blog
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #146 on: January 18, 2018, 10:03:02 AM »
That site is a complete eyesore. I'm surprised they didn't clear it when they built the new estate across from Peacefield.
Howard

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7408
    • The Marple Website
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #145 on: January 18, 2018, 06:12:58 AM »
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

@CllrKennyBlair  @CllrGeoffAbell  @TomDowseMarpleSouth  @Malcolm Allan   @Steve Gribbon     @ChrisGleeson    @chriswallis labour  @ColinMac

CllrKennyBlair

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69


..."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.

andrewbowden

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
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.

corium

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
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.

simonesaffron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
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? 

     

CllrKennyBlair

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
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.

simonesaffron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
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.... 

CllrKennyBlair

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
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.

CllrKennyBlair

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #137 on: April 30, 2017, 10:24:54 PM »
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.

ringi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #136 on: April 30, 2017, 07:22:18 PM »
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.

GeoffAbell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
    • Marple Lib Dems
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #135 on: April 30, 2017, 06:36:37 PM »
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?

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7408
    • The Marple Website
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #134 on: March 31, 2017, 06:39:44 AM »
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.

simonesaffron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #133 on: March 01, 2017, 10:33:05 PM »
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?   

Condate

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #132 on: March 01, 2017, 07:02:16 PM »
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.