The Greater Manchester Combined Authority is preparing a new development plan for the whole metropolitan area for the next 20 years.
The draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, which covers the ten Greater Manchester local authorities, sets out how much housing and employment land is needed and the distribution between each district up to 2035.
The Combined Authority maintain there is a need to deliver 200,000 new jobs in the period up to 2035 and 230,000 new dwellings - 28% of which will be located in the Green Belt.
The draft proposals see Stockport delivering 9% of the required housing, which is likely to have an impact on the adjoining northern parts of Cheshire East and is being published just as the Independent Examination into the CEC Local Plan closes.
Identified sites close to the border with Cheshire East include land off the A34 near Cheadle Hulme - which is bounded by the A34 to the East and Wilmslow Road to the West - which has been identified for upwards of 3,700 dwellings with a potential new access directly onto the A34 at Eden Point.
According to the draft plan "It offers the opportunity to deliver a high quality form of development which represents an opportunity to provide an extension to Heald Green and Cheadle Hulme."
In Woodford an area of some 238 hectares, located close to the southern boundary of Stockport and Greater Manchester with Cheshire East, has been identified for development.
The draft plans states "The scheme will seek to build on the success of the Woodford Garden Village development through the delivery of further high quality sensitive residential led development and local facilities. In total the scheme will deliver around 2,400 new homes."
Whilst in Heald Green a site close to Heald Green Large Local Centre and Heald Green station has been identified as having the the potential to deliver up to 2,000 new dwellings.
Additionally, Airport City South - an area located to the south west of the Airport terminals with the A538 Wilmslow Road to the east - is being proposed for delivering approximately 40,000 sq m of commercial floorspace, predominantly for airport-focussed logistics as part of the Airport City South development.
Cllr Ainsley Arnold, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing wrote to Council members saying "The 10 local authorities in Greater Manchester are working together to deliver this growth and to ensure that these new homes and jobs are provided in the right places with the transport infrastructure (roads, rail, Metrolink) to support the communities and manage growth sustainably.
"It has been widely trailed that green belt release will be necessary to achieve this scale of growth – with a series of "Garden Suburbs" being part of the preferred solution. These suburbs would be large scale sustainable urban extensions or new settlements, potentially similar to our own North Cheshire Growth Village. Consultation on the first draft of the plan is scheduled to begin at the end of October 2016 but an indication of the proposals may emerge ahead of this as part of the decision making processes of the Combined Authority. A full briefing will be provided as soon as the details of the new plan are agreed and published. It is anticipated that the Council will wish to formally comment on those aspects which affect Cheshire East."
Greater Manchester Leaders are to decide whether to approve the draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework plan at a meeting on Friday, 28th October, so it can go out to public consultation. Following the consultation Greater Manchester Combined Authority will review all of the responses and consider how they need to review our strategy. It is their intention to consult on a 'Publication Plan' in Summer 2017, with submission to the Secretary of State at the end of 2017 and adoption of the GMSF in 2018.
Second image shows the site of the A34 near Cheadle Hulme.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
http://bit.ly/1DlRiwX
So Just how much ‘Stock ‘ is already in existence, and not being used ?
http://ind.pn/1TPXJnn
Of all the political sins, hypocrisy is worst…. And now the ‘COGS’ (Concrete over green spaces.. brigade) comments will follow. Those that don't want to move and live in an inner city but want to make Wilmslow an urban concrete jungle.. The public can judge those that were elected to protect expectation around ‘green belt‘, Irrespective of party colours.. Somehow I can’t see many taking a ‘Zac Goldsmith’ principled stand.
There is absolutely no forethought going into any of these developments. Where are the studies that claim such high demand for housing in areas such as Wilmslow, Woodford and Handforth Dean?
Is no-one going to admit that the A34 simply can't take the increase in traffic from thousands of new houses? Has no-one thought of the impact of all those emissions from the increased traffic that will be stood still for most of the length of the A34?
Are Wilmslow and Handforth Dean destined to become yet another suburb of Greater Manchester, with no Green Belt or demarcation between that great sprawl and this once beautifully green area?
This is not a case of NIMBY simply a case of common sense. Come on CEC and Stockport / Gtr Manchester get your heads together and sort this mess out!
So Manchester plan to build on the Green Belt up to the boundary in the south and Cheshire East will do the same. Manchester, Handforth and Wilmslow merge leaving us a prime target for being taken into Greater Manchester as nearly happened once before. So where is the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ that is supposed to apply on cross border issues?
But how can these huge inroads into a strategic part of the Green Belt be justified? Housing Ministers have said on many occasions that meeting housing need will not normally comprise the exceptional circumstances needed to justify development in the Green Belt. Savid Javed went as far as to say that the Green Belt was sacrosanct.
Cheshire East in their replies to consultation responses justify it by saying “The Inspector…….. confirms that CEC has identified the exceptional circumstances needed to justify altering Green Belt boundaries, namely the need to allocate sufficient land for market and affordable housing and employment development, combined with the significant adverse consequences for patterns of sustainable development of not doing so, particularly since it is not practicable to fully meet the development needs of the area without amending Green Belt boundaries.” But CEC fail to say what “the adverse consequences of not doing so” are!
In Wilmslow the Green Belt sites allocated for development are all on land that makes a ‘significant’ or ‘major’ contribution to the Green Belt. Yet their Green Belt Assessment update 2015 final report states “This Update needs to be considered alongside other evidence before potential sites are identified. It is expected that sites selected from the Green Belt parcel ‘contribution’ table will be considered as having the greatest potential to ‘top up’ non-Green Belt sites, in locations where demand is demonstrated as exceeding supply of non-Green Belt sites. Cheshire East Council can also consider release of parcels which have been assessed as having a higher weight and making a ‘significant’ or ‘major’ contribution to Green Belt purposes. Where Cheshire East Council considers this approach, a greater case will need to be made for exceptional circumstances which outweighs the benefits of a potential site remaining in the Green Belt.” But this doesn’t seem to apply in Wilmslow.
So whist the Government says that the Green Belt is sacrosanct, great swathes of it are being rolled back all over the country for housing!
Plenty of land in North, West and East Manchester but much less profit.
During the hearings flexibility was a much discussed issue, with reference to the number of houses required, with developers suggesting plus 20% and CEC sticking firm at 6.5%. If CEC is really in the business of protecting the Green Belt then the
Greater Manchester proposal gives them an ideal opportunity to recalculate their housing need along their northern boundary, include updated and windfall in their figures and dismiss as ridiculous the 20% flexibility recommended by developers. It is a clear case of need in the light of a massively changed scene as opposed to greed.
During the hearing sessions Mr Pratt came across as having some concern for the amount of land being taken from the Green Belt along the northern boundary and set CEC homework to produce windfall figures, and more information on the Woodford site. They were to discuss this with Stockport. We can only hope Mr Pratt, in the light of the Greater Manchester proposal, now stiffens his back, sets CEC even more homework and insists it is done. A voice of sanity is badly needed.