Graham reports back from Friends of Scholes Park meeting
Cheadle and Gatley Liberal Democrats
Demand more Learn more
Graham reports back from Friends of Scholes Park meeting
Gatley's Lucy Boxes
Sign up for weekly emails
Where is greenbelt building proposed for Stockport?
by Lib Dem Team on 24 October, 2016
The Government has said that nearly 1,000 new houses and apartments need to be built in Stockport each year for the next twenty years. Under the policies the Government have put in place, not all the brownfield sites in towns can be used, so councils are having to look to greenbelt – a move opposed by the Liberal Democrats.
This is in addition to several thousand new houses Cheshire East Council propose building near Handforth Dean, Wilmslow, Poynton and Knutsford.
Because the maps aren’t entirely clear we’ve created a Google map than doesn’t have the perfect outlines of the sites, but does allow you to see where they are. Note that, when you include the new Heald Green, Cheadle Hulme and Woodford developments and add in Cheshire East’s North Cheshire Garden Village (by Handforth Dean) there’s a huge area of new housing all clustered around the A34 near the Cheshire East/Stockport border.
Here are the areas of greenbelt proposed to be released for house-building in Stockport borough:
Google map screenshot showing the Heald Green/Cheadle Hulme/Woodford developments
4,000 houses north of High Lane
2,400 new homes in Woodford, in addition to the Aerodrome development
More than 3,700 homes between Cheadle Hulme and Heald Green
Up to 2,000 homes next to the railway line at the southern end of Heald Green
Full details for Greater Manchester are here (warning: 160MB PDF!).
29 Comments
I think the houses by Heald Green station are welcome. However why are we only building suburbs? If we want more homes why not build more taller buildings like townhouses and apartments in order to save space? If we better developed areas near good transport links with higher density housing then maybe we wouldn’t need miles and miles of endless suburbia…
Probably because the houses will be aimed at the high end-luxury areas. Affordability a myth.
Does the author of this article have details of what they would do instead? Housing desperately needed. And any more details of how the Govt is stopping building on brownfield when they said they would prioritise it?
Hi Kathleen,
We’ve found saying you’ll prioritise brownfield isn’t the same as actually doing it. For example, a lot of brownfield development doesn’t happen because the cost of cleaning up sites is prohibitive. The government used to provide funding to help that sort of clean-up, but that’s now been scrapped. Developers will always prefer easier, more profitable greenfield sites if they have the choice.
It’s great that you’re getting the message out about this but can you explain what “opposed to” will mean in terms of tangible actions?
Hi Phil – this needs a change in both government policy and the Greater Manchester approach, and the Lib Dems will be campaigning for that to happen, and we’ll have some specific proposals of what needs to change in the government’s approach.
I find these maps impossible to understand as there is no labelling. Can you please add some markers?
Your maps are impossible to “read”
some labels on the map may help
I understand we need more homes and I even understand that at some point Greenbelt will get built on. But if we do have to sacrifice our green spaces then large swathes must only be permitted for social or affordable housing. if developers wish only to build more high end luxury housing, then they should made to fund the cleaning up of brownfield sites. It can’t all be about helping developers make money. The wider community has to benefit from the loss or it isn’t justifiable.
It seems a great shame to me that there’s no consideration about sustainable population size. As things stand the population will continue to grow and grow, and no one seems to be questioning whether that’s a good thing. Surely as a party concerned about the environment the Lib Dems should be at the forefront of this debate.
Meanwhile green spaces we pass every day are filled in and our quality of life deteriorates. Sadly, Central Manchester still has a great deal of brownfield which is more or less abandoned. Building suburbs just means more people commute, increasing the pressure on transport infrastructure and increasing pollution.
To call this short-sighted is too generous. Blind, I’d say.
100% agree with your comments
Nick Simpson has outlined the problem of housing that no government is prepared to face. Another problem is that no 2-bed flats/houses have been built for years and the elderly can’t relocate thereby leaving accommodation for young families. Another big problem is that housing is now primarily an investment, much of it foreign owner. All the proposed building in Stockport means that cars will have to be taken off the road and replaced by public transport. Farewell green & pleasant land.
Better maps please !
I look forward to seeing the plans for schools, hospitals, doctors, road expansion to cope with this population explosion
So do we! As we say, a big concern is that we have warm words promising infrastructure but no plans and no money.
There is no chance any amount of affordable and social housing will be built. You only have to look a Wythenshawe 75% of the housing and apartments being built all around there are middle income and upwards.
And they certainly will not build around, Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme, Bramhall and Woodford social house’s.
The government’s plan is to get rid hence this new council house ruling coming in next year i think. That you will have to buyyour house if you have a certain amount of income coming in !
I don’t understand this notion of ‘affordable housing’ if people are buying the houses then they must be affordable.
Every house is affordable for someone. “Affordable housing” means affordable for average people. Some housing in London is only affordable for Russian oligarchs and Saudi princes.
Iain would you, or anyone else, that promotes ‘affordable housing’ see their own house for less than the market value?
This isn’t about you or me selling our houses, it’s about making sure that where we’re building new houses we’re not pricing people out of them. That may result in the developer making slightly less profit than they’d otherwise have done, but is a major help to get people on the property ladder.
But why shouldn’t the develop make as much profit as they can? This is what business do, they are not charities.
The costs of housing is driven my many things, not just the profit margin of the developer.
Low interest rates is the key driver to inflated high prices, if and when interest rates go up, house price will go back to normal.
Also some crack-pot ideas by the Government (some when you were in coalition) have driven up/supported inflated high prices.
In addition high demand caused by population growth, which has been fuelled by mass immigration forces up prices.
Don’t just blame the developer
Of course developers will seek to maximise their profit – that’s exactly why we have planning rules to balance the profit motive against getting the best outcome for our communities. It’s not about blaming anyone, just about getting the right result.
Build more council houses, and stop selling them. They were never designed to be sold, and doing so has largely contributed to our housing problem nationwide.
To those complaining about the maps, you have a good point.
These are the best maps that have been issued, but we will try to improve them for you.
OK, maps plotted onto Google maps and link + graphic added. Let us now if it’s still unclear.
Thanks for the clearer maps – get it now.
Is the field behind Bridle Road in Woodford (to the right of you drive down from the main road) included in this? We haven’t heard of anything and there is nothing elsewhere on the internet about it? Please clarify if you can.
Hi Lauren,
As you go down Bridle Road away from the main road there’s a rectangular field on your right, between the houses and the Aerodrome. That field is definitely included in the greenbelt release proposals.
I continually view exhortations of the need for much more housing but never a reasoned and measured size rate and sources. The population of 50 years ago was not increasing. As many previous writers have stated people need much more than houses to exist and it is not brain bending to know that food supply, power, recreation space, transport links are wanted and that planning for the new land spaces to accommodate these should be displayed generally before ‘development’ is permitted. Included must be the deleterious consequences – already air pollution is killing people.
[…] http://cheadleandgatley.mycouncillor.org.uk/2016/10/24/where-is-greenbelt-building-proposed-for-stoc… […]