Anwyl, Great Places plan 155 Woodley homes
An application is being readied for affordable homes on 23 acres off Gravel Bank Road, the latest in a long line of Green Belt housing schemes piling up in Stockport.
The development is being brought forward by Anwyl Partner Projects and Great Places Housing Association and comprises up to 155 discounted homes, according to early stage plans.
The site is split in two either side of the Peak Forest Canal and east of Stockport Sports Village.
The homes would be constructed exclusively on the site off Gravel Bank Road. The plot over the canal would be retained as a habitat creation area, according to the plans.
The land sits within the Green Belt but is thought to meet the criteria for Grey Belt.
In addition, Stockport Council’s draft local plan identifies the site as part for housing as part of a wider 400-home allocation that includes Unity Mills to the east.
The housing scheme is one of many to come forward in the borough over recent months as developers seek to take advantage of Stockport’s out of date local plan position and its lack of a five-year housing land supply.
Other schemes include Persimmon’s proposal for 250 homes on 30 acres off Windlehurst Road and Bellway’s plans for 175 homes off Jacksons Lane in Hazel Grove.
The Planning Inspectorate recently approved Harrow Estates’ 84-acre, 540-home extension of Woodford Garden Village after the council had rejected the plans.
Asteer Planning is advising Anwyl and Great Places. To learn more, search for reference number DC/098771 on Stockport Council’s planning portal.
Planning Inspectorate overriding local democracy again – about time they were reformed or even better abolished. Decisions should be with the local council not unelected officials.
By Anon
Yet again Stockport being punished for their foolish decision to leave GMSF (now PfE). They were warned and yet all they wanted to do was political point score!! Hope all these applications are approved.
By Anon
Planning is not a democratic process. Planning committees and the Planning Inspectorate are required to determine applications in line with law and guidance, not based on what Brenda in No.37 thinks about them.
By YIMBY
@Anon 3:02pm Exactly!! Wait until Reform or the Greens get into power as they have both said the greenbelt is off bounds and will be offered full protection against housing development.
By Karl Jacob’s
Given the mess Stockport MBC are in with their local plan and land availability the planning inspectorate had little choice in approving this scheme. Another reason why Stockport should not have pulled out of the Greater Manchester planning framework.
By Anonymous
The Planning Inspectorate is the decision making body of the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government. The are appointed and controlled by the Secretary of State of Housing. The government has a mandate from the people to deliver new housing. To say it is undemocratic is naive. We elect officials to make these decisions – we can’t do a popular vote for every decision, otherwise nothing would ever happen!
By Anonymous
Imagine being naive enough to believe Reform will protect the Green Belt. Or would even know how to. You need long-term planning for that, because just saying ‘No’ isn’t the answer and the actual answer is way too complicated for Reform to cope with.
By Green Belt Ben
Maybe I am missing something here but the local democratic process will have the opportunity to support or refuse this application. If refused the applicant will have an opportunity to go through an appeal process. A number of the comments seem to misunderstand what the process is and anticipate an outcome.
By Anonymous
Karl Jacob’s, politicians say a lot of things when in opposition but both reform and the greens will have to develop the Greenbelt if they want to house the people of the UK.
By Anonymous
By the logic of some only the Labour Party will have the long term vision to plan… blah blah blah. I think the country has long since seen through that one and has much bigger problems now. Swiftly moving on !
By Anonymous
No-one’s mentioned the Labour Party, anonymous at 11.40am, so that’s an odd comment I’m not surprised you wish to move on from swiftly. Other parties were mentioned, but only a few people have mentioned the context which many others wish to ignore when telling us how easy it would be to simply not build in the Green Belt… You have to wonder why.
By Green Belt Ben
100% affordable housing a real positive. A collegiate approach between developer and Great Places…… finally doing something about the housing need. WELL DONE!
By Waite your turn
Imagine think the Labour Party or worse the Greens could possibly provide a planning framework long term….oh the cognitive dissonance. Let’s get actual professionals making these decisions not the student union.
By Green widenvy
Big concern with this is that when the council previously included it in the GM plan they tied houses on the fields to regeneration of Unity Mill. If they’re no longer tied together than the chances of Unity Mill ever being brought back into use are growing slimmer and slimmer.
By Anonymous
Its allocated for housing the draft Local Plan. Is that not local democracy at work? Some comments on here really are clueless when its comes to understanding of planning and development.
By Anonymous
I walk along this part of the canal every day. It’s a haven for wildlife. What are they thinking?
By Andy
@ Andy (April 27, 2026 at 11:32 pm) – they’re thinking about how they deliver homes to meet the needs of the area, which the government requires the council to enable as far as reasonably possible.
By Anonymous
Just walk around Stockport centre and you will see that there are lots of vacant sites and abandoned buildings. There is a massive potential for brownfield development, which would also have lower environmental impacts and further regenerate the centre.
By Anonymous
@Anonymous 29/4 8:09am — This is a brilliant idea! I’m surprised nobody has mentioned vacant sites, abandoned buildings and brownfield development on just about every news item about release of land.
What a pity they don’t mention the specific sites they’re thinking of when local authorities publish their calls for sites, having first checked the available evidence to see what sites have already been taken into account.
I presume you have checked to find out whether all these sites of which you speak have been taken into account: otherwise your comment would be completely without substance.
By Anonymous