David Wilson Homes makes Woodford pitch
Following consultation in autumn 2025, the housebuilder’s proposals for 455 homes at Upper Swineseye Farm, currently a Green Belt site, have been validated by Stockport Council.
Advising on planning and affordable housing, Savills is working with the developer on its outline plans for the 51-acre site, which sits to the east of the Woodford Garden Village scheme now mostly built out – and to be extended further – at the former aerodrome.
Roy Chadwick Way sits to the other side and would provide the primary access, via a new three-arm roundabout.
The housebuilder, which has a long-term option agreement on the site, is co-applicant along with Michael Glen Kingsley.
Outline permission is sought for the Green Belt site, which breaks down into two distinct parcels divided by Bridle Way and a farmhouse.
Other members of the professional team are i-Transport, CSA, Cavendish, Wardell Armstrong, Tyler Grange, Betts Hydro, Betts Geo, SLR, LRA, Environmental Economics, and Geomatic Surveys.
Unsurprisingly, and has been seen in several applications across the borough, the situation as set out in Savills’ planning statement regarding Stockport’s housing land supply is stark, with 1.77 years’ supply the mark cited – a position confirmed at the recent Woodford Garden Village extension appeal by Harrow Estates.
Furthermore, Savills points to Stockport Council’s housing needs assessment of 2025, which concluded that the council has a shortfall of 1,305 affordable homes per year. As this site is currently Green Belt – although Savills argues that the site should on balance now qualify as Grey Belt – DWH would be obliged to deliver 50% of the homes as affordable.
Should the council disagree with that Grey Belt analysis, the application team believes it has a strong case in meeting the ’Very Special Circumstances’ hurdle required to sign off Green Belt development.
Nine reasons are set out stacking this argument up, including Stockport’s need for both market and affordable housing, the sustainability of the site, and the failure of a plan-led system in Stockport.
The proposal is for around 46% of the overall site to be built on. David Wilson Homes’ plans can be viewed on the Stockport Council planning portal, reference DC/098620.
Err, a three arm roundabout on the Roy Chadwick Way – are they nuts?
By bramhallresident
Once again the landowner (KIngsley) tries to strike where he has failed numerous times before. He was denied at the time of design and construction a roundabout on this new road. He challenged it on court and lost every time.
By Anonymous
How can the council agree to changing the poynton bypass pass when it was built to ease traffic annd to build on green belt is crazy
By Geoff
This site was to be kept open for farming and wildlife and green belt reasons. There is no excuse to build on it. The developer is purely in it for greed. I was against the building of SEMMS and the Poynton road because of the destruction of the natural environment. This area was the coldest place in England not long ago and had breeding sky larks and golden plovers. It looks like greedy people want it to be part of the urban heat island now.
By Jane knight
The sustainability of the site… which is remote from shops, services, places of work, public transport, schools and just about anything else anyone might ever need to access?
By Anonymous
No to access off the bypass. It totally disrupts the flow of traffic and undermines the whole point of a bypass.
Why not use the empty parcel of land and access onto woodford rd?
By Anonymous
We do not need houses built on green belt land. We have plenty of Brownfield sites that can be used. We do not have the infrastructure to maintain these developments not to mention the wildlife which will be destroyed!!!!!
By Nicola Eastwood
This is heartbreaking. Green Belt should not be built on and good farm land shouldn’t be touched either. Woodford and Poynton are having masses and masses of new builds foisted upon them without appropriate infrastructure being put in place because money talks. Where is wildlife supposed to go if habitats are continually being destroyed? Where are people supposed to access green spaces if there’s none left? The traffic around there is already bad. These places have completely lost their character over the last few years due to excessive house building. I really feel for the home owners on Bridle Way/Bridle Road who will lose their views of the beautiful open fields.
By Anonymous
“The council has a shortfall of 1,305 affordable homes per year”. Stockport has a big shortage of genuinely affordable housing, especially for single people (around 30% of households are single-occupancy). The official Housing Needs Assessment shows we need more 1- and 2-bed social rented homes that people on ordinary incomes can actually afford. Instead, these schemes are mostly larger 3- and 4-bed houses for private sale, plus some “affordable rent” at up to 80% of market rates, which is still way out of reach for many single-income households, young people, and families on the housing register. This is profit-driven development on protected Green Belt. It won’t solve the problem they claim it will.
By Anonymous
This is just ugly urban sprawl. Millions of empty houses exist all over the Country. Large areas of cities are still derelict. Green belt is the last place to consider building on.
By Anonymous
Please give a financial figure that someone will have to pay for an “affordable” home…
By Dave Booth
Millions of properties are not vacant and even if they were, it’s not use having them elsewhere in the country when you need housing here – unless you’re volunteering to move to the vacant property to free up yours for someone to move into. It’s increasingly boring to listen to people repeat the falsehoods about capacity and need. This may or may not be the right site, but if you still think we can accommodate our housing need on urban brownfield sites, you don’t understand the scale of the problem or the capacity of urban areas.
By Northern Monkey