High Court blocks Stockport’s challenge over 540 Woodford homes

The mismanagement of the planning process by Stockport Lib Dems is an expensive scandal. Pulling out of the Greater Manchester planning framework was a political act which benefited the Lib Dem party at the expense of the people of Stockport, shameful.

At what point can they be held account of blatantly wasting public money. Appeal after appeal, frivolous attempts at High Court Challenges that don’t even get over the first hurdle. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that leadership and direction is somewhat lacking in that Council.

We have a massive housing shortage and this looks like a sensible scheme. Stockport could do with being a lot less NIMBY!

In trying to flog the dead horse one more time, will that £28k in costs increase further?

Will the Planning Inspectorate now step in and take planning off this Council. Another example of unnecessary delay and cost to the taxpayer.

Stockport Council STOP wasting tax payers money … All lawful and above board as a planning application and FITS with and below long-term housing targets.

As a Stockport resident I am disgusted at the Council. £28k down the drain, entirely predictably (and in fact predicted by me and others on this site).

You have to laugh, because if you didn’t you’d cry, at the news that they are seeking to renew the application at an oral hearing. It remains a completely dead horse and total waste of money with obvious cost risk.

It’s amazing how many people can comment on here about the council’s mismanagement and blatent wasting of public money without having seen any of the court submissions which explain why they consider it necessary to continue pursuing this matter.

You don’t need to have seen their court submission to realise that this a politically motivated court challenge because they didn’t like the answer from the Planning Inspectorate. This was obviously pointed out in the failure to get this challenge heard in the Court.

Anonymous 10.55am – we don’t need to see the court documents to know that Stockport left the Greater Manchester planning framework without an alternative plan and that they still don’t have a local plan in place. Stockport Lib Dems have mismanaged the planning process, I feel for the officer who have to deal with this situation.

It’s about time elected officials are held (financially) accountable for their actions just as is happening with the water industry – this can’t go on in the middle of a housing crisis – role on the national scheme of delegation which may improve things but not for this scale of development unforunately.

‘I don’t need to know the reality to know it’s wrong.’ How very contemporary internet of you.

There have been significant developments granted in the central area of Stockport, Liberals seem to want to protect the areas they represent from such developments. The borough needs to share the load when it comes to housing. There is only so much one area can accept. It was not long ago, that the residents of High Lane were shirking their responsibility.

There is no need for this housing. Redrow still haven’t sold their lot yet. Its greedy companies..well done Stockport council for protecting thus semi rural village

Re: T.D. Smith @9:46am. I imagine the costs can only increase. The 28K costs award is only the other side so god knows how much Stockport’s costs to take it this far were. FOI?

Keep objecting council

Again Stockport council sticking there nose in and wasting money they don’t have.. if there that bothered about it why don’t they build the houses we all need..maybe they should be more focused on the bin problems we have at present…..

Typical. Building companies can almost do what they want.
Are the lack of infrastructure, school, hospitals etc netc taken into consideration?

Milton Keynes, Skelmersdale etc. Vast soul-less open prisons

So the new houses are going to be affordable ones are they!…..

It’s almost comical that the LibDems, who have traditionally supported EU membership and “refugees”, both policies having directly caused unsustainable population increases and thus requiring even more of our precious green spaces to be built upon, suddenly get all funny when those chickens come home to.roost! They fool no one.

The “Garden Village” name for this is laughably transparent greenwashing. Housing need shouldn’t preclude good design. This is just going to be more car centric, high density housing with tiny plots and small windows.

Oh Simon @Simon Truscott. Our population increase has precious little to do with EU membership since numbers have been far in excess of historic levels after we left (the so-called Boris-wave of migrants) and we lost our returns agreement and crime data sharing agreements that we had with other EU countries. Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status are a consequence of international agreements.

Always find Stockport fascinating, happy to drive growth with urban regeneration, unhappy to recognise that growth means intensifying and expanding suburbs. It was the tension Places for Everyone was designed to reconcile.

High density housing? Oh, wow. PNW loves a comedian.

Thanks god for Anonymous at 10.56am today – correcting a keyboard warrior who obviously ignored the post- Brexit policy consequences and the “Boris Wave” along with the very serious issue of losing the returns policy (prior to 2020 we could return illegal refugees back to mainland Europe – guess what happens when you leave the EU and that policy ends)

The surrounding area is already congested
and the area continually Floods (A555) They are talking about removing the verges on Moor Lane to put a cycle lane which is not needed. the area is lacking school places Doctors we already waited weeks for appointments.They are not building affordable housing look at Deanwater.

I don’t live near this area, but there are many people who must resent the wording “much needed new homes” as a good enough reason for building new homes everywhere, when a great many of us actually prefer to see green land! The houses are not usually that affordable, either! I live in Macclesfield, and the housing development here has become ridiculous.

It’s well known that developers take the mickey when it comes down to it. They bank on the fact that councils are reluctant to run up legal costs as they are answerable to their voters. It’s a case of damned if you do, damned it you don’t.

Ridiculous decision by SMBC. More spend wasted when they recognise this to be an ideal site to meet their housing shortfall. How much does this waste and delay add to Council Tax. payers bills? Its a brownfield site! In the meantime appeals are being won all over because of this inadequate Authority – not fit for purpose!

I’m alright. I have a home. So new homes aren’t important. My home isn’t new. Because someone built it previously. Although maybe I live on the new Woodford estate and I don’t want new homes built on Green Belt like my house was. How mad would that be? Also I don’t want a cycle lame because I don’t cycle. But the roads are congested by people driving their cars like I do but their cars are the problem and even though the roads are unsafe I don’t want to make it safer for people to cycle who might then not take up space on the road in a car because, as I’ve said, I don’t cycle.

It should be challenged, its greenbelt.Shes doing the right thing.

Surely the pricing of WGV properties flies in the face of providing affordable housing? This, combined with the impact on an already overburdened community and infrastructure will make said properties less attractive.
May I suggest that whoever makes these decisions leave their offices and experience the actual conditions that the lack of commensurate transport improvements, both public and private, has right now?
As if they would!

So High Court judge Timothy Mould practised at the Bar for over 30 years, specialising in planning, local government and property law. So he should know what he is talking about. He concludes that the council’s submission “identifies no arguable error of law” in the inspector’s decision.

Then the Council decide that the High Court Judge does not really know what he is talking about and decides to challenge (again) the decision of the Planning Inspector. This is insane and a complete misuse of public money. The responsibility for Planning should be removed from the Council and given to the Planning Inspectorate.

There is a difference between law and common sense. The law was changed last year to allow building on green belt by making up a new word of grey belt. Most would agree is that what is needed is homes for younger adults and people on ‘normal’ wages. But due to this grey nonsense developers are rushing to scoop up green belt in expensive areas to maximise profit building homes just the top 5 or 10% can afford. There is a much used phrase ‘stockport needs more homes’. The average salary in ‘Stockport’ is about £40k/year. These sites are in stockports most expensive ward, the average price being 700k, the cheapest 450k, going up to 1.5 million. Laughably, they call an ‘affordable’ home here 450k, because the ‘law’ says affordable is 80% of average price of area where development is. So these developments are doing anything but helping the ‘people of Stockport’. We have a site already, proven over 20 years able to sell only 75 a year, due to price point. In this specific area they propose another 2500 approx! A 35 year building site. Pure land grab.