Jones tables plans for 250-home Bramhall Green Belt scheme

The councils own evidence says that it is Grey Belt. The councils draft local plan allocates it for housing development. They’ve just got to meet the NPPFs golden rules tests. Infrastructure provision will be the making and/or breaking of it.

Not knowing this location, it looks like an obvious infill site. Unfortunately I think they will ram it full of houses with tiny front and back gardens, and totally ignoring the greenery and space of the existing neighbourhood. New developments in such suburban settings should always follow the existing streets regarding plot proportions, as this benefits everyone including wildlife and climate change resilience.

Another scheme, same old story: paralysis by incompetence and nimbyism. Councils and councillors wringing their hands while housing targets vanish into the fog. The latest excuse? “We don’t have a local plan.” Government counters: “Without a local plan, nothing moves.” A bureaucratic Mexican standoff. Sir Humphrey would be proud.
Let’s stop pretending this is complicated. Anything can be done if there’s will and leadership. Bernstein and Leese proved that in Manchester. Where’s that fire now? Most areas are drowning in a swamp of paperwork and political cowardice.
So, Mr. Read, the spotlight is on you. Put down the glossy route maps, the guidance notes, and those shiny new local plans. We’ve seen enough paper to wallpaper the entire housing stock we don’t have. How about a plot twist? Do something, intervene, decide, show some leadership.
And here’s your starter for ten: don’t forget transport and local services. Homes without infrastructure aren’t communities—they’re just boxes in a field.
The country doesn’t need another consultation. It needs courage. It needs someone to break the cycle of excuses. Will that be you, or will we still be talking about this when you are removed from office.

Finish the A555 to the M60 first!

It looks like it should go through if the rules are met. Jones Homes do build a nice development and whilst I agree with GetItBuilt, there’s also the view that the younger generation (of which I am not) lean less to the old adage of waving at the neighbours while mowing their front lawn. I know my neighbours (in their early 30’s) couldn’t care less about the garden.. at least it looks that way from our window. Fingers crossed they get the balance right.

50% affordable? Nonsense. This is probably the most expensive of Stockport’s 21 wards. This means ‘affordable’ is a minimum of 450k, with prices rising to over 1 million. This is green belt, no matter what the council says, it is all farmed, with zero brownfield elements or poor quality land. It also has a regularly used public pathway through it for all the local residents to access nature. Plus why do we think it is that with all the talk of ‘brownfield first’, with green belt only being used only in ‘exceptional circumstances’ that this one ward (of 21) is being targeted for over 10% of ‘Stockport’ housing needs, ALL on green belt land..

Anonymous (January 06, 2026 at 3:32 pm) – look at the councils SHLAA for evidence that shows all the housing that is proposed not on greenbelt. You can find it by Googling ‘Stockport SHLAA’ and then looking at the map. As for brownfield – the biggest single site in the SHLAA, as can clearly be seen on the SHLAA map, is Woodford Aerodrome which is a brownfield site.
And the affordable housing…… in the more affluent parts of Stockport like this the requirement is that three quarters of it are intermediate, with a preference for shared ownership rather than affordable rent (and a strategic housing partnership geared up to help deliver this), with the remaining quarter being social rented.
If you’re going to complain at least do some reading and know what you’re talking about.

Also, the A555, a major route to the airport and motorway system, directly to the south of this proposal, floods every year at this exact location, closing the road (I think for 7-10 days just recently) causing traffic chaos. Madness to concrete over this area.

On the plus side, the development may very well fix the periodic flooding of the Hall Moss Lane A555 underpass in heavy rain. Never tarmac over a water run off channel with a cycle path without installing drainage would be my advice…

Excellent news if there’s some decent properties around the 6-700k mark.. it give people opportunities’ to downsize .. also handy for my job at Manchester Airport. If they could throw in the recreation ground, we could have access onto Woodford Rd.

Anonymous at 3:32pm – have you considered the possibility that you don’t understand the planning system properly?

If these homes can be afforded, then they are affordable, if they were not, they would be empty. 450k is not much, most working couples could afford this

Plenty of land for building new houses near the Brinnington estate. Strange that the developers don’t pursue those opportunities…

@Anonymous (January 06, 2026 at 8:27 pm)
Do you mean in Reddish Vale Country Park / Reddish Vale Local Nature Reserve / Site of Biological Importance or on the M60?
Almost 300 new (market) homes have been built on land that is in the Green Belt in Brinnington in the past 15 years. It was largely welcomed by the local community as they saw the benefits that new housing can bring.
There is possibly one remaining area of land that might feasibly be built on around Brinnington (without going into the nature reserve or building on top of the M60) and that’s included in the council’s draft local plan for another 100 homes.
As someone else has commented on another anonymous post above – have you considered the possibility that you don’t understand the planning system properly?

People really should understand matters before making incorrect and unsubstantiated comments, these comments maybe dressed up as authoritative and delivered as factual! Yes there will be affordable housing at or around 50%. There has to be. The planning application will not get permission without a percentage at or very near to 50%! There are also different classifications of affordable, and there are guidelines as to what that mix needs to be, but this mix allows for a range of options and affordable schemes, pricing properties at between 100k-250k (by example, for the same property on the open market, would sell for circa 300-450k by comparison). These “green belts” were designated as “green belt” after world war 2!! It’s high time they were re-evaluated and suitable sites made available for building. Not everyone wants to live in inner city high rises or brown field sites, and even if they did, that would not even scratch the surface at the estimated housing shortfall. Many people can not afford to buy a home, and schemes like these offer an avenue for those less well off. And yes, of course obvious issues like services and transport all need viable solutions before planning approval! Perhaps people can think before they leave uneducated comments. How many of these negative uneducated comments are made by people sitting pretty and happy in there own homes, homes they could and can afford, whilst giving no regard to those less well off! And how many of those homes, 40-50-60 years ago, were simply fields themselves! One rule for one

Roads are not up to it, to much flooding all ready

Something is fundamentally wrong if the council can’t stop developers taking precious green belt.

@ Anonymous 9.43pm… what’s fundamentally wrong is the council itself… Read paragraph three again. A council is required to put development plans in place for the future… It hasn’t… Also the greenbelt flag everyone waves about is all but done with.. A 70 year old piece of legislation that is no longer strong enough to stop poor council management and the NPPF/Government.

@Anonymous 9:43 pm – if only the Councillors hadn’t made the short sighted decision to pull out of the GMSF. We are now see the resulting free for all!