MP criticises Stockport’s housing delivery strategy
“There is an acute and ever worsening crisis of supply and demand, which the council’s strategy is not addressing,” wrote Navendu Mishra, the Labour MP for Stockport, in a letter to Leader Cllr Mark Hunter.
Mishra was referring to the status of affordable housing in the metropolitan borough and cited the area’s social housing waiting list of 5,908 people. He also referred to a report that 1,400 homes are being built in Stockport, of which only 300 fall under the formal affordable designation.
The letter also criticised Stockport Liberal Democrats and Conservatives for pulling out of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework and failing to deliver a local plan – an effort Mishra said was to prevent building on Green Belt that exists mostly in Liberal Democrat and Conservative wards.
He wrote: “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Liberal Democrat administration’s opposition to GMSF, and lack of an up-to-date local plan since 2020, prioritises party politics over the needs of the people of Stockport.”
It is an accusation the Liberal Democrat Hunter disagrees with. While Hunter and Stockport Council have yet to issue a formal response, in speaking with Place North West Hunter said that work on a local plan is underway now that the revised National Planning Policy Framework has been released by the government.
He added that a consultation for the future local plan is on target to commence this summer.
Hunter also shared the logic behind the local plan delays thus far, adding that it was the delayed release of the NPPF that caused local plan delivery to fall behind. It was a point Hunter had made at Place RESI last year, where he said that more than 60 local authorities had similarly pressed pause on local plans because of lack of clarity from local government.
Referring to Mishra’s letter, Hunter emphasised that the pausing of the local plan in December 2022 was because of legal advice and noted that it had “proven prudent, saving local council taxpayers an estimated £200,000 in what would have been a meaningless consultation under the old rules”.
He added that the delay had allowed “for progression for the right plan for Stockport that will enable us to protect our Green Belt, which was the whole point of coming out of the GM Spatial Framework”.
Regarding housing delivery, Hunter said: “We continue to work to address affordable housing challenges and we are actively collaborating with Homes England and affordable housing providers to explore opportunities for more affordable units in the town centre and wider borough.”
On your marks get set and we’re off with the pre-election mud slinging, although I do agree pulling out of the GMSF was an idiotic move by the Lib Dems.
By Anonymous
Waiting for someone to notice Trafford Council, who seem to reject most residential planning applications that come through their door.
By Anonymous
Mirrlees Field anyone . . . ?
By Local
Waiting to see under a new Labour government whether Stockport gets some love on housing targets.
By Rich X
Reply to Anonymous.
Pulling out of the GMSF was the best thing for Stockport as it saved huge amounts of green across about three-quarters of the borough shared around East, South and West.
Rejecting this was the overwhelming wish of the electorate in the areas concerned and where even barely a single Labour councillor is to be found.
This stands in stark contrast to Labour controlled Tameside – just say ‘Godley Green’ and sample the reaction.
Labour’s Mr Mishra represents Stockport the town; Hazel Grove, and Cheadle which cover the parts of the wider borough mentioned above currently have two Tory MP’s (likely to both fall to the Lib Dem’s at next election), but have never had a Labour MP; in other words, he should mind his own business.
By AltPoV
AltProv, you are so wrong, pulling out of GMSF puts greenbelt land in Stockport at more risk of development not less especially as the local authority doesn’t have a local plan.
By Anonymous
Stockport has actually had quite a good record of building new affordable housing, often via Stockport Homes, including under the last Lib Dem administration.
Unfortunately under Hunter, the Stockport Lib Dems have reverted to type, are leaving the Mayoral Development Corporation to drive regeneration in the town centre, and are only concerned with winning back the Hazel Grove and Cheadle Westminster seats by trying to out-nimby the Tories.
Even though the only time the Lib Dems holding these seats ever mattered much was when they, including Hunter as MP for Cheadle, voted to go into Government with the Tories…
By Anonymous
AltPOV will rue the day they left the GMSF, where they could have shielded their greenbelt within a plan where the volumes were picked up elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s have rolled the dice, and are likely to get exposed, because the very welcome regeneration of central Stockport is likely to be a success, and like Manchester that ends up putting more not less pressure on housing demand, but now those volumes can’t be laid off into the rest of GM.
By Rich X
AltPov – Are you suggesting that each electoral constituency should only have to cater for the housing needs of its own population?
By UnaPlanner
If Stockport leader Hunter is right, how did the other 9 GM districts manage to progress their local plans under the previous nppf – which isn’t much different anyway? Of course he is wrong. We now have to find sites for another 5,000 houses. Part of the gmsf deal was that Salford would take this number off Stockport, but of course they won’t now. And we are poised to lose a string of Green Belt appeals, probably with costs. First one due any day now. All so the Libdems could play politics with the tories. They need to grow up.
By Pete
The view is always to Build affordable but people rarely see the big picture. As part of balanced strategy -Build more 4-5 bed family houses. Then the 2-3 bed housing stock will be released by buyers instead of those families unable to move from their first/second home because there’s nothing in their area where they live kids in school etc and don’t want to move out. So when they get more income they end up buying a second home on the same street. That ties up the affordable housing stock of 2-3 beds.
By Stockport Ster
There is no money spent on housing in stockport because they have spent money on a new bus area which we didn’t need as all the shops are closing they should of spent that money on housing and then we wouldn’t have a lot of people leaving on the streets in stockport sham on them when they have there warm house to set in
By Kath
Re. Stockport Ster – What you say isn’t really that relevant to Stockport. People trading up locally, and freeing up smaller houses for other locals can only work where the housing market is fairly steady, without the competition for those homes coming from outside the area.
For anywhere in Stockport with decent transport links, much of the demand for those smaller homes, which were previously reasonably inexpensive – including Reddish, Edgeley, Heaton Norris – is now young professionals and others working in Manchester, who wouldn’t have looked at SK a few years ago (or BTLers going after the same market), which has had a clear effect on demand and therefore cost.
Mostly due to rising prices in Manchester and Trafford pushing people further out, partly due perhaps to the Council convincing at least some people that the Underbanks really is the next best thing to Berlin…
By Rotringer
Navendu Mishra must be congratulated for having the strength to say it how it is. Whilst there is confusion and a local plan delay will avoid wastage, Stockport conservative and liberal councillors should NEVER have put their residents in this terrible position. The NIMBY’s in their 60’s and 70’s are determined to preserve their views and leafy lanes, according to their own personal preferences. Lets face it. – a fully operational NHS in their day, massive house price growth, final salary pension schemes, cheap consumables and energy – they obviously deserve it. Stand there and tell your grandchildren of working age why it is acceptable to stick a gun to weak councillors heads, restricting the release of inappropriately designated greenbelt. Wave your grandchildren goodbye as they move out of overpriced Stockport, given the choice of an apartment in the town centre, surrounded by the forces of Mordor, in which to bring up kids, or NOTHING. Where is the balanced housing supply? Where is the councillor backbone, doing the right thing for the next generation. It is only the labour councillors who are holding up their end. The Conservatives and liberals were the villains on the night Stockport came out of the GMSF, because councillors were PROTECTING THEIR OWN BACKSIDES AND POSITIONS. Shame on you shame on you, shame on you. When Labour get in they need to reverse the destruction of the planning system and go beck to the Regional Spatial Strategies. Increase the supply to stem the price increases, increase the affordable allocation on greenbelt to 50%, spread the benefits, include older people’s housing – extra care to reduce massive social care costs. I’m from Stockport and I am ashamed and the short termism of the Liberals and the Conservatives. Have voted for both in the past – NEVER AGAIN.
By Anonymous
Oh and by the way – Stockport were borrowing 5000 units from other local authorities and soi then the housing targets do return, they need to find these numbers from within their own boundary. 3000 units possibly in the TC and the rest off greenbelt – ON TOP OF THE ALREADY IDENTIFIED GREENBELT. Insanity. Councillors were happy to take the GMSF infrastructure grants though….
By Frustrated
Let’s STOP all the ‘affordable housing’ claptrap! Stockport people NEED housing to rent! Not damp, mould covered rooms within flats; but affordable-to-rent houses with gardens for children to play in!
Try building groups of housing, not the narrowest houses possible, with schools nearby, possibly a GPs clinic, shops, basically villages instead of estates! Stop building tower blocks with rat-run landings! Basically build HOMES that the Councillors/Architects would like to live in themselves!
By Anonymous
Why is Stockport being earmarked for Metrolink ,when they are not even part of the GMSF? A circle line, linking Bury, through Middleton with Heywood, through Rochdale to Oldham, is far more worthy of this investment and will stop people needing to traipse to Victoria to come back out again. Stockport has a fast link to Piccadilly, and the airport, and is less the two hours from London, hardly a priority.
By Elephant