Map showing boundaries of the land to be covered by the GMSF

Stockport to remain in GMSF ‘for now’ 

Dan Whelan

The council has decided to continue working with other local authorities to progress the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, dismissing a motion from Liberal Democrat members who sought to withdraw from the process. 

Stockport Council’s position is now that it does not wish to leave the process to draw up an overarching spatial strategy for the 10 Greater Manchester boroughs for the time being, but that a full debate and vote on the issue should be held at its full council meeting in October.

By then, a full draft of the document is expected to be published, according to a revised timeframe for the GMSF set out by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority last week.

Drawn up by Stockport Lib Dem councillor Mark Hunter, the original motion proposed withdrawing from the framework, which allocates land for development across the 10 boroughs, because it “did not comply with the Government’s new approach to planning”. 

Hunter also believed that the GMSF ran counter to Stockport Council’s ‘brownfield first’ approach to development.  

Previous drafts of the GMSF have proven unpopular among some Stockport councillors because it proposes allocating several of the borough’s Green Belt sites for development. 

In April, Stockport’s brownfield-first approach was dealt a blow after charity the Seashell Trust’s plans for a special needs school and 325 homes on Green Belt land were approved by the Secretary of State on appeal after the council had initially refused them.

Your Comments

Read our comments policy here

The problem with Stockports brownfield-first approach is that it doesn’t have enough brownfield land to deliver the houses it needs. I’m not sure what it is about that simple fact that some of Stockports councillors struggle to understand, perhaps they’re just hoping to kick it into the long grass continuously until it is forced on them and they can blame someone else.

By now

Bad enough they squeeze houses onto any sliver of land that’s there. Pubs knocked down and up pop 13 houses. Car parks built on and old factory sites. But where is the additional infrastructure? The extra schools, police, GPs? And most of those houses will have at least two cars each. What about road improvements to increase capacity and ease congestion.

By Pk1968

Unfortunately, this is Stockport Council sending out a bad / anti-development message out to potential investors and developers.

Don’t Stockport Councillors realise that their housing targets will go up significantly if they leave the GMSF process, not down as many appear to hope?

You do wonder if some of them are thinking more about NIMBY voters and their own political futures and less about the future prosperity of the Borough going forward ……

By Depressed Latic

So much anti growth sentiment. Ultimately development either brings homes or jobs and sometimes there is trade off with infrastructure, but growing the economic prosperity for our kids and their kids over I’m alright leave my open space alone doesn’t seem to get much news columns.


Bad politics. Doesn’t Stockport potentially get less allocation sheltering inside GMSF that outside because the likes of Manchester, Salford, Rochdale will exceed national formulas.

By Rich X