Planning Inspectorate approves 540-home Stockport scheme
Harrow Estates’ 84-acre extension of Woodford Garden Village has been given the go-ahead at national level after the local council failed to determine the application in good time.
The Planning Inspectorate said the council’s 1.77-year housing land supply position – well below the statutory target of five years – alongside the scheme’s 36 acres of public open space, carried “substantial overarching positive weight” in the decision to allow the appeal.
Stockport Council lost two other housing appeals in 2024 and 2025 for similar reasons, paving the way for a combined 478 homes.
The inspector also agreed the site – previously designated as Green Belt – met the criteria for Grey Belt and that Harrow’s scheme also adheres to the “golden rules” for Grey Belt developments, including 50% on-site affordable provision.
Harrow, part of Barratt Redrow, also successfully defended its infrastructure contributions for sports and education – £940,895 and £1.5m respectively – after the council had called them into question.
The developer was represented by well-known planning barrister Christopher Katkowski.
The background
Harrow Estates has already delivered 600 homes at the former aerodrome of the same name in an earlier phase. The developer lodged plans for a 540-home extension to Woodford Garden Village in December 2024.
Harrow lodged an appeal on grounds of non-determination after the council failed to make a decision on the plans before the original 5 May 2025 deadline.
Harrow agreed to several extensions of time up until 15 August but the council claims unresolved issues with the proposals were preventing a decision being made.
An email from Stockport Council’s planning team uploaded to the planning portal outlines the authorities “ongoing commitment to progressing the application” and urged Harrow not to appeal.
To learn more about the project, search for reference number DC/094533 on Stockport Council’s planning portal.
Newmark advised Harrow throughout the appeal. Planit is the architect for the scheme. SLR is the highways consultant and Pea Green is the environmental planning consultant.
How much are SMBC spending on legal fees challenging all these developments?
By KC Jones
I kind of feel sorry for the future kids that will be forced to live here. There’s no third places being built on this site, it’s all just houses. Plus it’s so isolated from public transport that they’ll have to be driven everywhere, and have no independence. I knew people at university who’d grown up on estates like this – they couldn’t even figure out how to use a bus. It was pretty pathetic really, kids need to grow up in engaging, real life environments like cities – not on some isolated suburb just so their parents can live out some white picket fence fantasy.
By Anonymous
Yet again Stockport being punished because of their selfish decision to withdraw from GMSF. It is great to see these schemes being developed and leaving the Council very red faced and NIMBYs scratching their heads. Hopefully we see a few more come forward in Stockport now too.
By Anon
Exactly what elected members in Wigan need to see who have tried to get Wigan out of the PfE plan, same in Oldham. Plan-led growth or planning by appeal?
By Rennalp
As a council tax payer in Stockport – again they have failed us. I presume that this will have cost SMBC over £100K. They operate against national policy and are a law unto themselves. When will they learn and realise they are harming the futures and opportunities of all young people in the borough? Housing creates jobs, investment, etc. The Planning department is broken and rudderless. This must change to allow for growth.
By Wait Your Turn
In reply to Anonymous at 10:44am:
If you look at the submitted plans that can be seen here: https://www.woodfordextension.co.uk/plan-sept/
There is going to be a local centre with retail and community facilities, adjacent to the aviation heritage centre at the gateway to this site and in a position to be used by the rest of the people who live in the earlier phases of the development.
In future there will also likely be a bus service which loops through the development.
I can’t argue that the scheme overall is a case of sprawl but many people do still want to live close to the countryside, and the access to nature, open space and play that this masterplan offers will be of great benefit to the future kids who live on it!
By Anonymous
Here today gone tomorrow Planning Inspectorate at it again
By Frank
Totally stupid to allow more houses in a region that is already over populated
By Anonymous
Most of the commenters on this article clearly don’t know what the appeal was actually about. There was no disagreement about the principle of building the homes – the sole matter of disagreement was whether the section 106 clauses proposed by the developer were adequate to ensure the ‘necessary infrastructure’ that the NPPF requires developments like this in the Green Belt to provide. Specifically it was about the provision of sports fields and education and the decision is very much specific to the circumstances of this case. That the inspector went against the expert testimony of the local education authority (deciding that having an expanded school within walking distance outweighs the impact it will have, likely meaning the closure of other existing primary schools, so other pupils would have to walk further in the opposite direction) is more than a little surprising.
By Anonymous
@19th March Anonymous; you’ve not understood the Inspector’s position correctly on Education here. The existing primary school is to be expanded and the developer had previously already made provisions for this to occur. The Authorities position was for the school on site not to be expanded, but to take financial contributions without specific improvements elsewhere. We can all see that is a nonsensical approach.Hence the Inspector supported the applicants position.
By Anonymous