Woodford Garden Village extension, Harrow Estates, Royal Pilgrim

600 homes have been delivered to date. Credit: via Royal Pilgrim

Plans in for 540-home Woodford Garden Village extension

Having already delivered 600 homes at the former aerodrome of the same name, Harrow Estates is seeking permission for almost the same amount again on land to the south of the neighbourhood.

Part of Barratt Redrow Homes, Harrow has submitted outline plans to Stockport Council to extend Woodford Garden Village by 540 homes following two rounds of public consultation last summer.

At least 50% of the homes would be available on affordable tenures and the project would also feature homes for older people – around 75 – and 15 self-build plots.

Around half of the 70-acre site would be given over to green space.

Harrow is also planning to deliver a mixed-use community hub and events space next to the Avro Heritage Museum of Nicolson Avenue.

The developer is also proposing an additional area of car parking space to serve visitors to Avro Golf Club. This would be accessed via the Garden Village and help to reduce congestion on Old Hall Lane.

During the consultation process, residents voiced concerns about the number of primary school places in the local area. In response, Harrow has pledged to look into increasing the size of Woodford Primary School.

Tim Noden, planning director at Harrow Estates, said: “We are proud of what has been achieved at Woodford Garden Village and are proposing a sensitive and high-quality designed extension which will complement this exceptional development.

“The homes proposed can play a significant role in helping to tackle the very high levels of housing need in the borough which are currently going unmet.”

Stockport Council is under pressure to deliver more homes and has recently lost two high-profile appeals over schemes its planning committee refused.

Gerald Eve is advising on planning and Planit is the architect for the scheme. SLR is the highways consultant and Pea Green is the environmental planning consultant.

Your Comments

Read our comments policy

Totally needed. Get them built!

By Anonymous

The homes are for sure needed although my fears are this will be a very car centric neighbourhood

By Levelling Up Manager

70 acre site. Half used for open space, leaving 35 acres, or about 14 hectares. 540 homes is about 38 dwellings per hectare. That’s really not cutting the mustard if Stockport are going to get anywhere near their newly inflated housing target.

By Martin Cranmer

There really needs to be a spur created off the Poynton trainline, with a new station to serve this site. It could almost follow the route of the runway with a bridge over the A523.

By Transport manager

Please say yes – valid comments about school places but public funding is going to be tight for years, and that includes any health spend through local PCTs. Government needs to find a way of enabling housing to force public spending to come forward as its never possible for a developer to design and build social amenities as well. Space can be left, but then communities are high and dry because local finance often isn’t programmed alongside even if S106 payments are agreed.

By Dave C

another car dependent “urban” development…

By puzzled

Where’s the public transport infrastructure? Everyone in this soulless ghetto is car dependent

By Anonymous

Not really a village then

By Steve

The public exhibition and ‘consultation’ for this scheme was a shameful charade and all involved should hang their heads in shame.

By Mr T

People will choose to live here and then complain about a lack of public transport options, as if they haven’t chosen to live in a cul-de-sac community far away from… well, anything

By Anonymous

Would be nice if it had some variation to the elevations that have been built to date.it looks like Redrow anytown, anywhere and an issue for all of these large schemes controlled by a single developer.

By Stepford Lives

Re public transport. New railway stations are too expensive for a development of this size. Bus routes can be extended if there is demand (probably not) whereas a reasonably walking and cycling route to Poynton railway station would involve a short bike ride or 20-25 minute walk.

By Anonymous

Social housing is a good thing. More is needed but this is not the right area for more houses. Better locations there is not enough infrastructure. I would boycott these homes and do not buy one.

By Anonymous

Oh no…more houses with already overwhelmed roads, schools, doctors and water supplies.

The traffic on the A555 is already a joke. More of the green belt being eaten away.

By Anonymous

More of our lovely countryside being ruined!

By Beryl Hatton

Total ruination of our once beautiful countryside! Also just look at the prices when built – unaffordable for the people who need them, just like the previous building on AVRO site!!

By Anonymous

Selfish comments. We are in a housing crisis. Grow up

By Anonymous

Yes – the houses are a must, especially the affordable homes element.
Concerns that can be addressed:
– Schools, doctors, shops, etc – these are an absolute must too. We cannot continue to build houses without the facilities that go hand-in-hand with “villages/towns” such as this.
– Transport – cycling and walking routes must be included and upgraded to the primary destinations, e.g., the railway stations and town centres. In order to walk to the station in 20-25mins, you’d have to be a professional race-walker, as it is 45mins (40 at best) for most people, which is a long time at each end of the working day, on top of the rest of the journey to and from work.
– Railway Stations would not just serve this development, but the wider community and also future development, which is inevitable. A railway station near the London Road Starbucks/Travelodge could be a c.20-25mins walk, and would also serve those businesses and the Adlington trading estate.

By Anon

There isn’t the infrastructure to support any more properties being built on this site and with the many drainage issues around the development and poor landscaping with corners cut everywhere, that Redrow and RMG seem to ignore, this will only be compunded by more properties. The School is not suffiicent to support the number of familes with children on the development and many people who do not reside here treating it like a country park with dogs running lose and cars parking all over the place, it’s not fair or current residents to accept more properties and most certainly isn’t the place to provide this amount of social housing. This will without doubt be rejected unless the plans are changed to reduce the numbers by half and build larger 4 to 5 bedroom home only and a new access road via Chester Road.

By No More Homes

I believe the quality of the development, if the same as existing properties, will be good. My concern is the provision of public transport to Bramhall High School – and an increase in capacity of the High School. I understand that children living in the Garden Village have to pay a private bus to take them to High School – unlike other children who can use public transport free. I am also concerned re provision of shops and a GP and dental service. Although planned, shops have yet to be provided for the existing development.

By Kate Clarkson

In many ways we get the developments we deserve. If people buy this stuff then don’t be surprised if the house builder serves up more of it. Worryingly I suspect the new housing product won’t be any where as good as what is currently there.

By Mr B

The remaining land on this former Woodford Aerodrome is in East Cheshire safeguarded under Cheshire East Local Plan (Part 1) and is intended for up to 1000 properties

By Anonymous

@No More Homes (January 17, 2025 at 8:53 pm)
Why would they reduce the numbers when Stockport needs to more than double the number of homes being built every year? Why would they make them 4-5 bedrooms when Stockport needs, mostly, 2-3 bedroom homes? Why would they make fewer of them social housing when a) Stockport has a dire need for social housing and b) national planning policy requires at least 50% of them to be affordable?
Also – the school that’s been built is designed to be able to be doubled in size, and doing that is part of their plans.
What Woodford actually needs – and I mean more than just the old aerodrome site – is more houses so that all the other supporting infrastructure (doctors, dentists etc) becomes more viable.

By Martin Cranmer

Much needed housing.

By Anonymous

The comment that over half of the 70 acre site will be given over to green space is laughable as it was all green space before.The amount of cars added to the local area is immense as there is only one bus route that terminates there, always has done as it’s a rural area.

By TS

Related Articles

Sign up to receive the Place Daily Briefing

Join more than 13,000 property professionals and receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Join more than 13,000 property professionals and sign up to receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox.

By subscribing, you are agreeing to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

"*" indicates required fields

Your Job Field*
Other regional Publications - select below