‘Powerless’ Stockport publishes draft local plan with 26 Green Belt sites

From 3 Green Belt sites to 26 and other Boroughs were previously offering to absorb some of Stockport’s housing requirement reducing land required, that’s what Nimbyism gets you.

Do we really have these people in power?

If anyone has the displeasure of travelling through Stockport and it’s various suburbs, they’ll know the traffic is some of the worst in the country. Good luck adding more people to that!

This is a complete mess of the LibDems’ own making. Everybody told them this is what would happen if they withdrew from the GM strategy but instead they chose to short term political point scoring. I feel sorry for the green belt but you reap what you sow.

Would be helpful if the Council could publish the detailed “evidence” base that sits behind this draft. Suspect that when the experts get to grips with the draft they will expose major holes and flaws in this draft. Expect the Government to get stuck in.

I assume there’s no mention in the draft plan that under the Places for Everyone planning initiative, which Stockport pulled out of, there was provision for both Manchester and Salford to take some of Stockport’s housing allocation therefore easing the pressure on the Boroughs greenbelt? Stockport Lib Dems have a lot to answer for.

Some pretty wild numbers some of these sites are supposedly due to deliver….. Going to me more cranes in Stockport than in Manchester City Centre.

What a disgrace this government are. Forcing councils to build over greenbelt is not the solution to the so called housing crisis. Developers will be seeing £ signs. As a nation we the people need collectively stand up and fight against this government and tell them that we don’t want our green spaces built over. I don’t how they are being allowed to get away with this.

They only have themselves to blame for pulling out of GMSF, which was based on the older, lower targets and spread the target across boroughs

They were absolute sitting ducks when the dropped out of PfE. Silly.

When will people learn that we’re all better when we work together.

Maybe Councillor Roberts should also acknowledge that more of his precious green belt would be safeguarded if he hadn’t led the catastrophic decision to grandstand to Stockport residents and withdraw from GMSF.

“The shifting national policy picture has rendered this dream unachievable”. Really?
Is this PNW’s considered analysis of the Stockport Lib Dem’s cynical nimby posturing, which anyone with any knowledge knew was going to backfire as soon as they pulled out of Places for Everyone?

“Planners across the region have got a busy weekend of reading ahead of them”

Oh Dan, we might be planners but we have got lives!

So without any great look at brownfield sites, this council has decided to approve building on as many bits of green belt as developers will pay for. It’s this council and it’s officers who are publishing this, not the government. Every bit of green belt that can be offered is being, the documents show sites exactly matching those asked for by developers. They will all be larger size homes , few bungalows to downsize too, no social housing just lots of fat profit sites to bring in planning fees and council tax.
Nothing about infrastructure, schools, doctors. They are even building on the proposed A6 dual carriageway.

Not only is this an impact on greenbelt, animals and their habitat.
More building will increase flooding and the impact on local services and traffic will be immense.
Stockport Council cannot maintain the community now as they have no money with limited employees. The proposed measures to improve the community will never come to fruition.

Pennycook’s telling off wasn’t particularly harsh – he simply told them they had to publish a new timetable setting out the timings they’d already said in public they were going to follow. They’d said in public why they were holding off on formally publishing that timetable – because they were waiting to see if there was agreement on the timetable for a joint waste and minerals plan for GM. It’s all just petty politics from all of them.

How to ruin an area vote Labour

What is the point of greenbelt anymore ? Makes a mockery of it apart from when it suits the establishment

The phrase “we told you so” comes to mind

Ironic that had they stayed in the “Places for everyone” framework none of this would have had to happen. We talk about reducing inefficiencies and waste but this is a massive one for Stockport to burden.

We need more houses in the country especially suburban to allow the cycle of people moving out of the city and new people into the city. We can’t just have a housing platform it has to be a ladder.

Is there an assessment for smelting residue interwoven into the policy?

Leave the Green Belt alone. Ask Andy Burnham to build a house in His back garden or, put a flat in each Councilors garden. Maybe then you’ll consider the ‘Brown Field’ sites.

I strongly object to the home building developments around Hyde Bank Farm and the paper mill in Romiley. Romiley lacks the infrastructure to deal with this amount of new residents. The impact on wildlife would be catastrophic.

That’s it! this once green and pleasant land will be no more

Disgrace! Typical Labour! Just glad I did not vote for them. What about the infrastructure to support all this?

Hopefully voters can see what a mess the Lib Dems put Stockport in with their virtue signalling nonsense decision to leave the GMSF. These two events are directly correlated. This is where bad career councillors get you, and is a key reason why I support taking power away from councillors and instead giving it to the GMCA to govern on a region-wide, big-picture scale. Small time councillors will only ever make parochial, small time decisions which cause long-term harm, and Stockport Lib Dems are a case in point.

What about extra traffic.roads already not fit for the traffic we have now .also extra stress on the only emergency hospital we have.doctors and schools etc.nobody seems to think about the effect on all our services
Please think about these things before all the unnecessary building takes place .and what about empty houses utilised instead of grean land we have left being built on .

Where is the plan to double the size of our only hospital, Stepping Hill to cope with the increase in population?
I don’t see one and I doubt there is going to be one so ever greater waiting lists and higher mortality.

Please stop the building on Jacksons Lane Hazel Grove Greenbelt there is no more belt left in Hazel Grove. You can surely do your best to stop this. Please schools are full. The roads are full. There’s at least 100 geese that fly there every morning and stay there the nature of the wildlife the trees there’s no doctors they’re all for the Dentist to full the roads around you must put a stop to this.

Just tell the government where to go.

In order for more housing to be created there needs to be more schools, GP’s police stations etc. The roads throughout Stockport area are in a pretty bad state of repair. They just wouldn’t cope with all the extra traffic that all this housing would create without total overhaul and improvements!!!

It’s okay building houses but there needs to be school/gp provision.
Also more lower rent homes…not ‘affordable housing ‘ which isn’t affordable to most!

I hope the road networks are improved or added to before they even lay a brick otherwise the whole area will be permanantly gridlocked.

Build, baby, build!

Stockport can’t pretend to be separate from Greater Manchester anymore. That is now clear.

You want the tram and the quick trains to Manchester, you take on the housing responsibility too.

The local road network needs serious work before any significant number of new homes are built. Traffic around Stockport is bad enough as it is. These developments are likely to bring total gridlock.

Having lived all my 70 years in Stockport, it has always been known as a council that couldn’t organise a p—up in a brewery, nothing has or will ever change while tree huggers and middle class nimby’s run the council.

If the council planning uses up all the brownfield and grey sites first that would be a major start. Instead of going along with this governments spiteful imposition of, if you have green belt we will make you build on it. I wonder how many government ministers and MP’s and councillors who have green belt close by are having social housing imposed on them?

People power will prevail against the evil developers. People must vote for whatever party promises to reverse these damaging planning amendments and promises to protect the greenbelt for the sake of our children. Social housing is what is needed and on brownfield only. The concept of greybelt by labour is a complete con and a disgrace to try and pull the wool over people’s eyes. We are not fools!

I live off Poleacre Lane, Woodley, quite close to Unity Mill, only accessible by a narrow bridge owned by Network Rail. The bridge only takes one vehicle at a time, are the council having any input into how the site is accessed? The residents of Poleacre and Briarley Gardens must be considered. Thought we lived in a democracy.
This is just a small example of the many considerations that must be heard, if not this could lead to some sort of general backlash.

Stopfordians… Show them how you can really stop this nonsense.. what you have now is enough lifestyle options to make life livable… The amount of people they’re about to add is going to end that.. and then where do you go?

Not going to add to the pile-on here, only to add that boroughs inside PfE look like they have 5 years protection before having their plans tested against the new increased housing allocation.

Remember when Labour used to bleat “The Tories are making us do it”…now they are gas-lighting the public that building in the Green Belt is an inevitable consequence of the Lib-Dems pulling Stockport out of the GMSF. No, it’s an inevitable consequence of a dishonest Labour government.

@AlanR, we are in a democracy. Stockport voted out of a spatial framework and is now subject to harsher targets.

All the people blaming the Government for the planning mess in Stockport are completely wrong. The fault for this mess is down to the Lib Dems councillors who pulled out of the Greater Manchester planning framework. The framework allowed for both Manchester and Salford to take a large number of Stockport’s housing allocation therefore easing the pressure on the Boroughs greenbelt. Nothing to do with the Government or Andy Burnham but the fault of the current Stockport Lib Dem councillors, they are a disgrace.

I think this is what’s called grasping the nettle. Ironic if the Council hadn’t had pulled out of PfE, they may have bought themselves another 3 years to get a plan in place and plan with less greenbelt release, but that’s how short sighted politicians are…. can’t see beyond the next political cycle. I think throwing in the towel on these green belt sites is sensible, as they are all at advanced stage of application or preparation for application and if the council had doubled down on brownfield first (like Trafford are), then they are just opening themselves to public inquiry after public inquiry, grinding their planning department to a halt.

Each and every one of those Councillors who voted to leave the GMSF should hang their heads in shame. The worst decision they could have made. Rather than trying to blame everyone but themselves, take some responsibility and own up to it. The electorate may give you some credit then.

All those commenting that they should consider the brownfield sites first clearly haven’t read the plan. Almost 16500 of the 25000 homes in the plan are not in greenbelt and most of those are on previously developed land. Some of the sites in the greenbelt are also previously developed land.
Ditto anyone talking about infrastructure. Read the thing you’re commenting on, its really clear that the infrasructure will have to be provided and sets out a whole series of policies which have the purpose of helping make sure that happens.
And also those ranting about democracy need to understand that planning is a quasi-judicial process, not a democratic one. Its about doing the right thing guided by evidence not guided by what the majority do or don’t think.

And still no plans for hospitals or infrastructure! Awesome

I felt it was a poor decision to pull out of the GMSF and go on its own.

@TJL

No way really

“protect GB for our children”, Perhaps children will need a home to live, building more improves affordability. “Social housing on brownfield only” is usually simply not viable, 50% affordable on GB sites is. Blame labour, but not the Lib Dems in Stockport? Do you know the purposes of the Green Belt?? Its not automatically sacrosanct… Why is Grey Belt a con? Crackers…

@anonymous 2:16pm
Greybelt is a con. Labour led us to believe it would target underperforming Green Belt land — such as disused car parks, petrol stations, and previously developed sites. But once they were voted in, they amended the NPPF, removing two of the five purposes of the Green Belt. This change has effectively opened up vast areas of productive agricultural land to development. So yes, it’s a massive con.

Stockport should force all the firms with planning permission on brown belt to get on with it or compulsory order the land. Beech Tree pub in Heald Green derelict and used by kids and vandalism . The old plant nursery on ladybridge Road in Cheadle Hulme granted permission for assisted living apartments releasing housing when people downsize and is derelict and overgrown. There must be sites all over Stockport like this. Disgraceful using greenbelt when sites like this are being left to rot.

Just to come back on Ian Finch, I’d argue green belt is a con. When the grey belt policy removed the countryside protection purpose it was acknowledging that greenbelt doesn’t actually protect countryside in aggregate because it’s effect is displace development to less protected countryside, and also the fact that greenbelt was introduced top down alongside new towns. New Towns again consumed lots of prime agricultural land. There are also whole cities in the UK that don’t have green belt (Southampton, Cardiff, Norwich, Leicester). It’s not clear to me these cities have become hideous sprawling places, so land use planning must have used other tools to constrain them.

The five purposes remain, and as you know Part E is a moot point (as all land GB land contributes to the same extent. Nimbys should try harder to make coherent arguments

@anonymous 2:20 I find it telling that the go-to insult from developers is to label anyone who supports protecting our food-producing farmland (much of which is wrongly classified as “Greybelt”) as “NIMBYs.” It’s so tired and predictable. The same divisive language that’s used by this government. Productive farmland — or any greenbelt fields that provide valuable habitats for wildlife — should never be lumped into the so-called “Greybelt.” The government knows it, the developers know it — it’s a con.

The LibDems lying through their teeth as usual. They were always going to build on the greenbelt because it is so much cheaper than building on brown sites.

My thoughts on this:

I’m a localist. But this naturally has its own responsibilities – including owning decisions.

If greenbelt has to be build on, new urbanism would be a better (and less land intensive) than sprawl.

Not all greenbelt is equal. How about adding some new country parks on this as well as a modest amount of housing? Northern Roots in Oldham – which is essentially a Country Park – could be a model.

Stockport’s approach is overall a bit muddled. The rejuvenation of areas like Old Town is excellent – and a reproach to other towns.

The forthcoming design code will help too. Note how much of the new development in Trafford is very decent these days.

Stockport is distinctive – people like the local. It’s also part of a major conurbation so some strategic planning can be appropriate especially transport.

The Chadwick st,Marple,site,is,I presume the only car park in Marple which,if built on ,would devastate the shopping areas of the village,and put a lot of traders out of business.plus,the roads are already overbusy in the town centre.

@ Tony bryan on October 22, 2025 at 2:22 pm
It isn’t the only car park though, is it? And having houses or flats with people living in them would bring more people into the local community who would spend money in local shops and businesses. Your point about traffic is valid but an obvious response to that, accepting that new houses are needed somewhere, is to focus them as far as possible in places which already have relatively good public transport and access to local shops and services… such as in or close to district centres like Marple.

anyone know how to access the draft proposals map?

Regarding development of. Land. At gravel bank farm and unity mill fields at. Woodley belt and conservation area no development land used by lots of people and horse grazing. Roads, schools and local doctors surgery s cannot cope with any more houses. Roads choked now so when Tyneside builds the houses they are about to be quicker to walk to Stockport. And once Greenbelt goes its forever.not that some people care.

I dread to think what Stockport will be like in the future! No green belt , no wildlife, no farms that provide food. I have lived in Stockport all my life .Always near the outskirts near the Mills as a child .I have lived in High Lane for the last fifty six years a Village that is now hard to travel home too. The volume of traffic we cannot cope with now, without a further 1000 houses which would be on farmland. The fumes from all the traffic is horrendous.We have two Primary schools, in the Village our older children have to go by bus to senior schools . We have only one Doctors practise also. How does our Councillors expect this to work in the event that these homes get push through by this
push by the inefficent councillors and a government who does not seem to know what it is doing! How many of our councillors actually live in Stockport and care about the residents of the Stockport Borough.

“This has forced us to release Green Belt sites using the government’s new methodology.” I take this statement with a massive pinch of salt. I’m a micro developer, my current pre-app was to build four two bed apartments in STRICTLY for first time buyers, key workers and people who are looking to start a family. Each residence would be priced approximately 30% below market value (we would still tickle a profit). I’m building on land where the existing office building was demolished with a now redundant car park, next to the A34 and near M60 junction. Stockport refuse to call this brownfield or even MEDS, rather prime greenbelt, must be protected, any development including residential is inappropriate. Maybe exhaust all your brownfield/MEDS options first before grandstanding and choosing greenbelt to score political points….