Public consultation begins for Places for Everyone changes
Stakeholders can now have their say on proposed modifications to the spatial framework for most of Greater Manchester.
Places for Everyone presents a strategy for development in Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford, and Wigan. The framework outlines which areas are suitable for commercial, residential, and industrial development, as well as releases Green Belt land. Stockport is not part of the framework.
The modifications under consultation come from the Planning Inspectorate, which is charged with examining the local plan to ensure it is legally compliant ahead of it being sent to local authorities for adoption.
Modifications include extending the plan from 2037 to 2039, and increasing the amount of Green Belt release from 4,300 acres to 5,500 acres.
Each of the involved GM councils has agreed to put the modifications before the public for consultation. The consultation will run until 11:59pm on 6 December. You can access the consultation at gmconsult.org/pfe/mainmods2023/.
Salford City Mayor Paul Dennett is the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s portfolio lead for Places for Everyone. Regarding this next round of consultation, he said: “This is a key milestone in a meticulous and detailed process which has been carried out with care and precision.
“I’m exceptionally proud of the journey we’ve been on to reach this final consultation,” he continued. “Voices of our residents and partners across Greater Manchester have helped to shape the future we’re working towards.
“As we move into this next phase, we can set our sights on the end goal which is our vision to tackle inequalities across our region.”
Places for Everyone has been in the works since August 2014. Following the conclusion of the consultation, feedback will be sent back to the Planning Inspectorate. If all is in order and no further consultations are required, the Planning Inspectorate will then issue a final examination report. Each of the involved GM councils will need to vote on adopting Places for Everyone prior to the plan being implemented.
Earlier this year, Dennett said he expected Places for Everyone to be adopted in 2024.
Bizarrely, the one place it’s not needed is Salford.
By Anonymous
Long long overdue
By TJL
“Exceptionally proud”. Don’t make me laugh! Been one of the biggest farces known to man. The amount of time this has taken is nothing short of a disgrace.
By Anon
Developers are already cherry picking the Greenbelt sites that have been earmarked for development. Meanwhile the brownfield sites are being left behind. Fast forward 5 years and all the Greenbelt sites will have been developed and developers will be claiming that there isn’t sufficient supply.
By Anonymous
About time. Lets get on with it
By Anonymous
Much needed but a perfect example of why the planning system needs bulldozing!
By Anonymous
Who are these people telling us “the public” what we need and steeling our green belt to then promote “we need green spaces” self serving clowns.
By Gary Booth
Stockport opted out of the GM-wide plan, largely because of pretty much universal opposition to green belt development.
It will will be interesting to see who got it right, the 9 or the 1.
Stockport is fortunate that unlike the rest of GM, it is not a Labour fiefdom, so unlike neighbouring Tameside where the Godley Green development was pushed through against everyone’s wishes because there is no effective opposition on Tameside Council, in Stockport, councillors actually have to take notice of local opinion as the Council is perennially hung and almost impossible for Labour to control.
Will be interesting to see how the next Labour government walks all over Stockport Council over housing after the next election, whatever they may say about local decision making, the reality is as ever ie it will be directed from Whitehall.
By AltPoV
Time to throw this ‘document’ in the bin. Long overdue for the great file in the sky.
By Anonymous
Hardly public is it?
Who is going to have the time or knowhow to go through that lot? Certainly not any of the people that will be affected by it (poor/lower class), and probably only those that will be able to profit from it (wealthy/upper class).
It makes you wonder if the UK has changed at all from the old gentry, there’s just new terminology for the same old ways.
By Anonymous
AltProv, you are deluded about Stockport, they have little land available for development, still have no local plan and leaving the GMSF has made the greenbelt land around the borough more vulnerable to development.
By Anonymous
its amazing how the Green Belt is always the first thing to get concreted over under such plans. I find it astounding that every time a developer gets involved, local authorities just let them build more shoddy “executive” housing without considering the long term effects.
By Anonymous
it is always useful to consider what exactly Green Belt loss means compared with the size of the existing Green Belt. Currently just over 47% of the total area of the 9 boroughs is Green Belt. This will fall (if all sites are built and over 15+ years) to just under 45%. Also worth noting the apparent “increase” in Green Belt loss is not because more development is proposed but that the well intentioned addition of over 30 sites into the Green Belt by the 9 councils was ruled out by the planning inspectors.
By Informed
Local plans every 20 years ago are the one time Greenbelt should be reviewed to make sure it is robust – all the rest of the time it is generally ONLY the NON greebelt sites that are “cherry picked”
By Greenbelt