Russell LDP puts forward plans for 545 Stockport homes

Discraceful. They should build on old brownfields instead

Clearly lots of public transport options in that area. This definitely won’t just be another car-dominated development

Stockport Lib Dems reaping what they sowed will never not be funny

I think there are more sustainable GB releases that would make more sense in Stockport although they only have themselves to blame for pulling out of Places for Everyone for this and the recent appeal decisions.

Woodford already lacks infrastructure. We struggle to get our children into schools, doctor’s surgeries, dentists. All are a struggle despite promises. This once lovely area is being ruined. Time to sell we think.

Before any building starts let’s see the infer structure

Are SMBC building all their housing allocation in Woodford!!! Seems like that at the moment! Woodford cannot take any more there synthetic the infrastructure!!!

This is absolutely not the thing to do, it’s going to just become one huge housing estate. Giving it the name Woodford garden village is a real stretch of the imagination

Brownfield should always be developed before greenbelt is ever considered

Ridiculous idea. wheres the infastructure. Theres 1 bus route which stops running at 7pm. buses, no doctor no shops, no spaces in school. no churches, to far to the train station anyone who lives there would need a car. The water supply is already on over demand and the sewage system is to old to cope.

Stockport is slowly losing all of its green belt / farm land. Started accelerating with the bypass and all the new builds around Cheadle (Stanley Green), Handforth etc.. And now moving to Woodford area. The traffic is also horrendous every time I visit my parents in Cheadle Hulme (where I used to live as a kid).

All these new houses being built and yet there are so many people homeless – too bloomin’ expensive, that’s why !

Surely they don’t still believe that pulling out of the GMSF was absolutely the right thing to do! This won’t have anything to do with why Councillor Hunter is stepping down as Leader either.

Under the government’s new rules (at least) 50% of these will have to be affordable. They’ll also have to be supported by ‘necessary infrastructure’ (whatever that is – I suspect the developers will have a different idea of what it means to the council).

What about extra medical and denta facilities and a school?!!!!

I really think that this a bad idea. Looking back in years to come we will realise this. We need our green spaces. Build on brownfield……there are plenty of disused factories in Stockport and elsewhere

I would wager good money that a lot of the commenters here complaining about lack of doctors, dentists and infrastructure voted for the Cllrs who took Stockport out of GMSF. This is another good Case Study example for the people of Oldham.

Along with the other developments planned for the area, there are going to be over 3,500 new homes and industrial buildings within a mile of this proposed site. Apparently, Stockport Council only consider individual applications, so decisions are not based on the cumulative effect of all the plans. No wonder the area is a mess.
Completely agree with the “Brownfield first approach”. Unfortunately, the developers are only bothered about profits and not the environment.
This destruction of the countryside has got to be stopped

What earth why the council make decision to ruined the green, I don’t the the council is not friendly of earth. Stockport are the worse decision ever.

Under the GM scheme they were expected to use green belt, thats why they cane out. They were doing their plan but previous conservative gov announced new rules so they had to start it again, then Labour got in with other rules and doubled the number of houses they have to build. Presumably because they are not a labour authority.

Only 1 per hour bus route in the area. Everyone in the area need a car. What’s great idea to boost the sales of the cars. Imagine that It would be a very nice car exhibition everyday in Chester road during peak hour.

A very timely thought. It will be a very welcome plan after while .

What about infrastructure to cope with the extra housing? Schools, GP’s etc?

All the comments in here about infrastructure etc are quite right but it’s important to note that national planning policy now explicitly requires developments like this in the greenbelt to provide necessary infrastructure.

And all the comments about building on brownfield sites instead… where? The council’s housing land supply information – quite easily found via Google and the their website – shows that over 80% of new houses, almost 10000 in total, can be built on sites that are brownfield (and half the remainder is on sites that are partly brownfield). That doesn’t, from what I can tell, include the 8000 homes they’re aiming to build in stockport town centre. So they’ve already got about 18000 brownfield homes in their plans, and only about 1100 greenfield.

The problem they’ve got is that (mainly because there’s a woefully inadequate amount of housing been built in the past 50 years) the government’s updated way of calculating housing need has increased Stockport’s target from just over 20000 to over 30000. Unless someone finds some very big brownfield sites that have been mysteriously hiding away then development of big sites like this is inevitable. And unless the council’s leadership has the guts to hurry up and adopt a local plan which sets out which big sites like this will be released from the greenbelt for development, it’ll be left to the development industry to decide it for them by submitting planning applications.

Dear people commenting on this article – please read the article above about proposals to build on a brownfield site in Stockport town centre so as to see the bigger picture.

Instead of building communities, private developers build houses for profit, which by company law, corporate officers are legally obliged to do in the interests of corporate owners. So who is supposed to build houses and why all the complaining? Council planners cannot tell privately-owned businesses where to build; nor do they have power to decided on funding and building of community facilities and services. What a balls up!

In respons to Anonymous (April 29, 2025 at 8:58 pm)
Council planners can and do tell developers where they can build. They do this through application of national and local planning policies which determine where houses can be built (amongst many other things). The problem Stockport has is that its local policies are woefully out of date and the council’s leadership have repeatedly failed to agree to update them because they know building enough houses to meet needs means difficult decisions in places where they’d like existing residents to keep voting for them.

Let’s have some intelligent thinking around development in Stockport – Stepping Hill as an example, needs to be replaced by a new hospital on the edge of the town, and the site redeveloped for housing. Expensive houses in Woodford are not what the borough needs. Instead 2-3 bed family homes and bungalows for active older people to release the thousands of existing large family homes near schools and doctors are needed.

Where were all the objections to the applications to build on green belt on Jacksons Lane ?? It is a good job there are no local elections tomorrow. !!

Another plan is to build along Jackson’s lane from Dorchester parade to the large laybye along Jackson’s Lane Hazel Grove the council will say yes to everything because of the new planning rules in force with the Government

This would be catastrophic for the area the roads in hazel grove and bramhall are congested already

Traffic terrible now bypass not built properly
Always closing cheadle hulme traffic lights need adjustment

Hi, would be really helpful if you included the planning application number or link in your articles about new developments in the area! This one is DC/095675 on the Stockport planning portal

Hi Anonymous, this detail has been added. We always endeavour to include the reference where possible. Thanks.

May 01, 2025 at 10:45 am

By Neil Tague