Gatley Golf Course, Hollins Strategic Land, p planning

The scheme was refused in February 2024. As a note, this illustrative layout has been rotated 90 degrees. Credit: via planning documents

Stockport fails to defend refusal of 278-home Gatley plan

The Planning Inspectorate has approved Hollins Strategic Land’s redevelopment of the disused 44-acre Gatley Golf Course, a decision that once again calls into question the wisdom of the council’s planning committee.

The 278-home redevelopment is the second large housing project Stockport Council has lost an appeal over in the space of a year.

In early 2024, the Planning Inspectorate overturned the authority’s decision to refuse MAN Energy Solutions’ 200-home redevelopment of Mirrlees Fields in Hazel Grove.

In both cases, the projects had been recommended for approval by Stockport’s planning team only to be refused by the committee.

In both cases the presiding planning inspector has cited Stockport’s lack of a five-year-housing supply as its main reason for allowing the appeal.

Read the full decision notice

In considering the Gatley Golf Course development – which features a 50% affordable provision and 26 acres earmarked for public open space – the inspector said Stockport had between 1.56 – 1.77 year’s supply of homes.

The borough’s dire housing land supply position has been “exacerbated” by the government’s recent revision of housing targets nationally, which saw Stockport’s annual target jump from 1,097 to around 1,800, the inspector said.

“This demonstrates the acute and serious levels of housing need experienced across the borough,” according to the inspector, who added that the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the case of Hollins’ scheme should apply.

The inspector concluded that the project’s “adverse impacts” – namely the loss of the golf course – “would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the [National Planning Policy] Framework as a whole”.

Broadway Malyan is the masterplan architect for the 44-acre site. Asteer Planning supported the developer through the appeal.

Your Comments

Read our comments policy

Stockport council should pay for the costs of the public inquiry.

By Anon

Excellent news. Hopefully, the voters of Stockport will soon realise the self-defeating silliness of the manifesto on which these people got elected.

By YIMBY

How much has this appeal cost Stockport Tax payers? What is the cost of these petty politics? Are the Planning Committee fit for purpose?

By A Taxpayer

Let’s be clear – there is no wisdom in Stockport Council’s Planning Committee – no ifs no buts. They are plainly stupid.

By Anonymous

Dan – would be interested in understanding the cost to the council (I.e me as one of their tax payers) of these lost appeals?

By John Wood

It’s blindingly obvious that the petulance of local politics in Stockport is coming home to roost. If you want control of planning decisions, sometimes you actually have to make some favourable ones.

By Anonymous

Glad to see the planning inspectorate provide Everyone with Places to live.

By Anonymous

Pleasing to see 50% affordable housing.

I don’t play golf, and am definitely not a fan of the typical golfers’ attitude. But it’s pretty sad that we’re in a generation where a lot of golf courses are just getting turned in to housing estates. At least a chunk of this has been kept as a park (for now).

By Anonymous

This area adjacent to Stockport is already over developed and the road infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the volume of traffic from the K56 and along Kingsway upto Cheadle and beyond.Developments need to be moved out further into Cheshire

By Paul griffiths

Nobody has mentioned the utter chaos that this development will bring to the local community especially in terms of traffic and parking. The loss of valuable green and open space is to be deplored. A round of applause to the Planning Committee for having the guts to oppose the recommendation of Planning Officers regardless of cost.

By Adrian Walmsley

Stockport Lib Dems will be begging the other Councillors to vote for cuts in a budget in a few short weeks – knowing that this charade has cost tax payers how many six figures in legal fees and costs to defend. Insanity.

By Tony Miao

So a golf is closed for housing but no houses are going to be built ??? Boys nope golf course near Eccles was closed in 2018 for housing but no houses have been built doesn’t make any sense

By Steven wood

argh can GMCA just take over Stockport planning already. There’s absolutely no place for petulant NIMBYs in 21st century Greater Manchester

By Anonymous

Gatley struggles with traffic currently particularly when there are road issues, not sure how it will handle all these extra cars. Also not sure that the utilities will be able to handle all these extra houses in the area. Would be interested to hear from the developer how they plan to handle these issues as they have been extremely quite on these issues.

By Anonymous

Can someone remind me of the percentage of appeal defeats required before a Council is subject to Government intervention / placed in to special measures? Quality and competence is clearly lacking with the current members. More training for them would be a good start.

By T.D. Smith

You have to feel sorry for Stockport’s officers trying to make decisions and deliver a new Local Plan with little help or common sense coming from their elected Councillors. Must be a nightmare trying to balance ‘good planning’ with ‘political expediency’.

By Depressed Latic

Hopefully the deserted golf course will be put to good use, especially since it was closed in 2018.
Perhaps the course and club could be reopened?

By Anon

Fantastic news! Now my children will have an opportunity to buy locally.

By Oakdale

Stockport Council fails again, why are we not surprised but 53 conditions, come on PINS! Good luck getting those discharged and the reserved matters through no doubt they’ll find some tenuous reason to block the scheme at that stage also. If ever there was a case study for removing local planning decision taking for major development from a LPA this is it. No doubt a raft of other applications coming down the track now in light of an agreed supply position resting somewhere between 1.56 and 1.77 years. How any metro authority can have such a miserable supply position is remarkable but it clearly illustrates the failings of this Council. Rant over HNY!

By Groundhog Day

The appellant used Katkowski – and he’s not cheap. The actual level of costs will be decided later, but will be in region of £100-200k, plus the Council’s own costs (they had a Counsel too).

By Peter Black

How long before the Stockport planning department is put into special measures as a result of the LibDems political manouvering?

By Pete

that’s what happens when minor politicians get to make the decision, placing their political future before the needs of the borough.

By Well I never...

When will we realise that Councillors who are appointed to the Planning Committee (of any LPA, not just Stockport) are not fit to govern such matters. They have little understanding of planning policy and make decisions based on emotion and appeasing public sentiment rather than following legal framework. Lawyers get rich off the back of these appeals and everybody else loses. The LPA loses face, the developer loses time/money, the public get zero benefit as the sites remain stalled/undeveloped. Yes it’s important to retain some level of democractic process for stakeholders to support/object but giving such powers to unqualified Councillors is just nonsense. This isn’t an attack on Councillors who tend to have good intentions at heart (as compared with those higher up the ladder), but common sense has to prevail at some point.

By Hamza

Oldham’s Lib Dems are trying to put their Council in the same position as Stockport

By Anonymous

It was never a green space but a private golf course, and woe betide you if you strayed of the path. New park, and green space elements. Bring it on. Oh and if you can’t put your name to a post it should be taken off as you have not the courage to stand up and be counted

By David Maycock

It does seem like a waste of time and money (as Peter Black states) having to go through an appeal which is then allowed. However planning committees do serve an important function in for accountability and transparency in local government. If delegated powers are extended and the LPA operates with zero transparency (Trafford), the planning system starts to fall apart.

By Anonymous

I can’t wait for the chaos on the roads this will cause. More roads ruined by wagons and construction traffic. All for more housing but developers should have to fund additional infrastructure repairs too.
The word affordable is a joke, wait until you see the prices.

By Anonymous

Councillors on planning committees don’t have to be planning experts or technically proficient; they just need to assess the recommendation made by the officers and any representations from police, organisations, local residents and decide if there is any good planning reason not to support the receommendation. Many people like to think that the councillors can or should act politically to stop or to push through schemes – often playing to a gallery of residents, a certain party is famous for that – but it’s not like that. Playing to the gallery as a small opposition, pretending decisions are political, is one thing. But being the majority party means putting on the adult trousers and doing the right thing. Being the majority party and still doing the gestures and game playing is bound to end in tears. Planning is quasi-judicial and in some ways councillors are like a jury of citizens, NOT experts. If they turn something down without good planning reasons they are very susceptible to losing at appeal. And sometimes a developer will get a less attractive or sensitive scheme through an appeal, as against what they negotiate in a more normal process.

By Chris P

It’s OK to say no! We have too many people living here already. We don’t want any more. All the green spaces are being built on and the roads are full of traffic….so NO is enough!

By Robert White

“Would be interested to hear from the developer how they plan to handle these issues as they have been extremely quite on these issues” – here’s an idea…read the technical reports

By Anonymous

I always feel sorry for the Planning and Legal Officers who correctly interpret Planning Policy and housing needs (less than 2 years supply) and then forced to represent the Council at an Inquiry saying the opposite. How many more times will they make a futile Appeal when they could have exported development pressure under the rejected Strategic Plan?

By Dave

There is no place for planning boards in modern planning, the process and policy is simply too complex, too expensive and too slow to be left to the whims of uneducated, emotional, irrational and unaccountable local councillors.

By Anonymous

The roads near by are crammed from 3pm until 8pm daily .

By Steve macca

Have they considered the impact this will have to the local environment. It’s bad enough as it is at school times and on a Friday with the local mosque who are trying to organise parking on our road. As for affordable housing is it going to be reasonable and family orientated.

By Julie J

Fantastic news for the local community (we’re not all NIMBY’s). We need more houses for the next generation and we need more accessible green space. It’s laughable that people are lamenting the loss of the green space when it was a PRIVATE golf course – much better as a park that we can actually use. Great news for Gatley.

By Dave Jones

To answer Julie J, if you look at what the planning inspector says he acknowledges there are range of impacts on the local community, but since Stockport Council current plan only has land sufficient to address 1.5 years of years instead of 5 years required by government policy these are down-weighted as concerns. The sad reality is because they came out of Places for Everyone without Plan B they have lost control of land use planning in greenbelt settings. PfE did release some greenbelt, but protected the rest.

By Rich X

Does anybody ever consider that the extensive flooding that has recently occurred in Gatley , Cheadle, Bramhall etc is due to the loss of open fields to absorb rainfall. The area is already overdeveloped and this will make flooding even worse.

By Anon

When will building work start.

By Mrs miller

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