Stockport goes against officers to refuse 278-home plan 

while politicians play their games rents and house prices continue to rise making the cost of living more and more unaffordable for many. Politicians and planners only interested in looking proactive for NIMBYs – same story with Manchester Council in Burnage

How incredibly surprising!
In very isolated circumstances – Stockport – there is an argument for making Planning Committee members personally liable for any costs awarded against the council when they inevitably lose the appeal.
Or bill the first political party to put out a leaflet claiming credit for scuppering a compliant scheme on dubious electioneering grounds…

Sad and performative. Let’s see what the planning inspectorate do.

Another one that will get overturned and will cost the council for not following the the planning officers recommendations. I understand that no one wants greenfield built on but if you want some of the issues sorted then got to provide houses somewhere it’s hardly an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Well I hope Hollins appeal, win and seek costs against the Council. It will then be another complete waste of Council Tax monies.

Now turn both halfes into two parks for local folk to be in and enjoy, when they are outside of their private houses and not in the office or driving a car. Do folks still do owt else? Anyhow, with a neighborhood park they could learn to “be outside”, and even talk to their neighbors. Shock, horror! It is called Place-Making.

A depressingly predictable outcome. You might think there were local elections this year.

People with their NIMBY jibes know nothing of the actual facts and I doubt have even bothered to study any of the planning documents and recognise the key issues associated with this. No active golf course has ever got planning permission to build on all of their land – it would be setting a very dangerous precedent for custodians of other sports clubs. Let us see this for what it is – members profiteering.

At least someone listened to common sense. Brown Field sites are Your priority. Ask each Borough Councillor to survey Their Boroughs to see how much Brown Field Land They have. The Town Hall can then see which Borough has the most land without disturbing Greenbelt & also including easy access to local & the towns amenities. Think of the money that you can save.

Anon 2.24pm. In Stockport the Planners recommended Approval. In Manchester the professional opinion of the Planners on the Burnage scheme at next weeks Planning Committee is to recommend refusal. An officer recommendation for refusal on residential schemes in Manchester is a rarity. Let’s see what the Manchester politicians do!

Members aren’t legally allowed to pre-determine planning applications before Committee; however, watching the webcast (33:40 onwards), Cllr Mark Jones reads his pre-prepared notes as he makes his speech to precede his move to refuse the application… that looks pretty ‘pre-determined’ to me!!!

I love the quote (shortage of housing)
Leta face it it it’s all about greed with developers amd councils, lower class people are the ones suffering 6000 people on Stockport housing list,

For gods sake there a shortage of house and this is exactly what is needed. Damn councils can be so backwards thinking

This should go through we need more homes that are affordable for young people the councils need to get on and allow it

I expect the planning inspectorate to overturn this ludicrous decision meaning the council tax payers of Stockport will pick up the cost.

But isn’t the birth rate coming down year on year?
Why do we need to keep building on our precious green belt – where are all the people coming from who need these houses?

What a surprise when one of those voting lives by the course. An election round the corner and the Lib Dem’s Want votes. Pathetic and we all suffer when we have to pay the fines when this gets approved. Hope the Nimbys are happy!

Got to make sure the closed off green space is kept green so that the golfers can keep in playing golf, can’t be opening that land up to the public to be shared for all and to maybe use some of it to create housing which we do desperately need? 🙄

SK8 postcode has more than it’s fair share of housing and development against open and community space. Gatley Golf Club is over 100 years old and is a much needed sorts facility. The golf club has been poorly managed for a number of years. Local residents have come together and are prepared to support the Clubs existence and sustainability.

Well I’m surprised this development didn’t get the go-ahead Im a golf club member ,I’m fuming I didn’t get my big payout I needed that money to pay off my mortgage.
I thought we needed affordable housing ,
The golf course wasn’t used we’re only about 50 members at the club if no local people are interested joining, how are we supposed to make it viable ?

Stockport can’t finish the mess at Hazel Grove Park and ride on A6, they arrange Maybuey to build it then tore it all down, what a waste if public money!

How many people play golf compared to how many need homes. If they want to keep the fields why don’t you get them all tents. Get real Stockport, people need homes.

Government needs to implement a proper housing plan. You can’t blame residents for not wanting a colossal 270+ house development on a green area of land with no coherent plan to deal with the impact on the local traffic, schools and the environment.

Gosh. I know PNW is a safe space for you developers but this article misses out why the application was rejected. If I was HSL I’d think long and hard about an appeal. There’s a lot more scrutiny during an appeal and threading a needle through the facts won’t be easy. We all know planning applications are written just to get through planning permission – it’s a bit of a game isn’t it? Skirt over a detail here, ignore something there, make it all a bit vague and then drop in a few promises, shiny things and follow up with some threats – scare the planners and you’ll get everything you actually wanted later. What happens when the application goes a bit too far though? The authors get a bit carried away? Increasingly residents, fed up of being railroaded by all of this, are digging in to those details – and surely they should be allowed to protect their own assets and quality of life? They are sitting in small groups, looking at the plans and checking back through records….sometimes from a time when they themselves were involved. Realising that the planning teams can and will also bypass these facts, locals are going straight to their councillor’s and the press with those facts. Councillors get voted in and their actions – votes – are much more visible these days. Believe me, they don’t like having a light shone on them either but they are accountable to their residents. Now I know this post will cause some pearl clutching horror and frothing at the mouth but sometimes you need to pause and look at those facts. No one’s falling for the Affordable Housing thing anymore. It was a wheeze at the time but let’s move on to actually helping people shall we? And with that, I shall drop the mic…

Cynical Stockport. Ratepayers and Lib Dems should be ashamed but they won’t be, far too through the looking glass on planning now. I’m sure they’ll be back in the council chamber in no time bleating about the housing crisis. Another for the Planning Inspectorates desk.

Yet again the council going against the needs of the people in the local area it’s time for a big change put the people first

There is so much building going on in and around Stockport it’s overwhelming and with this brings more pollution…we need to keep our green space!

Just another expample of why elected members should be nowhere near planning. They are simply not independent. Couldn’t a develop start to look at the independence of such council ls and start to take legal action where they is clearly a conflict of interest.

This development was opposed by over 1200 residents who expressed their interest in supporting a golf club which seemed to have been deliberately made unviable once the membership had decided to sell to a developer. How many of the comments posted on this forum have come from persons or organisations with a vested interest in a possible development?

“Former Golf Club” check your facts it’s still an operational golf club.

Common sense wins the day at last. Inadequate infrastructure, network of narrow and already overcrowded, congested minor roads, inadequate provision of schools, doctors’ surgeries etc… , loss of essential green space. Anyone who experiences the existing huge traffic pressures will know this was a most unwelcome plan. New housing schemes are much needed but local geography and existing pressures suggest alternatives ( brownfield sites and so on) offer more practical solutions. Town planning used to be a well considered art. Clearly not any more. For example, has anyone actually seen the provision of much affordable housing on the new Stanneylands Estate? Or anything in the way of better access roads/better traffic management, other than a small roundabout. Are there many new school places or improvements in health care etc…?

Stockport becoming the Wrexham of the NW of England, with no Plan, no housing supply, refusing against officer recommendations and so on. There’s even parallels with the names of the members involved…

Middle class NIMBYs, voting against building much needed housing on completely unnecessary golf courses, which take up limited land, while the town centre and surrounding areas, like Edgeley become more and more built up (predominantly working class areas).

Four!!!

I think the vote was 7/5
Loss of the golf course would in fact allow more accessibility to the land and the facilities being made available for the community rather than a few paths.

I would like Stockport Council to publish their plans to give young people the opportunity to buy an affordable home. The young people are the future.

Excellent decision! Councillors representing the people, Well done Stockport.

Plenty of ‘affordable’ house nearby. It’s next to Wythenshawe.

Councillors letting down Stockport residents as they don’t have a plan and this will be allowed on appeal.

Anonymous 9.36am, councillors should represent the people by being honest with them, there is a a very strong likelihood that this decision will be overturned by the planning inspectorate which means council tax payers of Stockport will have to pay the developers costs. The council would have more chance of defending this decision if they had a local plan or hadn’t pulled out of the GMSF.

Golf courses aren’t true green spaces. They’re relentlessly mown, leaf-blown, soaked in fertilizer and exclude the majority of human life that might want to enjoy nature, let alone support real biodiversity. If any green space should be built on, it’s a golf course.

Stockport is a textbook example of how the UK has got itself into a conflicted mess. The town might end up being a powerful example of brownfield urban regeneration, reviving heritage assets, hospitality and retail, developing commercial real estate and new residential in the core. Just a question for the NIMBYs on this site – will that make Stockport a more or less attractive place to live and work? When the 20 and 30 somethings in these new apartments get to family stage they are going to go where?

This is Gatley, right by Sharston and close to Newhall Green. Yimby’s constantly bemoaning‘ ‘affordable ‘ housing should pay attention to reality. Houses taking the last Green spaces here would be a lot less affordable than anything there. Thank goodness for decent councillors and a sensible decision!

More evidence, if any were needed, of the urgent need to overhauI the present Iudicrous process for determining pIanning appIications. A recommendation for approvaI from the paid profeesionaIs, decIined by the Butcher, Baker and CandIestick maker, doubtIess resuIting in another costIy appeaI at the Taxpayers expense. How we expect our PIanning Officers to do a good job when their recommendations are conintuaIy ignored is beyond me. CounciIIors shouId be made personaIIy IiabIe for the costs of Iost appeaIs where Officer recomendations have been ignored.

Madness! Stockport has an acute housing shortage and can’t met it’s statutory requirement of 5 years housing land supply at anyone time, yet members seem to think to think everyone should be in a tower block development clustered around the town centre.

“Developers, outraged at losing profits blame Stockport council, residents and anyone else they can think of for wanting to keep a perfectly viable golf club open…” There, fixed it for you…

So on one hand people upset about dwindling provision of affordable housing for the next generation, but a stark lack of the same energy to protect green spaces for the next generation to enjoy. Good for Heald Green and Gatley coming together to refuse this.

Planning in Stockport lurches from one crisis to another. Will it ever end?

Too many people and not enough houses? Then I’ll vote for fewer people. Let’s keep some Green space eh.

Stockport council, common sense prevails. Hopefully the appeal will be quashed too. The benefits of taking your fate into your own hands !

Common sense from the council. Well done

An obvious overturn on appeal coming down the line with costs against the council. “Sad and performative” is one comment on here and I can only agree.

This decision is most disappointing. This is a very good scheme that deserves the Council’s support. It would provide the type of housing that the Council needs to meet its requirements, as well as providing public open space and community facilities, in a location that is well-related to surrounding houses. This would be a much better use of the site than a private golf course that is no longer required. I would expect the applicant to win an appeal and, with the likelihood of costs being awarded against the Council, it would be sensible for the Council to reconsider its decision.

Developers “You need houses!” 2,100 applications granted in recent years, less than 1,000 completed. Not really holding up your end of the deal are you? If “our” need was so desperate, why aren’t they being built?

The people have spoken, the councillors have listened. Profit before people doesn’t always work.

6000 people on the Stockport council waiting list, families stuck in bed and breakfast yet the councillors vote against new homes, withdraw from the GMSF and have no local plan, their incompetence is staggering.

Home owners push for non-homers to have limited opportunity to buy homes. Disgusting really.

I wonder where the Lib Dem Mayor’s ward is? Oh look, it’s Gatley! Quelle Surprise!

Too many houses shoehorned into this scheme. If the developer and their backers weren’t so greedy this would have sailed through. Now they face a huge bill to fund the appeal.

Yep , great decision, these house aimed at people on the housing list ?…oh please my sides are splitting! The right decision has been made for the right reason and all the pretend hand wringing won’t change that.

Outsiders and Yimbys trying to take the last squares of green we have left on our doorsteps, Disgraceful really. Well done councillors, sometimes they actually do some good!

Reading through the comments from developers moaning about not getting this opportunity to make a profit, I can’t see a single fact supporting their case. Presumably you listened in to the webcast? Or is it you’ve already seen the yet-to-be-written report? This seems to have been rejected on pretty firm reasons…which I know must sting the somewhat entitled audience here but y’know…get over it. The developer think long and hard about going for an appeal where they would have to prove the claims they made in the application. That’s not going to be easy is it? Stockport’s overly eager planning team are no longer in the picture and could be subject to a formal complaint for their actions. Imagine that scenario…

Maybe the voters who went against this application should indicate where the units lost on this one will be delivered instead, or do they think they don’t need the units?

I honestly don’t understand the drawbridge mentality that NIMBYs have. “Now that I have a home, I must ensure that nobody else is allowed to have one”. It is an incredibly selfish disposition which is pricing people out of ever owning (or even renting) their own homes, pushing up homelessness, and causing the economy to stagnate. Councillors need to grow a spine and stand up to these nation wreckers.

Anyone Fancy a Game – why keep making deeply vague comments about why the developer better “think long and hard” like you know something secret no one else does. You talk a lot and say nothing at all. What are these magic details that have been hidden and ignored…the officer recommended an approval, they will almost certainly appeal, and likely win.

Ah, if only appeals worked that way eh, how easy it would be. This duck is dead, too many people around here don’t want it , something much smaller and more discreet maybe but not this.

Excellent news, beautiful golf course that has been here around a hundred years. Would love to have seen the joke plans for vehicle access to 278 houses though…. ridiculous !

Too many’s Yimbys on this site cant no for an answer, but that is the answer. No, and the right answer too.