Stockport halts local plan preparation again

Yet again, SMBC are badly prepared, and seem determined to make it almost impossible for any commercial developer to actually deliver homes in the Borough. Prolonged uncertainty may suit public bodies, and political ambition but it does nothing to instill confidence in commercial developers.

Although the final figure and methodology of the new housing targets was unknown, the impact on councils like Stockport was quite predictable. As is the political response to blame Labour and Whitehall. The blame lies squarely with the council and an alliance of local Lib Dems, Tory and independents pulling out of the GMSF. Had they stayed in would now have an adopted plan and some protection from the new numbers, and crucially a working relationship with the other 9 authorities. The draft plan was quite stark when officers confirmed they’d asked for help but none was forthcoming. Chickens and roosts?
But for once can councillors stop looking at the next local election cycle and actually plan for homes for people to live in? Losing some GB is not the end of the world. It might just make it better.

Stockport was always trying to build less homes and hope they were built in its neighbours instead, a true nimby council. Their draft plan actually didn’t even set aside enough land to meet the Conservatives lowered housing and employment land targets or the councils own demand predictions coming in a few percent shy.

‘turning their backs on collaborative cross-party approach’ Do you mean like turning your back on Places for Everyone?

NIMBYborough – trying to force Manchester and Salford to deliver more than their fair share of homes all so weak councillors don’t have to stand up to their luddite electorate. Stockport residents and councillors need to be told to join us in the real world, where there’s a chronic housing crisis forcing many to sleep on the streets or stay living at home well into their thirties.

Stockport five year housing land supply was already challenged before the new Draft NPPF and the proposed changes on housing numbers were published.

Until a new Local Plan is in place the applications for Green Belt development will now roll into Stockport and they will be approved, albeit probably on Appeal.
The decision to leave the Greater Manchester Spatial Plan was a political decision and those politicians will now have to live with their misdiagnosis of who would win the General Election.

Do not build more houses in Stockport or the price of my properties will not rise as fast as it would otherwise.

More homes now! More carbon emissions now!

Ah the irony – pulling out of the GMSF in an attempt to protect the Green Belt and reduce housing numbers. And now being told by the Government to review their Green Belt and increase their housing numbers. And this time, they cannot rely on their GM neighbours to pick up the slack. Meanwhile, first time buyers and families can’t access the homes they need. And no, that isn’t 1 and 2-bed apartments on a brownfield site in the red light district. You reap what you sow Stockport!

We are having a housing crisis. We are also having a huge crisis in the loss of nature. Man forgets that the land doesn’t just belong to them to concrete over. And with the way things are going, massive wildlife and insect decline due to the loss of land and vegetation to support them, man will not be far behind.
For example, I often see people complaining about the lack of butterflies. In order to have butterflies you need caterpillar food plants, nettles is one. And all the plants that we have been calling ‘weeds’ and removing from our gardens and public spaces. We are doomed if we continue this way. Putting in a few trees and flower boxes here and there over concrete is not enough.

As the most well connected town in GM, Stockport should be building the right homes that people need to support the borough. Apartments on brownfield sites in the town centre are welcomed, but 2 and 3 bedroom homes for young families and bungalows for older people are needed. Building on greybelt doesn’t need to be a bad thing, IF it’s well designed, zero carbon and the necessary infrastructure is in place. We don’t have enough brownfield land to deliver the homes needed and retain enough employment space to ensure Stockport remains successful.

Better dust off those Green Belt sites folks. Stockport thought pulling out of the GMFS PfS was going to stop Green Belt release, looks like that was a waste of everyone’s time too.

Do not let the nimbys win we need houses now not in years to come, we have plenty of green belt in Stockport we must build on some of it people need a decent place to live

Stockport Lib Dem’s have got themselves in a right pickle in recent years, putting Party and their NIMBY supporters above local let alone national need. Now their chickens have come home to roost and they find themselves in a worse position than had they stayed in the GMSF. I have zero sympathy for them and their proposals to pack residential around the town centre in unsuitable homes and at the expense of viable businesses, especially around Beinksway, in a borough that is desperately short of fit for purpose employment land. The emerging Local Plan was never fit for purpose and Labour’s enforced targets are exactly what the borough needs!
One final thought, maybe the government might just think about sending in commissioners to run this incompetent local authority, which is in denial on housing and employment land supply and the urgent need to connect the A555 from Hazel Grove to the M60 at Bredbury.

Time to bulldoze Merseyway – and redevelop this with shops and residential above this. And you can reopen the river.

This was entirely predictable. All the other GM boroughs now have a strategic plan and almost all have adopted local plans – Stockport has none, a housing land supply of 2.5 years (see the Mirlees Fields decision letter 2023) and the prospect of losing appeal after appeal on the Green Belt – bit like Cheshire E/W ten years ago – but at least they got their act together. The irony was that under the GM strategic plan, Salford had taken 5,000 of Stockport’s allocation, but now Stockport will have to find spaces for all these and more. Oh, the irony.
Mark Hunter (Council ‘Leader’) can rant all he likes, but it is the actions of him and his party alone that has led to the prospect of random building in the Stockport Green Belt for the next five years.

@Grumpy Old Git – The council have been trying to build the A6 bypass for decades. The only thing stopping them has been consecutive national governments not stumping up the money to do it, presumably because the business case for doing it doesn’t stack up. That’s ignoring the fact that in the context of the climate emergency there is no question to which more road space is the right answer.

@Peter Black – Paragraph 61 of the inspector’s decision on the Mirrlees appeal clearly states that, at the time of the decision (24 Jan 2024, not sure why you say 2023) Stockport had a 3.78 year housing land supply. You’re not wrong to highlight the problems their politicians have caused themselves but you do nobody any favours by quoting incorrect figures as if they were fact.

That’s what happens when councillors bend to the will of the home owning nimby, living in cloud-cuckoo-land if they thought Labour weren’t going to increase housing targets. If they’d had the political courage to stick with the GMSF then they might have got off more lightly but obviously local election votes and holding onto power was more important than housing provision for the borough and future generations. Time to expel them from GM, they can go and join forces with High Peak or Cheshire East. Adios!