Stockport progresses plan to deliver 18,600 homes  

Stockport is it’s own place, a Cheshire town that never should’ve been included in any housing strategy formed by Manchester

Assuming these 1,200 homes get delivered near the viaduct that leaves a further 17,400 to be built on brownfield sites which don’t exist in Stockport. Mark Hunter needs to explain in detail how these are going to be constructed without encroaching on greenbelt. Stockport pulling out of the GMSF is madness.

*eating popcorn gif*

We have got plenty green belt around Stockport so let’s build on some of it and let people live in a decent area not on brown land in town centres

Do you not think that the Stockport area as not built enough flats and houses up to now. Stockport Centre is going to be full of apartments etc. where are these people going go work. Where will they for medical care. Where will they go for school. What about sir pollution.
We have a housing estate part built near the Riding Sun Hazel Grove . Why is this not finished? Why us it an eye sore. Before more houses/apartments are built finish what has been started. Stockport is a mess.

Why don’t we just build on the green belt! You could build quality big detached houses with gardens that families actually want to live in! I know people think a few fields contribute to quality of life, however ensuring more families have a decent sized space to live in will do so much more for their quality of life than living in a crammed terraced house or apartment ever could. Unfortunately, I think because most people already own houses in this country, they just want to see their property value go up instead of seeing more families enjoy the quality of life they do / had growing up. The population is increasing, we need more 4/5 bed homes where people actually want to live, let’s get them built on the green belt surrounding our major towns and cities.

it fairly obvious that we need to build more houses, but somewhere that definitely cant take more houses being built is *insert your own town name here*

Good luck with this good people of Stockport. It is all smoke and mirrors in the run up to the Plan. Once allocated the land will be built on whether needed or not.

What’s the panic about encroaching on the green belt? When done right what is the problem? Genuine question, no nimby responses. Btw I’m all for higher density (medium rise) building in the cities first tho

Stockport’s housing land supply data on their website says they’ve got enough land for 13149 homes including the ones in the town centre. That means they’ll need to find land for about another 5400. The 18600 figure is probably wrong by now anyway, and with not having built anything like enough houses in recent years the up to date housing need figure will have only gone one way, and it isn’t down.

MC talks common sense. Green Belts are a central planning idea often without local relevance. You want green? Then build parks and recreation grounds like our great-grandparents did; often paid for by mill owners (not London-based ‘capitalists’ but local entrepreneurs with a Christian social purpose. Homes Not Fields!

The problem with building on the green belt; and is where much of the opposition comes from; is that most volume-built housing is absolutely rubbish, places devoid of character, poorly built, under sized and cut off from infrastructure.

If the volume house builders and their consultants put time and money into creating beautiful, well planned, well-built product they’d find much of the opposition melt away. Unfortunately, such an approach would be contrary to the short term interests of shareholders and director bonus schemes.

The visual displays a perfect example of a high density development with very good local access to major bus and train stations, town centre etc… and will (hopefully) provide housing for people who are not reliant on cars to travel. Surely it ticks all the boxes??? They can then lower the density as you move away from the town centres on a mix of brown and green sites. Whats the the alternative? Build on large areas of green belt, but history tells us the locals don’t want that (High Lane / Heald Green comes to mind). I can’t quite work out what some of the commentators on this thread and other relating to this topic want the Council to do to meet their stautory obligations for providing housing supply…? Answers on a postcard please.

Fantasy land, Stockport MBC. 18,600 new homes and no Green Belt land take simply doesn’t stack up unless you want people living in the slums of tomorrow. Plans to CPO/extinguish dozens business around Brinksway for over 1,500 new homes, are crackers. Where are they to relocate to when the there is no employment land supply of any quality. Refusing Bredbury Industrial Park extension was a dumb decision in that regard.

So Councillor Mark Hunter says that brownfield sites will be used without,hopefully having to encroach onto greenfield land.That does not say that precious greenfield land will be spared.We are going to end up just one huge housing estate with no green areas at all for our children to play on,dog walking to happen except on pavements,nowhere pleasant to just go for a walk but what do our opinions matter it’ll all go through on the nod like the central library did.

Not expecting to see this address Stockport’s woeful shortage of employment land supply. MJ- hope that’s a big bag of popcorn. We are going to be here for a while.

Every town is its own place Cal. Can you think of another reason why they’ve pulled out of the framework?. I’ll give you a clue. What’s blue and green but not red all over. Stockport!

Decent houses for decent people in a decent area and a place where my children and grandchildren can live plenty of green belt sites, forget the nimbys

As far as the development west of the viaduct get on with it. Other buildings could easily be turned into flats like the old Stockport village building which has been left to rot for years. It’s beautiful and would make lovely apartments. There are so many shops with empty accommodation above which would be great living accommodation. The town centre is dead at night, when people live in the town centre it brings it to life. We don’t need expensive,4 bed houses just decent accommodation.

What area will these homes be

The way that the estate near the rising sun in hazel grove has been left unfinished is a disgrace mr.hunter

If they built more affordable bungalows and grouped them together in cul de sacs so the elderly could support each other and carers didn’t have to travel so far between clients. Then family homes could be released so not as many homes would need to be built and the elderly would be able to heat a smaller property. Preferably with solar power on the roofs and good insulation.

There’s so much green belt that’s actually crap land and should just be built on. Provided they look at the road network (*cough* M60 Bredbury through to Hazel Grove bypass) I’m happy.

OR NOT.
https://www.stockport.gov.uk/news/statement-stockports-local-plan-paused

There is a large brownfield site in Offerton, where Bridge College was, derelict since 2012 when they moved to a new build. That would be suitable for houses surely.

Good quality houses bring successful and talented people who become active members of the community enriching other people’s lives

Well… Stockport is in Greater Manchester Cal. Hope that helps.

Greater Manchester is an administrative invention for government administrators and not an identity. If you are born in Cheshire you do not turn into a ‘Manc’, or some other designation, just because some faceless London official says so. Do you?

Stockport was not all in Cheshire. The Heatons and Reddish, were historically in Lancashire, and therefore should have been part of the City of Manchester, when the boundaries were redrawn. As should, places in Trafford, North of the Mersey.

@October 02, 2023 at 11:18 am

Quite. For once, ‘Cal’ has a point. Really, Stockport is a separate administrative unit in itself. It feels like an industrial slice of Cheshire though, with a heavy influence of the Peak District and is also very suburban in aspects.

@Anonymous 11:18, the economy of a place does not care about “identity” (identity in any case is different to different people). The fact remains that Stockport is, and to a large degree always has formed part of Greater Manchester simply by virtue of how people do business and travel about. It’s never been a self contained independent place like some twee market town in the Home Counties that you probably imagine it to be. It’s effectively a urbanised suburb of Manchester and functions as such, pretty much.

Don’t confuse Identity with administration anonymous 11.18 they are not the same thing.

Hi folks. Thanks for all your great comments. Going forward, lets stay on topic – that is the local plan being developed. I believe the debate about whether Stockport is or isn’t in Greater Manchester has been covered adequately. Thanks. – J