Tameside to vote on controversial Godley Green masterplan
Outline permission is being sought to deliver up to 2,150 homes, 14,000 sq ft of shops, and more than 17,200 sq ft of medical centres, offices, and restaurants on 315 acres of Green Belt.
Godley Green is the vision of Tameside Council, and a key aspect of the local authority’s plans to meet its 8,245-home target outlined in Greater Manchester’s nine-borough spatial framework Places for Everyone.
On 1 November, members of the council’s speakers panel for planning will decide the project’s fate. They have been recommended to approve the application by the council’s planning officers – but the scheme faces fierce opposition to the tune of 4,205 letters of objection and a petition with 4,459 signatures. Only 33 letters of support have been received.
What is Godley Green?
The plan focuses on an area between Godley, Hyde, Hattersley, and Gee Cross, which will be renamed Godley Green. Most of this is Green Belt, although it is allocated for homes in the still-yet-to-be-implemented Places for Everyone.
In addition to the homes, of which 15% would be affordable, the scheme foresees the building of sports facilities, a bridge to Hattersley, and up to 1,100 sq ft of community facilities.
Counteracting the development would be 150 acres of natural open space, retained countryside, and woodland. Another 11.5 acres would be for parks and gardens and additional space would be reserved for formal sport areas and allotments.
Tameside Council has been working with Planit, Gerald Eve, The Environment Partnership, Pea Green Consultants, and Wilde Consulting Engineers to craft the Godley Green proposals. The masterplan includes a sustainability strategy which calls for SuDS, planting buffers, habitat corridors, solar panels, air source heat pumps, and a district heating network.
If planning permission can be secured, the project would be delivered in eight phases over the course of 15 years – amounting to around 143 homes a year being built.
Green space runs throughout Tameside Council’s vision for Godley Green. Credit: via planning documents
The Green Belt issue
Many of the concerns from residents focus on the Green Belt status of the site, which is not listed as Green Belt in Places for Everyone.
Tameside Council’s planning officers acknowledge the harmful impact Godley Green will have on the Green Belt. However, in justifying a recommendation to approve the site, they write: “The site is critical in the long-term delivery of a sustainable supply of sites, and is expected to make a meaningful planned contribution to new homes in the medium to long term, including beyond 2039”.
If Tameside councillors vote to approve the project, it will be sent to the Secretary of State for review. Only after the Secretary of State has reviewed the application can it actually be approved.
Godley Green’s project team includes Aly Nicholls Associates, Mainer Associates, Kevin Murray Acoustics, E3P, KKP, and Trebbi Continuum.
You can learn more about the council’s vision by searching application reference number 21/01171/OUT on Tameside Council’s planning portal.
Restaurants, wow that’s hilarious
By Lopez the first
I am against building on green belt land
By Stephen Toulson
More house building needed but please include smaller decent homes for older people to downsize x
By Tina
I’ve not looked at the application specifics, but the new homes are needed and this coordinated approach seems much better than developers building piecemeal parcels with no infrastructure
By Anonymous
Its interesting to see a GM Council push its own greenbelt development and assemble land ahead of PfE adoption and allow it to potentially be called in by SoS. Is this due to the continuing acute housing shortage in GM and the length of time its taken for PfE to go through-, if so why aren’t the other GM boroughs following suit?
By Dave Loper
I don’t want any more houses in Hyde, the roads will not be able to take more cars,
By Anonymous
Looks like a fantastic scheme. Close to public transport and amenities (which will be improved). Get it approved and built, fast!
By Anonymous
This will mean much more tragic on Stockport rd its bad enough now with noise constant and trying to cross is like diceing with death if your elderly and unsteady on your feet
By Vera h
Brilliant, more family homes, get it built!
By MC
30,000 inner-city Mancs were transplanted to Hattersley (on green fields next to Godley, Hyde, Cheshire) in the 1960s. Where are these new residents coming from. Are there no houses where they live now: Hale, Alderley?
By James Yates
More cars more traffic then the mayor and the clowns that approve it will go on about emissions
By Anonymous
I’m not convinced brownfield options have been exhausted but whatever: people need homes. Local infrastructure has to be managed though especially schools, healthcare and transport services. Also not convinced this will happen in a timely manner.
By Anon
This application looks good on paper only . The infrastructure is not there to support it. The trains are already full with no capacity to improve. They cannot materialise doctors or dentists from no where. The local school is over subscribed and only 15% of the houses will allegedly be affordable. Greenbelt was brought in for a reason and to build on these sites will be detrimental to the whole area of Tameside . Its the wrong houses in the wrong place!
By Anonymous
Absolutely appalled at building in this beautiful environment which is a natural soakaway and habitat for numerous animals and species. The Council talk about clean air yet want to concrete over this haven . Shameful, ignorant behaviour. Note more objections than people who voted at general election
By Kim Scragg
The scheme sounds great the only downside is that the Mottram bypass needs to be built to sustain the extra traffic!
By Tracy Williams
Tameside Council have no regard for the residents of Hyde.
There is no infrastructure in place for the building of all these homes
Drs, Dentists Senior schools.
They are building a shopping complex. There are plenty of shops in the centre of Hyde and Ashton that are lying empty.
Why are they holding a meeting in someone’s home rather than in a public building where the residents could come and make our views known.
By Margaret Taylor
Hi Margaret, the meeting is being held at Guardsman Tony Downes House – a building that is named after a soldier from Droylsden who died in Afghanistan in 2007. It is a public building and not a home. – Julia
By Julia Hatmaker
Hopefully the Secretary of State will then cancel it, and rightfully so.
By Anonymous
Yes people need homes but 15%affordable! Slaughter of our green natural countryside and wildlife.
By Anonymous
Not enough roads around hyde to take all the extra traffic and trains will not take footfall
By Anonymous
Why is this on the table, again? It has already been voted against. On Labour MP’s and councillors want it.
By Mark
Excellent proposal
By Anonymous
15% affordable units feels far too low considering its location and use of green fields. If this was brownfield with lots of remediation costs for example I could understand. If this was to go ahead I would like to see some form of restriction on the private sale units so that they aren’t all bought up by oversees investors and private landlords with sky high rents.
By Aevis
Godley nimby’s aside; I just can’t support this with so many brownfield / dilapidated sites around Tameside. I think we need to pull down existing dereliction, remedy sites, and invest in infrastructure to accomodate higher density development first.
By Anonymous
‘…a bridge to Hattersley’ is likely to halve the value of any properties in the new development.
By AltPoV
If these plans move forward, they seem to reveal a concerning disregard for democratic principles. With just 33 votes in favour of the proposal in contrast to over 4,000 objections, the imbalance is hard to ignore. Moreover, considering the challenges the Council faces, such as struggling to empty bins on time and roads falling into disrepair, it’s clear that the area’s essential amenities, like Doctors, hospitals, supermarkets, dentists, and shops, are already in dire need of attention. To make matters worse, the water pressure relies on the Godley pumps, which are faltering and struggling to meet the increased demand already, let alone with a further 2100 houses.
Furthermore, it’s hard to shake the suspicion that the Council’s motivation for these plans is primarily driven by a desire to increase their council tax revenue, which would equate to around £324,000 per month (Based on Band C = £154.50 per house for the 2,100 proposed). Have you had the chance to witness the congestion at Hattersley roundabout, the deteriorating road conditions in Glossop, or the overcrowded trains to Manchester, where passengers often struggle to find standing room amidst these critical service shortages? If you think these houses are going to be affordable, then you are delusional.
By Lewis