Agenda item

Local residents are being invited to attend their local Area Committees and to learn more about the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) proposals.

The GMSF plan seeks to build 19,000 homes in the next two decades across Stockport, as well as bring new jobs and new infrastructure (such as transport links, utility networks, schools and health provision) required to achieve this.

Mr Richard Wood, Stockport Council’s Technical Policy and Planning Manager, attended the meeting and made a presentation in respect of the consultation being undertaken by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.

The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework was a joint development plan document which was being prepared by the ten local authorities in Greater Manchester. It would be a strategic plan which ensured that Greater Manchester protected and enhanced the current infrastructure and had the right land in the right places to deliver the homes and jobs needed up to 2035, along with identifying the new infrastructure required to achieve this. It aimed to ensure that Greater Manchester became as well known for the quality of its environment as for its economic success.

If adopted the plan would be the overarching development plan within which Greater Manchester’s ten local planning authorities could identify more detailed sites for jobs and homes in their own area. As such the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework would not cover everything that a Local Plan would cover and individual districts would continue to produce their own Local Plans.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         Concerns were expressed that the proposed sites in the High Lane and Hazel Grove areas would not contribute significantly to the solution of the housing shortage as they would be larger, expensive properties.

·         Concerns were expressed that the plan gave primacy to housing development over infrastructure, although this was the more pertinent issue for existing communities.

·         The SEMMMS Strategy was designed to solve existing problems with transport infrastructure, without the additional pressures these proposals would create. Given the likely demands on resources for infrastructure investment across Greater Manchester arising from this Plan, there was a danger that any development would not be supported with the promised infrastructure investment.

·         Why was higher density of town centre development not being considered?

·         Investing funds to support brownfield reclamation would offset the cost of new infrastructure on greenbelt.

·         Concerns were expressed by members of the public that the consultation website was not easy to use and may discourage engagement. In response, it was acknowledged that this facility was not ideal, but that improvements were difficult to achieve while the consultation was active. Feedback would be considered as part of the next phase of consultation.

·         Had any consideration been given to whether the level of development was desirable?

·         Concerns were expressed about the unprecedented scale of building that may be taking place.

·         Would the refreshed SEMMMS Strategy given consideration to the potential impact of the GMSF?

·         What safeguards were there to prevent developers ‘cherry picking’ sites?

·         A public question asked earlier in the meeting referenced the need for greenbelt to act as a ‘buffer; between communities or built areas. Given the proposals in the Plan, it would seem to contradict this earlier response. In response, the seeming contradiction was acknowledged, and it was stated that this ‘buffer’ might not be achievable in all cases. It was also stated that the value of the greenbelt land itself needed to be considered.

·         Clarification was sought on the process for adopting the Plan. In response it was stated that unanimous agreement of all ten local authorities in Greater Manchester, and the future Greater Manchester Mayor and their cabinet was needed.

·         How were the infrastructure improvements to be funded?

In response to issues raised, it was stated that in order to release greenbelt, partners would need to be have exhausted other sites, including brownfield sites, in order to demonstrate special circumstances for the release of greenbelt. There had to be a reasonable certainty that the plan was deliverable in order for it to accepted by the Planning Inspectorate, and part of this would include ensuring brownfield development first and that the infrastructure improvements were achievable, and this would include work associated with SEMMMS. The Council was continuing to engage in work to identify sites and increase the density of development within existing planning permissions to attempt to minimise the impact on the greenbelt. It was also stressed that without a Development Plan there was a risk for some authorities that they would be unable to prevent inappropriate development in the greenbelt in any case.

In relation to the desirability of development, the plan was based on predications for economic growth that was lower than historic levels. In relation to funding of infrastructure, the Plan would make clear that developers would be required to fund significant parts of that infrastructure. There was also a need to ensure alignment of the GMSF and Greater Manchester Transport Strategy.

RESOLVED – That Richard Wood be thanked for his attendance and presentation.