Agenda item

To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive

The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) has been the subject to two previous drafts in 2016 and 2019 which have been the subject of extensive evidence gathering and consultation. This report sets out some background information in respect of the GMSF and why it is being produced. It refers to the strategic context which the plan sits within whilst referencing the plan making process to date.

The report explores the proposals in a Stockport context, in particular having regard to the need to proceed with the provision of an updated planning framework to support inclusive and sustainable growth.

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to comment on the report.

Officer Contact: Emma Curle on 0161 474 3542 or email: emma.curle@stockport.gov.uk

The Corporate Director (Place) and Deputy Chief Executive submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) which updated Members on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF).

The GMSF had been the subject of two previous drafts in 2016/19 which had been the subject of extensive evidence gathering and consultation. The report set out some background information in respect of the GMSF and why it was being produced. It referred to the strategic context in which the plan sat, whilst referencing the plan making process to date.

The report explored the proposals in a Stockport context, in particular having regard to the need to proceed with the provision of an update planning framework to support inclusive and sustainable growth.

GMSF 2020 was not being prepared in isolation. It was one of a suite of strategic documents setting out how Greater Manchester could achieve the ambition set out in the Greater Manchester Strategy. It sat alongside the Local Industrial Strategy, Housing Strategy, 5 Year Environment Plan, Digital and Cultural Strategies.

If supported by the Council, there would be a further period for representations on the GMSF before its submission to the Secretary of State.

The Leader of the Council (Councillor Elise Wilson) and Cabinet Member for Economy and Regeneration (Councillor David Meller) attended the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

The following comments were made/issues raised:

·         Without the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) the Council would need to prepare a Stockport-specific Local Plan that addressed how the full Local Housing Need (LHN) for Stockport was to be met. GMSF proposed to redistribute over 25% of Stockport’s LHN, around 5,000 dwellings, to other Greater Manchester districts due to the constraints of the borough. The majority of this was to the central core of Greater Manchester.

·         Local housing need was the responsibility of each borough. The Council had co-operated throughout the process and there was no requirement on the other local authorities in Greater Manchester to agree to meet any of Stockport’s local housing need.

·         The identified Stockport Local Housing Need in 2020 of 18,343 had been derived using the Government’s methodology for calculating local housing need (LHN). The reliability of this methodology was questioned by some Members of the Scrutiny Committee particularly due to its reliance on 2014 household projections.

·         The methodology used to assess the number of dwellings was a national methodology based on projected household figures which had not taken account of national issues such as Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic.

·         The GMSF is one of a number of strategies including the Industrial Strategy which would help establish sites for new businesses.

·         In terms of the transport infrastructure to support the dwellings, the policies require the delivery of necessary and supporting infrastructure to mitigate the effect on traffic. A number of sites are linked to the Council’s desire for key improvements to the public transport infrastructure. Other application sites, for example, may require the building of a new school and all sites require contributions towards education provision.

·         The report stated that the scope to increase the supply of dwellings in urban areas had already been fully explored. To protect the Green Belt would require an additional 7,300 dwellings to be built in urban areas at the expense of existing structures such as car parks or open space.

·         Without the GMSF there would be a significant risk of a ‘planning by appeal’ scenario which would place a significant financial burden on the Council.

·         Should Stockport Council vote against the GMSF and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority decided to continue with the plan without Stockport, they would be planning for the combined need of nine Local Authorities. Stockport would still need to build the number of dwellings required to be built according to the Local Housing Need and the other local authorities in Greater Manchester would not be obliged to assist Stockport in meeting this need.  This would be covered by the Duty to Co-operate, but this is not a duty to agree.

·         The viability of the proposed sites in Stockport differed in terms of policy asks. One of the most viable locations was the former Woodford Aerodrome site and the least viable was the former Offerton High School site.

·         Concern was expressed that little had changed in the plan as a result of the consultation exercises undertaken, for example to mitigate the impact on High Lane.

·         Without GMSF the Council could be restricted in its ability to access funds such as the Brownfield Land Fund which was dependent upon an up-to-date plan being in place or pro-actively being worked towards.

·         With regard to the Housing Land Supply, of over 100 sites put forward in the ‘call for sites’ earlier in the year, only two were suitable for development. Following a number of other ‘call for sites’ exercises, this was evidence that the prospect of significant numbers of new brownfield sites being identified and brought forward was small.

·         Concern was expressed that without GMSF the Council could be restricted in its ability to access funds such as the Brownfield Land Fund which was central to the Council’s growth plans. Concern was expressed that if a Local Plan was required to be looked at which further examined brownfield sites, this could potentially lead to the loss of small and medium-sized businesses in the borough. Members stressed the importance of protecting and maintaining a suitable supply of employment land in the borough.

·         The borough’s housing need was more than double that which it was trying to achieve in 2011 under the adopted Core Strategy. Sites were required with planning permission to identify a five year housing land supply and there was currently only one site with planning permission beyond a five years period and that was at the former Woodford Aerodrome site.

·         An aim of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework was that decision making would be brought closer to local people as part of the planning process.

·         Concern was expressed that there was a real threat of over-development in urban areas and the GMSF proposed a small percentage of development in the green belt. The GMSF would ensure a balance between houses, schools and the economy in urban areas.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.