Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites

[ringi]

Personally I think we should be building high quality flats (with good sound proofing and thermal insulation) 5 stories high on blocks like Barcelona using the “Superblock” system.  (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/17/superblocks-rescue-barcelona-spain-plan-give-streets-back-residents)

Firstly this takes up a lot less land, it also has a high enough density of hosing that public transport works well.   By putting offices and shops on the first two floors, you can even out the commuting so the trams are not empty in one direction.  There are large area of Manchester within cycling distance of the center that would be improved by replacing most of their low quality housing.

Let each block be owned by a different company completing for tenants, so that market forces leads to good quality homes.

[Dave]

A couple of marches, a few posters dotted around  and a rehearsed question in Parliament will do little to change the minds of our political masters. 

Simone is dead right.  I have nothing but sympathy for people living close to the proposed site of this huge development. But marching and banners will achieve nothing, I fear. The housing is desperately needed, and the only effective way to oppose the scheme is to come up with a realistic alternative site.

[simonesaffron]

Hope is a good quality to have Condate.

DevonManc can't exclude Stockport as each borough has to take responsibility for the provision of so many houses. The big question is - where is the land to accommodate them? It seems, in Stockport's case, a large chunk of it is in High Lane. 

[Condate]

But if DevoManc happens then a large  quantity of houses in High Lane will follow.

Let's hope it doesn't then, or if it does, it excludes Marple and/or Stockport.

[simonesaffron]

Quite right, it is just a platitudinous exchange between two politicians. One will have had notification of the content of the others question and will have had ample notice to frame her answer.

As far as GMSF is concerned, there is no doubt in my mind that providing DevoManc goes ahead ( and it may not do ) in the ambitious way that it was envisaged, then in order to drive the economy towards its goal and change the financial structure from a cost centre to a contributor, a lot of extra people will be needed. People need houses to live in and we all know that we haven't got any. There is no way out of this Fait accompli other than to build some and in large quantities.

High Lane has been identified as the site, and plans, will in theory, already be well advanced. A couple of marches, a few posters dotted around  and a rehearsed question in Parliament will do little to change the minds of our political masters.  Especially when they are already made up.

Whether it is 3000, or 4000, or 5000, who knows?

But if DevoManc happens then a large  quantity of houses in High Lane will follow. 

[Dave]

And our MP will have expected exactly that answer. But still needed to ask the question, to protect his own back with his constituents.

[Belly]

Not on the basis of that answer it's not.

She didn't rule out building on greenbelt land, just that the local authority must have examined all other options first - which is what the current rules say anyway isn't it?

I'd agree - just stating the obvious. Green Belt is last on the list, but its not sacred. Two politicians mouthing platitudes. Meanwhile in the real world......

[marpleexile]

Following PM Question Time this week, is the High Lane proposal dead in the water?

Not on the basis of that answer it's not.

She didn't rule out building on greenbelt land, just that the local authority must have examined all other options first - which is what the current rules say anyway isn't it?

[admin]

Following PM Question Time this week, is the High Lane proposal dead in the water?

[admin]

Today is the last day to have your say in the GMSF Consultation:

https://gmsf-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/2016consultation/gmsfoct16

[admin]

A selection of photos from Saturday's protest march have been added to the Marple Website Virtual History Tour:

http://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/thumbnails.php?album=lastup&cat=-36

[ringi]

house builders would love to convert old offices etc. the obstacle is usually the local authority (even worse when its a Labour authority)

Given building regs requirements for thermal and sound insulation, it is now often cheaper to knock down and start again.    However converting an old office allows the developer to bypass having to pay a sections 101 (I think I got the number right) payment.

[marplerambler]

Should we build any new homes required on the flood plains?

Perhaps that question should be directed to people who bought houses on the flood plain site of the old Strines printworks and the Marple Community Forum photos showed us what happened there last year. I wouldn't mind betting that the house building company stated that the probability of flooding was once every hundred years!

[Duke Fame]

Quite, there are many empty buildings and brownfield sites which could be used for housing.  However, neither the large house building companies which dominate the sector, not the current Government, see any value (both in terms of profit or votes) to make this happen.

house builders would love to convert old offices etc. the obstacle is usually the local authority (even worse when its a Labour authority)

[red666bear]

Should we build any new homes required on the flood plains?