Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites

[Duke Fame]

Cheaper housing? Where would that be? Oh, I know - on Planet Duke! 😊

It's easily done, give developers an incentive, cheaper fast track planning for cheaper homes.

As I say, remove housing (or at least cap it at a realistic level) benefit and you reduce demand, the market reacts accordingly.

[Dave]

Cheaper housing? Where would that be? Oh, I know - on Planet Duke! 😊

[Duke Fame]

Howard,

Why don't you read Hoffnung's post properly? Even the whole paragraph?

He said there are ample Brownfield sites across 'Greater Manchester.' To facilitate the building  of 4000 one/two bedroomed flats. Which would eliminate the insufficient housing stock problem for the homeless question. 

There are a plethora of local authority owned / managed empty office space that could be converted into 1/2 bedroom flats. In addition, there is plenty privately owned empty office space accross GM.

Reality is, if we removed all housing benefit we'd see the demand shift to cheaper housing and the market will respond. Currently, if you have your rent subsidised, the attitude is to get the best, some poor taxpayer is paying for it.

[corium]

As do mine.

But that doesn't change the fact that there are an awful lot of "bedrooms" are going unoccupied, especially in places like Marple, where the demographics skew older.

If we were building 21,000 two bedroom retirement homes/flats, instead of 3/4 bedroom family homes, we wouldn't need to use half as much green belt land to do it.

I know it's a touchy subject, but it is one that's probably going to need to be addressed within the next 20yrs or so.

I tend to agree & this is something our elected representatives could do something about. When green belt was considered for building on in Whaley Bridge a couple of years ago there was a survey (sorry don't have the details to hand) which showed a clear demand from local residents for 1/2 bed flats/ houses both to allow down sizing and people to have a chance of buying a first home. The developers however wanted 3/4/5 bedroom accommodation because it is these that maximise their profits.

[Dave]

I was surprised to see that there has, in recent years, been a dramatic decline in homelessness in GM.

http://www.supportsolutions.co.uk/blog/client_groups/homelessness/six_fold_increase_in_homelessness_in_greater_manchester.html

[marplerambler]

I agree, homelessness is not relevant to the GMSF draft plan. It accounts for less than 1 page of the 237 pages of the GM Strategic Housing Market Assessment published in October and I was surprised to see that there has, in recent years, been a dramatic decline in homelessness in GM. Between 2004/05 and 2015/16 the number of homeless in priority need, including those in temporary accommodation, in GM fell from 8.9 to 3.2 per 1000 households (Stockport down from 5.1 to 1.9). I recently had a look at a “tented village” in central Manchester and it appeared to be wholly occupied by young men of European extraction who, I would imagine, are not going to be there very long and would not be regarded as “in priority need”

I walked the Trans Pennine Trail from Stockport to Parrs Wood a couple of weeks ago and discovered that there are now a number of people living in tents in the passageways of the Pyramid roundabout and beneath the bridges crossing the Mersey. Not too long ago there were a large number of tents of homeless people at the rear of the church in Stockport Marketplace. I know nothing of the origins or ethnicity of the occupants of the tents but their existence is a reminder that homelessness is a problem which also affects Stockport. A number of years ago I worked overlooking Heaton Norris recreation grounds adjacent to the motorway and remember the discovery of the body of someone who had been 'sleeping rough' after a particularly cold night not unlike last night. This particular problem is not one to be addressed by the Spatial Framework discussions but the comment that the homeless in tents

 are not going to be there very long and would not be regarded as “in priority need”

seems to me to be a thoughtless generalisation which attempts to sweep the problem of homelessness beneath a carpet of indifference.

[CllrGeoffAbell]

BTW the GMSF consultation has been extended to 16 Jan if you haven't seen via other social media pages.

[marpleexile]

(Written as someone whose Parents live in a large Marple house with just the two of them in it)



Perhaps Andy, your parents consider it their HOME.

As do mine.

But that doesn't change the fact that there are an awful lot of "bedrooms" are going unoccupied, especially in places like Marple, where the demographics skew older.

If we were building 21,000 two bedroom retirement homes/flats, instead of 3/4 bedroom family homes, we wouldn't need to use half as much green belt land to do it.

I know it's a touchy subject, but it is one that's probably going to need to be addressed within the next 20yrs or so.

[alstan]

Hoffnung, I am pleased to see that we are in broad agreement on some of the issues relating to this discussion.

I agree, homelessness is not relevant to the GMSF draft plan. It accounts for less than 1 page of the 237 pages of the GM Strategic Housing Market Assessment published in October and I was surprised to see that there has, in recent years, been a dramatic decline in homelessness in GM. Between 2004/05 and 2015/16 the number of homeless in priority need, including those in temporary accommodation, in GM fell from 8.9 to 3.2 per 1000 households (Stockport down from 5.1 to 1.9). I recently had a look at a “tented village” in central Manchester and it appeared to be wholly occupied by young men of European extraction who, I would imagine, are not going to be there very long and would not be regarded as “in priority need”

According to the MEN there are 11,000 long term empty (ie more than 6 months) homes across GM,  including 1059 in Stockport, and, at the time of the 2011 census  73.58 % of Stockport houses were “under occupied” (ONS)

A map of Stockport brownfield sites is available for those who bother to look at http://mappinggm.org.uk/gmodin/lyrs=brownfield_stockport#open_street_map/10/53.5068/-2.3202 and a copy of a register of those sites, showing their present status, size, housing potential, owners, possible contamination, etc, etc  should be available on request from SMBC.

Local councillors are aware that there is a widely held view that there are a lot of  brownfield sites in Stockport and they have appealed to those who hold that view to contact them with details to ensure that the current map is complete.

I would not be quite so dismissive of the potential Andy Burnham effect. He will have significant powers and influence and  has clearly expressed his appetite for council housing. One of the significant factors in the calculation of the OAHN is “affordability”, ie the relationship, borough by borough, between incomes and house prices. Apparently Stockport fares badly in this respect so we need more affordable housing to bring us in line with other boroughs, ie not so many of those 4 beds/double garages. That’s what they seem to be saying.

That’s it for now. Simone is not the only one off to the Canary Islands.

[simonesaffron]

(Written as someone whose Parents live in a large Marple house with just the two of them in it)



Perhaps Andy, your parents consider it their HOME.

[simonesaffron]

With communication and modern mapping systems the way they are today, the idea that we don't know where the Brownfield sites are, is laughable.

The least you can do Councillor Geoff is to insist that the Planners publish a list and map and some details of these sites in this forum. 

[simonesaffron]

Howard,

Why don't you read Hoffnung's post properly? Even the whole paragraph?

He said there are ample Brownfield sites across 'Greater Manchester.' To facilitate the building  of 4000 one/two bedroomed flats. Which would eliminate the insufficient housing stock problem for the homeless question. 

[CllrGeoffAbell]

A lot of interesting posts here.

GMSF has been around as a concept for a while but by May of this year the only bit of useful information available to the leaders of GMCA was the numbers of houses proposed; in Stockport's case this was the 21,000+ figure.  (I know this as I've asked.)

Councillors were briefed on the now-published plans in strict confidence a few weeks earlier than the general public.  But the idea of building in High Lane, Cheadle and twice in Heald Green (along with the industrial park in Bredbury) and the size of these developments was a surprise.  The logic of "we must build big, so it must be in green belt (currently 46% of SMBC), so we must build big in green belt" was a surprise too.

I don't live in High Lane; it's not in my "back yard".  But I cannot see the justification of the erosion of green belt, created in the 50s and 60s to provide the lungs for the city and to prevent urban sprawl.   It's simply lazy planning.

So where else?  We were told even if all brownfield were used, it'd only be 70% of the OAN need (the 21,000 figure above).  But we were also told we don't know where all the brownfield sites are.  And at least try to use some of it!  Perhaps the Neighbourhood Plan could play a part here?

We still have the 21,000 number ( @Dave was perhaps the only one to question this.)  We still have the same planning team, who I see regularly and hold in high regard.  I also understand that big developments can demand better infrastructure, whether rail, health or education.  I also get the threat that if we have no plan, the government can impose one.  I also realise that everywhere was a green field at one time.

But that is precisely why, with resident's passion in my ears at least, we tried to do something about it in the last Full Council.  The idea was to adopt a local plan outside the GMSF, local to Marple and to Stockport.  That was the plan @simonesaffron was referring to.  Deeds not words.  But ultimately it's about mobilising residents.  And finding common ground between all parties.  All 6 Marple councillors agree that this is an oversized plan.  It's about finding an alternative and everyone backing it.  Let's absolutely work together. 

And as the consultation has been extended (sorry to people who paid for registered post!) I do encourage more to respond and provide rational arguments.  Otherwise the London urban sprawl will come here.


Sorry for the long post - a lot of points to raise and this is quite an important topic.
Link to the GMSF portal via Marple Lib Dem website:
http://marple.mycouncillor.org.uk/2016/12/18/gmsf-update/#page-content

[Howard]

There are  ample brownfield sites across Greater Manchester, to facilitate this. Yet not one borough out iof ten has demonstrated any will nor ability to resolve this     

@Hoffnung I keep seeing people writing that Brownfield sites are available. @JohnBates also wrote it here:

5) Work is being done to try and find brownfield sites to reduce/remove need to use greenbelt. The Stockport planing officers would love to know of any they are not aware of.

Have you told Stockport where these "ample" brownfield sites are?

[Hoffnung]

Some years ago, I shared an office with a lovely lady. The only thing was, if you asked her the time, she made you a watch. Ever since then, loquacity has always caused problems for my 'attention span.' Nevertheless i accept your apology.

I don't recall who it was who introduced the subject of homelessness to this thread but it is a complete red-herring. The GMSF and homelessnes have no connection whatsoever. The people who devised this plan have given no consideration to homelessness.

There are between 3000 & 4000  homeless people in the city region. It is difficult to be more precise with the numbers. Manchester has about 50% of them but Stockport has a rapidly escalating number of 350 plus. None of these homeless people should be children. If a child becomes homeless, he is taken into the care system and looked after by the Coroporate Parent. In relation to providing roofs over heads. The construction of 4000 one/two bedroomed flats would solve that problem in a blink and right across the Combined Authority. There are  ample brownfield sites across Greater Manchester, to facilitate this. Yet not one borough out iof ten has demonstrated any will nor ability to resolve this. They wouldn't even have to do that. There are something like 25,000 houses across the region which lie empty. All that would have to be done would be to bring a fraction of them in to local authority management, homeless problem solved.  Even if these houses were to be built/made available, as Condate says, this would not resolve the homeless issue, it is much more complex than a housing shortage.

As Franz says the GMSF is to do with envisaged, exceptional economic growth within the region. It has nothing to do with homelessness.

Despite what Andy Burnham says, these houses will be the three/four bedroomed, double garage type that we all know and love.