Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites

[andy+kirsty]

It is certainly all of this below coupled with the belief that one’s house is an investment or pension.

If the markets weren't as volatile and economics and employment allowed the ordinary person to invest savings elsewhere then we wouldn't have seen the massive rise in house prices which has made a house unobtainable to those on the average salary as well as keep people in houses which are too big for their needs.

The problem is that we have had Neo-Liberal governments and economic policies since the late 70s which ultimately haven't served the majority of the populous.

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

I'd say the biggest problem is the increased life expectancy - at both ends of the scale. Children aren't dying young of childhood diseases like they used to, so whilst the birth rate hasn't really changed, the number who survive to adulthood has significantly increased.

At the other end of the scale, we're living longer, and are in a better state of health whilst we do so. A while back a politician created a bit of an outcry when they talked about "house blockers". But they had a point. How many houses do you think there are in Marple with significantly more bedrooms than residents? I know that my parents, their neighbours, and my childhood friend's parents, all still live in Marple, in the 3 or 4 bedroom houses they had when we were kids, and there's now just one or two of them living there.

It's a much more complex problem than just blaming it on dole scroungers with too many kids, or too many immigrants, etc, etc.

[Condate]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/true-scale-greater-manchesters-homelessness-12255784

Assuming the figures are correct, then we are still building far too many houses for the needs of the region.  What's more, the very real problem of homelessness is not going to be solved by building houses. Any solution needs to be more complex that. The idea that "we have N homeless people, so let's build N houses and that solves the problem" just doesn't work. Indeed, building 100N houses wouldn't solve the problem; there is much more too it than that and it's too important an issue to try and solve with simple solutions.

I don't believe that this plan to build grossly excessive houses in the region, is anything to do with homelessness to any great degree.

[marpleexile]

There's a misunderstanding here. The UK population has been growing by about 0.6% a year in recent years, but there is little if any increase in the birth rate. Instead, by far the biggest element (335,000) is net migration (i.e. the difference between the number of emigrants and the number of immigrants). The other factor is increased life expectancy.

The problem is not people giving birth to too many children - it's because we're not building enough houses.

I'd say the biggest problem is the increased life expectancy - at both ends of the scale. Children aren't dying young of childhood diseases like they used to, so whilst the birth rate hasn't really changed, the number who survive to adulthood has significantly increased.

At the other end of the scale, we're living longer, and are in a better state of health whilst we do so. A while back a politician created a bit of an outcry when they talked about "house blockers". But they had a point. How many houses do you think there are in Marple with significantly more bedrooms than residents? I know that my parents, their neighbours, and my childhood friend's parents, all still live in Marple, in the 3 or 4 bedroom houses they had when we were kids, and there's now just one or two of them living there.

It's a much more complex problem than just blaming it on dole scroungers with too many kids, or too many immigrants, etc, etc.

[Dave]

In reference back to earlier comments which were met with some derision referencing people who choose to have more children than they can afford, essentially because they know society will provide for them if they do so, if we allow, indeed financially encourage our future generations to grow uncontrollably, we're burying our head in the sand and avoiding the root cause of the problem. That's not to say we turn folks out on the streets now, but we cannot build for ever and we cannot have fewer and fewer people providing homes for an exponentially growing population.

There's a misunderstanding here. The UK population has been growing by about 0.6% a year in recent years, but there is little if any increase in the birth rate. Instead, by far the biggest element (335,000) is net migration (i.e. the difference between the number of emigrants and the number of immigrants). The other factor is increased life expectancy.

The problem is not people giving birth to too many children - it's because we're not building enough houses.

[jimblob]

No one can deny we have an immediate housing crisis and that it should be solved. Quoting from the MEN article;
"For the sake of future generations we must pull together to end this crisis, and refuse to rest until every child has a place to call home.”  End the crisis being the key point here, not perpetuate it!!!

In reference back to earlier comments which were met with some derision referencing people who choose to have more children than they can afford, essentially because they know society will provide for them if they do so, if we allow, indeed financially encourage our future generations to grow uncontrollably, we're burying our head in the sand and avoiding the root cause of the problem. That's not to say we turn folks out on the streets now, but we cannot build for ever and we cannot have fewer and fewer people providing homes for an exponentially growing population.

[alstan]

I am not sure what your point is here. I am not saying that homelessness is not a big problem. You don't have to spend more than a few minutes in central Manchester to be aware of that. I am saying that GMSF appears to take no account of it and make no mention of it. It doesn't seem to attempt to deal with it and focuses instead on anticipated issues arising from a vision of economic growth.

[Dave]

I don’t think this is about homelessness.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/true-scale-greater-manchesters-homelessness-12255784

[alstan]

I very occasionally wonder whether a critic has actually read the piece he is criticising and Hoffnung’s honest and frank admission is welcome. What it means for the significance of the criticism will be a matter of opinion. I am sorry for causing problems with your attention span, perhaps I should try and include some pictures,  and I wish you better luck with irony in future.

Andy Burnham has certainly expressed his interest in council housing, how about Abbott Avenue and Corbyn Close, SK6?

This online petition is a problem.  Dave’s email is the first I have heard of it. It apparently opened on 20th November and only has four petitioners. As it closes tomorrow it will need a last minute rush to reach double figures and that will be counter-productive, unlike the excellent video with its spoof humour, perhaps too subtle for some. I believe William Wragg’s petition was presented to Parliament last week. Hopefully it carried a little more weight.

I don’t think this is about homelessness. The draft plan runs to 242 pages and, so far, I have not found any mention of homelessness. If anyone else can find a reference in the plan or hundreds of pages of reports and appendices I would like to hear about it.

It seems to be all about facilitating exceptional economic growth in Greater Manchester following “Northern Powerhouse”, HS2 and Brexit. It is anticipated that these will result in increased inward migration to satisfy a demand for a larger labour force and it is largely these factors, not homelessness, that have resulted in the “Objectively Assessed Housing Need”

[ringi]

What a lovely post.

What if we slammed the door in the faces of people fleeing war and starvation. ...
What is we allowed children of single mothers to go hungry or without heat or clothes....

You can tell it's the season of peace on earth and goodwill to all men, can't you.......... 

The only other option is to build tens of thousands of houses EVERY YEAR for many years to come and give up on having green belt etc.   We have to choose one or the other option.......

[Dave]

Having had a look at that petition, my concern is that it is so weak and simplistic that it could even be counter-productive - rather like the ridiculous 'horror movie' with its 'voice of doom' commentary!

A credible case against the possible High Lane development needs to include realistic counter-proposals as to where the tens of thousands of houses that we need can actually be built. And saying 'build them on brownfield sites' doesn't just cut it - there simply are not enough of those.

We're talking about homeless people here, of course, and ever since Thatcher's right-to-buy scheme slashed the council house stock, we have desperately needed more social housing.  But we are also talking about people who just want to get on the housing ladder but are stuck in rented accommodation.  My adult children have good jobs but they can't afford to buy a house, and the main reason is that the law of supply and demand means that the shortage of housing inflates property values.

Sadly, it may become inevitable that we have to build on green belt land. As long as it's not on the bit that's near us, of course......

[jimblob]

There's an E petition on Stockport councillors website. "No to 4000 new homes Hazel Grove". Whilst it's not connected in any way to the consultation process for the GMSF, I don't think it can do any harm if we can get as many people signing it as possible, assuming of course that you'd prefer not to have High Lane greenbelt land destroyed.
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=79&RPID=7521797&HPID=7521797

[Hoffnung]

You are too gracious Simone, I've just tried to read Franz's post. The last thing it is, is 'eloquent.'  Rambling, Tedious, Verbose, yes, but elequent no. I gave up half way through it and I'm not revisiting it.

I first heard of the GMSF when the AGMA constitution was finally passed, which was in 2008. So yes, you are correct, it has been around a long time. The fact that Franz has just heard about it says little for his informed opinion. You have said in three words what Franz has been unable to say in three hundred. It is exactly that, the 'urbanisation of Marple.'

As I'm sure you know, whether it goes ahead or not will be outside the influence of the people of Marple. Council's take little or no heed of consultations . They are usually collated and processed by the most junior clerk and council leaders rarely look at them, they are just a tick-box exercise in the process. 

Just to throw something else into the mix, Andy Burnham, the Combined Authority Mayor elect, is on record as saying that any/all houses built on greenbelt should be social housing. So in theory we could see a 4000 house council estate appear gradually in High Lane. 

 

[Dave]

What if we did not house people from the rest of the world…..
What if we did not pay more benefits to single mothers when they had a child….
What if we did not pay more benefits to people who choose to have children when they can’t afford them…

What a lovely post.

What if we slammed the door in the faces of people fleeing war and starvation. ...
What is we allowed children of single mothers to go hungry or without heat or clothes....

You can tell it's the season of peace on earth and goodwill to all men, can't you.......... 

[simonesaffron]

Apologies Franz,

But I just don't have time to read your post. Nevertheless, I'm sure it's very eloquent. I thought I'd put 'Maple' in just to give you something to hang your hat on. 

[Belly]

Have a good holiday Simone.

I'm not trying to decide where the houses go, but I'm pretty much convinced that we need them. The background to GMSF makes that case pretty robustly - we can all argue about the exact number, but rest assured its going to be a big one to cater for the next 20 years of growth in our area. Which afterall is a popular place to live.

Council's can bury their heads in the sand and pretend that their portion of national targets don't apply if they want, but that ends in disaster. Look at Cheshire East over the past few years. They made a mess of their plan (much of this being politically motivated) and for quite a while haven't the required housing supply. The result? A free for all for developers supported by national planning policy and the appeals process and lots of lovely greenfields disappearing all over the (ex) County - all to the sound of the wailing and gnashing of teeth by those local people affected.