Constituency, bins and Green Belt

[CllrGeoffAbell]

Kenny, thanks for the updates and corrections!

Sometimes politics IS the spur to getting things done.  I don't think that the national State Pension in 1909 or the NHS in 1948 would have been achieved without that drive.
Sometimes it isn't.  Or we can build bridges in a common cause.  This High Lane proposal is one - as Kenny says it's the residents who'd suffer.

We understand that there is pressure to build and promote sustainable growth across Greater Manchester.  But whatever the question was, this is most definitely not the answer.

In answer to @Hoffnung I tend to speak when I have something useful to say.  I seconded a motion on disabled access to railway stations, which is relevant to Marple and Stockport people.  I do admit not all motions are useful (discussed elsewhere on these threads.)  In addition, exec members tend to speak as they are running the place - Labour are in charge and don't have anyone in Marple or Romiley.  Kenny did speak - one of the few Tories that did this time.  Glad to see you take an active interest.   

[Hoffnung]

It just goes on and on.

The Lib Dems versus the Tories. Is it possible for either of them to make a point without making derogatory reference to the other?

Does it really matter whether it was a Lib Dem or a Conservative Councillor who first suggested the cessation of Committee Teas. Does it really matter to the people of High Lane what the party political composition of the government was when the contaminated land grants were halted.

Are the Councillors of Marple just going to allow themselves to be whipped into a party stance by their Town Hall and Westminster bosses, whilst housing estates rise from the ground left right and centre?

When we have an extra 4000 houses on our green belt who will we blame. We know who our Lib Dem Councillors and our Tory Councillors will blame - each other.

Maybe we can offset the problem by resolving the issues on Council Teas.

Why don't you raise a motion at Full Council whereupon the whole council (all parties, all wards) can debate Stockport's part in the GMSF. This would be a lot more relevant than debating Theresa May's comments on Grammar Schools as you did at the last meeting.

In fact our current crop of Councillors seemingly, rarely speak at the Council Meetings. Our previous Councillors may not have posted on this website but they had plenty to say at Council meetings. We seem to have inherited a bunch of silent Councillors currently. 

     

[CllrKennyBlair]

@CllrGeoffAbell on teas - it was Cllr Linda Holt who raised it when she was first elected. A bit like Cllr Allan just did.

As you make a number of political points on the GMSF, I will respond in kind. I didn't suggest you made the High Lane development proposal. I am just intrigued that your Leader in Stockport was Head of Planning & Housing at the Greater Manchester level, who kick started this whole process, and local Lib Dems claim shock at the plans.

Cllr Sean Anstee is Conservative Leader of Trafford, not Tameside and definitely not Stockport, so unsure as to why he would tell us anything. last I checked, I was a Cllr in Stockport, not Trafford.

The big developers do prefer virgin green sites and it appears that the GMSF is happy to provide this to them. An interesting point you make is that the only reason we are building is because the Government told us to. Is that the position of the lib Dems? They wouldn't build any houses but would only do so because the Government told them to? You don't believe there is a need for housing in this country? Could you clarify in what way the Government is forcing us to build 4,000 homes in Green Belt in High Lane?

Brownfield first, we agree. The Contaminated Land Capital Grants Scheme was actually officially stopped in 2014 with limited funding extended until 2017. In case you forgot, or erased it from memory, that decision was taken in a Coalition Government, which happened to include the Lib Dems. 

"I hope that local Tory councillors will join us in providing constructive opposition to this 4,000-home development in the green and pleasant land next to High Lane." Not sure if we are joining you or you are joining us, but the only people I will be joining and supporting are the residents and representing their views. But we appear to agree this proposal is questionable at best and preposterous at worst! Myself and Cllr Dowse have organised a public meeting in High Lane Village Hall for residents to understand more about it and discuss on Saturday 12th Nov at 1.30pm.

[CllrGeoffAbell]

Makes interesting reading. Everyone will have their own view on the Boundary Commission and Geoff makes some valid points about the size of the Lords.

As for the black bins, @CllrGeoffAbell where did the £20m number come from? I also suggested at the Full Council that representations were made to the Waste Authority about accepting more plastic for recycling, as currently only plastic bottles are accepted, even although, technically almost all plastics can be recycled.
I fully support @Malcolm Allan suggestion about teas, they are not needed. But I do question why you bring it up now when the Lib Dems ran the Council until May. Surely it would have made sense for you (the Lib Dem executive) to implement it when it was raised a number of years ago by Cllr Holt (probably before your time Geoff)?

As for the GMSF, I do find it intriguing that the Libs claimed shock about the proposals when your former leader was the head of housing and planning in GMCA until May. however, the document is contradictory at best when it comes to infrastructure, as it says that on p207

"Provide financial contributions towards the delivery of a tram/train extension from Rose Hill Marple" and
"The provision of a tram/train link to the area is a prerequisite for its delivery"

But then it contradicts this by stating on p208 -

"Ensuring the integrity and continued use-ability of the Middlewood Way as a walking, cycling and bridle route is of paramount importance to the development’s delivery."

So is it a tram-train link to Rose Hill and then improved surfacing for people to walk/ cycle to the station or will the Tram train run down Middlewood way?

Everyone agrees we need more housing, but brownfield should be utilised first (Manchester has no green belt to speak of but will build 50,000 homes in the GMSF). With nearly half of the questionable numbers coming from single occupancy households, they should be looking at utilising the brownfield sites in Stockport town centre first.

For anyone interested, there is a public meeting in High Lane Village Hall on 12th Nov at 1.30pm.

@CllrKennyBlair  also makes some good points - especially on the recycling of plastics.  To answer some points:

- Cllr Sheila Bailey (exec member for waste) said we are only at the consultation stage.  So let's comment!  The cost of the newer, chipped, black bins appears to be nearer £2m not £20m!  Thank goodness.  But it is still a waste.  Proposals below.
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s102610/Business%20Case%20Waste%20-%20adjustment%20to%20residual%20waste%20collections.pdf
And the council's Black Bin Survey can here found here -
https://www.snapsurveys.com/wh/s.asp?k=147524387139

- teas
Yes that proposal must have been before both of us were elected!  I assume you mean Cllr Ken Holt, not Cllr Linda Holt, his wife, who is still a sitting councillor?

- High Lane mega-village proposal
We were in charge of Stockport MBC until May, but I refute the suggestion that we made the High Lane development proposal.  Until recently only the numbers of houses were talked about at the Greater Manchester level, to support the growth of Greater Manchester.  The OAN (Objective Needs Assessment) is the objective planning yardstick used by council officers and the government if they were forced to step in.  That is about 19,000 homes for Stockport before 2035. 

You and I were told of the High Lane proposal AT THE SAME TIME at a councillor's confidential briefing session recently.  Even if the leaders of GM did know of this plan, then your very own leader of Tameside, the conservative Sean Anstee, would have known too.  And then so would you.
However, the reason we are being forced to build is because government told us to do so.  (Or they would step in).  A Conservative government.
Brownfield first - absolutely.  But the government will have stopped the grant to clear up contamination on brown field sites by 2017.  A Conservative government.
And the big developers always prefer virgin green sites, so they can make more money.

So I am shocked - and stunned and amazed - at the size of this proposed development on Green Belt.  I hope that local Tory councillors will join us in providing constructive opposition to this 4,000-home development in the green and pleasant land next to High Lane.

And I agree that the transport infrastructure suggestions are ambivalent - maybe they are suggesting building a completely new line??

[CllrKennyBlair]

Who is arguing @Hoffnung ? I said I agreed with his proposal.

[Hoffnung]

I see little has changed.

Maple burns and our Councillors argue about Committee Teas.

[CllrKennyBlair]

Makes interesting reading. Everyone will have their own view on the Boundary Commission and Geoff makes some valid points about the size of the Lords.

As for the black bins, @CllrGeoffAbell where did the £20m number come from? I also suggested at the Full Council that representations were made to the Waste Authority about accepting more plastic for recycling, as currently only plastic bottles are accepted, even although, technically almost all plastics can be recycled.
I fully support @Malcolm Allan suggestion about teas, they are not needed. But I do question why you bring it up now when the Lib Dems ran the Council until May. Surely it would have made sense for you (the Lib Dem executive) to implement it when it was raised a number of years ago by Cllr Holt (probably before your time Geoff)?

As for the GMSF, I do find it intriguing that the Libs claimed shock about the proposals when your former leader was the head of housing and planning in GMCA until May. however, the document is contradictory at best when it comes to infrastructure, as it says that on p207

"Provide financial contributions towards the delivery of a tram/train extension from Rose Hill Marple" and
"The provision of a tram/train link to the area is a prerequisite for its delivery"

But then it contradicts this by stating on p208 -

"Ensuring the integrity and continued use-ability of the Middlewood Way as a walking, cycling and bridle route is of paramount importance to the development’s delivery."

So is it a tram-train link to Rose Hill and then improved surfacing for people to walk/ cycle to the station or will the Tram train run down Middlewood way?

Everyone agrees we need more housing, but brownfield should be utilised first (Manchester has no green belt to speak of but will build 50,000 homes in the GMSF). With nearly half of the questionable numbers coming from single occupancy households, they should be looking at utilising the brownfield sites in Stockport town centre first.

For anyone interested, there is a public meeting in High Lane Village Hall on 12th Nov at 1.30pm.

[CllrGeoffAbell]

Some good points here.  For what it's worth, here's my take:

1) The boundary commission deal in numbers (and the numbers were deliberately v tight this time).  Whilst the proposal is for 600 MPs, the Lords are 800+ and growing.  The wards in Hyde and Marple are part-urban, part-rural, but I agree  with @beardedoldie that there isn't much historical link.  And which side would the MP's office be?  All this will be irrelevant when we get PR... (dream on Councillor Geoff)
Comment here if you want - https://www.bce2018.org.uk/

2) The black bin changed (being tried out in Manchester) make no sense.  New (chipped) bins need buying at £20 million and money will only be saved if we recycle more (and we are at 61%, getting near the maximum possible) and recycle more than neighbouring boroughs, thanks to a complicated formula from Greater Manchester Waste Authority.  Cllr Bailey (Labour's new exec member for rubbish collection) said in full council last night nothing is fixed yet, but local authority finance is struggling.  They will find it hard to balance the books (councils must do this by law, unlike government or even the NHS) and they are trying to be inclusive of other's ideas.  I thought a better idea came from Marple's own Cllr Allan (@Malcolm Allan) last night who suggested cutting out the free councillor teas.  It's only tens of thousands but symbolic and easy to do.
Write to Cllr Bailey or have your say at http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/councildemocracy/yourcouncil/haveyoursay

3) And then there is the High Lane proposal.  Gtr Manchester's leader's are meeting today to release the plans and people can comment from 31 Oct (so no link here I am afraid).
This would be a massive development.  There is a requirement for improved infrastructure including possible rail lines as @JohnBates pointed out (including dental services I presume!) and officers have chosen the least-worst option, but it IS green belt and developers love nice new ground where houses sell for a lot of money.
It is also true that Stockport has had an under supply for a number of years, and the Manchester economy is at last expanding.  Also that brownfield sites are not enough for the planned 19,000 homes in Stockport until 2035.  But clean-up subsidies for brownfield sites have been reduced.  And this is massive, especially for residents of High Lane.  This is less NIMBY, more Not In My Green Fields That Stretch As Far The Eye Can See.  It would also clog up a relief road that hasn't even been built yet.
There will be consultation and many hoops.  And Stockport councillors (including your truly) will get a vote.  But if we reject everything, years down the line a government dept may impose one on us.  And in April, Tory minister Greg Clark (Communities Secretary) approved 1,500 houses in Perrybrook near Gloucester in a landmark decision under similar circumstances.

(This is a link to my blog which has a few more details and a map  http://marple.mycouncillor.org.uk/2016/10/21/gmsf-and-planning-in-stockport/#page-content)

All suggestions to your councillors or the GM website, when it opens in a few days, will be welcome.

 

[marpleexile]

3) Idiotic and those responsible for the suggestion should be banned from any position of responsibility. Genuine housing needs?  Of course some new housing is going to be needed at some point, but the number of houses being built seems completely absurd.

Not at some point, now. In fact probably about 10-15 yrs ago. The number of new houses being built is absurd, it's absurdly low compared to the need.

The issue is that it is private developers who are driving the new house building, instead of the government, and understandably they are primarily motivated by profit, rather than addressing the actual housing shortfall. Not that I especially trust government to do a great job of things.

[Condate]

3 burning issues have come up
- proposed new constituency for 2018 - Marple and Hyde
- suggestion by Labour in Stockport we should go to 3-weekly black bin collections
- and the big one: planners propose allowing development in High Lane green belt  of 4,000 ploys to accommodate our (genuine) housing need by 2035.

Comments anyone?

1) Absurd, but this is down to the silly requirement to reduce the number of constituencies. We already have too many examples of constituencies which lump together areas with different needs and areas of concern. We need to allow a greater variation in voter numbers per constituency if we are to retain any idea of constituencies which are relatively logical.

2) Not very sensible at all, but it appears councils of all political persuasions have no real interest in serving the needs of the population. At least that's how it comes across to the public.

3) Idiotic and those responsible for the suggestion should be banned from any position of responsibility. Genuine housing needs?  Of course some new housing is going to be needed at some point, but the number of houses being built seems completely absurd.

[JohnBates]

They are also going to have to build some more schools and doctors surgeries and perhaps join the SEMMMS up to the M60 at Bredbury as well.

Schools and surgeries mentioned, and contribution to SEMMMS refresh, which hopefully will include A6 to M60 bypass and Stepping Hill link

[simonesaffron]

Councillor Geoff,

Are any of these proposals: Political boundary changes, New Houses, Altered bin collection schedules, going to make Marple a better/worse/just the same place to live in?   

[mikes]

They are also going to have to build some more schools and doctors surgeries and perhaps join the SEMMMS up to the M60 at Bredbury as well.

[mikes]

This is mentioned in document as being a requirement for the development going ahead.

"Provide financial contributions towards the delivery of a tram/train extension from Rose Hill Marple potentially linking to Hazel Grove. "

thanks John, I didn't see that.

[JohnBates]

  Perhaps the mooted tram link to Rosehill could be extended down Middlewood Way to this estate.

This is mentioned in document as being a requirement for the development going ahead.

"Provide financial contributions towards the delivery of a tram/train extension from Rose Hill Marple potentially linking to Hazel Grove. "