INTRODUCTION
As such, noting that the GMSF is currently in the first phase of a long process of consultation, Stockport Labour Group will be monitoring developments closely and listening carefully to responses from all parts of Greater Manchester as our response to different phases evolves. The below response seeks to expand upon the forgoing in articulation of Stockport Labour’s position on the first phase of GMSF consultation.
1. THE NEED FOR A PLAN
It is right to have a clear and long term development plan across multiple Local Authorities to address the needs of future residents. Local planning can only go so far in addressing wider infrastructure and economic development needs, which does not abide by Borough boundaries. Furthermore, we believe the need for a collective voice to counteract pressures particularly (but not exclusively) within the Housing market can better meet the needs of the population in future, both in terms of housing mix, and in limiting development on greenfield sites.
As such, we believe the Combined Authority represents the best vehicle we have to deliver this planning, to best provide for the needs of future generations and strike the right balance between green assets and economic and housing development.
However, we need to be clear that if we do not consider the final version of the GMSF to be in the best interests of Stockport, compared to any viable and robust alternative plan, Stockport Labour Group reserves its right not to ultimately support it.
2. THE NEED FOR THE RIGHT PROCESS, FOR THE RIGHT PLAN
Therefore, a number of key elements need to be in place to ensure the process is robust enough to retain public confidence and produce the right balance for the future of Greater Manchester. The following attempts to outline areas where we believe improvements can be made.
2.1. The need for a truly responsive process for public confidence
The GMSF is a process. The proof that the process is a strong one will only be demonstrated through a strong indication that submissions to the first phase of consultation have been heeded, and that public voices have been listened to and not ignored.
2.2. The need for clearer communication of the process.
More work needs to be done on making the consultation process both accessible and understood. In particular:
I. Greater effort needs to be shown in explaining the relationship between local plans, the GMSF and the role of Local Authorities in having final approval over GMSF plans. In our view, this so far has remained opaque to the public, leading to some confusion over the role of GMSF and a view this is a ‘top down’ imposition. Related to this, more clarity over the role of Local Authorities in having the final say on tenure mix in town centres could also help sure up public perceptions of accountability.
II. Greater clarity of language in relation to the difference between ‘Green-belt’, ‘green space’ ‘brownfield’ and other interchangeable terms could further aid public confidence in the process and understanding of its potential impacts. See 3.2 (II).
III. Whereas levels of publicity in relation to the public consultation must be maintained into the second phase, improvements to the consultation website portal could promote higher participation levels, through making this more intuitive and user friendly.
3. THE RIGHT DEVELOPMENT IN THE RIGHT PLACES, FOR THE RIGHT REASONS
3.1. The need for confidence in the data.
Stockport Labour wants to see the GMSF plan go forward on the basis of confidence in the data. In particular, we would like to have greater confidence in the assessment of future housing need. Our concern is that the process goes forward upon a solid base of evidence on future housing needs, rather than reflective of what is favourable to housing developers. Further development of the evidence base should lead us to provide the right housing in the right places, for the right reasons.
3.2. The balance between infrastructure, demand and evidence
This follows through to a lack of confidence that there has been enough work to identify the infrastructural burdens brought on by additional housing. The next phase of consultation should place more emphasis on demonstrating that the provision for additional transport infrastructure equates to the additional population burden in areas which are to be developed, both in terms of public and private transport.
We are further concerned that the provision of social infrastructure in the plan matches the additional demands of the growing population. Schools, doctors and other public goods are in some areas of Stockport already at capacity, and we would like to see greater weight given to the need for supply to match demand in future iterations of the report. Again, greater confidence in the evidence base would be of benefit to this area.
3.3. Green belt and Brownfield
Stockport Labour accepts that there is a need to examine building on some green-belt allocated land. Indeed without this, some of our more densely populated urban areas will face significant pressures in the near term. That said:
I. We question if the development outlined in the GMSF cannot be rationalised to identify space savings. Building on 9% of the green belt area we have in Stockport appears excessive, and represents a one-off diminution of a precious asset. In the next iteration we would like to see more work and creative solutions brought to bear in reducing this figure, to promote truly affordable housing and to have greater confidence that every effort has been made to prioritise brownfield sites for development.
II. In assessing the impacts of development upon areas of green belt land we would like it noted that the current plans appear without reference to developments planned immediately outside the GMSF area. For example GMSF development plans around Woodford are in close proximity to plans for significant development across the border by Cheshire East Council (CEC). Provision should be made to take account of similar developments across the Greater Manchester area at in future report iterations, and plans including Woodford revisited in light of this.
III. Further to this, Stockport Labour would like to see clearer communication of the difference between the planning designations and what the GMSF will mean for Greenbelt allocated land, Brownfield land, and other green areas not designated under either. Opacity in these areas has led to some confusion relating to these areas and further work would be beneficial in making clear to the public the impact of future planning decisions.
Submitted 16/01/17