Greater Manchester Framework reduces Housing Targets – Halves Green Belt Loss

Evening news

The new version aims for slightly fewer new homes than previously, revising down the target from 227,000 to 201,000.

Andy Burnham at the 2017 mayoral election count (Image: Manchester Evening News)

Insiders say this was because the original document was planning for more homes than the region needed.

It also concentrates even more ‘high density’ development in Manchester and Salford – apartments, essentially – as well as in town centres such as Stockport and Bolton, in order to reduce the amount of protected green space under threat elsewhere.

Around 15 green belt sites have been removed from the plan altogether.

Nevertheless, nearly 40 of those earmarked in the original version are still in the new draft – albeit substantially reduced in size in many cases, if not the majority.

The total amount of green belt space under threat has roughly halved under the new plan, with a further 65 patches of land given new green belt status.

It also provides more detail than previously about the new transport links that would connect the developments, including proposed tram stops, train stations and rapid bus routes.

And around a quarter of the homes to be built would be classed as ‘affordable’ – 50,000 – with over half of those at social rent, although how the conurbation intends to define affordability, and where those houses would go, is yet to be confirmed.

4 thoughts on “Greater Manchester Framework reduces Housing Targets – Halves Green Belt Loss

  1. Pingback: Castle Point Council remain on the Intervention “Naughty Step”, whilst other authorities stall and Protect Green Belt! Making an example of CPBC may come at a Cost! | Canvey Green Belt Campaign

  2. I know what you mean about elected Mayor’s being able to demur from the recommendations made by an examining panel (PINS). The Mayor of London has done this on occasion, and he may well do a lot more of this in future. I would query, however, whether Spatial Development Strategies are exempt from the tests of soundness in the NPPF. The new NPPF at paragraph 35, does says that Spatial Development Strategies are subject to the tests of soundness. This relates back to the GLA Act 1999 and section 342 (1) (a) and (b).

  3. I know that ambiguity is the stock in trade of the British establishment, and our planning system is extremely vague and discretionary to allow planning policy to be dis-applied when it suits the establishment (this is why I want a Constitution like the US – I want to know what my rights are without relying on a lawyer), but my reading of s342 (1) (b) is that it does allow the SoS to prescribe that the Mayor does have regard to the NPPF when preparing his/her spatial development strategy, which is part of the development plan (para. 17 of the NPPF).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s