The government's constant tinkering with the planning system is the number one culprit here but I'm afraid Andy Burnham bears a fair bit of responsibility for Greater Manchester's failure to agree a strategic plan. Between around 2014 and 2016 the 10 local authorities and GMCA had worked hard to produce a plan that met local housing needs while also trying to align planning with its wider priorities on the environment, transport, industrial strategy etc. Burnham's pledge in the run-up to to the 2017 mayoral election to 'radically rewrite' the plan and remove all green belt sites gave cover to wavering local authorities getting grief about green belt release and ultimately allowed Stockport to withdraw from GMSF altogether. The narrow window where a plan might be agreed by all 10 boroughs closed. It was a promise he didn't need to make - he was going to win comfortably anyway. The damaging influence of electoral politics on long-term strategic planning in microcosm.
The anti-development groups might want to hold off organising any parties yet. The end of GMSF/Places for Everyone won't mean an end to residential development in the green belt. It might actually result in more of it. Without a strategic plan or up to date local plans, development will be more susceptible to housebuilders using the appeals process to build on prime green belt sites. There will be less infrastructure, fewer services and less local input into design. The best way for us to beat the housing crisis is through strategic planning so if Places for Everyone does collapse this is a major blow for the Greater Manchester project.
Around 2015 the GMCA and 10 local authorities had a few options on the table, one of which did not involve any incursion into GM’s green belt, however they chose to pursue the accelerated growth scenario which allocated large swathes of green belt land for housing and industrial. When they put this to public consultation in late 2016 (as GMSF v1) over 27,000 responses were received, overwhelmingly objecting to the proposed green belt allocations. This was an unprecedented response to a public consultation and demonstrated the strength of local feeling about this plan. The GMCA and councils chose to ignore the response to their own consultation and persist with the majority of the allocations, fudging the ‘% of green belt take’ figures in 2019 by ‘adding in extra green belt’…such as school playing fields, parks and river valleys.
Had the GMCA proposed a strategy to meet local housing need, improve quality of jobs and infrastructure and create growth opportunities without touching the existing green belt - entirely possible - the plan would have been ratified and implemented by now. Instead they persist with a flawed strategy and are spending vast sums of public funds trying to defend a plan which doesn’t align with the views of many local people.
I’m not happy at all with the proposal to allow dogs on the Metrolink. We are already plagued by dog dirt on the streets and boisterous noisy animals not adequately controlled by their owners. If I had a £1 for every time a dog owner bleated ‘but he doesn’t bite’ whilst the godforsaken brute is baring it’s teeth at me,I’d be a rich person by now. IMO, the only good dog is a dead dog.
The government's constant tinkering with the planning system is the number one culprit here but I'm afraid Andy Burnham bears a fair bit of responsibility for Greater Manchester's failure to agree a strategic plan. Between around 2014 and 2016 the 10 local authorities and GMCA had worked hard to produce a plan that met local housing needs while also trying to align planning with its wider priorities on the environment, transport, industrial strategy etc. Burnham's pledge in the run-up to to the 2017 mayoral election to 'radically rewrite' the plan and remove all green belt sites gave cover to wavering local authorities getting grief about green belt release and ultimately allowed Stockport to withdraw from GMSF altogether. The narrow window where a plan might be agreed by all 10 boroughs closed. It was a promise he didn't need to make - he was going to win comfortably anyway. The damaging influence of electoral politics on long-term strategic planning in microcosm.
The anti-development groups might want to hold off organising any parties yet. The end of GMSF/Places for Everyone won't mean an end to residential development in the green belt. It might actually result in more of it. Without a strategic plan or up to date local plans, development will be more susceptible to housebuilders using the appeals process to build on prime green belt sites. There will be less infrastructure, fewer services and less local input into design. The best way for us to beat the housing crisis is through strategic planning so if Places for Everyone does collapse this is a major blow for the Greater Manchester project.
Around 2015 the GMCA and 10 local authorities had a few options on the table, one of which did not involve any incursion into GM’s green belt, however they chose to pursue the accelerated growth scenario which allocated large swathes of green belt land for housing and industrial. When they put this to public consultation in late 2016 (as GMSF v1) over 27,000 responses were received, overwhelmingly objecting to the proposed green belt allocations. This was an unprecedented response to a public consultation and demonstrated the strength of local feeling about this plan. The GMCA and councils chose to ignore the response to their own consultation and persist with the majority of the allocations, fudging the ‘% of green belt take’ figures in 2019 by ‘adding in extra green belt’…such as school playing fields, parks and river valleys.
Had the GMCA proposed a strategy to meet local housing need, improve quality of jobs and infrastructure and create growth opportunities without touching the existing green belt - entirely possible - the plan would have been ratified and implemented by now. Instead they persist with a flawed strategy and are spending vast sums of public funds trying to defend a plan which doesn’t align with the views of many local people.
Sorry, my comment wasn’t intended as a reply to Tom A whose comment I read with interest but has nothing to do with dogs,lol!
I’m not happy at all with the proposal to allow dogs on the Metrolink. We are already plagued by dog dirt on the streets and boisterous noisy animals not adequately controlled by their owners. If I had a £1 for every time a dog owner bleated ‘but he doesn’t bite’ whilst the godforsaken brute is baring it’s teeth at me,I’d be a rich person by now. IMO, the only good dog is a dead dog.