Just a reminder that the new version of this called Places for Everyone is out for public consultation. The final dates for submission is tomorrow. Bit of a hefty one, but you don't have to read and reply to all of it to make your views known.
I think it should be re titled No Place for Green Space myself.
Thanks Chris for bringing this to people's attention. Tim Wilcox also put a separate post on regarding the proposals for Carrington Moss.
The GM Bird Recording Group submitted a response to the consultation and we have objected to the following allocations: "New" Carrington (Part of Carrington Moss) Elton Reservoir Area Heywood/Pilsworth (Northern Gateway) North of Irlam Station (part of Cadishead Moss) "Port" Salford Extension (part of Barton Moss) Simister and Bowlee (Northern Gateway) Stakehill
I know other GMBRG recorders have also submitted responses.
There were probably other sites which merited a response but not enough hours in the day to object to them all. As you said, the consultation made it clear that it wasn't necessary to reply to everything, so we focused on those sites whose loss to development will have the biggest impact on GM's birds and other wildlife.
An alternative approach would perhaps have justified a different title Making Space for People and Nature with reference to Professor Sir John Lawton's independent review of England's wildlife sites and ecological network Making Space for Nature which was published in 2010 and "concluded unequivocally that England's collection of wildlife areas is fragmented and does not represent a coherent and resilient ecological network capable of responding to the challenges of climate change and other pressures."
Here we are 11 years later and the Natural History Museum has just published a Report on Biodiversity Loss which states that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world - in the bottom 10%
So if Places for Everyone is implemented in its current form they can't say that they weren't warned.
Chris Harper said
Sat Oct 2 5:42 PM, 2021
Just a reminder that the new version of this called Places for Everyone is out for public consultation. The final dates for submission is tomorrow. Bit of a hefty one, but you don't have to read and reply to all of it to make your views known.
I think it should be re titled No Place for Green Space myself.
John Watson said
Thu Jan 17 7:58 AM, 2019
I don't want to get too political, but these housing plans don't address the problem. They are new & relatively expensive, so out of the range of the large number of people desperately trying to own their own home. It would be better to build more, considerably smaller properties - but these have a smaller profit margin for the developers
Also, it seems there are any number of warehouses being built near the motorways - the land for just one of these could instead provide housing for hundreds of people
Paul Wilson said
Wed Jan 16 7:11 PM, 2019
Looks like the plan is to turn what's left of the area into a sterile country park. Details of the plans are now up on the Council we site.
Richard Thew wrote:
Received an email and a letter informing us about the area around Elton reservoir is still under the revised draft. I've not yet seen the full plans on ezactly the extent of what is proposed but it shows little regard for the sensitive species in the area. Link as follows .... https://www.gmconsult.org/communications-and-engagement-team/gmsf/
Mike Duckham said
Tue Jan 15 2:30 PM, 2019
I had a brief look at the revised draft last night, and from what i could see, the Timperley Wedge will still be using a lot of greenfield land, ie fields. I didn't compare this draft with the previous, but nonetheless from the latest map it's clear that a lot of countryside will become houses.
I remember reading an article about a year ago about the housing shortage, i can't recall where but it seemed unbiased. The thrust of it was that house prices are too high, so the government wants a lot of new houses built to flood the market and bring down prices - as i understand it that was the governments own reasoning, basic supply and demand economics. As a single 47 year old who is unable to afford a mortgage, so is stuck with renting, this on the face of it may seem like a good idea. However there are surely other factors involved in house prices other than the overall number of houses? About 15(?) years ago a friend had to sell their house, just as house prices crashed, i imagine many folks can recall that. There were clearly fewer houses then than now, yet prices were lower... I've read somewhere that house prices rise and fall in a cyclical nature. I'd be interested in informed opinion on whether Britain needs a lot of new houses on greenfield sites..
One other thing is that this morning i was walking past what (i guess) would be called flats, on the Baguley side of Brooklands roundabout alongside the railway line and Brooks Drive - they weren't 60's concrete tower blocks, more 70's brick things, more squat and rectangular and not as tall. These would, i assume, be classed as high density. I was struck by how much green space there was around them. These seem out of favour now and semi-detached are more the norm. I don't understand why parking is not provided on the ground floor, with living space above, allowing space for a front garden.
Richard Thew said
Mon Jan 14 8:39 PM, 2019
Received an email and a letter informing us about the area around Elton reservoir is still under the revised draft. I've not yet seen the full plans on ezactly the extent of what is proposed but it shows little regard for the sensitive species in the area. Link as follows ....
https://www.gmconsult.org/communications-and-engagement-team/gmsf/
John Watson said
Tue Jan 8 7:48 AM, 2019
Deep down in this document it says "The consultation will start formally on Monday 21st January. All comments must be received by Monday 18th March"
I don't know many of the areas earmarked for development, but some seem to have been reduced in favour of Green Belt. Small compensation in a very aggressive long-term plan.
Everyone in the building industry must be rubbing their hands with delight
JOHN TYMON said
Mon Jan 7 8:50 PM, 2019
Looks a disaster for the Leigh area released today,Basically looks like every bit of green around Leigh Bar the water at the flash is going to be built on in the new plan ,why is the land south of the flash or the land to the west of Gibfield classed as brownfield?that's always been agricultural land and the north of Tyldesley sounds like there's little hope for Cutacre , there,s going to be nothing left around the Leigh area and this is supposed to be to save our Green Belt .
Hundreds of people were present at this event today, including Greater Manchester Mayoral candidates Will Patterson and Jane Brophy, to add to the estimated 3000 that were present at a protest on Tandle Hill during January 2017, there is some reasonable coverage of todays' event on BBC NWT
Just a reminder that the Save Our Greenbelt event is happening tomorrow in Manchester city centre, Saturday 1st April 2017 gathering at 1pm at the Town Hall, note: I have tweeted the organiser with a note saying Brownfield sites can be very important wildlife habitats too! Looking at social media it looks like many groups are likely to be present at this event
James Walsh said
Sun Mar 26 11:31 AM, 2017
David Walsh wrote:
If they haven't, then we only have ourselves to blame.
I understand your sentiment here, David, but I disagree fundamentally, politicians are elected to represent our best interests, therefore, in 2017 when climate change and the environment are such massive issues, plus the reality that we are likely to rely more and more on the Green Economy and the Tourism Industry, with EcoTourism a huge growing industry globally, our politicians should have enough ecological knowledge to be able to plan properly for the future
James Walsh said
Sun Mar 26 11:19 AM, 2017
When did Greenfield and Brownfield become recognised terms ? I agree completely with Dave Wilsons' comments on this ! From my experience many politicians - all of them should have compulsory ecology lessons imho - seem to have the thought that greenfield = good and perhaps should be saved, and brownfield have no ecological value and are just sat there waiting to be developed ! At the Pomona hearings at Trafford Council a majority of politicians were of the opinion that it was a brownfield site with no real ecological value, yet the site is habitat for Sand Martins, Little Ringed Plovers, Lapwings, Skylarks, Bee Orchids, etc, etc
Dave Wilson said
Thu Mar 23 7:46 AM, 2017
The submission of huge numbers of bird records is an important contribution towards indicating a site's value, but it is just a starting point. The records should be used as a factual basis for producing meaningful evaluations, and these are best done by committed naturalists who have an awareness of a site's value in local and regional terms. Several 'ecologists' I've come across over many years base assessments on 'records' alone, and are invariably totally detached from the realities of the natural world that many of us are familiar with, enjoy and regard as indispensable for the wellbeing of our present and future wildlife? The contribution need not be overlong, but, far as possible, should include reference to all flora and fauna, rather than a mountainous list of unqualified bird records. My great worry, based on past experience, is that changes in some places will be brought about by an inadequate and sometimes devious alliance of out-of-touch politicians, disingenuous developers and the genuinely caring majority duped into believing the drivel about 'making environmental improvements'. Conserving important natural spaces is immeasurably more important than creating 'pretty, pretty' areas purely for public recreation!
-- Edited by Dave Wilson on Thursday 23rd of March 2017 09:24:48 AM
David Walsh said
Thu Mar 23 12:06 AM, 2017
As I understand it, the GMBRG and the GMEU have been extremely busy supplying data to the GMSF. So if records have been submitted formally to the GMBRG, no matter what colour the site may be, they will contribute to the body of evidence against development.
If they haven't, then we only have ourselves to blame.
Craig Higson said
Wed Mar 22 11:31 PM, 2017
Totally agree Dave. Many 'Greenbelt' areas are agricultural deserts with such limited wildlife as to be almost worthless in this respect. The value of each site should be based on what actually exists there, not its denomination on a map.
Dave Wilson said
Wed Mar 22 4:35 PM, 2017
Please be aware, friends, that many of those protesting against developing 'green belt' sites are advocating that all 'brownfield' sites should be 'developed' first. This stance demonstrates a complete ignorance of the value of brownfield sites (most obviously to me in the Leigh area) for declining grassland and open scrubby species already in decline, among them Skylark, Meadow Pipit, Linnet, Partridge, Cuckoo and Lapwing. I have spoken, and written to, Andy Burnham, pointing out that the issue is about all GREEN SITES, irrespective of designations by the unknowing, and he appears to recognise this significant difference. Every site deserves to be evaluated for wildlife importance, preferably by experienced and committed naturalists as well as professional ecologists, some of whom have little empathy with our valuable green environment. To regard our brownfield land, if it has wildlife merit, as expendable might suit some strictly 'green belt' bandwaggoners, but its complete obliteration would be catastrophic for once-familiar, but now threatened species! Protestors - please hoist the brownfield flag and inform those who should be our allies that the struggle involves much more than dubious 'open space' classifications!
James Walsh said
Mon Mar 20 3:08 PM, 2017
A reminder about SAVE OUR GREENBELT Event in Manchester, Saturday 1st April 2017
If you are on facebook, there are many regional groups being formed !
I'm happy to give these people a free lesson in Ecology
Andy Bissitt wrote:
Yes, I have had one James. Probably means they're going to send the 'boys' round to teach us a lesson.
Andy Bissitt said
Sun Mar 5 9:26 PM, 2017
Yes, I have had one James. Probably means they're going to send the 'boys' round to teach us a lesson.
James Walsh said
Sat Mar 4 4:35 AM, 2017
I recently received an email from consult@objective.co.uk
Dear Mr James Walsh
You have been registered by Greater Manchester Spatial Framework because you have either stated interest in taking part in online consultations, asked to be on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework consultation database or have responded via letter or email to a current consultation
Has anyone else received an email like this ? It also includes a link to a Consultation Portal
James Walsh said
Sat Mar 4 4:23 AM, 2017
SAVE OUR GREENBELT EVENT @ 1pm Saturday 1st April 2017
Greater Manchesters' Save Our Greenbelt Groups are hosting a rally in Manchester
A decent opportunity to show the strength of feeling for our environment
Banners, placards and whistles at the ready! Let's make some noise!
Hi Guys, I've been putting together an objection based mostly on ecology about Elton Reservoir environs being allocated to housing. This is my area. So with the help of Peter Baron and Steven Higginbottom I have the attached list pertaining to birds. I have interrogated NBN Gateway for many of the statuses. The NBN is only as good as what is put in so I have had to double check (and found more statuses) via googling Section 41 birds JNCC, OSPAR, BTO list of protected birds, and indeed the Wildlife and Countryside Act S 1.1. I have not included birds that can be shot except in the close season Sections as that sort of undermines what we are trying to do. Please note no locational stuff is being used. However if I don't use it we lose it. Hopefully you can add to this list with more species. For instance below someone mentions Tree Sparrow and that has not been recorded by my allies in this endeavour. Hopefully you can use this to present your own bird data, for this site or your own site that you are trying to protect. Feel free to copy and paste into your own objections, though myself and the three named contributors would want a credit. Took me a couple of days this. Enjoy and do please object. A word file is attached. Objections to gmsf@agma.gov.uk by 23.59 on 16th Jan 2017.
Please don't quote me out of context Ian. We have two weeks to get our objections in. Most people are only just finding out about this. I know so much about the County but with the best will in the word I cannot write a report of objection on everywhere I care about in that time, or the time that has gone. Aside from raising awareness amongst the general public, like putting up posters everywhere and designing leaflets, and getting the deadline extended (which is down to me btw) I have to concentrate on my protecting my life's work. Which is where I live - the sites in Bury, especially Elton/Walshaw. And which are the areas I want to save the most. The system is designed to oppose us.
I was part of Bury Folk Against Manchester Spatial Network and had to constantly tell people to put down the name of the allocations they were objecting to as if they did not state an area their objection would not be lodged against any area. So you must list the areas you want to protect.
-- Edited by David Bentley on Monday 2nd of January 2017 03:45:08 PM
John Watson said
Sun Jan 1 12:19 PM, 2017
Absolutely agree, Ian, it's about conservation & preserving the Green Belt & other green areas. Once gone, they will never come back
The GMSF is a sensible approach in theory, though I think the extent of expansion is higher than actually required. There is a trend, though, to close the Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester gap & make the entire region a contiguous conurbation
It's worth noting that Andy Burnham is very likely to become GM Mayor, and will be very influential. I'd guess he's interested at the moment in keeping supporters. His voting track record is in favour of many conservation topics, but oddly not in greater regulation of fracking
I'm sure GM has numerous "brownfield" sites. The GMSF needs keen eyes to spot & report them ...
Ian McKerchar said
Sat Dec 31 8:49 PM, 2016
“That depends where you live and what area you want to protect”
Does it really depend on where you live as to which GMSF proposals you'll object to? Is this really about not letting them build in our back yard, where we take our dog for a walk or on our local birding patch or is it about really trying to save our wildlife habitats and the wildlife which go with them?
Whilst some sites with organised individuals and large nearby conurbations which are prepared to object to any proposals are likely to receive a good number of objections, other less well birded areas lacking in direct conurbations and yet which contain some of the most important habitats and wildlife in the county are likely to be overlooked. Take Chat Moss for instance, probably the county’s rarest habitat with more Yellow and Amber List Birds of Conservation Concern species than any other area and is under serious pressure from the GMSF but is likely to be one of the least objected areas merely due to its relatively low profile and poorly understood importance. For me, this is not about objecting to only those proposals which directly affect us personally but objecting to as many as possible, if not all of them! Frankly, we don’t want any of them on any of our green belt land and wildlife rich.
So please, please object to as many proposals as you can but certainly the more significant sites of county importance. You will note that the original GMSF thread which started way back in January 2016 is now a sticky post at the top of this discussion forum so it is always easy to find and as there are two threads running simultaneously for this topic it will become the primary thread and this one will be closed; so please add further information etc onto that thread so it’s all in the one place.
The final words from me are that your bird records have never been of more significant importance. The Greater Manchester Bird Recording Group (GMBRG) has been very (very) busy supplying its huge amount of records (submitted by county birders) in the fight against the GMSF proposals and yet many areas under threat and which have good observer coverage still have a relatively poor amount of records which are useful in these objections. I cannot stress enough how important it is to officially submit your records to the GMBRG (see the ‘Greater Manchester needs you bird sightings’ thread) as it is these and pretty much only these records which are used by developers when it comes down to it. Whilst there has been a recent panic in requests for us to supply data against GMSF it should also be remembered that the GMSF proposals run to 2035 and in that we need as many records as possible in the future regardless of what happens to the current proposals as they will be back!!
Please see the first posts in this thread for further information on how to object to the GMSF.
Ian McKerchar said
Sat Dec 31 8:48 PM, 2016
Originally posted today by Ian Boote:
If you don't want a large piece of concrete coming to a place near you get the objections in before the deadline.
This is county wide and a massive plan who's predictions of need are based on pre brexit 2015 growth forecast of 2.3% for GMC
Their own consultants Oxford Economics current 2016 post Brexit forcast is growth in of 1.1% in 2017 and 1.4% in 2018. OEs made further predictions that if the UK economy could be 3.5% of GDP below where it was in their previous forecast to 2035. These later figures have not been printed when it was reported they would be in December 2016.
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework are keeping to the 2015 higher figures to justify their predictions and state
Whatever the outcome, Greater Manchesters ambition to achieve a high growth future in line with the Accelerated Growth Scenario 2015 scenario remains as appropriate and credible now as before the Referendum
This is not about a plan for GMC or affordable housing which have merit but inappropriate release of green belt land.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab) in debate on the GMSF echoed these concerns
The idea of the spatial framework therefore is good, but I am not absolutely convinced that in its current mode it is fit for purpose. Four areas seem to have been identified this afternoon: the inadequate evidence base for the green-belt proposals, and too much reliance on the green belt in the framework plan; the lack of protection for green space in the plan; the democratic deficit, given that we are not sure who will make the decisions about the plan; and the lack of ambition and imagination in relation to the areas needs.
.
There therefore seems to be a complete lack of an evidence base to enable councils to build on the green belt. Furthermore, they have not demonstrated clearly that brownfield development will not be enough, and that needs to be done in some detail, because the Government now require a brownfield register to be put together. We simply have not seen that, and it has certainly not been subject to enough scrutiny.
Ian Boote said
Tue Mar 22 6:42 PM, 2016
Much of Elton is owned by the same land holder as the Spenmoor development. This was not green belt but contained a SBI. The consultation on Spenmoor involved detailed ecological assessments which relied on records in some cases many many decades old. The picture was in part very different and this was only proved with new detailed records. If its not recorded it cannot be taken into account in any assessment. Hence recording finds of flora and fauna via Rhodis has never been more important and is crucial.
Simon Johnson said
Thu Mar 10 1:11 PM, 2016
I hadn't seen this until last night when it was posted on social media.
It made me feel sick looking at the sites that have been listed in Bury. The Whole of Elton seems to be earmarked along with some other (what i think) are important sites for breeding Lapwing, Tree Sparrow etc in this area.
Depressing stuff
Steve Atkins said
Wed Mar 9 10:20 PM, 2016
Thanks again to Dave Steel for bringing this update to my attention. To cut to the quick and view the sites submitted for development here is the map link
A layer showing areas of ecological importance will be added to the map in due course.
You are receiving this message to keep you updated with work on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF), following the recent consultation on a vision, objectives and strategic options for the GMSF as well as the call for sites exercise.
All of the consultation responses and sites submitted to the call for sites so far are now being published, so that residents, local businesses and other key stakeholders can see the material submitted.
The consultation ran from 9 November 2015 to 11 January 2016 and more than 16,000 people were written to, inviting them to respond to the consultation or submit a site they felt might be suitable for development.
Greater Manchester's local authorities have formed no views about the submissions to the consultation or the call for sites. Decisions on the consultation submissions and whether sites will, or will not be, supported will be made at a later stage and when the draft GMSF is produced in autumn 2016.
We will share more information about these stages as they are reached.
Please note, the sites submitted through the call for sites are currently being analysed but the opportunity to submit other sites also remains open and can be done via the GMCA web pages at www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/gmsf
Please contact the GM Planning and Housing Team should you require any more information.
Regards
Anne Morgan
Strategic Planning Manager
-- Edited by Steve Atkins on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 10:21:04 PM
Steve Atkins said
Sun Jan 10 10:21 PM, 2016
David Walsh wrote:
The jist of the initial comments on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework from stakeholders (for which read landowners, developers, and builders) is that the vision lacks ambition.
Worryingly, one of the key comments is a "Call for a green belt review to avoid an over reliance on brownfield sites to give Greater Manchester a "real competitive advantage"", although the comments do not explain how this competitive advantage would be arrived at. At a guess, it could be that houses built on green field sites could be sold for more of a profit, at a higher value, and attract individuals with more ready cash to pump into the local economy?
Steve, are the bird records being used just those already submitted, or will any records sent in over the next few months also be considered?
David,
My understanding is that records submitted up to 20th Jan 2016 to both GMBRG and GMEU will be used in the initial study to identify areas of ecological importance. However, if records received over the next few months identify new areas of importance for biodiversity these may also be taken into account.
As you know, records submitted to the GM Bird Recording Group are used for a multitude of purposes, so it is important to continue submitting records either directly to GMBRG or through GMLRC after this deadline. To outline just a few of the ways in which records are used.
For the selection and review of Sites of Biological Importance
To support the conservation of key species such as Willow Tit
To provide the data needed for the annual county submission to the Rare Breeding Birds Panel who monitor the conservation status of species including Lesser Spotted Woodpecker and Little Ringed Plover
To assess the potential impacts of planning applications on species of conservation concern and to support mitigation measures to protect species which could be impacted
Records can be submitted in a number of ways. These are outlined on Manchester Birding http://www.manchesterbirding.com/recordingcountybirds.htm
Steve
dave broome said
Sun Jan 10 9:15 PM, 2016
Interesting to read that there is very limited opportunity for the designation of any new SBIs. The document also links this with a wide awareness of protected and/or designated sites, especially among developers and agents.
The phrase "lacks ambition" is, of course, subjective. It depends upon what your ambitions are; if they are to to preserve habitat for wildlife, it could be seen as fairly ambitious. If they are to make pots of cash from building projects, then you could argue that letting pesky regulations get in the way lacks vision as well as ambition.
As Steve Atkins says, submitting records is the best tool that we have to affect the outcome. Ranting and raving alone tends to get nowhere.
Steve Suttill said
Sun Jan 10 10:47 AM, 2016
Thanks for posting the link, Steve. Think I'll move house now
Are these builders/developers who say the plan lacks ambition the same builders who have planning permission to put up well over half a million homes in the UK but haven't yet done so. They're all waiting for the chance to make a bigger profit . They don't care about wildlife or indeed anything but the money in their already bulging bank accounts.
David Walsh said
Sun Jan 10 1:19 AM, 2016
The jist of the initial comments on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework from stakeholders (for which read landowners, developers, and builders) is that the vision lacks ambition.
Worryingly, one of the key comments is a "Call for a green belt review to avoid an over reliance on brownfield sites to give Greater Manchester a "real competitive advantage"", although the comments do not explain how this competitive advantage would be arrived at. At a guess, it could be that houses built on green field sites could be sold for more of a profit, at a higher value, and attract individuals with more ready cash to pump into the local economy?
Steve, are the bird records being used just those already submitted, or will any records sent in over the next few months also be considered?
Steve Atkins said
Sat Jan 9 7:57 PM, 2016
Just in case you've not managed to find it, this map is the easiest way to view the land allocated for development in your area
What the document doesn't tell you is that the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit is using the bird records you have submitted to GMBRG since 2008 (and those submitted directly to the Greater Manchester Local Record Centre through RODIS) to identify and map those areas of GM which are important for the ecological network, but not currently designated, or selected for nature conservation (i.e. SAC's, SPA's SSSI's SBI's and LNR's). If anyone is unsure what all these acronyms mean I am happy to list them in full
GMEU's study will feed into the GM Spatial Framework.
So thanks everyone who has submitted records in recent years of birds and other taxonomic groups, either to GMBRG, other local recording groups or directly to the GM Local Record Centre.
Steve Atkins said
Sat Jan 9 7:41 PM, 2016
Thanks to Dave Steel for drawing my attention to this public consultation on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework and apologies for the late post. There will be a further public consultation, probably in March 2016 once more work has been completed.
The ten local authorities in Greater Manchester are working together to develop a new spatial framework and the latest stage of work was published for consultation last November
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework will support the city-region to make the most of its towns and neighbourhoods and support development to benefit local people. This means supporting our town centres, building new quality homes and attracting businesses.
The Framework will identify the land Greater Manchester needs to meet demand for housing and business development and will help manage the supply of land across the city-region. This will include:
Determining how many new homes and how much land we need for new jobs over the next 20 years, as well as identify broad locations or areas for development
Identifying infrastructure (things like transport links and public services) required to support development
Identifying ways to protect the city-region's green space alongside development so that we develop great places where people want to live, work and visit.
A draft vision and a set of strategic objectives for the Framework have been produced over the last few months. In addition, a number of strategic options have also been developed, these outline a range of land requirements for housing and business over the next twenty years.
Greater Manchester is now welcoming views on the draft vision and strategic objectives for the Framework as well as feedback on the options and the evidence used to produce them. These views will be used to shape the ongoing development of a Draft Framework, which is expected to be completed, ready for consultation, by the end of 2016.
For further information on the consultation and to download the strategic options document and accompanying evidence base please visit www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/GMSF
Hard copies of documents may also be viewed at each Salford library during normal opening hours.
The consultation will run until 11 January 2016 and comments may be made:
Online at http://gmsf-consult.objective.co.uk
By email to GMSF@agma.gov.uk
By post to: Greater Manchester Integrated Support Team
Po Box 532
Town Hall
Manchester
M60 2LA
All comments must be received by 11th January 2016.
Identifying possible development sites
Alongside this consultation Greater Manchester is also asking local residents, businesses and land owners and developers to identify sites that they think could be suitable for housing or employment development. This will help to determine whether there are areas of land available for development that individual districts or Greater Manchester are not currently aware of. To submit any sites that you feel are suitable please visit www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/GMSF
Please note you will need to register with Greater Manchester to ensure that you continue to receive information about the spatial framework. This can be done by using the link http://gmsf-consult.objective.co.uk
Thanks Chris for bringing this to people's attention. Tim Wilcox also put a separate post on regarding the proposals for Carrington Moss.
The GM Bird Recording Group submitted a response to the consultation and we have objected to the following allocations:
"New" Carrington (Part of Carrington Moss)
Elton Reservoir Area
Heywood/Pilsworth (Northern Gateway)
North of Irlam Station (part of Cadishead Moss)
"Port" Salford Extension (part of Barton Moss)
Simister and Bowlee (Northern Gateway)
Stakehill
I know other GMBRG recorders have also submitted responses.
There were probably other sites which merited a response but not enough hours in the day to object to them all. As you said, the consultation made it clear that it wasn't necessary to reply to everything, so we focused on those sites whose loss to development will have the biggest impact on GM's birds and other wildlife.
An alternative approach would perhaps have justified a different title Making Space for People and Nature with reference to Professor Sir John Lawton's independent review of England's wildlife sites and ecological network Making Space for Nature which was published in 2010 and "concluded unequivocally that England's collection of wildlife areas is fragmented and does not represent a coherent and resilient ecological network capable of responding to the challenges of climate change and other pressures."
Here we are 11 years later and the Natural History Museum has just published a Report on Biodiversity Loss which states that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world - in the bottom 10%
So if Places for Everyone is implemented in its current form they can't say that they weren't warned.
Just a reminder that the new version of this called Places for Everyone is out for public consultation. The final dates for submission is tomorrow. Bit of a hefty one, but you don't have to read and reply to all of it to make your views known.
I think it should be re titled No Place for Green Space myself.
Also, it seems there are any number of warehouses being built near the motorways - the land for just one of these could instead provide housing for hundreds of people
I had a brief look at the revised draft last night, and from what i could see, the Timperley Wedge will still be using a lot of greenfield land, ie fields. I didn't compare this draft with the previous, but nonetheless from the latest map it's clear that a lot of countryside will become houses.
I remember reading an article about a year ago about the housing shortage, i can't recall where but it seemed unbiased. The thrust of it was that house prices are too high, so the government wants a lot of new houses built to flood the market and bring down prices - as i understand it that was the governments own reasoning, basic supply and demand economics. As a single 47 year old who is unable to afford a mortgage, so is stuck with renting, this on the face of it may seem like a good idea. However there are surely other factors involved in house prices other than the overall number of houses? About 15(?) years ago a friend had to sell their house, just as house prices crashed, i imagine many folks can recall that. There were clearly fewer houses then than now, yet prices were lower... I've read somewhere that house prices rise and fall in a cyclical nature. I'd be interested in informed opinion on whether Britain needs a lot of new houses on greenfield sites..
One other thing is that this morning i was walking past what (i guess) would be called flats, on the Baguley side of Brooklands roundabout alongside the railway line and Brooks Drive - they weren't 60's concrete tower blocks, more 70's brick things, more squat and rectangular and not as tall. These would, i assume, be classed as high density. I was struck by how much green space there was around them. These seem out of favour now and semi-detached are more the norm. I don't understand why parking is not provided on the ground floor, with living space above, allowing space for a front garden.
I don't know many of the areas earmarked for development, but some seem to have been reduced in favour of Green Belt. Small compensation in a very aggressive long-term plan.
Everyone in the building industry must be rubbing their hands with delight
Looks a disaster for the Leigh area released today,Basically looks like every bit of green around Leigh Bar the water at the flash is going to be built on in the new plan ,why is the land south of the flash or the land to the west of Gibfield classed as brownfield?that's always been agricultural land and the north of Tyldesley sounds like there's little hope for Cutacre , there,s going to be nothing left around the Leigh area and this is supposed to be to save our Green Belt .
https://www.wigan.gov.uk/News/Articles/2019/January/New-draft-plan-unveiled-for-the-Greater-Manchester-Spatial-Framework.aspx?fbclid=IwAR288LznF9lHxupgOI35vPImceSBqO1teVhIZriG2ZfHGC8Pgh5pl798mNo
-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Monday 7th of January 2019 08:50:55 PM
Plans for Bury announced here
https://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/17338732.how-the-revised-gm-spatial-framework-could-affect-bolton/
and
http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/bury-council/pressreleases/jobs-and-homes-the-plan-for-the-borough-of-burys-prosperity-2820829
I understand your sentiment here, David, but I disagree fundamentally, politicians are elected to represent our best interests, therefore, in 2017 when climate change and the environment are such massive issues, plus the reality that we are likely to rely more and more on the Green Economy and the Tourism Industry, with EcoTourism a huge growing industry globally, our politicians should have enough ecological knowledge to be able to plan properly for the future
-- Edited by Dave Wilson on Thursday 23rd of March 2017 09:24:48 AM
If they haven't, then we only have ourselves to blame.
If you are on facebook, there are many regional groups being formed !
Yes, I have had one James. Probably means they're going to send the 'boys' round to teach us a lesson.
Dear Mr James Walsh
You have been registered by Greater Manchester Spatial Framework because you have either stated interest in taking part in online consultations, asked to be on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework consultation database or have responded via letter or email to a current consultation
Has anyone else received an email like this ? It also includes a link to a Consultation Portal
Greater Manchesters' Save Our Greenbelt Groups are hosting a rally in Manchester
A decent opportunity to show the strength of feeling for our environment
Banners, placards and whistles at the ready! Let's make some noise!
Hi Guys, I've been putting together an objection based mostly on ecology about Elton Reservoir environs being allocated to housing. This is my area. So with the help of Peter Baron and Steven Higginbottom I have the attached list pertaining to birds. I have interrogated NBN Gateway for many of the statuses. The NBN is only as good as what is put in so I have had to double check (and found more statuses) via googling Section 41 birds JNCC, OSPAR, BTO list of protected birds, and indeed the Wildlife and Countryside Act S 1.1. I have not included birds that can be shot except in the close season Sections as that sort of undermines what we are trying to do. Please note no locational stuff is being used. However if I don't use it we lose it. Hopefully you can add to this list with more species. For instance below someone mentions Tree Sparrow and that has not been recorded by my allies in this endeavour. Hopefully you can use this to present your own bird data, for this site or your own site that you are trying to protect. Feel free to copy and paste into your own objections, though myself and the three named contributors would want a credit. Took me a couple of days this. Enjoy and do please object. A word file is attached. Objections to gmsf@agma.gov.uk by 23.59 on 16th Jan 2017.
Dave Bentley Big2@davebentleyecology.co.uk
Please don't quote me out of context Ian. We have two weeks to get our objections in. Most people are only just finding out about this. I know so much about the County but with the best will in the word I cannot write a report of objection on everywhere I care about in that time, or the time that has gone. Aside from raising awareness amongst the general public, like putting up posters everywhere and designing leaflets, and getting the deadline extended (which is down to me btw) I have to concentrate on my protecting my life's work. Which is where I live - the sites in Bury, especially Elton/Walshaw. And which are the areas I want to save the most. The system is designed to oppose us.
I was part of Bury Folk Against Manchester Spatial Network and had to constantly tell people to put down the name of the allocations they were objecting to as if they did not state an area their objection would not be lodged against any area. So you must list the areas you want to protect.
-- Edited by David Bentley on Monday 2nd of January 2017 03:45:08 PM
The GMSF is a sensible approach in theory, though I think the extent of expansion is higher than actually required. There is a trend, though, to close the Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester gap & make the entire region a contiguous conurbation
It's worth noting that Andy Burnham is very likely to become GM Mayor, and will be very influential. I'd guess he's interested at the moment in keeping supporters. His voting track record is in favour of many conservation topics, but oddly not in greater regulation of fracking
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10766/andy_burnham/leigh/votes
I'm sure GM has numerous "brownfield" sites. The GMSF needs keen eyes to spot & report them ...
“That depends where you live and what area you want to protect”
Does it really depend on where you live as to which GMSF proposals you'll object to? Is this really about not letting them build in our back yard, where we take our dog for a walk or on our local birding patch or is it about really trying to save our wildlife habitats and the wildlife which go with them?
Whilst some sites with organised individuals and large nearby conurbations which are prepared to object to any proposals are likely to receive a good number of objections, other less well birded areas lacking in direct conurbations and yet which contain some of the most important habitats and wildlife in the county are likely to be overlooked. Take Chat Moss for instance, probably the county’s rarest habitat with more Yellow and Amber List Birds of Conservation Concern species than any other area and is under serious pressure from the GMSF but is likely to be one of the least objected areas merely due to its relatively low profile and poorly understood importance. For me, this is not about objecting to only those proposals which directly affect us personally but objecting to as many as possible, if not all of them! Frankly, we don’t want any of them on any of our green belt land and wildlife rich.
So please, please object to as many proposals as you can but certainly the more significant sites of county importance. You will note that the original GMSF thread which started way back in January 2016 is now a sticky post at the top of this discussion forum so it is always easy to find and as there are two threads running simultaneously for this topic it will become the primary thread and this one will be closed; so please add further information etc onto that thread so it’s all in the one place.
The final words from me are that your bird records have never been of more significant importance. The Greater Manchester Bird Recording Group (GMBRG) has been very (very) busy supplying its huge amount of records (submitted by county birders) in the fight against the GMSF proposals and yet many areas under threat and which have good observer coverage still have a relatively poor amount of records which are useful in these objections. I cannot stress enough how important it is to officially submit your records to the GMBRG (see the ‘Greater Manchester needs you bird sightings’ thread) as it is these and pretty much only these records which are used by developers when it comes down to it. Whilst there has been a recent panic in requests for us to supply data against GMSF it should also be remembered that the GMSF proposals run to 2035 and in that we need as many records as possible in the future regardless of what happens to the current proposals as they will be back!!
Please see the first posts in this thread for further information on how to object to the GMSF.
If you don't want a large piece of concrete coming to a place near you get the objections in before the deadline.
This is county wide and a massive plan who's predictions of need are based on pre brexit 2015 growth forecast of 2.3% for GMC
Their own consultants Oxford Economics current 2016 post Brexit forcast is growth in of 1.1% in 2017 and 1.4% in 2018. OEs made further predictions that if the UK economy could be 3.5% of GDP below where it was in their previous forecast to 2035. These later figures have not been printed when it was reported they would be in December 2016.
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework are keeping to the 2015 higher figures to justify their predictions and state
Whatever the outcome, Greater Manchesters ambition to achieve a high growth future in line with the Accelerated Growth Scenario 2015 scenario remains as appropriate and credible now as before the Referendum
This is not about a plan for GMC or affordable housing which have merit but inappropriate release of green belt land.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab) in debate on the GMSF echoed these concerns
The idea of the spatial framework therefore is good, but I am not absolutely convinced that in its current mode it is fit for purpose. Four areas seem to have been identified this afternoon: the inadequate evidence base for the green-belt proposals, and too much reliance on the green belt in the framework plan; the lack of protection for green space in the plan; the democratic deficit, given that we are not sure who will make the decisions about the plan; and the lack of ambition and imagination in relation to the areas needs.
.
There therefore seems to be a complete lack of an evidence base to enable councils to build on the green belt. Furthermore, they have not demonstrated clearly that brownfield development will not be enough, and that needs to be done in some detail, because the Government now require a brownfield register to be put together. We simply have not seen that, and it has certainly not been subject to enough scrutiny.
Much of Elton is owned by the same land holder as the Spenmoor development. This was not green belt but contained a SBI. The consultation on Spenmoor involved detailed ecological assessments which relied on records in some cases many many decades old. The picture was in part very different and this was only proved with new detailed records. If its not recorded it cannot be taken into account in any assessment. Hence recording finds of flora and fauna via Rhodis has never been more important and is crucial.
It made me feel sick looking at the sites that have been listed in Bury. The Whole of Elton seems to be earmarked along with some other (what i think) are important sites for breeding Lapwing, Tree Sparrow etc in this area.
Depressing stuff
Thanks again to Dave Steel for bringing this update to my attention. To cut to the quick and view the sites submitted for development here is the map link
http://mappinggm.org.uk/call-for-sites/development-sites.htm
A layer showing areas of ecological importance will be added to the map in due course.
You are receiving this message to keep you updated with work on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF), following the recent consultation on a vision, objectives and strategic options for the GMSF as well as the call for sites exercise.
All of the consultation responses and sites submitted to the call for sites so far are now being published, so that residents, local businesses and other key stakeholders can see the material submitted.
You can view the submissions to the consultation and the call for sites so far through the GMCA web pages www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/gmsf
The consultation ran from 9 November 2015 to 11 January 2016 and more than 16,000 people were written to, inviting them to respond to the consultation or submit a site they felt might be suitable for development.
Greater Manchester's local authorities have formed no views about the submissions to the consultation or the call for sites. Decisions on the consultation submissions and whether sites will, or will not be, supported will be made at a later stage and when the draft GMSF is produced in autumn 2016.
We will share more information about these stages as they are reached.
Please note, the sites submitted through the call for sites are currently being analysed but the opportunity to submit other sites also remains open and can be done via the GMCA web pages at www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/gmsf
Please contact the GM Planning and Housing Team should you require any more information.
Regards
Anne Morgan
Strategic Planning Manager
-- Edited by Steve Atkins on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 10:21:04 PM
David,
My understanding is that records submitted up to 20th Jan 2016 to both GMBRG and GMEU will be used in the initial study to identify areas of ecological importance. However, if records received over the next few months identify new areas of importance for biodiversity these may also be taken into account.
As you know, records submitted to the GM Bird Recording Group are used for a multitude of purposes, so it is important to continue submitting records either directly to GMBRG or through GMLRC after this deadline. To outline just a few of the ways in which records are used.
Records can be submitted in a number of ways. These are outlined on Manchester Birding http://www.manchesterbirding.com/recordingcountybirds.htm
Steve
Interesting to read that there is very limited opportunity for the designation of any new SBIs. The document also links this with a wide awareness of protected and/or designated sites, especially among developers and agents.
http://www.turley.co.uk/intelligence/greater-manchester-spatial-framework-lacking-ambition
The phrase "lacks ambition" is, of course, subjective. It depends upon what your ambitions are; if they are to to preserve habitat for wildlife, it could be seen as fairly ambitious. If they are to make pots of cash from building projects, then you could argue that letting pesky regulations get in the way lacks vision as well as ambition.
As Steve Atkins says, submitting records is the best tool that we have to affect the outcome. Ranting and raving alone tends to get nowhere.
Are these builders/developers who say the plan lacks ambition the same builders who have planning permission to put up well over half a million homes in the UK but haven't yet done so. They're all waiting for the chance to make a bigger profit
Worryingly, one of the key comments is a "Call for a green belt review to avoid an over reliance on brownfield sites to give Greater Manchester a "real competitive advantage"", although the comments do not explain how this competitive advantage would be arrived at. At a guess, it could be that houses built on green field sites could be sold for more of a profit, at a higher value, and attract individuals with more ready cash to pump into the local economy?
Steve, are the bird records being used just those already submitted, or will any records sent in over the next few months also be considered?
Just in case you've not managed to find it, this map is the easiest way to view the land allocated for development in your area
http://mappinggm.org.uk/call-for-sites/development-sites.htm
What the document doesn't tell you is that the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit is using the bird records you have submitted to GMBRG since 2008 (and those submitted directly to the Greater Manchester Local Record Centre through RODIS) to identify and map those areas of GM which are important for the ecological network, but not currently designated, or selected for nature conservation (i.e. SAC's, SPA's SSSI's SBI's and LNR's). If anyone is unsure what all these acronyms mean I am happy to list them in full
GMEU's study will feed into the GM Spatial Framework.
So thanks everyone who has submitted records in recent years of birds and other taxonomic groups, either to GMBRG, other local recording groups or directly to the GM Local Record Centre.
Thanks to Dave Steel for drawing my attention to this public consultation on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework and apologies for the late post. There will be a further public consultation, probably in March 2016 once more work has been completed.
The ten local authorities in Greater Manchester are working together to develop a new spatial framework and the latest stage of work was published for consultation last November
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework will support the city-region to make the most of its towns and neighbourhoods and support development to benefit local people. This means supporting our town centres, building new quality homes and attracting businesses.
The Framework will identify the land Greater Manchester needs to meet demand for housing and business development and will help manage the supply of land across the city-region. This will include:
A draft vision and a set of strategic objectives for the Framework have been produced over the last few months. In addition, a number of strategic options have also been developed, these outline a range of land requirements for housing and business over the next twenty years.
Greater Manchester is now welcoming views on the draft vision and strategic objectives for the Framework as well as feedback on the options and the evidence used to produce them. These views will be used to shape the ongoing development of a Draft Framework, which is expected to be completed, ready for consultation, by the end of 2016.
For further information on the consultation and to download the strategic options document and accompanying evidence base please visit www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/GMSF
Hard copies of documents may also be viewed at each Salford library during normal opening hours.
The consultation will run until 11 January 2016 and comments may be made:
Po Box 532
Town Hall
Manchester
M60 2LA
All comments must be received by 11th January 2016.
Identifying possible development sites
Alongside this consultation Greater Manchester is also asking local residents, businesses and land owners and developers to identify sites that they think could be suitable for housing or employment development. This will help to determine whether there are areas of land available for development that individual districts or Greater Manchester are not currently aware of. To submit any sites that you feel are suitable please visit www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/GMSF
Please note you will need to register with Greater Manchester to ensure that you continue to receive information about the spatial framework. This can be done by using the link http://gmsf-consult.objective.co.uk