27th August 2026

Proposed development: Land south-west of Shakespeare Road, Bredbury
Proposal: Erection of 134 affordable dwellings with access, parking, landscaping, pumping station and associated works

To: Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Planning Department

Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to register a formal objection to planning application DC/098893 for the proposed erection of 134 affordable dwellings on land south-west of Shakespeare Road, Bredbury.

I recognise the need for genuinely affordable housing and do not object to development simply because it would result in new homes. However, the need for housing does not remove the requirement for each individual proposal to comply with national and local planning policy, to be supported by adequate evidence, and to demonstrate that its environmental, infrastructure and community impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.

I am concerned that this application has not yet demonstrated that this particular site, and this scale of development, is suitable.

My principal grounds for objection are set out below.

1. Green Belt and the claimed “Grey Belt” status of the site

The application site is currently Green Belt land. The applicant’s apparent reliance on the site’s potential classification as “grey belt” requires particularly careful scrutiny.

The fact that land may be previously enclosed, agricultural, visually contained in part or adjacent to existing development does not, in itself, demonstrate that it fails to make a strong contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt.

The Council should be satisfied, through robust and transparent evidence, that the site does not strongly contribute to relevant Green Belt purposes, including preventing the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another.

In particular, the Council should consider the site not simply as an isolated parcel of land but in the context of the wider area of open countryside and its relationship with Bredbury, Woodley, Romiley and the surrounding Goyt Valley landscape.

I am concerned that approval of this development could weaken the existing defensible boundary between the built-up area and open land and create pressure for further development on adjoining Green Belt land.

The Council should therefore require clear answers to the following questions:

  • What specific evidence demonstrates that this land does not strongly contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt?
  • Has the assessment considered the wider Green Belt parcel and surrounding landscape rather than considering the application boundary in isolation?
  • What assessment has been made of the site’s role in maintaining separation between neighbouring settlements?
  • Would development of this site establish a precedent or create pressure for further development of adjoining land?
  • What would constitute a permanent and defensible Green Belt boundary following development?

Unless these matters can be satisfactorily demonstrated, the Council should not accept the site’s claimed grey belt status.

2. Prematurity and reliance upon the emerging Local Plan

The application appears to rely in part upon the site’s identification for possible future residential development within Stockport’s emerging Local Plan.

However, an emerging allocation is not the same as an adopted allocation.

The Council should carefully consider the weight that can properly be attached to the emerging plan at the date of determination and should not assume that development of the site is inevitable.

Furthermore, if the applicant relies upon the emerging allocation, the Council should establish whether this proposal complies fully with all relevant site-specific requirements, infrastructure expectations, environmental requirements and policy criteria associated with the emerging plan.

The existence of a possible future allocation should not remove the requirement for the current application to be assessed properly against the adopted development plan and all other material considerations.

3. Flood risk, drainage and the proposed pumping station

I have serious concerns regarding surface-water drainage and flood resilience.

The application includes an attenuation feature and a pumping station, which raises important questions regarding the long-term management and resilience of the proposed drainage system.

The Council should be satisfied that the development will not increase flood risk either within the site or elsewhere.

Before any decision is made, the following matters should be clearly demonstrated:

  • The existing drainage characteristics of the site and surrounding area.
  • The location and extent of known surface-water flooding.
  • The destination of surface-water discharge.
  • The capacity of the receiving drainage system.
  • The allowance made for increasingly severe rainfall events associated with climate change.
  • The consequences of mechanical or electrical failure of the proposed pumping station.
  • Whether backup power or other resilience measures are proposed.
  • Who will own, operate and maintain the pumping station and drainage infrastructure in perpetuity.
  • How long-term maintenance and replacement will be funded.
  • Whether any additional runoff could affect existing properties, roads or neighbouring land.

Local residents with evidence of previous flooding, standing water or drainage problems should be encouraged to submit dated photographs and other evidence directly to the Council.

In the absence of clear evidence that the development can be safely drained for its entire lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere, planning permission should not be granted.

4. Highways, access and the impact on Marlowe Walks and surrounding roads

A development of 134 dwellings will inevitably generate a significant number of additional vehicle movements.

The proposed access arrangements, including access through or from the Marlowe Walks area, require detailed assessment.

The Council should be satisfied that the submitted transport evidence accurately reflects real local conditions, including:

  • Morning and afternoon peak traffic.
  • School-run traffic.
  • Existing on-street parking.
  • Vehicle movements at weekends.
  • Pedestrian and cyclist safety.
  • Refuse and service vehicle access.
  • Emergency vehicle access.
  • Construction traffic and the proposed construction route.
  • The cumulative impact of other development in the surrounding area.

General assurances that the highway network can accommodate additional traffic should not be accepted without robust evidence.

Particular attention should be given to existing congestion and parking conditions, especially at times when roads are already under greatest pressure.

If safe and satisfactory access cannot be demonstrated, or if the development would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the local road network, the application should be refused or substantially revised.

5. Impact on ecology, trees, hedgerows and the adjoining natural environment

The site lies close to important natural features, including Vernon Road Wood and established trees and hedgerows.

The Council should ensure that ecological surveys are up to date, have been undertaken during appropriate survey seasons and properly assess the likely presence of protected and notable species.

The ecological assessment should not be limited to direct habitat loss.

It should also consider:

  • Indirect effects upon nearby woodland and ecological sites.
  • Loss or fragmentation of hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
  • The effects of increased lighting.
  • Disturbance caused by construction.
  • Increased recreational pressure.
  • The effects of domestic pets.
  • The adequacy of proposed buffers between development and sensitive habitats.

Any claimed biodiversity net gain should be clearly identified, measurable, deliverable and capable of being secured and maintained over the long term.

The Council should not rely upon vague future landscaping proposals as a substitute for existing mature habitats.

6. Public rights of way and loss of countryside character

The site is affected by, or lies in close proximity to, a number of public rights of way.

The Council should consider not only whether these routes remain legally open, but whether their quality, setting and enjoyment would be materially harmed.

Development could change:

  • The rural character of the routes.
  • Existing views and openness.
  • The relationship between walkers and traffic.
  • Safety and accessibility.
  • The level of lighting and urbanisation.
  • The experience of moving between the built-up area and open countryside.

The retention of a narrow route through or alongside a housing estate should not automatically be treated as an equivalent replacement for an existing countryside footpath.

A full assessment should therefore be undertaken of the impact of the development on the character and enjoyment of all affected public rights of way.

7. Landscape character and the wider setting

The site forms part of the transition between the built-up area and the wider landscape.

The Council should carefully assess the impact of 134 dwellings, roads, parking, lighting, gardens, drainage infrastructure and associated engineering works upon the character of the surrounding landscape.

The assessment should consider:

  • Views into and out of the site.
  • The cumulative visual effect of the development.
  • The loss of openness.
  • The effectiveness of proposed landscaping, particularly during the early years before planting matures.
  • The impact of development at night through increased lighting and domestic activity.
  • The relationship of the development to the wider Goyt Valley landscape.

Existing trees and hedgerows should not be used to conceal inappropriate development unless their long-term protection and retention can genuinely be guaranteed.

8. Infrastructure and the claimed benefits of the proposal

The proposed delivery of affordable housing is an important material consideration. However, the provision of affordable housing does not automatically overcome unacceptable environmental, highway, drainage or infrastructure impacts.

The Council should require clear evidence regarding the capacity of:

  • Local schools.
  • GP and healthcare services.
  • The highway network.
  • Public transport.
  • Drainage and sewerage infrastructure.
  • Open space and recreation facilities.

Where additional infrastructure is necessary, it should be clearly identified, funded and secured before permission is granted.

Any planning benefits relied upon by the applicant should be specific and enforceable rather than general aspirations.

9. Accessibility and consistency of the submitted documents

The Council should ensure that all submitted documents are internally consistent.

In particular, any apparent differences between documents regarding the number or proportion of homes designed to meet higher accessibility or wheelchair-user standards should be clarified before determination.

The Council should know precisely what is being applied for and what development would be approved.

Where submitted documents contain inconsistencies, omissions or materially different descriptions of the proposal, these matters should be resolved publicly before the application is determined.

10. Need for full and transparent assessment

Given the scale of the development, its location on existing Green Belt land and the number of potential constraints affecting the site, I believe that the application should be subject to particularly careful and transparent scrutiny.

The Council should not determine the application until it is satisfied that:

  1. The claimed grey belt status has been properly demonstrated.
  2. The effect upon Green Belt purposes and settlement separation has been fully assessed.
  3. Flood risk and drainage have been satisfactorily resolved.
  4. The long-term operation and maintenance of the pumping station have been secured.
  5. Safe and suitable access can be demonstrated.
  6. Ecological impacts have been properly surveyed and mitigated.
  7. Public rights of way will not suffer unacceptable harm.
  8. Landscape and visual impacts are acceptable.
  9. Necessary infrastructure is deliverable and secured.
  10. All inconsistencies within the submitted application documents have been clarified.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, I object to planning application DC/098893.

This objection is not based upon opposition to affordable housing in principle. Affordable housing is needed, but it must be provided in locations that are demonstrably suitable and through development that does not cause unacceptable harm to the Green Belt, the environment, highway safety, drainage, local infrastructure or the character of the surrounding area.

At present, I do not believe that sufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this development can proceed without unacceptable impacts.

I therefore respectfully request that Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council refuses planning application DC/098893, unless and until the concerns identified above have been fully and satisfactorily addressed.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver
Editor, The Romiley Gazette