Any objection or as the spatial framework call it ‘Comments’ must be submitted by the 23rd December. It is vital that we get as many people to submit their objections to the government as possible.
It is only by mass action that we stand any hope of stopping at least some of these developments. Any comment or Objection becomes a public document.
In light of this anyone who has objected please tell your neighbours and friends and ask them to submit a similar objection I will list them here as people submit them to our website.
The following is a nice example submitted by Prudence Ramsdon of the Tameside Ramblers Association please feel free to copy edit and submit your own to the framework.
Email Direct : email@example.com
Greater Manchester Spatial Framework; Comments and Views. 28/11/2016
I am writing to state my objections to the proposed massive building project within Greater Manchester and particularly the area in which I live, Tameside.
I will bullet point my objections but firstly I would like to make the point that I am totally against the wholesale rape of our green belt areas which have for many years have saved our communities from the massive industrial pollution caused by the manufacturing industry which is Manchester’s heritage and on which its wealth was built.
- As stated, the mass building on our green belt sites; which are vital to the health of society as a whole. Walking, cycling, horse riding, running, playing etc. improve the health of a nation. We are urged to take more exercise in the great outdoors i.e. in our green spaces. These MUST be preserved. Parks are not an option. Our ancient footpaths and bridleways must be preserved for the enjoyment of everyone.
- The destruction of trees; climate change is a huge issue; trees are essential to combat pollution and they soak up one fifth of carbon emissions caused by humans. In Tameside there has been a big tree planting scheme, what was the point of that if we now face the prospect of them and many more being bulldozed?
- Flooding; recent events show how flooding devastates communities and costs many thousands of pounds to clear up. Green fields, trees and open spaces are an absolute essential to soak up the water. More houses will increase flooding and increase cost to the local authority, quite apart from the effect on peoples’ lives.
- Congestion on the roads; which are gridlocked in all areas of Manchester and not only in ‘rush hour’. Of course more traffic leads to more pollution and as pointed out in the previous paragraph we will have even less trees to help deal with the problem.
- Health; pollution also causes damage to lungs and increases respiratory problems and many other health issues which in turn places extra strain on the NHS.
These are just a few of my objections, however it is true people have to live somewhere.
I would question the validity of the projected number of houses required and to say it must be affordable housing is nonsense.
- There are at present over 650 three bedroomed houses for sale in Tameside and many hundreds of two bedroomed houses for sale. If this is replicated throughout Manchester there must be thousands of houses available. These are much cheaper than any new build houses could ever be and make good first time house buys. There is also a substantial number of empty properties in Tameside presumably owned by private landlords. These should not be allowed to remain empty for more than maybe three months as there is a need on several levels to have these occupied i.e. the obvious need to house people, the bad impression empty homes give to a neighbourhood, the crime they attract to an area, the loss of revenue to the local authority.
- Manchester was the heart of the industrial revolution. If we don’t have Brownfield sites aplenty where the factories of the past once stood then nowhere in the country does!
- I do not know how the figures for each area have been arrived at due to complete lack of publicity surrounding this whole issue, however if Manchester has decided it needs housing for the future then the all the Brownfield sites should be identified and used first, regardless of where they are and what state they are in. If cleaning of a site is required then so be it and the building developers should have to pay for that. ALL the Brownfield sites should be used first and if that requires a better infrastructure, new roads, schools, medical services, then they should be provided in that area.
- If and when the Brownfield sites have been used there should be a reassessment of housing and requirements. We are an ageing population and more housing may not be necessary.
As I said at the beginning of this email the area in which I live, Godley in Tameside, is precious to me. Over the last thirty years we have seen one building development after another take over our green spaces. There are many things we love about living here and the beautiful countryside on our doorstep is a main attraction. Sentiment does not win over hard hearts as far as development is concerned, however I urge you to rethink the scale of development and seriously question the provision of so many houses and industrial premises on so much green belt land.