Category Archives: Objections

Population Growth

Some work has been done to look at the calculation of poulation growth used by the Spatial Framework group.

It is clear that the data they are using is out of date they appear to have used data from 2008/2010. These also do not take into account the effects of a Brexit where we will be able to limit both EU and none EU immigration.

The new figures using 2016 Data predicts that well will not need to build on Green belt at this stage but Brown sites should produce enough area for the extra house required.

See below for further information I am not sure how we would go about forcing the spatial framework group to revisit the population firgures it may require a judicial review of some sort. if there are any lawyers out there this may be one avenue to look into.

If you use the new figures this half the number of houses required in our area. Taking them down to 6 or 7k. This in effect means that Apethorn, and Godley Greenwould not be required on the allocation and that exisiting Brown Belt sites would cope with the extra housing. Tameside currently only require an additional 500 houses per year to cope with current growth rates.

Please add this arguement to any objkections you are making to the Framework


28.8.25 OA25 South Tameside
Ref: Land south west of Apethorn Lane ( 230 houses )  and land east of the A560 at Bowlacre Farm. (380 houses)
Greater Manchester: Strategic Housing Market Assessment, October 2016,  states the following
1.5 The most recent previous comprehensive assessment for Greater Manchester was produced in 2008, with a subsequent review in 2010. This SHMA supersedes those previous documents and therefore presents the most up to date picture in respect of housing need across Greater Manchester. It takes account of up to date population figures available at the time of writing, most notably the 2014 Sub-National Population Projections (SNPP) published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in 2016 and 2014 based Household Projections, published by Communities and Local Government in 2016.
Data collected from the SNPP shows a population for Tameside of 222,148 in 2016 rising to 236,544 in 2035. This increase in population of 14,396 would equate to 6,259 houses at a habitation of 2.3 persons/house.
The justification for the OA25 South Tameside allocation is that 13,700 houses will be required in Tameside by 2035.
Even if an above baseline allowance of 25% was included in the housing requirement figure of 6,259 houses it would still only be 7,824 houses.
This number of new houses could be achieved within the existing brownfield sites without the need to release greenbelt.
The release of greenbelt sites for building development would be a strong disincentive to the rejuvenation of derelict brownfield sites as no developer would use these as a first choice option.
I object strongly to the planning strategy of the GMSF on the grounds that the projected housing requirement is overstated, it relies heavily on greenbelt release and does nothing to ensure that the post industrial derelict sites within our towns are developed as the first priority.
Mr D Morten
83 Apethorn Lane, Gee Cross, SK14 5DL


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 :

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. 

Apethorn Objection

Myself and another resident have submitted objections to the plans the following is a first draft but contains all the main objection points. Such as wildlife, traffic and the joining of separate areas ie Woodley / Gee Cross into one single area.

This can be copied and pasted from this page. Please amend to suit your own objections.

Ref: Land south west of Apethorn Lane ( 230 houses ) and land east of the A560 at Bowlacre Farm. (380 houses)

I feel that the proposed Apethorn development does not conform to the principle of the green belt policy as the development extends to the Woodley boundary and consequently fails to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.

The development also fails to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one and fails to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

Apethorn Lane and the Grade II* Apethorn Farm date back to the early 1500s and a housing development of this scale ( 230 homes at a density of 30 houses/hectare ) would be totally out of character with the semi-rural nature of the lane and would not conserve and enhance the historic environment and heritage assets.

In addition I feel that the green belt pasture that adjoins the SBI at Pole Bank and is include within the allocation forms an intrinsic part of the ecosystem linking with the Tame Valley Nature Reserve and forms a continuous green wildlife corridor with Werneth Low Country Park. The result of overbuilding this site would have a massive negative effect on the local wildlife.

I am concerned about the effect that this development will have on the road infrastructure and traffic flow should it go ahead. The A560 and A627 junction at the top of Apethorn Lane is already gridlocked in all directions at peak times; an additional 610 houses will place an unacceptable burden on the limited road capacity.

No provision has been made to increase school and health care, again an unacceptable burden on limited and overstretched capacity.

In conclusion the draft plan to remove this site from the green belt before an outline plan

( never mind a masterplan ) has been presented is both reckless and unnecessary as the precedent was set by the planning application to develop Stockport Road College site which was passed whilst the site was in green belt with some brown field areas.

This is exactly the same situation it seems to me as the Pear Tree Farm buildings which have been unoccupied for many years and the surrounding green belt pasture.

The negative synergy of this proposal is great and I hope that it is rejected and alternative sites are sought to replace the allocation shortfall preferably on brown field sites and infilling abandoned and derelict sites.

Many of these sites would be small scale but I think this would be more acceptable to existing Tameside residents, distribute traffic flow more favourably and not overwhelm towns