Quorum loses Bredbury Gateway appeal
A planning inspector has dismissed the developer’s attempt to build 1m sq ft of industrial space, a project refused by Stockport Council last year.
Paul Cook, director of Quorum Estates, told Place North West that “we are hugely disappointed with the Inspector’s decision”.
Quorum Estates, advised by Lichfields, launched its appeal in autumn last year, having seen its plans to extend Bredbury Industrial Estate in a 76-acre development stretching to the River Tame knocked back.
The firm had sought outline consent for 574,000 sq ft of industrial space and full permission for 429,000 sq ft at the site, plans rejected by Stockport Council in March 2021 against officer recommendation.
Those plans had initially been well received, and had been scaled down from a larger earlier iteration which could have seen 1.2m sq ft proposed, before concersn from neighbouring Tameside Council led to a reduction.
The March 2021 refusal was appealed by Quorum last autumn, with Lichfields partner Simon Pemberton explaining to Place North West that the area has long been earmarked for development, having been highlighted as an area to be removed from the Green Belt in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
However, Stockport has withdrawn from the GMSF, now known as Places for Everyone, and without any updated guidance the site remains within the Greater Manchester Green Belt – and with national policy giving great weight to not developing on the Green Belt except in very special circumstances, inspector David Rose dismissed the appeal.
Rose’s examination as he set it out addressed three main issues at the proposed site: the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, effect on the character and appearance of the area, and asking if the harm caused would be outweighed by other considerations, making for the “very special circumstances” that would permit development.
In a wide-ranging report, Rose summed up that “there would be very significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and also to three of the five purposes for including land within the Green Belt” adding that substantial weight should be given to this – substantial weight was also given to the adverse effect on the character of the area and visual amenity.
Although substantial weight was also given by Rose to the appellant’s arguments over identified need for warehousing within the borough, and that the jobs provided would make a significant positive impact on nearby areas with high levels of deprivation, that was not enough to win the day.
In his summing up, Rose cited those three Green Belt points: that the scheme would conflict with checking unrestricted sprawl, that it would bring Bredbury and Haughton Green closer together, and that it would not protect the countryside from encroachment.
Quorum director Cook told Place: “We note the Inspector acknowledges Stockport has no employment land supply and are therefore very surprised by the decision, especially in this cost of living crisis, that over 1,200 jobs, so close to one of the most disadvantaged boroughs in the country, does not hold more weight.
“We will now consider our options, and note Stockport Council are required to produce a new Local Plan to accommodate, amongst other things, the employment land need accepted by the Inspector.”
“We will now consider our options, and note Stockport Council are required to produce a new Local Plan to accommodate, amongst other things, the employment land need accepted by the Inspector.”
In short – this isn’t over. But this also isn’t strictly speaking correct – the council have to meet development needs unless (NPPF paragraph 11.b)i.) “the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for
restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area.” One such reason given by the NPPF is greenbelt – and the inspector has been very clear in terms of the weight that should be given in this particular location. Gives the council another massive headache to deal with through their long awaited local plan though, more delay to that process coming soon I reckon.
By Gethin
Poor decision. Stockport clearly now placed in the slow lane to nowhere, with now strategic employment land supply.
By Grumpy Old Git
Ridiculous short sighted decision. Progressive local authorities who want to encourage investment and job creation, in other parts of the north west must be laughing at you Stockport. Have you been to Bredbury Industrial Estate recently? Spoiler – its an industrial estate.
By Concerned Resident
Thank goodness at least one Inspector has held back the tide of Green Belt building. Grumpy Old Git is wrong. Stockport is now better placed to attract quality development based on a strong town centre and a more attractive environment than industrial sprawl would have provided. Ever wonder why all the most pleasant places attract more investment than the despoiled ones?
By Peter Black
I’m glad. Very glad indeed.
By Tom smith
Really surprised at this decision. Stockport has little available land for employment or residential use so its inevitable green belt will have to be developed.
By Anonymous
“Ever wonder why all the most pleasant places attract more investment than the despoiled ones?”
Are you joking? Do you think places such as Salford Quays were “pleasant” before regeneration took place?
By Anonymous
Great decision that has considered the massive impact the development would have on Tameside. The world doesn’t stop at the Stockport boundary and the lack of acknowledgment from the applicant on the development’s impact on Denton and Haughton Green/Dale is appalling!
By Aevis