High Lane, a village on the outskirts of Stockport, is an attractive place to live – close to plenty of green space with the beauty of the Peak District on the doorstep, but with the prospering city of Manchester within easy reach. An ideal place, some might say, to build some of the Labour government’s promised 1.5m new houses.
But in 2020 Stockport council voted against the proposed Greater Manchester spatial planning framework put forward by Andy Burnham’s Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA). The rebellion came from Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors objecting to green belt development in High Lane and elsewhere in the borough.
In this village, residents thought the battle against further development was won. But now, with a new government making bold pledges to tackle the housing crisis, the sands are shifting again.
The king’s speech on Wednesday is expected to include more than 30 bills including a housebuilding bill that will set out the new government’s bold housing plans.
In her first speech as chancellor, Rachel Reeves promised sweeping changes to the planning system, including mandatory housebuilding targets of 1.5m homes over five years, with a brownfield and “grey belt” first approach to development.
Labour coined the term “grey belt” to describe the poor-quality or ugly land that makes up part of the green belt, such as wasteland and disused car parks. However, critics have said the term needs to be clearly defined – and they fear that developers may “grey” lush and verdant green belt land to allow construction to take place.
High Lane straddles the A6, one of the country’s longest arterial roads, which runs from Luton to Carlisle and on which lorries roar past at regular intervals. Residents worry that the village could expand by as many as 5,000 households, bringing even more traffic to this road and placing a further burden on already stretched infrastructure.
Daniel Hird, 54, the owner of Danny’s Deli on the A6, has been in business for 32 years. He says further development “would have a big impact, on everyone really”.
He says: “Especially after Covid, we should be protecting our green belt. They were going to build 4,000 houses here. We’re going to be in danger of losing all our green spaces. It’s all right to build houses, but then the infrastructure isn’t there to keep up with it – this is a busy road, a very busy road.”
Paul Karslake, 42, an engineer, picking up a sandwich on his lunch break, also worries about the impact that more development would have on local infrastructure. This road is busy, particularly in the mornings, he says, in part because public transport here is lacking. He cannot book his son into extra days at nursery because it is already oversubscribed, and the local hospital, Stepping Hill, is in desperate need of investment.
“If you have 5,000 [more] houses round here, things will start crumbling,” he says. “When they were talking about levelling up in the previous government, I think they completely failed to understand how much money was needed. It’s a broken country at the moment and we’re talking trillions, not billions, to get everything moving.”
Not everyone is opposed to development. Many here recognise the severity of the housing crisis. They think new, young residents would help the village to blossom and many business owners say they would welcome an increase in trade.
“I think it’s a good idea, we’re aware that there’s a housing shortage,” says Simon Dunn, 63, a chocolatier. “And selfishly, it would be good for business, a few more people in the village.”
He is in his 40th year of business, having first set up here in High Lane. “I appreciate that the green belt is sacred,” he adds, “but the population is growing, and certainly where we live we’ve got an abundance of green space.”
His son Oli Dunn, 39, says: “You think about green belt and your initial thought is it’s sacred to maintain the countryside. But at the same time High Lane is up and coming in a way, there’s a shortage of housing, especially new, modern houses.”
Much of the housing stock is older cottages, renovations, doer-uppers. “For a first-time buyer especially, that’s a barrier to entry,” he says.
Chris Pearce, 27, who works at the local garage, is hoping to get on the housing ladder himself within the year. “It’s been really hard, with mortgage prices and what-not,” he says. More building might benefit him. “I don’t think there’s enough housing around here. There’s not enough housing anywhere, certainly for first-time buyers like myself.”
One business owner asks not to be named in the knowledge that many of her customers might hold opposing views. “I think we should be building in High Lane,” she says. “I get it about the green belt. We’re very lucky here, we’re surrounded by lots of fields and green. Losing a little bit of it would be absolutely fine.
“I would be very happy and welcome that as long as it’s affordable housing. But I know that’s not the line with people round here.”
Jackie Copley, of CPRE, the Countryside Charity, does not argue with the need for more affordable housing. However, she says housebuilding targets could be achieved by building on brownfield sites, and that the infrastructure must be there to support growing populations.
“The local community have already argued for this land not to be developed. And the Labour changes would bring it back into play,” she says. “Grey belt is a misnomer and it is going to have an unintended consequence, where anyone who wants to grey their land to get permission will do so.”
Her organisation wants to work with the government to revise the national planning policy framework – another of Reeves’ pledges. Copley says the current strategy, introduced in 2012 by David Cameron’s government, is intrinsically flawed.
She says the government must get to grips with issues at the heart of the housing crisis. “No amount of green belt loss reduces house prices,” she says. “If you don’t tackle the real problems, you are not going to find the real solutions.”
She adds: “We will be appealing to Labour to do what it said on the tin: change.”
