Greater Manchester Spatial Framework: the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning?

So how did we get here?

The seeds of a spatial plan covering the Greater Manchester region were sown in November 2014 when leaders of the 10 local authorities and the then Chancellor George Osborne signed the devolution deal that began the process towards having an elected mayor whose remit included planning powers. A regional plan was mooted at this point; however it was clear that this would be a Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) requiring only approval of the Mayor’s Cabinet of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) to be adopted.

The initial draft of the GMSF was released in 2016 and met an obligated housing and employment requirement of the devolution deal. The draft proposed significant release of Green Belt land in order to deliver homes and employment, representing the strategic level of planning policy for a region of 2.6 million people.

However, following the election of Andy Burnham in 2017 as Greater Manchester’s first mayor, the draft was to be significantly changed to include less Green Belt removal and a lower housing requirement. This new draft was released in 2019, by which time relations between the mayoralty and Whitehall had become strained as a result.

A key strand of GMSF was to release Green Belt directly, something that could only be done under Development Plan Documents (DPDs). GMSF was an SDS at that point and would not be able to do that owing to existing legislation. However, the GMCA was confident that legislation could be amended to permit this. Whitehall did not agree, leaving the framework as a plan that did not have the power to allocate its key sites.

Fast forward to 2020. Following much delay a new draft of the framework was released, rebadged as a DPD, with the increased evidence base to match. The further key difference between a Spatial Development Strategy and a Development Plan Document is that the former only needs the Mayor’s Cabinet’s approval under the conditions of the devolution deal, whereas a DPD needs every authority to approve it at Full Council.

While Greater Manchester is generally considered part of Labour’s heartlands, there are noticeable exceptions. Bolton and Stockport are under no overall control and the latter has proved challenging for Mr Burnham with regards to the GMSF.

While the Council is Labour-led, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the town are opposed to GMSF in its current form. A vote to rubberstamp the 2020 draft for consultation on 17 November was deferred amid fears that it would be voted down. Other councils such as Salford, Bury and Rochdale followed suit in deferring owing to the uncertainty caused by Stockport’s decision.

The Mayor and the Labour leadership in Stockport hoped that opposition could be quelled by concessions. Indeed, last week it was rumoured that a 500 home proposed Green Belt allocation at High Lane would be removed from the plan in an effort to get Conservatives in Stockport on side.

However, at the reconvened Full Council meeting this week, the GMSF was blocked as far as Stockport is concerned, with Conservatives describing concessions as ‘too little, too late’.

So where do we go now?

Prior to the vote Andy Burnham aired the possibility of the 9 remaining councils moving forward without Stockport. Whilst possible, it would mean a substantial rewrite of the plan and the evidence base, which could take months. This would no longer be a Greater Manchester plan and so, at least superficially, some of its gloss will be lost.

Another alternative is that the GMSF is withdrawn altogether and individual authorities begin work on their own plans – also resulting in delays.

Or will the mayor withdraw the plan for now and wait until after the elections in May 2021 to see if political conditions have improved sufficiently to get the plan through each council then?

Despite the vote of Stockport, there remains little certainty…other than further delays.