It has been argued that Greater Manchester has a choice. Either build on the green belt and have more high-rise in the city centre, or have insufficient new homes for an expanding population. Let’s examine this claim.
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) suggested that there was a need to build 227,200 new homes over 20 yrs or 11,360 per year (according to its favoured “Accelerated growth scenario”).
The CPRE commissioned an independent demographer who concluded, having corrected for errors like double counting, that “The Housing Target should be 9,894 dwellings per annum, 197,885 over the 20-year plan period. This includes a 5% buffer and is in line with past delivery and within the ten Local Authorities’ current five year land supplies.”
So here is the GMSF projection:
|
District |
Total Requirement |
Average Annual Requirement |
Houses (%) |
Flats (%) |
|
Bolton |
16,800 |
840 |
85 |
15 |
|
Bury |
12,500 |
625 |
85 |
15 |
|
Manchester |
55,300 |
2,765 |
15 |
85 |
|
Oldham |
13,700 |
685 |
85 |
15 |
|
Rochdale |
15,500 |
775 |
90 |
10 |
|
Salford |
34,900 |
1,745 |
30 |
70 |
|
Stockport |
19,300 |
965 |
75 |
25 |
|
Tameside |
13,600 |
680 |
80 |
20 |
|
Trafford |
23,100 |
1,155 |
60 |
40 |
|
Wigan |
22,500 |
1,125 |
90 |
10 |
|
Total for GM |
227,200 |
11,360 |
55-60 |
45-40 |
GM Spatial Framework: Table 8.1 Housing requirement
A simple revision of the above table to the CPRE projection, with population estimates corrected would be as follows.
|
District |
Total Requirement |
Average Annual Requirement |
Houses (%) |
Flats (%) |
|
Bolton |
14632 |
732 |
85 |
15 |
|
Bury |
10887 |
544 |
85 |
15 |
|
Manchester |
48165 |
2408 |
15 |
85 |
|
Oldham |
11932 |
597 |
85 |
15 |
|
Rochdale |
13500 |
675 |
90 |
10 |
|
Salford |
30397 |
1520 |
30 |
70 |
|
Stockport |
16810 |
840 |
75 |
25 |
|
Tameside |
11845 |
592 |
80 |
20 |
|
Trafford |
20119 |
1006 |
60 |
40 |
|
Wigan |
19597 |
980 |
90 |
10 |
|
Total for GM |
197885 |
9894 |
55-60 |
45-40 |
What about empty homes? The current number of vacant homes in Greater Manchester: is more than 11,000. This would still suggest a need for new build to keep place with demographic change.
Since in GMSF, 72% (163,584) of new home construction is on brownfield sites, therefore 63,616 on Greenfields, these CPRE figures would imply 34,301 on Greenfield sites, other things being equal (i.e. using the figure of 163,584 built on Brownfields which GMSF believes feasible).
But are other things equal? “Previously local authorities across Greater Manchester achieved between 80%-90% brownfield development.” (CPRE) Applying this range to the GMSF target would mean 181,760 to 204,480 on Brownfields and 45,440 to 22,720 on Greenfield sites.
Assuming that these higher levels on brownfield sites could be achieved (and there is evidence of under-identification of brownfield sites) and then applying them to the downwardly revised total target this would mean a Brownfield shortfall of 16,125 units (at 80%) or a surplus of 6,595 homes (at 90%).
None of this takes into account the option of increased medium-rise development. This is a “missing element” in UK cities, which sprawl considerably more than their continental counterparts. See Stuart MacDonald’s discussion (video and slides from 1hr:36m) at Manchester council for this argument. The “missing in-between” is a key flaw in the argument put forward by Manchester’s leader Sir Richard Leese, that there is a simple choice between high rise in the city centre or green belt sprawl.
Conclusions
If we combine,
1) corrected population projections,
2) feasibly higher levels of brownfields construction,
3) more medium rise construction (i.e. greater density, both new build and building up from existing stock/foundations),
then there is likely to be no need to build on green fields.
Sources:
CPRE (2017) Response to the Draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
http://www.cprelancashire.org.uk/news/current-news/item/2400-greater-manchester-spatial-framework
GMCA (2016) Draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
https://gmsf.objective.co.uk/file/4222688
Manchester Evening News (14 October, 2016) More than 11,000 empty homes in Greater Manchester.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/property/more-11000-empty-homes-greater-12020628
Steady State Manchester 
Do we need greater housing equity?; to factor in the extent housing is used for housing need? Danny Dorling* says – By 2011 the most spaciously housed tenth of the population had five times as many rooms per person than the most overcrowded tenth. This inequality in the provision of housing has not been greater since the census of 1911 and probably never.
* In Policy, politics, health and housing in the UK published in Policy & Politics
• vol 43 • no 2 • 163-80 • © Policy Press 2015 • #PPjnl @policy_politics
Print ISSN 0305 5736 • Online ISSN 1470 8442 • http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557315X14259845316193
The Government figures do not reflect the true extent of vacant dwellings and the figures are out of date (2015). Also the reduction in empty dwellings, especially in Manchester, has been the needless demolition of council homes. The last spate, of approximately 400 dwellings, where along Rochdale Road and Holts Town. The official figure for all empty dwellings in Greater Manchester is 32,637, as of 2015. (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519505/LT_615.xls)
Labour councils were quick, to rid themselves of council homes and even demolish them, to make way for ‘homes-to-buy’. The ‘bed-room tax’ and benefit cuts, have left many people unable to even afford housing association homes. Private rental properties are far too expensive and many lay vacant for years. There are still dwellings empty in places like the Chips Building and Jackson Wharf, Ancoats alone!
It is not new homes we need, but a return to a housing policy and benefits system of equality and fairness.
The present system only benefits property developers, who cause the housing bubbles.
Thanks for the information and link.
See new housing estimates and land identification from GMCA: https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/news/article/288/greater_manchester_publishes_land_available_for_jobs_and_homes
The number of new homes needed has been revised downwards to 200,000 – close to the CPRE estimate. The estimated number of homes that can be built on brownfield sites is now up to 175,000, an increase of 12,000. There is still some way to go but the closing of the gap is to be welcomed. However, it remains unclear where the revised housing estimates come from and there is no discussion of the other factors that we, and those commenting on our post, have raised.
Pingback: We need a A Social-Ecological Spatial Framework | Steady State Manchester
If we now apply the new ONS population projections we find that the number of estimated new homes will be roughly the number that GMSF now say can be built on brownfield sites.
This is based on applying the reduced population growth estimate pro rata to the number of homes that were projected as being needed in the 2016 GMSF: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nWcy_w4sZF86umUc26tuSBDJDBWnO3i- That’s a bit crude but it does suggest that the pressure should now be off the Green Belt. That still leaves out the other factors we and others have raised. See SSM’s latest piece on the politics of the GMSF and the possibility of a different model altogether: https://steadystatemanchester.net/2018/05/22/we-need-a-a-social-ecological-spatial-framework/