Site Tools


Hotfix release available fixing CVE-2017-12583: 2017-02-19c "Frusterick Manners". upgrade now! [49.3] (what's this?)
Hotfix release available fixing security token and media manager: 2017-02-19b "Frusterick Manners". upgrade now! [49.2] (what's this?)
Hotfix release available fixing install and media manager issues: 2017-02-19a "Frusterick Manners". upgrade now! [49.1] (what's this?)
New release available: 2017-02-19 "Frusterick Manners". upgrade now! [49] (what's this?)
Hotfix release available fixing CVE-2017-12583: 2016-06-26c "Elenor of Tsort". upgrade now! [48.3] (what's this?)
Hotfix release available fixing security token: 2016-06-26b "Elenor of Tsort". upgrade now! [48.2] (what's this?)
jim-mp-full-response

Jim McMahon MP Full response to GMSF

Put the kettle on, grab a pack of custard creams, turn the telly off, switch your phone to airplane mode and fasten your seatbelts. Here it is:

Discuss this with fellow Roytoners on Royton's only online discussion forum: http://www.iloveroyton.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=28062


Full text of the covering letter

Please find enclosed my detailed response to the consultation. I understand and support the production of a Spatial Framework in coordinating future investment across the city region.

There has been a great deal of public backlash against the site allocations and I strongly urge the GMCA to review its evidence base and forecasts which has led to the encroachment into Greenbelt land. I would also urge the GMCA to fully review its priorities and investment strategy if it is serious in rebalancing the economy so that all residents benefit from a thriving city region. A summary of my response is as follows;

  1. Ordered List ItemI recognise the need for and support the development of the GMSF (Greater Manchester Strategic Framework), to provide long term planning on housing, employment, transport and public service infrastructure across Greater Manchester. As the city region receives further devolved powers from government this will become even more important
  2. The evidence base for housing growth supports an aggressive growth strategy which the GMCA (Greater Manchester Combined Authority) may feel is desirable, but is not essential to meet housing demand and is unlikely to deliver balanced growth
  3. The evidence base adopted to inform growth isn’t robust, nor does it provide an accurate forecast of likely growth in population and housing numbers.
  4. Oldham meets its assessed housing supply needs in line with DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) projections without the need to develop Greenbelt land, or other protected open space
  5. The proposals represent a significant overdevelopment of the north of the borough of Oldham which will damage the character of many neighbourhoods
  6. There is an absence of meaningful proposals to redevelop Brownfield sites and to redevelop existing neighbourhoods and employment sites
  7. Oldham and Rochdale are already providing a ‘fair share’ of industrial land for Greater Manchester
  8. That the plan should be subject to a vote by each council (Full Council) prior to a vote taking place by the members of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and before submission to the Secretary of State

I hope my submission and those of all who have contributed lead to the plan being changed. It is vital local people see that devolution ends the continuing short-sightedness and the ‘we know best’ take it or leave it approach often seen from central government. Done well Greater Manchester could develop the countries first strategic community plan.

Yours,

Jim McMahon

jim-mp-full-response.txt · Last modified: 2017/01/16 23:42 by 82.22.178.206