MAN's proposal

MAN’s planning application was for the construction of up to 200 homes on the ‘big field’ of Mirrlees Fields. Access would be from Bramhall Moor Lane, via Mirrlees Drive, with gated, emergency access from Flowery Field. MAN’s proposal also preserved the Mirrlees Oak tree in the middle of the big field and all public rights of way across the field.

 

MAN included in their application a number of offers that would, in their view, provide benefits to the Council:

 

• Gift the remaining, majority, of the Fields to a charitable organisation, the Land Trust, who would own, manage and maintain the Fields as informal publicly accessible open space for the local community to enjoy. A £1.27million endowment from MAN would provide the finances to allow the Fields to remain a well-managed open space in perpetuity, safeguarding the future of the fields as a community asset for ever.
• £2.1m contribution to the Council to ensure school local schools could accommodate additional children that might move to the new houses.
• Just over £200,000 to completely fund three Stockport Council ‘Climate Action Now’ projects in the local Stepping Hill Committee area.
• 50% of the homes on the development were designated as affordable, using a recognised definition.
• A work and skills agreement to ensure job opportunities created as a result of the development would benefit local people.
• A financial contribution to provide recreation and amenity open space within the development itself.

 

These benefits, in the view of the impartial and independent planning team within the Council, outweighed the harm from the development and the Officer’s recommendation was to approve the planning application.

Our position

When the planning application was submitted, MFFG OPPOSED the application, with the primary reason being that a lot of the detail around the development was to be decided ‘behind closed doors’ as reserved matters and the scale of the development, which was originally smaller but increased at the request of the Council, was too great.

 

We were not concerned with the perceived risk of MAN reneging on the offer to transfer ownership of the rest of the Fields to the Land Trust following the independent legal advice we secured on, amongst other things, the strength of the ‘in-perpetuity’ access (the full report can be found here).

 

Trusting, or not-trusting MAN, was not an issue, the transfer of the Fields and future safeguards were sound.

 

We also noted though that if the application was rejected, the future of the Fields was uncertain as long as they remained in private ownership and the prospect of a sale to a land banking developer, even without planning permission would increase, certainly as MAN have repeatedly said they want to sell the Fields.

 

Even without planning permission, the value of the Fields would likely put them out of reach of any community right to bid initiative and without the finances in place to insure and maintain the fields to a publicly accessible standard, the ‘quality’ of the Fields would not be protected. It was the considerable ongoing liability and maintenance costs that have led the Council to not consider ‘ownership’ and to oppose a Town Green application when MFFG discussed this with them several years ago.

 

Our 15 year experience has shown that volunteer support is not enough to undertake the essential land management that Mirrlees Fields requires nor can a voluntary group secure consistent and sustainable revenue from donations or grants to fund works and public liability insurance needed to maintain the Fields as a publicly accessible, open space.

 

Although opposed to the development, we acknowledged this proposal did offer a solution to the problem of how to secure public access to privately owned land and protect it from development:

 

“Our charitable objectives require us to be sympathetic to a proposal which offers a long term solution for a significant proportion of the site. At this time, we do not recognise any other viable alternative model that would provide this security for Mirrlees Fields.

In the absence of a current, realistically viable alternative, we recognise and welcome the protection for the majority of the area under a S106 agreement and the provision of a sustainable revenue stream for maintenance and management of the site."

 

With the beauty of hindsight, would we have submitted a letter opposing the development? Possibly not.

So what has changed?

Time and distance have allowed reflection and consideration.

 

• Currently, the Fields remain in private ownership, fenced off to address an ill-conceived and incorrect comment in a Council committee meeting which went on public record.
• A ‘Community Asset’ listing does not safeguard the Fields. It gives the community 6 months’ notice to lead a credible bid for the asset, which the seller is not obliged to accept. Even if sufficient funds could be found, MAN would have to want to sell the Fields to the bidding community organisation.
• Ongoing vandalism to fences, incurring costs, and public criticism is making a sale of the land without planning a more attractive and straightforward option. These issues also would not endear any community led bid for the Fields to MAN.
• Housing developers have already expressed interest in buying the fields, without planning permission, to bank the land and await a more favourable time (e.g., should housing supply worsen further and pro-development policies are introduced) to propose development.
• Strategic Open Space, Green Belt and even SSSI designations do not prevent development. The recent case involving the SSSI, designated Green Belt land in Heald Green (sold to Bloor Homes by the Seashell Trust) which, following a Public Enquiry where a government appointed inspector overturned the Council’s original decision to refuse planning for 325 new homes, highlights this very plainly.
• If a planning appeal, or revised planning application is unsuccessful, MAN have confirmed they will sell. This is not a case of holding the community to ransom, it’s a commercial decision.

 

Preventing development on the Fields is reliant on whoever owns the land to not allow it to be built on. Only the transfer of ownership, or sale, to people that are bound to protect the site and provide public access and have the financial resources to allow them to do this, will safeguard the Fields in perpetuity and avoid any future planning applications and battles with developers. We cannot stress this enough.

 

We don’t want any houses on Mirrlees Fields, but we are realists and for MFFG to continue to deliver our constituted aims, we must look at the bigger picture.

 

How can we bring the area known as Mirrlees Fields into wider community use if it is all sold to a developer?

 

We can however ensure that the vast majority of the land becomes a well-managed and safe public space that will enhance the quality of life for local people for ever if we are willing to accept a compromise.

 

The risk of losing all the Fields for this community’s children and grandchildren due to the unwillingness of our generation to accept a ‘loss’ is too great. Explaining to youngsters that ‘there used to be a big field where those houses are’ whilst taking a walk through a well-maintained wildlife oasis in the heart of our local community is preferable to lamenting the loss of or lack of access to Mirrlees Fields, whilst walking or driving out of the local area to find fresh air and a bit of nature.

 

For these reasons MFFG now actively supports compromise. We will be asking for your help in lobbying the relevant officials if MAN submit an appeal or a revised planning application.