How Manchester Came to Hadfield.

Before the Second World War both the government and local authorities realised that there was serious overcrowding and a great deal of sub-standard housing in city areas. Plans started to be put in place to develop overspill estates on the outskirts of cities and in countryside areas further afield. The plans were delayed by the war but were picked up again afterwards.

Developments of overspill estates were controversial with some people in favour and others against. This article uses newspaper reports and records of council meetings to try to illustrate the way in which decisions were made in the Glossop Borough area.

Chapel Lane overspill estate
Chapel Lane overspill estate, contrast between 1897 and 2024, from National Library of Scotland Map Images.
The 1897 OS map shows the original route of Chapel Lane (somewhat wider than the current footpath) down to the Wesleyan chapel & graveyard site and then on to Mersey Bank House.

Manchester had first looked westwards into Cheshire as an area to relieve its problems but then started looking eastwards as well.

The first move to build overspill accommodation in the Glossop area seems to have come in a motion by Councillors Horace Stone and Marcus Milligan to the council meeting of 18 December 1946 "That this Council request the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Manchester City Council to consider the possibility of housing a part of the overspill population of Manchester in Glossop and district.". The reason for the motion was that the Councillors were disturbed at the continuing decrease in Glossop's population. They thought that if Manchester could be encouraged to build houses in the Glossop area it would help to reduce the rates. They thought that Glossop would be an ideal area in which the overcrowded population of Manchester could be housed because of the likelihood of improved transport to and from Manchester in the future. The motion was deferred until the meeting of 29 January 1947 when it was proposed by Councillor Stone but failed to get a seconder (Councillor Milligan was absent) so did not succeed.

Little then seems to have happened (in public at least) for about three years. However, an article in the Manchester Evening News of 7 February 1950, regarding further developments in Cheshire, contained a side note stating “Suggestions that Glossop (population 20,000) would be willing to absorb some of Manchester's "overspill" population will be considered by the City Council. Giving assurance to-day, Alderman Colonel S. P. Dawson, chairman of the General and Parliamentary Committee, said: "It is not what you would call easy building land, but that does not rule it out."
Two days later, a letter was published in the Evening Chronicle headed Glossop for the Overspill and reading:
With attention focused on the Glossop district as a site for housing Manchester's "overspill" and the setting up of new industries, I feel sure it is the hope of many Mancunians that this project may soon materialise. Now that Manchester Corporation run trolley buses to Stalybridge - and quite recently opened up the route to the Gee Cross district of Hyde - it needs little imagination to picture a vast development of housing and industry, which an extension of these trolley bus services, if only as a circular route - Manchester, Stalybridge, Mottram, Hyde and Manchester - to say nothing of the electrification of the railway line from Glossop, Dinting area to Manchester, would create.
On the recreative side there is to me a wonderful place (Manor Park), a naturally wooded haven of rest and pleasure, with lovely gardens. There is ample room for the development of this park. A start has been made with the construction of a children's bathing pool and a boating lake. To me this pleasant spot, rightly planned by an enthusiastic controlling body, would soon divert the Buxton-bound buses from that famous Spa to Glossop's own people's playground .
A. Phillips, North road, Longsight.

There were mixed views in Glossop itself.
A letter published in the Chronicle of 10 February 1950 read:
Sir, - Since the Manchester City Council is investigating possible housing sites, it seems strange that their attention has not been drawn to Glossop, although one councillor has mentioned possible sites in the north and east. There seems no reason why this little town should not become a satellite to Manchester, as it is only 13 miles distant, with two excellent main roads leading into the city, and a railway line in course of being electrified, and thus providing a good suburban service. It is natural that the eyes of Glossopians are raised not so much to the surrounding mountains to look for help but rather to the great city to the west, which can hardly be expected to notice this quaint little borough until it draws attention to Itself.
To a newcomer, it is surprising to see the complacency with which the inhabitants have seen this once thriving town enter into its decline, Some mortal malady seems to have laid its hold upon it some time in the early nineteen-twenties, since when a steady decay has set in. Practically no development can be seen (a few prefabricated houses and a few permanent houses), no increase in population - our newly married couples cannot always live with in-laws, and many have to leave the town and bring up families elsewhere. Some dismantling recently took place in one of the mills to help the cotton Industry in Scotland. One imagines the outcry had this happened elsewhere - in Germany, for example - but no voice was raised in protest here. Could not Manchester come and build on our neglected land? Could she not make homes for her teeming thousands here, and give new life to the town? Could she not stretch forth her powerful arms, clasp us to her ample bosom, and
bring back warmth and life to our shivering frame
Yours, etc., H. Wilson. St. Mary's Rectory, Glossop.

An opposing view was the subject of a letter a week later:
Sir, - May I reply to a letter written by H. Wilson of St. Mary's Rectory? This gentleman who describes himself as a newcomer to Glossop had the effrontery to offer the town of Glossop to Manchester. To use his own words "Could she (Manchester), not stretch out her powerful arms, clasp us to her bosom and bring back warmth and life to our shivering frame." He appears to be aggrieved that Glossop is not growing in size and that its people are content to see "this once thriving town enter into its decline." On the one hand he complains about housing shortage in the town and on the other invites Manchester's "teeming thousands" to come to live in "this quaint little borough."
As I see it, Glossop's immediate problem is to safeguard the employment of its present population, without being encumbered by additional thousands who would bring an additional industrial problem What is this lust for self-aggrandisement which has gripped so many of our communities in the post-war years and to which Mr. Wilson seems to have fallen a prey? I should have thought that he had lived long enough to know that a town's character counts much more to its citizens than its size. He will soon discover that Glossop has much more character and comradeship than any large city. Perhaps our friend will not be content until he sees our dear Castle Hill a sprawling settlement of semi-detachments, Dinting-road renamed Cripps-crescent or, perhaps, a bright new road house on Simmondley green.
Let me assure Mr. Wilson that sufficiently wise counsels prevail in Glossop to know how best to handle the future of the town. Glossop worked very well before he came and will continue to do so for a long time after he has departed. In any event, is it not a matter of principle to permit the host to invite his guests and not the job of one of the guests to do it?
It takes a little time for a newcomer to be taken to the heart of his new townsfolk, but, in time, Mr. Wilson will find that the heart of Glossop pulses warmer and more tenderly than most. Before Mr. Wilson issues any more invitations on behalf of the people of Glossop I suggest he takes a walk up the high street and asks a few of the people he meets what they think of his idea of being "clasped to Manchester's bosom." The answer would be a short one. Glossopians want none of your soulless neighbourhood units of suburbia. I know what they are like. I live in one. - "Shivering frame " - pah ! - Yours etc.,
Eric Robinson, 52 Talbot-road Leeds 8.

On the same day as the second letter the Manchester Evening News reported on potential development sites in Cheshire which mentioned that "Glossop, it is thought, has too many natural obstacles to large-scale housing development."

The Chronicle provided further comment the following week (24 February 1950):
Who is he? This question was frequently asked last week-end after the publication in our columns from a citizen of Leeds, of a letter on the question of the possibility of Glossop becoming an overspill town for Manchester. That a resident of Leeds was so interested in a purely local problem as to enter the discussion is clear proof that local affairs that count most are those of the village or town in which a person is reared, and that the local paper, travelling far and wide is the modern counterpart of the old "broadside."
The writer (Mr. Eric Robinson, B.Sc.) is a native of the neighbourhood. Son of Mr. C. F. Robinson (drapery and furnishing buyer of Glossop Co-operative Society Ltd.), he "belongs" to Charlesworth, is an Old Boy of Glossop Grammar School, and now road engineer for the Ministry of Transport in the North Eastern Region. His criticisms of housing schemes and neighbourhood units are no doubt based upon his observation of many different housing schemes in the territory he covers. Whether or not they are sound, depends upon the point of view of the individual; but it now seems certain that opposition to Glossop becoming part of Manchester is growing.

On the same day the paper published two letters supporting overspill housing:
Support for Canon H. Wilson and criticism of Mr. Eric Robinson has been voiced in letters to the Glossop Chronicle this week by local residents. Canon Wilson's suggestion that Glossop should take some of Manchester's "overspill," and the reply from Mr. Robinson are commented on by Kathleen Watson, 25, Back-lane, Charlesworth, who writes :-
May I point out that at least the Canon's letter was prompted by kindness and good feeling. Selfishness appears to be the motive behind that of Mr. Robinson. As for the "character and comradeship " of Glossop, it sounds more like clannishness and narrow-mindedness, the way Mr. Robinson puts it. He seems quite put out at the thought of "semis" on "dear Castle Hill." There are far worse things than "semis" - but perhaps Mr. Robinson has never heard of bombing! Many a homeless couple would be glad of a house - even in Cripps Crescent. At any rate, a few "semis" would be a welcome improvement on some of the damp hovels that go by the name of houses in Glossop. I hope our friend will not forget, when he's "cold shouldering" Manchester, that Glossop people have been glad to consult Manchester's specialists, to make use of her hospitals, colleges, libraries, theatres and cinemas, and to work in her shops and offices. He speaks of the "warm heart of Glossop, pulsating and tender," but his letter would lead a stranger to believe that the hearts of the people of Glossop were as hard as the rock that the town is built on. Canon Wilson may not have been born in Glossop, but he lives there now and has a better opportunity of talking to Glossopians than has Mr. Robinson. And opinions differ even in Glossop.
"Glossopian" writes :-
Strange as it may seem, I am one of those Glossopians who leap to the defence of Canon Wilson, and I hope that my heart is none the less warm and tender for that. It is because I love Glossop that I want expansion and development to replace the present policy of stagnation and decay. Glossop is now a dying town, and you are prepared to view the funeral from afar. From your vantage point in Leeds you talk of the "wise councils" that prevail in Glossop. Wise, my friend? These self same councils have prevailed for the last thirty years, and a black thirty years it has been. During that time we have seen our population drop by more than one-third. If the decline continues we shall be little more than a semi-derelict village by the end of the century. We have let other towns, offering the houses and the social amenities and the jobs which we have failed to provide, steal the best and most virile part of our population. We have been content with a death-rate that is one of the highest in the country, and a birth-rate that is among the lowest. We have continually returned to office the men responsible for all the procrastination and the drunken staggering from one expedient to another.
While other and lesser towns have run - while they had the chance - bus services, gas and electricity and other public utilities at a profit to the community, we have let our chances slip from our grasp. We have suffered more than most the scourge of unemployment, and we have been glad to support the men responsible. With the help of a force outside ourselves and from which the majority of us can claim no credit, Glossop is now at work and temporarily prosperous. But Glossop will, as she has always done, vote this week for a return to the old conditions. This is my indictment of the "wise councils" which prevail in Glossop. I for one shall fight them, and go on fighting.

This was followed, a month later, by the Chronicle's comment on the potential benefit or cost to Glossop of overspill housing:
Who collects the rates? There has recently been a good deal of controversy about the possibility of the City of Manchester building about 2,000 houses in Glossop, and there has been a good deal of confused thinking about it, too. Extraordinary though it may sound, assuming Manchester did intend to build houses in Glossop no-one, elected members or officials, knows how it is to be done. Correspondents have assumed that the immigration of such a large number of residents to occupy these phantom houses would simply mean a considerable increase in the rateable value of Glossop, in addition to a contingent increase of retail trade. It is assumed that the local authority's subsidy on the houses would be a charge upon the ratepayers of Manchester, and Glossop's share would be the delicious task of collecting rates from the tenants of houses gratuitously subsidised by the generous City of Manchester. It is a delightful division of responsibility. Manchester would pay out subsidies amounting to £11,000 per year, and assuming a rather conservative assessment of £12 per house, Glossop would collect rates and water rates to the tune of nearly £24,000 per year with the rates at the present level. It is true that Glossop would have to extend its water supplies - unless Manchester altruistically supplied water as well from its Longdendale reserves - and a new sewage scheme, but then Glossop with such an augmented income, could jolly well afford to! It looks as though the moon is made of green cheese after all!

Despite the differences of opinion, plans progressed.
The Evening Chronicle of 22 September 1950 reported:
Five Derbyshire towns meet in Glossop next month to consider a joint plan to provide accommodation for thousands of people living in the congested areas of Manchester and Stockport. Many experts believe that the towns - Buxton, Glossop, New Mills, Whaley Bridge and Chapel-en-le-Frith - could be extended to house at least 20,000.
One of the men behind the scheme, Alderman J. D. Doyle, told me to-day: "When we have reached a unanimous decision we will put our suggestions to Derbyshire County Council. This question of overspill is the major local government problem of the day. Glossop alone could provide land for 1,000 houses, sufficient for about 3,000 people." he declared. Glossop, 13 miles from Manchester, believes that it would be beneficial if it could become a "satellite' town.
Buxton, also with a population of 20,000, informed the county council last year (exclusively announced in the "Evening Chronicle") that it was prepared to take overspill population from Manchester.
A claim that New Mills (pop 8,400) could provide work and living space was outlined by the clerk, Mr. D. H Nicholson, to-day. Industries in the town – 30 minutes run from Manchester - include textiles, printing, bleaching, dyeing, engineering, chocolate and sweet manufacturing, iron and brass foundries, a paper mill and quarrying. It has been suggested New Mills could absorb 5,000 people.
Whaley Bridge (pop. 5,000) was scheduled for a population increase of 3,000, but this was superseded by the 1947 Planning Act. "We could not lay out any big housing sites, because the land is hilly, but we have plenty to offer people wishing to live here." Mr. Colin Hough, clerk to the Council, said to-day.
The Manchester Evening News of 11 October added “Five Derbyshire Peak towns will confer at Glossop to-morrow on a joint plan to accommodate overspill people of Manchester and Stockport. The towns, Glossop, Whaley Bridge, New Mills, Buxton and Chapel-en-le-Frith, could be extended to house some 20,000 people, it is believed. But while they seek ways of providing the houses, industrial development will be borne strongly in mind. Manchester is watching the situation closely. Councillor Tom Nally said a difficulty would arise if these or other towns expected Manchester to give up some of its housing allocations to further their schemes. Manchester has too big a need of houses to do so, he said.

The outcome of the meeting was reported in the Buxton Herald and Visitors Gazette of 20 October:
Representatives of five local authorities, including Buxton, meeting at Glossop last Thursday, decided to recommend an approach to Manchester and Stockport for the housing of some of their overspill population in the High Peak district. The meeting, called by Glossop Borough Council, was also attended by delegates from Buxton Borough Council, New Mills Urban Council, Whaley Bridge Urban Council, and Chapel-en-le-Frith Rural Council. It was held in the municipal buildings under the chairmanship of the Mayor of Glossop (Councillor Mrs. Casey). Afterwards the following statement was issued :
"The question of the overspill population of city of Manchester and the county borough of Stockport being housed within the High Peak area was discussed. It was eventually decided to recommend that the Derbyshire County Council be asked to approach, in conjunction with the county districts, the corporations of the city of Manchester and the county borough of Stockport, requesting them to consider housing their respective overspill populations within the areas of the local authorities of the High Peak of Derbyshire. It was decided that the respective local authorities be requested to consider and approve the above mentioned recommendation."
It was also recommended by the meeting that in making the approach the Derbyshire County Council should also ask for terms under which overspill would be housed.

The Glossop Chronicle of 3 November included a report of the latest meeting of the Town Council:
Alderman J. D. Doyle, Housing Committee chairman, told the council that if ever building on good agricultural land in Cheshire was stopped it would be an advantage to both Manchester and Glossop people to have Manchester's overspill population housed in Glossop. The council approved a recommendation that Derbyshire County Council be asked to approach Manchester requesting the corporation to consider housing "overspill" in the High Peak.
Councillor E. Haigh said some people had got the impression that by having "overspill" population in Glossop it would affect the chances of a house of those who had been in the borough for some time. Alderman Doyle sad this would not be the case. It would increase the town and county's rateable value. There would be more people living in Glossop which would increase services and benefit tradesmen. The houses for "overspill" would be additional to Glossop's own allocation, he assured Councillor Haigh.
Glossop would also be within a few minutes of Manchester, when the electrification of the railway was completed. This was one of the main reasons why people should be encouraged to come to Glossop. When Councillor Hurst asked if the chance to live in Glossop would be accepted voluntarily by Manchester folk, or if they would be compelled to come out, Councillor Burgess said obviously it would be a case of volunteers coming, for no local authority had powers to move masses of people about.
Councillor Burgess thought that an increase in Glossop's population would give them a better chance of getting more amenities at a reasonable rate.

Whilst Glossop councillors were generally in favour, those of Chapel-en-le-Frith were not. The Buxton Herald and Visitors Gazette of 12 January 1951 reported:
Fears that Chapel-en-le-Frith would be "tagged on'" to Manchester, and in years to come annexed by the city, were expressed at Monday's Rural Council meeting, when the question of accommodating overspill population from Manchester and Stockport in the High Peak district was discussed. Chapel councillors made it plain that they did not support the scheme, but decided to send delegates to the next meeting of High Peak authorities interested in the plan.
The views of the County Council were read at the meeting, and in their letter it was revealed that the county planning committee had considered the general outline of the plan and agreed that the north-west area of Derbyshire would be the most suitable. The County Planning Officer, it was stated, six months ago made an informal approach to Manchester and Stockport, but it did not seem that they were looking to Derbyshire to house overspill.
A meeting with the county council and districts concerned was suggested at which the question of exactly where overspill could be housed and in what numbers, what the financial burden would be and to what extent industries would be relocated could be discussed. Coun. A. H. Bradley, objecting that it seemed that the High Peak was trying to entice Manchester, said that their own people should be housed before outsiders were brought in, and Coun. W. R. Haynes pointed out that there had been no suggestion that industries should be brought out. "They will hang on to all their industries," he declared.
Coun. A. Blackham thought that they should have houses first to accommodate workers coming into Chapel-en-le-Frith, rather than Manchester overspill, referring to the fact that 50 bus loads of workers came in daily. Saying that if they had to have overspill, they wanted some industrial development. Coun. R. W. S. Thompson said, "If it is to be pushed on to us we want a financial contribution toward it. We should send representatives to the meeting to put this view before them."
Coun. B. Higginbotham said "it was Glossop's plan, and they should watch Glossop in case they want to spread their wings into our area."
Coun. J. F. Mellor, appealing to members not be too parochial, went on to cite the case of Sheffield, which had built houses in Derbyshire and now were seeking powers to acquire the district. Coun. Burnell wanted to know if there was any hidden background, saying that the council had agreed that Chapel could be built up to a population of 20,000. The Clerk, Mr. L. Jagger, said there was not and, in answer to a member, said that Manchester had stated that they had no building licences to surrender for houses built in other areas.
Coun. Haynes said that the planning authority had turned down housing sites that it was now proposed to use for overspill.
Coun. E. Barnes warned members, "In years to come I can visualise that Chapel would be tagged on to Manchester and we would have to pay Manchester rates and other charges. They will annexe Chapel and all the way up to Chapel before they finish."
The Clerk reminded the Council that Manchester and Stockport had not yet come into the discussions, and the meeting suggested was only a preliminary one.
A suggestion from Coun. F. E. G. Bagshawe that the Council should reply that they opposed the scheme but were prepared to send representatives was adopted. "We should have somebody present at the meeting in a position to oppose the plan," he urged. Coun. J. Atkinson said that members attending the meeting must not commit the council in any way, and Coun. Thompson said that they should state that Chapel was not anxious to receive overspill. Coun. W. R. Haynes and Coun. Mellor, with two officials, were appointed as the delegates.

On 22 February 1951 the Manchester Evening News reported:
Manchester City Council representatives are to meet local authorities' delegates from the High Peak, where it is planned to place the city's overspill population, on March 2 - the first direct approach to Manchester. The delegates will be from Derbyshire County Council and the District Councils of Buxton, Glossop, Whaley Bridge, Chapel-en-le-Frith, and New Mills. There have already been preliminary talks among them. The talks are likely to be at Buxton.

The Glossop Chronicle of 9 March 1951 reported that plans were starting to take shape:
Negotiations between the housing authorities in the High Peak have now taken a definite turn; hitherto the situation has been very nebulous. There are now tripartite discussions going forward, and a statement to the Press that really means something should soon be available. We understand that up to the present, the discussions at Buxton on the question as to whether some of the overspill population of Manchester should be absorbed in the High Peak, have been only - in the first instance - between the authorities themselves, then between the housing authorities and the Derbyshire County Council, and at the conference last week, between the former and representatives of the Manchester City Council. So at last the matter is taking definite shape.
Glossop has already started to take overspill. The 12 houses now being commenced at Hadfield are to be reserved exclusively for railway men who will be employed on maintenance of the electrified railway; it is understood that the houses will be the property of Glossop Council and the tenants will be selected by the Railways Executive (Author's note: These were the 4 properties on Green Lane and 8 on Hadfield Road, see the article Glossop's Early Council Housing).
It is understood that complete agreement was reached by the County Council of Derbyshire, the City of Manchester, and the authorities of Glossop, Buxton, New Mills and Whaley Bridge. This means that negotiations in earnest will commence in order to draft a suitable scheme acceptable to all the parties concerned. Probably this will take a shape similar to the formula adopted in the arrangements agreed upon both by the Counties of Lancashire and Cheshire. What mainly needs to be emphasised is that the provision of houses for overspill from Manchester will in no way affect the allocations to Glossop and the other authorities of houses for local tenancies; the allocations for overspill will be a separate quota, and probably when divided between the four authorities will not amount to many per year. Thus, although Cheshire way to have had 1,000 houses this year for overspill, the number has been reduced by the Ministry to 500, these being spread over the whole of the willing authorities. The advantage to Glossop would be an increase in population and rateable value.

As far as information to the general public was concerned, things seemed to quieten down whilst discussions continued in the background.
On 29 February 1952 the Glossop Chronicle reported:
Overspill in Glossop. A statement has recently been made by the county council dealing with the question of housing overspill population from Manchester, Sheffield and Derby. The County Planning Committee has now arrived at its real estimate of the number of overspill people from Manchester who could successfully be re-housed in the borough, and it approximates to the number that was estimated by Mr. Dobson Chapman when he presented his first town planning report to the Glossop Council. According to the county planning officer (Mr. Hellier) there is available land in Glossop Borough to re-house 12,500 people from Manchester, which would have the effect of raising Glossop to a town of some 30,000 people. It is not clear whether in making this estimate, Mr. Hellier has allowed not only for the building of the "shortage" houses for Glossop itself, but also for the replacement of the obsolescent and obsolete houses which, after the shortage is overtaken will have to be demolished and replaced by houses at a very much lower rate of density than at present.
Nor does the estimate seem to have regard to the fact that some, at least of the land in Glossop Borough is fairly good agricultural land, and that whilst Glossop does not appear to make any sensible agricultural contribution, it does make a large dairy contribution. It looks as though there will be competition for sites between the authority building for overspill, and the Glossop housing authority.

The Derbyshire County Development Plan, which was submitted to the Minister of Housing and Local Government in August 1952, suggested the reception of overspill population from Manchester: "The population which at the present time is about 17,000 persons would, with the reception of overspill population, increase to 36,600 persons by 1971. Land is available to accommodate 18,000 overspill population."

On 20 January 1953, Glossop Town Council's Committee re Establishment of Industrial Development Committee decided to recommend to the Housing Committee that in order to arrive at a decision as to whether the Borough should invite external Authorities to site their overspill population in the Borough, a joint report be supplied by the Town Clerk, Borough Treasurer and Borough Surveyor disclosing the financial and social obligations.
The Housing Committee, at its meeting on 2 February, decided to wait for the joint report.

At the meeting of the General Purposes Committee on 17 June 1953, the Town Clerk and Alderman Doyle reported on the meeting at Buxton re Overspill. The Committee appointed the Mayor and Alderman Doyle along with the Town Clerk, Borough Treasurer and Borough Surveyor to attend further meetings, and asked for a joint report from the Officers concerned. However, on 29 July it was decided to defer consideration of the matter until a communication was received from the County Council.

The Glossop Chronicle picked up the matter again two months later, reporting on 18 September:
An important statement concerning the cost of housing overspill population from neighbouring authorities was made last week. It concerned Salford, some of whose overspill is being housed in Hyde. It is unlikely that overspill would come to Glossop from Salford if the persons were contemplating retaining their present employment. The distance is too great. The statement was to the effect that the Lancashire County Council were contemplating invoking the provision of the recent Town Development Act to require the "exporting" authority to make a contribution. It was said that the position for Salford was serious, as their rates were already 25s. in the £.
Glossop has toyed with the question of housing overspill but so far no sort of advance towards a decision is made The council is awaiting a move from the Derbyshire County Council and the production by the county of the town plan for the borough to make which an army of surveyors and town planners recently invaded the town.
Looked at from the angle at which Salford are contemplating the new move of the Lancashire County Council, there is need for Glossop to observe extreme caution. Glossop's rates are now 22s. 6d. in the £, and owing to the relatively small number of houses Glossop has completed since the end of the war the rate charge is not very heavy.
But Glossop faces two problems of local administration that must inevitably have the effect of considerably raising the rates no matter what economy is practised in other departments. These are the increase in the supply of water for both domestic and industrial purposes and the complete reconstruction of the sewage outfall works which between them are likely to cost something approaching half-a-million These schemes are not merely contingent upon Glossop receiving surplus population from other overgrown towns – both the schemes are necessary in order to maintain the town and its industries on their present basis. If new light industries are to be installed here the local authority must be in a position to offer water supplies. In addition, the present unsatisfactory state of the sewage effluent entering the Etherow gives great concern to the Mersey River Board. It is pretty certain, therefore, that if overspill is accepted at Glossop it cannot be at the cost of the rates. Apart from the cost of the services necessary for housing it would have to be at the liability of the exporting authority.

The subject of Overspill then became somewhat bogged down in the hands of the Glossop Town Council's Housing, Town Planning and Development Committee. At the meeting of the Committee on 21 December 1953, the Town Clerk reported on the meeting with representatives of the Derbyshire County Council on 12th October and it was decided that a copy of the report be sent to each member of the Committee. At the committee's meeting on 1 March 1954, the Joint Report of the Town Clerk, Borough Treasurer and Borough Surveyor on overspill was submitted but consideration of it was deferred until the next meeting. Having discussed the matter at the meeting on 5 April it was decided to adjourn further consideration until after the Town Plan had been received. The Borough Surveyor gave a detailed explanation of the outstanding features of the Draft Glossop Town Plan at the committee's meeting on 30 August but it was resolved that the matter be deferred pending a further Report by the Town Clerk and Borough Treasurer on Overspill.

In its issue of 22 October 1954 the Glossop Chronicle summed up the position:
Exactly 12 months after the holding of a public enquiry, the Minister of Local Government and Housing has decided against the proposals of Manchester City Council to build what, in effect, would have been two new towns at Mobberley and Lymm. They proposed to build 10,500 houses at Mobberley and 12,000 at Lymm. The implications of this extensive housing development - on the latest estimates of population per house - would mean the introduction of nearly 40,000 people to Mobberley and nearly 48,000 people to Lymm. The need for Manchester to develop on such a large scale is based upon Manchester's requirements of 90,000 houses, in the main to replace unsuitable dwellings. These, in effect, would be new towns, which the present Minister (Mr. Macmillan) does not view with favour; they would be provided with all necessary amenities by the Corporation except, of course, amenities such as parks and open spaces, baths, schools, etc., which would be the obligation of the "receiving" authority, the county council and the district councils. There would also have been sites for the introduction of new industries, this latter of supreme importance to all overspill settlements; the proximity of house to work.
Most people who have taken part in post-war housing development and have studied this question of urban overspill will incline to the view that the Minister's decision is bad. Grafting city overspill on to existing village populations accustomed to village economy, mixing the old and the new, urbanising the countryside while pretending it is country through the establishment of green belts is not nearly so satisfactory as starting afresh - building a town that can be a composite whole. It must be frankly admitted that such has been Manchester's policy for a long time. Now the Minister has thwarted the city and they must tackle the building of houses on what is described as marginal land. We can sympathise with the Lord Mayor when he said, on hearing the Minister's decision that Manchester would have to go to the villages, "where sewerage works are non-existent or out-of-date". Small authorities like Glossop and the Longdendale are familiar with the difficulties of building on marginal land; as a rule, it means more expensive site works, and usually higher rents. If, however, the urbanising of the villages by the city brings more efficient sanitation and more secure water supplies, good may come of it for the villages built on marginal land.
Manchester should now stop footling about with the small authorities within easy reach of the city; local government circles in the Peak "sniff" when Manchester's overspill is mentioned; it is doubtful if there will be much sympathy over the adverse decision of the Minister. Five years ago, a joint meeting of representatives of the Derbyshire County Council, the county district councils of the High Peak and representatives of the City Council, was held at Buxton. Its sole purpose was to achieve agreement on the question of the local councils accepting overspill from Manchester. That it was not treated perfunctorily by Derbyshire County Council is proven by the fact that the chief officials of the county along with their chairman (Alderman White, C.B.E.) were present. All the local councils present, with the notable exception of Chapel-en-le-Frith, were prepared to accept overspill provided that suitable terms could be agreed. It is useless to expect small authorities to accept a fortuitous and inflationary increase in population, if the move is to result in a financial burden on the existing population, who are, after all making an accommodation.
No action followed this meeting. New Mills Council, dissatisfied with the complete immobility themselves opened up negotiations direct with the city and sites were inspected at that place. The sites were not acceptable to the city. They are known to have inspected sites in Glossop, Hadfield and the Longdendale. and to have entered into negotiations with a committee jointly representing the councils of Hyde Borough and Longdendale Councils for sites for some 3,500 houses. This is the Hattersley site. Any decisions that may have been reached on this extensive scheme are carefully guarded, and the present stage of negotiations on this is known only to the parties concerned. Judging from the discussions in the council chamber at Hyde, a state of stagnation may have been reached although this is only a guess. The Minister's rebuff may perhaps galvanise the parties into activity, for it is clear that Manchester may no longer cast longing eyes on the Cheshire plain. It has very recently been stated that Manchester has decided to build 1,000 houses between Mottram and Woolley Bridge: responsible quarters in the Longdendale however, deny any knowledge of this alleged move.
The Derbyshire planning authority have on several occasions made it clear through the Glossop Council that sites could be found in the borough for houses for 12,000 people.
These sites were offered to Manchester at the enquiry, but so far as is known no further steps towards acquisition have been taken, doubtless because of their concentration on the Mobberley and Lymm projects. None of these sites is first-class agricultural land as is the case generally in Cheshire.
If the deputation, which Manchester is to send to London to persuade the Minister to change his decision, are unsuccessful, then Manchester will clearly have to look towards authorities with sites available on marginal land. Glossop now has the advantage of a speedy electric train service, which at the moment is cheaper than road transport; its disadvantages are: its extended water service, the construction of which is only just commencing, and its sewerage problem, which is as yet only on the drawing board. If overspill comes here, the Glossop authority may secure some financial assistance towards both these projects.

At the meeting of Glossop Town Council's Housing, Town Planning and Development Committee on 25 October 1954, three documents dealing with overspill were submitted: (a) Report of the Town Clerk and Borough Treasurer on the matter; (b) Letter from the Clerk of the Derbyshire County Council with copy of letter from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the Town Clerk of Manchester stating that the application for permission to carry out large-scale development at Mobberley and Lymm had been refused; and (c) Letter from the County Planning Officer stating that it will probably be necessary to hold a series of meetings on this question and suggesting that it would be helpful to the discussions on the reception of overspill into North West Derbyshire if a limited circulation of the draft Written Analysis could be sent out to the other interested authorities.
It was resolved: (a) That the Council accept in principle some overspill subject to satisfactory financial safeguards; (b) That initial overspill be up to 1,000 houses which shall be preferably sited in Gamesley (No. 5 Area) and (a) Roughfields-Brosscroft, (b) Newshaw Lane, Hadfield (No. 4 Area); (c) That the request of the County Planning Officer to send out a limited circulation of the draft Written Analysis of the Glossop Town Map to the other interested Authorities be agreed subject to this not prejudicing any observations this Council may have on the draft proposals.
The Committee also considered part of the draft Town Plan and further consideration was adjourned.

On 28 October 1954 the Manchester Evening News reported:
With a few "ifs and buts," the Derbyshire town of Glossop will take 1,000 Manchester overspill families to help relieve the city's land famine.
Glossop, 13 miles from Manchester, is the same distance away from the city as Mobberley. A half-hourly train service (day return fare 2s. 1d.) takes just over 30min. on the new electric line. Services could be increased to meet any extra demand, said British Railways.
The offer was made " subject to financial safeguards." "We shall be interested to know what those safeguards are," said a member of Manchester's General and Parliamentary Committee.
Problem before the committee is: How long will it be before the four sites in Glossop are available?
"Manchester's need at the moment is sites on which building can begin by 1956," said a leading member. "By then our labour force will have begun drifting away unless more sites are available."

On 5 November 1954 the Glossop Chronicle reported:
About 1,000 houses may be built in the borough to accommodate Manchester's "overspill" population, it was decided at the monthly meeting of Glossop Town Council. The council agreed "to accept in principle some overspill subject to satisfactory financial safeguards."
The Mayor (Councillor H. Turner) said that the Housing Committee, of which he is chairman, had decided that the initial overspill figure be up to 1,000 houses and these would be preferably sited in Gamesley, Roughfields-Brosscroft and Newshaw Lane, Hadfleld areas.
The committee had considered a letter from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the Town Clerk of Manchester refusing permission to carry out large-scale development at Mobberley and Lymm.
Councillor Turner said that, at the request of the county planning officer, a copy of the draft written analysis of the Glossop town map would be sent to authorities interested in overspill to help in future discussions on the question.
Councillor Turner told Councillor Bradbury that the Newshaw Lane site he had mentioned was part of the one on which the council were considering building.
Councillor Briody-Duggan asked if Glossop would not have any of the overspill – all the sites were in the Hadfleld area. Councillor Higton pointed out that at the Housing Committee meeting five Hadfield members were present and two Glossop members.
Councillor Turner said that development in the parts chosen would be beneficial to all. There was a decline in population and a shortage of labour for industries. Hadfleld people had been pressing for development for a long time.
Application is to be made to the county planning department to develop the Newshaw Lane site which the council had already chosen for their own building. They plan to build 36 houses on land owned by the corporation. Six houses are also to be built on the Cowbrook site.
Plans to build at Bankbottom and Wesley Street, Hadfield, have also been approved but the county council say that they would like to keep a plot on the west side of Wesley Street for a small play space.

The same issue noted that Glossop Council's recent action in approving overspill accommodation in town, and its borrowing of large sums of money for a new sewage works were attacked in a letter to the editor by Councillor Bernard Higginbottom, of Charlesworth: Always a champion for the rights and interests of the villagers, Councillor Higginbottom scorns Glossop councillors for seeking to relieve somebody else's problem when the town has a big enough problem of Its own. He writes :-
Sir, The notice in last week's Glossop Chronicle that the Borough of Glossop was seeking a loan of £299,750 for sewage disposal works makes rather astounding reading to the average layman. This, over a 30-years period must mean an annual repayment of £16,728; i.e. equal in my reckoning to a 3s 10d rate which, added to the Glossop existing rate of 25s. 2d. (the highest in the whole county) would mean a total rate of 29s. in the £. The Glossop councillors are certainly good at spending the ratepayer's money as the Cottage Lane, Gamesley fiasco showed recently. "Watchman," in his notes, has already drawn attention to the overcrowding at the Glossop Grammar School, and the West End Secondary Modern which will take place over the next few years and I wonder why in view of all this, Glossop are seeking to relieve somebody else's problem - the overspill from Manchester? Whilst not unduly concerned about the future lack of places for Glossop children I am concerned for the children of Charlesworth who come under the same catchment area. Yours etc., B. Hegginbottom, 6. Marple Road. Charlesworth.

The Chronicle followed up its article with comment the following week:
The Glossop Town Council having at last decided that it will be willing to accept overspill population from Manchester and neighbourhood, Glossop folk should now begin to reckon up what it might mean to the town and its people. It was made clear by the Mayor (Councillor Turner, J.P. C.C.) that the decision of the council may be considered as a first instalment and this would involve the building of something like 1,000 houses. It may perhaps be recalled that the development plan for the county which has been on deposit and is now before the Minister makes provision for an increase of population (by overspill from Manchester, Sheffield and Derby) by some 77,000, and of this total of overspill, the county planning department estimate that 12,500 could be received by Glossop borough. At a conservative estimate, this would mean the erection in Glossop of an additional 4,000 houses. It must be clearly understood that this figure is extra to the requirements of the existing needs of the settled population of the borough. The question of the necessary land is likely to barge into the forefront immediately, For a borough, Glossop has an astonishingly small area; except where the land reaches out to the county boundary the river Etherow, the boundary of Glossop is a radius of one mile from the Town Hall.
Another point should made crystal clear. The willingness of Glossop Council to accept overspill is not the only or the principal governing factor. It is true that having been rebuffed at Mobberley and Lymm, Manchester must look elsewhere for sites. But Manchester will choose. To the best of our knowledge, until the resolution of willingness to accept overspill was announced by the Mayor, no specific sites had been offered by the local authority to Manchester. It has been said that the city has been slow in moving; they could, of course, have come out as private developers, but obviously there must come an end to that sort of development.
It would now be desirable for the council to indicate in clear terms the parts of the town they think might with advantage be offered to Manchester. There has been a good deal of talk about the necessity to increase the town's population both by overspill and as a dormitory, and this can only be done by building both houses and industry. It means covering up green fields with bricks and mortar: that, however, is inevitable, and applies to every authority over the whole country. More rateable value is needed and this is the only way to get it.

The issue also carried a letter from Councillor J. G. Hurst:
Sir - It is indeed refreshing to read Councillor Hegginbottom's letter on the increase in the rate of Glossop to almost 30s. in the £ if the new sewage works proposal goes through. I maintain that we do not require a new sewage works for Glossop because we already have one; in short my reasons are as follows :-
(a) The Mersey River Board complained that the effluent going out of our sewage works into the River Etherow was very bad and threatened to prosecute the Glossop Corporation if this was not altered. The town council thereupon started getting out plans for a new sewage works at a cost of about £300,000. This, in my opinion was very foolish, when in the same letter the River Board told the town council that if they would clean out and repair their sewage works they would be making the best use of the existing works. The town council were told that £30,000 to £40,000 would cover this requirement. - Why not do it now? Why spend £300,000 when £30,000 to £40,000 will suffice?
(b) The surveying department of Glossop then claimed that the flood damage at the sewage works in 1944 was so great that this £30,000 to £40,000 scheme would not do. My reply is, that when other sewage, our homes, and our mills were damaged by the same flood in 1944 they were cleaned out, our homes made habitable again and our mills resumed work. Why shouldn't the town council do the same at the sewage works especially when recommended by the river board?
(c) The proposed new sewage works will be more expensive to run and in my opinion are badly sited. When one spends £300,000 one expects something which is cheaper to run or at least no more expensive.
(d) The present sewage works is overloaded by about a quarter-of-a-million gallons of river water per day which leaks into the broken sewer between Cornmill Bridge and the market place, Glossop. The repair of this alone would be helpful in running the present works.
Objections to overspill. I always regard this as a word which denotes the failure of the authorities of some English cities to deal with their population. Coming to Manchester overspill it is noteworthy that many authorities will not countenance this press ganging of city populations on to them, just to the order of a city council. For apparent reasons these places are not going to bear the burden of Manchester's overspill.
On the other hand Glossop Town Council's representatives have been spending part of their time these last four years with Derbyshire County representatives discussing the reception of overspill by Glossop. At the same time the town council had made no decision until October, 1954, to even accept any overspill. The result of the past four years' discussions seems to be that the draft of the provisional edition of the Derby County development plan for Glossop and district is in my opinion nothing more than an arrangement for the slum clearance of Manchester. For the plan arranges for the reception of 18,000 overspill from Manchester into Glossop, and the Simmondley part of Charlesworth. Now let us for one moment consider the effect of this figure on the population of Glossop.
Glossop's population today, 18,000; Manchester overspill 18,000; total, 36,000. Area of Glossop, 3,300 acres.
This increase in population gives over ten persons per acre, which can increase materially over the next 15 years, giving rise to overcrowding for this type of locality, with all its attendant difficulties.
What will be the effect of this population on the jobs available in the neighbourhood? Will everybody travel to Manchester for work through the winter if they can avoid it? Will industry come to Glossop? Who can force industry to come? What will be the effect of a period of unemployment on a landlocked area of this overcrowded type?
The Glossop Town Council in October, 1954, passed a minute which permits a foothold for this overspill which reads: "The initial overspill be up to 1,000 houses...."
I am a Glossop councillor and do not care for taking on the work of Manchester City Council especially when they have prevented the development of this district for so long, e.g. they pulled down the farms and inns in Longdendale, they demolished ancient buildings - Hollingworth Hall and Crowden Hall, raised objection to the Pennine Way and at times have Glossop's water right from Torside Clough.
I am also reminded of a few of the requirements of Glossop people and our local authority's attitude towards them:-
(a) The acceptance of a piece of land at Padfield for a few seats for people to rest upon - our town council say – too costly.
(b) There is a halt on the railway at Gamesley – the trains stop there but Gamesley and Charlesworth people are not allowed to use it.
(c) We have a grammar school - all too small - we cannot have a new one whilst overspill areas can have new schools.
(d) We have held 30 licences since January 1st, 1954, to build just a few houses for our own ratepayers, not one stone has been laid towards building them.
It would therefore seem preferable to me for our town council and indeed our county council to spend more time on the needs of our ratepayers.
At the same time I am not unmindful of the needs of people in cities and I declare let those people come who wish to live in Glossop and if our town council decided to build 50 or more houses at a time for such a purpose let the city applicants for them be subject to the same conditions as our own Glossop ratepayers except that they pay the economic rent plus other extra costs. All I stand for is a fair deal for the Glossop ratepayer. - Yours etc..
J. G. Hurst,
Councillor
96. Glossop Road,
Gamesley.

The letter provoked further correspondence, published in the Chronicle of 19 November:
Last week's anti-overspill letter by Councillor Gordon Hurst (Hadfield representative on the council) has sparked off some comment this week.
From Charlesworth, Councillor Bernard Higginbottom welcomes Councillor Hurst to the fold of dissenters against accommodating Manchester overspill. Two weeks ago Councillor Higginbottom criticised Glossop Council for attempting to solve another town's problem. His letter this week continues on the same theme. He writes :-
Sir, - I am glad that Councillor Hurst has taken a lone stand against the dangers of overspill and to his already lengthy list I should like to add one or two, what are to me, major problems of a nature more serious than the ones he has already mentioned.
I should also like to draw the attention of the Trades Council (last week they welcomed the overspill move), who talk so coyly about progress to these problems.
According to no less an authority than the county planning officer, 3,300 houses in Glossop were in existence before the by-laws in respect of minimum requirements of space, light and ventilation were laid down.
Of these, 900 were said to be in a poor condition and would be replaced if resources were available.
Added to this, the housing list shows 206 persons sharing accommodation.
Is it the wish of Glossop Town Council and the Trades Council that these conditions should remain dormant whilst surrounded by a super race of visitors from Manchester, housed in modern semis?
According to the recent survey completed in 1954, there were approximately 2,000 males travelling daily from this area (including Charlesworth) to employment on the way to and in Manchester.
I can only presume this is because of lack of suitable employment in the area.
Whilst these conditions remain, together with our own problems at Charlesworth, I shall continue to protest loud and long against any diversion of men, money, land and materials to solving other people's problems .- Yours etc.,
Bernard Higginbottom
6, Marple Road
Charlesworth.
Second entrant to the battlefield is Councillor Sam Bamforth, who. apparently, does not agree with Councillor Hurst or Councillor Higginbottom. He says :-
Sir, - As one who is strongly opposed to that practice I cannot stand by and see the people of our borough gulled by statements obviously intended to mislead.
In regard to the sewage works the whole system has for a long time suffered from a number of very serious deficiencies namely :-
(a) Inadequate carrying capacity of the branch outfall sewer from Hadfleld between Woolley Bridge and the head of the main outfall sewer at Brookfield.
(b) Inadequate carrying capacity of the main outfall sewer itself.
(c) Inefficient working of the storm relief overflows.
(d) Inadequate capacity of the treatment units to deal with the sewage flow that reaches them.
I understand it is quite true that the council have periodically received strong complaints from the Mersey River Board regarding the pollution of the river. Councillor Hurst suggests that we should spend £30,000 to £40,000 to satisfy them. This, the River Board consider, would be "making the best use of the existing works." Would it? It might be from their point of view, but ought we not to consider the needs of the town and the health of its people?
"The people should be told" cries Councillor Hurst, when it suits his purpose, Very well! Let's tell them.
A modern and efficient sewage works is the one thing standing between us and the epidemics of old. Not only is ours considered by experts to be unsatisfactory it is also liable to flood. On top of this there is the fact that if we were to spend the above mentioned amount of money to satisfy the River Board and Councillor Hurst, the works could only be made capable of dealing adequately with less than half of the present sewage flows. Surely, in view of what the experts say, that would be thirty to forty thousand pounds literally "down the drain."
It is quite obvious that some people would be content to revert to the filthy and unhygienic pail closets so patiently tolerated by Councillor Higginbottom who has the audacity to criticise Glossop Council while Chapel R.D.C., request that Charlesworth's night-soil be emptied in our sewage works.
I would also like to point out that ratepayers are protected from "unscrupulous" councillors and extravagant spending. That is something else "the people should be told." The borrowing powers of local authorities are under strict central control. Before sanctioning a loan, it is the practice of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to be satisfied that the particular works are needed, that they are well and economically planned and suitable for what is required, and also (a matter which has become increasingly important in recent years) that the financial position of the district warrants the raising of the loan for the purpose.
It will be seen that under modern conditions this involves very close control indeed. Few local authorities are able properly to fulfil their functions without occasional loans. Every authority is therefore well aware when it involves itself in expenditure which has not the approval of the Ministry that later on, when it needs a loan, the Minister will be able to point out the extravagance and refuse to sanction the loan. The object on which they have spent their money may be perfectly legal, the Minister may have no statutory power to interfere, and yet he may be able to say "I regard this expenditure as an extravagance." When the time comes for the loan, the authority is not permitted to raise it. Thus, this control is not merely a control over the actual objects for which the loan is required. It is a general control over local financial administration.
Councillor Hurst says he is is a Glossop councillor who objects to doing the work of Manchester City Council because of demolished properties in Longdendale. I'm sorry, I do not see the connection.
Glossop's population 18,000(?) plus 18,000 overspill. Part of this overspill to be in Charlesworth, mind you, yet total in Glossop 36,000, We are not committed to anything near that figure (nor any figure at all if the financial arrangements are not satisfactory). I, for one, would strongly oppose such congestion. The terrifying picture of Glossop's population cramped at the rate of over 10 persons per acre is pure scaremongering.
On far too many occasions in the past there has been evidence of the "looking for snags" attitude to the detriment of positive action. Sorting out of the difficulties can always be part of the concerted action, but it should not be the major task.
It is completely 'wrong and misleading to imply that Glossop Council is responsible for Gamesley and Charlesworth people not being able to use the railway employees' halt at Gamesley Bridge. We all want a passenger halt there, and we have tried to obtain one, but any thinking person knows that the British Railways have the last word.
Many members of the council were fighting for a new grammar school before overspill was ever thought of, As Councillor Hurst already knows the Derbyshire County Council is the education authority for Glossop, and he also knows that our own Alderman Doyle has been untiring in his efforts during the last 20 years in provide one, but alas! with no avail as yet.
"We have had 30 licences since January, 1954, and not one stone has been laid towards building a few houses for our own ratepayers." Are we building houses for some other town's ratepayers?
By healthy argument and constructive criticism we can make some progress, but half-truths and misleading statements will get us nowhere.-
Yours etc.,
Sam Bamforth
(Councillor)
98, Glossop Road,
Gamesley.

To this, the Chronicle added its own comment:
The announcement by the Mayor (Councillor Turner, J.P., C.C.) that Glossop Council are prepared to accept overspill population has been followed by criticism. This takes the line, generally, that the slums of Manchester are to be emptied Into Glossop. It is superficial criticism, parochial and insular, and indefensible in the 20th century. It is no longer possible to close the gates at sundown.
The irruption of Manchester residents into urban areas of Lancashire has been accomplished without social disturbance; both Hyde and Longdendale authorities are prepared to face the situation, why then should Glossop fear? Moreover, the offer of Glossop to accept overspill is not prompted by any high-flown philosophy of the brotherhood of man, it is an antidote for Glossop's own malaise.
It must not be forgotten that now, there is a superior planning body whose statutory duty it is to examine the state, circumstances and prospects of every authority in the administrative county; to diagnose its ills and prescribe the remedies. This is the Planning Committee, an active body of social physicians with their finger on the pulse of every settlement. We may perhaps remind the critics of some of the statements in the Development Plan, now before the Minister.
The migration of young workers from Glossop during the years of depression is sometimes mentioned, but mostly in a historical sense. The Development Plan deals with the phenomenon crisply thus :- "By far the severest outward migration of persons from a county district in Derbyshire is to be found in the recent history of the cotton town of Glossop. The large proportion of women at work in the mills had already depressed the birth rates over a considerable period so much so that the rate of natural increase at Glossop at the beginning of the century was the lowest in the county. Depression in the cotton industry drove many of the more mobile younger persons out of the town. Denuded of young adults the birth rate fell below the death rate. . . with nearly one person in five over 65 years. The downward trend of the population experienced since the turn of the century will continue unless new life can be injected into the area in future,"
And on the question of merging and mingling the plan states: that overspill "must be incorporated in the economic and social life of the settlements. The area is too distant from South Lancashire to be considered suitable as a dormitory area ... each settlement must be able to provide work as well as shelter ... "
"At Glossop, the reception of overspill might be the solution of the problems created by the existing social structure of the town. During the inter-war years the population of Glossop fell markedly, heavy outward migration of persons being experienced. As a consequence the proportion of older persons in the community is high compared with the average for Derbyshire and it is estimated that over the next 20 years an excess of deaths over births will give rise to an ageing and declining population, a prospect which may have repercussions on the capacity of the town to maintain its services and its vitality. There appears to be little doubt that subject to certain safeguards additional population may with advantage be introduced into Glossop. . It is therefore urged that the ideal solution to Glossop's internal problems and to the overspill problem would be the attraction of both population and Industry into the area. There is little doubt that substantial numbers of persons could be accommodated in the borough particularly to the south-west of Hadfield. . . but in the opinion of the author of the Plan industry would have to be introduced also since it is thought that even after electrification of the railway "the dally journey to work might prove excessive over a period."
That is the situation as laid down in the Development Plan: Is there a better solution? If so, what is it?

The discussion continued in the Chronicle of 26 November, under the headline Overspill - Will Glossop Benefit?
The prospect of thousands of new houses being built in the Glossop area to accommodate the overspill of Manchester, has raised fierce arguments in the town. It has provided a lively topic of conversation, and our post bag reflects the tremendous interest in the project by the members of the council and the man in the street. Some doubt the value of swelling the population, whilst others welcome the scheme and visualise it as the dawn of a new era for Glossop. We give below some observations on this topical subject.
Why overspill will benefit Glossop; The case for receiving 6,000; By Councillor Harry N. Sheldon, M.A.
Now that the argument about overspill has started, it is time that the problem (or as I shall try to show - opportunity) is given the serious consideration it deserves. Whilst it is right that human problems should be viewed with the heart as well as the head, a merely emotional approach to this problem is not good enough. I shall, therefore, try to keep the main part of my argument rational and objective, but will mention the human and emotional aspects at the end. I need hardly emphasise that I shall view the problem from Glossop's point of view. Any sensible argument must start from the facts of the present situation which represent the point of departure and proceed cautiously along the path towards the desired goal, carefully examining possible alternative routes and finally looking backwards from the summit to admire the view and to decide if the journey was really necessary and whether the goal attained was worth the struggle.
Glossop today is paying the penalty for having been the most highly specialised single industry cotton town during the second half of the 19th century. There is no need to enlarge on the steadily increasing decline of the cotton industry of Glossop that began in the 1890's and gathered momentum until it ended in virtually complete collapse in the 1930's (even though a new if much smaller textile industry has since arisen from the ruins of the old). It is enough to point out that Glossop's mournful experience has resulted in a legacy of very serious problems to be faced today either with courage and resolution or with timorous unbelief.
1. Declining population. The population of the present borough was 22,416 (excluding Gamesley) in 1891. The next forty years saw a slow, but steady dwindling to 20,001 in 1931. This was a loss of 2,415 or ten per cent at the rate of 60 a year. This was a mild form of anaemia for these 60 who left the town each year were the virile youth of the community and consequently the birth rate was always below the death rate from 1920 until 1940. In the next seven years a further 2,000 left the town - almost 300 a year. This was no mild anaemia – the community was virtually bleeding to death. The fact that the population in 1951 was 18,014 (i.e., about the same as the 1938 figure) was due to the abnormal circumstances of the world economic situation which caused the extraordinary movement of people from Europe into the cotton areas - displaced persons, European voluntary workers, etc. In the two years following the census of 1951 the population has again declined by 230 (latest figures are for 1953).
2. Ageing population or the problem of an unbalanced age structure. To some extent this is a national problem as the average age and proportion of old people is tending to increase throughout the country. But, nowhere in the country is the problem as acute as in Glossop. Again let us look at the facts. These facts are the result of the terrible decline of the population in the 1930's, wholly the virile youthful section of the community that went. Comparing Glossop's age structure with that of the county of which we are a part, Glossop has 80 per cent more people over 75 than the corresponding proportion in the whole of Derbyshire: 40 per cent more people between 65 and 75: 25 per cent more between 55 and 65; 20 per cent fewer children under the age of five: 15 per cent fewer between five and 15; 15 per cent fewer between 15 and 25: 14 per cent fewer between 25 and 35. There just are not enough people of working age and there are going to be proportionately fewer. Already, there are as many people over the age of 55 as there are between 25 and 55. A poor lookout for old folk's welfare when there are more old folk than wage earners to provide the welfare, as will soon be the case.
3. Declining Labour Force. There is no unemployment in Glossop at the present – but there might well be in the near future There were 11,000 workers in the town in 1929. There are now about 7,500. (These figures refer not only to the borough but to the Glossop Employment Area, including Charlesworth and Longdendale). Firms are being forced out of the town because they cannot get the workers they need. Many firms that might have brought new industries - and there were many seeking to come - have simply had to settle elsewhere because manpower was not available. Firms now operating in the town and providing attractive jobs for Glossop people can only keep going by transporting additional workers long distances at considerable expense. This does not make sense as a permanent arrangement and a short period of adverse trade would squeeze these firms out of Glossop like peas out of a pod - and the spectre of unemployment would again be in our midst.
4. The Missing Generation in Glossop's Social Life. In every walk of life the shortage of young folk and people of middle years to carry on the activities of the town makes itself felt. Every church, chapel, scout troop, political party, club, educational and cultural organisation in the town finds its very existence precarious because people of the medium young age groups are missing and the gap between the very old generation and the very young generation is so great that the young just do not come in. In spite of the valiant efforts of some members of the community, the existing social life of Glossop is much poorer than many towns of comparable size. This in spite of the extraordinary traditions of sociability and cultural activity that Glossop certainly has and admitting the excellence of the T.G., Music Club, Rep., etc.
5. The Burden of the Rates. Glossop's own rates (about 10s. 3d. in the pound) are ridiculously low when compared with the pre-war rate (about 9s in the pound) when it is considered that the cost of wages and salaries alone are about three times the pre-war figure. Essential expenditure on water and sewage schemes alone could and probably will come near to doubling this figure. All the time there are fewer and fewer people to share this burden. It is by no means impossible that the Ministry concerned may consider Glossop to be too poor to spend the amount of money for these essential schemes. Any further decline of population must inevitably mean empty houses and loss of rateable value, with a consequent rise in the rates and nothing to show for it.
6. It is all bound to get worse. Though an optimist by nature, sober consideration of the facts forces me to state bluntly that because of the very nature of the problems already mentioned all these ills from which the town suffers will in the normal course of events, if left to themselves, get progressively worse. Population troubles gather momentum as time goes on. This is, I think, the point at which discussion of possible remedies might fruitfully begin, now that we have faced the facts of the present situation.
What do we want to happen?
Employers want more workers; shopkeepers want to see more wage packets being distributed; the clergy want to see better filled churches; the town council wants more rateable value to go at even in order to maintain its present properties in reasonable repair; every organisation in the town would welcome more members.
Glossop is no decaying mining town hemmed in by spoil heaps, presenting a picture of abandoned endeavour (except perhaps one ruined mill), nor is it a port on a forgotten backwater, where old hulks rot in the mud and ruined wharfs moulder. It is a charming and attractive town with many assets as yet unused, abundantly capable of development, The point is how can development be brought about?
1. Private Residential Development: Those who love to live amidst the finest mountain scenery, only half an hour's journey from the cultural life of Manchester, and can afford to live some distance from their place of business might be enticed to live in Glossop, with its freedom from "smog," rather than in such places as Chinley, Disley, etc.. which are no more attractive. Five hundred houses of high rateable value would bring the council as much in rates as 2,000 to 3,000 houses of the poorer type and would probably require little extension of the public services apart from the emptying of 500 more dustbins. This sort of thing should be pursued vigorously by the Development Committee of the council, But this type of development would certainly not solve the labour shortage, and the type of person attracted would still tend to shop at Kendal's, though many might seek to enhance the social life of the town. We already have a great many people of this sort who live in Glossop from choice. Other people at slightly lower income levels might also be induced to make Glossop their dormitory.
2. The Tourist Industry. The most easily accessible entry from the whole of the Manchester conurbation to the Peak National Park, might reasonably be expected to take active steps to foster the tourist industry. Residential hotels, attractive cafes, even well labelled footpaths and attractive surroundings could do much to attract people to Glossop, increase its retail trade and induce people to come here to live, This too should be exploited to the full by the development committee.
3. Attraction of certain types of industry. Anything that would induce industries paying high wages to men to settle in Glossop – cheap existing premises, good sites excellent transport facilities – would solve its own labour shortage problem. People will follow good money anywhere – that is why Glossop grew in the first place. Again there is scope. But given all possible action along all these and any other lines that might suggest themselves, not enough development could possibly take place quickly enough to prevent the type of decay outlined above and with it the wasting of the type of assets which still make Glossop attractive.
4. Overspill. Make no mistake about it, overspill would be mutually advantageous to both Glossop and Manchester. Overspill on the terms which Glossop council is prepared to accept it, would mean an increased potential labour force, a spreading of the financial burden of the rates, some new school buildings, more varied Industry, the rejuvenation of many aspects of social life, more pay packets, better trade, and increased rateable value from new industrial premises and associated private housing development – fairly quickly too which is important. It would also mean the loss of many acres of green fields, and having to rub shoulders with those terrible people from Manchester, but this latter should not matter much in a community who are almost all outsiders if they care to go back three generations in their pedigrees or often not so far.
How much overspill? Well certainly Glossop could readily absorb 6,000 - half the figure that has been suggested - suppose we try that much to see how it works out?
Even if we did not stand to gain so very much, have we no human obligations to welcome some of Manchester's surplus population ?
Glossop needs development committee; Overspill could solve rate problem; by Councillor George Donaldson.
The letters of Councillors Hurst and Bamforth have done much to rouse public interest in the problems of overspill population and of sewage disposal.
As one who abstained from voting on the sewage disposal scheme, may I put forward these points for public discussion.
1. All authoritative opinion would suggest that some major reconstruction or renewal of the sewage works has to take place. It is the extent and nature of the reconstruction which is so controversial.
2. Since the Mersey River Board knew that it would have to be satisfied if river pollution from our sewage works ended it was able to say that patching up of our old works would be good enough for it. Councillor Bamforth rightly poses the question, "Would patching up be good economics for us?" We are officially advised about the bad siting of the present works with their liability to flooding. Gradient difficulties and the "backing up" of sewerage are troublesome problems. The patching up of old works and machinery is often expensive and recurrent - and one is left at the end with old, often still inefficient property.
3. The backing up of sewage through open grids in Brookfield during periods of heavy rain has to cease. It is intolerable in 1954 to have dung and filth washed up on public roads and in people's backyards. Councillor Hurst has never indicated how, in his patch-up scheme he intends to stop this trouble.
4. The history of the sewage works since 1925 generally seems to have been one of neglect and decay. How can one condone the action of the 1934 council which having removed unsatisfactory media from the bacteria beds, went on to put the same unsatisfactory media back? (It was cheaper that way). No wonder the bacteria are reported as having been unco-operative. Who has visited the sewage works who has not been ashamed of the dilapidation there, dilapidation which even coats of paint now and again would have helped to allay? Previous neglect has now caught up with us.
5. The floods of 1944 are known to have played havoc with the existing works. Since the Mersey River Board is the authority with responsibility for the rivers of the area, can we be assured even now that it is taking adequate steps to give Glossop Dale a greater degree of protection from floods? No new sewage scheme can be altogether successful without this extra protection.
6. I am utterly opposed to the scheme whereby consultants are paid fees proportionate to the cost of the schemes they recommend (about six per cent. at that). The amount paid out by Glossop since 1948 and scheduled to be paid out to consultants and their staffs totals well over £30,000. A princely sum. I deplore in any case the too frequent reference of local problems e.g. housing, to costly consultants.
7. The committees which "called in" the services of consultants in 1950 omitted to ascertain what these services would cost.
8. The special meeting of the council called to determine the fate of the £300,000 scheme was attended by only 14 of the 24 aldermen and councillors. The scheme was approved in fact by a minority of the council. Two or three members were ill but the position would indicate how little importance would seem to be attached to a tremendous issue by some elected representatives.
9. I abstained from voting because I felt reluctant to cast a vote for a £300,000 scheme to no section of which had an official alternative been put forward and because of a lingering suspicion of a "spare-no-cost" attitude prevalent among consultants. At the same time one is reminded that acute problems often need drastic remedies and I can sympathise with those councillors, laymen like myself, who, faced by a mass of technical backing, more readily than I (perhaps more courageously) accepted the recommended scheme.
10. Far less compelling a scheme would seem to me to be the new water scheme.
Overspill. I was staggered to read the views of Councillor Hurst on this subject. His parochial attitude to his neighbours contrasts markedly with the liberal, reasoned attitude of Councillor Bamforth, who indicates a willingness to put before prejudice the greater gains of the locality and of human beings in general.
May I add ?-
1. Most people, I think, would endorse the action of the present Government Minister, who refused to allow further first-class agricultural land in Cheshire (Lymm and Mobberley) to fall victim to the tentacles of large-scale urban development.
2. On the other hand few would, as Councillor Hurst, condemn unfortunately or inadequately housed people to remain for long or for ever in distressing circumstances merely because administrative boundaries come between them and salvation. Manchester, obviously, will work to re-house many of its people within its own boundaries: for the others, some of the marginal land of N.W. Derbyshire could well be offered.
(3) We do, of course, need the assurances that (a) overspill population will be introduced in such a way as to encourage assimilation into Glossop social and cultural life; (b) that the financial repercussions will not be disadvantageous to Glossop. Manchester has its duty here.
(4) Contrary to the alarmist views of Councillor B. Higginbottom, of Charlesworth, who with tales of modern semis for Manchester folk and bare boards for Glossopians, completely falsifies the picture. Glossop's hope is to build for itself whilst contemporaneously accepting overspill (integrated into our community and not semi-detached from it). Glossop should even be persuaded to build more rapidly for its own folk than its post-war unadventurous policy has allowed. As for people living in but working outside Glossop, what is deplorable in this in these days of mobility? Isn't one of the advantages of railway electrification to give us the opportunity of attracting settlement by extra-borough and city employed business, professional and industrial folk, who see the advantages of life in a small town which is more than a dormitory? There is a dearth of some skilled jobs in Glossop but there is at present a shortage of labour in general.
(5) Overspill could be an antidote to the increasingly pressing rate problem of Glossop.
(6) Overspill must not detract from efforts to encourage private development. It is high time that a Development Committee was set up in Glossop.
Coun. Higginbottom's last words on overspill; A "warning" to Glossop people.
Sir, I should like to thank you for giving me space to air my views in the recent debate on overspill problems. I should also like to thank Councillor Hurst for supporting me, as I do all those many people, Glossopians as well as Charlesworth people, who have encouraged me both verbally and by letter.
I should like to warn Glossopians that their town council don't win all the wild-goose chases they start - but Mr. Ratepayer has to pay for them all.
In answer to Councillor Sam Bamforth, Charlesworth has not a monopoly of pall closets, although I admit we have far too many.
I remember quite recently Chapel R.D.C. were asked to take Glossop's night soil from their pail closets. However, he should be happy to learn that the compulsory purchase order for land in Charlesworth for our own sewage works has now been confirmed, the total cost of which scheme will be an estimated 3½d. rate.
I must confess it is only a blue print yet and some time will elapse before it is a reality.
This problem and the lack of suitable employment in the area are only two of my reasons for opposing overspill which you - Councillor Sam Bamforth - and your friends, are seeking to impose not only on your own people in Glossop, but on Charlesworth, the village I am so honoured to represent.
You try to make capital, Councillor Sam Bamforth, about half truths; you try to point out that the ratepayers are protected from extravagant spending by the Minister concerned, but which Minister was it that advised you and your friends to waste several hundred pounds of your ratepayers' money on a needless lawsuit on Gamesley, which has made the condition of the road no better, nor advanced the day when it will be made better.
Also, Councillor Sam Bamforth, you state since January, 1954, you and your friends have had 30 licences to build houses and not one stone has been laid. Why?
For me the prime responsibility of safeguarding the ratepayers' money and trying to help solve their problems falls on my shoulders. Is it only at election times in Glossop the councillors know anything of their own problems ?
Having sounded the alarm, Councillor Sam Bamforth, I don't propose to prolong this correspondence, and for me it must now close, although I shall still carry on the fight in other fields with my motto as before - "Charlesworth's own problems first." - Yours, etc.,
Bernard Higginbottom
6, Marple Road,
Charlesworth.

The meeting of the Housing, Town Planning and Development Committee on 6 December 1954 received a letter from the Glossop, Hadfield and District Trades Council expressing their appreciation of the Council's decision to accept overspill.
On the subject of Future Housing, the Borough Surveyor reported that application had been made to the County Planning Department to develop the Newshaw Lane site and that the County had notified him that the land on both sides of Newshaw Lane was one of the areas zoned for accommodating overspill population, and it was felt that it would be premature at this stage to develop in the Newshaw Lane area. The Committee discussed the question of developing the area between Hadfield Cross and St. Charles' School, to the north of the footpath from Walker Street to Mersey Bank, which would provide a unit for approximately 150 houses (This seems to be the first time that the Chapel Lane area had been publicly mentioned as a possibility for an overspill estate).
It was decided:
(i) That the proposal to develop the Newshaw Lane site be not proceeded with
(ii) That the site between Hadfield Cross and St. Charles' School be developed to its maximum capacity and that application be made to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
(iii) That application be made to the County Planning Department for planning approval.
(iv) That the Town Clerk be instructed to take the necessary steps to acquire the land.
(v) That the Borough Surveyor be instructed to make tentative enquiries about firms who build traditional and non-traditional housing on National scale.

The meeting of the Housing, Town Planning and Development Committee on 31 January 1955 heard that the Minister of Housing and Local Government would shortly be visiting Manchester and it was decided that an invitation be extended to him to visit Glossop.
At the meeting of the committee on 4 April, the Borough Surveyor reported that a large amount of his Engineering Assistant's time was spent on the work of inspection and administration of applications for improvement grants and he desired him to be relieved of this work to devote his time to the roads and sewers for the Chapel Lane Estate. Members decided that a recommendation be made to the Finance Committee that if possible a University Surveying Student be engaged during the vacation on the survey of roads and sewers for the Chapel Lane Estate (the Finance Committee approved the recommendation at its meeting on 12 April).
The Chairman reported on the Overspill position as far as was known to date and that the Overspill Sub-Committee of the General and Parliamentary Committee of Manchester Corporation had visited some of the sites proposed in the Glossop Draft Town Plan on 31st March. Before the Overspill Sub-Committee could consider what further action to take it would be necessary to ascertain the position relating to the provision of main services.
On 13 April, the General Purposes Committee resolved that a request be made to the Derbyshire County Council that Glossop be represented at any future meetings connected with overspill and that the Mayor (Councillor Turner) and Alderman Doyle be appointed the Council's representatives.

The Manchester Evening News of 5 May 1955 reported:
Manchester Corporation is to begin negotiations with Glossop on plans for building overspill homes there for more than 12,000 Manchester people. This was revealed to-day by Councillor R. E. Thomas, chairman of Manchester's General and Parliamentary Committee, who, with other senior representatives of Manchester Corporation, visited Glossop, 13 miles away, this afternoon. "Glossop is offering three sites, all close to the town and capable of holding a total of between 3,000 and 4,000 houses," said Councillor Thomas. Six months ago Glossop offered land for 1,000 Manchester overspill houses subject to financial safeguards.

The Housing and Town Planning Committee was still busy. At its meeting on 4 July 1955 it received a letter from the Town Clerk, Manchester, stating that it would be useful if representatives of the City Council could meet representatives of this Council and the Derbyshire County Council, and that the Cheshire County Council were also interested in such a meeting. The Committee agreed and appointed the Mayor (Councillor Burgess), Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Alderman Doyle and Councillor Haigh, together with the appropriate Officers, to attend.
Two weeks later the committee accepted the layout plan, submitted by the Architects for the Chapel Lane site, providing for 70 three-bedroomed houses and 188 two-bedroomed flats on the site.
On 5 September the committee received the Joint Report of the Town Clerk, Borough Treasurer and Borough Surveyor on a preliminary meeting in Manchester Town Hall on the 19th July and letter from the Private Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Local Government regarding the Council's request for the Minister to visit Glossop. It was agreed that the Chairman, the Chairman of the Finance Committee and the Borough Treasurer investigate the matter. On 28 September the full council meeting decided that the Chairman of the Development Committee be added to the Sub-Committee.
The committee meeting of 7 November received the report of the Town Clerk on the meeting with representatives of Manchester City Council on the question of overspill and resolved that so far as this Council is concerned the Manchester City Council be allowed to develop the Chapel Lane Site.

The Manchester Evening News of 14 November 1955 reported that:
Members of Manchester City Council and Glossop Town Council were meeting at Glossop to-day to choose sites for a "pilot" scheme in the area for 250 houses for Manchester overspill. "The meeting should go a long way towards deciding which type of house will be built and when the actual building will start." said Glossop's deputy mayor, Councillor H. Turner.

The overspill situation was on the agenda of the Housing and Town Planning Committee on several occasions during 1956.
On 9 January the committee received correspondence with the Ministry of Housing & Local Government on the question of the subsidy payable under the Housing Subsidies Bill. It was decided that a copy of this correspondence be sent to Manchester City Council and that they be asked for their observations. In addition, the Town Clerk submitted a letter from the District Valuer stating that he had been unable to make further progress towards the acquisition of the Chapel Lane site and that the Corporation might consider the advisability of making a compulsory purchase order. It was decided that this matter be discussed with Manchester City Council.
On 6 February the committee received a letter from the Glossop, Hadfield & District Trades Council setting out resolution asking for this Council's consideration to speed slum clearance in the Town and District with a view to putting "its own house in order" before accepting Manchester Overspill. The Committee decided that the Trades Council be thanked for their observations.
At the meeting of 9 April, the Town Clerk submitted a letter from the Central Land Board stating that under Section 52(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, they were entitled to recover from the Corporation the amount of £561 9s. 11d. which had been paid to the owner of 3,534 square yards of land at Chapel Lane, Hadfield. The committee resolved that this amount be paid to the Central Land Board and that the Finance Committee be recommended to make application to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for loan sanction. In addition, the Town Clerk submitted a letter from the Mersey River Board stating that the Board were of the opinion that they should oppose the development of the Chapel Lane Housing Site on the grounds that the proposed new storm water overflow would cause additional pollution from an already overloaded sewerage and sewage disposal system, and that if formal application is made to the Board for their consent to the proposals under Section 7 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, such consent will be withheld on those grounds. The Town Clerk gave his observations and it was resolved that formal application be made to the Mersey River Board under Section 7 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, for their consent to the proposal to instal a new storm water overflow for the development of the Chapel Lane Housing Site.
On 4 June the Borough Surveyor submitted a letter from Sir A. H. S. Waters and Partners stating that they were of the opinion that any new development should, where practicable, be on a completely separate sewerage system and especially the Chapel Lane housing site, as if a combined system were permitted for the overspill pilot scheme it might be very difficult to insist on a separate system for the full scheme. It was resolved that the Town Clerk be instructed to arrange a further meeting with representatives of the Council of the City of Manchester to discuss the matter.
On 7 July it was resolved that the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, the Mayor, Alderman Haigh and Councillors Bamforth, Burgess and Sheldon be appointed to discuss the sewerage system for the Chapel Lane housing site with representatives of the Council of the City of Manchester.
On 3 September the Town Clerk submitted a letter dated the 25th July, 1956, from the Mersey River Board refusing consent to the new storm water outlet and discharge of the proposed sewerage system for the Chapel Lane housing site, but stating that they would be prepared to reconsider the matter when work on the new sewage works commenced, and reported that he was preparing an appeal to the Minister of Housing and Local Government against the refusal. It was resolved that the Town Clerk be instructed to submit a formal appeal to the Minister as soon as possible.

At the committee meeting on 7 January 1957, the Town Clerk submitted a letter dated the 10th December, 1956, from the Mersey River Board stating that they had agreed, in the circumstances and with great reluctance, to withdraw their refusal of consent to the proposed new sewage storm water discharge for the Chapel Lane housing site, on the understanding that this was to assist the Corporation in the execution of the pilot overspill scheme for Manchester. It was resolved:
(1) That so much of the resolution of 6 December 1954 as instructed the Town Clerk to take the necessary steps to acquire the Chapel Lane housing site be rescinded; and
(2) That the Town Clerk be instructed:-
(a) To ask the Corporation of Manchester to proceed with the acquisition of the site as expeditiously as possible; and
(b) To arrange for the members of the committee appointed on 2 July 1956 to discuss :- (i) The financial and other arrangements for the reception of overspill on the Chapel Lane housing site with representatives of the Council of the City of Manchester; and (ii) The alteration of the draft town map with representatives of the Derbyshire County Council, so that consideration could be given to developing the sites at present reserved for the reception of overspill in other ways.
On 4 March 1957, the Town Clerk submitted a letter dated the 11th February, 1957, from the Town Clerk of Manchester stating that his General and Parliamentary Committee would at their next meeting have before them a recommendation that a compulsory purchase order should be made in respect of the Chapel Lane housing site, but that he thought that it was essential that, before a meeting between representatives of the two Councils took place, a memorandum should be prepared by the technical officers giving precise details of the matters to be discussed. The Town Clerk reported on a meeting which the members appointed on 2 July 1956 had had on the 4th March, 1957, with representatives of the Derbyshire County Council to discuss the alteration of the draft town map so that consideration could be given to developing the sites at present reserved for the reception of overspill in other ways. It was resolved that the Borough Surveyor be authorised :-
(1) To continue preparing the memorandum suggested by the Town Clerk of Manchester; and
(2) To prepare, in consultation with the County Planning Officer, suggestions for altering the draft town map.

The Manchester Evening News of 28 March 1958 reported:
Homeless Manchester families may go to live at Flint in North Wales, 52 miles from the city. The Welsh town has offered land for overspill development. It will be told that Manchester is prepared to consider sharing part of the cost of any houses which may be built for city families. Nelson and Colne have been told Manchester will consider any proposals to house city families there. Manchester will be responsible for 145 houses of 290 to be built at Chapel Lane, Hadfield, Glossop. If it is not possible to get tenants from Manchester to go there the houses will be sold to Glossop at building cost.
On 18 August the paper reported:
Manchester's claims, backed by Glossop Council, for a site for 290 houses at Hadfield, Glossop, will be heard in public at Manchester Town Hall on August 27. The Housing Ministry inquiry will be told this is a "pilot" scheme and, if successful, homes for 5,000 families could eventually be built in the area.
The enquiry was reported in the newspaper on 27 August:
Manchester City Council was described as a "Big Brother" and criticised for its "overlordship" of neighbouring towns by objectors at a public inquiry in Manchester to-day into the proposed "pilot" overspill scheme at Hadfield, Glossop. The corporation wants to compulsorily purchase 26 acres, to build 290 houses before deciding whether to go ahead with the full scheme for 5,000 houses on six sites in the area.
Glossop Councillor J. G. Hurst, of Glossop Road, Gamesley, Glossop, said: "I love Manchester and all that it stands for within the city walls. I hate the influence and overlordship of Manchester City Council outside its borders."
Councillor Hurst was objecting to the stormwater overflow proposed for the site, contending that it would further pollute the River Etherow. He claimed that within Manchester there was the "polio brook" - Moston Brook, - and parents had been warned by the corporation not to let their children play near it.
Another objector, 70-year-old Mr. James Gerrard, of Owen's Paradise, Hadfield, claimed that the housing site would spoil the view from his bungalow. He alleged that Manchester was playing the part of a "big brother" in its dealings with Glossop.
Miss Ruth Woodward, of Hadfield Road, Hadfield, did not make a formal objection, but gave her ideas about overspill. She complained that corporation tenants who would be moving into the area seemed to have such little pride in their houses. She suggested that the best way to tackle overspill was to encourage people to do their own private building in co-operation with Manchester. People could afford it. She also complained that residents had been kept in the dark about the overspill scheme and said strangers had been "snooping around without telling anyone what they were doing."

The Glossop Chronicle of 9 January 1959 reported:
The Derbyshire County Planning Department announced this week that in the county development plan, provision is made to receive overspill population from Manchester in Glossop. A statement from the department says - "Provision is made to receive overspill population from Manchester in Glossop in the north-west of the county, where additional population would be a positive gain to a town which still maintains a fine tradition and community spirit despite the fact that large numbers of people moved away from the town during the inter-war years. Manchester Corporation are at present engaged in a pilot scheme for housing overspill in Glossop which it is hoped will be a precursor of development on a larger scale. In addition it is hoped to expand Chapel-en-le-Frith mainly to accommodate employees of local industries at present travelling some distance to work. "The movements of overspill population should be accompanied by a similar movement of industry particularly in the cases of Sheffield and Manchester. The plan, therefore, provides for the re-location of industry as far as practicable from Manchester to Glossop and from Sheffield to the Eckington area. This means that instead of having to journey into Manchester and Sheffield each day the overspill populations would have employment facilities within an easy and economic travelling, distance."

The Glossop Chronicle of 22 September 1961 contained a report under the headline Overspill a step nearer - developments at Hadfield and read "Extensive work is going on in the Hadfleld area, which means that overspill building is one step nearer. Roads and sewers are being constructed off Chapel Lane, and Mr E. Allen. Glossop borough surveyor said this week: "It is presumed that the houses will follow pretty rapidly when the work is completed." This is Manchester Corporation's pilot scheme for the area. Overspill has been a word mentioned many times at council meetings, conferences and inquiries in recent years. Many people had reached the stage where they felt it would never really become a reality in this area - but the excavations going on in Hadfleld just now are making them realise that the borough will be a different place altogether with the arrival of new houses and fresh faces. And new outlooks on life from the city dwellers?"
The article was accompanied by this photograph of the work.

Road and sewer building at Carriage Drive
Road and sewer building at Carriage Drive.


The Manchester Evening News of 29 December 1961 reported:
Land for housing which nearly two years ago Manchester expected to cost £11,000 has now gone up by £8,500. The land, nearly 26 acres at Glossop, Derbyshire, is required by the city as part of its overspill housing programme. A report for next week's meeting of the city council says that when the original estimate was made it was thought unlikely that general increases in prices of building land would apply greatly in the Glossop area. But it is now clear that the original estimate was insufficient. The corporation plans to build 285 homes on the site and the cost of land per house will now be approximately £68, compared with the previous estimate of £38.

The Glossop Chronicle of 19 October 1962 contained a report on how some of the first tenants of the Chapel Lane estate were settling in:
"It's absolutely wonderful. We think Hadfield is grand and we are settling down well." This was how Mr and Mrs Harry Wells, who arrived on Manchester's overspill site at Hadfield on Saturday summed up their impressions this week. And their feelings are shared by other overspill tenants as the estate gradually fills up. A visit to the estate by a Chronicle reporter proved that these tenants can be classed as the best and gives the lie to certain rumours circulating in the area that all the newcomers can be lumped together as undesirable newcomers for Hadfield.

Road and sewer building at Carriage Drive
Mr and Mrs Wells.

Mr and Mrs Wells welcomed me with a big smile and were only too eager to show me round their neatly arranged living room and scullery where they are busy laying new oilcloth. They even took me upstairs to show me the glorious view across mist shrouded hills looking across the valley towards Tintwistle. Fifty-seven-year-old Mrs Isabella Wells (“I've taken the Glossop Chronicle for the past 12 months to keep in touch with things in this district") goes to work at a wholesale chemists in Manchester three days a week. Her husband, 56-year-old Mr Harry Wells has obtained a job at Maconochie's so is not faced with the burden of additional bus fares. They have been council tenants for a quarter of a century and have just celebrated their silver wedding They have no children. "We always wanted to come out to Glossop and I've visited this estate every week to see what progress has been made when we knew we would get a house" said Mrs Wells. "We have some friends round here and the people are grand. We are looking forward to our retirement in Hadfield. Asked if they had any grumbles, and if they missed any of the amenities they might have found in a big estate like the one at Wythenshawe where they previously lived they stated: "We feel there is need for a telephone near the estate and perhaps some shops and a doctor's surgery but no doubt these things will be provided later on." They have always been fond of walking so that the open situation will suit them and although their garden at No. 16 Stiles Close, Hadfield, is not quite as big as the one they were used to at Wythenshawe but already they are planning the flower beds.
Much of the site is still unoccupied and the builders are still engaged on finishing off the roads and footpaths.
Those who maintain that town folk cannot appreciate the natural amenities of a place in the country would do well to ponder Mr and Mrs Wells' delight at their new home.
Rents vary in the 35s.and £2 range, according to the size of the house and so compare with the Town Council's local housing schemes.

The Bradbury family
The Bradbury family.

A few houses away in Etherow Way I met Mrs Dorothy Bradbury busily preparing dinner. Her husband works at Trafford Park so is finding the fare to get to work rather expensive.
"But I think it will be nice when we get settled here" said Mrs Bradbury. Their four children – three boys and a girl - are already making friends with other children but Mrs Bradbury said she is finding it rather a long distance to walk with the eldest to St Andrew's school. She and Mr Bradbury and the children previously lived in a flat on the Wythenshawe estate and now have to contend with a garden. "We had never been to Hadfleld before and really did not know what sort of district we would be coming to" she admits.
It is clear that at least two families among the early arrivals to this estate are settling down well and in the long run this influx of new blood to Hadfleld should bring nothing but good results. There may be one or two minor difficulties to solve early on, but once the newcomers become accustomed to what is a new mode of life these should be forgotten.
Altogether there will be 285 houses on this pilot scheme.
One comment heard on the estate was that local shops do not provide such a large variety of stock as one could find in larger towns, but another remark was that their quality was quite good. No doubt, local tradesmen will gain extra custom as the number of tenants grow.
As Mr Wells is not a United nor City fan, he is not worried by the fact that his new home is much further from first division football, and, surprising as it may seem to many, this family is finding the local buses much more frequent than the ones near their former home. With their own stove installed and some pleasant furniture Mr and Mrs Wells have been busy along with other first tenants on the estate arranging their possessions - and very pleasant it looked.
Looking out at the hills Mrs Wells remarked "Anybody selling a house would put on another £200 on the price for a view like this."
"Perhaps some of the younger arrivals will find it more different to settle down from the older." said one old Hadfield resident. "Nowadays we have no cinema and the only dances are at Glossop so that they may well find they are short of entertainment. This won't matter much for the older ones."
But looking at the children on the estate one departs feeling that it is the future generations who will derive the benefit of living in these conditions with the wine-like air of the hills filling their lungs and the green fields of Longdendale for them to wander in next summer.

In the years to come, different people had different experiences and the move out of the city was not for everyone. That, though, is a separate story from How Manchester Came to Hadfield.

Footnote.
A complication regarding the Chapel Lane estate was that it surrounded the former Graveyard and site of the Old Wesleyan Chapel on Broadmeadow. This Graveyard held the first Wesleyan Chapel in Hadfield (built in 1805), the Society having transferred to Bank Street Chapel when it was built in 1877.
Permission to sell the old Chapel for demolition was granted in May 1883 and this was carried out. Since then the site had been maintained as an open space, the Bank Street trustees having undertaken to "keep the said Graveyard and fencing, etc. in good repair - and to lay out the ground and keep it a sacred place, for ever."
The Graveyard was closed for burials in 1859 when the Trustees resolved "That the Burial Ground in Broadmeadow cease to be used for burials and be forthwith closed." By the time the estate was built the fences had been replaced by walls and the ground had been planted with trees.
In September 1962 the Trustees decided to offer the site as a gift to Glossop Borough, the only condition being that it be maintained as an open space for ever. At the time the site was described as a "shambles" because of bull-dozers running into the boundary walls during overspill building. The Borough agreed to accept the gift and, following the undertaking of statutory formalities and resolving of legal complications, the conveyance was completed in September 1966.

Wesleyan chapel graveyard
Wesleyan chapel graveyard after repairs (including making safe some tombs) with a view up the "new" Chapel Lane.



Return to GJH.me Home Page, Return to Glossop Area Local Histories index.


Last updated: 12 October 2024