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, 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.
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.
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.
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 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