Stepping Hill Hospital

Debate between Andrew Gwynne and William Wragg

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wragg]

Absolutely. I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on the work that she has undertaken with me and others from across the region in securing additional funding. I will touch on that later. She is absolutely right, because Stepping Hills’ emergency department is overstretched and facing those rising demands. It was built to treat about 50,000 patients a year but is currently on track, as she says, to exceed 100,000 patients this year.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. Is it not also important to impress on the Minister the demographic nature of the borough of Stockport, which we all represent? Stockport is a microcosm of the whole country in that it has its own north-south divide. There are real health inequalities between those living in the north of Stockport and those living in the south. In the south of Stockport, people tend to live longer and stay healthier longer, but when they do reach old age, they often have very complex needs.

[Mr Wragg]

The hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour to the north of my constituency, is entirely spot on. His remarks are incisive and to the point, because the demand for emergency care in our area has risen by about 5% in the past year, and in the three months to December alone it increased by 6%. It was previously rare for Stepping Hills’ emergency department to see more than 200 patients a day, but now it is not uncommon for over 300 people to seek treatment per day. Indeed, in Christmas week, over 1,700 patients were seen by the department.

Bed capacity is also a problem at Stepping Hill. A hospital bed system should ideally run at about 85% occupancy to make way for new patients, but at Stepping Hill beds have been frequently running at over 99% occupancy. Having support in place to enable people to return home as quickly as possible once they no longer need acute hospital care is also key to achieving the national standard by improving the flow of patients through the hospital and its emergency departments. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) says, Stockport has the highest proportion of elderly people in Greater Manchester, with 19.5% of the population being 65 or older. While increasing longevity is of course to be celebrated, our local population is living longer, often with complex and multiple health conditions, and they place a particular demand on the emergency department that is not seen to the same degree elsewhere in the region.

The hospital has implemented a number of short-term initiatives to try to fix and improve the situation in A&E, particularly to address the extra winter pressures due to influenza and the cold weather. The trust recently spent £1.2 million provided by NHS England to expand the number of consulting and treatment rooms in the existing emergency departments. This winter, Stepping Hill implemented its winter plans two months early, opening an extra 30 beds in the hospital. Even so, concerns this year were so great that they were recognised by the Greater Manchester health and social care partnership. In December, the hospital received an extra £2 million of funding to enable it to open an additional 51 beds until after the end of March this year, increasing staffing and supporting seven-day working.

However, I want to ask a number of questions of my hon. Friend the Minister, for whose consideration this evening I am very grateful. First, despite all those steps and extra beds, in December, alarmingly, 200 people waited for 12 hours or more in the department before a bed could be found for them. I wish therefore to ask him what more can be done by the Government to help Stepping Hill to improve its A&E performance in the short term.

[Mr Wragg]

First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election in High Peak, which is next door to me, and for working as closely as possible with me on this issue as soon as he was elected? Like him, I welcome the investment that is coming, as I am about to outline.

Opening more temporary beds is not the answer to the pressures on our health and care system. A radical long-term solution is needed if Stepping Hill is to improve its A&E performance. That is why I, the hospital and all Members across the House with an interest in it have called for greater investment. The new £30.6 million of funding will enable the organisation to construct a three-storey, purpose-built emergency care campus. It will include an urgent care treatment centre, a GP assessment unit and a planned investigation unit, as well as a new ambulance access road and improved waiting areas.

The emergency care campus will not be simply a new accident and emergency; it is intended instead to care for patients who require a slightly lower grade of emergency care, thus relieving the pressure on A&E by improving the flow of patients through the hospital from the emergency department. Patients who need resuscitation or emergency care will still be seen in A&E. This much-needed investment will relieve the pressures on accident and emergency by implementing a better triaging system for patients, meaning that they get the right care in the right place. Patients who do not require full A&E emergency care will be seen in one of the three new services at the urgent care campus.

The urgent care treatment centre will provide an alternative for those who do not need resuscitation or emergency care. It is expected to triage about 45 patients a day away from accident and emergency. The GP assessment unit will support patients who are referred by their GP for hospital care, ensuring that they have quick access to the acute and medical specialists they need to see without going through the emergency department, thereby reducing A&E admissions by a further 25 patients a day. The planned investigation unit will improve the time in which patients are returned home with a care plan when they no longer need to access acute care services.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous; I am very grateful. I associate myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) with the proposals the hon. Gentleman has outlined.

May I offer the hon. Gentleman some reassurance from across the boundary in the neighbouring borough of Tameside, which my constituency also covers? Fifteen years ago, when I was first elected to this House, the reputations of Stepping Hill Hospital and Tameside Hospital were almost in mirror image. Tameside was not the best place it could be. With great focus and new management, that hospital has been transformed. Does he share my confidence that better days are ahead of Stepping Hill, and my trust in the staff and the management to take the hospital back to where it needs to be?

[Mr Wragg]

I absolutely concur with the hon. Gentleman. The leadership of the hospital is excellent. I think that, as he says, better days are very near. May I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), who has come to take part in this debate?

Greater Manchester Spatial Framework

Debate between Andrew Gwynne and William Wragg

Thursday 21st February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Wragg]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. She is correct that, to get residents to buy in to that level of development, they will need assurance that it will not simply add to congestion on local roads, and that there will be adequate provision of hospitals, doctors and school places. That would be the same in all our constituencies.

Since being elected in 2015, I have campaigned alongside residents to protect the local green belt, particularly around the village of High Lane, from massive developments such as those proposed under the GMSF. I have attended public meetings, led debates in the House, submitted a petition from more than 4,000 constituents, worked with my constituency neighbours and lobbied three different Housing Ministers about the matter. I want to put on the record my thanks to all the local people who, with their letters, signing various petitions, organising demonstrations and making their voices heard, have supported the campaign so far, and I hope they continue to do so. I also want to thank my colleagues from across the region who have led similar campaigns in their constituencies, particularly my constituency neighbours in the Borough of Stockport, one of whom, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), we are delighted to see on the Front Bench and will speak for the Opposition today. At this time of apparently unsurmountable political divides, we have been able to work on a cross-party basis. If we can work in such a way, there is hope indeed. Despite my opposition to parts of the framework, I also want to thank the combined authority for listening to people and for taking note of their concerns and revising the plan.

What is the upshot of the policy changes, and is the revised GMSF any better? From my own constituency perspective, one major improvement is how the overall housing targets under the framework appear to have, in effect, been assessed at a county-wide level rather than a purely local authority one, which means that some of the house building targets from the first draft can be redistributed across the local authority boundaries to where local housing need is perhaps higher or land availability greater. The approach is sensible and was a change that I and others called for in response to the first draft.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Wragg]

I happily give way to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He and I are both Stockport Members of Parliament. He knows that some in Stockport, principally the Liberal Democrats, have talked about pulling Stockport out of the county-wide co-operation on planning. Does he agree that that would be absolute folly because the situation that he has just described, whereby some of Stockport’s housing growth can be shared across the county, would not be available to Stockport should it pull out of the GMSF?

[Mr Wragg]

The shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right. It is highly irresponsible for any political party to make such broad statements, which could increase the pressures on local green belts by some 5,000 for the Borough of Stockport. He is completely right to place that on the record this afternoon.

The updated proposals also mean changes at a local level in Stockport and will instead see the number of new houses earmarked for building on the green belt reduced from 12,000 to 3,700. In my constituency of Hazel Grove, the figure has been reduced from 4,000 to 1,250. Critically, plans to more than double the size of the village of High Lane with an extra 4,000 houses have been reduced to 500. However, to fit some of the new homes needed, new sites at the former Offerton High School, Gravel Bank Road and Unity Mill in Woodley and Hyde Bank meadows in Romiley have been suggested under the revised plans. Those sites will be much smaller than the original High Lane proposals at about 250 homes each, and in some cases will partly use previously developed land.

The revised plans that greatly reduce the amount of green belt to be sacrificed show that when local people come together and we work on a cross-party basis we can get results. I have consistently urged that the overall number of houses needed to be reduced, and that where houses are to be built we should follow a robust “brownfield first” policy. I therefore welcome the fact that the revised GMSF plans do both of those things. The result of the changes is a step in the right direction, in many aspects, as regards the controversial elements of the framework. However, as ever, there is more work to be done.

Almost half of the UK population live in rural, semi-rural or suburban communities close to green-belt land. The green belt is a vital barrier to urban sprawl and is hugely valued by local people. Our road infrastructure and transport capacity already struggle with existing demands. The proposals for development will risk making matters worse. The green belt encourages regeneration of our towns and makes the best use of our land. It therefore protects the countryside and all the benefits that that brings.

To protect and enhance the countryside, which borders the homes of some 30 million people, we must press on with the “brownfield first” approach. The green belt should not be used for housing development on the scale currently proposed. The fact is that we need more housing, but it should be implemented following a vigorous “brownfield first” policy. Insisting that brownfield land, which has had development on it previously, should be prioritised for the building of homes would encourage the regeneration of our towns and would ensure that the best use is made of our land. Importantly, it would ensure that housing is located where there is already the necessary infrastructure, and where local services can be augmented and improved.

To minimise the pressure on the green belt, it is important that we identify as best as possible all brownfield land. We should look at areas that are vacant or derelict so that we can optimise their potential for development before considering green-belt sites. Credit is therefore due to the Government for the creation of the brownfield register, following the Housing and Planning Act 2017. It has enabled hundreds of additional brownfield sites to be identified, and so has removed a considerable amount of the pressure on the green belt. Some good progress has been made in that area.

Thanks to the brownfield register, we know that Greater Manchester has at least 1,000 hectares of brownfield land spread across 439 sites, which have not yet been fully developed for housing. That is enough to build at least 55,000 homes, and it is likely that more such land can be found. Stockport has a reasonable number of those sites, although not as many as other areas. Stockport’s brownfield register, which is administered by the local council, has made it possible to identify sites within the urban area suitable for the development of up to 7,200 housing units. That is a considerable amount more than when we began this process a couple of years ago.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England estimates that, across the country, there is enough brownfield land to build some 720,000 homes. That figure has been revised upwards from the 2017 estimate of 650,000. Those brownfield sites have the potential to contribute significantly to the construction of the homes that are needed.

Another significant development since the last debate came in September 2018, when the Office for National Statistics released its most up-to-date population figures and household forecasts. Its publication of the new household projections led to a reduction in the overall numbers generated by the standard method for assessing local housing need. They proved to be nearly 25% lower than previously thought. Consequently, they gave rise to a national need target of some 213,000 new homes per year.

In October 2018, the Government published a technical consultation on the update to national planning policy and guidance. I commend them for a masterpiece of obfuscation. The consultation paper set out proposals to update planning guidance on housing need assessment to be consistent to the Government’s ambition to increase housing supply. They propose that planning practice guidance should be amended to specify that the 2014 ONS projections provide the demographic baseline for local housing need, rather than the 2016 figures. They produced their consultation response just two days ago, so colleagues may be forgiven for not having read it yet.

Despite clear opposition to the proposals from organisations and individuals, the Government have signalled their intention to ignore the latest ONS figures and use the outdated but higher 2014 projections. That means that they will overlook the latest ONS forecast, and instead stick to the previous target of 300,000 new homes per year, which will, I am afraid, lead to increased pressure on green-belt land.

I have a number of questions for our excellent Minister. First, I want to make a rather technical but nevertheless important point. I reiterate the point that I made when I wrote to the Secretary of State in December in response to the Department’s consultation. I believe that the 2016 projection should be used to provide the demographic baseline for the standard method. I strongly disagreed with the Ministry’s proposals, and I still do. Failure to use the most up-to-date evidence in creating policies is, I think, directly contradictory to the rules of the national planning policy framework. Moreover, there were 498 responses to this question, and of those organisations that responded, more than half—55%—disagreed with the change; only one third agreed with the proposal. In fact, more than two thirds of local authorities opposed the plans. Individual respondents, of whom I was one, were overwhelmingly opposed; the figure was 86%.

I have concerns about the Government’s response to the ONS figures and the message that that may send. If the Ministry selectively considers evidence that justifies its housing need figures, that suggests that the direction of travel is only one way. It seems a departure, I contend, from evidence-based policy making. It is a case of cherry-picking facts to ensure that the means justify the ends. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the approach of his Ministry in this area.

Secondly, there must be stronger consideration, at individual site level, of what is being lost in terms of green space or green belt, particularly with regard to wildlife corridors and recreational spaces. A local site of particular concern to me is the area at Hyde Bank meadows in Romiley in my constituency. It contains the well used community facilities of Tangshutt fields, including playing fields, three football pitches and a children’s play area, and is adjacent to Tangshutt meadow, which is a popular local green space, a nature reserve, a community orchard and allotments. The loss of that green space would damage the local environment, the community and the health and wellbeing of local people, and it is but one example from the GMSF second draft document.

Finally and importantly, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, more attention must be paid to how local infrastructure will support the new developments where and when they may be approved—that follows on from the excellent intervention by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—particularly in respect of roads, traffic and local amenities. Although it would obviously have fewer homes than the 4,000 previously proposed, even a relatively small site—250 homes—would mean at least 250 extra cars on the road; there would probably be two or indeed three cars per household.

Many of the site-specific proposals in the revised framework refer to road and rail upgrades, in the immediate vicinity of sites, to provide access to the developments and to manage traffic in and around the new estates. However, beyond that, the framework generally gives no further details of what that will entail in the surrounding areas. It makes only vague references to developing travel plans or travel corridors, or general improvements to highway infrastructure. Without any level of detail, it is very hard for local politicians or local people to know the true impact that there may be on their area.

Petitions

Debate between Andrew Gwynne and William Wragg

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I did not want to throw you, Mr Deputy Speaker, by being in my old place, but it is nice to be back up here on the Back Benches for a temporary period.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents opposing proposals to extend the Bredbury Parkway industrial estate in the Tame valley, Greater Manchester. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for being in the Chamber to present the same petition from his constituents. This shows the value of this green space to both our constituencies. I thank the residents of Denton and Reddish—a total of 1,440 residents in all—who have signed this petition online and in writing.

The petition declares:

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that proposals to extend the Bredbury Parkway Industrial Estate deep into the Tame Valley would involve large-scale developments on the Green Belt land, which is a valuable barrier to urban sprawl and is hugely valued by local people, particularly in the areas of Bredbury, Woodley, Denton and Tameside; further declares that this development would destroy the openness of this section of the Tame Valley and damage the visual amenity from the Haughton Dale and Hulme’s Wood Local Nature Reserves; further declare concerns over HGV traffic in the area and the impact that the proposals would have on an already congested Stockport Road and Ashton Road, and the associated effects on the environment.

The petitioners oppose plans to extend the Bredbury Parkway Industrial Estate. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, Tameside Council and the Department for Communities and Local Government not to support the extension of the Bredbury Parkway Industrial Estate; and to further urge that the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) must follow principles of a ‘Brownfield First’ strategy, so that previously developed land, including derelict or unused sites, must be fully considered before Green Belt is released for development.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002273]

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

I rise to present a petition in similar terms to that presented by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). It has been a pleasure to work with him—he and I are equally committed to the green belt in Stockport and Tameside respectively and wish to encourage a brownfield-first policy. This petition, to protect green-belt land near the Bredbury industrial estate, is added to the similar petitions signed by thousands of my constituents demanding that the Greater Manchester spatial framework is radically redrawn. It is a pleasure for me to present it on behalf of my constituents.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that proposals to extend the Bredbury Parkway Industrial Estate deep into the Tame Valley would involve large-scale developments on the Green Belt land, which is a valuable barrier to urban sprawl and is hugely valued by local people, particularly in the areas of Bredbury, Woodley, Denton and Tameside; further declares that this development would destroy the openness of this section of the Tame Valley and damage the visual amenity from the Haughton Dale and Hulme’s Wood Local Nature Reserves; further declare concerns over HGV traffic in the area and the impact that the proposals would have on an already congested Stockport Road and Ashton Road, and the associated effects on the environment.

The petitioners oppose plans to extend the Bredbury Parkway Industrial Estate. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, Tameside Council and the Department for Communities and Local Government no to support the extension of the Bredbury Parkway Industrial Estate; and to further urge that the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) must follow principles of a ‘Brownfield First’ strategy, so that previously developed land, including derelict or unused sites, must be fully considered before Green Belt is released for development.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P002274]

Greater Manchester Spatial Framework

Debate between Andrew Gwynne and William Wragg

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Before he moves on, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[William Wragg]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, my neighbour.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but is he concerned, as I am, that there does not appear to be any joined-up thinking between different parts of the combined authority? We are currently in a consultation on the spatial framework, which is identifying whole tracts of land for future development, yet we have just finished a consultation on the Greater Manchester transport strategy 2040, under the guise of Transport for Greater Manchester, which bears no relationship to the spatial framework?

[William Wragg]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the need for greater “joined-up thinking”, a phrase that is perhaps over-used but rarely put into practice.

It is in this spirit—of building where there is genuine need—that I wish to raise some specific concerns about the methodology behind the framework. The draft framework proposes that 227,200 net additional dwellings will be needed by 2035 to home a projected population increase of almost 300,000 people. It also apportions this house-building target across the 10 Greater Manchester councils, and in the case of Stockport, the allotted target is 19,300 new homes.

I have concerns about how these figures have been arrived at. To estimate the population growth, the spatial framework considered information from the Office for National Statistics, the Department for Communities and Local Government, an economic forecasting model, the Experian credit-referencing agency and independent business consultants. In 2014, the combined authority produced a 165-page document, outlining and consulting on its methodology for calculating future housing needs. Dozens of tables and graphs later, we arrive at the magic prediction of 294,800 extra people by 2035, which translates into that figure of 227,200 new dwellings that I gave before.

Forecasting is a very difficult and complex task, and it is always subject to a degree of uncertainty. However, taking just the most recent three forecasts from the ONS—from 2008, 2010 and 2012—there is a variance of almost 200,000 people between the highest and lowest estimates for the population of Greater Manchester by 2032. This means that the framework’s magic number is two thirds within the margin of error of the three most recent ONS forecasts, and that is without even cross-examining the four other sources.

It is also curious to observe that 10 large housing developers all claimed that the authority’s objectively assessed need figure was too low, whereas the Campaign to Protect Rural England claimed it was “excessively high”. Faced with such wild variance in the estimates of population growth, it is difficult to have faith in the combined authority’s arithmetic. One wonders whether the projected need goes beyond the true need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the value of the green belt to people living in Stockport and Tameside. He will know that much of our green belt is also recreational space for those two boroughs. Is he concerned, as I am, that some of the sites that have been identified in the spatial framework are within the Tame valley? One site is at Hyde Hall farm in Denton, and there is also a large industrial proposal on the edge of Denton in his constituency. That is wrong, is it not?

[William Wragg]

It is wrong, and I know the hon. Gentleman had a battle on his hands with the threatened encroachment on Reddish Vale country park.

What will we do to ensure that brownfield developments are prioritised, that our towns are regenerated first and that green-belt land is released only when it is the last option? First, we need an accurate estimate of the amount of urban land available. According to the combined authority’s own figures, Greater Manchester has at least 1,000 hectares of undeveloped brownfield land that has not been earmarked for use. Taken together, the sites have enough space to build at least 55,000 homes—that is a very conservative estimate—which is almost a quarter of the entire Greater Manchester target, as set out in the framework. This is merely a pilot exercise, and I am confident that more sites can be found, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) mentioned. However, releasing green-belt land now would totally undermine the incentive for such developments.

Secondly, Greater Manchester combined authority needs to address the familiar issues that prevent development of urban land, such as split ownership, land banking, unrealistic expectations of land value, access, contamination and others.

Thirdly, to make housing in urban areas attractive to new owners and tenants, we need to make town centres places where people want to live, with pleasant, safe surroundings and the right facilities, amenities, public services, schools and healthcare. Those aims could perhaps be achieved by creating a development corporation or similar body with responsibility for regenerating Greater Manchester and with a remit to recycle land and to create fit places to live. That need not cost much, but it would create the proper planning that would stop Greater Manchester sprawling out unsustainably in all directions.

I have three questions for the Minister. Does he agree about the need to protect the green belt and to prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield land as an alternative? Does he agree that green-belt sites should be used only as a very last resort when all brownfield sites have been exhausted? Does he share my ideas for prioritising brownfield development, and what other steps are the Government taking to encourage it? Does he think that Greater Manchester combined authority is justified in its housing target and its desire to release green-belt land in the immediate future?

As I said at the outset, I and the thousands who signed local petitions are not against house building, but we believe in brownfield sites. Sites that have been developed previously should be prioritised for building homes, which not only protects the countryside but focuses development where regeneration is needed and where the necessary infrastructure already exists. The strength of local opinion is clear to see, and it is clear to see in the turnout of colleagues from Greater Manchester in Westminster Hall this afternoon. I thank all those who have supported the campaign.