| |
SALFORD CITY COUNCIL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION SHOCKER IN WALKDEN
|
|
Star date: 14th July 2015 "SALFORD COUNCIL – YOUR APPALLING, SHAMEFUL BEHAVIOUR IS UNACCEPTABLE. PLEASE COMPLY WITH THE LAW..." Another disgraceful episode under Salford Council's current regime was exposed yesterday, when, following the Information Commissioner's Office intervention, the Council was forced to apologise and release documents it had previously withheld in the face of a Freedom of Information request. At stake is Hill Top Moss, part of Blackleach Country Park, which Salford Council wants to flog off for housing. Full details here...
|
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
click image to enlarge
|
Last summer, Shirley Jones and loads of other residents living near Hill Top Moss in Walkden, discovered, almost by accident, of the intent to flog off the Moss, which is a part of Blackleach Country Park and the highest point in Salford. The residents were given just two weeks to object to the plan…but then further discovered that Salford Council, via Urban Vision, had been in negotiations with Redwaters developers for the previous two years about the sale of the land for dozens of houses, with the sweetener of `improvements' to Walkden Cricket Club attached. They've been fighting the Council and trying to find out what's going on ever since... In August of last year, Shirley sent a Freedom of Information request to Salford Council... "could you supply Hill Top Residents Group with copies of all correspondence that Salford Council (or Urban Vision on their behalf) have exchanged between their officers or elected members and Redwater Developments Ltd and Redwater Homes Ltd, or their representatives, from the date the Council were first approached by either of these two companies, or their representatives, in relation to the sale of public open space land off Hill Top Road, Walkden." The Council, which is supposed to respond within twenty working days, didn't respond at all as the months went by, and, finally the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) got involved in January 2015, five months after the original request, urging an answer within ten days. The Council did respond - but only to apologise for more delays. Indeed, there were four more emails from the Council excusing further delays. And then, at the end of February, the Council reluctantly sent over four documents, all redacted, with information missing. Shirley went back to the Information Commissioner, who was now officially monitoring Salford City Council as one of only four authorities in the whole country placed under such measures (see here). Following the Commissioner's intervention, in May, the Council wrote to Shirley stating "Certain other information which was initially withheld can now be disclosed to you"...It sent a further twelve documents! Still Shirley wasn't happy, firstly with the redactions made, and secondly, she was convinced there were more documents that were still being kept back... "We have referred this to the ICO as clearly documents were wrongfully being withheld. Whilst some further documents have now been supplied as a result of the intervention of the ICO, we are convinced there are still others, so are requesting those. We are also going to challenge the redactions. This is still under investigation by the ICO. We await their decision..." The Council finally released a further two documents yesterday (13th July), which it stated "had inadvertently not been placed on the primary file relating to Redwater's development proposal"...how convenient! Shirley is refusing to accept more apologies from the Council. She wrote back... "Dear Salford Council, You appear to be just stringing us along and purposely trying to complicate and confuse matters. This is just fuelling the opinion that the Council and others have something to hide. Keep apologising for having broken the law does not make it right in any way...This continuing breach of the law is either out of sheer arrogance, as you assume our laws do not apply to you, or because you are simply having a laugh at our expense because you assume that you can continue to purposely break the law, purposely not send us the necessary documents requested, assuming no action will be taken against the Council. The Council have clearly, as can be seen in the little that has been sent to date, been negotiating with these developers for several years, not just the length of time admitted to residents, and that includes corresponding throughout on this matter with several departments, several members of the Council including the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, and several organisations and businesses involved, and also the local MP. The paltry amount of correspondence sent to date, in an attempt to put us off, cannot possibly be the total amount. You don't need to be Einstein to work that one out... We do not accept your pathetic apologies. Your appalling, shameful behaviour is unacceptable. Please comply with the law as you've been asked to..." One of the secret documents which was released yesterday confirmed what campaigners had been saying about Hill Top Moss...that the land is a "Key Recreation Area", part of Blackleach Country Park, and that it is a "Wildlife Corridor Key Area of Search"...all designations that Salford Council policy seeks to protect. And, interestingly, the legal advice to the Council at the end of the document was totally redacted. The fight is still on to get everything out into the open. And to Save The Moss...
For a full background see previous Salford Star articles - click here and click here See also the Salford Star print magazine page 36 - click here To read all the released documents - click here
|
|
|
|
Shirley jones wrote
at 18:25:17 on 26 December 2015 |
|
|
| I urge you all to read either the Information Commissioners final decision available online on their website or read Salford Stars latest article. It's an amazing result for residents and an excellent achievement!! Salford Council have actually appealed it, so really must have lots more to hide than we thought!! SALFORD Council rarely fight anything so must be bad for them! So what now for residents? Well for starters all officers been instructed to tell us nothing about the current situation we've been subjected to. Police think that's wrong. Speaks volumes! We've asked Salford Council several times now by writing direct to the Chief Executive Jim Taylor, to work with residents on this latest issue too but they declined. He didn't reply but his minions did for him. Why would Salford Council not want to work with residents on an issue such as this? They work with other residents in other areas, actively encourage it, so why not here? We cant help but wonder if they have lots more to hide than we thought or have we got too close to the truth? They should be investigated over this, its in the publics interest. |
|
|
?
|
Shurley Jones wrote
at 18:25:12 on 26 December 2015 |
|
|
| Hill Top Moss, just to clarify, isn't as described above and I should know because I overlook it. Salford haven't had to do any maintenance on the moss, its a vital part of the wildlife corridor for Blackleach Country Park according to Councils' own records. The Travellers haven't been able to get on there for many, many years. As for nearby brownfield sites being considered, yes there is the Eaton site minutes away and very available, but developers don't want brownfield sites as they cost money to develop, so this one they thought was ideal, as its never been built on, and free from that kind of problem but its not, they just hoped no one would be wise to it. However, you should see what Salford Council have allowed to happen there now. Devastation caused that could have been prevented by the council. We're very successful with our campaign and our requests to the Information Commissioner and then this?? Ask yourselves why they didn't stop it! All part of the master plan maybe? Can't blame anyone fir thinking that. Our penance for standing up against what we know to be wrong? Certainly has to be a reason why they didn't act sooner. Threats received that may be in connection with our campaign if we are to believe the perpetrator, are they all part of the plan too? Has to be reasons for all of this happening. Even the police are critical of what they've allowed to happen, even they thought residents should be having their concerns addressed and questions answered, that's how bad this is. Now we have no choice but to fight on, so done themselves no favours! What else can they do to us? Why would they want to? |
|
|
?
|
Matt wrote
at 13:34:38 on 28 July 2015 |
|
|
| whats all the fuss about the land in question is used by bits of kids riding up & down on motorbikes there is litter everywhere it's full of dog dirt from owners to lazy to clean up after their pets. This gives Walkden the opportunity to face lift the green fields already there for the future generations of our community. Let's face it we have recently been frequented by the travelling community who appear to use the fields around on an annual basis. Wouldn't it be nice if these same fields were better secured which they would be under the proposals and save council money clearing up sites annually!! |
|
|
?
|
supermarket wrote
at 12:08:11 on 27 July 2015 |
|
|
| Has anyone from the council checked the nearby brownfield sites close to this proposed development? Plonking another supermarket on green belt may be good for the owners but it does nothing for the environment or the local shops and businesses...historically, check what happened in swinton with asda , or Salford with sainsburys |
|
|
?
|
a thought... wrote
at 12:07:49 on 27 July 2015 |
|
|
| Can the real Michael Felse please stand up? I'm sure he is proud of his achievements of shaking up democracy in Salford, and i am sure he did this for the right intentions...then having stood and lost the election,I read he backed labour..who were the source of his pains. He's now retReating to his original position, but he still hasn't achieved his aims... Someone care to explain this? |
|
|
?
|
Illiterate fool wrote
at 04:03:49 on 16 July 2015 |
|
|
| Shirley - any chance you could summarise that in a few bullet points? Ta. |
|
|
?
|
Charlotte cooper wrote
at 22:39:15 on 14 July 2015 |
|
|
| Shirley keep up the fight - we are a group of residents in boothstown who are having a similar experience. A planning application for 60 houses was rejected by the planning panel first time round, the council then sought legal advice which has been Cloaked in secrecy (even panel members had to sign what can only be described as the official secrets act saying they would not disclose the information ) next time the planning application was considered the planning panel approved the development and we are now living with the consequences. The council won't release the legal advice under an FOI (it's the most comprehensive response I have ever seen!!) we are now objecting, the council will not uphold our objection and we will also goto the information commissioner - he/she clearly already has a dim view of the council - rightly so !!!!! |
|
|
?
|
steve hunt wrote
at 18:28:53 on 14 July 2015 |
|
|
| Nothing I can add to this but my support for Shirley and the residents and wish them all strength and courage in the face of the usual, smarmy and arrogant attitudes of OUR councils. Don't let the bastards drag you down |
|
|
?
|
shirley jones wrote
at 18:28:48 on 14 July 2015 |
|
|
| Just to add to the Star's excellent article.
Although Hill Top Residents Group have only received a paltry few documents to date, as a result of their requests made in August 2014, they are very revealing in several ways. As the Star points out, the documents reveal that despite the officers, the Deputy Mayor and our own MP trying to deny, to residents and the wider community, that this land is part of the Blackleach Country Park scheme, that both the developers and the Council are/were fully aware, years before in fact, that not only is this green open space designated public open space land, that it is officially part of and within official boundary lines of Blackleach Country Park, and also according to Council's own documents a vital part of the wildlife corridor for their award winning Country Park, a supposed jewel in Salford's crown. It is covered by and provided certain protections from development too, due to this, according to their own policies, strategies, etc. A fact also confirmed by the Gt. Manchester Ecology Unit recently. So why did they try to fool the public that it wasn't? Tantamount to lies in our opinion. In fact Salford Council's own documents confirm also that the football pitches and Walkden Cricket Club are also part of the Blackleach Country Park scheme. The developers state themselves to the Council officers that it is part of the Country Park, stating the UDP as their own example, stating that for them to be allowed to build on this land that because of this that there would have to be 'strong justification' for them to be allowed to build on there. They consider promising new sports facilities meets that requirement, yet don't tell the public that the facilities they plan are mostly existing anyway. Their plans reveal them as 'existing'. They sell the idea of new facilities in their propaganda. Their plans for a draft letter to be sent out to the community, also revealed under FOI, still do not inform the community of the truth. Cleverly worded to avoid it and no mention of what the community are actually losing, or that their main aim is to get prime land fir building on to boost their own profits, or the heavy price it is ultimately going to pay for plans from which they will be lucky if they get a 'refurb' of the Cricket Club's existing facilities.
With so many developers in Salford currently being let off from paying their Section 106 planning fees as developers plead poverty, will we get anything at all once the developers get their own way? Even Salford Council only refer to the plans as a 'refurb'. Do they know something we don't? Something else they're keeping from us?
To name a few more FOI revelations.... We were told that the '£2 million pound sports village' was dependant on funding, implied lots of it, from Lancashire County Cricket Club, who's input was being hyped up, but FOI reveals no evidence of funding at all, only mention of the Club being 'supportive', IF allowed to use the proposed facilities 'free of hire charges'. NOT the same. Not even redactions. Will all Salford Residents be allowed to use the facilities 'free of hire charges'? We think not.
Urban Vision confirmed no funding from Salford Council either. So who's paying? Seems only the small out of town developer... yeah right! Can anyone? The sums simply do not add up. 60 houses will not generate that level of income over and above the companies required profits. We were told that work would have to be completed before work on the housing side of their proposals were allowed to begin, but FOI reveals that's not true either. Developer states to Council that it must begin building houses first to generate the income they require before they can fund the sports village scheme at all. But what if they don't make enough money, as is highly likely, what then?
We were also told 'no plans' when we asked, after officers were speaking about the development in such detail, but we were not shown any. Yet FOI reveals that there are plans, detailed architect drawn plans, even mentions by developers that they were 'tweaked', so more than one version of the plans too.
FOI also reveals that the developers are only considering the 'sports village' scheme, reluctantly it seems, because they were refused permission for an earlier scheme for a 'retail park', where they intended to move Walkden Cricket Club, as happened with Westhoughton Cricket Club, and others too. The dreaded Sainsbury's store still a possibility? Once they have been allowed to buy the land with planning consents attached, there is no guarantee that we won't still get a 'retail park' or Sainsbury's store in place of our wonderful green open space land. Who's to say that once they own it that they won't sell it to Sainsbury's for example, or build the 'retail Park' and move Walkden Cricket Club, as FOI reveals they planned to do originally?
FOI also reveals developers have supplied an engineers report to confirm suitability of land for housing to the Council. However, it's flawed, full of incorrect information, stating he's familiar with the area, yet described it as an 'unused', 'derelict', 'old filled in Reservoir site', a 'Brownfield' site, it's none of those, yet bases his 'expert' opinion on them? Isn't as familiar with the land as he professes, or has he too been misled? If his info is flawed then so is his opinion surely? The land has been public open space land for many generations, has never been built on, so not 'Brownfield'. He makes no mention of it being a vital part of Blackleach Country Park's wildlife corridor, or that years ago it was used for landfill purposes meaning different regulations to comply with and with them lots more expense for the developer and disruption for residents, as contaminated land would have to be suitably remediated.
FOI reveals in Barbara Keeley's emails that despite her knowing all of this, she actively, vehemently so, fully supports the scheme to rob the community of it's green public open space land and backs this small out of town developer over her own constituents, despite her not being able to tell us where the money is coming from for the sports facilities. Why? She refuses to listen to or to meet with us. She wanted our votes, promising to fight to keep Salford's green spaces open & free from inappropriate development if we did so, yet it was all lies it seems, as you couldn't get a development more inappropriate than this one. What a huge disappointment she is to this community, at the very first opportunity turns her back on us and sides with a small out of town developer. Why?
We are of the opinion that this consistent withholding of information is still ongoing and who could blame us after this. It proves to us that they are acting like they have a great deal to hide, perhaps more than we already thought? But why? Another Salford Reds fiasco in the making here perhaps?
We were told that the Mayor desperately wants this sale of land to go through, but why? We know he loves Lancashire County Cricket Club, he holds all his Mayoral events there, but why so keen when so much does not add up? What is it that they appear to not want us to know or find out? What have they got to hide? Why don't the sums add up?
The decision on whether or not to sell the land has still not yet been made by the Deputy Mayor Cllr. Lancaster, and it's not at the planning stage like they would have you all think. You can still object to the sale of the green open space land by writing/emailing the Deputy Mayor direct.
Despite Salford Council's best efforts to prevent us from reaching the truth, we will continue the fight to achieve what we set out to do, to keep this much loved, much used green public open space, open and free from inappropriate development, for the sake of future generations, as once it's gone, it's gone forever. We will continue to do Ms Keeley's job for her, whilst she seems to want to play in cloud cuckoo land with her co-conspirators!
Hill Top Moss is not for sale, which part of that do they not understand? |
|
|
?
|
Michael F in SalFord wrote
at 18:28:44 on 14 July 2015 |
|
|
| Congratulation to you local people. Salford Council should be ashamed of itself. Can it not understand the basic component of community is people. The very same people Councillors ask to vote them in. Well I am ashamed to have voted Labour in the General and in the Local 2015 but I will not vote Labour in 2016. I think they have had plenty of second chances by now. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 15:53:29 on 14 July 2015 |
|
|
| Strategic Director of Sustainable Regeneration is Ben Dolan, that name keeps coming up again and again Salford council do no like answering questions http://tinyurl.com/p8xdjck
|
|
|
?
|
|
|
|
|
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
