"We shouldn't listen to NIMBYs" Planning Lead Member, Councillor Derek Antrobus
Yesterday, the Salford Star revealed the full details of the draft Great Manchester Spatial Framework, the planning document that is basically a blueprint for the destruction of green belt land in the city and the building of 34,500 new properties over the next twenty years (see previous Salford Star article for full details click here).
Expecting a backlash from residents, Salford Labour Party has issued a `briefing', or idiot sheet, to its members and councillors so they can put the proposals in a positive light... "to allow you to answer concerns that will be undoubtedly expressed about the proposals"...
The briefing gives a list of "Messages to focus on in leaflets and social media", such as "We have kept our promise to protect the most valuable open spaces in the city" and "we will not allow development without the things needed to create a good place: roads, health, education, recreation..."
Salford City Council has a shocking record on the latter, with developers avoiding and evading paying for these things via Section 106, with a loss of over £42million to the city during the last few years alone (see here).
The spin sheet adds that "The Irwell Valley including the new 800-acre Urban Forest Park, the new Castle Irwell wetland nature reserve, and The Meadow will be protected and enhanced by the plan".
What it doesn't say is that part of The Meadow has already been handed over to Countryside Properties with houses almost completed on the green land and that the Castle Irwell wetland nature reserve is smack bang in the middle of a new flood basin which is impossible to build houses upon.
Meanwhile, the Party boasts how the Framework will re-allocate The Worsley Greenway as green belt land, renamed the Western Salford Greenway, to give it "a level of protection that will thwart Peel's ambitions and the weak Tory planning regulations", and how it has "preserved valuable fingers of greenery separating settlements: Walkden at Linnyshaw, Swinton at Wardley and Clifton, and the area around Port Salford in Irlam. All of these were sites that Peel wanted to develop".
However, as the Salford Star stated, "Peat, mossland and green belt areas around Barton Moss are also to be trashed to make way for `a major expansion' of Peel Holdings' Port Salford, with around 320,000m2 of industrial, manufacturing and warehousing space to the north and west of Barton Aerodrome" - and, while it's not clear which company actually own the green belt and green space land that is going to be trashed around Boothstown, Irlam and Mosley Common there is a high probability that it is Peel Holdings.
The huge development at Irlam, with 2,250 new houses in what the Framework calls a "large-scale, sustainable urban extension...with loss of peat, mossland and green belt" is re-titled a `garden suburb' in the briefing... "It's not about meeting housing numbers but about creating good places" it states.
The other `garden suburb' is in Boothstown, and the briefing attempts to head off what is sure to be major opposition by stating that "local demands for a new road from the East Lancs will be met and will help to address residents' concerns about existing congestion".
Only last month these residents were furious when Salford Council planning panel passed an application by Peel Holdings to build 132 houses on green field land in Boothstown, despite there being no new infrastructure to cope.
Salford Council Planning Lead Member, Councillor Derek Antrobus, who spoke and voted in favour of the development, had made a speech at the previous Council meeting writing off `residents concerns', saying "We shouldn't listen to NIMBYs". Councillor Antrobus is still the subject of a formal complaint made by local councillors in the wake of the Boothstown planning meeting (see previous Salford Star article click here).
Meanwhile, when the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework was first put out to `stakeholder' consultation in 2015, the most vehement pressure came from Peel Holdings, represented by its favourite planning spin doctors, Turley. There were over sixty references and `suggestions' made by Turley/Peel as the pair sought to influence the Framework.
It might come as a shock to Salford residents to discover that Salford Council paid Turley £5,709 `consultancy' fees in June of this year, which might have paid for a secret video that the Council has been pushing to developers.
The YouTube video (click here), which is not featured on Salford Council's official channel, is a sixty second 3d model animation featuring development around Chapel Street and Greengate, reflecting the Spatial Framework's re-branding of these areas as part of Manchester `City Centre'. The end credits state that `3D model and video produced by Turley'.
Some might argue that Salford Council is getting just a mite too close to those who see the city as a giant Monopoly board for speculators and developers...
For the Salford Star article on the draft Salford Local Plan - click here
Update: 11am
The Salford Conservative Party planning spokesman, Councillor Iain Lindley, has now released a `Tell Iain' survey on the draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, listing all the proposed developments with an `Agree' or `Don't Agree' option - click here for details
(1).JPG)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
