Last week, East Salford Community Committee voted to oppose plans by Salford City FC owners, Gary and Phil Neville, Paul Scholes, Nicky Butt and Ryan Giggs, to redevelop the club's Moor Lane stadium in Kersal, increasing capacity from its current 2,163 people, to 5,172, with associated problems of parking, traffic and other issues.
At the Community Committee meeting, Kersal councillors, Peter Connor and Ann- Marie Humphries (Executive Support for Sport) also signalled their opposition, the Salford Star understands.
Meanwhile, local people who have formed the Kersal Moor Residents Association (KMRA) have registered 248 objections, with a further petition carrying three hundred signatures about to be lodged with the Council*. Today they learned that Salford City Council planning officers are recommending approval of the club's plans.
"The response that we've had from the local public is overwhelmingly against the plans" says David Mintz of KMRA "If this was a local by-election they would say this is an unprecedented local turnout, so how the planning officers can ignore the people of Salford I do not know. The report is just trying to steamroll any concerns without addressing them..."
Objections to the plans have ranged from harm to Kersal Moor, to noise pollution, a lack of consultation, potential anti-social behaviour and visual impact. But the main concerns are traffic and parking – backed by Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) which states that it does "not concur with the conclusion of the applicant's transport consultants".
Basically, the club is indicating that it will put in place and pay for some traffic mitigation measures and residents' parking permits but the new planning report states that "TfGM have confirmed that that they do not consider the proposals include provision for adequate parking".
The stadium redevelopment, when at capacity, would see anywhere between 1,138 and 1,603 cars trying to park on match days, according to statistics quoted in the report. Original proposals to use the old Cussons car park are "not possible", after being turned down by the landowner the report notes.
David Mintz believes that this would lead to fans parking in residents' spaces with it being almost impossible to enforce...
"One of the things that stands out is that, even though they are suggesting these traffic measures and restrictions with the club paying for the residents permits, the policing of the parking has to be paid for by the tax payers" he argues "They expect the local police and Council to enforce it.
"Local police are overrun anyway, their budgets have been cut and they dread match days as it is, they've told us" he explains "I don't understand why Gary Neville gets to fill his stadium and we get to fill our streets with illegal parking, and then we have to pay to clean it up as well.
"The Travel Plan itself is almost like they haven't read the response from Transport for Greater Manchester which absolutely destroys every proposal they have made" he adds "The club's Travel Plan miraculously brings down the percentage of people travelling by car and it's very clearly massaged, I think, to try and paint a better picture. It's entirely impractical and unenforceable, and is an insult to local people.
"We can't cope with the level of traffic with a few hundred cars in the area, how are we going to cope when that increases?" he asks.
Indeed, TfGM proposed around £250,000 worth of improvements to `mitigate the impact of additional traffic' - enhanced pedestrian crossing facilities at the junction of Singleton Road and Bury New Road, and at Moor Lane and Bury New Road; increased road capacity on Moor Lane; and an `intelligent traffic signal control system' at the Bury New Road junction...
...But the Council's own Highways Engineer has rejected the plan as he "considers that it would be difficult to place the responsibility for addressing issues at the Bury New Road junction on to Salford City Football Club". Instead the club will pay just a one-off cost of £1,500 together with an annual fee of around £2,000 to programme signal timings at the Bury New Road junction and display upcoming match information on two signs.
Meanwhile, the club stated that it could not meet Salford Council's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) specification that stadia should have a maximum of 1 car parking space per 18 seats, or 288 spaces in the new stadium, and could only provide 68 spaces. Planning officers have totally wiped this policy in their report with a paragraph of gobbledygook...
"The UDP does not define a minimum level of car parking provision, and therefore notwithstanding whether the maximum standard is applied in terms of the number of seats or the maximum stadium capacity, the application proposal would not exceed the maximum standard and would therefore be deemed acceptable under UDP Policy A10..."
Residents are also angry that the club has actually already started `enabling works that will support the future installation of the new stands', before planning permission has even been granted.
Despite protests, the Council states "The carrying out of development without planning permission is not illegal. However, local planning authorities have discretion to take enforcement action, when they regard it as expedient to do so having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations."
The Council hasn't taken any `enforcement action', leading residents to believe that the stadium redevelopment is a done deal. They say this is further underlined in the planning officers' conclusion to the report, which highlights the benefits "in terms of the profile of the Club and the city as a whole" and "providing significantly improved facilities for supporters".
The officers add "The additional impacts of a larger capacity stadium in terms of on-street parking and noise would be the principal adverse impacts. Notwithstanding this, on the advice of the Council's Highways Engineer and the Council's Air and Noise Consultant it is considered that these adverse impacts can be effectively mitigated via a series of planning conditions in order to ensure no unacceptable impacts..."
Pointing to UDP Policy R2, which states that planning permission should not be granted if a recreational development has "an unacceptable impact on residential amenity in terms of noise, traffic generation, light pollution, hours of operation, visual amenity, or any other disturbance" and "an unacceptable impact on highway safety in terms of traffic generation, parking or servicing", residents remain furious and sceptical...
"It's almost as if every single concern has been cast aside, it's just a very, very flawed report" says David Mintz "We are disappointed but determined. And this is far from over."
Salford City Council's Planning Panel will meet next Thursday 15th December to consider the application. The meeting is open to the public and objectors will have three speakers putting their case before the councillors decide.
* There were fifty letters of support for the redevelopment, with people stating `There are no significant problems with traffic or parking on match days'; `The existing ground is not fit for purpose and the proposal would provide better facilities for supporters'; `The club's supporters are well behaved and there is a conspicuous absence of the hooligan element'; `The scheme will regenerate the area and improve the look of Salford' and that `The proposal will provide for facilities which are lacking in the local area at present'...
Update: 15th December - Salford City FC stadium redevelopment plans approved - click here
See also previous related Salford Star articles...
Salford City FC Stadium Plans Revealed in Full - click here
Hundreds of Residents Object to Gary Neville `Insult' and Turn On Class of '92 - click here
Salford City Paying Just £27 Per Week For Moor Lane Ground - click here
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
