| |
SALFORD COUNCILLOR SLAMS COUNCIL OVER CHAT MOSS DEVELOPMENT
|
|
Star date: 19th September 2019 INDEPENDENT IRLAM COUNCILLOR SLATES 'UTTERLY CONTEMPTUOUS' PLANNING LEAD MEMBER The Independent Councillor for Irlam, Darren Goulden, slammed the Lead Member for Planning, Councillor Derek Antrobus, at yesterday's full meeting of Salford City Council over development plans for Chat Moss. Goulden called Antrobus "utterly contemptuous", while Antrobus and the City Mayor, Paul Dennett, hit back, arguing that any withdrawal of plans to build 1,600 houses on the Moss would be "catastrophic". Full details here...
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
click image to enlarge
|
The usual grandstanding political toing and froing between Tory and Labour councillors was halted at yesterday's full meeting of Salford City Council, when Independent Irlam Councillor, Darren Goulden, slated plans for developing 1,600 houses on Chat Moss. Calling for the withdrawal of the proposals from the city's Local Plan which would "decimate the Salford lungs", Councillor Goulden added that "Claims by Councillor Antrobus that this is only a tiny part of degraded mossland are utterly contemptuous... "Salford Council is calling on committees to support a climate change crisis but in the same breath seems happy to hand over the very land that stores huge amounts of carbon and could help Salford avoid its very own climate crisis in the future" he explained. "Chat Moss is an incredibly special place; it's home to vast numbers of wildlife whose habitats will be destroyed if these proposals go ahead" he insisted "With no additional infrastructure and reliance upon an already overcrowded railway station we will see upwards of 3,000 additional vehicles using a congested B road to get in and out of the district." After slating the Lead Member for Planning's 'contempt', Councillor Goulden concentrated on the cost of remediation of the site, which, based on the cost of remediating the old council office site nearby "could be in excess of £30-40million". "I call upon this Council and those supporting these proposals to remove Chat Moss from the draft Local Plan and Mayor Dennett to do the same with the GMSF [Greater Manchester Spatial Framework]" he said "Planning officers have promised that the results of the land test will be made public, can I ask also that the costs are made public by Urban Vision. "Chat Moss is a truly special environment" he concluded "And this should not and must not be happening..." First Salford City Mayor, Paul Dennett, hit back, referring to the Government's developer friendly National Planning Policy Framework, and the recent appeal and re-appeal by Peel Holdings in the Broadoak green corridor case (see here) which, he said, cost the Council "in excess of £400,000". If the city doesn't meet the Government's housing targets by demonstrating a five year land supply, he added, "the alternative is planning by appeal that will cost this local authority an absolute fortune... "That doesn't mean we don't care about our green infrastructure" he insisted "...but we have to do it in the context of meeting our local housing needs. If we don't the alternative is catastrophic." While Dennett didn't refer to the development on Chat Moss directly, Councillor Antrobus did, inferring that the 1,600 houses would include a supply of family or 'aspirational homes' that led the planning inspector to reject Peel's arguments in the Broadoak case. It wasn't the quantity of homes but the kind of homes that swayed the Peel case, he argued; "That there were allocations that would provide that", and withdrawing the proposals from the Local Plan would put the Council in "a very dangerous position"... Turning to Councillor Goulden's comments, Councillor Antrobus pronounced himself "very hurt...that I was contemptuous of Chat Moss", and proceeded to list the policies he had been involved in to stop peat extraction on the Moss*, and to protect wetlands around Greater Manchester and Salford. He argued that Councillor Goulden's speech was full of 'ifs'... "What we are doing in our work on the ground condition is to find out the facts and then we will use those facts to inform a decision" he insisted "That is the right way to do things and not because we've heard someone ranting and raving about it in the Council chamber." City Mayor Dennett concluded that "at times you have to restrain your ideology because by exercising that it could potentially lead to chaos that would empower the development community to do anything they want within our city..."
* For a background see previous Salford Star article from 2007: Bleeding The Land and the Plight of the Salford Butterfly - click here.
See also previous Salford Star article – Irlam and Cadishead Community Slate Greater Manchester Green Belt Plans – click here To watch the Council Meeting Broadcast - click here and go to one hour and 15 mins in Main photo shows Councillor Darren Goulden
|
|
|
|
Rayofsunshine wrote
at 05:23:56 on 29 September 2019 |
|
|
| Bob the regular,you're like a dog with a bone! Under J.E. most workers' pay increased or remained the same;the ratio of winners to losers was 80:20.
Given your passion for equal pay,can I take it as read that you would support a rise in Council Tax to
fund future measures to address inequality in pay? |
|
|
?
|
bob the regular wrote
at 07:38:23 on 28 September 2019 |
|
|
| Lets talk about council workers pay with our Ray. The question is, after these re valuations of workers pay, did the average wage of all the workers go up,down or did it stay the same? If it stayed the same,it was a waste of time doing it,if it went down, the workers have been diddled, if it went up, the council tax payers were diddled, because the workers were happy enough on their nationally agreed pay scales. |
|
|
?
|
Rayofsunshine wrote
at 10:43:47 on 27 September 2019 |
|
|
| Bob the regular,under SCC's J.E Scheme,employee adversely impacted were given three years pay protection. In addition,active measures were taken to move such individuals to higher paying posts!
More synthetic outrage from Bob the gob! |
|
|
?
|
23 railway cuttings wrote
at 06:40:49 on 27 September 2019 |
|
|
| And what about the poor dustbin men on the island ?Motorbikes flying past them with only a plastic bin for protection.
And isn't this the island stronghold of Peel holdings, everybody in Salford's favourite philanthropic company ? |
|
|
?
|
Rayofsunshine wrote
at 09:21:45 on 26 September 2019 |
|
|
| former resident,I find it highly significant that you see the Isle of Mann as a template for Post Brexit Britain! The United Nations has highlighted the role of the Isle of Mann in the handling of money laundering and tax evasion schemes.
Essentially,the Isle of Mann is a semi feudal society governed by a financial dictatorship. Is this what you want for Britain,former resident,feudalism?
As to the issue of "dossers", I feel that Salfordians have a lot to learn from the sheer hard work and application displayed by workers coming from the E.U. Fact,the average worker from E.U is
better educated than the average Brit! Why are we known on the continent as "a nation of thickos"? |
|
|
?
|
bob the regular wrote
at 09:21:14 on 26 September 2019 |
|
|
| Our Ray likes to go on about the rights of workers. Does he know any workers? I know a few who worked for the council. A few years back ,the council re graded all the workers. What they did was give a pay cut of about 5 grand on average to 45% of the workers, and a pay rise of 20 quid a week to the other 55%. Of course ,the council being democratic and on the workers side and all that shit, told the workers to get their union to hold a ballot about the changes. So they did. Guess which side won. A crafty move by the council, but I give them ten out of ten for being sly bastards. I wouldn't have thought the council smart enough to think of a move like that, but they did. |
|
|
?
|
Rayofsunshine wrote
at 14:17:18 on 25 September 2019 |
|
|
| Alternative Truth,why is it that the Brexit Party and the ERG want a WTO/No-Deal Brexit? Because such an arrangement provides minimal protection for workers and consumers! Essentially,the right sees the EU as a barrier against implementing Thatcherism 2.0.
As to saving money, dream on! In clapped out,dead
end Britain,the vested interests (banks,defence industry,farming racket,pharmaceutical and automotive industries) will be bought off with public money! |
|
|
?
|
Alternative Truth wrote
at 21:45:23 on 24 September 2019 |
|
|
| Mon cher Rayon de Soleil ... It might have escaped your attention, but your beloved proletariat - who you aspire to protect/represent - rejected the wonderful benefits of the European Union as the price they had to pay was too high .... their bargaining power, their jobs, their education and health care... Dumped in from a great height by the same people they voted to protect them ... but who have created the perfect poor mans storm - through the never ending import of unskilled foreign labour which ensures low wages. Shame that you have never grasped this fact.... and continue to think what you have been told to think and spout what you think your masters want to hear. ... Honte a toi - Vous etes la preuve que les dindes votent pour Noel !! |
|
|
?
|
former resident wrote
at 21:44:33 on 24 September 2019 |
|
|
| Well Mr Ray, for one thing, we will not have to give the EEC 37,000 million pounds, or anything again if we get a no deal brexit. Also britain will no longer be an open doss house for the layabouts of europe to come and get our generous welfare payments and free council housing before our own poor people do. If you want a comparison ,about an area with the same average income as Salford, that is better off outside the EEC, look no further than the Isle of Man. If you want dole and council house benefits there you got to work and pay tax for 5 years first.It is also one of the two states in europe to balance its books. Something your pal Miss Becky should have known when she was tripped up by Andrew Nield on the telly. |
|
|
?
|
Rayofsunshine wrote
at 09:55:01 on 24 September 2019 |
|
|
| former resident,I'm interested to know,how in your
opinion,Britain will be different after Brexit?
I suspect/predict the reality of Post Brexit Britain is going to be a massive disappointment - welcome to
Thatcherism 2.0! |
|
|
?
|
Rayofsunshine wrote
at 16:54:51 on 23 September 2019 |
|
|
| former resident,Corbyn is not opposed to Brexit in general,but to the right wing version being offered
by the Tories. They are angling for a WTO/No-Deal Brexit in order to attack the living standards of the Working Class!
The Labour Party will defend to its last breath,the interests of workers. Hopefully, you do
|
|
|
?
|
former resident wrote
at 13:01:57 on 23 September 2019 |
|
|
| No Mr Ray, I have just given up on Labour.Let us start at the top. Miss Becky as she is called here,is up Steptoes arse about Brexit. In Steptoes heart, he is a brexiteer, but for the referendum he called for remain, for political benefit reasons because he thought remain would win. He got it wrong but has to stand by his choice.Miss Becky has to back her boss, because she thinks more about steptoes arse than she does about the brexit voting salford people. She asserts Salford people were stupid and misled when they voted brexit, but it seems they are smart and well informed when they vote labour. We all know our prime minister is an arsehole and the biggest liar in parliament,but at least he is doing what we want, not like Miss Becky.As for the council, just read the Salford Star. |
|
|
?
|
Rayofsunshine wrote
at 10:32:33 on 23 September 2019 |
|
|
| former resident,the myth that persons other than elected councillors should set policies and allocate resources ìs a cry of despair! It is peddled by individuals who have given up on democracy. |
|
|
?
|
former resident wrote
at 10:06:48 on 22 September 2019 |
|
|
| I have to admit Mr Sunshine could be right here in his comment that elected councilors should deciede on planning matters.Judging from the comments here from the councils number one fan Bob, and all the angry local residents, it could well be that the local councilors all get the boot at the next election. All seats are up for grabs at next election. |
|
|
?
|
bob the regular wrote
at 16:16:26 on 21 September 2019 |
|
|
| Our Ray goes on about the council being "under the thumb of developers" if they listened to me. Well ,from his point of view, would that not be a step in the right direction? At the minute, they seem to be wedged right up the arse of developers. There again, perhaps our politicians like to beup the arses of developers. |
|
|
?
|
bob the regular wrote
at 16:04:19 on 21 September 2019 |
|
|
| Bang on Kenny. Old blunderbus does in fact take a dim view of any development near his house. Anything that might cause a bit of extra traffic, congestion etc. Perfect example is the proposed development near the old miners club. |
|
|
?
|
Rayofsunshine wrote
at 16:03:48 on 21 September 2019 |
|
|
| former resident,development in an area should be
overseen by elected councillors,not philanthropic
millionaires! |
|
|
?
|
former resident wrote
at 08:58:54 on 21 September 2019 |
|
|
| We seem to talk a lot these days about faith leaders and community leaders and all that sort of rubbish, so if the people of Irlam want to stop all this development perhaps they should put a bit of faith in their community leader,that computer millionaire who seems to be running that community trust thing they have up there. He seems to know what he is doing, a lot less mouthy than the Worsley lot, but he gets a lot more done.He will have a few good ideas for sure. |
|
|
?
|
Rayofsunshine wrote
at 08:58:16 on 21 September 2019 |
|
|
| If we follow Bob the regular's politics,then the council would be more under the thumb of the developers! Beneath the veneer of cynical "humour",
Bob the regular is peddling right wing ideology! |
|
|
?
|
kenny wrote
at 08:57:48 on 21 September 2019 |
|
|
| Councillor Derek Antrobus has over the years almost destroyed open spaces in Salford. it's ok for him and other members as it does not effect them. He has almost given away all rights to open space. This man is a danger to Salford residents. |
|
|
?
|
Marie wrote
at 08:34:05 on 20 September 2019 |
|
|
| The building on Chat Moss must never happen. Irlam councillors have been deceitful so far in holding meetings with developers against the wished of the electorate. They are an absolute disgrace, on one hand they sing a good song about saving the greenbelt but on the other they are selling it out to the developers, they are two faced liars! Time to stop them get rid in the elections and bring in new blood who care about our environment and the people of Irlam and Cadishead
|
|
|
?
|
Steve Booth wrote
at 08:33:52 on 20 September 2019 |
|
|
| I notice there was no comment from Councillors Antrobus or Denney about the effect of increased traffic in the A57 corridor. Commuting is already horrendous for residents so what are they going to do about moving the extra traffic and it's effect on the environment? What about school places in already over subscribed primary schools? Are they going to wave a magic wand and make it all alright? They live in Cloud Cuckoo Land but if THEY lived in Irlam or Cadishead they would be a screaming like stuck pigs! |
|
|
?
|
DJB wrote
at 08:33:29 on 20 September 2019 |
|
|
| So many new houses might not be required, WHEN Brexit is implemented there should be a reduction of waifs and strays coming to the UK for a free meal ticket. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 08:32:33 on 20 September 2019 |
|
|
| There’s plenty of brown field land in Salford to build on, the developers just don’t want to build there because of where it is. I’m glad the Council’s been fighting back some of these developers, but they need to keep at it and say “This OUR city, you can build where WE say!”. Why not? Many other GM Councils do! Why is it Salford Council only offers token resistance before shitting it’s pants? |
|
|
?
|
bob the regular wrote
at 08:32:02 on 20 September 2019 |
|
|
| Well, couldn't we build 1600 houses and a school on the old racecourse land? Oh, I forgot, that's already earmarked in a nice secret deal were not allowed to know about, (but we do). What about that planning battle near Worsley. The council have to fight Peel all the way with that one, no matter how much it costs, the Garidos have said so. Trouble with the Moss is that its a solid Labour area, apart from cllr Goulden ( bit like Bobby Goulden aint he?).Well people of Irlam and Cadishead, next may you can get rid of all five of em.Do what the Kersal lot did. He is the next one going for sure, Cllr conner. Lets get rid of the lot of em. |
|
|
?
|
Jean McKenna wrote
at 18:54:53 on 19 September 2019 |
|
|
| Thank goodness Kier Hardy, the Suffragettes and people like didn’t restrain their ideology as Mayor Dennett suggests Councillor Goulding does. |
|
|
?
|
Rayofsunshine wrote
at 18:54:48 on 19 September 2019 |
|
|
| In the end the council has to strike a balance between protecting green spaces and facilitating the
provision of housing for a growing population. As Mayor Dennett and Cllr.Antrobus point out,in seeking
to achieve this balance the council faces a number of hazards:government penalties and litigious property developers.
Such complexities are beyond the grasp of nimbys who are keen to offer criticism but are reluctant in the extreme to come up with practical solutions! |
|
|
?
|
Ann Margaret armitage wrote
at 16:03:34 on 19 September 2019 |
|
|
| I fully agree with councillor Darren goulden, all you labour councillors are just the pits you don't give a dam about anyone in irlam and cadishead except yourselves. Antrobus has no idea and should be stopped now. Hands off chat moss leave it alone 😠 |
|
|
?
|
DARREN BORN AND BRED wrote
at 16:03:18 on 19 September 2019 |
|
|
| Paul dennett has come out and said, Salford council has spent over £400.000 fighting the MIGHTY PEEL holdings over Broadoak fields. This has been to courts now about 3times. MIGHTY PEEL have got the best lawyers/advisors, but Paul dennett MUST keep on fighting them.. These fields are BEAUTIFUL and LOVELY . why don't the council buy back the fields. |
|
|
?
|
DARREN BORN AND BRED wrote
at 16:02:58 on 19 September 2019 |
|
|
| 1600 new houses means over 3000 more cars on the road going to work in the morning, more doctors surgery's needed, more schools, more police, etc. Irlam/cadishead is a already congested in the morning between 7am to 9.30am, we all need to STOP building on Greenland. |
|
|
?
|
Kev wrote
at 16:02:46 on 19 September 2019 |
|
|
| All Dennett and his cronies seems to care about is money, but are ordinary Salfordians seeing any benefit? No. |
|
|
?
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
