 |
|
 |
| |
SALFORD MEDIACITYUK 280 APARTMENT TOWERS WILL GIVE NOTHING BACK TO CITY
|
|
Star date: 30th January 2020 NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NO PLANNING FEES FOR TWO HUGE TOWERS A planning application will be heard by Salford City Council next week for two 14 and 17 storey blocks of 280 apartments to be built at MediaCityUK on the current car park next to Booths. Despite Salford Council's new 'refreshed' planning policy there will be no affordable housing required nor any planning fees for public realm, infrastructure etc. Full details here...
|
|
Next week, Salford Council's planning panel will hear an application for two blocks, 14 and 17 storeys high, housing 280 apartments on the site of the current outdoor car park near Booths in Media City, known as Quays Point. Despite the Council recently 'refreshing' its planning policy to make affordable housing appear part of all planning permissions, any request for such isn't even mentioned within the officer's report, as a huge planning masterplan passed in 2006 for the whole of Media City waived any such requirement. However, Media City Planning Guidance does state that "all developments that are bought forward within Quays Point will be required to contribute proportionately to the required high level of infrastructure necessary to serve the overall site through the use of planning obligations, conditions or other similar mechanisms"... ...Except that this scheme doesn't have to pay a penny as, apparently, there's been plenty of public realm works already done, and the site got 'outline' planning permission a few years ago which didn't require any, although for a completely different development... "This scheme does differ from that which has the benefit of permission under the outline" the report states "However, given the significant investments that has taken place to date which is well in excess of that mitigation that would be required in terms of open space, public realm and education, it is not considered necessary to seek any further contributions." Indeed the developer itself acknowledges in its application that planning contributions are "Not applicable in accordance with the fallback position of the previously consented scheme under the Phase 2 Reserved Matters application and discussions with Urban Vision/ Salford City Council (subject to further discussions with Salford City Council)..." So, another huge development, another loss of contributions to the city – even though the planning policy has been 'refreshed'...
|
|
|
|
Felsey wrote
at 18:29:22 on 03 February 2020 |
|
|
| Might I add my two pennies worth. All are right to call disgrace on the housing mistakes made to date. My degree studies went into depth where I studied the social economic options Some toffs on the course thought social housing was a burden on the public purse. My view was opposite that social housing feeds into social growth. The Government needs a radical rethink. If High Streets are to be brought back into use build social housing with community cafes, libraries and leisure units interspersed with the shops. Put a stop to overseas billionaires using UK new builds as bullion assets, where they keep them empty to reduce supply, the result pushing up values faster than gold stocks. That causes leaps in housing waiting lists for private and social housing applicants. And the radical review needs to look at alternative building methods such as eco Swedish timber cabins and collective family housing parades. No point looking back where errors were made but every need to radically upgrade social economics, none more urgent than to provide real homes for waiting millions instead of pampering to the billionaires profiting from mass empty property aquisitioning. It is happening now in Salford with the many modern high rises. Totally unsuitable for the economic growth of Salford these will be owned en mass by overseas speculators that will not give a toss about local services hence not paying into council services. Change is needed ASAP. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 15:15:22 on 03 February 2020 |
|
|
| the point bob was that they should never have been sold at all the council houses should have been handed on from generation to generation ensuring that people had a choice of staying and living close to other family members instead many communities were destroyed by wholesale gentrifacation and planned blight splitting many families apart and losing family support many people were driven from where they had lived for generations some examples lower and higher broughton chimney pot park area good honest salford folk thrown to the wind the house .bob theres nothing wrong with owning a house what i object to is the fact it may once have been a council house and his now private and therefore lost to the market and will never be a council house again thus depriving the chance of accommodation for desperate families .and i would suggest to the people who did fall for the tory right to buy con you will have to pay for your health care by the selling of your asset /house the tory con of home ownership and that is a disgrace .once again all empty properties should be taken over by the local authorities to house people housing is a right not a privalige i would go further and socialise all housing cause and effect . |
|
|
?
|
Bob the regular wrote
at 08:41:46 on 03 February 2020 |
|
|
| Can I ask Paul Kelly who these spiv landlords bought these former council houses from? Were some of these houses actually sold to these spiv landlords by our labour council when old people had gone into care after buying their council house, in order to pay money for care home fees? Were some of these former council houses sold by the feckless descendants of the people who bought them, so that they all got a bit of inheritance money to piss up the wall. After this money was pissed up the wall, the people who pissed it up then found out that their kids had nowhere to live. Look, when you buy a house, you are not buying high technology. Its a pile of bricks plaster, pipes ,cable, roof tiles timber etc. You are buying so many hours work of simple working class types like me. I have heard it said that all the work in an average semi type house for construction workers and all materials makers is equal to about 3000 hours in labour terms . Even at 20 quid per hour thats only about 60 grand. We waste millions on housing. A council or housing association house these days costs double that and only lasts about 30 years before it needs pulling down or major refurb. Maintainance is another problem.Tennants who pay rent will not change a tap washer. they phone the provider who calls out a contract plumber, and it costs about 30 quid min to get a simple task done. If any person here owned their own house, would they pay 30 quid or more to get a tap washer fixed? The lefty labour lot here feed the greedy house builders. They like the people to be poor so they can control them. They want the poor to riot on the streets and overthrow the wicked capitalist system. What is wrong with people owning their own houses. I know Dennet lives in social housing, but I will bet my last penny Miss Becky doesn't. We will never learn. |
|
|
?
|
paul kelly wrote
at 12:53:08 on 02 February 2020 |
|
|
| this disgrace is the result of thatchers onslaught against council housing which as been going on for over 40 years the tories destroyed the council housing provision in this country by demolition theft of land and the selling off of council housing at knock down prices to private developers the result we see all around us a massive homeless problem millions in temporary accommodation families living in shared rooms communities uprooted. the tory so called right to buy con removed many houses from the council providers many of these houses were bought by spiv landlords whos only motive was profit and greed it was not any bodys right to buy a council house or any bodys right to sell the houses should have been kept as council housing the reason they were built in the first place there is a solution to the housing crisis created by tory policy local authorities should take over all empty properties and house the young the old and the elderly currently an estimated 2 million and collect rent on these properties to build more for the social good . |
|
|
?
|
Bob the regular wrote
at 12:52:30 on 02 February 2020 |
|
|
| Even the so called affordable housing providers have to make a huge profit on each house or flat they build. As these people are "non profit making", they have to dissipate the surplus on huge wages for their directors, and of course offset it against the millions they waste. It is all a big racket to screw people out of money, that is all it is. Antrobus going? Finley is going as well. Finley is planning director at town hall. He is 60 and is taking early retirement. I wonder if this has anything to do with the article that appeared in this journal where the retiring councilor was going on about the former police station site scandal? |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 18:15:46 on 01 February 2020 |
|
|
| Kev, this isn’t just happening in Salford, the same happens right across the UK regardless of which political party runs the council |
|
|
?
|
bill thomason wrote
at 15:21:31 on 31 January 2020 |
|
|
| Why don`t they say "Cheaper" or "Social" housing instead of the COP-OUT phrase "affordable" ,if a house costs between £100,000 - £5 Million & you have between £100,000 - £5 Million in the bank then it`s "affordable".
I have to go now,I smell something,it reminds me of a brown envelope. |
|
|
?
|
DARREN BORN AND BRED wrote
at 17:56:23 on 30 January 2020 |
|
|
| Same old story here yet again. No affordable housing, no planning fees. These flats, no sorry apartments will be for the middle class people. |
|
|
?
|
Arnold Rimmer wrote
at 17:55:33 on 30 January 2020 |
|
|
| Does the star want to let us know what they think a flat should go for at the Quays?
Affordable is relative to the area. I've said before, if they forced flats to be below market value, i would buy one and then sell it for its actual value immediately afterwards.
|
|
|
?
|
DJB wrote
at 17:55:18 on 30 January 2020 |
|
|
| Here's a revolutionary idea, hold the council accountable for building affordable housing not expect it from private investment. To little gets said about this. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 17:54:28 on 30 January 2020 |
|
|
| Kenny, Antrobus is retiring in May |
|
|
?
|
D Lyons wrote
at 17:54:23 on 30 January 2020 |
|
|
| It's not where Antrobus lives so he will have no problem with it.But if we turf this lot. Then we get the Garidos
That choice is like having teeth pulled. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 11:52:38 on 30 January 2020 |
|
|
| Would be nice to think adout over 55 housing not just for the young x
|
|
|
?
|
Kev wrote
at 11:52:31 on 30 January 2020 |
|
|
| How are all these developments getting the go ahead if affordable housing isn't being provided? Is Dennett hoping for a cushy job somewhere when his tenure as Mayor is over? |
|
|
?
|
Kenny wrote
at 11:52:26 on 30 January 2020 |
|
|
| How much longer is Atrobus (leader planning Committee), going to get away with Giving Salford away.Something not right here. |
|
|
?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
.jpg)
advertisement
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
Hi Paul I hope you are well, please can you tell me how much it would be to have the George Best Mosaic made? Indeed if you are st... [more] |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am Marjorie Goodwin's grandson. I still have that battered tobacco tin. I don't know what happened to the silver one!
... [more] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I parked here with a disability badge and my back tyre was slightly over line as I suffer with coordination and it says if I appea... [more] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 North Johnson Street, Salford.
My Great Grandfather was the son of Household James Rowlands 68. x2. His wife Frances Rowlands... [more] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lived for many years as a kid in Murray st. Hilda who was mum to John would visit my grandmother and would tell us about what john... [more] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Days |
Hours |
Minutes |
Seconds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Help the Salford Star...
all donations welcome
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
