Future Stretford

Feedback re: Future Stretford – as submitted to Trafford/Bruntwood

Generally, there are some positive and promising suggestions, but also a lot of misleading statements and artists impressions that could undermine the consultation process if they prove to be untenable and merely attempts to muster support for what is actually unrealistic.

Basically, the proposed mix is good, and the attempt to create elements that will boost the town centre functions are to be welcomed – particularly new housing, the central square and King Street Square could be important focal points.  The minimalist treatment of the public realm at the canalside is disappointing and could – if continued in the manner shown – be the ultimate in wasted opportunities.

More specifically, the housing element will help to bring life back to the town centre, although there is insufficient information as to what types of housing are proposed.  It is vital that as much family housing as possible is included.  Also, it is to hoped that the involvement of the Council in the joint venture company will temper the normal profit maximisation approach of other developments in Stretford, especially as other large-scale development areas (eg around the civic quarter) will be mainly apartments and likely to be unavailable to local families. So I would hope that the proposals involve considerably more affordable housing than is usual in the developments around Stretford, and also that the JVC will work with social housing providers and/or local community housing initiatives to create housing thsat is truly accessible to local, low income families.  Even so-called Affordable Housing is not truly affordable to most families, so low-cost social housing is essential if the town centre is to be for existing Stretford people.  Also could a ‘car-free’ development be adopted?  This would be a brilliant opportunity to prove that it could be done in what is a very accessible location in terms of public transport and the proposed improvements to cycling provision.

With regard to each sub area, from the proposals section, the following points are, I believe, important.

• Lacy Street – a mix of housing and commercial is fine, although I am afraid that, from the information provided, the promised improved public accessibility to the canalside will be inadequate.  The whole point about public realm is that it should be public.  From what is shown, the canalside area will only be public in the sense that the public can buy coffees etc from canalside cafes. It is vital that there is a public area for people to be able to sit and enjoy the canalside without having to be customers of cafes.  The cafes need to be set further back – behind public space.  There is absolutely no point in a public square on the A56 side of the buildings, where all people can see and hear is a 6-lane highway.  Put that space beside the canal.
• Chester Road – Since there is no proposal to reduce the width or intensity of use of Chester Road – and I note that it is, in any case excluded from the application site – all mention of improved connectivity, (and the use of wavy lines to illustrate what is in actual fact just hitting a major barrier), is totally misleading.  Each side of the road will remain as disconnected as it is now.  Something radical is needed for Chester Road and plans for this need to be formulated now.
• Makers Yard is a nice idea which has a lot of potential.  Since much of this area is currently used for servicing of retail and commercial properties, it is not clear where such servicing will now take place if there is to be substantial pedestrian permeability.  In fact, the whole issue of servicing areas is generally not covered at all anywhere in the document.
• King Street –  Basically great, the proposed hub at the King Street Square would be welcome.  Not sure how removing the roof helps, unless this is linked in some way to building above the shops?  It is to be presumed that this is the probable scenario across much of the centre from the limited information provided, but it is not at all clear and perhaps should have been made so – either way.
• Kingsway – fully supportive of the proposals here if that can be linked into making the town centre more outward looking and attractive along the Kingsway frontage.  Not clear where the new access to the multi-storey car park will be since it will obviously no longer run around the front of Aldi.
• Library Square – good opportunity to improve the entrance to the centre from the west.
• Central Park – A good idea to create a central meeting and socialising space, that also links up to Library Square. It is unclear how much shopping frontage there will be here – on both sides with housing above?  Only one side?  None at all?  There needs to be an active frontage to the square.  Also, it is ridiculous to claim that this is part of a biodiversity corridor.  It ends – as so much does – at Chester Road, which is completely impermeable to humans and animals alike, so it cannot possibly be a corridor that links to any other habitat anywhere.  Chester Road remains the one factor that prevents any of the ideas for the town centre from fully succeeding. 
• St Matthews – Good to link the church and its surroundings into the general town centre.

If there is one general complaint here, it is that I fail to see why it is necessary to make a number of ridiculous claims for the proposals that undermine its credibility and are, I would suggest, disrespectful to the local community.  Talk of improved connectivity when there are no effective proposals to increase permeability across Chester Road is meaningless.  Talk of biodiversity corridors – equally so.  These and other similar soundbites are not the way to get local support when they cannot possibly be delivered and so are simply misleading and likely to end up with lack of trust between the community and developer.  Just honesty, openness and transparency is al that is needed.  Just say what truly can and cannot be done and trust will build up.