Blog 1.
Trafford near bankrupt – a Tory legacy
We now know what we suspected would happen ever since the pandemic was declared – that, along with almost all local authorities, Trafford is facing a financial crisis. The scale of its crisis can be traced back to the almost criminal mismanagement of the Council’s budget by the previous Tory administration under the leadership of Sean Anstee. Councillor Anstee slavishly, and apparently proudly, followed the austerity regime of George Osborne (where is he now? And how much did austerity affect him?) which has undermined local government finance for a decade.
From 2011 onwards, the Tory administration under Councillor Anstee chose to accept an annual government “bribe”, instead of raising Council Tax by the maximum allowed 2%. They did this under the guise of trying to “reduce the burden” on the poorest sectors of the community. In fact, the poorest sectors would often be eligible for council tax benefit anyway – although it should be remembered that responsibility for paying such benefits was transferred from Central Government to Local Authorities in 2013! The way in which Trafford threw itself whole-heartedly into the government’s attempts to decimate the powers and financial resources of local authorities smacks much more of local Tory politicians wanting to show their Westminster masters how good and obedient they were – more the self-promotion and hope for recognition approach – than concern for the community, I would say.
The end product of this pitiful, sycophantic acceptance of a Council Tax freeze was that by the time the annual “bribe” of the Government Freeze Grant was stopped, Trafford was over 10% down on the base Council Tax income that it could have had if it had implemented the maximum (and still pretty small) 2% increase over that period. That equates now to over £10 million a year. So Trafford now is at least £10 million worse off every year than it would have been had it kept Council Tax up with inflation etc, as it could have done were it not for the decisions of the Tory administration. And whilst it might be just a teeny bit churlish to mention it, Councillor Anstee, who was behind this mismanagement, has decided that due to him not being Council Leader and presumably therefore bestest friends with the Tory glitterati, he will call it a day and go back to earning more money in the private sector (following Osborne’s lead). It might possibly appear from this, that those who fully supported austerity didn’t really want to apply it to themselves and knew that they had an easy get out anyway when the going got tough.
So, over the past 10 years, government funding to local authorities has plummeted whilst the government still expects those authorities to pick up the pieces resulting from austerity generally (increased child poverty, increased wealth and income inequality, increased homelessness, increased number on zero-hours contracts and self-employed etc). Some local authorities, (not Trafford), pointed out early on that the effects of cutting local authority finances would be ongoing problems with social care – and so it has proved, catastrophically, with the effects of the pandemic. Cutting to the bone, and so having no spare capacity, might be good for private sector profitability, but is disastrous for public services (including, as we have found to our cost, the NHS) when real problems arise. Local authorities, such as Trafford, have no room to manoeuvre thanks to the doctrinaire approach of the last 10 years. And make no mistake about it, it is the ordinary folk of Trafford who suffer and not those who have sufficient wealth or income to cover themselves for services that the Council can no longer afford to provide.
A related point that should be noted is that Councillor Anstee and his acolytes (sorry, but can’t let Boris think he is the only one who can use words of Greek origin) used the excuse of austerity and reduced income to set up the disastrous One Trafford arrangement with Amey – promising that local services would not suffer, but would instead be improved! Now I have no problems at all with the employees of One Trafford, who all seem to be doing the best they possibly can. But Amey is not a local company (it is not even British-owned) and has no interest in Trafford residents. Furthermore, it only exists to make a profit and so, as we have seen, our services are pruned and carried out at minimum cost possible in order to let Amey take its cut. This is not what Councillor Anstee promised us. And to give Amey a 20+ year contract is unbelievable bad business.
So to sum up. Thanks to the Tories, the period from 2010 to 2018 in Trafford has been marked by disastrous cuts in local authority funding and the privatisation of public services. To try to make up for that, the Tory administration began the process of trying to “sell off the crown jewels” and turn itself into a property developer: witness, the attempt to sell off a large part of Turn Moss to Salford City FC; the attempt to develop William Wroe Golf Course for housing; the support for massive developments at Carrington – all incidentally involving Green Belt land. And so it goes on. And this party continues to claim to be the best at running the country (for whose benefit?) and the current leader claims to be “One Nation”! Evidence points otherwise.
I have yet to be convinced that the new Labour Administration has a genuine vision for a radically better future, though to be fair it has its hands full at present sorting out the mess left behind, and there are some promising early signs. However, since the Council is now largely committed to property developments to try to recoup lost monies from the past decade, I have major worries. What chances now are there for developments around the Civic Quarter in Stretford, or even Stretford Mall. And of course, if the Trafford Centre is in difficulties, along with other businesses, the Council will suffer loss of business rates. Difficult times indeed, and the current administration will need to be creative and will need a lot of support. But it might have been an awful lot easier if the previous shower hadn’t done their utmost to bring the Borough to its knees in earlier times.
Blog 2
Housing, Green Belt and Trafford
With all the concern recently expressed over the whole of Greater Manchester about draft proposals to build on Green Belt land, I thought it worth considering what the pandemic could teach us about a way forward. The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) is now in its second draft format, and there has been much angst about housing need figures. Firstly, there was the issue of the figures being wrong because of the influence of Brexit (fewer immigrants = less demand for housing – or so the argument ran), and now there are just doubts about the base data and the methodology for calculating figures. This, of course, has been thrown up in the air again because of Covid-19. The odds are heavily on Andy Burnham and the Greater Manchester authorities not wanting to start again, but the fact remains that the underlying assumptions of the GMSF no longer apply because of the effects of the pandemic. So, lets look at just one issue – the need to release Green Belt land for housing.
There is little or no argument that there are indeed many, many families struggling to find suitable affordable housing. However, the government have (as with so many others before this one) blamed the planning system for the shortage of such housing. In fact, it is so much more complicated than that, but it is always useful to have a scapegoat, and planners are an easy target. According to the government, the shortage is due to delays caused by planners and the planning system, but there are other reasons as well.
Firstly, there are planning permissions already given to housing developers that have not been started. These could amount to over 300,000 dwellings waiting for developers who are sitting on land mainly to increase profitability, either by restricting supply or to sell on later. Remember large scale developers (- small local developers usually develop quickly to keep a cash flow -) only exist to make profits, not to worry about the housing needs of ordinary folk like you and me. As just one local example, Peel Holdings, who own the Stretford Boatyard site received planning permission to develop the site for 28 apartments in 2016. This was after protracted discussion with the council and “proof” offered by Peel Holdings that they couldn’t possibly afford to make any of the apartments “affordable”. To date, this development has not started, and there is a similar story with regard to the site on the opposite side of Edge Lane. These could have been built by now!
Secondly, it is very hard to find developments that provide the proportion of affordable units normally required by the council. This is because developers will usually submit a “viability” study along with the application to “prove” that, if they were required to provide such affordable units it would make the whole development “non-viable” in financial terms, and therefore it wouldn’t happen. It is in fact very easy to find ways of paying the landowner over the odds for land, (to increase the building costs), and to claim a very high profit margin as necessary. Both of these, of course artificially increase costs, and at current house prices affect “viability”. I’m not claiming that all developers do this, but it is a widespread tactic and one which developers can usually get away with. And that’s another reason why new most housing prices will remain beyond the reach of our children and grandchildren.
Thirdly, and here is where the pandemic raises interesting possibilities, patterns of work and home life have had to change. More and more households have been working from home, many people have been on furlough, others have lost their jobs. For the foreseeable future, life will be very different and some aspects of the old normal will not be part of the new normal. One strong likelihood is that the trend of the last few years away from new office building will continue, and demand for existing or new office space will decline greatly, as more people work from home all or part of the time. We are already seeing around the Civic Quarter and down Seymour Grove that offices are being converted to residential accommodation because there is no more demand for office blocks. Much more of this will follow, since it is easy for developers to convert buildings to housing units using what is known in planning as permitted development rights (PD). This means that developers don’t need to get planning permission in order to carry out such conversions. Now the implications of this are interesting:
- Developers can carry out these conversions without the need for providing any affordable housing units, and without having to meet the space standards usually applied when proposals go through the normal planning procedures. So what we tend to get are housing units that are very small (usually no bigger than for a single occupant) and usually sold or let at market prices. One recent local example of what might happen here is Paragon House on Seymour Grove – you could check the applications on this under references 98786/PRO/19 and 100935/PRO/20.
- In the light of the amount of housing that could be provided by converting offices to residential units, if it were done to decent standards and with a range of unit types and sizes, this could dramatically increase the amount of housing that could be provided relatively quickly.
- There will remain a need for some offices – perhaps rented on a daily or even hourly basis – for those occasions when there has to be face-to-face contact, but many offices will be redundant. These potentially redundant offices tend, on the whole, to be in town centres or commercial centres. If such offices became housing units, it would revitalise our town centres by increasing the size of the local community and the potential number of shoppers for local shops in existing town centres.
- The argument that we can only provide sufficient new housing for future needs by releasing Green Belt no longer applies. True we need to lobby politicians to change the PD rights so that we get a wider range of units, and more affordable units, in converted office blocks, but by getting unimplemented planning permissions onto the market, converting redundant office blocks, and using “brownfield” sites, we can provide for the future without losing large amounts of Green Belt.
We need more housing, yes! But we can get the housing in a range of different ways – and it is wrong to say that the existing shortfall is simply down to “the planners”. Space forbids that in this particular blog I could also consider the implications for house prices if HS2 goes ahead and we get loads of people moving out of London to take advantage of lower house prices in Trafford (whilst commuting quickly back to London of course). That’s for another blog. Suffice it to say that the issue is complex, and there is little evidence that the government is keen to restrict large property companies and landowners from maximising their profits at our expense. But there is now a groundswell of opinion that we need a new vision, and it is up to us, locally and nationally, to press our politicians to help to move us towards that “new normal” that puts local people and the local environment first, and national (or even international) profit further down the list.
Blog 3
Bike Lanes, Climate and Health
Well, it’s all happening. I started this blog and then, overnight, there’s a whole new era about to begin, if we can believe Boris – which normally, due to past experience, I don’t. However, the latest initiative maybe reflects his brush with Covid-19. From the earlier statement by the government to get doctors to “prescribe” cycling as one way to fight obesity, it’s now all moving on to a new level of funding for cycle paths and other provisions – even if the money quoted was already earmarked and isn’t a new wad. Much as I hate to say it, I can’t disagree with the sentiment, although cycling, of course, is beneficial to health in so many other ways – not just individual health, but also public health and climate health. I’d have more belief in the views of the government if they’d shown more interest in cycling as a crucial part of their transport policy before the public found out for themselves that it’s a really good idea. Jumping on the bandwagon comes to mind, but it is nevertheless a welcome step in the right direction.
So, there seems to be a fair amount of agreement now that cycling is good: it promotes fitness and can help combat obesity; it can be a great family activity, using the cycle paths and parks in the north of the Borough; it is non-polluting and quieter than cars, lorries and buses; it takes up less space on the roads and needs less land for parking; it is cheaper than car travel and it can even be quicker door-to-door than the car on many journeys – especially if finding a parking space is an issue.
Cycle manufacturers and stores have been one of the few areas of business that have experienced something of a boom since the start of the pandemic – so what are the reasons put forward for the dissatisfaction with the temporary cycle lanes along the A56 for example? There are always pros and cons to new initiatives, and it might be useful to examine some of these before the call to “get back to normal” becomes so strong that we do just that and drift back into the congestion, pollution and stress of the good old days, pre-pandemic. The anti-cycle lane lobby seems to be led by the Trafford Conservative Party, though whether it will be quite so populist after the recent announcements by its Whitehall HQ we will have to see.
Obviously, some journeys have to be made by car, and many households need a car (maybe not always 2 or more?), but some do not, or at least don’t need to use it quite so much. The key issue begins with a consideration of whose needs should have priority. The complaints about the temporary cycle lanes revolve around increased congestion caused by reduced widths of roads, but it may be worth reminding ourselves that much of the congestion in the past has been down to commuters being forced to travel to work at the same peak time, and often from outside of Trafford. So Trafford roads are clogged up not just by Trafford residents, but by those using Trafford as a route into Manchester – either along the A56 or along the Carrington Road. Then these convoys meet at the M60 intersection and flood through Stretford. So less long-distance commuting would reduce the pressure on Trafford roads.
Thanks to the pandemic a new conflict of interests has arisen. On the one hand, the use of public transport that would normally keep many people off the roads, will reduce, at least temporarily, until people feel safer on buses and trams. On the other hand, a significant amount of travel could now be transferred to the bike – cheaper, less polluting – and less stressful so long as it is perceived as safe. It can be perceived as safer if a good network of well-surfaced and segregated cycle lanes is provided. But that won’t please a lot of car users, who may find (unusually) that their wishes are placed after those of cyclists.
I cycled to work from Stretford to the City Centre daily for over twenty-five days and was fortunate only to be carried involuntarily around corners twice by turning cars. Having not used the bike as much recently, I might well have more qualms now in doing that same journey daily. But well-designed and properly constructed cycle lanes would be good for everybody – experienced and newcomers to urban cycling. That along with cycle training for all ages is what is needed.
So what of the car-user? Some people will have to use their car for work and other essential journeys, that’s clear. But we are already hearing of many companies that are adapting to employees working from home – either permanently or for part of the week. Others are beginning to adapt to more flexible working hours. Such changes to the old work patterns are only going to increase, as companies try to save money by minimising office or other workplace costs and by downsizing. Normally there is resistance to change by employers and employees alike, but now there is (or will have to be) a new normal. Some will, of course, either have to travel to work or will want at least some contact with friends at work – others will not. And those who do not travel to work will have more time to spend with friends and family in the time they used to spend in queues on congested roads. Maybe it’s time we embraced these changes as generally beneficial to our health and to society as a whole?
If we can embrace them, then there will be less pressure on roads, less vehicles on the road, and so less need to “protect” rush hour car users from the growth in cyclists – which appears to be what the current batch of conservative councillors are most concerned about? In addition, there will be less serious accidents, less damage to road surfaces, easier road crossings for pedestrians, much less pollution (so less asthma and other related illnesses), and so on. And this will definitely happen, if only because employers will save on overheads if it does, and saving money and increasing profitability will be priority as the economy moves out of the current recession.
So, win-win isn’t it? Bring on the cycle lanes! And from the Stretford perspective, now that the Council owns the Mall, it is vital that it makes money. There is no way that it will recover while there is a 6-lane highway running past it. At the very least, if we can’t have a tunnel, we can reduce the number of lanes, provide good cycle paths and have more land for outside uses such as tables and chairs for bars etc, with less pollution for patrons to have to breathe in?
Any thoughts?
Blog 4
Democracy and Planning for Stretford
Glass half-full or glass half-empty? Pessimism or optimism? Can’t decide or past caring? Looking forward to ‘Building Back Better’ or don’t believe it will happen?
Whichever side you are on, one inevitable fact is that every one of us will be affected by the future created by this current government. If you are happy to let this happen and live with it – whatever will be, will be – then so be it. However, what is being proposed by the government is probably the greatest threat to local democracy any of us have ever had to face. This is not new of course, but under cover of the pandemic, the government is trying to hide some pretty frightening stuff. As a planner, I have had to accept the stigma often associated with the job. When I was teaching planning in Manchester College, I used to tell my new students that they should be proud that they were pursuing a profession that had one very special social benefit – which was that if there were no planners, the public would have to find someone else to hate – and that could be any unsuspecting group of people.
But I’ve always believed in planning as a profession whose aim has basically been to serve the needs and, as far as possible, the wishes of local communities. This has been done over the years by preparing plans and policies to guide future development, and ensuring that that development took place in accordance with those plans and policies. And the key thing is that local democracy is central to the whole process. Anyone who is interested in what happens in their own Borough, or even their own local community, will have opportunities to comment on plans or proposals, either directly or via their councillor.
But now, along comes the government’s White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’. In the sneaky guise of modernising the planning system in order to get more houses built, the government is proposing to sweep away the current system and replace it with one where all the major decisions will be taken at Whitehall level. Whitehall will determine the overall national policies that will govern all local decisions and will decide nationally on how much housing is needed and where. Local democracy will be reduced to dealing with such things as design and other relatively minor issues. I’m not saying they aren’t important, but the government will have ultimate control over all significant issues, and you and I will have no opportunity to have any input into those whatsoever. If you think the current system is bad, console yourself with the knowledge that at least you can make observations, comments, objections and suggestions, and that your local councillors can be lobbied to act on your behalf. If the White Paper goes through, all the key decisions will be made by Dominic Cummings via his puppet Boris and his mates. If you’re OK with that, then fine – but if not, then you have to do what you can to stop it – which is basically send objections to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and pester your MP. There is a groundswell of opposition already – including some Tory MPs – but it has to be encouraged and pressured to act.
In the meantime, under the existing planning system, which is basically fine and could be improved without the massive changes proposed nationally, we still have the chance to make our feelings known about the Stretford Area Action Plan. We still have a system that allows us to voice our opinions and make suggestions as to how the plan could be developed and improved.
Under the banner of use it or lose it, this may be one of the last chances we get to influence the way our own area changes and develops, so I would encourage everyone to look at the consultation documents and think about how you would like Stretford to be in the future. Post-pandemic we have a chance to create something different and better. (see the website http://www.futurestretford.co.uk)
You will have your own ideas and concerns, but please make them known and use your local democratic opportunities while you still have them.
For me, the main issue remains that of the A56 and the way that it splits Stretford in two and makes any attempt to create a proper town centre very difficult. As most of you will know by now, I have always championed putting it in tunnel from the M60 to the Bridgewater Canal bridge. Expensive yes – but there is money about for such schemes and I would like to see our local politicians have the vision to try to get some of that money for use here, rather than let other more dynamic authorities get the resources. And the benefits would be fantastic.
But I’m not about to keep going on regarding that matter, dear though it is to me. Those who don’t share that vision still have to come up with an idea for reducing the impact of the A56 on the future success of the Mall, the unity of the Town Centre as whole, and air quality. Reducing it to 2 lanes permanently with better cycle facilities will help. Using the extra space to create outside seating areas for the new eating and drinking places might also be beneficial etc.
Another key issue is to make the most of the potential the canal offers, to create an exciting facility for Stretford. Following on from the brilliant work of the volunteers who have cleared up the boatyard site, it could now be allocated by the Council for innovative canalside facilities – social, entertainment, cultural etc. It is close to the Tram stop and a bit of vision could see it linked to the tram stop by a footway under the car park access road, enabling direct access and providing the chance for the tram stop itself to be developed in a much more interesting way. Peel Holdings may have been kind enough to lend a skip etc, but it must be remembered that in the end they are out to make money from that site. They had a planning permission for flats (and persuaded the Council that they couldn’t possibly make any of them affordable for local people), but this has now lapsed, and there is a great opportunity to get them to do something more vibrant for the area. Just a thought.
Anyway, the moral, if there is one, is that we need to engage with the planners if we want Stretford to develop in a way that truly benefits the local community. Get your ideas in while there is still the chance.
Blog 5
Future Stretford
So, the preliminary draft of the plan for Stretford Town Centre is now out and we have the final chance to influence what goes into the planning application. Then of course we still have the opportunity to comment on the application itself, but better to try to give some positive ideas for how to improve what is in front of us now.
OK, some of you who know me will realise that over the years I have been forced into a mildly cynical mode of operating, but I promise this time, over the next few days, to try to find the positives that can be built on, whilst respectfully pointing out some of the meaningless jargon and glossed-over issues that are worth keeping a close eye on.
I’ll pick out some themes in future blogs and let you know what I think about the proposals on those themes or sub-areas. I hope that you will form your own conclusions and add your own ideas and suggestions, but it is important that as many people as possible engage with this latest consultation because the end result will affect our families, for better or worse, in both the short and long term.
It is important to recognise the context of this set of proposals. The current Labour administration inherited a financial disaster from the outgoing mob. Over the last few years, the Council has turned itself into a pseudo-property developer in a hopeful attempt to make some money and recoup what was lost under the austerity measures after 2010. This means that the Council now even more pressingly has to balance commercial interests with those of the local community, and I’ll leave you to decide which way you think that balance will inevitably swing.
In this case, the Mall and other related pieces of land were actually bought by the current administration in a joint venture with Bruntwood developments. This at least means that something will happen – as opposed to the nothing that would have been our fate if left to the old owners under the previous regime, and that has to be a plus. How much of a plus will depend on how much the Council can spend on less profitable elements of the proposals. On the commercial side, it is the right location for a car-free housing scheme (if the council has the will to make it such) and it will be good to make some use of the canalside (though it does seem to be a rather poky little public realm area). On the minus side, it seems that a lot of potential retail space will be demolished, leaving very little to remain – and probably only Aldi as a supermarket.
Otherwise, watch out for lots of lovely meaningless phrases and somewhat misleading drawings to try to make very little seem like the ultimate “wow” factor. One of my current favourites is the much-hyped talk of improved ‘connectivity’ between the shopping and residential areas on one side of the A56 and the canal and Mersey Valley on the other. I may be wrong, but I don’t see any difference in the provision for pedestrians to cross the A56 from what we have now, so I would treat talk of ‘connectivity’ with a pinch of salt.
Anyhow, I’ll try to be as positive as I can at analysing the proposals, but also try to extricate dreams from reality. As ever, if anyone has any comments – either about my thoughts or any other matter that just occurs to you – I’ll be happy to have them and to respond wherever I can.
Happy days – and stay safe.
Blog 6
Future Stretford 2 – or ‘Beware the lovely illustrations’
If you were to look through the ’Proposals’ section of the document, it would be easy to think ‘ooh that looks nice’ or ‘ooh that looks exciting’. And to be fair there are some good and sensible ideas here (along with one or two that may not be so good). However, it is important to remember that these are preliminary ideas and that the illustrations may differ radically from the probable reality. I certainly wouldn’t want to dampen the enthusiasm of those who have waited an eternity for something to be done for Stretford Town Centre, but I would respectfully suggest that we all look quite closely at what is said and what is illustrated, in an attempt to demystify it all.
Let’s start with Lacy Street and then we can work back to the main site next. The objectives for this area need careful examining. They are to:
- Create a new public space that links to the town centre as well as the wider area
Fine except that the link to the Town Centre involves crossing the A56. There is a lovely wavy red line to indicate that link. More on the lovely wavy red lines next time.
- Promote health and wellbeing by creating a series of spaces that allow a range of outdoor activities
Fine. Can’t argue with this, though the spaces are small and limited.
- Utilise the existing trees along the canal and road to create new links to the town centre.
Now things start to get a bit silly. Utilise existing trees means no additional tree planting. The existing trees will now ‘create’ new links to the Town Centre. If the trees are there already how will they create new links? And once again we are dependent on the lovely wavy red line to get us all there.
- Provide a space that complements the central park and King Street Square with social and commercial activity at the waterside
The key to what is intended here is contained in the vibrant artist’s impression of the waterside area. The keen eyed among you may notice that the bright, busy building in the background with tables outside is in fact the Atlas Bathrooms building, which didn’t look much like that last time I saw it. The actual space created on the old Post ‘Office’ site on the waterfront is minute. One false slide of your chair and you’re down the steps and in the canal, while a careless swing of the prosecco bottle will take out a passing cyclist or two – who incidentally appear to be pedalling on a much-narrowed footpath. This actually is not good at all. The main public space in this area should surely be against the canalside where there can be seats for those who just want to sit and chat or rest, as opposed to having to buy food and drinks in order to sit outside a café. Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing inherently bad about a food and drink outlet in this area, but the main way for the local community to enjoy the benefits of the canal is to have the main public (not commercial) space adjacent to the canal – as in Sale – and the commercial units further back. The idea of a public space close to the A56 is, frankly, ridiculous when the whole purpose of the Lacy Street area is to take advantage of opening up the canalside. Just a thought.
As regards the housing, it seems on the face of it a good place for residential development. It won’t be the multi-storey student accommodation of the earlier incarnation of the Stretford Masterplan con-trick of the last administration, which is perhaps a blessing, but what exactly we will get is currently unclear. Since the site is owned by the council, it would be nice to think that truly affordable housing, perhaps delivered through a social housing provider like a housing association, and maybe using shared-ownership approach might be possible. It probably all depends on how much money Bruntwood and the council need to make out of the whole scheme as to what we end up with But we can at the very least press for something that local people can access.
If any of this resonates and/or makes sense, or even if you think something entirely different, then please communicate your thoughts and ideas to the developers as part of this consultation. The worst thing that can happen is that we fail to make our voice heard, when this may be one of the last chances we get as a community to do so – for a variety of reasons!
To be continued……
Blog 7
Future Stretford 3 – or ‘Connectivity, corridors and wavy lines’
Before examining the main proposals relating to the retail, leisure and housing elements of the Town Centre, I though it might be useful to give a few examples of the way these consultation exercises (and especially the wording and drawings) can be used to whip up enthusiastic support for things that are not quite what they seem. I see it a lot with planning proposals and, despite years of experience, I still find myself longing to believe that Council- led schemes will be more open and transparent than those of the private sector. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case. I’ve just picked out a few items from the documentation on Future Stretford as examples, and I’ll leave you to come to your own conclusions.
A simple one to begin with. Last blog, I focussed on Lacy Street as a little introduction. One thing you might like to notice is that the area of canalside on the opposite side of the canal to Atlas showrooms and the old Post Office building is shown as lovely green open space – (also shown on the ‘phasing’ plans). This looks lovely, but it is in fact currently a bit of a mess and a tip, and will be until such time as the flats and houses permitted on this site are finally built. This area will never be a nice green open space to look out onto.
Then there is the connectivity issue between the main town centre and the land across the A56 – including the links to the Metro station and Turn Moss/Mersey Valley. There is much talk of the proposals including and improving connectivity across the A56. If you look carefully, there are no proposals other than the existing pedestrian crossings across what will remain as a 5-lane dual carriageway. There is, however, what appears to be a new crossing from Lacy Street to King Street, but this is about 10 metres from the main traffic-light-controlled junction, so I cant see any new ‘connectivity’ being created here. Two sets of lights within about 10 metres of each other ain’t going to happen. Other than that, we have the lovely red wavy lines that I mentioned previously. These appear on the proposals for Chester Road, and seem to imply ‘connectivity’ across the road. In fact, they are more like the way TV in the old days used to introduce Dream Sequences by making the picture go all wavy. In fact, they are exactly like that. The idea of a non-existent link across Chester Road is represented by a wavy line which takes you from reality into a dream – or is it vice-versa? Again, I’ll leave that one up to you. Connectivity?
While on the subject of Chester Road, I love those illustrations that appear from time to time and which show new tree planting down the middle of the dual carriageway. Since there appears to be no plan to reduce the scale of the road, that ain’t going to happen either!
Then there is the new Central Park. This is a really good idea and I’m sure would be really well used. It is great that there could be a green space in the middle of the town centre for sitting and socialising (if and when we are finally allowed to do so – hopefully before this town centre development is completed). But even here, the team representing the Council and Bruntwood can’t resist another completely ridiculous statement to try to make it seem much better than it is. They refer to it in the proposals section as “A ‘Central Park’ which provides a green biodiversity corridor for public enjoyment”. A biodiversity corridor is a concept that is designed to enable wildlife to move freely between habitats. The Central Park will only allow wildlife to move between Chester Road and Aldi. This may well suit pigeons (who could fly there anyway) or any land-based animals that manage to survive crossing the A56, but it is not, and never will be a ‘wildlife corridor’ in any acceptable sense to ecologists, environmentalists, or sub-Chris Packamites out there among you. It’s no big deal, but I just wish those people writing documents like this would treat people like responsible adults with a degree of common sense, instead of hoping that they won’t realise that it is total drivel.
All I am asking for here is honesty, accuracy, truth and realism. Is it really so much to ask that the local community be treated with respect and informed as to what is actually proposed, as against a lot of meaningless verbiage designed to confuse, or even worse, mislead us all into thinking we might get something quite different from what they actually intend to provide. I know this is only a consultation, but it is important that we are consulted on reality, and not on artistic and literary licence. Such deception (because that is what it amounts to) is unnecessary and undesirable. We should be consulted openly and transparently in a way that we can make meaningful and helpful comments, rather than have our attention diverted by nice but inaccurate drawings and writings.
So please keep reading the documentation in a critical way. Don’t take anything at face value, but consider the basics of what is being proposed and tell the council what it is you like and what you don’t like. And maybe tell them that you don’t like woolly and inaccurate descriptions and illustrations, if you feel the same way that I do.
Next up, how much retail will there be left after all this? Where is the access to the multi-storey car park going? How will the shops and commercial units be serviced? Why is taking the roof off the malls so good? How much of the housing will be genuinely affordable? How is the pollution caused by the A56 going to be dealt with? And so on.
Blog 8
Future Stretford 4 – or ‘Practicalities’
The first point to make is that this is only a consultation on the basics of the future of the town centre. The new joint venture company formed by the Council and Bruntwood will later submit an outline planning application – which basically means an application to get approval in principle to the mix and overall amount of different uses. All the detail (except for points of access) will come in a later application. The application will be submitted by the company who, in the end, are primarily concerned with financial returns (on both commercial and residential developments). Whilst I would like to think that the involvement of the council as part of the company could guarantee some decent results in the interests of the community, the need for the council to swell the depleted coffers will play a big part.
The more I look into the Future Stretford proposals, the more it becomes evident that reading between the lines is vitally important. I would recommend looking through the “more information” section at the bottom of the home page (and other pages), and in particular the FAQs. Some of the info there is interesting.
For example, we are promised ‘up to’ 19,000 sq metres of mixed commercial floorspace in the scheme. The FAQs indicate that the actual amount will depend on commercial factors – it states that “We need to make sure that we do our best to future-proof the town centre, by creating footfall and demand but also we must avoid having units that we can’t let”. I can’t find any figures to indicate what the current amount of shopping floorspace is, but it could be a lot more than 19,000 sq metres, so what we end up with might a lot less than what we have now. Granted there is a lot of empty space, but we need to ask, do we contract our town centre because of what it is like at the moment (neglected and under-invested), or do we try to create a substantial and vibrant centre fitting for an important town?
It is also important to note that of the 19,000 sq metres, some will be leisure and entertainment, and some will be community uses. This is actually fine and a nice mix, though it effectively reduces the amount of actual shopping by around 6,000 sq metres. The remainder will also probably include Arndale House floorspace (offices).
Some of the issues that perhaps need raising, depending on your interests, might include the following.
- What is the current amount of retail and commercial space in the Mall? This would help us assess what we will be getting in comparison with what we already have (at least in terms of actual space available). And bear in mind that one section of the Mall has already gone to create the current grassed space outside (which will become housing – more of that in a later blog)
- Makers Yard is going to be a combined set of spaces for secondary retail and commercial uses. Bear in mind that the area behind Arndale House is currently car parking and service areas for the shops. One big issue that is not addressed in the proposals is how the various shops and commercial premises are going to be serviced when all the existing service areas are built on or used for other purposes
- I’m not entirely sure how taking the roof off the existing King Street Mall entrance and square etc is going to revolutionise the shopping and leisure experience. If any one has any ideas on that, I’d love to hear them. I suspect a need to build above the shops?
- In the section on new housing, there appears to be housing where current shops are. It may be the intention to build over most of the existing shops, but it is not clear whether the shops will be removed, or retained with new housing above, or demolished and rebuilt with new ground floor shops and housing units above. The Central Square appears to occupy the space currently occupied by shops opposite Boots and the old Tesco?
- In any event, much is made of retaining Aldi, even though it appears to be isolated from any other shops. It is surrounded by housing and no longer connected to the rest of the shopping centre. And why only one supermarket? Urmston has Aldi and Sainsburys. The Mall suffered dreadfully from the opening of the big Tesco on Chester Road (followed by M&S and Aldi at White City, and then Lidl). Tesco justified their megastore by saying they were committed to the town centre and would keep the Mall Tesco open for at least 5 years afterwards. Guess how long it actually stayed open folks!! I’m a big fan of Foodhall which has found a great niche, but surely there will be room for another supermarket – especially with another 800 households moving in?
- It may just be me, but all the developments at the western end of the centre, including around Aldi and the Library Square, (and the lovely green space along the reduced-width Kingsway), seem to cover the current vehicular entrance to the multi-storey car park. Maybe the intention is to put in a car lift?
- Finally, this wouldn’t be complete without another reference to our lovely wavy lines. The diagram of Makers Yard shows the proposed links between Chester Road and the potential community developments at the top of the multi-storey. To get to or from Makers Yard from Chester Road, you will need to get into wavy line mode. You will notice that the line stops at the edge of the main road, at which point presumably your dreams will suddenly hit the reality that connectivity across the A56 will be no different from what it is now – a multi-lane highway with a pedestrian crossing at each end of the town centre and nothing else to help you across. Except of course your dreams (or possibly inebriation). We’re on the wavy line to nowhere!
So once again, no major complaints about the basic ideas, but the way it is all presented, and also the way the diagrams can seriously mislead, means that we have to look very hard at the realities and practicalities of what is being proposed.
Next up – Housing issues and the inevitable road system blues.
Blog 9
Future Stretford 5 – or ‘Houses for whom?”
I wasn’t one of the lucky invitees to the direct consultation events held recently, so there would appear to be little snippets of further information out there, including some possible details on types of housing and the issue of car parking. The documentation put out by the developers (Council + Bruntwood) had very little to say about housing, except that there would be up to 800 units. It did state that “This plan shows where we anticipate new homes would go and the types of properties which could be provided in each place”. In fact, there was no information at all about types of properties and only somewhat oblique references to ‘affordability’. Now some further detail is coming out, but only given to a relative few.
I know we live in difficult times, but this is very close to the “divide and conquer” approach adopted so often by the previous administration, and is rather worrying. It smacks very much of the “we’ll tell a few people so that we can say we’ve done a consultation, but not so many people that the true picture will really get out there in a meaningful way”. On one level I expected better from the current administration, but on another level, it was always likely to be this way, because the whole point of the Council forming a Joint Venture Company (JVC) with a private developer, is to adopt a commercial, financially beneficial approach to the development. This is not to criticise Bruntwood, but just to state that this is how things work. The private sector exists primarily to make a profit, without which it goes out of business. To go into partnership with the private sector means that the council is essentially buying into this scenario – as it did with Amey.
So what does this mean for housing in Stretford? At present, all decent sized housing developments have to include some affordable housing. This is Council Policy in its current development plan. (Oh, and by the way the Council is now consulting on its new Local Plan, which will affect what happens to the Borough for a long time to come, and I don’t know how many people are aware of this very important consultation. But that’s a separate issue). In this context, “affordable” actually means a little less out of reach than other housing has come to be, and can be largely discounted if you are thinking of housing that most of our children and grandchildren would like to own. Another problem is that the government has made it really easy for developers to get away with providing no ‘affordable’ housing at all by allowing them to plead that it would not be financially viable to do so, so the scheme can then go ahead without meeting the policy requirements. This happens a lot.
Now into the mix we get a JVC, where we could be forgiven in thinking that the presence of the Council will guarantee a better deal for the local community. But other than maybe getting the so-called ‘affordable’ housing that other developers can avoid, it is very unlikely to result in housing that is truly financially accessible to those in greatest need – and by this I mean anyone who earns less than the average wage – or even less than a level well above the average wage..
I’ve seen lots of comments that this scheme is great and that the town centre needs redeveloping and what is being proposed is the best thing since granary sourdough bread (on the grounds that I’m not keen on sliced bread – but that’s just me!). But I’m afraid much of it is meaningless bluster that sounds lovely but is unlikely to deliver what we are all expecting and hoping for. I’m not a town centre expert, but I have been a town planner for over 40 years, and I can spot from a mile off a report that’s been written to divert attention away from the realities of a scheme and towards what is little more than a fantasy world. This is one. The need for the Council and Bruntwood to make a profit will affect everything – from the greatly reduced retail element, to the type of housing we get. It would be great if the JVC were to work alongside social housing providers and local community housing groups, but it is unlikely. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt the housing that we get will be targeted at the needs of local families.
Personally, I think there needs to be a substantial housing element to assist in providing a lively and financially successful retail centre for the town, but I am very worried about the type of housing we will get. Also I note what people are saying about the need for services and facilities to be expanded to meet the increased needs generated by the increased population. This often falls outside the scope of such developments unless the council claims from the developers a financial contribution to such things, which it can do and usually does. But how far this goes in generating new or improved services is debatable. The council has more say with this scheme, because it is the developer – or at least joint developer – but unless there is some clarity and transparency from the council as to how it intends to deal with this matter, I would suggest that a healthy degree of scepticism is in order.
And then of course there is the issue of car parking. The council could pursue a car-free policy with no parking provided and requirements for owners/occupiers not to have a car within a certain distance of the home. This would be quite possible, but radical. With increased working from home, shopping nearby, good public transport to hand, and the promise of improved cycling facilities, there is no need for car ownership. With the money saved from owning a car, it allows for use of taxis, car clubs, car hire etc, where necessary – all things are possible. Instead, we appear to be getting a plan that involves the use of the multi-storey car park for a mix of parking for residents and for shoppers on lower floors, and space for exciting local community ventures on the top floors. Somehow, I have few positive vibes about it being able to fulfil all of those functions at the same time.
So what am I saying here? Personally, I’m in favour of a high level of housing, because that will reduce pressure on green belt and other sensitive areas. However, I am not in favour of vague statements about numbers and types, nor with a total absence of detail about supporting services and a very vague set of statements (that not all of us have been party to) about car parking. Yes, the mall is depressing in its current state – part covid, part recent mismanagement, and part ridiculous decisions on competing retail developments (such as Tesco). All of these have progressively in their own ways undermined our town centre. This current set of proposals looks pretty and has some important proposals, but overall it gives every appearance of a smokescreen around what will be a major commercial development to get some money for the council at the expense of a proper, community-based approach to providing Stretford (one of the 4 major towns in Trafford) with a decent town centre.
Whether you agree with me or not, its never too late to submit comments until the website says that consultations have closed. Keep checking and keep asking questions. This will set the standard of our town centre for many decades to come and it will be too late once the main decisions have been made.
Oh and did I say that there are no proposals at all for Chester Road. It will remain the disaster that it is now. Last blog will deal with this.
Blog 10
Future Stretford 6 – or ‘The Stretford Wall”
There is always so much to say on issues such as this, particularly as discussion progresses and extra snippets of information come out bit by bit. So I’d just like to start by encouraging those who’ve not yet made their voice heard to do so while there is still the chance. The consultation is still open (or at least it was a day or so ago) and comments/suggestions can still be made – either on the feedback form on the website, or by email etc. Anything that has come out subsequent to the first document posted on the Future Stretford website needs comment as much as the somewhat vague original scheme as shown initially.
I’ll be sending in further feedback as a result of what I have learned through social media reports from the later “consultation” events that took place with a selected few. I certainly don’t automatically accept all I read in social media, but there are some bits of information flying around that are quite believable and so they warrant further questioning of the Joint Venture Company, to try to get deeper down into the truth of what is proposed.
At the end of the day, as I mentioned before, the final act of this consultation will be an outline planning application by the company (Council + Bruntwood) for a development scheme that will specify the number of houses planned and the amount of retail/commercial floorspace. Very little else will be included, so most of the lovely diagrams and drawings included in the website are little more than a smokescreen to try to make the initial ideas seem wonderful. Once the outline application is approved, the fundamentals of the mix of development will be settled and only the design/layout issues will be up for grabs.
This last blog is about the key issue that will not be included in the scheme – namely Chester Road. The road, for obvious reasons is not included in the application site, so all talk of connectivity and links between the main site and the canalside/Mersey Valley are actually meaningless, since the road, largely unaltered, will still be there as a “Berlin Wall” type feature. You will still be able to see the promised paradise (I’ll leave you to decide which side of the road that is), but you won’t be able to get there without going through the two existing “checkpoints” (otherwise known as pedestrian crossings).
There may be talk of opening out the frontages along the A56 for seating areas etc, but all that means is that the current parking lane will be closed on the western side so that seats and maybe some trees can be put there. Yippee! A few more places to sit and watch 8 lanes of traffic go past and/or stop and pollute the air within few metres of your seat. The drawings seem to show wider cycle lanes, but this is not part of the application and it seems very unlikely to happen given that the only works done by the council so far have been the few permanent “bollards” placed along the existing narrow cycle lane on the southbound side of the road – which have the effect of reducing its width still further.
I’m so sad and disappointed that every initiative that comes along regarding Stretford Town Centre, whether from the council or a development company, is full of bluster and smoke and mirrors. I dread everything that comes out now because I’ve all but given up on seeing something open, transparent, imaginative and visionary about what could be achieved. I’ve lived in Stretford over 40 years, and I’ve seen so much neglect and mismanagement, I just yearn for a council that will give the place the same attention and concern that Altrincham and Urmston have had in recent years. In no way do I resent what has happened there, I merely would like the effort put in there to be repeated in my own home town centre.
Instead, we have retrenchment and commercialism taking the place of community development. And the key to the whole sad story remains Chester Road. With the best will in the world its main function is to take traffic from one side of Stretford to the other, without benefitting the town centre itself in any way at all. Just people racing from far away into Manchester, or vice versa, with no interest or personal investment in Stretford.
Those of you who know me will know that for many years I have called for the A56 to be put in tunnel from the M60 to Davyhulme Road West. I expected and have received little else other than huffing and puffing about expense or else general disdain. But simply pointing to cost is just an admission that no-one in a position of authority is prepared to fight for it. Bids for money could have been made several years ago. There is money available if our council would begin the process of prizing it out from those who hold the purse strings. Pointless and unwanted “public sector investment projects” such as the tunnel under Stonehenge or, more meaningfully, HS2 are funded. The money is out there. The vast sums of money spent on these, that will only benefit limited numbers of people, could have been used instead for any number of projects that would actually directly benefit large numbers of communities. And even with these schemes, there is still money available in other pots that our council couldn’t be bothered going for.
Unless something radical is done about the A56 (Tunnel, cut and cover, etc) the future of Stretford as a proper town centre is lost. A community divided by such a feature can never feel that it has a real central focus. And for those who just see a tunnel or ‘cut and cover’ as being too expensive, I would point out that all major infrastructure projects such as this have to look at benefits as well as costs, and the benefits would be enormous – including the ability to reduce air pollution; the creation of more valuable land for development at ground level; scope for vastly improved cycle and pedestrian accessibility; improved road safety; more efficient public transport; increased footfall (and therefore income) for shops/bars/restaurants etc; an integrated community; improved connectivity between east and west Stretford; a much improved environment; and so on. These things can be valued and set against pure financial cost.
Post pandemic, life will be different. We have the chance to make it different in ways that will give our children and grandchildren a better, safer, healthier, and more relaxed future. There could be much less commuting resulting in less time wasted and less stress; local communities and local socialising could replace work-based groupings; spending in town and local centres might replace spending in city centres (which tends to be mainly national or international chains anyway); wasteful office space could be converted to homes, and reduced office demand could allow land to be developed instead for homes. All of these things, and more, are possible, but it needs a vision, and sadly I don’t see this in the current scheme, which seems rooted merely in more of the same. Ho hum.
Traffordnorthend 