On Saturday morning, myself and Cllr Les Turner, together with some very kind volunteers, were out on Hilton Lane and the surrounding area to ask local residents what they thought about the Labour Council’s proposals to bulldoze the greenfield land at Burgess Farm (south of Hilton Lane) and build 1000+ new homes.
The proposals are contained within the Council’s draft “Core Strategy”, which will become the key planning guidance for the Council for the next 20 years. The Labour Council want to designate Burgess Farm as a key greenfield housing development site, in order to support the Government’s daft house-building target.
Residents on Hilton Lane in particular are extremely angry at the proposals to develop this land. Local Conservatives have said consistently that we do not support the development of green field and green belt sites nor do we support the Government’s daft imposed target of over 30000 new build homes in Salford which has caused these proposals to come forward.
This is far from the only daft proposal in the Core Strategy and I will continue to highlight them over the coming weeks. So how do local residents have their say?
The public consultation for the draft Core Strategy starts on Monday 9th November and runs for 10 weeks through to Friday 15th January 2010. You can comment in a number of different ways:
- Via the Council website at www.salford.gov.uk/core-strategy (please note the new plans are not on there until 9th November)
- By e-mail, to plans.consultation@salford.gov.uk
- By fax, on 0161 793 3782
- By writing to Core Strategy Consultation, Spatial Planning, Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, M27 5BY.
- If you want to speak to a Council planning officer, you can call 0161 793 2664.
Why is building 30,000 homes daft?
Sure, building 30,000 homes that no-one can actually afford *is* daft. But we have a growing population – even in Salford! – and unless you are willing to argue for a one-child policy like Stalinist China, then the inescapble fact is that we need to build new houses, sharpish.
Maybe if you’ve got an interest in social geography and demographic projection, then perhaps you should show us why 30k homes is daft based on future projections of population growth. Otherwise, people are still going to have familes and babies, who will go on to have further families and further babies when they grow up; all of whom will need a house.
Do you really think that Salford’s population is going to increase by 30-40% over the next 20 years, Kit? No, me neither.
What I don’t understand is why you didn’t push for the first proposal with four options to be discussed at the Little Hulton and Walkden Community Committee. Burgess Farm featured in that draft.
Aled – there were two full-day drop-in sessions held in Walkden during the initial consultation – http://www.iainlindley.co.uk/2008/11/01/core-strategy-drop-in-sessions/ – and every household in Salford received a leaflet outlining the options.
I still think it is a subject for Community Committee. Perhaps we can discuss these new proposals.
Depends on the timescale of that 30-40% Iain.
If you mean in the next five years or so, then yes, it is daft. But – and even though I work for a council, I may be wrong on this – aren’t Core Strategies supposed to be 20 year plans? I know that they’re supposed to be long-term plans at the very least. So it may be the case that the population will grow – and hopefully new families will be attracted to the area given the new opportunities that are opening up.
I’d rather have an excess of housing that too little housing.
I wouldn’t mind but it’s lack of housing that is one of the driving factors behind the growth of the BNP. On one hand, the mainstream parties fall over themselves to remind us all how nasty the BNP are and how it’s not *their* policies which are to blame about the BNP, but on the other hand, they carry on with the same policies that cause the growth of the BNP! You only have to talk to the average BNP voter to realise that there is a perception that “they” (insert oppressed minority here) are “taking over all the housing” and that there is nothing left for “local people”.
So, build the 30k+ houses; how can it be a bad thing? I’d rather not see development of greenfield space, and especially not public green spaces, but I think housing needs come first. It’s not as if Salford is *really* that short of space – huge swathes of derelict space in Broughton, Blackfriars, Irlam, and other such spaces spring to mind.
But let’s actually make sure local people can afford them. The obvious answer is to make it council (not “social”, but council) housing with controlled rents. But I’m not holding my breath.
Some facts on the Core Strategy will provide the spatial strategy for Salfords evolution over the period up to 2027.
The Issues and Options report published in October 2008 indicated we need 38,600 new homes it is thought that this may be reduced slightly.
Between 2007-2009 the first 2 years of the 20year period a net increase of 4125 new homes were delivered.
Figures from the Office of National Statistics on population Salford.
2006 =218,000
2007 =219,200
2008 =221,300
I hope this may be of some help to you all.
“Delivered”? Flat-pack no doubt! Speaking of which, does that include all the recently-built flats in the Walkden area that, judging by the forest of ‘To Let’ signs, are mostly standing empty?
DO NOTHING TORIES.
Ian What would you do to house the increased population of Salford?
Not many people I know will benefit from Torie Inheritance Tax proposals.
“DO NOTHING TORIES” Andrew?
Good to see you at the FOWS meeting tonight. Doubtless you will have been paying attention when the Chairman read out the response rates to his lobbying efforts. Of the 9 Conservative Councillors he wrote to, 8 of them responded. Of the 6 Labour Councillors he wrote to, only one could be bothered to respond.
What we actually have in Walkden and Little Hulton is DO NOTHING LABOUR.
The Torie training must be working Ian.
I see that you do not answer my question but instead put another.
Well your answer is this FOWS have a great allie in Barbara Keeley(introduced to FOWS by myself)
Our Labour MP is working hard for FOWS bringing together Northern RAil/Networkrail/and transport ministers pushing
for all aspirations of FOWS and the general public who use the station(even the Torie voting constituents)
It was quite amusing to see you using FOWS meeting to lobby for Torie votes of Newearth road residents with scare tactics of new homes (but not around here).
The traintram along the Atherton Line was highlighted to Neil when it was first mentioned in the GMPTE material almost 2 years ago.
I will continue to lobby my Labour MP for continued support
and will also speak to the Walkden North Councillors to gain
support.
So are we saying: 30,000 houses; “good thing”?
I am not opposed to house-building, but this City does not need 33750 new dwellings (that’s the figure in the draft Core Strategy) and it certainly does not need 24500 new apartments.
What we need is a more sustainable housing strategy focusing on building good quality (and affordable) housing – houses, not apartments – across the City.
“I am not opposed to house-building, but this City does not need 33750 new dwellings (that’s the figure in the draft Core Strategy) and it certainly does not need 24500 new apartments.
What we need is a more sustainable housing strategy focusing on building good quality (and affordable) housing – houses, not apartments – across the City.”
There will be a need for apartments – affordable apartments, though – and 24,500 does sound a bit high. But since couples are starting families a lot later than they used to, but wanting their independence and moving out earlier (i.e. cohabiting), there is a need for some. But £190k for a one bed apartment is obscene and really should be outlawed for managing the feat of being both profiteering and a monsterous waste at the same time.
Otherwise, I think we’re in agreement. Do you still think that 30k houses across Salford over a 20 year period is still daft, Iain?
Building on that land would be an absolute disgrace.
The area has plenty of empty accomodation and areas that need redevelopment before using this space.
Re. draft core strategy, building of houses on the Burgess Farm greenfield site. With reference to the drop in session at Worsley Fit City 19th November 4pm – 6pm. Firstly I have not seen this drop in session advertised anywhere else except on your website, secondly as mentioned in the draft core strategy Salford West encompasses some of the more ‘affluent’ neighbourhoods therefore how can residents that are working be able to attend this session which ends at 6pm when most people are still sat in traffic on the way home from work? Are there any other sessions planned later in the evening to accommodate these people.
The consultation events in the M28 area are as follows:
Standfield Centre, Boothstown, Friday 20th November, 1.30pm-4pm
Netto, Little Hulton, Saturday 21st November, 9.30am-12.30pm
Worsley Village Library, Saturday 28th November, 10am-12.30pm
Walkden Gateway Centre, Wednesday 2nd December, 2pm-7pm
Little Hulton Library, Friday 4th December, 2pm-5pm
In addition the Core Strategy will be discussed at the Walkden & Little Hulton Community Committee meeting on Monday 30th November. This month’s meeting is held at James Brindley Primary School and starts at 6pm. I understand the item will also be discussed at the Worsley & Boothstown Community Committee but I don’t have that information to hand just at the moment – will post when I do.
Having just received a mailshot through my letterbox about this development, I have taken the time to google and subsequently found this site. Sadly having read the contents, I find it to be more occupied with people jostling for political one-upmanship, than actually looking at the situation in hand.
As opposed as I am to any development of green belt land, it is an inescapable fact that the area will need new housing. However, I believe there are enough broken down trading estates and waste land in this area which can be put to use and converted to housing estates without the need to ruin what little green land we have left. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can find one or more alternative sites to the proposed one. Sadly, Politicians rarely have common sense and are more inclined to support or fight causes which will move them up the next rung on the political ladder.
Lastly, I am most definitely not a BNP voter and I take great offence at this… ‘You only have to talk to the average BNP voter to realise that there is a perception that “they” (insert oppressed minority here) are “taking over all the housing” and that there is nothing left for “local people”’…. I believe that this is one of the major causes of lack of housing alongside teenage single mothers but having this opinion does not make me a racist BNP voter, I am simply realistic.
Rachel – I wouldn’t worry too much about Kit. He lives in Surrey.
Well, I live in Richmond upon Thames, which hasn’t been in Surrey since 1965. I’m also originally from Salford and still return on a fairly regular basis to see the folks, who still live there – Moorside way.
But anyway – I would be interested to see the numbers of single teenage mothers occupying social homes in Salford. I would guess that it’s a lot lower than you would think. Teenage pregnancies (which is defined as the mother being under 18) in the UK have, on average, decreased over the past five or so years. And I do believe (though willing to be corrected) that being a single teenage mum doesn’t automatically lead to a council house anymore – it’s on the basis of need, and on it’s own, being a teenage mother doesn’t put you on the top of the list.
Bearing heavily in mind that Rachel isn’t a BNP member or supporter (and not wishing to tar anyone with that particular brush unless they actually are) there simply isn’t much evidence to support that immigrants are swamping Salford or are putting too much pressure on local housing stocks.
Salford is an dispersal area for Asylum Seekers, this is true, but there are only around 300 asylum seekers resident in Salford (according to Salford Council) – and these are just individual asylum seekers, many of them will be in family units. Their housing needs are met predomiantly by private sector landlords and are funded by NASS, which is central government. And a lot of the properties rented by NASS for asylum seekers are of a very low quality and are often rented to NASS because the landlord can’t find any other tenant – having seen some of this accomodation for myself, I can understand why. It’s often of a terribly poor quality.
In terms of inward migration to Salford directly – apart from students, there isn’t much inward migration to Salford from other parts of the UK, let alone outside of it. Salford is still very, very white – the 2001 Census reported that Salford had 207,746 residents who described their ethnic origin as white, the next largest was Indian at 1,196 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00br.asp). Now I can accept that there might have been an increase in the ethnic diversity of Salford since 2001, but it would have required a seismic change to make a difference.
What is putting housing stocks under pressure is the lack of afforable housing for anyone – whether it be for sale or for rent. I had the opportunity to flick through the Salford Advertiser a few weeks ago, and even though house prices have dropped through the floor, a 1 bed “apartment” in Broughton cost around £190,000 – you would need to earn £40,000 per year to be able to afford that! And, of course, the bar on councils replensishing stock sold to tenants under the right to buy is also a major contributing factor to the lack of affordable housing.
Of course, there are other things which can be done – raising the minimum wage to £7 per hour would be a good idea – but the main thing, I can see, is to ensure that affordable housing can be provided for all – no matter your background.