Salford Labour Party Website

Councillor Mullen has been liaising with City West to identify local vulnerable people in the Barton area as not all people have internet connections and may not be able to access information on the websites. Most basic services have resumed and you can find advice and information here: http://www.citywesthousingtrust.org.uk/home

The contact number for emergency heating / repairs is:0300 123 5522. If you are in Barton and just need something from the shops or advice because you cannot get through to City West then please call Cllr Mullen on 0161 707 4519.

In Irlam and Cadishead,  Christine Hudson the Chairman of the Irlam & Cadishead Community Committee and Former Salford Cllr Roger Jones have issued the following statement:

Comments Off

Your correspondent S Potts (Greenbelt Plan is Hypocritical, Letters, December 31) suggests that there is a conflict between allocating land for housing and jobs and reducing our carbon footprint. In one sense he is right. Everything that human beings do (including breathing!) generates greenhouse gases. The point is not to stop doing anything, but to make the right choices about the future which minimise greenhouse gases.

Paradoxically, new developments have a much lower carbon footprint than existing buildings. They are built to much higher standards and Salford City Council is insisting on rigorous planning controls for private developers. The Council is leading by example with its own buildings – for example, our programme to provide new high schools should reduce the carbon footprint of those schools by 60 per cent.

The Core Strategy will ensure that new development is built to the highest standards of sustainability that are possible. The Core Strategy will also demand that new development is accessible so journeys can be made by foot, cycling or public transport.

The Core Strategy also promotes ‘green infrastructure’ – the green spaces that are needed for sustainability. This does not mean sterilizing all land. It means making sure that new green spaces are provided in those parts of the city where there is a deficit. It also means safeguarding land that is important as a carbon ’sink’ – that is the woodlands and the peat bogland at the heart of Chat Moss.

The most sustainable way to develop our city in the future is to use ‘brownfield’ sites as a priority – that is, to recycle previously developed land. That is exactly what the Core Strategy proposes. But the forecasts we have suggest that using that land will not be enough to meet the needs of future generations for homes and jobs.

That is why we have proposed a minor amendment to the greenbelt with a 1.2 per cent reduction in Barton compensated for by a 1.2 per cent increase in Little Hulton. (There is no housing proposed on greenbelt land).

The site at Barton was selected precisely because, of all the options before us, it appears to be the most environmentally sustainable. The new Port Salford development means that there will be access by train and the new industry will be able to take advantage of the Port’s new road network rather than increasing the carbon footprint with additional infrastructure.

That is not to say that the Barton site will go ahead. The City Council is consulting on the proposal at the moment. No one would be happier than me if it could be shown that the site is not needed or that there is land available elsewhere to meet the needs of future generations. That is why we will work with local groups to test all the evidence to make sure we have got it right.

Our plan has to be honest. It must be based on the evidence that is available about future needs and how they can be met – not on whether they inconvenience one special interest group or another. If the plan is not honest, it can be amended by an Inspector at a public inquiry.

I expect one of the biggest debates at the public inquiry will be between the Council and private developers who wanted the Council to release 90 hectares of greenbelt land – rather than retain the the existing level with minor amendments as proposed by the Council. The Council has rejected ideas to release land at Worsley greenway, Hazelhurst Farm and more greenbelt land in Irlam.

Councillor Derek Antrobus
Lead Member for Planning

Telephone:
Office: 0161-793 2190

Comments Off

Regarding Councillor Lindleys remarks in the M.E.N, about green belt land, Councillor Antrobus has replied as follows:

“Salford City Council is committed to protecting the greenbelt. Under our proposals the amount of greenbelt land in the city will remain the same. Some changes affecting just over one per cent of the city’s greenbelt are included in our plan.

This involves extending the greenbelt by 40 hectares to protect land around Little Hulton from encroachment.  This enhances an area that is in desperate need of the retention of open land. By contrast we suggest a similar reduction in the area of the city that is richest in greenbelt land.

This is needed to ensure that future generations have access to decent jobs. There will be a shortage of good quality employment land and an extensive search has identified Barton as the only area capable of meeting the need.

Our plans maintain the existing scale of the greenbelt and make amendments involving 1.2% of the city’s greenbelt to offer a more prosperous future for our children. ”

Comments Off

(Written by Cllr Mullen Barton Ward)

I have always believed in the spirit of humanity to overcome adversity, believed that all humans are basically good and considerate of each other. I think a little of that died today. This is not having a go at the opposition or even my own party, I just wonder what type of society have we all sleepwalked into?

The port Salford application was deferred today, but as I listened to the debate, I realised that in reality, the little guy in the street is a much use as a student in front of a tank. We delay only the inevitable.

The debate centred on the the fantastic benefits to efficiency, jobs, global warming and local habitat. All good things, but it was clear that unless a great crested newt took up residency in Argosy estate and another bought a house in Langlands drive, people did not actually figure in any equations. What price do we put on human misery these days?

The scheme could be so much better, if the elderly residents who will live next to a railway siding were actually listened to, but unless they can find an extra 25 million to move it to the other side of the airport, that’s not going to happen is it? A link road direct to the motorway is a pipe dream , who has the extra 100 million for that? We are so busy ticking the boxes on planning applications, and shaving down the cost, anything else is secondary. Yet as I suggested earlier, if this was the habitat of a great crested newt, we would pay no amount of money to divert it.

in this evidence based world, we cannot spend money to reduce risk on our roads, someone actually has to die first. When did we allow this to become acceptable? When did we fall asleep and allow the death of common sense?

What price human misery? I think I can answer that now, less than a newt, but more than a few ballot papers.

Comments Off

At 4 to 1 against, it is clear the public has rejected any form of charge to use the road, even if means missing out on massive public transport improvements. This now puts us in all in an interesting position, with all major parties having some form of road pricing in the manifesto.

It is clear we cannot continue as we are, congestion can only get worse, the environment will continue to suffer and health issues will continue to rise. So which party is brave enough to stand by conviction and act in the face of such public unpopularity?

I see a few of the papers have framed the question “what now?”. I think it is a good question, but it should have been asked before the vote. Not one single alternative was put forward by any opposition! It was made very clear there was no plan ‘B’.

Scratch that! One large company suggested we should sell off our crown jewels to fund the capital expense. No mention of ongoing revenue sources to support it! For some parties, a former ally now becomes the enemy as they now turn attention to two major developments planned for Salford. There is a bit of irony here because if TIF had succeeded, it may have been (according to to the ‘NO’ campaign) a less desirable proposition!

There is one major concern, it has been shown that some have no regard for politicians and will fund activities to undermine any local opposition. Against local politicians prepared to speak out against them, they may even arrange telephone surveys, pointing out there is alternatives. Should this come to pass again, WE ALL should be outraged and act accordingly.

Comments(1)