Salford City Council...barnes construction x barratt homes x x barton moss protest group x x barton...

Salford City Council

Supplementary Planning DocumentSalford Greenspace Strategy

Consultation Statement – January 2018

1

1 Introduction

1.1 This document has been prepared to comply with the requirements of Regulation 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. Regulation 12(a) requires that before a local planning authority adopt a supplementary planning document (SPD), it must prepare a consultation statement setting out i) the persons consulted when preparing the SPD, ii) a summary of the main issues raised by those persons, and iii) how those issues have been addressed in the SPD. Regulation 12(b) requires that this consultation statement be made available alongside the draft SPD, during the period for representations on the document.

2

2 Statement of community involvement

2.1 The city council’s statement of community involvement (SCI) was formally adopted on 20 January 2010. The SCI aims to increase public involvement in planning processes. It sets out who will be involved, by what method and at what point in the process of document production or in the determination of planning applications. It gives more certainty to those wishing to get involved in the planning process.

2.2 The SCI sets the council's policy for community engagement in the production of formal planning documents. Below is a summary of the SCI guidance in respect of consultation at the different stages of SPD production:

Stage 1 – pre-productionThis stage is based around the gathering of evidence and asking people to identify issues and make suggestions in order to inform the preparation of the SPD.

Stage 2 – productionA draft document is produced following the evidence gathering pre-production stage. Whilst the regulations simply require that draft SPDs are subject to a consultation period of at least 4 weeks, the SCI commits the city council to always consulting on the draft SPD for 6 weeks in order to maximise potential involvement. The city council will carefully consider any representations received during the consultation period and will update the SPD where it is considered necessary and appropriate.

Stage 3 – adoptionThe SPD will then be adopted. A summary of representations received and how they have been taken into account will be published at this stage.

3

3 Background to the review of Salford greenspace strategy SPD

3.1 The existing greenspace strategy has provided a clear framework, which has proved very successful at protecting and enhancing greenspaces across Salford since it was adopted in 2006. In the context of considerable changes, not least to national planning guidance, the city council has undertaken a comprehensive review of the supplementary policies and guidance, within the framework established via the relevant saved policies of the Salford unitary development plan (UDP) relating to the issues of open space and recreation.

3.2 Upon its adoption, the updated greenspace strategy SPD will replace the existing Salford greenspace strategy SPD (adopted 19 July 2006).

3.3 The SPD will specifically supplement the following policies of the UDP:

ST10 Recreation Provision DEV5 Planning conditions and obligations DES2 Circulation and Movement DES3 Design of Public Space DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours DES10 Design and Crime H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing

Development R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities R2 Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities R4 Key Recreation Areas R5 Countryside Access Network R6 New and Improved Recreation Land and Facilities

3.4 Whilst the SPD will not form part of the development plan, it will be an important material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

4

4 Public consultation

4.1 Between June and August 2017, the city council sought the views of stakeholders and consultees on a review of its approach to greenspaces and the local recreation standards. The city council issued a consultation letter and had a dedicated web page with interactive map providing details of the review of Salford greenspace strategy SPD. The public consultation followed a scoping consultation in 2015.

4.2 The city council consulted 1,956 consultees registered on its planning consultee database, including all statutory consultation bodies together with other consultees who the city council considered may have an interest in the production of this document. This included housebuilders, developers and landowners, together with property and planning agents, and residents and community groups who had previously expressed an interest or submitted representations on related planning policy documents. A list of all those consulted is set out at Annex A, and a copy of the consultation letter which was sent to consultees is set out at Annex B. Details of the consultation were also published on the city council’s website1 and an electronic version of the letter was available to download.

4.3 Comments were invited from Friday 23 June 2017 to the end of the consultation period on Monday 7 August 2017.

4.4 The following organisations and individuals submitted representations on the scoping consultation:

Canal and River Trust City of Trees CPRE Lancashire Environment Agency Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) Groundwork Historic England Manchester, Bolton & Bury Canal Society MHE Investments (How Planning) Natural England Network Rail Peel Holdings (Land & Property) Ltd (Turley) Salford Community Leisure Ltd Sport England The Coal Authority The Greater Manchester Trust for Recreation and Barratt Homes The Lancashire Gardens Trust

1 http://www.salford.gov.uk/planning-building-and-regeneration/planning-policies/local-planning-policy/other-local-planning-policies/salford-greenspace-strategy-supplementary-planning-document/review-of-salford-greenspace-strategy/

http://www.salford.gov.uk/planning-building-and-regeneration/planning-policies/local-planning-policy/other-local-planning-policies/salford-greenspace-strategy-supplementary-planning-document/review-of-salford-greenspace-strategy/



5

The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside

Transport for Greater Manchester (TFGM) United Utilities Property Solutions Ltd (How Planning) A and B Kirkby (individuals) Adele Finney (individual) Barbara Keeley MP Councillor Critchley David Leaver (individual) David Steele (individual) David Yates (individual) Geoff Ainsworth (individual) James Shaw (individual) Jamie Bentham (individual) Jean Whalley (individual) Laurie Cunliffe (individual) Margaret Duffy (individual) Martin and Sue Seeley (individuals) Mrs. Y. Yates (individual) Paul Hassall (individual) Steven Healey (individual) Valerie Ivison (individual)

4.5 The following organisations responded to confirm that they had no comments to make on the scoping consultation:

Historic England Network Rail The Coal Authority

4.6 A schedule of all representations received together with the city council’s response and how this has informed the revised SPD are set out at Annex C.

4.7 A summary of the main issues raised by representations submitted to the scoping consultation is set out below.

Summary of representations submitted

4.8 A wide range of comments were received from individuals and organisations with different interests and perspectives on green and open spaces. The majority of stakeholders recognise and appreciate what the Greenspace Strategy SPD has achieved but also highlight the importance of reviewing the document, particularly as it coincides with the production of the emerging Salford Local Plan and Greater Manchester Spatial Framework. Specific changes have been recommended for the content or context of individual policies, which have resulted in appropriate revisions.

6

4.9 The importance of protecting existing assets and facilities and the benefits that they provide was particularly prominent in the responses. Several respondents identified that the SPD should recognise the multi-functional benefits of green infrastructure including towards biodiversity, and health and well-being whilst ensuring access to a range of safe recreation sites for all ages. In due course the city council intends to produce a Green Infrastructure SPD for public consultation, which will have wider scope and provide additional policy and guidance to support relevant chapters of Salford Local Plan.

4.10 Several site and area specific issues were raised, which have been considered as part of the review of the SPD. The revised strategy needs to consider new open spaces to fill gaps in provision, as well as providing new and improved facilities at existing sites. Some stakeholders recommended further consideration of the future management and maintenance of open spaces particularly in the context of more intensive use at a time when local authority budgets and staff resources are being reduced. To ensure that there is no impact on the quality of facilities some responses recommended considering alternative methods for maintenance, where practicable, and potentially sharing responsibility with interest groups.

4.11 A number of respondents identified issues that are beyond the scope of this SPD that have or will be addressed by other work areas and documents particularly the emerging Salford Local Plan and Greater Manchester Spatial Framework. The key issues raised predominantly relate to the potential impact on open spaces from proposed housing allocations and the review of existing Green Belt boundaries.

7

ANNEX A – List of stakeholders consulted during the review of the greenspace strategy SPD2

STAGE CONSULTED AT:CONSULTEE (ORGANISATIONS)SCOPING DRAFT

110% EXHIBITIONS X5PLUSASRCHITECTS XABSTRACT SECURITIES XACADEMY FOR RABBINICAL RESEARCH X XACREMOSS DESIGNS XACTION AGAINST ASTLEY ROAD DEVELOPMENT X XAECOM XAEW XAFFINITY INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS LTD X XAFFINITY SUTTON XAGE UK X XAGMA POLICY UNIT/GMCA X XAINSCOUGH JOHNSTON LTD XAINSCOUGH STRATGEIC LAND XALDER KING PLANNING CONSULTANTS X XALLIED LONDON XALPHA OMEGA INITIATIVES X XAMALGAMATED LTD XAMBULANCE SERVICE NORTH WEST NHS TRUST X XAMEC (NATIONAL GRID) X XAMERICHEM X XAMION XANCIENT MONUMENTS SOCIETY XAR PLANNING XARCHITECTUREM CHARTERED ARCHITECTS X XARCON HOUSING ASSOCIATION X XARCUS CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTS XARGENT GROUP XARMITAGE RESIDENTS ASSOC. XARMSTRONG BURTON PLANNING X XARQIVA X XARRIVA NORTH WEST LTD XARTISAN XARUP X XASDA STORES LTD X XASK DEVELOPMENTS XATELIER MB ARCHITECTS XATKINS GLOBAL X XAYLSHAM MEWS NEIGHBOURS X XAYLWARD TOWN PLANNING XBANGLADESH ASSOCIATION X XBARDSLEY CONSTRUCTION X XBARNES CONSTRUCTION XBARRATT HOMES X XBARTON MOSS PROTEST GROUP X XBARTON WILMORE X XBDO STOY HAYWARD XBDP XBDW TRADING LTD XBE GROUP XBEAUMONT MORGAN X XBEECH FARM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION X XBELLWAY HOMES NORTH WEST X XBENMORE GROUP X

2 A total of 1,956 individual stakeholders were consulted. It should however be noted that this number includes multiple stakeholders within the same organisation. To avoid duplication, this table therefore lists each organisation / individual only once.

8

CONSULTEE (ORGANISATIONS) STAGE CONSULTED AT:SCOPING DRAFT

BFLS XBIDWELLS X XBLACKLEACH COUNTRY PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE X XBLOC XBLOOR HOMES NORTH WEST XBLUE MANTLE XBLUE SKY PLANNING LTD X XBME FORUM X XBNP PARIBAS X XBNP PARIBAS REAL ESTATE UK XBOLTON METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL X XBOOTHSTOWN RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION X XBOVIS HOMES XBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS GREATER MANCHESTER X XBRACKLEY GOLF CLUB X XBREEM CENTRE X XBRIDGEWATER CANAL COMPANY LTD XBRIDGEWATER RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION XBRITISH GAS X XBRITISH TELECOM X XBRITISH TOILET ASSOCIATION X XBROADWAY MALYAN PLANNING X XBROCK CARMICHAEL ARCHITECTS X XBROOKFINCH DEVELOPMENTS XBROOKHOUSE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION X XBROOKHOUSE GROUP XBRUNTWOOD ESTATES XBTCV X XBULLOCK CONSTRUCTION XBURGESS FARM RESIDENTS GROUP X XBURY MBC X XBUSINESS CONSULTATIVE FORUM X XCA PLANNING X XCABLE AND WIRELESS X XCADISHEAD SPORTS JFC X XCAMPAIGN FOR REAL ALE (CAMRA) X XCAMPAIGN FOR THE PROTECTION OF RURAL ENGLAND X XCAMRA AND FRIENDS OF PATRICROFT STATION X XCANAL AND RIVER TRUST X XCANMOOR XCANNING O'NEILL XCAPITAL AND CENTRIC XCARILLION IGLOO LIMITED XCARRINGTON PARISH COUNCIL X XCASSERLY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT XCATHCO XCBI - NORTH WEST OFFICE X XCBRE X XCENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY XCENTRE FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC STRATEGIES X XCERDA PLANNING LTD X XCF REAL ESTATE ADVISORY XCHAT MOSS HERBS LTD XCHEETHAM AND MORTIMER XCHESTERS COACHES X XCHRIS THOMAS LTD X XCHRISTOPHER DEE XCHURCH OF ENGLAND X XCITY AIRPORT MANCHESTER X XCITY CENTRE CRUISES X XCITY HEART XCITY OF SALFORD PRIVATE HIRE ASSOCIATION X

9


CITY OF TREES XCITY WEST HOUSING X XCIVIC TRUST NORTHERN OFFICE XCIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY X XCLAREMONT AND WEASTE COMMUNITY COMMITTEE X XCLAREMONT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION X XCLIFF WALSINGHAM AND CO. XCLIFTON HAMLET X XCOLLIERS CRE X XCOLLIERS INTERNATIONAL X XCOLT TELECOMMUNICATIONS / TECHNOLOGY SERVICES X XCOMMUNITY, HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE XCONTOUR SYMPHONY HOUSING GROUP X XCOOPERATIVE GROUP PROPERTY DIVISION X XCOPTHORNE HOTEL X XCOUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY X XCOUNTRY LAND AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATION NORTH X XCOUNTRYSIDE PROPERTIES PLC X XCPRE LANCASHIRE BRANCH XCRAUNTON HOUSE ASSOCIATION OF TENANTS XCREAM LINE DAIRY XCSG LANSTAR XCULCHETH AND GLAZEBURY PARISH COUNCIL X XCUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD X XCUSSONS TECHNOLOGY X XDALTON WARNER DAVIS X XDANDARA X XDAVID L WALKER X XDAVID WILSON HOMES X XDAVIES HARRISON XDAVIS LANGDON LLP XDE POL ASSOCIATES X XDE TRAFFORDS RESIDENT ASSOC. X XDEFENCE INFRASTRUCTURE ORG X XDELOITTE X XDEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT X XDEPUTY DIRECTOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES XDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH X XDERWENT HOLDINGS XDESIGN COUNCIL X XDEVELOPMENT PLANNING PARTNERSHIP XDEVELOPMENT SECURITIES XDIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH X XDIRECTORATE OF AIRSPACE POLICY X XDIVERSITY LEADERS FORUM XDMS ARCHITECTURE LTD XDOCTORS SURGERY XDORRIBO T/A REGIONAL MAP DISTRIBUTERS X XDPDS X XDPP XDPP ONE LTD X XDTZ X XDUNDEDIN PROPERTY XEASYNET X XECCLES AND SALFORD MOSQUE X XECCLES FINANCE X XEDDISONS XEDGEPLAN X XEDWARD AND CO XEDWARD SYMMONS XEE TELECOMMUNICATIONS XEFM LTD X X

10


EKOSGEN XELAN HOMES X XELECTRICITY NORTH WEST LTD X XELLESMERE ENGINEERING CO LTD XELLESMERE PARK RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION X XEMERY PLANNING PARTNERSHIP LTD X XENERSYS MANCHESTER X XENGLISH CITIES FUND (MUSE DEVELOPMENTS) X XENGLISH HERITAGE XENTEC UK X XENVIRONMENT AGENCY X XEON ENERGY LTD X XEUAN KELLIE PROPERTY SOLUTIONS X XEVERGREEN CONSULTING XEVERSHEDS LLP X XFAIRBRIDGE - THE PRINCE'S TRUST PROGRAMME X XFAIRHURST X XFAITHFUL AND GOULD XFEDERATION OF JEWISH SERVICES X XFICM LTD XFIELDS IN TRUST X XFIRST PLAN X XFOREST SOFA LTD X XFORESTRY COMMISSION NW X XFORVIVA XFRAMPTONS X XFREIGHT TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION NORTHERN REGION X XFRIENDS OF BURGESS FARM X XFRIENDS OF ECCLES STATION X XFRIENDS OF ROE GREEN X XFRIENDS OF WALKDEN STATION X XFRIENDS, FAMILIES AND TRAVELLERS AND TRAVELLER LAW REFORM PROJECT

X X

FUJITSU TELECOMMUNICATIONS EUROPE X XFUSION X XGAMMA TELECOMMUNICATIONS X XGERALD EVE X XGL HEARN X XGLENBROOK PROPERTY XGM CENTRE FOR VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS X XGM FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES HQ X XGM LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP X XGM PEDESTRIANS ASSOCIATION X XGM POLICE CRIME PREVENTION TEAM XGRAHAM BOLTON PLANNING X XGRAPPENHALL AND THELWALL PARISH COUNCIL X XGREAT MINSTER HOUSE XGREAT PLACES HOUSING GROUP X XGREATER MANCHESTER ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY SERVICE X XGREATER MANCHESTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE X XGREATER MANCHESTER ECOLOGY UNIT X XGREATER MANCHESTER MINERALS AND WASTE PLANNING UNIT X XGREATER MANCHESTER POLICE X XGREATER MANCHESTER WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY X XGREENOAKS LTD XGROUNDWORK MANCHESTER SALFORD TRAFFORD X XGVA LTD X XHAMILTON DAVIES TRUST X XHARLAND MACHINE SYSTEMS LTD XHARROW ESTATES PLC XHARWORTH ESTATES XHEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE X X

11


HEALTH AND WELLBEING XHEALTHY WATERWAYS TRUST X XHEATON PLANNING LTD X XHENDERSON INVESTMENTS XHIGHER CRUMPSALL AND BROUGHTON HEBREW CONGREGATION X XHIGHWAY AUTHORITY X XHIGHWAYS ENGLAND X XHILL STREET RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION X XHILL TOP RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION X XHIMOR GROUP X XHISTORIC ENGLAND XHMP & YOI FOREST BANK X XHOLLINS STRATEGIC LAND XHOLM COURT TENANTS ASSOCIATION X XHOME BUILDERS FEDERATION X XHOME START SALFORD AND TRAFFORD X XHOMES AND COMMUNITIES AGENCY X XHOURIGAN CONNOLLY X XHOW PLANNING LLP X XHR WALLINGFORD X XHUTCHINSON NETWORK SERVICES X XICHI X XIGLOO XIGNITE HOMES LTD XILIAD GROUP XIN PARTNERSHIP LTD XINDEPENDENT LIVING PARTNERSHIP BOARD XINDIGO PLANNING X XINDUSTRIOUS XINLAND WATERWAYS ASSOCIATION X XINPARTNERSHIP XINSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS NORTH WEST X XIRLAM AND CADISHEAD BRAMCH LABOUR PARTY XIRLAM AND CADISHEAD COLLEGE X XIRLAM FOOTBALL CLUB X XIRLAM MEDICAL CENTRE X XIRLAM VALE JUNIOR FOOTBALL CLUB X XIRWELL VALLEY HA X XIRWELL VALLEY HERITAGE X XISIS WATERSIDE REGENERATION XJ AND R ALLEN (CULCHETH) LTD X XJ E DARNTON LTD XJ. FLETCHER (ENGINEERS) LTD X XJASP PLANNING CONSUTANCY LTD X XJEWISH REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL OF MANCHESTER X XJMP CONSULTING X XJONES LANG LA SALLE LLP X XJWPC LTD X XKEEPMOAT XKENYON RESIDENTS XKEPPIE MASSIE XKIER LIMITED XKINGSLAND WINES AND SPIRITS/FE BARBER LTD X XKIRKWELLS X XKNIGHT FRANK LLP X XLABOUR SPOKESPERSON FOR WALKDEN SOUTH X XLAMBERT SMITH HAMPTON X XLANCASHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST X XLANCASHIRE AERO CLUB X XLANCASHIRE GARDENS TRUST XLANCS CIRCUIT OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES X XLANES LANDSCAPES(HOLDINGS)LTD X X

12


LANGTREE GROUP XLEE METAL POLISHING SERVICES XLGBT XLGBT FOUNDATION XLIBERAL DEMOCRAT DISABILITY ASSOCIATION XLIDL UK PROPERTIES X XLOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP X XLOCAL NATURE PARTNERSHIP X XLOVE BROTHERS LTD X XLOVELL PARTNERSHIPS LTD XLPC LIVING X XLUDLAM ASSOCIATES XLVMH UK LTD X XMACE GROUP XMAGHULL DEVELOPMENTS XMAGNESIUM ELECKTRON UK X XMAINAIR FLYING SCHOOL X XMAKRO (BOOKER GROUP PLC) X XMANCHESTER AIRPORT GROUP PLC X XMANCHESTER BOLTON AND BURY CANAL X XMANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL X XMANCHESTER CIVIC SOCIETY X XMANCHESTER DIOCESAN BOARD FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY XMANCHESTER DOORS & CUBICALS X XMANCHESTER ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP X XMANCHESTER FRIENDS OF THE EARTH X XMANCHESTER SALFORD HOUSING MARKET PATHFINDER X XMANCHESTER, BOLTON AND BURY CANAL SOCIETY X XM AND G (FORMERLY PRUPIM) X XMAPLE GROVE DEVELOPMENTS XMARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION X XMARSHALLS NATURAL STONE X XMARTIN LEAY ASSOCIATES X XMATTHEWS AND GOODMAN PROPERTY ADVISORS X XMAWDSLEY BROOKS AND CO X XMCALEER AND RUSHE GROUP XMCR PROPERTY XMEL CHEMICALS (PART OF LUXFER GROUP) X XMILLER CONSTRUCTION XMILLER HOMES X XMINERALS AND WASTE PLANNING UNIT XMISTER BLISTER LTD X XMOBILE OPERATORS ASSOCIATION XMOD X XMONTON GREEN RESIDENTS XMONTON VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION X XMORGAN SINDALL XMORRIS HOMES LTD X XMORSTON ASSETS LIMITED XMOSAIC TOWN PLANNING X XMOSS FARM FISHERIES X XMVA LTD X XN M ROTHSCHILD AND SONS LTD XNATHANIEL LICHFIELD AND PARTNERS X XNATIONAL FARMERS UNION X XNATIONAL FEDERATION OF GYPSY LIASION GROUPS X XNATIONAL GRID X XNATURAL ENGLAND X XNEPTUNE DEVELOPMENTS XNETWORK RAIL X XNEXUS PLANNING LTD X XNHR GROUP X X

13


NHS ENGLAND (NHS COMMISSIONING BOARD) X XNHS PROPERTY SERVICES LTD X XNIKAL XNIMANS LTD X XNJL CONSULTING X XNLP AND PARTNERS XNORTH WALKDEN FOOTBALL CLUB XNORTH WEST REGIONAL LEADERS BOARD XNORTHBANK MANAGEMENT COMPANY X XNORTON VILLIERS LTD X XNOVEMBRE PROPERTIES LTD. XNOVOTEL HOTEL X XNPOWER RENEWABLES X XNW STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITY XOFF THE RAILS LTD X XOFFICE FOR GRAHAM STRINGER MP X XOFFICE FOR HAZEL BLEARS MP XOFFICE FOR REBECCA LONG-BAILEY BLEARS MP XOFFICE FOR THE POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR GREATER MANCHESTER

X X

OFFICE OF BARBARA KEELEY MP X XOFFICE OF RAIL AND ROAD X XOLDER PEOPLES PARTNERSHIP BOARD X XOLDHAM MBC X XOMI ARCHITECTS XOPEN SPACES SOCIETY X XORANGE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES LTD X XORBIT DEVELOPMENTS EMERSON XORDSALL HEALTH SURGERY PPG XPALI CONVEYING SEARCH SPECIALISTS XPARTINGTON HOUSING ASSOCIATION XPARTINGTON TOWN COUNCIL X XPARTNERS IN SALFORD XPAUL BUTLER ASSOCIATES X XPBN XPEACOCK & SMITH X XPEACOCK AND SMITH (ON BEHALF OF WM MORRISON SUPERMARKETS)

X X

PEARSON PLANNING (THE SCOTTS COMPANY UK) X XPEEL GROUP X XPEEL HOLDINGS X XPEEL INVESTMENTS LTD X XPEEL PORTS LTD X XPEGASUS PLANNING GROUP LTD X XPENDLETON COLLEGE X XPEOPLE FIRST MANCHESTER X XPERSIMMON HOMES NW X XPETERLOO ESTATES XPLAN 8 X XPLANNING POTENTIAL X XPLANWARE LTD X XPOCHINS LTD XPOZZONI XPRAXIS XPRDS X XPRIMARY CARE TRUST XPROBUS CLUB IRLAM X XPROPERTY ALLIANCE GROUP XPROPERTY DEPARTMENT X XPUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE SALFORD X XQUOD PLANNING XRAIL FREIGHT GROUP X

14


RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION X XRANDALL THORP X XRAPAR X XRAPLEYS LLP X XREALTY ESTATES XRED PROPERTY SERRVICES X XRED ROSE FOREST XREDROW HOMES X XREGENERIS XRENAKER BUILD XRENEWABLE UK X XRG AND P LTD XRICE TRAINING XRIVERSIDE ISLAND TENANTS ASSOC X XRIXTON WITH GLAZEBROOK PARISH COUNCIL X XROAD HAULAGE ASSOCIATION NORTH X XROCHDALE MBC X XROE GREEN CRICKET CLUB X XROGER HANNAH AND CO. X XROGER TYM & PARTNERS XROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY XRSPB X XRTS PLC XRURAL ENGLAND XRYBRAM LTD XSAFEGUARDING X XSAFETY SYSTEMS UK LTD X XSALFORD ALLOTMENT FEDERATION X XSALFORD BME NETWORK XSALFORD CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAU X XSALFORD CITY COLLEGE X XSALFORD CITY REDS X XSALFORD COLLEGE X XSALFORD COMMUNITY LEISURE X XSALFORD COMMUNITY NETWORK X XSALFORD CONSERVATIVE GROUP/RAID X XSALFORD COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE X XSALFORD CRECENT NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION X XSALFORD DEAF GATHERING X XSALFORD DISABILITY FORUM X XSALFORD DISABLED MOTORISTS ASSOCIATION XSALFORD ELIM CHURCH X XSALFORD EQUALITY NETWORK XSALFORD FORUM OF OLDER PEOPLE X XSALFORD LIDS X XSALFORD LINK PROJECT X XSALFORD NHS CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP X XSALFORD PRIMARY CARE TRUST XSALFORD RANGER TEAM X XSALFORD SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE X XSALFORD WEIGHT MANAGEMENT SERVICE X XSALFORD YOUTH SERVICE X XSALIX HOMES X XSALVATION ARMY X XSANDERSON WEATHERALL XSANDERSON WEATHERALL (ROYAL MAIL) X XSAVILLS X XSCARBOROUGH GROUP XSEDDON GROUP LTD XSEDGWICK ASSOCIATES X XSEEDLEY AND LANGWORTHY PARTNERSHIP X XSEYBOURNE X

15


SHED KM XSHELTER (LONDON) X XSHOWMANS GUILD OF GREAT BRITAIN X XSIGMA CAPITAL GROUP X XSIGNET PLANNING X XSISI DEVELOPMENT XSKILLS FUNDING AGENCY X XSLR CONSULTING LTD X XSOUTHGATE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION X XSPANGPAR LTD X XSPINOZA KENNEDY VESEY X XSPORT ENGLAND X XSSA PLANNING LTD X XST JOSEPH'S CONVENT XST MODWEN HOMES X XST TERESA OF AVILA X XSTAINTON PLANNING XSTAMA DEVELOPMENT LTD XSTATEGIC DIRECTOR FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES XSTEVEN ABBOTT ASSOCIATES LLP X XSTEWART ROSS ASSOCIATES X XSTOCKPORT COUNCIL X XSTOREYS EDWARD SYMONDS X XSTORY HOMES LTD XSTRATUS ENVIRONMENTAL LTD XSWINTON JUDO CLUB X XSWINTON OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION X XSWS STEEL STOCKISTS LTD XTALK TALK (CARPHONE WAREHOUSE) X XTAMESIDE MBC X XTARMAC CENTRAL LIMITED X XTATTON ESTATE MANAGEMENT X XTAXI OWNERS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION X XTAYLOR WIMPEY UK LTD X XTAYLOR YOUNG XTELEWEST BROADBAND (NORTHERN OFFICE) XTELIA UK LTD XTEM PROPERTY GROUP XTERRACE HILL XTESCO X XTETLOW KING PLANNING XTHE ADVENT CENTRE X XTHE COAL AUTHORITY X XTHE COOPERATIVE GROUP LTD X XTHE EMERSON GROUP X XTHE GARDENS TRUST XTHE LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION X XTHE MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL COMPANY X XTHE PLANNING BUREAU LTD X XTHE SCOTTS COMPANY UK LTD X XTHE SEEDLEY AND LANGWORTHY TRUST X XTHE SPAB X XTHE STABLES XTHE THEATRES TRUST X XTHE TWENTIETH CENTURY SOCIETY X XTHE TYLER PARKES PARTNERSHIP X XTHE WOODLAND TRUST X XTHOMAS EGGAR LLP X XTHORN COURT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION X XTHREE COMMUNICATIONS XTHUS X XTIM CLAXTON PROPERTY LTD X X

16


TINDALL ST ALLOTMENT GROUP X XTOGETHER HOUSING X XTRAFFORD MBC X XTRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER X XTSG XTUPMAN AND HAINEY LTD XTURLEY ASSOCIATES X XTURNER AND TOWNSEND XTUSHINGHAM MOORE XTYLER PARKES PARNERSHIP X XUK COAL HEAD OFFICE X XUK LAND AND PROPERTY XUNITED UTILITIES PLC X XUNIVERSITY OF SALFORD X XURBAN SPLASH XURS GLOBAL X XUTILITIES CONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT LTD X XVANGUARD SELF STORAGE XVENTURES XVERNON AND CO X XVILLAFONT XVINCENT AND GORBING X XVIRGIN MEDIA X XVIRIDOR X XVISION DEVELOPMENTS XVITA VENTURES XVODAPHONE AND O2 XW H MAWDSLEY LTD XWAINHOMES (NW) LTD X XWALSINGHAM PLANNING XWALTON AND CO X XWARBURTON PARISH COUNCIL X XWARD HEADWAY XWARDLEY RESIDENTS GROUP X XWARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL X XWATES LIVING SPACE XWELLINGTON STREET RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION XWEST PROPERTIES UK LTD XWESTHOUGHTON TOWN COUNCIL X XWESTLEIGH DEVELOPMENTS LTD XWHITE YOUNG GREEN PLANNING X XWHITEHEAD AND COMPANY X XWH MAWDSLEY LIMITED XWHR PROPERTY CONSULTANTS XWIGAN COUNCIL X XWINWICK PARISH COUNCIL X XWOODSTOCK FARM X XWOOLSTON PARISH COUNCIL X XWORLDCOM INTERNATIONAL LTD X XWORSLEY AND SWINTON RESIDENT ASSOCIATION XWORSLEY CIVIC TRUST & AMENITY SOCIETY X XWORSLEY RD NORTH SENIOR CITIZENS XWORSLEY VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION X XWRIGHTINGTON PARISH COUNCIL X XWSP XX1 XYOUR HOUSING GROUP X XZERUM CONSULTANTS X X

17

CONSULTEE (INDIVIDUALS) STAGE CONSULTED AT:SCOPING DRAFT

A AND A FICKLING X XA AND D BARNETT XA AND G BOXER X XA AND J CARRUTHERS X XA AND J LEGERTON XA AND J NORCROSS XA AND M MUSGRAVE X XA AND P CLAYSON XA AND P LEWIN XA AND P READER XA BLOOR XA C FORD X XA ELLISA FARLEY AND V WRIGHT XA LUSCOMBE X XA M FORBES X XA NEILSON X XA OGDEN XA PARNCUTT X XA RIMMER AND I DUFFIN X XA SOLAN XA, C AND L JONES X XABIGAIL QUIGLEY XADELE WALTON XADRIAN J WILKINSON XADRIAN MORLEY X XADRIAN O SULLIVAN XADRIAN RICHARDS XADRIENNE SLOAN X XAE SULLIVAN X XAGNES RICE X XALAN AND LYNN HINDLEY X XALAN BANNON XALAN CAVANAGH XALAN DAVIES XALAN GORTON X XALAN HESFORD X XALAN PERRYMAN X XALAN RATCLIFFE XALAN S BIBBY X XALASTAIR WILSON X XALED OWEN XALEX JACKSON X XALEX MOORE X XALISON AND DAVID BENNETT XALISON BLACKBURN X XALISON BOOTH XALISON WALLWORTH XALISON WILLIAMS XALMA MOORE XALWIN PIETS X XAMANDA ASHWORTH X XAMANDA AND STEPHEN LOVELL XAMANDA BRELSFORD XAMANDA CHADWICK X XAMANDA RIGBY X XAMANDA WILLIAMSON X XAMBER BRYDEN XAMY CHALLENDER XANDREW BOWER XANDREW FEARNLEY X XANDREW FIELD X X

18


ANDREW GREEN XANDREW INGHAM XANDREW JONES X XANDREW MALONE X XANDREW MOORE X XANDREW NELSON XANDY HALLIGAN X XANGELA DAVIES X XANGELA ECCLES X XANGELA HAWKES X XANGELA WEST XANNE BROADBENT X XANNE CLARK XANNE CRICHTON X XANNE CROMPTON X XANNE FRANCE XANNE GRANT X XANNE HEPBURN X XANNE JONES X XANNE MARIE GARDENER X XANNE MARIE GRAYSON XANNE MARTINS X XANNETTE RICHARDSON X XANN LUCKMAN XANTHONY CARLIN X XAT AND S ROBINSON X XB AND A FLETCHER X XB AND B SUTHERLAND XB AND E MOULT X XB AND J RAVENSCROFT XB AND RK JONES XB HAMER X XB HEWITT X XB KERSHAW X XB SULLIVAN X XB THOMPSON XB WALKER X XB WARRELL X XB WETHERALL X XBA, CJ, LA BLACKBURN X XBAILEY FAMILY XBARRIE AND DOROTHY JONES X XBARRY WATTS X XBARRY WOODLING X XBB CLEGG X XBECCY IRVING XBECKY IRVING XBENJAMIN CARDWELL X XBEN HERAVI XBEN JONES XBEN PASCALLBERNADETTE HEWITT X XBERYL BLOOR X XBERYL CARROLL X XBERYL HUGHES X XBERYL PATTEN X XBETHAN PICKUP XBETTINA ELLIS X XBETTY HIBBERT X XBEVERLEY LOWNDES XBEVERLEY ROYLE X XBHAVIN PATEL X X

19


B J POWELL XBR BHAVNA XBRENDA DRINKWATER XBRENDA MCGOVERN X XBRENDA MORT X XBRENDA STANLEY XBRUCE KINLOCH XBRIAN HOLDEN XBRIAN MCCARTHY XBRIAN LOWNDES XBRIDGET WILLIAMS XBRYAN TREVOR X XC A SMITH X XC AND K OGDEN X XC AND R BENTLEY XC AND R SHERLOCK X XC AND R YEO X XC ANNETTE WALSH X XC BRADLEY AND L HALL XC BRETT ROWLES X XC COWX X XC GIBSON XC GLEESON X XC HEMMINS X XC MORETON X XC RICHARDSON X XC TAYLOR XC W WILLIAMSON X XC WILLIAMS X XC WILLIS XC WRIGHT X XC,P,E AND G BURKE X XBANON MARTIN MILLER XCALUM GRAY XCARLA PASIERO XCAROL A SMITH X XCAROL BOYCE X XCAROL EVANS X XCAROL WARD XCAROLE A WOOD X XCAROLE BRIDGE X XCAROLE EDWARDS-VILLER X XCAROLE MOORE X XCAROLE WOOD XCAROLE WOODWARD X XCAROLINE DEVLIN XCAROLINE GALE X XCAROLINE LIGHTFOOT XCAROLYN BILSBOROUGH X XCATH MCNICOLL X XCATH WALTON X XCATHARINE COOPER X XCATHRYN SMITH X XCATHY LASCELLES HIGGINS X XCHARLIE WOODS XCHARLOTTE HICKSON XCHERYL GRIFFITHS X XCHRIS AND PAT SEDDON X XCHRIS BROWN XCHRIS DICKERSON X XCHRIS LEGERTON XCHRIS MULDOON X

20


CHRIS RICHARDSON X XCHRIS SOUTHERN X XCHRISTINA BRADLEY XCHRISTINE BOLD XCHRISTINE BRADFORD X XCHRISTINE COOPER XCHRISTINE HAMER X XCHRISTINE HUDSON X XCHRISTINE KEMP X XCHRISTINE LAMPARD X XCHRISTINE LOMNS X XCHRISTINE LUNN XCHRISTINE MARSHALL XCHRISTINE MOSS X XCHRISTINE PUGH X XCHRISTINE SMITH X XCHRISTINE WATSON X XCHRISTOPHER GRAY X XCHRISTOPHER MURRAY X XCLAIRE BROWN XCLAIRE DAVIES XCLAIRE DEAN XCLAIRE MOORE XCLAIRE WHALLEY LIVESEY XCLAIRE WHITE XCLARE ATHERTON XCLARE EDWARDS XCLARE PLATT XCLIVE AND JANET ROBERTS X XCM AND RC STEPHENSON X XCM PATEL X XCOLIN AINSCOUGH X XCOLIN AND J TALBOT X XCOLIN AND SYBIL ACKERS X XCOLIN DIXON X XCOLIN LONG X XCOLIN LOWNDES XCOLIN WELSBY X XCOLIN WILLIAMS XCOLIN WOOD XCORRINE BATTY XCOUNCILLOR LAURENCE KEELEY XCOUNCILLOR LES TURNER X XCOUNCILLOR R CRITCHLEY X XCRAIG STAPLEY XD AND B MARSH X XD AND C HEATON X XD AND D COLLINS X XD AND J WILLIAMS X XD AND M MCCORMICK X XD AND S FARRELL X XD AND V GREENHALGH XDA AND NJ GRIMSHAW XD B AND W MARSHALL X XD BAXTER XD HUTCHINGS X XD LUND XD MANN X XDA AND NJ GRIMSHAW XDALE ROBINSON XDANIEL HILL X XDANIEL HODSON X

21


DARREN POOLE X XDARRELL WARNER XDARRYL WELLS MATTHEWS X XDAVE BENNETT XDAVE JUEE XDAVE LEGERTON X XDAVE THACKER X XDAVID AND JANE SMITH X XDAVID AND JOANNE DONE XDAVID AND KATHERINE NORRIS XDAVID ASHTON X XDAVID BATTERSBY X XDAVID COOPER X XDAVID FOX X XDAVID GAPE XDAVID GRANT X XDAVID GREAVES X XDAVID HEATON XDAVID HORSFALL XDAVID ISHERWOOD XDAVID JONES X XDAVID LEAVER X XDAVID LEES X XDAVID LEIGH XDAVID MATTHEWS X XDAVID MATTISON XDAVID NAYLOR X XDAVID SELBY X XDAVID SHARPLES X XDAVID SOMMERVILLE XDAVID STEEL X XDAVID WRENNALL XDAVINYA SCOTT XDAWN MITCHELL XDEAN PYKE XDEBBIE DOVE XDEBBIE EVANS XDEBBIE FLETCHER XDEBORAH GUITE X XDEBORAH HARVEY X XDEBORAH SLEAFORD X XDEBORAH SWIFT XDEBRA ADDERLEY XDEBRA EAMES X XDELYSE GREGORY XDENIS MCLAUGHLIN XDENIS ROBBINS XDENISE COOPER XDENISE FOX XDENISE WALSH XDENNIS REYNOLDS X XDEREK BROOKS XDEREK BUTTERWORTH XDEREK MATTHEWS X XDEREK NUTTALL XDEREK TOMLINSON X XDIANA BATTERSBY X XDIANE BUTTERS X XDIANE HICKFORD XDIANE REED XDIANE WALKER X XDL COOKSON X

22


DOIG RAY X XDONALD LEE XDONNA PHILLIPS X XDONNA SHORT X XDOREEN MAHONY X XDOREEN PYE X XDOROTHY LENNARD XDOROTHY SMITH XDR AND MRS GRENNAN XDR AND MRS K HYAMS X XDR FRANK HOWELL X XDR HOON TEO XDR KRISTER FELL X XDR M SEELY X XDR MARTIN HOGG X XDR NANDU MODI X XDR PANDYA XDR PAUL CONNOLLY X XDR PHILIP BAROOAH X XDR S AND A DHAYAUDE X XDR SADIA JILANI X XDR STEVE FRASER X XDR TL, MR A AND TW BANKS X XDUNCAN CHESTER XE BARNES XE JORAN XE M ALLSEY X XE ROBERTS XEA AND M MCLEAN XEDDIE BARNETT XEDDIE SHEEHY X XEDWARD BENNETT X XEDWARD LOWE X XEDYTA LIPSKA X XELAINE CARTER XELAINE MCHOLLAND X XELAINE SEDDON XELEANOR ATTENBOROUGH X XELEANOR HILL X XELIZABETH ELTON XELIZABETH GRIFFIN XELIZABETH JAMES X XELIZABETH MALIN X XELIZABETH PLANELLA X XELLEN M BLOCKSIDE XELLEN PHILCOX XELLIE SHAW X XELSIE HARDMAN XEMAN ALTWAIRESH XEMER SHERIDAN XEMMA FARRELLY XEM BLACKRIDGE X XENID FISHER X XERIC LOWNDES XEUNICE MORRIS X XEVE AND AMY GOODWIN XEVELYN SOANES XF AND G MACKENZIE X XF AND J OLIVER X XF SAVERY X XFIONA FLANAGAN XFIONA SMITH X

23


FOYZUL GANI X XFRAN HESLIN XFRANK AND IRIS GREAVES X XFRANK DRABBLE X XFRANK MARSHALL XFRANK ROYLE X XFRASER SUGDEN XFRED AND JUDITH EYRE X XFREDERIC O GORMAN XG AND A WALKDEN X XG AND B MORRISON X XG AND DK WILLIAMS X XG AND H MUSKETT X XG AND J PELLING X XG AND S ADAMSON XG FARAGHER X XG IRWIN XG JATWELL X XG L HILL X XG M SUMMERS XG RIDGWAY X XG TYRRELL X XGAIL DOHERTY X XGARDNER EMMA XGARY AND JANET MCMAHON X XGARY GARDNER XGARY HINDLE XGARY JAMES X XGARY MCKENZIE XGARY MCMAHON X XGAVIN PEDDIE X XGAVIN WICKHAM AND F STEEL X XGAYLE CLIPSHAM XGED CONNOR XGEMMA RYAN X XGENNA OLIVER XGEOFFREY COLLINS X XGEOFF HAMILTON XGEOFF LAUGHTON XGEORGE A C HOWARD X XGEORGE BRYAN X XGEORGINA COOPER XGEORGINA COTTON X XGILL FAHY XGILLIAN MILLETT X XGILLIAN RULEMAN XGILLIAN WILLIAMSON X XGILLIAN WRIGHT XGLEN COGSWELL X XGLENYS WILLIAMS XGLORIA GAFFNEY XGLYN AND JEAN THOMAS X XGLYN GRAINGER X XG M SUMMERS XGORDON SHEPLEY X XGRACE CHOI XGRAHAM BEDINGHAM X XGRAHAM SMITH XGRETA BARWISE XGWYNETH COOKE X XGUY BARNETT XH AND D SILCOCK X

24


H AND M EGERTON XH AND S COTTERILL X XH L WATSON XH SULLIVAN X XHANNAH MCLAUGHLIN XHANI EL-QASEM X XHARRY JONES X XHAYLEY CUBLEY XHEATHER MEDLICOTT X XHEATHER THORPE XHELEN BERTENSHAW X XHELEN CROWLEY XHELEN HUBBARD XHELEN LOWE X XHELEN PENDLEBURY X XHELEN PIMLOTT X XHELEN SHARPLES X XHELEN SIMPSON X XHESSEL F DE BOER X XHILDA JOHNSON XHUW BUCKLEY X XI AND E HEATON X XI AND E HILL X XI AND I BAILEY X XI AND J ASHTON X XI AND S SIDEBOTHAM X XI YARDLEY XIAN ALLEN X XIAN AND CHRISTINE DAVIES XIAN AND DEBRA LINGARD X XIAN AND LYNN TAYLOR X XIAN FURNESS X XIAN HILL XIAN HUBBARD X XIAN P HEFFERNAN XIAN WHITEHOUSE X XIMELDA PITTEWAY X XIRENE BLAY X XIRENE BRICE XIRENE HALLIWELL X XIRENE ROWLINSON XISLA GRAY XI YARDLEY XJ AND MC BRADFORD X XJ A BAINBRIDGE X XJ A SHAW X XJ ABSOLOM AND LB WYNNE X XJ AND A PARNCUTT X XJ AND B THOMPSON XJ AND H NESS X XJ AND J AUSTIN X XJ AND J ROBERTS X XJ AND J SHAW X XJ AND L HICKSON XJ AND M DREW XJ AND M WHITE X XJ AND P FORQUHER X XJ AND P SHAW X XJ AND S BUSBY X XJ AND S SARGESON XJ AND W KNIGHT XJ BERRY X X

25


J BINNS X XJ BRACKEN X XJ DAVIES X XJ FLETCHER X XJ HARTLEY & I DAVENPORT XJ HODGES X XJ K HODGKISS X XJ L ARMITAGE X XJ L HODGSON XJ LLOYD X XJ M LEACH XJ M NORCROSS X X J MANN X XJ MARSHALL X XJ MIDERMOTT XJ N BURKE X XJ PERRYMAN X XJ PHELAN X XJ R CARTWRIGHT X XJ WOOD XJ, N, J AND J HUGHES X XJ, T, A AND C STIFF X XJ WOOD XJACK CARTER X XJACK FREEDMAN XJACK LEMMON X XJACK LOWE XJACKIE ANDERSON X XJACQUELINE BEWSHER XJACQUELINE MASON X XJACQUELINE RICE XJADE CREED X XJADEN X XJAMES AUSTIN X XJAMES FERGUSON X XJAMES HILTON XJAMES LESTER X XJAMES NESS X XJAMES WALSH X XJAMES YOUNG X XJAMIE BENTHAM XJAMIE MCWHIR X XJAN GIBSON XJAN HART X XJANE BARRY XJANE BOOTH X XJANE CARNEY XJANE EBERHART X XJANE MCNULTY XJANE THURSTON X XJANET DRAPER X XJANET HESFORD X XJANET HICKSON XJANET LEWIS XJANET MANN X XJANET NUGENT XJANINE MCHUGH XJASON HORSFALL X XJASON WILSON X XJASON WOODWARD XJEAN AND TED SMITH X XJEAN BARNES X

26


JEAN CARTER X XJEAN CRODEN XJEAN GRAINGER X XJEAN MANGAN X XJEAN ROBINSON XJEAN THOMAS X XJEAN WHALLEY X XJEANETTE WILLIAMS X XJEFF HOLT X XJENNIFER REYNOLDS X XJENNIFER WARING X XJF AND BP BURNS X XJIM G NESS XJOAN AND DIANA WROE X XJOAN MASSEY X XJOAN MCCANN XJOANNE EGAN XJOANNE HARDING XJOANNE ZIMA X XJOANNE WHITE XJODIE BOOTH X XJOHN AND AILEEN CUMBERS X XJOHN AND JANET PEARSON X XJOHN AND LISA WARTON X XJOHN AND NICOLA WALTON X XJOHN BATTY XJOHN BOHAN XJOHN COLGAN X XJOHN COOK XJOHN COTTOM XJOHN D CLEARE X XJOHN DOCKER X XJOHN GOULD X XJOHN GREGORY X XJOHN HUDSON XJOHN J XJOHN JORDAN X XJOHN MARGINSON X XJOHN PHILIP WOOD XJOHN R LONG XJOHN RICHARDSON XJOHN ROBERTS XJOHN ROY X XJOHN SNOW X XJOHN STEPHENS X XJOHN SZYMALA X XJON BELL X XJONATHAN BELL XJONATHAN DREW X XJONATHAN WRIGHT XJOSE ASSUNGAO X XJOSEPH AND NUALA RABBITT X XJOSHUA GALLIANO X XJOSIE SEVIER XJOYCE BREADNEY X XJOYCE LIGHTFOOT X XJS AND C WRIGHT X XJT AND A BLORE X XJUDITH ALLSEY X XJUDITH BARNES X XJUDITH ROSE XJUDITH WATTS X X

27


JUDY KENT X XJULHAS M AHMED XJULIA HORNER XJULIE BRADY XJULIE FORRESTER X XJULIE HILL XJULIE LYNCH XJULIE NILAND XJULIE SMITH XJULIE WHITE X XJULIET YOUNG X XJUSTINE MCGUINN X XK ALLSEY X XK AND M SHARPLES XK B HOYLE X XK BERRY X XK DAVIS XK FITTON D WALSH XK J HUNT XK LOWNDES X XK TAYLOR X XKAREN FISHER X XKAREN HYAMS XKAREN JACKSON X XKAREN OLDHAM X XKAREN TAYLOR X XKATE DUGGAN XKATE FOWLES XKATE POINTON XKATH RIGBY X XKATH TRAYNOR XKATHERINE HESFORD-PRESTON X XKATHERINE KERSHAW X XKATHLEEN MORRIS X XKATHRYN DOYLE XKATHRYN RICHARDSON XKAYUS FERNANDER XKB AND JP ASHTON XKEITH AND JANET DAVIES X XKEITH AND JUNE HUNT X XKEITH LUCKMAN XKELLY MCFARLANE X XKENNETH EDGE X XKERRY SOMMERVILLE XKEVIN COAKLEY XKEVIN CRABTREE XKHOSROW SOFLA XKIERAN HEDGES XKRISTINA CHAPMAN XL A RICHARDS X XL AND B SMITH X XL AND G MATTHEWS X XL AND G WISZNIEWSKI XL AND P GRIFFIN X XL CHAPPELL X XL HOLMES XL ROBERTS X XLARRY MERRYWEATHER X XLAURA BOWERS XLAURA CUNLIFFE XLAURA HAWKINS XLAURA LEIGH PRESTON X

28


LAURA RAWLINSON XLAURA SLATCHER XLAURA SUMMERS X XLAUREN LEIGH PRESTON XLAURIE CUNLIFFE XLEE PARKINSON X XLES GREEN X XLESLIE TURNER X XLEWIS NELSON X XLILIAN LO X XLILLA BERRY AND A SMITH X XLINDA AND JAMES MULL X XLINDA HILDITCH XLINDA JONES X XLINDA MARSH X XLINDA MEEHAN X XLINDA MITCHELL X XLINDA SIDWELL X XLINDSAY DALZIEL X XLINDSAY HALL X XLINDSAY MARSDEN XLISA CARRUTHERS X XLISA D QUIGLEY XLISA ROONEY XLISA VAN DAMMS XLIZ WALLWORK X XLM BRUCE XLM CRITCHLEY XL MURFIN AND L BLACK XLORNA HINSLEY X XLORRAINE ALLSEY X XLORRAINE BOARDMAN XLORRAINE BRADLEY XLOUISE ADKIN X XLOUISE ARMSTRONG X XLOUISE COWMEADOW X XLOUISE DAVIES XLUCIA WILLIAMS X XLUCY AINSWORTH XLUCY CRABTREE XLUKE WAREHAM XLYNDA WARING XLYNN BEDDOWS X XLYNN KEEGAN XLYNSEY SHAW XM AND B CARNEY XM AND J HEATHCOTE X XM AND S DENNISON X XM BRIMBLECOMBE XM CREER X XM GLOVER X XM HODGES X XM J RUTTER X XM J SHAW XM LAFFAN XM LAMBERT X XM LAWRINSON XM MCWHIRK X XM MELLOR X XM PARKER XM RIGG AND P LEWIS X XM SIRETT X X

29


M WADDECAR XM WARBURTON XM WOODCOCK XMARGARET BENTHAM X XMARGARET DUFFY XMARGARET HANNAH X XMARGARET LOHAN X XMARGARET O'REILLY X XMARGARET WADDECAR XMARIA ASHTON XMARIA SMITH XMARIA STONES XMARIE LEVY X XMARION GRAY XMARION WOOD X XMARK ACKERLEY XMARK CHARNOCK X XMARK EDWARDS X XMARK ELLIOTT XMARK HALLEN X XMARK HALLIWELL X XMARK JONES XMARK POWELL XMARK WALSH X XMARK WATTS XMARK, L AND A RUDDY XMARTIN HORNER XMARTIN AND BARRY HORNER X XMARTIN ANGLESEY X XMARTIN BARLOW XMARTIN CRITCHLEY X XMARTIN FARRELL X XMARTIN GARRATT X XMARTIN HUDSON XMARTIN SEALY XMARY LOGAN X XMATTHEW MORRISON X XMATT LORD XMAUREEN NOBLE X XMAVIS ROBERTS X XMAX COYLE X XMAXINE HEPBURN X XMC HAZELDINE X XMICHAEL DAWSON X XMICHAEL HALSALL XMICHAEL KEEGAN XMICHAEL QUIGLEY XMICHAEL WESTON X XMICHELLE GIBSON XMICHELLE GRICE X XMICHELLE JENKINS XMICK GORTON XMICK O'CONNOR XMIKE AND NICOLA HAZELDINE X XMIKE EDEN X XMIKE LEWIS XMILDRED PETERSON X XMISS A GALE X XMISS ANNE HECTOR X XMISS ANNETTE LLOYD X XMISS C TALBOT X XMISS CLAIRE MAKIN X X

30


MISS CV SCOTT XMISS E LYON X XMISS KERYN GREEN X XMISS M HAYES X XMISS SARAH WALTON X XMISS SUSAN PARKER X XMISS SUSANNAH KWOK X XMISS SYLVIA HARTLEY X XM, L AND A RUDDY XMOIRA BOYCE X XMOIRA FARRELLY XMONICA YAKIAH XMR D FARNWORTH X XMR A G CHEETHAM X XMR A HINDLEY X XMR A KELLY X XMR A ROWLEY X XMR A SHAW XMR A TONGE X XMR AD AND MRS M SMETHURST X XMR ALAN WOODS X XMR AND MRS A LAWMAN XMR AND MRS A STEVEN XMR AND MRS AHAMED XMR AND MRS ASHLEY X XMR AND MRS A ATTWELL XMR AND MRS B FAULKNER X XMR AND MRS BAILEY X XMR AND MRS BALHAM X XMR AND MRS BELSHAW X XMR AND MRS BINNS X XMR AND MRS BRADFORD X XMR AND MRS BREWARD X XMR AND MRS C DAVENPORT X XMR AND MRS CHETCUTI X XMR AND MRS CLAY XMR AND MRS D MINSHALL XMR AND MRS DEACON XMR AND MRS DERBYSHIRE X XMR AND MRS DW MARSHALL XMR AND MRS DW MINSHALLMR AND MRS DW MURPHY X XMR AND MRS EDKINS X XMR AND MRS E TURNER XMR AND MRS FARLEY XMR AND MRS FLETCHER X XMR AND MRS FURSE X XMR AND MRS FW AUSTICK XMR AND MRS G CLAY XMR AND MRS G OGDEN X XMR AND MRS HAMER XMR AND MRS HAYES X XMR AND MRS HAYNES X XMR AND MRS HEYWOOD X XMR AND MRS HOLER X XMR AND MRS HOWELLS X XMR AND MRS HUNTER XMR AND MRS I BAILEY X XMR AND MRS ISHERWOOD XMR AND MRS J BUCKLEY XMR AND MRS J FOSTER X XMR AND MRS J HEAP X X

31


MR AND MRS J LAMBLEY X XMR AND MRS J WEST X XMR AND MRS JAMES X XMR AND MRS JONES XMR AND MRS K JERATH XMR AND MRS K PATEL X XMR AND MRS KEMP X XMR AND MRS LALLY X XMR AND MRS LEIGH X XMR AND MRS LEISUMAN X XMR AND MRS LEVER XMR AND MRS M FITZSIMMONS X XMR AND MRS M ROBINSON X XMR AND MRS N WILLIAMS XMR AND MRS PM SHARPE X XMR AND MRS R FOWLES XMR AND MRS R FRANKLIN XMR AND MRS R LINFORD X XMR AND MRS ROBERTS XMR AND MRS SCHOFIELD X XMR AND MRS SMITH X XMR AND MRS STOTT XMR AND MRS STRINGER X XMR AND MRS WATSON X XMR AND MRS WATTS X XMR AND MRS WILKINS X XMR AND MRS YARWOOD X XMR AND SE ANDREWS XMR ANDREW AHERNE X XMR ANDY BRUNT X XMR ANTHONY COUNSELL X XMR AP MOORE X XMR ASIM RAJPURA X XMR B AND MRS J HOUGHTON XMR B DOWNES XMR B JONES X XMR B KILNER X XMR C KNIGHT X XMR C LANCASTER X XMR CHAPLIN XMR D CROWE XMR D FIDLER X XMR D J CORNS X XMR D NAYLOR X XMR D POTTS X XMR D RIGBY XMR D YATES X XMR DAVE BARTLETT X XMR DAVE TURNER XMR DJ BANKS X XMR E A CAVANAGH X XMR E JONES X XMR E LOWNDES XMR E R JENKINS X XMR EATON X XMR G AINSWORTH X XMR G AND MRS C OGDEN X XMR G CROOK X XMR G HESTON X XMR G PLATT X XMR HALFORD XMR I BROWN X X

32


MR I DAVENPORT XMR I JACKSON X XMR J BANKS X XMR J E P DODD X XMR J J CONNOLLY X XMR J ROBERTS X XMR J WINSTANLEY X XMR J, MRS K STOTT, MISS CV STOTT XMR JOHN ELTON X XMR JOHN ROY X XMR JONATHAN HART X XMR JR HENNESSY X XMR K BARRY XMR K L INGRAM X XMR K TAYLOR X XMR L A HALL X XMR LA ROBINSON XMR LEATHER X XMR M ANGLESSEY XMR M BINDS X XMR MCLACHLAN XMR M BURKE X XMR M G HIRST X XMR M H WILSON XMR M KING X XMR M LYONS X XMR MCKELVEY X XMR NAZAR XMR N BROWN X XMR N GILBERT XMR N WHITLELEY X XMR NAZAR XMR P DAVIS X XMR P GUINNANE X XMR P KEARNLEY X XMR P MANN X XMR P PASCALL X XMR P RIDGE X XMR P SMITH X XMR P TRAYNOR XMR P TREND XMR PAUL M ASHURST X XMR PETER HUGHES X XMR PETER WALKDEN XMR R & MRS G COOPERSMITH X XMR R AND MRS G JACKSON XMR R AND MRS M BLEARS X XMR R EASTWOOD XMR R FORD X XMR R FOWLES XMR R J MATHER X XMR R L MACLENNAN X XMR R MARSH XMR R SPEAKMAN X XMR RICHARD FRANKLIN XMR ROBIN STIMSON X XMR RONNIE LAM X XMR S JONES X XMR S MCKAY XMR S MIDDLETON XMR S RENNIE X XMR SEAN DUNNE X

33


MR SJ DAVIS X XMR STEPHEN RIGBY X XMR T A FANNING XMR TREVOR DAVIES X XMR TURNER XMR W HEATON X XMR W RICHARDSON XMRS A L TURNBULL X XMRS A BESWICK X XMRS A DAY X XMRS A O'CONNOR X XMRS A MORRISSAY XMRS A ROGERSON X XMRS A SINGLETON X XMRS AJ SMITH X XMRS ANN WARRINGTON XMRS AT CAMPBELL X XMRS B CHEAPE XMRS B LEES XMRS B LEIGH X XMRS B WILLIAMS XMRS BARBARA LYON X XMRS C BOOTH X XMRS C HOWARTH X XMRS CAROLE O'BRIEN X XMRS C SMITH XMRS C TOMLINSON XMRS D BIRKHEAD X XMRS D SUNTER X XMRS DE GRESTY XMRS E DAVENPORT X XMRS E JONES X XMRS E M FULFORD XMRS E POINTON X XMRS EBERT X XMRS EILEEN HILL X XMRS ELLEN COTOGNI X XMRS FAGAN XMRS G LEDGER X XMRS GLYNN X XMRS H HAGUE XMRS I BOOTH XMRS I GORDON X XMRS I SHERLOCK X XMRS IRENE COUNSELL XMRS J BOOLK X XMRS J BYRON X XMRS J FORD X XMRS J GELDER X XMRS J HAZELDINE X XMRS J M MCKENNA X XMRS J MORGAN XMRS J ROSE XMRS J SAVAGE X XMRS J WILSON X XMRS JOAN MATTOCK X XMRS JOAN SUMMERS X XMRS K BARLOW X XMRS L K CUNLIFFE X XMRS L KNAPPER X XMRS L MARSH X XMRS MARIYA RAI X

34


MRS M LUNN X XMRS M PRESTON X XMRS M RAWCLIFFE X XMRS MARILYN BARLOW X XMRS P ARMSTRONG X XMRS P DUNN X XMRS P EATON X XMRS P JACKSON X XMRS P POTTS X XMRS P ROYLE XMRS P TURPIN X XMRS P WALKER X XMRS PALLANS X XMRS R BANNISTER XMRS R BATTEN X XMRS S CROSSLAND XMRS S HIGHAM X XMRS S MILLER X XMRS S NORCOTT X XMRS S REDSHAW X XMRS SIGURNJAK XMRS SKINNER X XMRS SUSAN SEELY X XMRS SYLVIA HEWART X XMRS TURNER X XMRS V ALLBERRY X XMRS V M BLACKBURN X XMRS W MOORE XMRS WILLIAMS XMS B WILKINSON X XMS C PENNINGTON-ARMSTRONG X XMS CLARE BATTEN X XMS H COOPER X XMS NINA AINSWORTH XMS S KEEN X XMS SJ SUMNER X XMURIEL AND BRIAN DUNN XMYLVIA HUNT XN AND E AUSTIN X XN AND S MEIRING X XNATHAN AND CLAIR PHILIPS XN GRAHAM XN J JONES X XN KENNEDY AND D ASHWORTH XN NIXON XN WARD X XN, L AND F GILBERT X XNANCIE WALSH X XNATALIE DICKSON XNATALIE MANSELL XNATHAN AND CLAIR PHILIPS XNEIL BROADBENT X XNEIL HORNER XNEIL SHEPHERD X XNEIL STAPLETON XNEILL VIRTUE X XNEWTON ASHLEY XNICK GROUNDS XNICK HARRISON XNICK KETLEY X XNICK RAWLINSON XNICKIE J MCGLYNN X X

35


NICOLA FOGG X XNICOLA MARSH X XNIGEL GRAY X XNIGEL MOORE X XNOEL GASKELL X XNOEL GRIFFITHS X XNORAH VIRTUE X XNORMA GILL X XOLIVE XOLIVIA GRAY XP AND A C PODLASIUK XP AND A COGGINS X XP AND A C PODLASIUK XP AND A HALL X XP AND BA LEGERTON X XP AND I BLAY XP AND J BAXTER X XP AND K TRAYNOR XP AND L MANSFIELD XP AND S MORRISON XP AND T ATKINSON XP AND M ACHESON XP AND P HESLOP XP AND S MORRISON XP BURKE X XP C LEGERTON XP GAFFNEY X XP KEMPSTER X XP MASSEY XP MATHIESON XP MCDONALD X XP O'REILLY X XP.E.T HOUGHTON X XPAM AND PAUL RIMMER X XPAMELA KEARON X XPAMELA WELSH XPAT KELLY XPAT LONGBOTTOM X XPAT SUGDEN X XPATRICIA BROOK XPATRICIA DAWSON XPATRICIA HODGES XPATRICIA LUMNEY X XPATRICIA MARY STILL XPATRICIA MATHEWS X XPATRICIA VARLEY X XPATRICK FARRELLY XPATRICK HANLEY X XPATRICK LYNCH X XPAUL AND HELEN GATES XPAUL AND PAT HESLOP XPAUL AND SUSAN TOBIN XPAUL BURGESS X XPAUL DAVIES XPAUL DENNEN XPAUL FARNSWORTH X XPAUL GILESMAN XPAUL GLOVER X XPAUL HASSALL XPAUL KELLY X XPAUL LOWNDES XPAUL MEDLICOTT X X

36


PAUL NUTTALL X XPAUL TAYLOR XPAULA CHAPMAN X XPAULA GIBSON X XPAULA MURPHY X XPAULINE ATKINSON XPAULINE FEEHAN X XPAULINE HAYNES X XPETER AND MARY LIZ WALKER XPETER AND SUE LYNDON XPETER ANDREW X XPETER B HENRY X XPETER BALL XPETER BANKS X XPETER BIRD XPETER BLOOR XPETER DENWOOD X XPETER FENSOME X XPETER LYNCH XPETER RAVEN X XPETER SHAW XPETER THOMAS XPETER YATES X XPHIL PATERSON XPHIL HINSLEY XPHILIP CARTER XPHILIP HESKETH XPHILIP PARRY XPHILIP PICKEN XPHILIP SHARPLES XPHILIP SMITH XPROF MARK GABBAY X XPT BROWN X XR AND A CHAPLIN XR AND A MALONE X XR AND B ALLDRED X XR AND D DOYLE X XR AND H EDWARDS X XR AND J HOLBROOK XR AND J WICKHAM XR AND LC GILBERT X XR AND S PRITCHARD X XR AND S WATERS X XR D BLACKWELL X XR D BOYD X XR KERR AND C HICKSON X XR LANYON X XR MITCHELL AND N HOPWOOD XR PALEY AND A KENYON X XR QURESHI X XR, S AND A MATHER X XRACHEL CHAPE X XRACHEL WHITTAKER X XRALPH FILDES X XRAY CHRISTIAN X XREBECCA PUGH X XREBECCA WILD XREITA SHEEHY X XREKHA SERAPIT XRENAY BRENNAN X XRENNIE MCFARLANE X XREV ANDY SALMON X

37


RHONA ORWIN XRHYS OBRIEN XRICHARD EVANS X XRICHARD FEARNALL XRICHARD GALE X XRICHARD MERRON X XRICHARD SARGENT XRICHARD SCHOFIELD X XRICHARD TINDALL XRITA BOWATER X XRITA CUNLIFFE X XROB HESFORD X XROB PRILL XROB RAMWELL XROB TYNAN X XROBERT ALAN MOSS XROBERT BARR X XROBERT C LANE XROBERT FAIRHURST AND SON XROBERT HOPE X XROBERT KERR XROBERT SEDDON X XROBERT STUBBS X XROGER JONES X XRON AND MARY BOOTH X XRONALD HOVER XROSEMARY M STEVEN X XROSSANO SOLLAZZI X XROY ADDISON X XROY CHILTON XROY SCHOFIELD X XROY ZAMMIT X XRT REVD DS WALKER X XRUSSELL WOOD XRUTH O TAYLOR XRUTH POTTER X XRUTH SHEARD XRW AND LA GOODALL X XRYAN PUGH XS A WOOLLEY X XS AND G STEENSON X XS AND M MELODY X XS AND M THORPE X XS AND P DENNETT XS E OCCLESTON X XS HART AND D YOUNG XS HAMPSON MEE XS HODGES XS, H AND R SPARKES X XS KILLON XS MATTHEWS XS ROBERTS XSADIA K RAJPUT XSALLY FRYER X XSALLY HOPE XSALLY SHEPHERD X XSAM DICKSON XSAMANTHA ARMSTRONG XSAMANTHA FARRELL X XSAMANTHA HRYBYK X XSAMANTHA WILLIS X XSANDRA DUTSON X X

38


SANDRA ISSAR X XSANDRA OSULLIVAN XSANDRA PARKINSON X XSANDRA PRICE X XSARAH COEULLE X XSARAH CORLETT X XSARAH FITPATRICK XSARAH GILHAM XSARAH HARDMAN XSARAH HUGHES XSARAH MASSEY X XSCOTT HOWARD X XSCOTT WEST X XSHARON CRABTREE XSHARON JOHNSON X XSHEILA BANNON X XSHEILA BERRY X XSHEILA WICKS X XSHELIA GUY XSHELIA MAYALL X XSHELIA SHAW X XSHIRLEY ELMSLEY XSIMON GOODWIN XSIMON RANKINE XSIR ALAN COCKSHAW XSISTER T WILD X XSM GOSLAND X XSONIA CHEETHAM XSOPHIE FILER XSOPHIE WARNER XSTACEY ANTCLIFF XSTEPHANIE FOY XSTEPHEN AND JOAN THOMPSON XSTEPHEN ANKERS XSTEPHEN COOPER X XSTEPHEN PARKER X XSTEPHEN PERRY XSTEPHEN SHAW X XSTEVE AND LINDA JONES XSTEVE BLAND XSTEVE FLETCHER X XSTEVE FRASER XSTEVE GILL X XSTEVE GRIFFIN XSTEVE KELSALL X XSTEVE MOSS XSTEVEN GUNN-RUSSELL X XSTEVEN MACHIN XSTEWART AND BARBARA BROWN X XSTUART BUTTERWORTH XSTUART AND JACKIE TAYLOR XSTUART HARRISON X XSTUART PYRAH X XSTUART SCHOTNESS X XSTUART WOODING X XSUE BUCKLEY X XSUE HIND XSUE MATIN X XSUE WRIGHT X XSUSAN HAWKSWORTH X XSUSAN MOTTRAM XSUSAN NIMMEY X X

39


SUSAN WALKER XSUSAN WAREING X XSUSAN WILD X XSYBIL NORCOTT XT A GREEN X XT AND G NOWELL X XT BOOTH XT NETTLETON X XT THOMAS X XTAMMY FULLELOVE XTAMMY SULLIVAN X XTERRY MANFORD XTERU PATEL XTHOMAS AND NITA MELLOR XTHOMAS ROOK XTIM RUMLEY X XTINA WEBER X XTOBIAS CHALLENDER XTONY ALDRED X XTONY AND PAT STEED XTONY DUNMORE X XTONY GRIFFITHS XTONY LEE XTONY MURPHY XTONY WALLWORK XTONY WARD XTRACEY MELLETT XTRACEY PEAKE X XTRACEY YARDLEY X XTRISHA MOYNIHANV AND M DEVINE XV AND T HAMER XVALERIE HESKETH XVALERIE IVISON X XVAL WHITEHEAD XVICKI KEOGH X XVICTORIA BARLOW X XVICTORIA EVANS X XVICTOR RANICAR XVINCE MCGHEE XVINNY NEILD X XVIVIEN BREARLEY X XW R AND J E PENDLETON X XW AND S HALLIDAY X XW HILLAN X XW S ATKINS XWAYNE FLANAGAN XWAYNE LYNCH X XWAYNE MORRIS XWENDY BARLOW X XWENDY STEPHENSON XWILLAM MCROY X XWILLIAM AND BARBARA HILL X XWILLIAM CORBETT X XWILLIAM HALL XWILLIAM JOHN DIXON X XYVONNE HERNE X XYVONNE YATES X XZOE PRICE X

40

ANNEX B – Letter to consultees on scoping stage

42

ANNEX C – Schedule of representations submitted at the scoping consultation stage

Ref Organisation or Individual

Representation Council response and implications for review of the SPD

No comments

001/1 Network Rail Network Rail has no comment. Comments noted

002/1 Historic England At this stage we have no comments to make on its content Comments noted 003/1 The Coal

AuthorityThe Coal Authority has no specific comments to make. Comments noted

General comments

004/1 Jamie Bentham I would hereby like to lodge my objection to any and all plans to build upon either greenfield or greenbelt land in any part of Salford.

Salford Local Plan will consider Green Belt and other types of protective designation, as well as sites that are proposed for development. These will be subject to public consultation.

005/1 Environment Agency

We are largely supportive of the draft Salford Greenspace Strategy which aims to provide a high quality and multifunctional greenspace located along existing water bodies, still waters or local wildlife sites. We would however like to make the following specific comments (see below)

Comments of support are noted, with specific comments addressed below.

006/1 Laurie Cunliffe For areas shaded as within walking catchment of facilities, where currently these areas are not occupied by housing, the strategy must not be used as justification for housing development in undeveloped green belt. (e.g. Around WLH/002, WLH/003 and similar plots, it must not be considered appropriate to allow development in the shaded area.)

Salford Local Plan will identify sites that are to be proposed for new housing development, which will be subject to public consultation. The walking catchments from open spaces will have no influence over where such sites might be located.

007/1 Mrs. Y. Yates Whilst I applaud the success achieved regarding the green spaces I think that some areas seem to have suffered as a reverse.

This street has for the last five/six years petitioned and written regarding parking due to station users, school staff against parking. Our street has at times been completely blocked. A car park was then built at the school but anyone who is not permanent staff is not allowed to use it (or so they say). Where do they park? Outside our houses. The station has provided two beautiful car

Comments regarding the local parking issues have been referred to our highways section.

One of the key aims of the Greenspace Strategy is to provide safe access to a range of recreation facilities for as many

43



parks, which alleviated the parking in the street. THEN the council decided to put yellow lines all round Northbank - where do the people who work there now park their cars? Yes in Cromwell Road and the station! Not to mention people from Glazebrook and Birchwood (cheaper train travel from here) Also commuters from Warrington. Where do our children play? Well they used to play in the only place they could (apart from the road as the pavements are blocked with people parking their cars) the old school tennis courts in Bradburn Road. What did the council do? They built fifteen houses there. Where do the children now play - back on the road not least to say there are now people who think Cromwell Road and Bradbury have been turned into a race track. There are also people who are friendly with the police as they visit them a lot.Please do not think there are parks, skateboard facilities etc. Would you send your young children to play in the park across a busy road when they are confined to the street? Where in Bradburn and Cromwell Road is the 'Informal play' area.

Whilst applauding your comments in what you think is progression I think the residents of this street, at least, find it retrogression. I know you are generalising on the whole and I respect what you have achieved but this doesn't help matters for us. Just my viewpoint.

households as possible. Supervision may be required especially in locations where these facilities are not within a safe walking distance.

008/1 David Steel I am in effect speaking up for those Stakeholders which do not have a voice but are part of Salford’s Greenspace landscape. In fact they actually live within it, depend upon it to survive and are in my opinion always ignored no matter what national policies are there to protect them and no matter what SCC put on paper to say that it considers them in planning---yes I am speaking on behalf of the Wildlife of Salford.Examples of the destruction of this wildlife when SCC have put forward and granted ‘development’ upon Greenspace on behalf of the People of Salford (we are told) come easy to mind in my area of Salford...

The old Irlam Steelworks---nature had re-colonised most of this site but no matter as it was a ‘Brownfield site’ for not one jot of consideration was given to the Skylark/Lapwing/Little Ringed Plover etc. that lived there.

The Area bounded by the Old River and the Ship Canal---with ease the Grasshopper Warblers/Reed Buntings/Whitethroats etc. that lived there were swept away...

The so-called Port Barton (Salford Truck Park it seems) where lived Willow Tit/Sedge Warbler/Snipe (a wintering bird) etc. ...simply ignored...

The SBI at Foxhill Glen which was destroyed when planning application 14/64656/FUL was granted in spite of GMSF stating it will protect and enhance such sites...

Now at this point I assume you may wish to say what has all of the above got to do with the SPD for surely such comments lie within the remit of the GMSF/SLDP.....well in my opinion no matter what you state I firmly believe that the SPD will have a say in determining planning applications

Once adopted the new version of the Greenspace Strategy SPD will supplement the relevant saved policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and will be a material consideration for relevant planning applications. It will also guide available investment to enhance or create green spaces.

In due course the city council intends to produce a Green Infrastructure SPD for public consultation, which will have a wider scope including biodiversity and will supplement relevant policies of Salford Local Plan

44



within the GMSF/SLDP and I feel it is timely to remind you that you must consider and save our open spaces not just for recreation but for Wildlife/Fresh Air and Sanity before great swathes of our Salford Greenspace are given up with the usual aplomb.

Document Consultation (Draft)1.2 and 1.3. It appears to me that although you seem to say that there is ‘no-link’ between the SPD and the SLDP/GMSF ..it would appear that it will prove be an “important element in securing a sustainable future for the City”....now to me this suggests as with the previous SLDP of 2014 that perhaps once the SPD has been approved ALL previous valid points made by people to save our open spaces from the excess of ‘development’ proposed (as you did with comments made w.r.t. the 2014 SLDP consultation) will be dismissed as when SCC tried to hurry through the 2016 version whilst all were distracted by the GMSF----with you knowing that to get the Greenbelt desired by ‘developers’ deselected from such protection it required the SLDP to attain this on behalf of the GMSF. I trust this is not true but if there was an element of truth in my point I object to such power within the SPD.1.5 How important a role will SPD play when the planning applications objected to on a grand scale start to appear after the SLDP/GMSF consultations?1.9 As there is a great deal of work going on with the Carbon Landscape Project to highlight/enhance and protect the contiguous and fragile habitat that connects Cheshire through our area and beyond Wigan boundaries why do you not consider that there will be fragmentation of this wildlife corridor and as such surely you are contravening the European Habitats Directive for our green-spaces connect with our Greenbelt thus forming major links with this much lauded Carbon Landscape project?1.13 When you speak of developers creating green-spaces once they have in my opinion destroyed interconnected landscapes you will then be ignoring another BAP surely?

009/1 David Leaver As a resident of Worsley/ Walkden all my life (I am now 75) I applaud many of your comments contained in your recent draft Greenspace Strategy.

In my time Worsley and the surrounding area have seen considerable development in housing and roads not least motorways transgressing the area .In particular, your Greenspace draft highlights the points “Why are greenspaces important” citing ,inter alia, ”habitats for wild life” on meeting biodiversity targets, “encourage investment in area …….to support regeneration process” and “help mitigate air pollution”.

Also ,in the publication “Planning Practice Guidance ,mention is made of “what types of green area can be identified as Local Green Space” referring to “urban spaces that provide a tranquil oasis”

Comments noted. Green Belt designation will be considered through Salford Local Plan.

45



I make these points as I firmly belief it does not make sense to remove the Green Belt status of land highlighted in your draft Local Plan published last year for possible development when these areas could be considered as part of your Greenspace proposals. There still remains sufficient derelict land elsewhere more suited for the combined development of new housing and additional Greenspaces.

I agree it is not an easy task hitting the right balance amongst the need for sustainable housing, cultivating Greenspaces and the preservation of green belt to avoid coalescence in making Salford an attractive place to live as it continues to change from its industrial past.

010/1 Barbara Keeley MP

I am writing in response to Salford Council’s Consultation in the Draft Salford Greenspace Strategy Supplementary Planning Document. Please register these comments as my response to the consultation process on behalf of my constituents.

I understand that the Greenspace Strategy SPD will provide additional guidance on open space and recreation standards in Salford. I understand also that the Supplementary Planning Document adds to the existing Unitary Development Plan rather than setting a framework itself.

Air PollutionI am increasingly concerned by the very high levels of air pollution in Salford. In 2016 the World Health Organisation designated Salford as having one of the highest levels of air pollution in the country. Friends of the Earth has backed this up with recent research. The European Union has set a legal average annual limit for nitrogen dioxide and Worsley currently exceeds this figure.

The mortality figure for Salford attributable to air pollution is 6% which is higher than the average for England of 5.6% and much higher than other parts of the country. Open spaces, in particular those spaces with trees and plants, can help to mitigate the impacts of air pollution. However, it will be important to ensure that our green spaces can be accessed on traffic-free routes and that investment is made in right-of way improvements. This will enable people to keep in touch with the natural world by walking and thus removing any need to go by car in search of this. Our wildlife, plant species and ecological assets must also be protected and enhanced so that we can ensure biodiversity in Salford green spaces.

DevelopmentI appreciate that we need more homes built in Salford but it is very important that this does not come at a cost of the environment and the green spaces of the city. The scale of new residential development and the rising population in Salford is likely to have a significant impact in the achievement of the Greenspace Strategy SPD targets for household distance to green spaces.

Once adopted the new version of the Greenspace Strategy SPD will supplement the relevant saved policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and will be a material consideration for relevant planning applications. It will also guide available investment to enhance or create green spaces.


These comments mirror some of the key aims of the greenspace strategy to protect and enhance assets.

Salford Local Plan will identify sites that are to be proposed for new housing development, which will be subject to public consultation. Any housing

46



If additional plots of land are not provided, the percentage of households which meet the defined standard will fail. I urge Salford City Council to take steps to ensure that all new developments contribute to more green space in the city. Any new development must protect and enhance the biodiversity and green space of the community.

In conclusion, I support the aims of the Draft Salford Greenspace SPD which seeks to enhance and protect open spaces and also to contribute towards sustainable development.

However, I believe that there are specific areas of my constituency which need to be considered as having a deficit of green space and this must be improved. It is clear that particularly in Cadishead, Boothstown, Ellenbrook and Worsley, it should be a priority to focus on creating new natural greenspace. (see below)

allocations will need to make local contributions as set out in the Salford Unitary Development Plan and when adopted to the requirements of the Salford Local Plan.

Comments of support are noted.

The supporting document to the Greenspace Strategy acknowledges current deficits, which will influence proposed locations for enhancements to existing sites and investment in new sites where available.

011/1 CPRE Lancashire

The Lancashire Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE Lancashire) is pleased to note that Salford City Council is consulting on a revised draft Greenspace Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and a supporting document.


Background Documents to the Revised Draft Greenspace Strategy SPD (2017) and linkages to other documents

008/2 David Steel Document CIAPage 1...puzzles me for you say Developers will provide open space—wow so now we won’t be losing Greenspace because these people will be making new land. I feel the book of Genesis will be needing a re-write if this is the case...alas I feel reading between the lines here that the Greenspace will be lost not made by ‘development’—wouldn’t you agree?Page 2...”SPD an important element in securing a sustainable future for the City” Our Community it seems from the Facebook Pages of Planning for Our Future in Irlam and Cadishead (and Barton Moss I believe) would wish that the Greenspace the developers wish to destroy i.e. the Greenbelt is untouched for this will be a Sustainable future of Greenspace for all of Salford including Wildlife/Fresh Air and Crop Production.Page 3...Evidence and Research ---has SCC EVER really gained the real and knowledgeable opinions of those who wander these open spaces and from whom SCC might really learn what to really value rather than relying on glossy brochures produced by those who have profit only at their core?Do your Audits ever consider Wildlife and its real worth? SCC may be surprised to know (Developers in my opinion have long since divorced themselves from the Real World from which even they have come) that we all Come from Nature/Rely on Nature and are Of

Developers are expected to contribute to enhancements to existing open spaces and the Greenspace Strategy and supporting documents provides guidance on where this should be directed. In specific regeneration areas and new masterplans for large scale housing development there will be opportunities to create new open spaces towards meeting the local recreation standards.

In due course the city council intends to produce a Green Infrastructure SPD for public consultation, which will have a

47



Nature...therefore this reality should be at the forefront of such as the SPD.I personally do not believe you when you say the attacks on our Greenbelt (GMSF/SLDP) are not interconnected / intertwined with the SPD.

wider scope including biodiversity and will supplement relevant policies of Salford Local Plan

008/3 David Steel Consultation Statement 3.4 My major concern with this 66 page document lies in this statement...“Whilst the SPD will not form part of the development plan, it will be an important material consideration in the determination of Planning applications”..... it could therefore in my opinion affect the Greenbelt which is such a vital asset for people and wildlife thus is a very important plan and this point needs to be emphasised to the community before it is accepted.Page 55.... 017/3. Again are we back to re-writing Genesis---the Greenspace is there already ...we cannot ‘create’ new land ....what we have in my opinion needs conserving for Nature/Fresh Air/Food Production----not chopping up into saleable lots. What ‘lower grade land’ out on our Moss might I ask---go plant a potato out ANYWHERE on our Mossland Farmland (in use or for some reason or other at present ‘idle’) and it will produce Potatoes (an important foodstuff –all the more important after ‘Brexit’ I could add) aplenty...in my opinion this is a misnomer this idea of our Grade one Agricultural Land not being capable of FOOD production.Page 63 005/2 I entirely concur with Mr Ian Davenport’s comments my sentiments exactly!

Green Belt designation will be considered through Salford Local Plan.

Once adopted the new version of the Greenspace Strategy SPD will supplement the relevant saved policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and will be a material consideration for relevant planning applications.

008/4 David Steel Determination DocumentPage 10.I am not in agreement with Natural England or the Environment Agency---As I live and breathe the areas of our Chat Moss Greenbelt I feel all our open spaces are delicately interconnected (Carbon Landscape) and as such taking away one section could easily in my opinion negatively impact on the rest.

The determination statement relates to specific legislation which Natural England and the Environment Agency have commented on as statutory consultees. They have also provided additional comments on the draft Greenspace Strategy which appear in this consultation statement.


Shortfalls in local provision of greenspaceIn Worsley and Eccles South there are particular areas where there is a shortage of green spaces. Accessible green space in Walkden and Little Hulton has reduced by 16 hectares since 2005/06. There is a large deficit of green space in Boothstown and Ellenbrook which is currently seeing significant new housing development, and so I believe it is particularly important that alternatives to natural green space are pursued in these wards.

One of the objectives of the Greenspace Strategy is to reduce the deficiencies in different parts of the city. Adopted saved policies in the Unitary Development Plan require new housing developments to contribute towards open space.


Greater Manchester Spatial FrameworkToday people have a much higher level of awareness of the importance of our green natural spaces, both rural, and urban, and the elements that constitute ‘Green Infrastructure’. This was shown when Greater Manchester Combined Authority consulted on the draft Greater Manchester

These issues are beyond the scope of the Greenspace Strategy and will be considered as part of revisions to the

48



Spatial Framework as 93% of the 25,000 objected to development of Green Belt designated land.

CPRE Lancashire submitted a comprehensive response, with a demographic appraisal showing the numbers planned were too high, due to flawed calculations.

Andy Burnham, new Greater Manchester Mayor listened to the public, and our evidence, and called for a review of the development quantum and refocus of development onto previously developed land.

Greater Manchester Spatial Framework and the Salford Local Plan.

012/1 City of Trees Infrastructure Delivery Plan – Open Space Chapter2.1 Audit – there is no reference to the Tree Canopy survey of Salford that was carried out by ourselves – was this included?

2.3 Public access to greenspace – bullet point one – can reference to woodlands be made

3 Natural Green Space / Strategic Natural Green Space – there is no reference here to City Forest Park can this be included – see attached

10 Accessible woodlands – there is a lot of focus here on 20ha woodlands which are of course very important but so are the smaller woodlands. So could something be added in here along the lines of – although there will be difficulties in meeting the local standard there is still significant value / importance in providing smaller woodlands wherever possible.

The findings of the tree canopy survey have been considered however the audit relates specifically to sites.

A reference to woodland has been added.

A reference to City Forest Park has been added to the description of site SWI/002 Slack Brook Open Space

The Greenspace Strategy can only identify local recreation standards that are included in the development plan. However a reference has been added regarding the value and importance of smaller woodlands.

013/1 Natural England While we welcome this opportunity to give our views on Salford City Council’s (CC) Draft Greenspace Strategy SPD this Greenspace Strategy SPD we are particularly interested in the Biodiversity Heartland concept and we would like to discuss this further with your Authority. We do not wish to provide specific comments at this stage in this letter, but advise you to consider the following issues within your SPD

Separate discussions are ongoing regarding the Biodiversity Heartland which will form part of the Salford Local Plan

013/2 Natural England Strategic Environmental Assessment/Habitats Regulations Assessment A SPD requires a Strategic Environmental Assessment only in exceptional circumstances as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance here. While SPDs are unlikely to give rise to likely significant effects on European Sites, they should be considered as a plan under the Habitats Regulations in the same way as any other plan or project. If your SPD requires a Strategic Environmental Assessment or Habitats Regulation Assessment, you are required to consult us at certain stages as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Should the plan be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural

Comments are noted

49



environment, then, please consult Natural England again.

Benefits of Green Space

006/2 Laurie Cunliffe Protecting a token green space must not be at the expense of sacrificing massive tracts to development. The green belt provides crucial remediation of the pollution in a largely urban environment. The air quality in Salford is poor in many areas, especially near busy roads at peak travel times. No housing development should be undertaken unless pollution measurements taken at child buggy level during peak travel times on main routes near the housing development show that the NOx and particulate levels are below half that of the recommended maximum safe level.

Green Belt designation will be considered through Salford Local Plan.


Salford City Council in the Greenspace Strategy recognises the existing and potential value of green space and countryside for protection and enhancement in the future through sound planning policy and land allocation. CPRE Lancashire wishes to engage positively with the Council as the local development framework documents are updated, and we quite agree that people need access to local green space. Salford’s green space is a natural asset of considerable local pride and enjoyment to residents, businesses and visitors. When deciding whether to award planning consent in the future, Salford City Council should effectively ensure net gains for green space and green infrastructure for the benefit of Salford’s people.

Greening Salford will help tackle negative perceptions about Salford as a place. It can have an important role in becoming a verdant and vibrant place to live, work and visit in the future.

The Campaign to Protect Rural EnglandEvery year our countryside and green spaces are under increasing threat from development, and despite commitments from national, sub-regional and local government to protect it, beautiful countryside is ‘unnecessarily’ lost. CPRE campaigns for the reuse of available previously used land, where not of high environmental value, in advance of sacrificing our greenfields. Once countryside land is built, it is gone forever.

Value of Green SpaceHealth and Well-being1. Salford’s port and industrial history, combined with severe traffic pollution along

motorway/highway network means that today the local mortality rates and poor health indicators exceed those in neighbouring areas of Greater Manchester. The provision of quality natural environments is vitally important to tackle air pollution and address these poor health inequalities.

Adopted saved policies in the Unitary Development Plan require new housing developments to contribute towards open space. These policies will be expanded for Salford Local Plan, in particular to detail the Green Infrastructure requirements of developments.

Once adopted the new version of the Greenspace Strategy SPD will supplement the relevant saved policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and will be a material consideration for relevant planning applications.


50



2. The health and well-being benefits of local green space are well evidenced, and tranquillity is a key intrinsic characteristic that needs to be protected as new development is planned. People, as well as wildlife, need space to find peace and quiet when enjoying the natural environment.

3. Accessibility to green space via upgraded footpaths and cycle paths is important. We hope that Salford can support sustainable modes of travel through green spaces. Inclusive access is important so all of Salford’s people can enjoy outdoor space.

Biodiversity4. Salford can positively contribute to the Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan. Locally

are important grassland, hedgerows, lowland mosslands, canals, ponds and lodges, native woodlands, and urban managed green space. River and canal corridors provide valuable recreational and wildlife corridors.

5. The retention of mature trees and important hedgerows when development comes forward is paramount, as is the provision of more locally appropriate trees and hedgerows as part of developer contributions to key sites across Salford. These Green Infrastructure elements can provide positive settings for the heritage assets across the city.

6. Green space and Green Infrastructure should be an integral part of an application for development.

7. When responding to developers pre-planning discussions, Salford City Council Officers need to put the Green Space SPD to the fore. Pre-planning application discussions should focus on encouraging developers to specify in their applications the green space elements of the development. Adequate standards of open space provision must be included, such as play space, walking and cycle routes, green corridors, trees and hedgerows, and sustainable urban drainage that reduces flood risk and that also promotes wildlife.

8. Greenspace requirements ought not to be relegated to planning conditions, although we do accept in some cases where an application is not refused outright due to greenspace deficiencies, then enforceable planning conditions may improve the contribution by developers in some cases.

Summary

Everyone benefits from the wide ranging roles of green space, from its green lung function, flood resilience, wildlife habitats, food production, recreational opportunities, tranquillity, and

51



contribution to our cultural heritage. CPRE Lancashire is pleased to see the Council take a more integrated and strategic approach to the provision and management of green space in Salford. We wish the Spatial Planning Team every success with the progression of this important planning policy document.

012/2 City of Trees 1.13 – Could you add in a bullet point here that acknowledges the role of woodlands in helping to moderate extreme summer temperatures

A new bullet point has been added in relation to the role of woodlands

014/1 David Yates I respond as an individual resident. I am a member of the Manchester and Salford Ramblers - but am not commenting here in an official capacity. I am a retired professor of Emergency Medicine (based at Salford Royal Hospital) and past chair of the Friends of Eccles station. I hope this background allows you to see where I am coming from.

I think this is an excellent document; I have no objections, merely an impatience to see your objectives prioritised and fulfilled. In particular, I hope you will emphasise the importance of:

Exercise as part of normal daily life rather than as something undertaken separately at the gym. Undertaken in this way, exercise improves

o mental as well as physical well beingo social cohesion

Segregated cycle lanes in built up areas. The Council has been very slow in developing these - cyclists don't like to use bus lanes.

Further development of "looplines" and similar traffic free routes such as the Port Salford Greenway

Comments of support are noted. The delivery of further enhancements throughout the city will be dependent on appropriate resources being secured.

015/1 The Lancashire Gardens Trust

The Aims of the Lancashire Gardens Trust are to promote the education of the public in the arts, crafts, sciences and all other matters connected with designed landscapes.Furthermore, to promote the appropriate action for the restoration, enhancement, preservation, conservation, protection and understanding of designed landscapes in the county of Lancashire post 1974 and the former county area of south Lancashire lying to the north of the Mersey.Lancashire Gardens Trust supports Salford Council in its objective to protect and enhance greenspaces across Salford. The Strategy acknowledges the importance of greenspaces in contributing to the City’s heritage in paragraph 1/13, however there is no mention of the range of heritage designations which apply to a number of Salford’s historic designed landscapes. We would expect to see at least a statement of the acknowledgement of heritage values, policies, and links to other strategies and documents, as well as an indication of conformity with these policies.


Salford Unitary Development Plan and the interactive heritage map identify the existing heritage designations in the city. These will be reviewed through the emerging Salford Local Plan.

52



016/1 Salford Community Leisure

It would be good to see at least some small reference in there to the opportunities afforded by open public green spaces for site-specific cultural activities, events, performances, festivals and participatory activities which engage people in these spaces, the open air and each other, increase mental health and wellbeing, and which can help foster the community ownership which is considered desirable in the document (Section 12). There are many good examples of such activity within Salford and elsewhere, for example:

Bridgewater Canal activity and events programme Site-specific public art, e.g. in Peel Park Bandstands used for performances, e.g. Parr Fold Park, Victoria Park Participatory activity organised in parks by “Friends of” groups Red Rose Forest (now City of Trees) community activity in Salford Promenading theatre performances, e.g. at Heaton Park Arts Festivals, e.g. Chorlton

Additional text has been added to the ‘Why are greenspaces important?’ section.

Greenspace Issues012/3 City of Trees 1.16 – General note we have been looking at Greenspace Connectivity across GM – the aim of

this project is to reveal all the significant greenspaces and the links between them, focussing on river valley corridors leading from centres of population out to the uplands. The phase 1 mapping and evidence gathering has now been completed. See project brief attached.

Connectivity to and between open spaces is clearly very important. The open space chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which supports the draft Greenspace Strategy, identifies many routes as part of the local natural greenspace standard to be maintained and enhanced. Opportunities will also be explored elsewhere.

017/1 GMEU I suggest a couple of additional points should be raised in these sections. One is the issue of land availability in certain areas, which makes the provision of recreation areas of any typology if there is a shortfall very difficult to impossible. This issue is picked up in later sections for ANGst and woodland but could be flagged up here.

The other point which is more an objective, would be emphasise (if this is what Salford wants) mulit-functionality i.e. diversification of strategic recreation areas (whatever the typology).

Additional text has been added to the introduction section of the SPD.

018/1 Groundwork We welcome the comprehensive statement around the importance of Greenspaces Comments of support are notedNatural Greenspace

005/2 Environment Agency

Policy GS1 - Local Nature ReservesWe would support the creation of a new urban wetland at the Castle Irwell site being identified as a local nature reserve, particularly with the site’s proximity to Kersal Dale Local Nature Reserve

A new urban wetland is now publicly accessible at Castle Irwell. This will be

53



and the adjoining River Irwell Site of Biological Importance (SBI), creating an expansive of new greenspace and wildlife resource in Salford, as well as multifunctional green infrastructure assets.

We would welcome based on the extensive new residential development within the vicinity of the urban wetland that the greenspace strategy identifies opportunities to help fund long term management of the new urban wetland; aiding management undertaken by the Broughton Trust; and the linking Irwell Riverside; ensuring this new Salford greenspace resource and key riparian wildlife corridor is sensitively managed, and ensuring new development and residents positively influence and interact with these, which would create a high quality greenspace in the long term.

Policy GS3 - Local Natural GreenspacesIt is unclear why the Charlestown Park ESA/009 has been discounted as a local natural green space (GS3) particularly as the Charlestown Riverside development sits directly alongside the River Irwell which is a key green infrastructure, wildlife corridor asset and National Cycle Network. We would recommend that the green space strategy seeks to encompass such important riparian sites.

considered for designation as a local nature reserve once the site has become further established.

A management and maintenance plan has been put in place based on a partnership between the Environment Agency, the city council and the local community following recommendations from the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust.

The new Charlestown Park will provide formal facilities including a sports pitch and a play area. There will be scope for natural greenspace to be incorporated particularly on the boundary but this is unlikely to meet the local natural greenspace standard.


Shortfalls in local provision of greenspaceThe Strategic Natural Greenspace standard adopted in Salford relates to the proportion of households being within 2,000m walking distance of a natural greenspace of at least 20 hectares in size. There is a shortage of households meeting this requirement in Barton, Winton and in parts of Worsley and Boothstown.

At local level the Greenspace Strategy SPD indicates that all households should be within 300m of an accessible natural greenspace of at least 2 hectares in size. There is a shortage of households this requirement in Eccles South and parts of Boothstown and Little Hulton.

The Greenspace Strategy aims to reduce the deficiencies in different parts of the city. Adopted saved policies in the Unitary Development Plan require new housing developments to contribute towards open space.

017/2 GMEU SummaryI have restricted my specific comments to typologies where the Natural environment is the key element. We welcome and support the proposals to utilise the Natural England, LNR and ANGst standards and the Woodland Trust accessible Woodland targets. I have a number of comments and suggestions, key points being a stronger emphasis on multi-functionality and building new strategic sites in to any master planning for Chat Moss.

Natural Greenspace ChaptersI welcome and support the policies GS1 – GS3 and understand that adoption of the ANGst 100ha and 500ha standards is not feasible in an urban area, though I would note that sites of this scale

The Biodiversity Heartland will be considered through Salford Local Plan alongside future opportunities for additional natural greenspaces.

Additional references have been made in the greenspace strategy to acknowledge that there are existing 100ha and 500ha natural greenspaces in neighbouring local authorities that are

54



would be strategic sites across GM and would not necessarily be required in each district of Greater Manchester. For instance a 100ha site does exist on the Salford/Bury border in the form of Prestwich Forest Park and that the Irwell Valley as a whole if treated as one site probably exceeds 500ha.

I would also note the shortfalls in 20ha and 1ha provision. Whilst again agreeing that shortfalls around the city centre cannot be easily be rectified, I would suggest that the provision of a new strategic site could be built in to any masterplan for Chat Moss within the proposed Biodiversity heartland and looks to have Botany Bay Wood made available as an accessible woodland.

Whilst Salford CC is not in a position to create 100ha or 500ha sites that it recognises that such sites exist on and beyond the border of the City within the requisite distances and that it could contribute to the development of the Irwell Valley as a strategic site for Greater Manchester.

accessible to specific parts of Salford.

Parks


Shortfalls in local provision of greenspaceThe Greenspace Strategy SPD guidelines say that households should be within 3,200m walking distance of a District Park. There is a deficit of households meeting this requirement in Worsley, Boothstown, Irlam and Cadishead.

The Greenspace Strategy SPD says that households should be within 1,200m walking distance of a Neighbourhood Park. There is a deficit of households meeting this requirement in parts of Boothstown and in parts of Cadishead.


012/4 City of Trees There is no reference to Orchards other than fruit growing in allotments. Could this be referenced in the Parks Section as something that should be given consideration to?

General – If not adopting the WT standard of 2ha of woodland within 200m could you reference consideration should where feasible be given for creating pocket woodlands including in parks. These can be of a parkscape variety i.e. trees well-spaced apart to maintain site lines

The policy covering greenspace design is applicable to all sites, which already refers to ‘increasing tree planting’. Additional references have been made to tree planting and fruit trees in the Accessible Woodland policy.

Play Areas010/5 Barbara Keeley

MPShortfalls in local provision of greenspaceThe Greenspace Strategy SPD says that households should be within 1,000m walking distance of a Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play. Parts of Irlam and Cadishead, parts of Little Hulton, Walkden North and Walkden South do not meet this requirement. In these areas of deficit I am concerned that young children will not have adequate green space and equipment to play on.


012/5 City of Trees It would be good to reference the potential for creating natural play areas – not sure though if this

55



would be relevant to the parks or play areas chapter

018/2 Groundwork NEAPs – There could be a specific reference to opportunities for natural play here Comments notedSports Pitches016/2 Salford

Community Leisure

From the perspective of the Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) I am conscious that the strategy is now 12 months old and that things have moved on in relation to some assertions that were made and in terms of specific detail on a number of sites. I will not comment on those due to this being addressed through a different process and therefore the documents as they stand represent the PPS in sufficient detail.

In relation to physical activity in general, there are already several references to this within the Strategy and as neither the Locality Plan or the Population Health Plan are mentioned we don’t think there is any need to include the Physical Activity Framework in the documents.

The adopted version of the open space chapter will identify the latest position with regards to site specific changes based on the refresh of the Salford Playing Pitch Strategy in 2018.

019/1 The GM Trust for Recreation and Barratt Homes

Policy GS9 as drafted raises two questions:- 1. In the light of the fact that the DMPF is classified as disused/lapsed in the Planning Pitch Assessment, how are the objectives set out in paragraph 1.15 best realised in Claremont. 2. If capital is employed to improve facilities at Duncan Mathieson, are the facilities that would be capable of being provided also capable of being financially self-sustaining?

4.2 BGCGM and Barratt have already made detailed submissions in respect of Policy H4/1, they have submitted that it is not sound; they have asked that their concerns regarding the draft policy be considered by an Inspector appointed to consider representations. They have further asked that their objection to draft policy H4/1 be considered at a Pubic Local Inquiry. 4.3 In 2015, The Council completed a Playing Pitch Strategy [PPS].The PPS concludes that there is insufficient capacity for football, rugby union and rugby league across the city as well as more locally within Claremont and Weaste. There is also insufficient provision for cricket across the city. Most of these issues are however attributed to the quality of the existing provision, as opposed to the requirement for additional pitches. 4.4 In response to the issues identified, the strategy sets out a series of strategic and local recommendations and it is these that should guide decision making in relation to the DMPF site. It should be noted that the site is categorised as a lapsed site within the strategy document. This means that it is excluded from calculations and that the loss of part of these pitches would not create additional deficiencies. Indeed restoration of part of DMPF would lead to a net gain. 4.5 Building upon the strategic recommendations, which set out an overall position of protection of playing fields until demand is met, the strategy identifies localised objectives within Claremont and Weaste. It indicates that:- There is an identified requirement for the qualitative improvement of existing pitches for

football (De La Salle Sports Club). There is no clear evidence of need for additional pitches;

This site is unusual in Salford Playing Pitch Strategy (refreshed in 2018) in that the majority of it is not currently in use however at least one pitch remains in use predominantly for training by a local sports club.

Need to reflect the current Local Plan stance

The Local Plan (version??) proposes that a minimum amount of enabling development is permitted to provide funding to bring the majority of the site back into active sports use, and to include new changing rooms and car parking facilities.

56



There is no clear local requirement for cricket within the area; There is an identified requirement for the qualitative improvement of existing pitches for rugby

union (De La Salle Sports Club). There is no clear evidence of need for additional pitches; There is an identified requirement for the qualitative improvement of existing pitches for rugby

league (Oakwood Park). There is no clear evidence of need for additional pitches; There is no identified requirement for facilities for hockey.

Calculations suggest that the recommendations of the strategy document will be effective in ensuring that supply meets baseline demand. Duncan Mathieson Playing Fields – Salford City Council Draft Local Plan

4.6 While supply will remain relatively closely balanced with demand following the prioritised actions, there is no clear requirement for the provision of additional pitches and no clearly defined role for the site if the site were it to be reinstated. No detail is provided within the strategy as to who is responsible for delivering the outlined actions. 4.7 A review of the strategic and local priorities of the PPS indicates that:- As a lapsed site, the site is protected unless it can be proven that there is no unmet demand

within Claremont and Weaste; There is currently unmet demand for football, rugby union and rugby league, meaning that the

site remain protected; The strategy action plan seeks to rectify the gaps in provision through qualitative

improvements at De La Salle Sports Ground and Oakwood Park and calculations demonstrate that these actions are all required if demand is to be met. Qualitative improvements are in line with strategy priorities, which seek to maximise capacity through qualitative improvements and to focus upon improving existing resources;

Once these priorities have been resolved, there is no clear requirement for further provision within the strategy document and no significant unmet demand evident;

The strategy does not specifically highlight the requirement for the retention of the Duncan Matheson Playing Fields and indicates that “Where there are lapsed sites as detailed within the assessment report and Appendix Three, use this list as a case by case report as to reinstating pitches.”

4.8 For the DMPF, this means that; if residential development on part of the playing field was to be acceptable, this could be a vehicle for the delivery of these actions (i.e. they are funded by the development). The location of the De La Salle Sports Club and Oakwood Park is shown in Figure 4 below. BGCGM & Barratt are willing to work with the owners of the De La Salle Sports Club and/or the council as owners of Oakwood Park to deliver demonstrable qualitative improvements to those existing facilities, both of which lie within Claremont and Weaste. BGCGM and Barratt have started a process of engaged with both De La Salle and Langworthy Reds (the club using

57



the existing pitches at Oakwood Park). Oakwood Park lies less than 0.5 km to the North East of the site. De La Salle Sports Club is situated on Lancaster Road and lies 0.4 km to the South. Both these alternative locations lie within easy walking distance of the site.

4.9 With regard to the questions set out in paragraph 4.1 (see above) we are of the view that the evidence shows that:- 1. The PPS shows that the best way to address need in the area is by way of improvements to the quality of existing pitches in the area, this is also the approach taken in the IDP, and not to address lapsed/disused pitches; 2. In the light of the financial position the optimum way in which to provide address need is to provide for a financial contribution towards investment in an existing established functioning site, either De La Salle Sports Club or Oakwood Park; 3. The only available evidence suggests that it would not be financially sustainable to develop and run facilities on the Site;

5.0 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 As will be seen from the prospectus document, BGCGM is working to improve the lives of Young People in Salford and across Greater Manchester. The redevelopment of the DMPF would provide vital funding to ensure the continued operation and growth of the BGCGM. Funds would also be provided to extend its programme of works and have a positive impact on even more young people across Greater Manchester. 5.2 BCGCM and Barratt submit that:- DMPF use as playing fields is lapsed/disused. DMPF use as playing fields is not a sustainable long term proposition. The Council’s own PPS and open space chapter of its IDP envisages that optimum way in

which to address the demand for sports and recreation in Claremont and Weaste is through qualitative improvements to Oakwood Park.

The redevelop of part of the DMPF site would be consistent with the objectives set out in paragraph 1.15 of the draft Greenspace SPD.

Additional appendices were also submitted:Appendix 1 – BGCGM Prospectus Appendix 2 - Professional Sportsturf Design [PSD] Report

020/1 Sport England It is noted, and welcomed, that policy GS9 and GS10, do not provide standards and instead use of the Playing Pitch Strategy and Action Plan will be used to determine what new provision or enhancements are required to meet local current and future demand. However, can I suggest that the word “standards” is removed from the sub heading prior to para 6.6 and 7.6 to avoid

Comments noted. The wording of these sub headings has been amended to ‘Meeting Local Demand’.

58



confusion? In this instance it might be better to refer to these sections as “Meeting Local Demand”

Local standards are not appropriate for outdoor sports because they do not and cannot take into account sports catchment areas or the variable units of demand for individual pitch/court types. For example, the unit of demand for a court ranges from two people if a tennis court to 30 people if a full sized adult rugby pitch. In addition the catchment area for sports ranges from Ward level if a junior football pitch to Borough wide if rugby or hockey. This means the accessibility standards cannot accurately reflect where the demand for outdoor sport is derived from. Quantitative standards are not appropriate because although it is widely acknowledged housing growth generates additional demand for sport not everyone form that housing site will want to participate in sport. In reality the application of standards has led to single pitch sites being constructed within housing developments that are unsupported by ancillary facilities and are not located in areas of demand. These pitches do not contribute to the supply of pitches and all too often become informal kick about areas or semi natural open space.

Sport England is currently working with the Council to advise on how the Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) could be used as the evidence base to inform developer contributions. Sport England is working with the Council to identify what the additional demand from population and housing growth will be and what the impact on existing playing fields will be. A Developer Contributions Process using information set out in the PPS will be developed to help establish:• what the additional demand for sport will be from individual or cumulative housing sites,• which existing sites need to be improved to increase capacity to take the additional demand; and• what an appropriate developer contribution should be

Sport England welcomes the Council’s commitment to monitoring and reviewing the Playing Pitch Strategy regularly to ensure it continues to be the appropriate evidence base to support the SPD.

Allotments018/3 Groundwork We welcome the introduction of an allotment standard through Salford Draft Local Plan.

Could this reference former operational sites in Council ownership (such as old garage sites and depots), as well as existing open spaces? Could reference be made to exploring potential for community allotments and gardens, as well as individually managed plots, on such sites? Groundwork would be happy to share examples of similar successful projects.

The proposed standard relates to formal allotment plots, both at existing sites and proposed new facilities. The focus is on sites that will have secured use in the long-term, subject to remediation where required. Other opportunities such as community allotments will need to be considered separately.

Accessible Woodland

59



012/6 City of Trees 10.1 Can you reference the value of woodlands from a cooling / temperature mitigation perspective?

A reference has been added to ‘relief from high temperatures’.

017/3 GMEU I again welcome the policy. Clearly there is some overlap with the ANGst standards for 20ha sites. The issues in terms of shortfalls are similar with Chat Moss and Botany Bay Wood being potential future sites that could be built in to a masterplan.

The SPD is unable to allocate new sites. Site-specific proposals relate to sites already in recreation use or allocated for a recreation use. These areas can be considered as part of future master plans subject to agreement with landowners.

Design of Greenspaces005/3 Environment

AgencyWe would welcome as part of the greenspace design, that it seeks to positively interact and enhance the quality of existing waterbodies and the key wildlife corridors, semi-natural habitats or local wildlife sites, designing greenspaces that are low maintenance, and look to maximise biodiversity value or create new priority habitat or potentially integrate natural flood management (https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/163560/sepa-natural-flood-management-handbook1.pdf ) options to help assist local flood risk or water quality issues, or adopt above ground sustainable urban drainage (http://www.ciria.org/Memberships/The_SuDs_Manual_C753_Chapters.aspx ) options such as attenuation ponds, swales or green roofs that provide multiple landscape, recreation, and biodiversity benefits, and create high quality green infrastructure assets for both people and wildlife.

Existing and potential local functions will be considered on a case-by-case basis for the design of greenspaces. In due course the city council intends to produce a Green Infrastructure SPD for public consultation, which will have a wider scope including biodiversity and sustainable drainage functions to supplement relevant policies of Salford Local Plan.

012/7 City of Trees 11 Greenspace should be designed so as to: could you add in ‘providing buffers to sources of noise and air pollution’.

A reference has been added to ‘provide buffers to sources of noise and air pollution, whilst ensuring that good natural surveillance of the green space is retained’.

017/4 GMEU Whilst multi-functionality is mentioned indirectly through discussion of the inclusion of the wildlife elements and SUDs within greenspace, I suggest that this could go further to directly propose multi-functionality beyond wildlife and drainage.

In due course the city council intends to produce a Green Infrastructure SPD for public consultation, which will have a wider scope including biodiversity and sustainable drainage functions to supplement relevant policies of Salford Local Plan.

018/4 Groundwork Policy and justification omits mention of age / dementia friendly design. In our view this would be a valuable addition to design considerations.

Welcome reference to Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

Policy and justification omits reference to natural play as an alternative to installation of

The first bullet point of the policy has been amended to ‘maximise access and its positive use by all members of the public’.

A new bullet has been added to

https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/163560/sepa-natural-flood-management-handbook1.pdf

http://www.ciria.org/Memberships/The_SuDs_Manual_C753_Chapters.aspx

60



equipment. Potential benefits in terms of both play value and maintenance costs. ‘consider opportunities for incorporating natural play’.

Consultation017/5 GMEU I strongly support public participation in any greenspace planning. Comments of support are noted.

018/5 Groundwork Wording of this policy and justification are somewhat at odds. The justification in para 12.1 and 12.3 uses terms such as “involvement” and “ownership” and quite rightly suggest this is fundamental to the longer term success and management of the site. But this is not captured by the policy itself which talks about “consultation with the community” (rather than involvement) and “concerns.. being addressed”. We would suggest a more positive wording of the policy which reflects the asset based approach alluded to in the justification. It should be noted that the words “consultation” and “involvement” are not inter-changeable – their meanings are fundamentally different. Please note that Groundwork has tried and tested models for engaging communities in greenspace design and supporting the development of sustainable friends of groups for parks, play areas and other greenspaces and we would be happy to provide further advice in this area.

The policy and reasoned justification have been amended to make it clear that there will be public engagement where practicable.


Any improvements to existing facilities and green spaces should be carried out with local consultation.


Redundant and Replacement Facilities012/8 City of Trees Policy GS17 Surplus Facilities – could you add in as highlighted ………..the provision of another

type of recreation facility or greenspace/natural greenspace12.7 (13.7) this appears slightly contradictory – if the type of space is deemed surplus to requirements then would it need to be replaced like for like i.e. could it be replaced with another type of green space that is in deficit in the locality?

No changes are proposed to this policy. The policy is clear that replacements, which are likely to be qualitative, will be directed to similar types in the first instance where there are other deficiencies such as a different type of sports pitch. Where relevant other types of greenspace can then be considered.

018/6 Groundwork Commitment to no net loss of recreation value is welcomed. Point of clarification – Does this refer to absolute net loss, or can net loss be offset by improvements in quality?

Proposals will be considered on a case by case basis. The policy is clear that in specific circumstances qualitative improvements could be accepted.

Connectivity021/1 The Wildlife Trust

for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside

The Trust notes that the primary purpose of the SPD is to address the standards of access that households should have to green spaces. However as draft Policy GS18 states these green spaces and corridors that link them do have an important function as wildlife corridors.

One key concern that the Trust had in the draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF)

The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework and Salford Local Plan will need to consider appropriate policy content.

61



was that, whilst there was a clear intent to “protect and conserve” wildlife and the environment generally, the approach taken by the draft GMSF was at serious risk of not actually delivering the desired environmental outcomes. The Trust felt that the aim of the GMSF should be more challenging – to create, as an integral part of the GMSF, a fully functioning ecological network with much better connectivity than at present; with existing habitats maintained or restored, and new habitats created. We did not see this ambition for the natural environment reflected in the GMSF document.

The rethinking of the GMSF gives the Greater Manchester local authorities an opportunity to make significant progress on the establishment of an Ecological Network for Greater Manchester in advance of the next draft of the GMSF. In the Trust's view more work needs to be done urgently to ensure that we have an accurate and up-to-date picture of all aspects of the network and how it functions across the area and into its hinterland. Furthermore, the onus should be on each and every proposed allocation to demonstrate what the development would do to improve connectivity and the robustness of the network, not simply committing to preventing damage and to “enhancing” in poorly defined ways, some specific features. In other words, each allocation should be able to quantify explicitly what its development should, and would do to contribute to the network, how much that contribution is worth, and how it would be secured into the future.

Whilst, clearly, the proposed revised Green Space Strategy is not the vehicle for achieving this, the Trust believes there is an opportunity to make a stronger statement (in the Green Space Strategy) regarding the importance of green space and linking corridors as part of the ecological network and stating an intention to tie them in to the network as it evolves.

This SPD is unable to allocate new routes or networks. Site-specific proposals relate to sites already in recreation use or allocated for a recreation use.

In due course the city council intends to produce a Green Infrastructure SPD for public consultation, which will have a wider scope including biodiversity and sustainable drainage functions to supplement relevant policies of Salford Local Plan.

022/1 Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Society

We are broadly in support of the policies laid out in this document.

We see in para. 2.7, canals quoted as a barrier which through true in that context, we believe canals are a major contributor to greening our cities.

Canals provide a green corridor into the heart of the city. Promotion of canal restoration benefits urban areas by bringing nature into the suburbs and the city centre.

We also would like to note in Section 14 on connectivity that canals meet the criteria for pedestrian and cycling routes which give access to open spaces.


A new bullet point related to canals has been added to the reasoned justification of the policy GS18.

017/6 GMEU I welcome the policy, there does not however appear to be a measure to identify weaknesses in the existing network, though I note that some of the existing strategic routes strategies that feed in to this policy identify new routes e.g. Cycling Strategy and Rec. Route Strategy.

That the need to identify weaknesses and propose enhancement in connectivity is recognised in

No changes are proposed to this policy at this stage. The SPD is unable to consider weaknesses in the existing network, which will need to be considered and taken forward through

62



the policy beyond just recreational routes. related strategies.

In due course the city council intends to produce a Green Infrastructure SPD for public consultation, which will have a wider scope to supplement relevant policies of Salford Local Plan.

023/1 Canal and River Trust

The Canal & River Trust (the Trust) is a charity entrusted with the care of over 2000 miles of canals, rivers, docks and reservoirs in England and Wales. These historic, natural and cultural assets form part of the strategic and local green infrastructure network, linking urban and rural communities as well as habitats. Our waterways contribute to the health and well-being of local communities and economies, creating attractive and connected places to live, work, volunteer and spend leisure time. To meet the Trusts objectives it is of vital importance to us that all levels of planning policy and associated documents provide a robust policy framework that recognises and supports canals, rivers and docks as a cross-cutting policy theme; and acknowledges the diverse roles which they perform including:

being a form of strategic and local infrastructure performing multiple functions (including sustainable transport, open space and green infrastructure, land drainage and water supply as well as flood alleviation), which is likely to be affected by all scales and types of development;

improving the physical environment, providing opportunities for people and the wider economy;

contributing to supporting climate change, carbon reduction and environmental sustainability; and

The public benefits that can be and are generated by our canals, rivers and docks. The Trust therefore broadly encourages policies which seek to: protect the heritage, environmental and recreational value of canals, rivers and docks and

to safeguard them against inappropriate development; support their ability to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits to local

communities and the nation as a whole; and Secure the long-term sustainability of the inland waterway network, their corridors and

adjoining communities.

Within Salford Borough the line of the Manchester Bolton and Bury Canal, an ongoing restoration project, crosses the borough from south to north thorough Pendlebury. As such only a small part

A new bullet point related to canals has been added to the reasoned justification of the policy GS18.

Salford Unitary Development Plan includes an existing saved policy covering the protection and enhancement of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal. This policy will be reviewed as part of the emerging Salford Local Plan.

The open space chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which supports the draft Greenspace Strategy, proposes improvements to pedestrian / cycle routes connecting the river with the canal.

63



of the canal within Salford is currently in water. The Trusts comments on the draft Greenspace Strategy are therefore focussed on ensuring that the importance and multifunctional nature of its assets and potential for their restoration are acknowledged and provided for in the SPD.

Draft Salford Greenspace Strategy SPD Greenspaces have a very wide range of positive impacts which are set out at paragraph 1.13 including “Provide links to strategic recreation routes and access to a range of water bodies including rivers, canals, reservoirs and ponds;”.

Paragraph 1.14 sets out a range of greenspace related issues. The Trust consider that there should be specific recognition of the need to protect, enhance and extend recreational routes with specific reference to canals and waterways. Along with the recognition of the health and economic benefits of maintaining a wide network of footpaths, cycle ways, bridle paths and canals and that they provide excellent leisure and recreational opportunities.

The Trust broadly support the objective of the Greenspace Strategy set out at paragraph 1.15. One of the Trust’s charitable objects is to promote, facilitate, undertake and assist in for public benefit, the restoration and improvement of inland waterways. The draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (policy GM12) states that one of the priorities will be to “protect the line of the former Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal from development that may prejudice its future restoration or its use as importance green infrastructure”. We are generally supportive of any sustainable project seeking to expand the country’s inland waterway network. As such, the Trust is supportive of the protection of the line of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal (MB&B) and the aspirations for its restoration. The former line of the MB&B passes through the Borough and can play a role in achieving the Borough’s long-term aspirations for greenspace and contributing to these objectives. The Trust would welcome specific reference to the former line of the MB&B and the role it can play and would tie in with the GMSF.

The Trust supports the thrust of Policy GS18 – Connectivity, in particular that the integrated network would be protected and extended where possible. Paragraph 14.1 then goes on to state that to “maximise accessibility to Salford’s strategic greenspaces, and therefore their benefits to the city’s population, improvements will be sought to the network of pedestrian and cycling routes, both through enhancements to existing routes and the identification of new routes”. The Trust consider that that the former line of the MB&B has a role to play here and would welcome specific mention/acknowledgement being made within the supporting text of the policy.

024/1 Transport for Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) welcomes the Greenspace Strategy, particularly in Comments of support are noted.

64



Greater Manchester

terms of ‘supporting the enhancement of an integrated network of strategic recreation routes and other footpaths linking the various greenspaces, in order to maximise their accessibility for local communities’. Access to greenspace is one of the factors that can make dense urban areas, which are highly efficient in transport terms, attractive places to live.

We would suggest two minor changes to Policy GS18 Connectivity. In terms of enhancing the attractiveness and effectiveness of routes, it would be useful to add two further bullet points:

The upgrading of routes, where appropriate, for cycling. Some routes, originally envisaged as recreational, can also provide convenient links to employment areas or local facilities and this role can be enhanced if they are improved in line with standards in the GM Cycling Design Guide, which is currently being updated by TfGM, in consultation with GM Districts.

The provision, where appropriate, of passive surveillance by existing or proposed active frontages overlooking routes which will help to encourage their use.

Two new bullet points related to this representation have been added to policy GS18.

Management and Maintenance 005/4 Environment

AgencyAny new soft landscaping scheme submitted as part of greenspace proposals should ensure this is in keeping with local environment and semi-natural habitats in locality, appropriate long term management is incorporated in scheme proposals, and integrate opportunities to enhance ecological quality of existing wildlife corridors i.e., incorporating non-native species management, enhancing habitat quality of any adjoining priority habitats (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5706).

Saved policies of Salford Unitary Development Plan require long-term management being provided for all proposals.

The types of soft landscaping that will be appropriate will be considered and agreed on a case by case basis, considering opportunities to integrate and enhance ecological quality.


Facilities and community safetyIt is positive that funding will be dedicated to the provision of a range of accessible facilities. I believe that green space should be accessible but also it must be designed to restrict inappropriate use and activity.

I often get complaints of anti-social behaviour, littering and illegal access by vehicles in our local parks. To deal with this may require changing physical boundaries or putting curfews on opening times. It will also be important that the parks are managed appropriately and that there is community police presence to deter any anti-social behaviour.

Policy GS14 on Greenspace Design refers to ‘minimising the potential for nuisance behaviour’.

The design of green spaces will be undertaken to ensure accessibility, taking into account comments from the GM Architectural Liaison Unit.

012/9 City of Trees 15.4 Selected mowing of grassed areas that do not perform a sports function; - could we add or consider a less formal / less management intensive use such as woodland, orchard or wildflower meadow

Additional text has been added to the wording of the policy to consider less intensive uses.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5706

65



018/6 Groundwork With regards to alternative management regimes and additional planting, we would be happy to share findings from recent work in Tameside where we are developing new approaches to the design and management of smaller greenspaces within residential estates in partnership with New Charter.

Comments are noted.

Site Specific Comments008/5 David Steele Infrastructure Delivery Plan

Page 5 Section 106....an example in my opinion as to how weak such provisions are...the development on the land off Ferryhill road---from what I can gather this area of open wildlife friendly land was bequeathed to our area to remain as such an open area for the community....along came a plan to grab and destroy this area and build houses upon it with the ‘clever’ ploy of saying it will have a S106 put upon it ---which led to the construction (now there in itself is an irony wrt open landscape) of a community centre for all---and surprise -surprise a few years later this centre cannot be afforded thus it was shut down---an asset for the Irlam Band but not as the ‘watertight’ S106 intended for the community. Thus how can I accept that by putting S106 on any of your future plans will not lead to anything other than a failure to protect our open spaces?Page 3 you mention ‘Green Corridors’----including Wildlife Migration...how does this square with the fact that SLDP/GMSF will bring about the destruction of such a vast area of this corridor you seem to so cherish with the expansion of the ‘Truck Park Salford’ (I believe you refer to this as a Port) from south of the A57 and onto the Greenbelt North of same. I know the area and I know what is there I have records to prove what Wildlife use this area. I feel you do not.Page 11 you refer to your listing of SBI---I still have no answer as to why the SBI at Foxhill Glen appears to be under a vast tonnage of inert material in spite of your ‘concrete’ (no pun intended) protection afforded within this documentation.Page 56 well there we have it ‘there is no connection between this current SPD and the SLDP/GMSF’----yet here you state that on IRC/016 you WILL be providing a new play area on this extant GREENBELT LAND...do you know something I and many people of Irlam and Cadishead who have democratically objected to building upon same know nothing about wrt our Salford Greenbelt disappearing under concrete? I assume you have consulted with the Threatened species of birds (Lapwing/Skylark/Willow Tit/Yellow Wagtail/Grey Partridge etc.) that live and survive upon this site?Finally Page 19 WLH/003 Cutacre Country Park...at a recent meeting with the architect of this vast swathe of documentation Chris Findley he was enthusiastic in his praise for this wondrous success for Wildlife within Salford...and in my opinion ‘there lies the rub’ for when this site was first proposed it was for the WHOLE of the site once it had again been gleaned for profit was to be given back to nature.....those who know and value the site for nature (and I am not referring

Comments are noted.

The Greenspace Strategy supplements policy and guidance for greenspaces based on saved policies of Salford Unitary Development Plan. The site based information in the open space chapter also reflects some of the proposals in the emerging Salford Local Plan. These will be subject to change as the Salford Local Plan is amended.

The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework and Salford Local Plan identify policies for the protection of habitats and biodiversity offsetting or mitigation for any losses or impacts anticipated from new developments or alternative land uses.

66



perhaps to those who may forever need to mind their P’s and Q’s) state that over 50% has been LOST to nature as ‘suddenly’ Warehouses were required to populate the site....and another thing has ANYONE of the SPD scribes ever stood out on Chat Moss and admired the wondrous views to the North of Rivington Pike/Winter Hill –a site of Greenspace beauty to behold but I must give you fair warning look not too far North-East for you will ‘behold’ the Warehouse monstrosities ‘bestowed’ upon Cutacre—not a pretty or life enhancing Greenspace to behold I can assure them.Take care to consider nature for as the RSPB says we really do need to give a Home to Nature (for we ourselves are of Nature might I say).

025/1 Cllr. Critchley Oakwood Park (Walkden)I welcome proposals to enhance Oakwood Park (Walkden) and to bring it up to the standard of a Neighbourhood Park but I don’t feel that this goes far enough. The park lacks proper access points for able bodied and disabled residents and is poorly visible from the main roads, which needs addressing urgently. A priority should also be to enhance the sports provision with football/rugby posts, basketball hoops and to explore other sporting facilities, to encourage greater use of the area and improve local sporting facilities – sports facilities aren’t currently mentioned in the document, so need adding.

A football kick about area is already available although other proposals for the site will be considered. Additional sports facilities would only be for informal use (not local sports clubs) as no new single pitch sites are proposed. Following Salford’s Playing Pitch Strategy the city council is concentrating the majority of the formal sports facilities on the larger sites where changing rooms and car parking can be accommodated.

We are aware that the disabled access to the park is poor. As the access is via unadopted roads and in private ownership the city council will engage with the landowner to review options. With regards to signage we are implementing our signage strategy based on strategic importance and availability of funding.

025/2 Cllr. Critchley I very much welcome and fully support proposals to allocate the former Ellenbrook Brick Works to a Strategic Natural Greenspace. The site has tremendous potential in an area of rapid residential development. This area should also be considered for inclusion within the greenbelt, which already runs up to the boundary with this site.

Green Belt additions will be considered through the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework and Salford’s Local Plan.

025/3 Cllr. Critchley Guild Hall Tennis Courts – these need a specific action plan and I would welcome talks as soon as possible to look at uses for this site. There have been expressions of interest for using the area but as yet there doesn’t seem to be any formal way to advance the proposals. Can we meet

Tennis facilities were assessed in Salford Playing Pitch Strategy and these courts were identified as ‘lapsed’

67



to plan a way forward? as they are no longer in use. The tennis Courts have now been identified as surplus to requirements and any investment will focus on upgrading the facilities within Parr Fold Park. A review of bowling green facilities is being considered across the city and depending on the outcome of the review it is anticipated that the whole site will be considered within this context. There are associated proposals to consolidate facilities into the nearby Parr Fold Park where refurbishment will allow increased community use (below).

025/4 Cllr. Critchley Burgess Farm allotment provision – the document refers to “a minimum of 15 new allotment plots within the site”. This is something myself and local residents have campaigned on for a long time, however, the site is developing rapidly and I am not aware of any new allotments. The neighbouring St George’s playing field was also earmarked for allotments but Urban Vision recommended this for disposal to a housing developer, so it has now been sold. What is happening with this important allotment provision?

One of the conditions of the disposal of St. George’s playing fields by the city council was that the developer of this phase of the development must provide a minimum of 15 allotment plots on-site.

025/5 Cllr. Critchley Parr Fold ParkThe priority for the park should be enhancing the existing tennis facilities, renovating the band stand and providing additional sporting facilities e.g. rugby posts, a running track etc. The current proposals seem vague e.g. “Replace street furniture and signage”. It is difficult to know whether these are valid suggestions with so little detail. You would be better working with the Friends of Parr Fold Park, the tennis club, bowling clubs etc. that use the site to define the priorities for this area.

This is a long term planning document and we are working with the Friends of Parr Fold Park and Walkden Tennis club to develop an action plan for the park and included within this is the upgrading of the tennis courts and potential proposal to develop the 3 lower courts as a MUGA facility (options attached), along with improvement of access infrastructure and long term refurbishment of the band stand. Parr Fold Park is named within the Section 106 Eligible Infrastructure List to be considered as and when the opportunity arises and grant options will also being considered. Salford Playing Pitch Strategy did not identify a requirement for an additional

68


Representation Council response and implications for review of the SPDathletics track, it considered that Cleavley Athletics Track is sufficient to accommodate the sports requirements in the city. Similarly other local sites are considered more suitable for sports pitches for club use.

025/6 Cllr. Critchley I am unsure what policies, protections or uses are assigned to sites which form part of the greenspace audit but not the SPD sites.

The SPD supplements several adopted policies in the Unitary Development Plan as listed in paragraph 1.3. The requirements of these UDP policies will be applicable to all open space sites regardless of whether they are included in the open space chapter of the IDP or not. One of the main policies is Saved Policy R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities, which sets out the criteria which need to be satisfied for development (or other uses) to be considered. One of the main objectives of the Greenspace Strategy is to target available investment, which is usually limited, to sites / proposals that will maximise access to a range of open space facilities and to deliver the local recreation standards. This often means that investment is concentrated on the larger sites particularly new play areas.

025/7 Cllr. Critchley There’s no mention of the sports pitch at the former Walkden High site on Birch Road. This is meant to be accessible to the public. What’s happened?

Regarding Walkden High these pitches are included in Salford Playing Pitch Strategy. Community use of the school is managed by Salford Community Leisure and is currently confined to the sports hall and 3G artificial pitch. The grass pitches are for school use only and there are no current proposals to make these available to the public.

69



025/8 Cllr. Critchley The Rydal Crescent Recreation Ground has no existing or planned recreational facilities. Are we saying that nothing is ever going to be done about this serious deficiency? The Tynesbank Play Area has no play area. Residents will want to know when, if ever, they will have facilities. There is also no mention of one of the biggest greenspaces in Walkden, Bedford Fields. This all raises concerns about the future of these sites. They can’t be left in their current state, selling them is not an option, neither is doing nothing. So how do we move forward on them?

Many of the smaller sites are not included in the IDP as they are not required to meet one or more local recreation standards but that does not mean that they are not important. Policy GS12 of the SPD for example relates to public amenity space, of which the majority of the city is well provided, although these sites are not specifically identified in the documents. Bedford Fields, Rydal Crescent and Tynesbank are three examples of existing public amenity spaces. There are no longer proposals for new play areas at these sites (as we had in the adopted 2006 SPD) as these facilities are now being concentrated predominantly in parks. Some of the sites are also considered too close to housing and/or provide poor natural surveillance as explained in Policy GS6 of the SPD.

025/9 Cllr. Critchley What is the future of sites not listed in the audit or SPD? With the exception of stand-alone play areas there is a minimum threshold of 0.1 hectares for sites to be considered for the audit so the very small sites will not be included but may have a recreation function such as a formal garden for seating.

026/1 Jean Whalley (Former Swinton Sewage Works)I am so pleased to see the number of open spaces planned and that the former Swinton Sewage Works is to be designated a natural open space and be saved for current and future children to enjoy.


027/1 Steven Healey (Duncan Matheson Playing fields)Please advise where Duncan Matheson Playing fields appears in the Council Green space strategy 2017; it appears on Fig. 2.1 in the green space audit 2016-17 but I have failed to find it elsewhere.

Please ensure that Duncan Matheson Playing field is included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan -

The consultation statement covers the previous stage of public consultation, known as a scoping consultation. This details the comments received and the responses from the city council.

70



Open Space Chapter (Supporting document for Salford green space strategy Supplementary Planning Document - Consultation Draft 2017) under sect.6 - Sports Pitches and sect.7 - Other outdoor sports facilities.

The SPD consultation statement ref. 022/1 Sport England has a Council response referring to the Green space strategy audit 2015-16, adopted June 2016. Please advise where Duncan Matheson Playing field fits into this strategy and if not why not.

In relation to your specific comments on the Sport England representation, the Greenspace Audit 2015/16 was superseded by the 2016/17 version which forms part of the Open Space chapter. Both versions of the audit identify the wider site at Duncan Mathieson Playing Fields.

The adopted strategy relates to the Salford Playing Pitch Strategy & Action Plan, which identifies the current status of the sites.

When an implementation plan has been established, the site will be added to the sports pitch section of the open space chapter which supports Salford Greenspace Strategy to explain proposals for bringing the site back into active use. Any proposals for the site will need to have regard to its status in Salford Local Plan.

028/1 James Shaw (Duncan Matheson Playing fields)This field was put in trust for the youth of Salford. It is not fair that this should be taken away from them. We have been here over 50 years. In that time until recently there were schools playing regularly and at weekends public house football teams used to play to help provide costs of maintaining the field. Now I believe the costs have been made so high they no longer play. We do find that after school lots of Children are seen playing on the field. Our parks that are local are both across the busy LANCASTER Road, which is very dangerous crossing, and if a large number of properties are built there will be so many cars. Children are in grave danger if they try crossing the very busy road. Please try and leave them some green space.


029/1 Margaret Duffy I would like to object to the proposed green space strategy.

1) Salford is a city with a high level of poverty and deprivation.There are areas of sub-standard housing and a high proportion of rental properties.General health is below the national average with high levels of obesity.

Once adopted the new version of the Greenspace Strategy SPD will supplement the relevant saved policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and will be a material

71



It is therefore essential that we maintain the amount of green spaces so that the general public can see and have access to some "countryside". This can increase levels of well-being and enable people to access areas where they can walk and exercise.

2) If areas are not designated green spaces then developers, such as Peel Holdings will quickly put in applications to over develop these areas. Traffic is a major problem in Salford and these developments will only increase these problems.

3) The areas of Broadoak Park off Worsley Road and Egerton Park behind Hazelhurst Road, both in Worsley, are a particular concern. These areas should be maintained as green spaces. They provide a welcome relief from heavily developed areas where wild life can exist.Development of these areas will only mean we have a grid-locked city which will be a deterrent to further business and access to existing businesses.

I trust that my comments will be noted and taken into consideration.

consideration for relevant planning applications. It will also guide available investment to enhance or create green spaces.

Salford Local Plan considers the designation of specific areas such as Green Belt and the West Salford Greenway.

030/1 Paul Hassall Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the recently produced Greenspace Strategy. As Chairman of Worsley Woods Action Group I am pleased at the support for Worsley Woods. The woods are unique in Salford and an asset for the whole of the city, not just Worsley. With the welcome arrival of RHS Bridgewater it is important that Worsley Woods is developed to attract RHS visitors to the city. With this in mind, the access to the woods from the Worsley side needs to be improved and, if possible, woodlands at Botany Bay and Middlewood need to be made publicly accessible. It is also important to note the connectivity of the green areas, especially the link between Worsley Woods and the Looplines. Wardley Woods also needs accessibility work, especially if development of adjacent areas takes place. The woods, although important, are vulnerable to adjacent developments and could soon deteriorate with inappropriate development. The biggest blight to the woods is the motorway and efforts should be made to decrease sound and atmospheric pollution. Work needs to continue to work with the local community to develop activities in the woods, whilst balancing its value as a nature reserve. Section 106 money, particularly from RHS Bridgewater, could be valuable in this aspect. I was puzzled by the interactive map as the boundaries of Worsley Woods seemed to overlap. Why?I also welcome the building of more allotments, but am disappointed by no increased playing field provision in Worsley.

Comments of support are noted. Improved access to and between sites is one of the objectives of the Greenspace Strategy. Separate projects are being promoted alongside the Greenspace Strategy to enhance looplines and other key recreation routes which connect areas around the city and new opportunities will be considered.The city council would welcome additional private woodlands being made publicly accessible however this would be subject to discussions with the owners and ensuring that public access was compatible with existing uses.

031/1 Adele Finney After reading the appropriate documents, I was shocked to find that our community park at Caroline street in Irlam was on private land and subject to its lease being renewed. I have worries here for this small park is well attended by parents with their young children/primary age children and the older children too.

We also have more homes being built on the site next door which were the old urban council

The site would continue to have some protection as a recreation site regardless of who owns the site and if it was to be lost planning policy would require its replacement. The lease of Caroline Street is subject to review.

72



offices of Irlam. If the lease was due to expire then why oh why did someone not think ahead and put this park on the council owned land securing its future for many years to come?

I feel that this facility will be sorely missed in the community should it no longer exist.

Princes Park is currently shut to all in the name of refurbishment. It is the school holidays and many Parents with their young children/primary age children and senior school children visit this beautiful and challenging play area. We are two weeks into the School holidays which traditionally is the driest time for us all to get outside, so why are we refurbishing during the peak flow of users?Yesterday I was rather disappointed after levering my gaming son out of the house for a trip to the park to find it was closed. I am pleased to say that the outside gym was working and assessable to larger primary school children up to adult for there are no facilities for younger children at this outside gym.

On the gym were a few senior age children, using the equipment happily. We all had our turn too.

whilst visiting Silver street park last week, It was much busier than usual, and after chatting to some of the mums on the park I found they had come from Rose avenue which is right opposite Princes park for somewhere for their young children to play.

Please please can we do what needs to be done on princes park quickly as I haven’t seen any workmen on this site as of yet and I pass it daily!

Princes Park is a very important local site to the wider community. Parts of this park needed to be closed due to incidents of vandalism. It has now reopened following necessary repairs and refurbishments.

018/7 Groundwork We welcome the proposals for upgrade and refurbishment at Buile Hill Park here and in subsequent sections. We are aware of the poor condition and significant anti-social behaviour in this park through our partnership work with Start in Salford and would be keen to engage in plans for its regeneration.


032/1 Valerie Ivison I hereby make a formal request that Duncan Matheson Playing Fields be included in the 2017 Draft Greenspace SSP Document.


033/1 Martin & Sue We object to the removal of H3/2 WB007 WG101 land west of Boothstown from its Green Belt Green Belt designations will be

73



Seeley Status on many counts.

According to legislation the removal of Green Belt status should only be considered under exceptional circumstances, which do not exist in this area. Indeed, there are many exceptional circumstances for retaining it, which, we as concerned citizens and environmentalists have outlined below.

1) Green Belts were formed to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas. The above area is next to the Wigan/Boothstown border. What’s to stop Wigan Council also removing Green Belt status next to this land?

2) Green Belts were meant to prevent neighbouring towns merging. If this happens here then there will be urban sprawl all the way to Wigan Town centre and beyond and leave residents of Boothstown with no green areas for use as recreation, no trees or hedges to offset the problems of the extra pollution which will occur with this density of housing. This is particularly relevant as Boothstown in Salford is one of the most polluted areas in the UK let alone Europe because of the juxtaposition of the M60 and the A580 East Lancs. Road. (ref. M.E.N. July)

3) Green Belt is there also to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. In Boothstown under this latest scheme the only Green Belt left will be the 9 metres either side of the Bridgewater Canal, although the south towpath has already been citified and gone are any illusions that a walker/cyclist might have of exercising in the country.

4) Green Belts were also introduced to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Where at all is this happening or has happened in Salford? Planning permission has been granted for many Brown Field sites but not taken up. These are supposed to be considered first.

5) From the residents of Stirrup Brook Grove, we are all wondering why there is a “tail” from the plot of land on the Plans, which appears to mark the site of the Stirrup Brook Grove access road to the 5 houses in the Grove. It seems to indicate an access route to the Green Belt land. The residents are free holders and own this access road. So, what is the explanation?

6) What about the wild life? Jays, Yellow Hammers and Sky Larks lost their habitat when the houses on the Highclove site were built. If you remove the green belt status from this area, you will be depriving many wild birds, mammals, butterflies and other pollinators such as bees of their habitat. (Bees, as everyone knows, are at crisis point and we ourselves depend on them for our

considered through Salford Local Plan

74



survival,) We have over 40 species of birds visiting our garden including woodpeckers, long tailed tits and bull finches. United Utilities visited recently and identified kingfisher and willow tit nests both of which are on the endangered list. In an ideal world Salford would be creating a wild flower meadow here to offset the huge amount of building which has taken place in the last 30 years this side of Boothstown. Calderdale in West Yorkshire and many other authorities have done this; why can’t Salford?

034/1 United Utilities Property Services (How Planning)

On behalf of United Utilities Property Services ("United Utilities"), thank you for the opportunity to submit representations to Salford City Council ("SCC") on the Draft Greenspace Strategy SPD (June 2017). These representations are submitted in relation to United Utilities land holdings at the Former Swinton Waste Water Treatment Works, Swinton. We respectfully request that these representations are taken into account in the preparation of the next version of the Greenspace Strategy SPD.

BACKGROUND TO THE SITE Following the decommissioning and formal closure of the Waste Water Treatment Works in the late 1980's/early 90's, the site has been the subject of extensive discussions involving United Utilities, local community groups and the City Council. United Utilities' landholding extends to approximately 17 hectares and immediately to the east and west is further land which is owned by the City Council. The combined sites cover an area of approximately 31.58 hectares and the Location Plan enclosed identifies United Utilities and SCC’s landholdings. The Former Swinton Waste Water Treatment Works, is located to the south of Thorn Road and to the east of Beechfield Road. The site is located approximately 2km to the south of Swinton Town Centre where there are a range shops and services including banks, opticians, pharmacies and supermarkets (Asda and Morrisons) as well as a train station with regular services to Manchester, Kirkby, Southport and Blackburn. Immediately surrounding the site are the residential areas of Thorn Road, Ellesmere Park and Beechfield Road. The site has been the subject of pre application discussions with SCC for a scheme proposing the creation of over 20 hectares of new publicly accessible parkland and new residential development in the northern part of the site. The scheme involves the reclamation of a site that has been vacant and derelict for many years with no authorised public access. The proposals have a strong relationship to the adjoining local authority land to the east and west. United Utilities is seeking to strike the right balance between regenerating a previously developed and contaminated site and delivering a new Community Park extending to 20 hectares. In order to achieve this, an element of housing is required to fund the regeneration of the site as well as the delivery of the Community Park. In 2016, United Utilities selected Bellway Homes (Manchester) as its preferred development


Salford Local Plan proposes open space and a housing allocation for this site. The proposed strategic natural greenspace that would be delivered is identified in the open space chapter which supports the Greenspace Strategy. It is important to note however that whilst the Greenspace Strategy and supporting open space chapter recognise these proposals and their implementation, the purpose of these documents are to supplement the saved policies of the adopted Salford Unitary Development Plan rather than the draft Salford Local Plan.

The city council has been working with interested parties to bring this site forward and realising the significant benefits of delivering a large new publicly accessible open space.

75



partner. During 2016, United Utilities and Bellway Homes carried out a number of consultation exercises with key stakeholders, the local community and Council representatives with further public consultation planned this year. The next stages of consultation will be focused on the draft masterplan proposals for the site. United Utilities wishes to ensure that the approach to bringing forward any proposals for the site are developed responsibly in cooperation with the full community. Representations have previously been submitted by HOW Planning on behalf of United Utilities to promote the site for allocation for a Community Park and housing in response to the Local Plan Suggested Sites Consultation in March 2014 and again to the Draft Local Plan 'A Fairer City' (January 2017). Furthermore, representations have also been submitted to the review of Planning Obligations Guidance (June 2014), the Green Space SPD (March 2015) and the Planning Obligations SPD (February 2015) consultations.

THE ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN The saved policies of the Salford Unitary Development Plan (UDP) makes up the current Development Plan Policy for Salford. In accordance with the adopted proposals map, the site is unallocated. Bordering the eastern boundary of the site is an existing strategic recreation route.

EMERGING SALFORD LOCAL PLAN The Council’s Draft Local Plan ‘A Fairer city’ (November 2016) allocates the site for housing under policy H4/2. The allocation is denoted by the brown colouring (H4/2) on the proposals map extract below:The policy allocates the site for 250 dwellings as well as a natural green space area. The policy is worded as follows: H4/2 Former Swinton Wastewater Treatment Works and surrounding open land, Swinton South (31.6 hectares). “The large majority of the site will be improved as a strategic natural greenspace of at least 20 hectares in size, with full public access. This will incorporate a nature park, a new play area, and replacement allotment provision. Some enabling housing development will be permitted in order to cross-fund the enhancement of the rest of the site for recreation purposes. Two hectares of the site will be set aside for the provision of a new primary school to serve the housing development and surrounding area. Any built development on the site should: Be the minimum required to fund the recreation improvements, not exceeding 250 dwellings; Be located so as to maximise the integration and quality of the various parts of the strategic natural greenspace; Be designed to maximise the use of, and public access to, the strategic natural greenspace, retaining and enhancing existing footpaths;

76



Incorporate replacement allotment provision; Retain existing hedgerows and mature trees; and

Incorporate sustainable drainage systems that successfully manage surface water flood risk, without any adverse impact on the use or quality of the strategic natural greenspace.”

GREENSPACE STRATEGY It is understood that the draft SPD that is being consulted on consists of two related documents: Draft Salford Greenspace Strategy SPD which provides updated policy and guidance to

supplement existing policies in the Salford Unitary Development Plan and introduces three new local recreation standards that were proposed by the Draft Local Plan in 2016.

Open Space Chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which is a separate document that identifies sites which contribute towards the local recreation standards and site specific proposals for refurbishments and new facilities.

The interactive map available online identifies the site (reference: SWI/003) as a proposed Strategic Natural Greenspace as well as a Local Natural Greenspace.

Strategic Natural Greenspace Policy GS2 (Strategic Natural Greenspaces) of the draft SPD states that all households should be within 2,000 metres walking distance of Strategic Natural Greenspace and is described as: "Being at least 20 hectares in size; Providing significant areas of a rich variety of wildlife to thrive; and Publically accessible without restrictions on entry."

The supporting document also out for consultation (Infrastructure Delivery Plan – Open Space Chapter) provides further detail on the proposed sites. With regards to the Proposed Strategic Natural Greenspace the supporting document describes the proposed enhancements at the Former Swinton Waste Water Treatment Works (SWI/003) as well as the Campbell Road Playing Fields (SWI/004) as follows: "Two separate sites owned by United Utilities and the City Council (total 32 hectares) Significant investment required for land remediation to address contamination from former

uses, habitat creation and planting to deliver a natural greenspace. Enabling development on-site (Unities Utilities)."

Response United Utilities is keen to work collaboratively with SCC to bring forward proposals for a Strategic

77



Natural Greenspace at the Former Swinton Waste Water Treatment Works, overcoming the current issues of public accessibility. However, in order to achieve this, it is important that the policy is updated to include reference to delivery mechanisms. Furthermore, whilst the document is correct to state significant investment is required for land remediation to address contamination, habitat creation and planting to deliver a natural greenspace, the reference to 'enabling development on-site' should be more specific. It should make direct reference to residential development at the site and the draft allocation for housing under policy H4/2 in the Draft Local plan 'A Fairer City' (November 2016) as discussed above. This could be worded as follows: "Two separate sites owned by United Utilities and the City Council (total 32 hectares) Significant investment required for land remediation to address contamination from former

uses, habitat creation and planting to deliver a natural greenspace. Enabling residential development on-site (Unities Utilities) in line with policy H4/2 of the Draft

Local Plan."

Local Natural Greenspace Policy GS3 (Local Natural Greenspaces) of the draft SPD states that all households should be within 500 metres walking distance of a Local Natural Greenspace, which is defined as: "Being at least 1 hectare in size; Providing areas for a variety of wildlife to thrive; and Publically accessible without restrictions on entry."

The supporting document specifically states with regards to the site at the Former Swinton Waste Water Treatment Works that, ‘the nature park funded through enabling development on-site (United Utilities).’

Response As above under the previous point, there should be direct reference made to residential development at the site as well as the draft housing allocation under policy H4/2 in the Draft Local Plan.

Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play and Neighbourhood Parks The Open Space Chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan supporting document also proposes the Former Swinton Waste Water Treatment Works provide a new Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play within the site as part of a new nature park as well as a Neighbourhood Park.

Neighbourhood Park Policy GS5 (Neighbourhood Parks) of the Greenspace Strategy states that all households should

78



be within 1,200 metres walking distance of a Neighbourhood Park and that a Neighbourhood Park is defined as: "Attracting visits of up to one hour; Having the principal functions of sport, play and relaxation; and Containing between 4 and 9 facilities that appeal to a wide range of users."

The supporting document describes the Former Swinton Waste Water Treatment Works (reference: SWI/003) together with the Campbell Road Playing Fields (reference: SWI/004) as having:

"Scope to add to the play area, outdoor gym and mini pitch at Campbell Road through the proposed enabling development on-site."

Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play Policy GS7 (Neighbourhood Equipped Areas of Play) of the Greenspace Strategy states that all households should be within 1,000 metres walking distance of a Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP), and defines a NEAP as: "Offering a range of facilities for older children and teenagers (primarily ages 8 - 14 years

old), and for younger children accompanied by parents; Having a minimum size of 1,000 square metres and Containing a minimum of 8 pieces of play equipment appropriate to the target age group."

The policy also states that any new NEAPs may need to be brought forward through on-site provision as part of major new housing developments. The Open Space Chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan describes the proposed neighbourhood equipped areas of play at the Former Swinton Waste Water Treatment Works and Campbell Road Playing Fields as: "New play area for older children with a new nature park." This correlates to the definition of a NEAP as per policy GS7.

Response In response to both the provision of a Neighbourhood Park and NEAP, the initial community consultation undertaken by United Utilities and Bellway, included some discussion about the need for an additional play area with concerns expressed in relation to anti-social behaviour at the existing play area. United Utilities and Bellway would prefer to determine the need for an additional play area as a part of a community consultation exercise rather than a prescriptive policy. The representations submitted in January 2017, suggested policy H2/4 be reworded as follows:

79



"The large majority of the site will be improved as a strategic natural greenspace of at least 20 hectares in size, with full public access. This will incorporate a nature park, a new play area (if required after consultation with the community), and replacement allotment provision." Furthermore and similarly to previous comments, there should be direct reference made to residential development at the site as well as the draft housing allocation under policy H4/2 in the Draft Local Plan.

OTHER POLICIES Allotments It is noted that the majority of the policies are the same as the previous SPD, however there is a new policy on Allotments (Policy GS11). This states that new residential developments should contribute to the achievement of a minimum of 5,000 sqm of allotments per 1,000 households, based on a minimum of 10 plots provided on new sites being 125 sqm in size. What this policy does not specify is whether allotments are required on all new residential sites or whether this is site-specific. This should be made clearer in the policy wording. It is noted that in the Open Space Chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan supporting document, further detail is provided on allotments and specific reference is made to the 25 existing allotment sites within Salford. This confirms that there are currently a total of 630 plots across the city. There are 8 sites proposed for allotments which includes the existing Beechfield allotment site (reference: SWI/036), which adjoins the Former Swinton Waste Water Treatment Works. Table 8.2 (Proposed Allotment Sites) in the Open Space Chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan document describes the site as 'derelict plots due to be refurbished' which will be funded by 'enabling development on the adjoining site'. Presumably, this reference to the adjoining development is referring to the residential development as per the draft housing allocation under policy H4/2 in the Draft Local Plan. United Utilities and Bellway are in liaison with Salford Allotment Federation and understands there are some specific concerns in respect of the wording, particularly in the Open Space Chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan supporting document, and recommend that this is specifically discussed with the Allotment Federation. In terms of the future development, United Utilities and Bellway are committed to ensuring allotment provision at the site.

Equipped Children's Play Space It is noted that Policy GS6 states: "Equipped Children's Play Space should be located within safe and easy walking distance of its catchment area, minimising the need to cross main roads or other significant barriers, and providing safe access routes where there is such a need. They should be located a minimum of 30 metres from the nearest residential property whilst ensuring good natural surveillance by being overlooked." Whilst the rationale for this approach is acknowledged, United Utilities consider that each site

80



should be judged on its own merits with reference to site-specific considerations. By seeking to implement a strict 30m buffer this may impact on the delivery of residential schemes where issues, such as noise, can be mitigated. It is considered that the Council’s proposed approach could reduce flexibility. Housing developments need to remain viable after open space contributions have been included. On-site provision within a development (added to the 30 metre buffer required around play spaces) impacts the development potential of some sites and therefore their viability. The viability of development schemes is a key consideration introduced by paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF. The guidance makes clear that the cumulative impacts of these standards and policies should facilitate development throughout the economic cycle.

SUMMARY In summary, United Utilities strongly supports the principle of the site's designation as a Strategic Natural Greenspace and Local Natural Greenspace in the Draft Greenspace Strategy SPD. Observations have been provided on some of the wording contained within the SPD and more specifically, the supporting document, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan - Open Space Chapter. It is requested that when referencing the development that will fund the Strategic Natural Greenspace, Local Natural Greenspace, Neighbourhood Park and Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play that specific context is given to this being residential development and the draft housing allocation under policy H4/2 in the Draft Local Plan. Furthermore, the delivery of a Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play and Neighbourhood Park should be determined based on the need for an additional play area as a part of a community consultation exercise rather than a prescriptive policy. Whilst initial consultations have commenced, further consultation is planned this year. As part of this consultation, details for the housing, allotments, play area and Nature Park will be developed and until such time the SPD policy and supporting document should remain flexible.

Overall, it is requested that a flexible approach is adopted to the open space and uses identified by the Council to be delivered at the site to ensure the viability of the scheme is not threatened.

019/2 The GM Trust for Recreation and Barratt Homes

The representation is submitted jointly by the Greater Manchester Trust for Recreation known as Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Manchester [BGCGM] and Barratt Homes [Barratt]. 1.2 The activities and objectives of BGCGM are explained in the “Prospectus” document attached as Appendix 1 to this representation. Barratt Homes will be known to the Council, they are one of the largest house-builders in the country. Barratt’s are able to offer an unrivalled track record of working in partnership with public and private sector bodies, including charitable organisations, to deliver new homes. They are familiar with the complexities of development and the need to provide holistic development solutions. 1.3 BGCGM owns a parcel of land in Salford known as the “Duncan Mathieson Playing Fields”


81



[DMPF]. BGCGM have a working relationship with Barratt and are seeking to bring the Site forward for redevelopment in such a way that ensures holistic community benefit. BGCGM and Barratt agree with the objectives of the draft Greenspace SPD set out in Paragraph 1.15. BGCGM and Barratt are of the view that these objectives can be met through the holistic approach to investment, in Greenspace, in Salford. 1.4 The DMPF site is the subject of a specific policy within the emerging Draft Salford City Local Plan – Policy H4/1. We note that paragraph 6.5 of the draft Greenspace SPD specifically references policy H4 of the emerging plan. For convenience the wording of the Policy is reproduced below:- H4/1 Duncan Mathieson playing fields, Claremont (8.6 hectares) The site will be comprehensively enhanced for recreation purposes, focusing on the provision of outdoor pitches and ancillary facilities, but potentially also including some indoor recreation facilities. A limited amount of residential development will be permitted to support financially the delivery of the recreation improvements, which will be kept to the minimum necessary and is unlikely to exceed 100 dwellings. The layout of the recreation facilities, features such as floodlights and vehicular access arrangements will all be carefully controlled to ensure that there is no significant adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residents, particularly in terms of potential noise and light pollution. The site design should also incorporate sustainable drainage features to mitigate the fluvial and surface water flood risk affecting the site. 1.5 BGCGM & Barratt Homes have objected to Policy H4/1, as it is currently drafted on the basis that it should be worded in such a way as to allow for some more flexibility in the delivery of community benefits and recreation provision. BGCGM and Barratt Homes are of the view that the careful and considered redevelopment of part of DMPF could take place in such a way as to assist with Duncan Mathieson Playing Fields – Salford City Council Draft Local Plan

The delivery of some of the improvements set out in the Open Space Chapter of Salford’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan [IDP]. 1.6 The draft Greenspace SPD supports the view reached by Barratt and BGCGM that there is no evidential basis of any need to retain the entire DMPF as “Greenspace”. Barratt and BGCGM are also of the view that there is no evidence to support the artificial ceiling of 100 dwellings referred to within the emerging draft Local Plan Policy H4. The suggestion that the number of dwellings be limited to 100 is unsound, and will not deliver improvements in recreation sought within the Claremont & Weaste area. Duncan Mathieson Playing Fields – Salford City Council Draft Local Plan

2.0 THE DUNCAN MATHIESON SITE Location 2.1 The DMPF lie within the existing urban area in the Claremont Ward, part of the Claremont and Weaste Neighbourhood Area. The general location of the site is shown below in Figure 1.

82



Figure 1 2.2 As will be seen from Figure 1, DMPF lie within the established urban area of Salford, to the north of Eccles and the south of Swinton. Main arterial transportation routes in the form of the A580 (East Lancashire Road) and the M620 motorway lie less than 2km from the site. The A580 lies 0.5 km to the north and junction 2 of the M602 motorway lies 1.4km to the south. 2.3 Access to both the Metrolink and the national rail network are available via Ladywell Metrolink Station approximately 1.8km to the south and Eccles and Swinton Railway stations 2.2km and 2.8km to the south and north respectively. 2.4 Within 400m of the DMPF, existing bus stops on Lancaster Drive and Oxford Road allow access to routes serving the following destinations including, Manchester City Centre, Swinton, Eccles , Salford Quays, Stretford, Media City , Salford Royal Hospital and Salford Central. 2.5 Existing residential streets and the footpath network mean that Light Oaks, Infant and Junior School lie less than 500m of the Site; and Ellesmere Park High School, Chatsworth & Oakwood Special School and All Hallows RC Business & Enterprise College all lie less than 1km from the site. 2.6 The Site does not lie within a Conservation Area and does not contain any nationally or locally listed buildings. The Site is not registered as Common Land or a Town/Village Green. The site does not contain any trees within it. Duncan Mathieson Playing Fields – Salford City Council Draft Local Plan

2.7 The DMPF does not lie within an Air Quality Management Area. The “Magic” data base shows that the site is not the subject of any Habitat/Ecological designations. The Environment Agency online “Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) shows that the site is unaffected by flooding issues. 2.8 In the light of the above, we have concluded that DMPF is in an accessible location in which the development of housing would be appropriate. This conclusion must be “common ground” with the council in that Policy H4/1 expressly identifies the Site as a suitable one upon which to develop housing. Indeed having regard to the location of the site and the access to facilities and services, the Site is well placed to help meet housing need in Salford City Following initial investigations, BGCGM & Barratt are of the view that there are no technical reasons to limit the number of dwellings to 100. We have also noted that there is no proposal within the IDP to improve, enhance or invest in any way in DMPF.

Current Use 2.9 The land shown hatched red on the Figure 2 below is that owned by BGCGM. The land shown hatched blue was originally part of landholding of BGCGM, but which was sold in the 1970s to Salford City Council. Figure 2 2.10 The proposed allocation Policy H4/1 excludes all the land owned by Salford City Council

83



and relates solely to land in the ownership of BGCGM, as shown in Figure 3 below. We would reiterate our view expressed in the objection to the draft Local Plan that the allocation does not follow any logical physical boundaries on the Site itself. This is shown on the photographs which follow the Figure 3; Duncan Mathieson Playing Fields – Salford City Council Draft Local Plan

Figure 3 Photograph 1 Duncan Mathieson Playing Fields – Salford City Council Draft Local Plan

Photograph 2 2.11 The proposed allocation lacks a clear and logical boundary. The land adjoining the Policy H4/1 allocation, in the ownership of Salford City Council, is “read” on the ground as a single entity with the BGCGM’s land, there is no physical distinction between the two sites and no planning reason for excluding it from consideration for development. The suggestion implicit within the draft Local Plan, that whilst the BGCGM land should be developed (at least in part) and the Salford City Council land should be unallocated and therefore remain for the large part unchanged during the life time of the plan is flawed. The draft Greenspace Strategy does not seek to distinguish between the BGCGM land and the SCC land. 2.12 That part of the Site owned by Salford City Council is currently unused for any form of activity. The BGCGM element of the site is mown and used for outdoor sports on a formal but ad-hoc basis, that is to say it is not used on a regular basis, but when used the use involves organised sports. The site contains three buildings as follows:- A Hall, used by the local Scout Association located immediately to the north of 33 Odessa

Ave falling within the land owned by Salford City Council; A disused/unusable former changing room within the land owned by BGCGM; and A single dwelling within the land owned by BGCGM, occupied by an employee of BGCGM.

2.13 We note that the Salford City Council Playing Pitch Strategy & Action Plan published in October 2015 describes both the land owned by BGCGM and that owned by the Council as “disused”. We also note that the accompanying Playing Pitch Assessment Report describes the land owned by the City Council Duncan Mathieson Playing Fields – Salford City Council Draft Local Plan as having been disused for over 15 years and that a “Feasibility study confirmed that return to active uses would not be cost effective / sustainable”. 2.14 We note paragraph 6.2 of the draft SPD states “Using the findings of the PPA, a playing pitch strategy and action plan has been developed to prioritise the improved maintenance and investment required to ensure that the city has an adequate quality and quality of playing pitches. The PPS proposes enhancements for specific sports and key sites, including ancillary facilities such as changing rooms. The PPS also proposes changes to the current use of specific sites. Unlike previous versions playing pitch strategies no longer identify an area of sports pitches required to satisfy the needs of the residential population”.

84



2.15 The DMPF site in its current condition is wholly unsuitable and unsustainable as a long term outdoor recreation site in that:- There are no changing facilities, thus the site is unable to hosts teams playing U17 and

above age groups; There is no floodlighting thus during the winter the pitch is unusable after 17.00; The grass surface is prone to flooding and requires periods of rest between play and

accordingly are at best playable twice a week. This is not uncommon with grass pitches indeed we note that in December 2015 Salford Community Leisure and the Manchester FA were compelled due to adverse weather to postpone all fixtures played on grass pitches.

2.16 We have attached as Appendix 2 a report prepared in March 2016 by Professional Sportsturf Design [PSD] relating to that part of the site owned by BGCGM. The report shows that at a minimum the cost of providing 3 senior football pitches the circa £375k. This level of investment of course ignores the fact that the Site is currently unable to provide any form of indoor changing facilities and would at best deliver 3 outdoor grass pitches, which would still be subject to the vagaries of the weather and would not provide floodlighting. 2.17 The development of artificial outdoor pitches allows for far greater levels of usage particularly where floodlighting is provided, but involves far greater levels of initial capital investment. The latest Sport England Facility Costs bulletin that the construction cost of an all-weather floodlit senior football pitch to be £935,000, with the costs rising to £1,220,000 if a senior rugby pitch is to be provided. The same bulletin records a cost of £630,000 to construct a basic 4 Team Changing Room and Club Room and an affordable 4 Court Sport Hall costing £2,215,000. None of the given figures allow for bespoke drainage solutions, ground conditions inflation beyond 2Q2016 or VAT. In our view the same conclusion may be reached regarding the BGCGM element of the Site as Salford City Council reached in the Playing Pitch Assessment regarding its own land holding that is to say return to active uses would not be cost effective/sustainable”. Duncan Mathieson Playing Fields – Salford City Council Draft Local Plan

2.18 The current site operates at a significant loss. We have set out below in tabular form the financial position with regard to the Duncan Mathieson Field, giving the direct operational position. These figures relate solely to the direct operation of the fields and make no allowance for any overheads associated with the operation of BGCGM generally. 2014/15

2015/16

Direct Income £500 £938 Direct Expenditure £20,307 £20,825 Direct Surplus/(Deficit) (£19,807) (£19,887)

035/1 Peel Holdings (Land and

Peel’s only comment on the Draft SPD is to highlight an error in the drafting of the document. Page 12 of document entitled ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan – Open Space Chapter’ dated June

The site has been identified as an ‘Air Field’, as it has in several previous

85



Property) Ltd (Turley)

2017 and published alongside the Draft SPD provides a plan which maps all ‘greenspaces’ within the city. This includes the site of City Airport, owned and operated by Peel.City Airport is a privately owned and managed commercial and leisure aviation facility. It does not function as greenspace and does not meet the definition of any of the typologies of greenspace considered within the SPD. It is therefore requested that the map at page 12 be amended to remove City Airport. For the avoidance of doubt, this relates to the area as shown on the enclosed plan. I trust this amendment will be made and reflected in the final version of the SPD.

baseline open space audits, due to it being available for authorised leisure pursuits related to aviation. The status of the site is not considered to have changed significantly to warrant removal from the baseline audit. The audit description has now been amended to ‘Air Field (private)’.Similar to other typologies such as golf courses and cemeteries, the site only appears in the baseline and is not identified as contributing to any of the local recreation standards in the SPD.

036/1 MHE Investments (How Planning)

These representations are submitted in relation to the site at Brackley Golf Course, Brackley. We respectfully request that these representations are taken into account in the preparation of the next version of the Greenspace Strategy SPD. BACKGROUND TO THE SITE By way of background, the freehold of the site is owned by SCC and the leasehold is controlled by MHE via an agreement between SCC and MHE. MHE has funded the running of the site as a municipal golf course since 2007, which was open to members of the public. However, as of March 2016 the site has closed its operations. Since 2007, MHE has carried out wide ranging advertisement marketing campaigns (which have included promotional membership offers) however there has been very limited take-up with the membership extending to 15 members only at its peak. Despite investment by our client, the club house is in a very poor state of disrepair and due to the lack of demand of golfers, it is not viable to replace the clubhouse with an upgraded facility. Since 2007, MHE has continued to fund the running of the golf course (including paying staff wages, maintenance and machinery costs and the costs associated with the upkeep of the golf course) despite it losing over £40,000 per annum. In summary due to lack of demand and despite substantial investment, the site is not financially viable to continue as a golf club and has therefore closed its operations as of March 2016. MHE has entered into discussions with Urban Vision and SCC's Estate team over the future of the site given the serious lack of viability for the continued use of the land as a golf course. In parallel with these discussions, MHE has appointed a professional team of consultants and pre-application discussions have taken place with Urban Vision and SCC regarding the principle of redeveloping the site for housing. Representations have previously been submitted by HOW Planning on behalf of MHE to promote the site for a housing allocation in response to the Draft Local Plan 'A Fairer City' (January 2017).

The interactive map online does not identify Brackley Golf Course because as a golf course it falls outside of the types of open space that the local recreation standards apply to.

The site would continue to have some protection as a recreation site in accordance with saved policy R1 of the adopted Salford Unitary Development Plan. The draft Local Plan acknowledges the status of the site and makes it clear that replacement open space will be required on-site and off-site to minimise net losses as far as possible.

Some new open space facilities will be considered necessary to be provided within the proposed development to ensure that new residents will have access a good range of provision. A new play area (LEAP) will be one of these facilities. If such facilities were not provided on-site this would create

86



THE ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN The saved policies of the Salford Unitary Development Plan (UDP) make up the current Development Plan Policy for Salford. In accordance with the adopted proposals map, the site is designated as: i) A Wildlife Corridor; and ii) A Mineral Safeguarding Area.

EMERGING SALFORD LOCAL PLAN The Council's Draft Local Plan allocates the site for housing under policy H3/6 as denoted by the orange colouring in Figure 2 below.

The policy allocates the site for around 500 dwellings and is worded as follows: “The site will be developed for around 500 houses. Any development will need to: 1) Provide full compensation for the loss of the golf course, both through the provision of high quality on-site recreation facilities, including a play area and public amenity spaces connected to existing public rights of way, and off-site improvements to existing recreation facilities; 2) Mitigate the potential impacts of noise and air pollution from the M61, including through the provision of a significant landscape buffer that maintains a green appearance from that motorway; 3) Retain the semi-improved natural grassland around the edges of the site, make provision for protected species, and enhance the ability of wildlife to move through the site; and 4) Set aside land for a new primary school, unless it can be demonstrated that sufficient additional school places can be provided off-site within the local area to meet the likely demand generated by the new housing”. The representations prepared and submitted by HOW Planning in response to the Draft Local Plan 'A Fairer City' (January 2017) strongly supported the principle of the sites allocation for housing, however disputed the amount of housing the draft policy allocates to the site. It was concluded that MHE did not support the requirement of the policy to deliver around 500 houses and requested that this was increased to 780 houses as a result of masterplanning work done to date.

GREENSPACE STRATEGY It is understood that the draft SPD that is being consulted on consists of two related documents: Draft Salford Greenspace Strategy SPD which provides updated policy and guidance to

supplement existing policies in the Salford Unitary Development Plan and introduces three new local recreation standards that were proposed by the Draft Local Plan in 2016.

Open Space Chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which is a separate document that identifies sites which contribute towards the local recreation standards and site specific

unnecessary new deficiency areas. Other replacement facilities are likely to be more appropriate through off-site financial contributions such as for local sports pitches.

87



proposals for refurbishments and new facilities.

The interactive map available online does not identify the site as a type of greenspace which is supported by MHE, given the progress made in terms of redeveloping the site for housing. The Open Space Chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan supporting document however does propose Brackley Golf Course provides a new Local Equipped Area of Play within the site. It is also identified to deliver new allotment plots. This is discussed further below. Local Equipped Areas for Play (LEAP) Policy GS8 (Local Equipped Area for Play) of the Greenspace Strategy states the following: "All households should be within 500 metres walking distance of a Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP). A LEAP is defined as: Providing a facility for parents and toddlers/young children (primarily aged 4-8 years old); Having a minimum size of 400 square metres; and Containing a minimum of 5 pieces of play equipment appropriate to the target age group.

There should be a distance between the play space and the curtilage of the nearest residential property of at least 30 metres. Existing LEAPs will be protected and enhanced. New LEAPs may need to be brought forward through on-site provision as part of major new housing developments." The supporting document states that the City Council is changing its approach to the delivery of play areas across the City. Three new sites have been proposed to meet the LEAP standard to be provided as part of new housing allocations proposed in Salford Draft Local Plan, including Brackley Golf Course. Response We consider that each site should be judged on its own merits with reference to site-specific considerations. By seeking to provide a LEAP onsite and implement a strict 30m buffer will impact on the delivery of a residential scheme at the site as it is considered that the Council’s proposed approach could reduce flexibility. Furthermore, housing developments need to remain viable after open space contributions have been included. On-site provision within a development (added to the 30 metre buffer required around play spaces) impacts the development potential of sites and therefore their viability. The viability of development schemes is a key consideration introduced by paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF. The guidance makes clear that the cumulative impacts of these standards and policies should facilitate development throughout the economic cycle. In addition, there is sufficient land adjoining the site under the control of the Council which can deliver these requirements. The Council’s Greenspace Audit 2015/16 (April 2016), at Figure 1 identifies these areas as existing greenspaces. The greenspace adjoining the site are:

88



Amblecote Playing Fields (28 and 33) 1.6 hectares to the south of the site off Clarke Crescent (27) 1.2 hectares to the south of the site off Rothwell Lane 0.5 hectares to the south of the immediate site (23)

The table below summarises the Councils own assessment taken from the adopted Greenspace Strategy SPD as to what is existing and proposed in terms of open space provision at these adjoining greenspaces. HOW Planning has undertaken a site visit to each of these greenspaces and the table also contains HOW Planning’s own assessment of the current open space provision provided at these adjoining greenspaces.

Greenspace Area

Greenspace Strategy SPD (Map 15)

HOW Assessment

Existing Proposed Amblecote Playing Fields (site 28 and 33)

Priority Sports Pitch

LEAP and NEAP

The greenspace that adjoins Anchor Lane on its western boundary is in a reasonable condition with cut grass and pathways. The proposed LEAP or NEAP however has not been provided. There are a number of football pitches marked out on Amblecote Playing Fields and there is parking available. However, there are no formal footpaths or changing facilities provided onsite. Clearly, this site could benefit from investment to improve the facilities available and deliver a NEAP or a LEAP.

Land off Clarke Crescent (site 27)

Nothing specified.

LEAP This greenspace does not contain a LEAP as proposed. There are no landscaped areas or formal footpaths. Overall it is in a fairly poor state and offers very little to the local community. Therefore there is a clear opportunity to improve this greenspace and deliver the proposed LEAP.

Land off Rothwell Lane

Site not included in Greenspace

Site not included in Greenspace

This site includes an old tennis/netball court which is in need of investment. There are also two old football goalposts

89



Strategy SPS Strategy SPS on site although no pitch is marked out. There are no landscaped areas or formal footpaths. The site is in a very poor condition and is in need of investment to allow the public to safely utilise it.

It is clear that there are opportunities to enhance the existing open spaces adjoining the application site and provide LEAP's on these. These open spaces are underutilised, unmaintained and are in need of investment. The open space improvements proposed for these greenspaces in the adopted Greenspace Strategy SPD have not been delivered and there is an opportunity for the proposed residential development to make a financial contribution to assist with the delivery of some of the proposed open space initiatives. In summary, MHE do not support the provision of a LEAP onsite.

Allotments Policy GS11 (Allotments) states that new residential developments should contribute to the achievement of a minimum of 5,000 sqm of allotments per 1,000 households, based on a minimum of 10 plots provided on new sites being 125 sqm in size. The justification states that this standard is derived from the National Allotment Society standard, which recommends a minimum local standard relating to the number of allotment plots that are available per 1,000 population. It is noted that in the Open Space Chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan supporting document, further detail is provided on allotments and specific reference is made to the 25 existing allotment sites within Salford. This confirms that there are currently a total of 630 plots across the city. There are 8 sites proposed for allotments which includes Brackley Golf Course. Table 8.2 (Proposed Allotment Sites) in the Open Space Chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan document describes the site as providing new allotment plots within the site which will be funded by 'on-site housing development'. The issue of whether to include allotment provision as part of developer contributions should be fully considered by the Council with particular reference to scheme viability. It must also be taken into account that not all schemes will be suitable for allotments and therefore flexibility needs to be applied. This is particularly the case at Brackley Golf Course and the Council should consider other sites adjoining the site under the control of the Council which can deliver these requirements, as detailed above.

SUMMARY In summary, MHE supports the site not being identified as a greenspace in the Draft Greenspace Strategy SPD. However, MHE do not support the provision of a LEAP or allotments onsite and it is clear that

90



there are opportunities to enhance the existing open spaces adjoining the application site. These open spaces are underutilised, unmaintained and are in need of investment. Overall, it is requested that a flexible approach is adopted to the open space and uses identified by the Council to be delivered at the site to ensure the viability of the scheme is not threatened.

037/1 A & B Kirby We wish to add our objection to those of many others to the proposed change in green belt status in Boothstown.Although we recognise the need for housing in Salford we feel that too much will be sacrificed to obtain this. Surely all Brown Field sites should be used first and empty houses , of which there are many, re furnished and occupied and nearer the city centre, thus reducing the need for travelling to work etc.

1,000 new homes will inevitably mean at least another 2,000 cars on our already grossly congested roads. - the M60 has recently been reported as being the most congested and polluted motorway in the country and the East Lancashire Road is similar to a car park at peak times.Boothstown & Worsley were always known as “Salford’s Lungs" & a haven for Salford's residents who came to enjoy the “countryside” and the prolific wild life which will be lost if this plan goes ahead.There is already a shortage of schools, Doctor's and Dentist surgeries etc. and it will be difficult to fill these places - who would choose to live & work in such a polluted & over- populated area?We trust this plan will be reassessed and Green Belt status will remain as originally intended - a place to be enjoyed by all.

Green Belt and other protective designations and proposed new housing allocations will be considered through the production of Salford Local Plan.


The key recommendation from CPRE Lancashire to Salford City Council is that as much land as possible should benefit from this Greenspace Strategy SPD. We question why the existing countryside and green space shown with the red boundary in the map extract (below) is not included in the Greenspace Strategy SPD. We consider this land as important, and believe it should to be captured under Local Plan Policy GS2 – Strategic Natural Greenspaces.

Extract map: Salford Green Spaces

There are currently no publicly accessible sites of 20 hectares within Chat Moss that could be considered to contribute towards the Strategic Natural Greenspace local standard. The Biodiversity Heartland will be considered through Salford Local Plan alongside future opportunities for additional natural greenspaces.

91



023/2 Canal and River Trust

The Trust notes the following projects within the document and welcome their inclusion:ESA/003 Manchester, Bolton & Bury Canal (East Salford) - Pedestrian/cycle routes connecting the river with the canal (£100,000) SWI/009 Manchester, Bolton & Bury Canal (Swinton) � Pedestrian/cycle routes connecting the river with the canal (£100,000)

Comments of support are noted

038/1 Geoff Ainsworth 1. With reference to actual site circumstances applying in Claremont and Weaste the robustness

92



of the greenspace audit, upon which the draft strategy is based, appears questionable. The audit respectively:-i incorrectly identifies the greater (privately owned) part of the Duncan Mathieson Playing fields as being in active use (hence making a positive contribution to playing pitch provision). This element, as the publicly owned element, has however been unused, (semi) derelict, for some considerable period with active use apparently positively discouraged by the owners- who appear to want to favour the prospect of built development.ii Fails to identify the existence, and heavily subsidised, established existing use of the De la Salle Playing fields.2. There appears no justification , in the context of defined shortfalls in current provision, for the apparent abandonment of the collective strategic objectives set out in the 2006 Greenspace Strategy for Claremont and Weaste for the combined resources of Duncan Mathieson, De La Salle and Stott Lane Playing fields. In this connection , notwithstanding the apparent city wide successes of the 2006 strategy, it is most disappointing to note within Claremont and Weaste - and the west of the latter in particular- an apparent deterioration of over time of useable provision against actual and proposed standards.

3. By definition of the apparently deficient audit assessment the draft strategy fails to have appropriately addressed alternative possibilities/ options for mitigating defined shortfalls in provision to the potential benefit to the greenspace and wider circumstances of west Claremont and Weaste and East Eccles e.g.i. The draft is silent in respect of the (preferred) strategic team game facility objectives for the Duncan Mathieson Playing Fields that were outlined in recent circular correspondence to nearby residents from the Director of Planning......and which was itself worryingly silent on specific quantitative objectives.ii. There has been no apparent assessment of realising e.g. the (semi) natural greenspace, or urban woodland, and biodiversity benefit of proposals focused on enhancement of the land associated with the natural watercourse resource that exists within the boundary of the non-publicly owned element of what is known as the Duncan Mathieson playing fields.iii. The draft discounts without reasoning the prospects for realising local amenity space facility, or other greenspace benefit such as tree planting, at the De la Salle playing fields.iv. There has been no apparent assessment of alternative strategy for Oakwood Park. and the potential local environmental/ air quality and alternative facility benefits that could potentially be realised via relocation of the present ( rugby) pitch provision to an underused facility elsewhere.......enabling a wide range of alternative options - from enhanced urban woodland -with associated walking/ pedal bike trails -to alternative forms of recreational facility - complementary to what is provided / practicable elsewhere.

4. With specific reference to Stott Lane playing fields (and the associated assessment of future

Duncan Mathieson Playing Fields has at least one sports pitch in active use for training purposes. There is agreement that the site is underused and the city council is in discussion with the owners to encourage investment in and greater use of the site.


93



use for team game playing field only) the identified strategic need for resources to secure enhancement of pitch quality( and hence prospectively reduce the resources available for/ to alternative provision) is surprising...... given that respectively historically i. the loss of that element of the former playing fields that was conceded to hospital car park use was done so apparently on condition that alternative replacement top quality pitch provision would be made, ii. the identified need for associated educational establishment use would suggest that an appropriate quality management regime should have and continue to be operational via that establishment?

Monitoring and Review011/5 CPRE

LancashireSalford must established (sic) targets with which it can be assessed against in the future. Monitoring of performance is essential to ensure Salford City Council meets, or exceeds national standards and successfully achieves an improved natural environment in the future.

The city council undertakes regular open space audits and monitors performance compared to the local recreation standards, many of which are based on voluntary national standards.

Future Green Infrastructure SPD018/8 Groundwork Is the SPD an opportunity to incorporate a design policy around incorporating green infrastructure

into building design (green roofs, green walls etc.) to either increase GI in areas which have an open space deficit or off-set loss of GI? Link to Paragraph 3.25 of Open Space Chapter in IDP.

In due course the city council intends to produce a Green Infrastructure SPD for public consultation, which will have a wider scope including green roofs and green walls and will supplement relevant policies of Salford Local Plan

013/3 Natural England Green InfrastructureNatural England repeats advice from an earlier review of Salford CC’s Greenspace Strategy SPD (ref: 145775) that the Draft Greenspace SPD should be updated to include the term ‘Green Infrastructure’ (GI) along with a broad definition of GI. This should be in line with any GI strategy covering your area and should be linked in with existing GI policies and strategies, including biodiversity policies and strategies, as well as climate change adaptation policies. The Greenspace SPD is an excellent opportunity to assist in the delivery of the multi-functional benefits of GI. The National Planning Policy Framework states that local planning authorities should plan ‘positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure’. The Planning Practice Guidance on Green Infrastructure provides more detail on this. Urban green space provides multi-functional benefits. It contributes to coherent and resilient ecological networks, allowing species to move around within, and between, towns and the countryside with even small patches of habitat benefitting movement. Urban GI is also recognised as one of the most effective tools available to us in managing environmental risks such as flooding and heat waves. Greener neighbourhoods and improved access to nature can

In due course the city council intends to produce a Green Infrastructure SPD for public consultation, which will have a much wider scope and will supplement relevant policies of Salford Local Plan

94



also improve public health and quality of life and reduce environmental inequalities.

Biodiversity enhancement This Draft Greenspace Strategy SPD could consider incorporating features which are beneficial to wildlife within development, in line with paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. You may wish to consider providing guidance on, for example, the level of bat roost or bird box provision within the built structure, or other measures to enhance biodiversity in the urban environment. An example of good practice includes the Exeter Residential Design Guide SPD, which advises (amongst other matters) a ratio of one nest/roost box per residential unit.

Landscape enhancement The Draft Greenspace Strategy SPD may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green infrastructure provision and access to and contact with nature. Landscape characterisation and townscape assessments, and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for planners and developers to consider how new development might makes a positive contribution to the character and functions of the landscape through sensitive siting and good design and avoid unacceptable impacts. For example, it may be appropriate to seek that, where viable, trees should be of a species capable of growth to exceed building height and managed so to do, and where mature trees are retained on site, provision is made for succession planting so that new trees will be well established by the time mature trees die.

Other design considerations The NPPF includes a number of design principles which could be considered, including the impacts of lighting on landscape and biodiversity (para 125).

038/2 Geoff Ainsworth In general, city wide, terms it is suggested that the scope of the Draft Strategy could usefully be expanded to encapsulate expressly stated urban area/ street tree planting and associated management plan objectives.......in the best interest of e.g. endeavouring to enhance air quality, mitigate noise , securing the amenity benefit of trees in localities where the provision of dedicated greenspace is impractical and also to ensure the long term protection of the amenity of existing street tree planting especially in localities where such trees might be hearing the end of their usual lifespan.

Comments noted.

Salford City Council...barnes construction x barratt homes x x barton moss protest group x x barton...

Documents

Transcript of Salford City Council...barnes construction x barratt homes x x barton moss protest group x x barton...