Tag Archives: planning

What do almost 800 residents and businesses really think about the Carrington Relief Road?

Posted on by One comment

by Julie Hay (FOCM Committee Member)

FOCM has analysed the responses to Trafford Council’s recent planning application consultation on the proposed CRR.  The results are astonishing, given that we have repeatedly been told by the Council that this new road is desired by residents to “relieve traffic congestion”.  Yet local residents sent in responses to this planning application in their hundreds confirming that they do not agree. This is consistent with the feedback to the previous Trafford consultation and the Places for Everyone consultation responses. 

The results of Trafford’s previous consultation clearly show that almost 77% of residents are not in favour of the road. The planning application responses were even more stark.

Of the almost 800 responses, we found only 3 that were neutral (had grave reservations but stated they are not wholly opposed in principal), a further 3 are in support and the remainder objected without reservation. 

The 3 neutral responses were firms which are located in the area and these, along with several other companies, express concerns about how they will be able to operate when the CRR and its construction impacts their vehicles’ routes and staff access.  Several of them state that joint planning and co-operation, initially promised by the Council, has worryingly not materialised.  Some state the Council has changed its plans after consultation, which they feel is “underhand and deceitful”.  Some say plans for the CRR conflict with their own plans.  United Utilities express their dismay that the plans for CRR take no account of their installations, such as mains outlets and are bound to cause problems and infringe laws as they stand.  They request that the Council begin to work with them in spite of having, so far, failed to take this obvious step. 

The majority of respondents are from households in Partington, Carrington, Sale, Urmston, Stretford, Lymm, Warburton, Warrington and Greater Manchester.  They express a wide range of concerns about the proposals for this 2.7 mile road, and a high proportion feel that, at either end of it (the east and west-bound A6144), the areas will experience increased traffic congestion and pollution.  Partington residents are well represented and are particularly concerned about traffic.  

Residents are aware that traffic cutting through from the M60 to the M6 (and vice versa) will increase the volume on their already busy roads, thus adversely affecting their communities.  Some objections are from local councillors, who state the proposals contradict the National Policy and Planning Framework.  They also argue that the short CRR will simply link two bottlenecks, one at the Spur Road in Ashton on Mersey and the other at the already traffic ridden centre of Partington. 

The horse community (over 1,000 horses are stabled on and around the moss), including a riding school for the disabled, are likewise unanimously not in favour, as well as animal related charities. 

Amongst other objections, many quote the minimum £132 million cost, the vast majority of which will be funded by the public sector, with the Council being responsible for any unforeseen expenditure at a time of high financial pressure and very high Council Tax increases. 

Many are aware that the road is being constructed in preparation for thousands of houses, warehouses and other roads to be built on a previously protected carbon sink, which the government’s adviser (Natural England) considers to be a restorable, deep peat irreplaceable habitat, home to many endangered species.  Trafford’s own documentation confirms that the road will cause “Countyscale” decline to already red listed species!

Given that there should be a focus on climate mitigation, nature’s recovery and the health of our communities, why, over the past 10 or more years, hasn’t Trafford considered alternative, more sustainable transport solutions?

With all the above in mind, we’d like you to ask yourselves, WHO is actually in favour of this financially and environmentally harmful road, which benefits only those who will make profits and dividends from development? 

The Greater Manchester Green Belt Lie!

Posted on by Leave a comment

There has been lots of commentary about Stockport’s withdrawal from the Greater Manchester Spatial Plan (Places for Everyone, or PfE) since they made the decision in 2020, especially about the consequential risk that being out of the plan will lead to more Green Belt release and speculative development.  The same threats are being made to those who, more recently, want to remove Oldham from PfE, with some Councillors suggesting the arguments in favour of withdrawal are misleading residents and that this approach “would lead to further developments on the greenbelt”.

Breaking News!

It doesn’t matter whether you are in or out of PfE that risk is still there.  Trafford’s rejection of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) on retained Green Belt has been approved on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate, despite participation in PfE that supposedly gave protection to that land!

Given the £millions of public money spent on Places for Everyone over the more than 10 years it took to bring the plan to fruition, why hasn’t the media picked up on this issue and who is auditing this failure to achieve even the basic aims of the plan?

Places for Everyone is supposed to be a brownfield first plan, it is supposed to protect retained Green Belt from development, it is supposed to help resolve the housing crisis in Greater Manchester. 

It does none of those things!

Green Belt allocations are coming forward across the region (much reported in local press and the MEN) and are being approved in advance of all the swathes of brownfield land available for development (despite huge amounts of public money being made available to regenerate that previously developed land).

Retained Green Belt is not protected by participation in the PfE plan. In the particular case mentioned above, the Planning Inspector used the Government’s ‘Grey Belt’ rules to assert that it is appropriate development.  There were no concerns raised about the number of fires that have occurred on such developments, including the BESS fire in Liverpool that burned for 59 hours, or more recent fires in Essex and Aberdeen.  At least there will be plenty of water available from the River Mersey should a fire break out, but All Saints Catholic Primary school is just down-wind of the site, so alarms should be raised to alert the school and local residents if a fire or the associated toxic fumes are released.  Nothing was mentioned about this by the Planning Inspectorate, which seems to be blindly allowing as much development as possible to support the Government’s war on nature and communities.

There are many ways to resolve the housing crisis, none of which require the release of Green Belt.  These are outlined in the Community Planning Alliance Homes for Everyone Report. 

The Government and Greater Manchester’s leadership are explicitly ignoring the data that shows:

  • There is sufficient brownfield land available to deliver at least 1.2m homes nationwide
  • There are 1.55m empty homes across England and Wales (including 70,000 homes owned by councils and housing associations)
  • There are an estimated 165,000 empty commercial properties that could be turned into houses and/or flats
  • More innovative solutions could also be looked at, such as promoting the 26m empty bedrooms in the UK that could provide income for the householder and a place to live for someone on a waiting list.

Shockingly, there are many sites which have been granted planning permission but have not been developed that could provide over 1m new homes – yet there is no impetus from the Government to ensure these sites are brought forward BEFORE any Green Belt is released.

Finally, the biggest issue with the housing crisis is the lack of genuinely affordable homes (social or Council housing).  This is an issue that has been disregarded for many years and the current Government has not even set a target to ensure Councils increase the number of these homes to address the huge and growing waiting lists.  Places for Everyone should have been renamed ‘Places for those who can afford to buy’ because the target for all affordable housing was removed from policy during the modifications process and the target for social housing was removed from the plan altogether!

We have frequently highlighted the impact on nature’s recovery, climate mitigation and our future food security when Places for Everyone was adopted by the Greater Manchester leadership in March 2024.  The consequence of the loss of environmentally and ecologically rich Green Belt land which provides all these benefits, along with the other issues set out above, shows the extent of the betrayal of future generations that is now becoming increasingly obvious.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill (published by the Government on 11th March 2025) intensifies the Government’s war on nature and communities by reducing democracy and weakening protections for flora and fauna.  It introduces Spatial Development Strategies, similar to Places for Everyone, but without the consultation previously required.  We’ll say more about this in a future blog, but it appears to be yet another Developer’s Charter, as someone else succinctly put it – another Government initiative providing

Developer Net Gain!

Trafford has available sites for affordable housing, so why are they not being built?

Posted on by 2 comments

by Lorraine Eagling

The New Carrington Masterplan will result in the loss of a 335-hectare peat moss, Grade 2 agricultural land, woodlands and wetlands which will have dire consequences for local biodiversity and Trafford Council’s ability to be net zero by 2038.  These important habitats are to be concreted over and replaced with 5,000 houses and 350,000sqm of warehousing.

There is no doubt that there is a crisis in the availability of genuinely affordable housing (that is social/council housing) but Trafford and Greater Manchester appear to be planning to continue to build for investors, second home owners and airbnbs!

Building on a peat moss is not the solution to the affordable housing crisis.  Research from CPRE has shown that there are enough ‘shovel-ready’ brownfield sites in the UK for 1.2 million new homes, which will make a significant contribution to Labour’s goal of 1.5 million homes.

The Labour Government recently published five golden rules for house building which were articulated in their proposals for the updated National Planning Policy Framework.  They propose a sequential test which makes it clear that schemes must look to brownfield first, prioritising the development of previously used land wherever possible.

There are numerous suitable, local, brownfield sites, some of which are Council owned, that could be developed in advance of concreting over land that contributes to climate mitigation, nature’s recovery and our future food security.  These brownfield sites could provide much needed social housing, which is not what is proposed for the former Green Belt land on Carrington Moss. 

Here are some examples of such Council-owned sites, that are ready to be developed and are in locations that are serviced by good public transport links and local amenities (unlike the isolated area that is Carrington Moss, which the Council acknowledges is poorly served by public transport).

  • The former Depot on Higher Road, Urmston – this site has been lying empty for a number of years.  Following a freedom of information request, Trafford Council confirm this site was sold to a private developer.  To date, there have been no planning applications submitted for this site. 
  • The former Woodsend Primary School, Flixton – this site has been lying empty for a number of years.  Following a freedom of information request, Trafford Council confirm that they are looking at options to deliver homes on this site and would expect to make a decision within the next 12 months. 
  • Sale Magistrates Court, Sale – this building was demolished a number of years ago and the land sold to a private developer who submitted a planning application in December 2020.  To date, no building work has commenced.

In addition to these Council-owned sites, there are many other brownfield sites in Trafford awaiting development, as identified in the Council’s own Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (known as a SHLAA for short).

In response to our freedom of information request Trafford Council said

‘Delivery of homes including affordable homes is a priority for the Council. The Council is prioritising the delivery of homes at Council owned sites including Tamworth (Old Trafford), Former Sale Magistrates Court, Chapel Road (Sale) and Stretford Town Centre.

We also have a need to invest in other assets and services that benefit our communities. For example the Council is investing in its leisure portfolio which includes improvements at Urmston, Altrincham and Partington Leisure Centres. The receipts from land sales such as Higher Road Depot are part of the funding for these activities.’

We await progress with interest but, given that planning applications are already coming forward on former Green Belt and greenfield land, there is no doubt that the Brownfield First policy is NOT what is being pursued in Trafford!