HOME   ARCHIVE   GALLERY   SHOP   ABOUT US      
 

 
SALFORD COUNCIL TRANSPARENCY BYPASS ON HUGE ORDSALL HOUSING BLOCKS
 

Star date: 4th June 2018

PLANNING TRANSPARENCY NON-EXISTENT AS COUNCIL CONSIDERS PLANS FOR HUGE ORDSALL BLOCKS

This Thursday, Salford City Council planning panel will consider plans for 296 townhouses and apartments in three blocks up to 23 storeys high in Upper Wharf Street in Ordsall.

Thanks to Council policies, the huge development will bring finance for just three affordable houses, while 'viability' issues means the developer will be escaping around 600,000 in planning payments. But, while other councils are bowing to public pressure over planning transparency, Salford is actually getting worse.

Full details here...


Salford Council Transparency
click image to enlarge

The Salford Star really is sounding like a broken record when it comes to developers not paying planning fees. However, while the city struggles financially, the Star just has to keep pointing out the massive monetary losses as the concrete jungle expands...

...And that is not getting any easier, as Salford City Council, despite its 'great eight' claim to 'transparency', continues to muddy the real figures that developers should be coughing up for their wall-to-wall profit farms known as apartment blocks.

The latest contender for fee avoidance is Outwood Developments 2 Ltd which is applying for planning permission this week to build 296 flats and townhouses (283 flats and 13 townhouses) in three blocks rising from eight to 23 storeys high on Upper Wharf Street in Ordsall, near Oldfield Road.

Because of Salford Council's own planning policies, the developer doesn't have to pay fees for education or affordable houses to put up any of its apartments. It only has to pay for these things on its houses twenty per cent of 13 houses, which is three affordable houses and 36,645 in education payments, plus 50,365 for 'open space'.

These figures are not provided in the report; the Star has had to work it out from the Council's own tables...

"The development is likely to result in increased demand for access to public realm and public open space within the vicinity of the site, as a result of the increase in residents" states the Council's planning officer's report "Planning obligations have therefore been sought to mitigate against this impact.

"With regard to education and affordable housing contributions, the level of planning obligations required in this case is applied to the 13 townhouse units only. In accordance with the Planning Obligations SPD, education and affordable housing contributions are not applied to the apartments within the scheme."

As far as the apartments go, according to the Council's own tables, the developer should be paying an estimated 1.367million in planning contributions for transport, public realm and open space.

With this fee plus the education and open space payments for the houses, the total is around 1.454million, as estimated by the Star based on official Council tables...but the developer is being asked for just 864,000 with an added 'clawback' agreement that if profits are sky high, some more money might be forthcoming.

"A review of the applicant's viability appraisal undertaken by the City Council's consultant surveyors concluded that the applicant's assertions that the scheme cannot support the full level of contribution sought is sound" the report adds "On this basis the applicant and the City Council have agreed a contribution of 864,000."

Where has that 864,000 figure come from? It appears to have just been plucked out of the air. No figures or breakdowns are provided for any of the payments...nor where these Section 106 payments might be going; only that they "would be directed towards projects that have been agreed in writing with the Chair of Planning Panel" (Councillor Ray Mashiter).

So, let's get this right about the 'transparent' Salford Council...Three massive blocks of 296 apartments and townhouses, with payment for just three affordable properties (not specified) and education payments (not specified), and reduced planning fee of 864,000 (no breakdown), with these payments going to non-specified projects at the discretion of Councillor Mashiter

Back in the day, at least Council planning officers used to lay out the exact fees due, so that Salford council tax payers could actually see how much they were being ripped off. Now, as other councils are beginning to bow to public pressure and publish things like 'viability assessments', Salford City Council is going the other way...while having a great big 'transparency' banner on the Civic Centre...

Will any councillors sat on the planning panel this Thursday question any of this? Of course they won't!

Meanwhile, at the same planning meeting this week, Urban Splash will be applying to increase the number of apartments on its Springfield Lane site from one hundred to 150. As such, the Section 106 payments will increase from 100,000 to 150,000, or just 1,000 per apartment, plus a 'clawback' agreement.


See also previous Salford Star article - Salford Council Banner Declares 'Transparency' Despite Everything Being Secret - click here

Update: 8th June: Salford planning panel councillors told not to question Council planning policy - click here

Alice wrote
at 14:36:09 on 06 June 2018
I am amazed to read that the Council is doing it again...bowing down to Developers with apparent little thought or consideration for the Salford residents trying to get together the deposit to buy a home. .....an actual house, not an apartment, but a house in which they can build a life maybe with children. Apartments are not suitable for children because they rarely have a garden or playing space. They are usually the smallest space possible to maximise the number of units. .....that's what battery hens' buildings are judged on! Increasing the profits is lower down the list than quality of life. I am a Labour supporter but ashamed of these decisions. Why three affordable houses....why not insist on 33 or more and fewer apartments. I know the answer and it's not a social one!

Bob the regular wrote
at 15:55:42 on 04 June 2018
They might not be building council flats any more , but this block sure looks like em. It reminds me of the block at the end of cross lane, before the cladding gang got on the job.

Gareth L wrote
at 14:14:26 on 04 June 2018
When will Ordsall be rebranded Media City or Quays 2?

The Fat End of The Wedge wrote
at 14:12:54 on 04 June 2018
I think Salford Council is fairly transparent - anyone can see they are incompetent.. Seriously though, whenever I travel into Manchester by road, rail or tram, I inevitably pass a new development site for the latest tower block. That being either within Salford, or Manchester city centre area. Some now seem so close to each other that somebody in one block could almost reach over and touch somebody on the balcony in an adjacent building. The view for 25 - 50% of residents will be into the apartment on the same level in the adjacent building. Lovely. My most recent visit was by tram last Thursday afternoon, and despite it being nice and sunny quite often we were in shadow due to the over-development along the route, and darkness appeared to have descended over some areas. Nice to see they have started digging up Pomona, presumably to shove another monstrosity into the air... How I wish I could afford to live in one...

Please enter your comment below:
 
 
 
Salford Star Hoodies
Salford Star contact
Deli Lama
advertisement
 
Contact us
phone: 07957 982960
Facebook       Twitter
 
 
Recent comments
article: SALFORD CITY COUNCIL SPENT ALMOST 10,000 ON MIPIM PROPERTY JAUNT
Superb picture. It seems to capture the mind of our great leader. ... [more]
article: NATIONAL GRID WILL NOT RE-THINK DEMOLITION OF SALFORD DIRTY OLD TOWN GASWORKS
The heritage -cultural value of these gasholder frames would only enhance the profitability of a scheme with flats inside.Lets fac... [more]
article: NATIONAL GRID WILL NOT RE-THINK DEMOLITION OF SALFORD DIRTY OLD TOWN GASWORKS
The children of today will have nothing to remind them of what was once a great city, and it's all down to greed, greed, and more ... [more]
article: NATIONAL GRID WILL NOT RE-THINK DEMOLITION OF SALFORD DIRTY OLD TOWN GASWORKS
As long as its not more Apartments... [more]
article: NATIONAL GRID WILL NOT RE-THINK DEMOLITION OF SALFORD DIRTY OLD TOWN GASWORKS
A park doesnt make money. Overpriced goldfish bowl apartments do. ... [more]
 
 
 
 
 
Days
Hours
Minutes
Seconds
 
 
 

Donate

Help the Salford Star...

all donations welcome

 
 

More articles...

SALFORD CITY COUNCIL SPENT ALMOST 10,000 ON MIPIM PROPERTY JAUNT

Star date: 21st June 2018

COUNCIL SPENT 5,750 ON MIPIM PR IN SOUTH OF FRANCE

Salford Council spent almost 10,000 on the jaunt to the MIPIM property orgy in Cannes. A newly published contract register shows that, as well as the 4,022 costs for the City Mayor and two officers to go to the South of France paid by unknown private sector companies, the Council also spent 5,750 on marketing and PR for MIPIM.

The contract register also shows the Council is spending 9,500 on a 'Salford Story' press consultant, 118,000 on its failed 'digital community hub', over 14,000 on a 'leadership programme' and, er, 25,000 on milk and bread?

Full details here...

NATIONAL GRID WILL NOT RE-THINK DEMOLITION OF SALFORD DIRTY OLD TOWN GASWORKS

Star date: 20th June 2018

'WE RECOGNISE THE HISTORIC INTEREST'...BUT THEY'RE BEING DEMOLISHED!

Despite musical protests and petitions, the National Grid is adamant that the Salford gas holders, made famous in the Dirty Old Town anthem, will be demolished.

Campaigners are asking for the Grid to re-think a new use for the structures, like in many other towns and cities, but the company states that while "We recognise the historic interest in the Salford gasholder...the structure is being dismantled..."

Full details here...

SALFORD COUNCIL REFUSES TO REVEAL WHO PAID FOR CITY MAYOR TRIP TO SOUTH OF FRANCE

Star date: 19th June 2018

COUNCIL BLOCKS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST ON 4,000 MIPIM TRIP

Salford City Council has refused to answer a Salford Star Freedom of Information request on which private company paid the 4,022 costs for City Mayor Paul Dennett and two staff to go to the South of France for the MIPIM property event.

The Council states that "the commercial interests of the Council outweigh that of the public interest in disclosure". The Salford Star is to appeal the decision.

Full details here...

DEVASTATING SURVEY OF NORTH WEST COUNCIL WORKERS SHOWS LOCAL SERVICES COLLAPSING

Star date: 18th June 2018

OVER 80% OF COUNCIL WORKERS HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN SERVICES AND ALMOST 50% THINKING OF LEAVING THEIR JOBS

A survey of almost 1,500 local council workers in the North West reveals that 81% have no confidence in the future of local services, 49% are thinking of leaving their jobs, 54% believe their council no longer delivers quality services, and 45% think that their employer doesn't make the right decisions for the public.

The other results of the survey by UNISON to coincide with its local government conference make equally depressing reading, as the union states that "Vital local services in the North West are collapsing".

Full details here...

SALFORD TIME OUT FOR CARERS

Star date: 18th June 2018

TRIPS, CAKES, MASSAGE, ADVICE AND CHAT AS CARERS TAKE TIME OUT

"I was absolutely weary...I needed to get out of the house" Ernie

Caring for a loved one is indeed a labour of love but it can also be life consuming and draining. So a group called Time Out For Carers is making a difference, running weekly sessions where escapism is the order of the day.

There's free massages, trips out, advice on allowances, tea and coffee and cakes, but, most importantly, relaxed informal chats with carers who are all in the same position.

Full details here...

 



written and produced by Salfordians for Salfordians
with attitude and love xxx