Author: Mike Cordingley

  • Trafford’s cricket ground shambles continues

    The Manchester Evening News were last night carrying a story that Trafford Council’s handling of the planning applications for the Tesco/LCCC project and the White City supermarket determined by the same planning committee are to be challenged in the High Court.

    Trafford really have made a dog’s breakfast over this whole episode. We’ve seen the related plans for the Academy thrown out and it really feels as though the Tory Council lacks the ability to deliver large projects. There’s a telling comparison between Labour’s celebrated development of Sale Waterside and the continuously stalled progress of Urmston town centre under the Tories. We know the Tories couldn’t give tuppence for Stretford Town Centre, but even when they find something they want to get behind in the north of the borough, in this case the Cricket Club, they’ve turned the delivery into such a shambles.

    The case against a super-sized Tesco at that location was so compelling, it doesn’t surprise me that Derwent Holdings are challenging the rejection of their proposal.

    And it’s not only Tory ineptitude that’s hurting the Cricket Ground Development

    On the same day as the news of the High Court Challenge, we’ve had the disappointing news that the North West Development Agency is cutting its contribution from £7.2m to £5.2m due to the Conservative Government’s cuts. Thankfully, the cricket ground believes it can cope with this reduction.

    Pointedly we’ve been arguing that the £21m that Trafford is contributing to the Cricket Ground is too much for Trafford residents to bear and we should negotiate down that figure. Trafford’s Tories rejected this as it would jeopardise Test Cricket. Funny that when the North West Development Agency makes the cut, LCCC can still cope.

  • Weekly Update 20 December 2010

    The week of the revised diary

    Two weeks previously the diary for this week had looked completely packed and I’d had to submit apologies for a number of meetings. The Government’s delays in releasing the Local Government settlement for Trafford meant all the meetings connected with Trafford’s Budget for next year were cancelled. And we lost Tuesday’s Councillor workshop on health inequalities due to lack of take-up

    Monday

    Labour Group meeting on preparing for the budget – cancelled

    Tuesday

    The workshop cancellation meant that after all I was able to attend the Lostock Community Partnership meeting on a bitterly cold night. Not many residents braved the cold and it was finished in less than 30 mins.

    Wednesday

    Trafford Housing Trust Board meeting. Agenda items included ‘the local offer’ which is the statutory requirement of the regulator of Housing Associations – The Tenants Services Authority. The TSA sets national standards of service every tenant in England should receive from their landlord. However, it is recognised by the TSA that different communities have different challenges, and therefore may require additional standards which complement the national standards. Therefore they require landlords to agree with their tenants what they will deliver over and above these standards, or how best to implement these standards according to local priorities such as:

    • Allocations
    • Anti social behaviour and security
    • Neighbourhood and estate management
    • Quality of accommodation (decent homes)
    • Repairs and maintenance
    • Tenant choice and customer service
    • Tenant empowerment

    There’s nothing wrong with these aspirations. My concern is the amount of consultation that’s required to deliver on each of these and many more service levels. In effect we’ve created a cottage industry of consultation whilst at the same time knowing that we have cases of overcrowding and properties that don’t always meet modern standards particularly in relation to communal areas. And this cottage industry of consultation costs money that comes directly from the rents and service charges paid by those in the overcrowded properties etc. My personal view is that the emphasis has to be shifted from management/consultancy to delivery.

    Thursday

    Met with MUFC and Trafford Officers at Old Trafford to pitch for streetscene enhancements to engender pride in the neighbouhood close to the stadium. Maybe I’m a little naïve in suggesting that we could build through subtle branding of streetsigns etc,a sense that the streets are intrinsically linked to United and that for supporters to bespoil the area is in effect bespoiling United.

    Certainly United felt I was naïve. They pointed out that any United branding on street signs would make the sign a collectable; or would be defaced by opposing supporters. They felt any improvement in the behaviour of United supporters engendered by the streetscene enhancements would be offset by deteriorating behaviour of opposing fans. They also claimed that the reason behaviour of fans markedly improved as they crossed the bridge on Matt Busby Way to the stadium area was the increased surveillance and stewarding. And lastly there were corporate licensing issues of use of the logo.

    I didn’t get the sense that there’s any great enthusiasm but they felt that as the sporting boulevard was developed along Warwick Road / Sir Matt Busby Way linking the two stadia and Metrolink stadium, they would support some neutral enhancements.

    They are certainly wrong in some respects. Walking down Sir Matt Busby Way with the supporters, there’s a tangible change of mood when you cross the bridge and it’s nothing to do with the CCTV or stewards. The fans stop dropping litter and they certainly wouldn’t urinate against a wall of the stadium even if they could find a concealed area. It becomes hallowed ground for the fans and they treat the area with respect. Perhaps surprisingly most away fans actually behave similarly. Yes there’s ritualised chanting and abuse but the stadium itself is respected to a degree. The whole point is to widen the area where the change in behaviour takes place.

    I don’t buy the idea that we can’t do this sufficiently subtly to prevent signage becoming a collectable. I will keep persevering.

    Additionally

    Attended Two Committee Meetings at Barton Clough Governors immediately after.

    Friday

    Learned that Coronation Street studio is being moved to Gorse Hill and got quote to paper

    Saturday

    Snow: oh by the way I’m still giving up smoking.

    Have a great christmas

  • Weekly Update 13 December 2010

    Monday

    Attended Humphrey Park playbuilder scheme meeting. Sadly the decision was taken to recommend to Trafford not to proceed. The basis was purely on the strength of feeling of local residents against any improvement to the park that would encourage young people to use it.

    Tuesday

    Went on patrol with local police to look at policing of football matches. United were playing Valencia. Supporters being conned to fork out for car-parking where they could get clamped is the most troubling for the police. However a very cold night thankfully biggest problem we saw was a coach of away supporters taking a wrong turn and having to reverse against the flow of supporters.

    Wednesday

    Casework and mail

    Thursday

    I watched the debate in parliament on Student Fees. The Lib Dem defence is all over the place. They couldn’t have been more emphatic in their campaign that they would vote against any increase in student fees. They targeted to University seats with the message. In power they’ve abandoned it without hesitation. I do not know what the Lib Dems stand for any more. I used to have a degree of respect for the Lib Dems particularly in their opposition to the war which was an issue I shared with them. Now they’ve jettisoned all their key platforms, even their opposition to Iraq looks like opportune positioning.

    Attended the Peel consultation on Brep. Had an interesting conversation with a volunteer from planning aid. The Government is cutting their funding from April. Planning Aid help communities influence the planning decisions affecting them. They’re not simply there to oppose planning. I would have thought they were ideally placed to play a role in the Big Society. I’ve asked Kate Green if she’ll write to the minister as it will be tragic if Planning Aid folds.