We’re waiting for the draft budget to be published which is scheduled as it stands for the 6th January 2026 as part of the reports for the Executive on 14th January 2026.
I’d be surprised if the Government issued anything further in the meantime. Although, you’d anticipate a lot of one to one communication with Councils negatively affected by the settlement proposals. Trafford is certainly looking to discuss.
Despite there being little to report, I do think the data published by the Government each year on council tax changes is worth a glance, particularly as Alison McGovern seemed to put some stall on average council tax.
The table below compares the rates paid in Trafford to the average in England* and to Stockport. The year 25/26 is the first time that Trafford has closed the gap by even the most marginal amount.
*not totally sure I’m comparing like for like on the average table as both county councils and mayors are not universal. As Stockport is a GM council, there’s much more assurance in the comparison.
Trafford still has a low council tax regime. Over the decades this meant Trafford denying itself millions year on year. Some might argue that this is due to Trafford having a tight political competition for control, but if anything, the competition in Stockport has been even more fierce. So, it is what it is, but isn’t allowing sudden changes in income to be cushioned against.
I suppose I ought to make a full disclosure: l am on the record as preferring the demolition of the Mall and pretty much most of King Street apart from the former Post Office.
I felt the old town centre was turned in on itself and didn’t even attempt to capture passing walking trade coming from the Metrolink or bus connections. I overwhelmingly lost that argument. The majority wanted to retain and improve salvageable assets in the then-existing layout. I get that and I’m happy to support the regeneration of the town centre via the retention of parts of the Mall that have had the roof removed.
Generally, I think there’s a consensus that the centre should be smaller and that the night-time economy; restaurants, entertainment and bars should play an increasing role. There’s a general acceptance the space created in reducing the Mall can be used for housing. Nevertheless, it’s vital that the town centre continues its day job of performing as a place for routine shopping and services. I sense that the scale of retail is still not settled.
We know that King Street is the retail heart of the centre and that links via King St Square to Quality Save and Little King Street next to the multi-storey car park.
Known retail arteries of redeveloped town centre
What I don’t know is what is going on around that new ‘central park’ just below the multi-storey. If those blocks are purely residential I think we have a problem. On the other hand, if the ground floors are taken up by prime retail like Marks and Spencer, or similar then that changes everything.
This image below hints at shop fronts surrounding the central park. I wish they were more explicit as it makes all the difference to my thoughts on the Central Park in the consultation below.
Consultation
The latest consultation covers three aspects. It covers:
the maximum heights of apartment blocks,
the realignment of the central park strip of green space.
a revision in car-parking to retain surface parking for Aldi,
Maximum Heights
The architecture is important. The consultation is on a desire to increase the height of blocks close to the centre to 12 storeys. This is still 3 storeys shy of Circle Court at Lostock Circle, so it’s hardly massive. And while Circle Court became hard to update, it was never the scale that was the problem. It was a very popular block with tenants.
Judging by public submissions, however, not to mention social media, these medium-sized towers do seem incredibly unpopular with Stretford residents. My problem is that they’re hidden away. I really want Stretford to have active frontages facing on Kingsway and Chester Road. The interior elements of the centre should be peeping out and enticing me to shop. The apartments should work with the retail elements to put people and movement in at ground level.
It doesn’t look at this stage that the residential is integrated with the retail elements very much at all. As a whole, the development looks to be zoned. I don’t mind the heights so much as the fact residential elements are not working with the retail elements as much as I had anticipated.
I’m hoping the computer-generated images are just illustrative. There are many examples of really good integration between retail and residential. It’s nothing new, Paris managed this more than 100 years ago.
Reorientation of Central Park
We were discussing this on Facebook. I think we came to the conclusion that it would work better as a paved square area. I wonder if the aspiration for green space is working against good design. It does deserve to be the prime area in the whole development with the best retail units.
Aldi retail surface car park
I hate this proposal. It cuts Aldi off leaving no interplay with the town centre. The ‘left-turn in, left-turn out’ proposal is awful, putting more traffic onto the roads, looking for somewhere to do a U-turn. Lastly, the car park itself works as barrier for those walking from the Sevenways direction.
Summing Up
On the whole, this is still exciting. I’m not sure the consultation has helped. It’s not easy to consult on heights of buildings without understanding how the buildings interact with the centre. All the focus has been on King Street and Little King Street. The town centre is so much more than this. I can’t pretend to like the arrangement with Aldi but there are hints there are contractual obligations that have to be met. I’d love to see Central Park become a town square with good quality retail on four sides. I’m still hopeful.
The proposals limit north-south traffic cutting through roads like Wallingford and Guildford Roads. It focuses east-west traffic on Lostock Road, Winchester Road and Canterbury Road.
Railway Road will no longer be a through road.
Full list of closures – these will often effectively create new cul-de-sacs or crescent arrangements:
Sandgate Drive – Point closure
Salisbury Road – Point closure
Exeter Road – Point closure
Rochester Road/Westminster Road Junction – Point closure
Lichfield Road – south of Lichfield Road/ Westminster Road Junction – Point closure
Winchester Rd/Westbourne Rd junction – Point closure
Furness Rd/Newstead Rd Junction – Point closure
Newstead Road/Sherborne Road Junction – Point closure
On Abingdon Road northwest of Newstead Rd/Abingdon Rd Junction – Point closure
Wallingford Road at Y-Junction – Point closure
on the eastern arm of Railway Road at Railway Rd/Westbourne Park Junction Point closure
Granville Road/Langley Close Junction – Point closure with cycle-about
My view
I don’t pretend this is where I would prioritise my active travel interventions. My view has always been to focus first on enabling people to cross those roads that sever neighbourhoods through their sheer weight of traffic. People who can’t get across the main road won’t pick up a bike anyway, so enabling people to get across is essential. That would mean a lot of new crossings.
That said, a strategic decision was taken to make Urmston an active neighbourhood and these plans attempt to address some of the concerns raised by residents where rat-running is an issue and they do include a few new crossings.
So this is for a trial of at least six months. It’s created a lot of comments on FaceBook, mostly adverse. I talked to a few residents while I was riding through the area today. No one I spoke to was totally against it, although a few wondered if it was a good use of money. Some only vaguely knew about it. Others were disappointed that the busiest roads, Canterbury and Winchester weren’t going to benefit. The Railway Road filter was going to put one person I spoke to on the wrong side for Urmston. I think that might be a wider problem, but it’s outside my ward.
I am struggling to test the scheme against objectives as they’ve not really been published. The scheme doesn’t really benefit cycling. In most instances, it doesn’t benefit walking. There are some small incidental forced gains in walking to Davyhulme school – particularly with regard to those approaching the school from Winchester Road. On the whole, these are already walkable streets requiring tree work in places and dropped kerbs to be fully accessible, but more walkable than most.
Without a doubt, it will quieten some streets that currently have an amount of through-traffic. I’m thinking of Wallingford Road and parallel roads etc. It’s a strange scheme to benefit from Active Travel funding though, as I want to see more than a handful of quieter streets coming out of it and that troubles me as an advocate of active travel investment.
Conclusion
I’m keen to see the consultation reach the largest audience. I’m surprised Transport for Greater Manchester has approved it as meeting their criteria. We are where we are and if it gets the support I will be content to see it proceed.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
