Welcome to Manchester Confidential
Reset Password
The Confidential websites will be undergoing routine updates. This may cause the sites to go offline. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience.

You are here: Manchester ConfidentialNews.

Castlefield Residents Ready To Fight For Green Space

Castlefieldians prepare to block development on grass next to The Wharf pub

Written by . Published on September 29th 2014.


Castlefield Residents Ready To Fight For Green Space
 

RESIDENTS of Castlefield are spoiling for another planning fight after learning that Plot G – the welcome patch of green space next to The Wharf pub - is being marketed for development.

“We fought a long, hard and successful five year battle to prevent inappropriate development of the site next to Plot G. It was a ‘David and Goliath’ victory"

The land was originally deemed as 'private/public open space' as part of Macbride’s Slate Wharf development when it was built in 1997, and makes a pleasing landing point for Merchants Bridge crossing from Catalan Square (Barca bar) to Slate Wharf.

Twelve years ago the city gave permission for a six to seven storey apartment block on the site or hotel/leisure/retail and even though that permission has long lapsed Savills are marketing the small 0.25acre plot as a 'Prime Development Opportunity'. They want expressions of interest by 15 October.

Plot G outlined in redPlot G outlined in red

However, buoyed by their 2011 success in halting a huge Ian Simpson residential scheme ('like something out of Star Trek'), the Castlefield Forum resident group is warning any potential bidders that "they'll be in for a long fight.”

Carol Middleton, Chair of the Castlefield Forum, said:

“We fought a long, hard and successful five year battle to prevent inappropriate development of the site next to Plot G. It was a ‘David and Goliath’ victory with the proposals going to Public Inquiry which we and the Council won and the developer lost.

“They then sold the site to Brunning & Price who now run the stunningly popular pub, The Wharf, on the same site. We would fight an equally hard campaign to prevent inappropriate development of Plot G.

“We welcome new development in Castlefield. We’d love to see new development on the Cantina site by the Bridgewater Viaduct or along Bridgewater Street (the former Pioneer Quay scheme) and phases three and four of Potato Wharf.

“But Plot G is different. It lies at the heart of the canal basin. Keeping it as open space is crucial to the openness and parkland aspect of the area. Castlefield basin is unique, a jewel in Manchester’s crown that should be protected for the present and future.”

Plot G to the rightPlot G to the right

Ian Christie, Forum Secretary said: “People often complain that Manchester city centre lacks any sizeable parks but here is one in Castlefield, only ten minutes walk from Albert Square”.

“With its listed warehouses, bridges and railway viaducts, waterways and narrow boats, linked greens, waterside bars and restaurants, ducks, geese and swans, weeping willows, laburnum, maple and mountain ash trees, Castlefield basin is a massive draw not only to people from all over Manchester but to national and international visitors and tourists too. Plot G is enormously popular in summer and is an integral part of the park.

“Just as the Council had the vision to create a new waterside park in New Islington, so it should have the vision to protect this existing park in Castlefield.

“Almost any development on Plot G – certainly 45 or so apartments – would alter the balance between built form and open space (green or hard-surfaced) in the canal basin. Buildings would predominate.”

The WharfThe Wharf

The Forum wants the City Council to contribute towards buying the site and landscaping it alongside residents and businesses.

Perhaps they should ask other developers to contribute as part of their Section 106 agreements, or maybe crowd sourcing is the way forward. Anyone who has sat out there in the sun this summer and enjoyed the space, the view, and the lack of tall building shadow would surely contribute a tenner.

Manchester Ship Canal Properties (part of Peel Group) retain the freehold and they will be as aware as anyone that the inspector’s findings from the public inquiry will have set a precedent.

Meanwhile the City Council’s own Castlefield Events and Marketing Strategy (2010) describes Castlefield thus: “One of Manchester’s most outstanding public spaces [...] undeniably beautiful (with) character and soul [...] one of the few green and open spaces in the city centre, and certainly the only outdoor location large enough for people to explore.”

For information on the sale see here.

Like what you see? Enter your email to sign up for our newsletters which are chock-a-block with more great reviews, news, deals and savings.

90 comments so far, continue the conversation, write a comment.

Kevin PeelSeptember 29th 2014.

City centre councillors are supportive of Castlefield residents in their campaign to save this important green space. That said, the city council is facing a further £60m budget cut next year alone and has already had a third of it's budget slashed by this government. We'd love to see the land purchased but it's unlikely to be by the council.

19 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Labour has full control of the city council in a Labour safe seat constituency. Ed Balls has already said that, should a Labour government be installed at the next election, they would continue with the same fiscal policy as the coalition. Do try and make your point without the Labour spin and victim mentality.

Cheeky MonkeySeptember 29th 2014.

City council found £19m+ for Home, £6m to buy Granada site, £3m for Library Walk abomination and £2m to help Gary Neville build his hotel. I smell bulls**t

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

All worthwhile projects that deliver various benefits to the city IMO. Where's the justification - given undoubtedly limited capital resources - for buying up this patch of land that will benefit a small number of vocal residents in Castlefield. I live in Ardwick and would love better parks and community facilities where I live. What makes you lot such a special case? Cheeky Monkey indeed!

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Castlefield is the birthplace of manchester, the Roman fort Mancunium gave its name to Manchester. Its the home to the world's first industrial canal, It has been said that the arrival of the Bridgewater Canal in Castlefield in 1761 marked the start of the Industrial revolution... with the oldest canal warehouse opening in 1779. The world's first passenger railway terminated here in 1830, at Liverpool Road railway station and the first railway warehouse opened here in 1831. Castlefield was designated as a conservation area in 1980 and the United Kingdom's first designated Urban Heritage Park in 1982.. For those who truly want to understand the issue here this is a tiny snippet of the wealth of history Castlefield has to offer. This is far from a patch of grass that just benefits a small amount of vocal local residents!

SobhuzaSeptember 29th 2014.

But it's not just for "them lot" is it anonymous; this part of Castlefield is a big draw to both tourists and people who live in / close to the city centre. It's something for the city to shout about. As was mentioned in the article, keeping this particular open space is vital to the whole feel of the area. Oh and by the way, I live in Ardwick too.

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

I don't see that this patch of land is so important to the character of the area. I can think of better things to spend £2m quid of public money on in Castlefield than this. The plot is small, elevated and not really visible. Putting a modest high quality scheme on here wouldn't have much impact on the canal basin and might actually enhance the area given it will help obscure the cheap and nasty blocks at Slate Wharf, City Gate and the unsightly car park behind. But then again, I'm sure this campaign has nothing whatsoever to do with maintaining views or property prices for existing residents, does it?

GooseSeptember 29th 2014.

Agreed, last Anon. If we were talking about a popular park this would be outrageous, but it's not. On visits to the Wharf over the summer I've never seen more than a handful of people making use of this space. Happy to be corrected if that's not an accurate impression. Yes, the city centre needs more parks and PROPER open spaces. Preventing the development of a rough grassy plot like this will not achieve that.

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Well let's turn your argument around Goose. What WOULD development of this plot achieve? Yes it's a rough, grassy plot now, but with not too much work it would become a pretty, grassy plot.

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Of course the city centre needs more parks and proper open spaces, but let's protect what little open space we currently do have. And I'm sure you'll be happy to be corrected, but I've seen plenty of people using this space, even in its current guise. Imagine how many more would use it if it was bought and landscaped.

GooseSeptember 29th 2014.

"with not too much work it would become a pretty, grassy plot" "Imagine how many more would use it if it was bought and landscaped" I totally agree and that would be the ideal scenario. But is anyone trying to make this happen? It's not realistic to expect either the council or the landowner do it off their own back, sadly.

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

But Slate Wharf is already built up to the toe path and the bridge. Building on this patch of grass would not have much impact. Arguably it would improve the look of the area by obscuring the aforementioned development and car park. By all means crowd fund it, but I'm not buying the argument that this is about heritage and therefore we should not be putting public money towards it. This is really about local benefits for the residents of Castlefield.

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Maybe see if there is any locally raised section 102 monies in the pot to put towards it if it's that important?

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Another solution would be to see if the owner would be willing to develop on only part of the site, donating the rest of it as public open space in lieu of their own s102 contribution.

GooseSeptember 29th 2014.

Probably unlikely, last Anon - a better bet would be for the development to incorporate an open area that is available to the public but is owned and managed by the building owners. I would guess that any useful portion of the land would significantly more valuable than any likely contribution. Just guessing though.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Castlefield residents love a good planning objection and harbour hardcore NIMBYist views that make Wilmslow look like a tolerant, inclusive and permissive place to live. Not content with trying to de-rail the Ordsall Curve, the last time I spoke to one of them, she was literally foaming at the mouth about something going on in Ancoats. They have very long tentacles indeed...

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Last Anon, I believe the Forum are in favour of the Ordsall Chord and are just 1 of many groups that have come together to object only to the design. It severs the connection with MOSI. Alternative designs have been put forward but it goes to exemplify the lack of appropriate consultation done by network rail and the City Council. The Forum were also supportive of the development of what is now The Wharf pub. The objections came as Simpson ignored a number of significant recommendations from the planning inspectorate. It was only part of the proposal that the Forum objected to not the development itself. The plans for the redevelopment of Granada studios are also largely supported. But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good swipe.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

...and the good people of Castlefield scuppered plans for a restaurant from a bloke who had "engaged" with the "Castlefield Forum" for years. re the Ordsall Chord, the Northern Hub doesn't have a bottomless pit of funding, and the NIMBYism of the ever vocal "Castlefield Residents" risk the project of being a pipe dream like the Picc Vicc tunnel. One reaps what one sows, and it would be just desserts for the "Castlefield Residents" if a Wacky Warehouse, a Mosque or a Nandos was foisted on them in the space where Choice was.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Last anon: the replacement for choice not continuing has nothing to do with the Forum. Get your facts straight.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

I actually think the Castlefield Residents group are coming in for a bit of unfair flak here. Any successful neighbourhood needs a community to look out for it and to look after it. But there is a fine line between 'greater good' and NIMBYism; between the a broad consensus view and the agenda of a vocal minority. That said CF and FOAM do seem to have the best of intentions. The city centre could do with more of their ilk. Perhaps then they might consider taking up the new powers made available for local residents to make their own neighbourhood plan? This could be a powerful tool to improve Castlefield and Angel Meadows at the same time as removing any suspicion of vested or narrow sectional interests that some of the comments here raise. More information here: www.gov.uk/…/neighbourhood-planning…

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Manchester desperately needs more green spaces and parks. The more faceless concrete monoliths are built, the less attractive the city becomes. Where is the balance?

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

More grass = less concrete = fewer skateboarders

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Those Castlefield residents again...

3 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Indeed...how dare they strive for a better environment for residents and tourists alike.

Calum McGSeptember 30th 2014.

Oh dear anon. What do you contribute to your area where you live?I'm terribly sorry for caring about where I live. ;) no, wait, I'm not...

AnonymousOctober 1st 2014.

I contribute a lot more than writing indignant objections to bars, and opposing crucial rail connections, I know that much, Callum. If only they could move Castlefield to Cheadle Hulme, eh?

ParisSeptember 29th 2014.

If I lived in Castlefield I too would want to retain the greenery. I visit a lot and do so because it's a very attractive place which isn't something you can say about many parts of the city centre (much as I love it). If Peel holdings own the bits past Castlegate they should sell them instead and get something decent built there.

1 Response: Reply To This...
AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Peel don't own that piece of land. Renakker own it. Unfortunately they're likely put something bland on there.

glprideSeptember 29th 2014.

If purchasing the site, through whatever resources, is to be considered, an Indication of what the land is worth (assuming we can block planning permission), would be a useful starting point.

1 Response: Reply To This...
AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

£1.2 to £1.5 million I believe is a guide price based on 42 units.

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

I disagree, I don't think this is a particularly nice bit of greenery. For a start there's a dirty great scar of a mud path across the middle of it, and the grass is hardly well kept. A nice paved area would be good instead, or maybe a community garden. Or another pub. Can't have too many pubs.

6 Responses: Reply To This...
rinkydinkSeptember 29th 2014.

Exactly. If the residents cared so much about the space, why haven't they tended to it themselves? It is a mess and would look better built on

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Residents would have loved to have loved to have done something with the land but we're told not to.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Cos it's not our land, Rinkydick.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

*Rinkydink

rinkydinkSeptember 30th 2014.

Its a shitty little bit of muddy grass. Why the emotional attachment?

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Come on rinkydink, I expected your trolling to be a little more creative than that.

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

The council won't buy it because it is far too concerned with allowing city/c'field apartment dwellers - a relatively low draw on the education and social services budgets - to pay over-inflated council tax from often shabbily-built apartment blocks to subsidise services in the 'burbs. About time really that city centre dwellers got a look in...

1 Response: Reply To This...
AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Good point especially when you consider £s per metre in council tax Blantyre Street raises.

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

It needs to be turned into a super basic park. Residents would look after it. A few plants picnic benches etc. It's the only grass in around here!

Friends of Angel MeadowSeptember 29th 2014.

Good luck, we definitely support more green space. “Friends of Parks” Groups can be way to help stretched budgets maintain these kind of spaces and build community. However in Angel Meadow (after 15yrs and 3000+ new homes built in the area: all pre-2008 crash) there is still no end to promises made to investors/residents to restore St. Michael’s Flags & Angel Meadow park. Imminent investment of £250000 has been promised from a £20m EU grant (the rest “invested” in the speculative NOMA estate for the private Co-op). This will not be sufficient to finish what was started for the benefit of the public over 15 yrs ago. MCC do have at their disposal the ability to attach 106 agreements or a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to new builds to ensure developers do deliver the necessary associated investment in green spaces, schools and medical facilities but it often failed to do so. By 2006, 106 agreement money had realised £160000 to invest in the park (or the onerous sum of about £53 per apartment- average boomtime purchase price £140000?). NB. It took 8yrs to actually obtain it and spend it- on recent works to the Lowry Steps. Recent MCC Planning permission will see 1000 more homes in the area with zero obligation now being placed on developers to contribute to the infrastructure of the city; they always claim such “taxes” would affect “viability” (i.e. profitability) for their low-value schemes, as away to wriggle out of them. Without politicians demanding those associated additions for people, such as green space and high quality construction, the city ultimately becomes less “viable” and less sustainable. Ironically Angel Meadow is the example from history of exactly that: www.friends-of-angel-meadow.org…

11 Responses: Reply To This...
GimboidSeptember 29th 2014.

FOAM, have you considered asking Man Con if you can contribute an article about your campaign? Posting long comments on other topics is a little bit tiresome.

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

A bit harsh Gimboid. I personally found this informative.

GimboidSeptember 29th 2014.

That's cool, only my opinion with a constructive suggestion.

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Developers can generally afford to employ the best legal teams to wriggle out of s106 agreements. Public bodies, stripped as they are of funding and personnel are not always able to negotiate on an equal footing. With infrastructure development dependent on whatever pots of funding government decide to make available at a given time; and property development in the hands of private sector, developers need only threaten to go elsewhere to persuade councils to acquiesce to their demands. But this is precisely the result of the same neoliberal economic policies persued by both Labour and Tory governments for the last few dacdes. We get the society and the environment we deserve - no wonder our cities look a mess and development is often fraught, contested and unsatisfactory...... All this is another powerful argument for devolving more powers and resources down to local areas to enable local communities to shape their environment as they see fit rather than being beholden to the whims of big business and big (centralised) government.

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

That said councils and Councillors do need to become wiser to the tricks and techniques developers use to 'prove' their scheme would be 'unviable' by funding a few flag stones or trees, let alone a medical centre or school. These negotiations are held behind firmly closed doors without the merest hint of transparency, protected by the cloak of 'commercial confidentiality'. All this stuff needs to be well and truly put out into the public to allow people to subject it to proper scrutiny.

Friends of Angel MeadowSeptember 29th 2014.

Just wanted to share our experience of the process which the Castlefield residents (and other groups in the city) might find useful and how it could be delivered with better co-ordination and a political will. Accepted in this day and age that more than 140 characters will have some people hyperventilating and reaching for the Ritalin.

GimboidSeptember 29th 2014.

Don't get pissy, FOAM, the bulk of your post was detail about Angel Meadows which isn't relevant or useful to the current issue, hence my suggestions. Take the feedback and move on.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Or relevant in highlighting how significant residential development in the city hasn’t been accompanied by investment in green space even though there are political tools to do so. Given the number of new "public realms" and refurbished squares like Piccadilly Gardens and St. Peter’s Sq (created with public money) there is a dearth of trees and functional green space in this city which doesn't tally with MCC Executive statements on wanting to be the "greenest" city. It certainly isn’t sustainable if we want to encourage more people to live here; especially more affluent families and older people. Perhaps Sir Howard has shares in Marshall's Paving Supplies?

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Aww Gimboid give it a rest. That's useful stuff from FOAM for our campaign. Much more useful than your nasty comments. Love from Castlefield resident.

GimboidSeptember 30th 2014.

Sorry, being a douche again. I'll see myself out.

AnonymousOctober 1st 2014.

Didn't the Co-op sell their/our £20m taxpayer-funded NOMA "public square" to Deusche Bank and a Chinese Investment Group for £145m. What was the public cut of that deal and couldn't this be used to invest in more local parks?

Cheeky MonkeySeptember 29th 2014.

One of the directors of the Manchester Ship Canal Company is Sir Richard Leese. No conflict of interest there then?

6 Responses: Reply To This...
GimboidSeptember 29th 2014.

Not necessarily, given that Leese doesn't (officially) make planning decisions.

Cheeky MonkeySeptember 29th 2014.

Yeah - right

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Leese represents the council on the board, no?

Cheeky MonkeySeptember 29th 2014.

I have no idea what he is doing on the board of a Peel company. You would have to ask him what his role is. I was just noting his directorship and asking the question.

JoanSeptember 29th 2014.

As Manchester Council helped fund the building of Manchester Ship Canal they've historically had a councillor or four on the board. Pretty standard stuff. Pretty sure Peel doesn't own Plot G though.

Poster BoySeptember 30th 2014.

No hint of irony in the reference to the sale of the Manchester Ship Canal Company by the City Council to Peel for £10m, so ensuring the delivery of the Trafford Centre...

SoapysudsSeptember 29th 2014.

Residents of Hulme, fought to preserve Birley Fields from inappropriate development. In 2006, the Hulme Alliance and The Friends of Birely Fields, thought Manchester City Council had agree to consult with them before any decisions were made about Birley Fields. It turns out, two of our Labour councillors and Manchester City Council had agreed to give away Birely Fields for nothing, so Manchester Metropolitan University could build a campus there. The council will do what it can to keep developers happy, as for the local community, their opinions do not count. The Central Manchester had little green space in 2008, it has even less now: www.manchester.gov.uk/…/city_wide_open_spaces_sport_and_recreation_study-natural_and_semi-natural_open_space…

2 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Birley Fields was a shit tip, unsightly and frankly a blight. Thank goodness a minority of Hulme crusties didn't get their way as what's been built looks much better and makes the whole area feel a lot safer. It will also help support better shops, services and transport links that re area still lacks. The landscaped green space looks much more welcoming and usable rather than being a glorified dog toilet as it was. Not all open space is positive.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Spot on, anon.

GooseSeptember 29th 2014.

What is inappropriate about the MMU campus? It's very close to the rest of the education 'core'. If it wasn't for Princess parkway and the Mancunian Way, that corner of Hulme would be considered city centre. Not the right place for any healthy functioning city to have rough, overgrown 'fields'. www.airviews.info/…/003__birley_fields__april_2012.jpg…

1 Response: Reply To This...
GooseSeptember 29th 2014.

That was to Soapysuds

AnonymousSeptember 29th 2014.

Proof (not that we needed it) that the council are complete idiots.

1 Response: Reply To This...
GooseSeptember 29th 2014.

What is?

Reader XxxSeptember 29th 2014.

All of Them! Tossers!

Peter CoppingSeptember 30th 2014.

Since you ask Goose have you actually MMU's BF's campus. Has ManCon reviewed it?

1 Response: Reply To This...
GooseSeptember 30th 2014.

You what Spence? Have I MMU's BF's campus? Pardon?

Poster BoySeptember 30th 2014.

Yet another exercise in provocative NIMBY-ism. On what legal basis is this plot of privately owned land "an existing park"? Do be honest Mr Christie.

3 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

And on what basis is this an exercise in provocative NIMBY-ism? Do be honest Poster Boy.

Calum McGSeptember 30th 2014.

We aren't NIMBY. We welcome high quality development. Look at what we achieved with The Wharf... The Simpson block that was going to be built was horrendous.

AnonymousOctober 1st 2014.

'We aren't NIMBY'...yes, you are. Just because you think you have a better idea for the development of someboday else's land doesn't make you a NIMBY.

Melissa ConnellySeptember 30th 2014.

they should have a childrens park to encourage families down there after spending time at MOSI - maybe they could get involved in developing it

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Nothing annoys me more than people who move to the city centre because it is full of bars and clubs and restaurants and is so much more superior than the boring semi-detached houses in the suburbs. They then find that developers like to continue to develop and build more properties which gives more customers for the bars and clubs and restaurants. At the same time, these original people who think they are so much better than the new type of city-centre people (because they now have kids or wish to preserve open spaces) and also find that they can't sell their flats because the developers will undercut them. At the same time the restaurant and bar owners cotton on that there is money in suburbia so open up funky places in Prestwich or Monton or Sale. The original flat dwellers realise that there are established schools, green areas and less of the noise and litter and inconvenience that they thought funky and bohemian just ten years ago. If these NIMBYs really wanted a green open space, they should club together and buy it themselves. It appears to be on open sale so what is stopping them?

4 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

So, only people in the 'burbs have a right to green space, children, schools and less litter.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

No - but the people in the city-centre cannot expect the public purse to pay for their green spaces when they chose to live in an urban environment.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Nothing annoys me more than the tired and trusted "you chose to live in the city you should expect to be surrounded by bars, clubs, litter and no open space blah, blah, blah". Of course the city centre is going to be more built up than the suburbs, but why can't it strive to have decent open space to relax in?

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Because land in the city centre comes at a premium, which means there are very few instances where it is cost effective for developers to give it up for open spaces. I'd love to see more green space in the city, but you have to accept the economic reality.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

What a sad out look some people seem to have. The motto for the Castlefield Forum is Preserving, improving, living in the heart of our city. It's a community group made up of volunteers who love this fair city and want to protect it, people who are open minded. Anyone can attend a forum meeting to get to know what the group actually do people with any questions may then be in a better position to make more informed decisions and statements.

1 Response: Reply To This...
AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

With the Labour domination of the council it appears that the only effective opposition left are the community groups.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/…/Castlefields-Roman-Gardens-Reimagined-Manchester-History-Liverpool-Road… www.bbc.co.uk/…/uk-england-manchester-20158919… Certainly not NIMBY-ism.

2 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

There's no historical significance to the piece of land that's referenced in this article. This one is the perfect example of NIMBYism.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

On that basis why not get rid of that horrible surface car park at the very heart of Castlefield that serves Slate Wharf. Surely such a small development doesn't need such a large car park? Why not turn that into a garden?

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2014.

I actually think the Castlefield Residents group are coming in for a bit of unfair flak here. Any successful neighbourhood needs a community to look out for it and to look after it. But there is a fine line between 'greater good' and NIMBYism; between the a broad consensus view and the agenda of a vocal minority. That said CF and FOAM do seem to have the best of intentions. The city centre could do with more of their ilk. Perhaps then they might consider taking up the new powers made available for local residents to make their own neighbourhood plan? This could be a powerful tool to improve Castlefield and Angel Meadows at the same time as removing any suspicion of vested or narrow sectional interests that some of the comments here raise. More information here: www.gov.uk/…/neighbourhood-planning…

NickTOctober 1st 2014.

My daughter was playing on this plot of land last Saturday. We often take her there to kick a football or just sit on the grass. If the council is serious about supporting families in the city it should take action here. We are prepared to defend this space.

AnonymousOctober 1st 2014.

A place for noisy children and dog muck. How lovely,

1 Response: Reply To This...
Karl WheatOctober 1st 2014.

Actually, it's a place where, on a sunny Saturday or Sunday, a lot of people from the area take disposable BBQs and drinks and sit in the sun having a good time. I wouldn't call it a park though, it's just a piece of grass. It's a nice option if you don't want to pay the prices of the nearby bars on that particular day.

AnonymousOctober 1st 2014.

Oh no - where will I have my summer city BBQ's? It's a great spot for enjoying the sunshine on a sunny Saturday/Sunday afternoon...and there's the added bonus of the Wharf's toilet facilities ;-) On a serious note, do we really have to 'develop' every bit of green space; the city is too built up as it is! I'm with the residents of Castlefield!

To post this comment, you need to login.Please complete your login information.
OR CREATE AN ACCOUNT HERE..
Or you can login using Facebook.

Latest Rants

Anonymous

Repeating,without any evidence the same point that socialism = public services is hardly…

 Read more
Anonymous

You absolutely right,I hate all these bloody nimbys stopping development and progress.Of course if…

 Read more
Anonymous

Manchester's size and climate isn't dissimilar to Rotterdam or Dusseldorf but the city is held back…

 Read more
Anonymous

Straying off the point again David, which is that investing in public services is socialist but as…

 Read more

Explore The Site

© Mark Garner t/a Confidential Direct 2017

Privacy | Careers | Website by: Planet Code | SEO by The eWord