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 ConfidentialProperty & Business.

Plans For 500 Apartments On MCR Salford Border

Scheme for four residential blocks on Regent Road submitted by WB Developments

Written by . Published on June 6th 2014.


Plans For 500 Apartments On MCR Salford Border
 

PLANS for almost 500 apartments on a chunk of land on the Manchester Salford border have been submitted to Salford Council.

“Our proposals, if approved, will bring back into use an important part of the city that otherwise provides only a negative impact upon the area."

The scheme, designed by OMI architects, shows four residential blocks of eight, ten, twelve and 21 storeys ranged around Wilburn Basin, a former mooring point for boats bringing goods into Manchester.

The basin would form a focal point for the development which could also include 7,000sq ft of commercial space.

The three acre site on Regent Road, next to the Campanile Hotel, is bounded by the River Irwell and just across the water from the vast Granada redevelopment site.

It's close by the 21-acre Middlewood Locks, where 2,000 new homes, restaurants, a park, shops, a gym, and a hotel are planned by the Scarborough Development Group, which bought the site for £10m in 2012.

Regent Road, SalfordRegent Road, Salford and Manchester border

The application comes from WB Developments (Salford) Ltd, part of the prolific Renaker Build stable, and brings the number of apartments being developed by the company in Manchester and Salford to well over 1,000.

Renaker is already well underway with the giant Alto development on Trinity Way, and finishing off the Royal Mills scheme in Ancoats after securing £4.7m of government funding to get building restarted.

Renaker has permission to build 497 apartments in two towers, 31 storeys and 19 storeys at Greengate in Salford and last month revealed plans for 282 apartments in another couple of towers, 22 storeys and 28 storeys, on the Grand Central site on Whitworth Street West. This is part of the wider Macintosh Village development which already has Cambridge Mill completed and sits close to First Street.

Busy times then for Renaker director Daren Whittaker. Speaking about the latest Wilburn Basin application he said: “We are pleased to have now submitted our plans for the regeneration of this important and historic part of Salford.

 “Our proposals, if approved, will bring back into use an important part of the city that otherwise provides only a negative impact upon the area.

“Having worked closely with key stakeholders and the City we are particularly pleased with the creativity in our design solution to maintain important linkages, access the River Irwell and preserve the basin which was originally built in 1864.

“Our application marks a significant investment into the City and the opportunity to deliver much needed new homes.”

Salford City Council marketed the site for sale in January 2013 and have an agreement in place, although the deal is likely to be dependent on planning. The council are keen to see the site developed and the scheme could be considered as early as next month.

More from Renaker here.

Wilburn Basin DrawingsWilburn Basin Drawings

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.

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

AnonymousJune 6th 2014.

Manchester's supposedly thriving city centre ain't that big, but to see the number of derelict sites & wasteland that surrounds it, is always quite surprising actually.

7 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousJune 6th 2014.

What point you making?

ShybaldbuddhistJune 6th 2014.

I saw something regrading long term empty properties in Manchester a little while ago and that surprised me. It said there was just over 13,000 long term empty properties in the area. When you think that was just Manchester not Greater Manchester, that could mean as many as 25,000/35,000 long term empty properties in Greater Manchester.

AnonymousJune 6th 2014.

Despite the housing & property boom of the nineties & noughties and the city of Manchester's rebirth - yet here we still have acres of wasteland & dereliction, all up against the most commercially prosperous & vibrant "little" square mile (or so) of the region, we're told? All just doesn't seem right somehow!

SquirrelitoJune 7th 2014.

Cheer up grimchops, The article lists quite a few developments filling in those derelict areas. The cranes are back and we're off again. Grounds for much optimism, but if it all makes you so glum, maybe put in for a transfer to somewhere twee.

AnonymousJune 7th 2014.

Well of course such "isolated" developments are welcome Squirrelito, but you're sounding a bit like like Pat Karney now. Head stuck in the sand? Yes isn't Piccadilly Gardens just marvellous. Take a walk around sometime Squirrelito, no need to stray far from our mainline train station in fact. This ain't no boom town, as many (MCC) would like us all to believe!

SquirrelitoJune 9th 2014.

You almost sound like you're unhappy that these "isolated" developments, which are being announced thick and fast, are happening at all. We're coming out of the longest recession in decades, and things are starting to happen again. Does that not fit your vision of a dystopian future? As for me being a bit like Pat karney? if you say so, sunshine. I'm sure Pat will be pleased, David.

Ghostly TomJune 10th 2014.

If you wander north away from the glass towers in The City in London you soon get into an area that looks relatively down at heel and deprived. I think most city centres have these areas on their edge. Manchester's city centre has stayed the same size for a century but dies seem to be spreading out at long last...NOMA, First Street, Greengate and maybe here in the Regent Road area.

AnonymousJune 6th 2014.

Who on earth would want to live in an apartment on the Salford/Manchester border? Ill advised traffic schemes (punishment for refusing to vote for the congestion charge?). Dead as a doornail atmosphere and the prospect of high crime. No thanks.

3 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousJune 6th 2014.

It's usually cheaper then living in the centre itself, and quieter, as some prefer

rinkydinkJune 7th 2014.

Maybe there's no atmosphere cos there's nothing there yet. And there aren't many places in Manchester or Salford too far away from high-crime areas. Where do you live, Bath?

AnonymousJune 7th 2014.

Ill advised traffic schemes? Have you seen Chapel Street recently, the place is really starting to come back to life, thanks in part to reducing the impact of what was a thundering dual carriageway. I'm guessing you live in some dreary little box on a lifeless cul-de-sac on the edge of Bolton somewhere.

AnonymousJune 7th 2014.

No, I don't live in Bolton, I live in Salford. Salford where, due to the mess that is now Chapel Street, residential streets are now rat runs during the rush hour. Go and take a look at Chapel Street, the road already looks tatty and dilapidated, especially in front of the cathedral. We needed a "thundering dual carriageway", just like we need quiet peaceful streets. I repeat, was Chapel Street punishment for not voting for the congestion charge?

3 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousJune 7th 2014.

Dont be daft, I doubt multi-million pound road schemes are planned on the basis of spite. I think its reasonable to conclude that without some major improvements to Chapel Street you would simply not have seen the massive private investment now going into an area that badly needed it. Ask yourself would YOU have chosen to live on Chapel Street in its previous incarnation? No of course not. So why would anyone invest there? Naturally any changes that radical are going to have knock-on effects elsewhere; some positive, some negative. Some people will be pleased, some will moan. Places change and adapt. That's life. If the overall effect is positive - and I see the scale of investment going into Chapel Street as a largely good thing - then that's a good use of public money in my book.

GimboidJune 7th 2014.

Oh dear, the "poor persecuted motorist" complex rears it's head again, how tragic. And hilarious.

AnonymousJune 8th 2014.

classic NIMBY. "We need a thundering dual carriageway" as long as the effects are in someone else's back yard eh? Its not like poor old Salford isn't already afflicted by Regent Road, Liverpool Road and the M602 scything their way through the inner city. God forbid a few people are inconvenienced in making one commuter route a bit more conducive to pedestrians over the motor car.

AnonymousJune 7th 2014.

I like how all the Chorlton folk come on her slating Salford. Have any of you been to Monton? It's like Chorlton but without the stuck up idiots and overpriced organic shite.

1 Response: Reply To This...
AnonymousJune 12th 2014.

Don't tell the Chorlton people, they'll start rocking up demanding gluten free bread and halal meat!

AnonymousJune 7th 2014.

I'm not a "motorist", I use the bus and the tram (and my bike when I'm feeling brave). Chapel Street is a mess, a scruffy, dirty, traffic choked mess. Even outside the rush hour there is usually a long metal snake of vehicles standing still, pumping out pollution. On a warm humid day it's almost unbearable. This grand scheme was introduced by a council that claims to care about green issues. Sorry, but motor vehicles are a necessary way of life, slowing them down and making them bounce over speed bumps and waste fuel wont reduce that necessity. As I said earlier, it has turned our residential streets into rat runs. The chap above asks if I would have lived on Chapel Street in its previous incarnation? No I wouldn't, and I wouldn't live there now. It was a road built for rapid transportation not for sipping a latte on. I would no more want to live on Chapel Street than the M62.

2 Responses: Reply To This...
GimboidJune 8th 2014.

Fair enough Anon, I take that back. Chapel Street is still very much a work in progress. Central Salford's high street desperately needed some kind of intervention, and as the other Anon above says, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

AnonymousJune 8th 2014.

Hmmmm why would someone that supposedly uses public transport be so bothered about a congestion charge? Anyway the evidence of the large scale private investment now going into the area after decades of decay suggests you're wrong about the scheme.

AnonymousJune 8th 2014.

For goodness sake, I don't care about the congestion charge, in retrospect I think it may have been a good thing, however I live near chapel Street and I do care about local residents that have been affected by the the ridiculous traffic scheme put in place. And it did come after locals refused to vote for yet another tax. Life is not always about private investment and yuppies on balconies. Chapel Street is a mess and a major transport hub has been brought to a virtual standstill. I accept Gimboids point that it's a work in progress but I very much doubt when it's finished that less traffic will need to flow through Salford and Manchester.

3 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousJune 8th 2014.

Jeez. Yuppies on balconies? This isn't the 80s. And the tenants in nearby council blocks also have balconies and probably drink frothy coffee too. This is sounding more like class war than a serious point. Chapel Street is manifestly better than it was before by some margin, both in how it looks and the increasing number of businesses springing up round there providing services to the local community. Such a grand old street in the centre of a major city WAS never and SHOULD never be a mere "transport hub" for commuters. That's surely what the M602 is for.

AnonymousJune 8th 2014.

Private investment flowing in is the most obvious indicator that there area IS now more attractive to people. The balance between the interests of the motorist and the interests of pedestrians has been tipped towards the pedestrian. That is something to celebrate surely.

GimboidJune 8th 2014.

Anon, you speak about the local streets being turned into rat runs and the effect of residents... but how severe has that effect actually been? Are you objecting to change for the sake of objecting? Taken objectively, is the impact actually acceptable and reasonable, considering that these neighbourhoods are so close to the city centre?

AnonymousJune 8th 2014.

Fair enough Gimboid, I disagree with you, but you sound like an intelligent, rational, decent person with a good argument. You come across as someone to have a heated debate with while sipping a pint. Others on here though I find irrational, to be called a NIMBY whilst discussing my own back yard is just annoying. Anyhow, thanks for the comments, good luck to you and yours.

1 Response: Reply To This...
GimboidJune 8th 2014.

Very kind. I have my moments.

AnonymousJune 8th 2014.

Can I just add...there isn't a lot of green space in central Manchester. This area of the country loves concrete.

9 Responses: Reply To This...
SchweppsJune 8th 2014.

"This area" - do you mean the city? Yes. Cities = buildings. Buildings = concrete.

SchweppsJune 8th 2014.

Although I agree we need more green space in Manchester. Just where it could go (and be useful) is a knotty problem of finance.

Ghostly TomJune 10th 2014.

There are a series of little surface car parks across the city centre that would make nice green squares. Build a couple of multi storey car parks to provide parking and plant some trees on them?

Calum McGJune 10th 2014.

Nice idea but most of those plots will be future development sites, so it would cost millions of pounds to put something like this into action. I suspect one would come up against a lot of barriers from land owners who don't want to relinquish their plot/

Ghostly TomJune 10th 2014.

Compulsory purchase the plots if need be, sell part off for development to cover the cost and gardens on the rest. It depresses me how many good ideas come to nothing because people keep seeing problems and don't look for solutions.

Calum McGJune 10th 2014.

I'm not seeing problems, I am being realistic. Who will pull a grand plan like this together and with what funds? At the moment it's not a deliverable solution, Tom

AnonymousJune 10th 2014.

All councils have at their Planning disposal both 106 agreements and more recently the CIL (Community Investment Levy) which are designed to ensure joined up planning delivers on things like infrastructure, schools, community space and maintenance strategies . Both Manchester and Salford City Councils have been woefully remiss in enforcing these obligations believing that “all development is good development”- often because they are too close to those developers in the first place. Allowing the building of "anything, anywhere," (straining already restricted budgets for basic things like street cleaning, park maintenance and road repairs) and hoping community will materialise, is folly. Sprawling, disconnected development like this will never encourage the kind of long-term investment from families and wealthier older people which would have genuine economic benefit to the area.

AnonymousJune 10th 2014.

Even more fundamentally, unless many more 3 bed+ apartments are built, families will be forced to move out of the centre. A real pity as this will mean the centre is always younger and transient. Compare that with the centre of cities such as Malaga where large apartments are available right in the centre.

AnonymousJune 10th 2014.

Compulsory purchase and building vast parks is hardly an imaginative unheard of idea. You are no great innovator Tom. Perhaps there are reasons other than imagination and drive that these things haven't yet happened?

Ghostly TomJune 10th 2014.

People being realistic don't get much done, you need people with vision and drive for that. People who have the big idea and get it done. Sadly the city lacks people like that. Being 'realistic' is just an excuse to give up.

4 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousJune 10th 2014.

Compulsory purchase and building vast parks is hardly an imaginative unheard of idea. You are no great innovator Tom. Perhaps there are reasons other than imagination and drive that these things haven't yet happened?

GimboidJune 10th 2014.

If all it takes is vision and drive, why don't you get on with it? People who don't understand the reality of circumstances don't get much done either, and end up pissing in the wind and getting frustrated.

Poster BoyJune 10th 2014.

People with big ideas are usually the catalysts. It's the realists who "get it done."

Calum McGJune 11th 2014.

Well, if Tom is an ideas man and I am a realist, let's get on with it... ;)

Ghostly TomJune 10th 2014.

Once you hear 'let's be realistic' from the realists an idea is dead. I don't remember saying I was an innovator, nor did I mention vast parks. There are just a number of little pockets of land across the city centre that could be greened. It will never get done of course because there are too many people who think nothing can ever be done so why bother trying. Personally I have no power or money to do it. If I had both I would. Too much negativity on here. You suggest a simple idea and it just gets shot down. Time to leave I think.

5 Responses: Reply To This...
GimboidJune 10th 2014.

I personally wouldn't say "It can't be done" but I think it's reasonable to talk about the practicalities. Coming up with ideas in a vacuum is actually pretty easy - implementing them in practice requires a different skill set.

AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

And now Tom has taken his ball home cos no one has a magic £10million (or whatever) to deliver this lovely but impractical idea.

AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

The Co-op/NOMA utilised a £20million EU Development fund to landscape its “Public Realm” (even though they have sold it off!) around No.1 Angel Sq, with a second square due next to New Century House- so there is definitely public money available for urban landscaping. The same funding was used for Greengate Sq, Cottonfields in Ancoats, Cutting Room Sq in Ancoats and First St to name a few. Unfortunately in Manchester the results of that spending seems to be a carve up between consultants, construction companies and paving-stone lobbyists in which minimal trees & greenery materialises to create places that people actually what to spend time in and would have genuine economic benefit.

AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

EU funding is not mainstream funding and comes with it's own criteria in terms of how and when it must be spent. Same with funding bid for from any central government pot. None of those schemes involved compulsory purchase (a costly and lengthy legal process - as it should be when you're taking taking away people's property rights for public good).

AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

But ultimately it is “public” money. Yes the criterion is rigid, but that has been set by “publicly-elected servants.” It’s only political will which decrees it so and as such, it is not within the realms of impossibility many commentators on here are too willing to proclaim it to be. Similarly those who always highlight the demarcation between Capital Spending and Local Government pots for things like library closures and street cleaning- it's still "our" money. NB. The NOMA project did involve compulsory purchasing land, plus handing over public land to private hands eg. Co-op (as have many of the other post-IRA bombing projects) across the city which shows that it can be done when the Councils (with support of Central Government) are minded to do so.

Ghostly TomJune 11th 2014.

It is a perfectly practical, doable and desirable idea. The negativity of some people on this forum amazes me and depresses me in roughly equal measures. You suggest a small improvement to a couple of pocket handkerchief sized bits of land and you are overwhelmed by a tidal wave of negativity and one barely concealed insult from someone who hasn't got the class to name themselves. There is money out there but we lack are people with the necessary vision to see what could be done.

7 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

I agree but I'm not even sure it’s people lacking vision. I think the political clique with developers in this city ensures that public funding (especially through the Capital Spending budget which hasn’t suffered the chronic slashing of the rest of Local Government) goes straight to the big five accountants/consultants, FTSE250 construction companies and the usual cabal of favoured architects (the beneficiaries to the NOMA project bears this out). With less than 15% political turnout in the city centre I’m not sure resident’s demands for more greenspace are likely to be met anytime soon by an aloof political Soviet.

AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

Tom, can you at least come up with some ways in which you'd get developers to part with their land?

AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

*A Land Value Tax would be one: en.wikipedia.org/…/Land_value_tax…. On a small island with a growing population such as the UK, allowing Land Bankers to profit from under-developing or under-using land within our city cores whilst people battle against destroying the greenbelt is a scandal. *Stop granting "temporary (zombie)” car park status to plots, to encourage genuine commitment to redevelopment. *Enforce Section 215 laws to first encouraged, then penalise owners, whose land and property blight the city (and other people’s investments). *Use the CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy)/106 agreements/planning caveats more effectively to create the necessary amenities such as parks, schools and medical facilities for sustainable development, demanding genuine quality and sustainability from developers. *Finish existing targeted “regeneration areas of the city within a swifter timeframe rather than moving on to the next great “Masterplan” or allowing developers to undermine coherent town planning with fringe locations. This might ensure the city population is less transient, of a broader demographic and that people come together within genuine sustainable communities to grow and further invest in the place rather than the current boom/bust methodology of re-landscaped stagnation.

AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

What would you say if I came along and decreed that your driveway was an eyesore and should be made into a pocket park for the benefit of the wider public? You might object. You might assert that my point of view is subjective and unjustified. You might assert that my compensation offer is inadequate. You might choose to fight my threatened compulsory purchase order through the courts. So you see these things may be desirable (from certain points of view) but certainly not always practical or doable or worth the time and expense when there are other pressing needs for the same resources.

AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

...Or what if I'd invested money and energy into making my home and community a better place to live for myself, my family and my neighbours, and the bloke next door (who never even visited the city) knocked his building- down leaving the plot as rubble? What if he then turned it into a car park, allowing it to be covered in graffiti, lying strewn with litter and drug-users needles (see SIP/ TOTAL car parks, etc.)? Or what he refused all offers to sell or even work with prospective developers to utilise his land? What if he never paid Council tax or business rates; what if he was registered offshore further reducing the tax available for basic maintenance services outside my home? Manchester is blighted by 200years of absentee landlords caring not one jot for other people. Why would I feel sorry for them? It’s time for real imagination (not just the rhetoric from the Council) and leadership because the economic viability and sustainability of the city will fail without it. Seeking to make apologies for abject selfishness is a lame response.

Ghostly TomJune 11th 2014.

Still waiting for you to come up with ideas or solutions that address the city's problems and not hypothetical ideas about my drive or my neighbours, who we like a lot and keep their property tidy. Less shooting down ideas and more coming up with them. Keep to the point. We are not discussing how tidy or attractive my drive is but trying to find ways to make the city centre a more attractive place to visit, live in and attract business.

AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

We are not discussing your driveway, correct. We are discussing someone else's. You see?

Ghostly TomJune 11th 2014.

Thank you anonymous 1&3....anonymous 2 compulsory purchase ....anonymous 4 my driveway isn't an eyesore in the city centre where passing visitors and business people see it. It's lined with garden and pots and is an example of what be could be done if people could overcome your unremitting negativity about a simple idea to make the city more attractive. I can only think you are a fan of ugly unattractive cities. You're very good at criticising people who suggest solutions what would you do about it? Not heard anything positive from you at all, just criticism of a simple idea to make the city more attractive. Let's hear your ideas please.

1 Response: Reply To This...
AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

You're completely missing the point Tom. Why is your subjective opinion of what makes for an unsightly or poor use of a fairly small plot of land more valid than mine? Who defines what is in the public interest? What gives you the right to confiscate someone else's property to install your own vision, particularly when these sites are in economic use providing a service to paying customers? Why choose the piece of land outside Tom's window rather than the many other pieces of blighted land throughout the city? The point I am making is that in order to compulsory purchase someone's property you need a compelling case in the public interest and be prepared to defend it through the courts if necessary with all the man hours and legal costs this implies. Not impossible but not easy and potentially very costly. If your resources are finite then you choose the cases that will have the biggest impact which I suspect is why we see these powers being used only in certain cases i.e. London Road Fire Station or the Etihad Campus.

Ghostly TomJune 11th 2014.

You have completely missed the point. Still no solutions from you, just attacks of my small idea to tidy up a little area of the city centre. Unless you can come up with some concrete ideas to improve things could I please ask you to move on and find someone else's idea to attack while hiding behind your anonymity? I am just about improving the look of the city. Your attacks on my idea are quite out of proportion to my original post. I will not be responding to any more of your comments as it just seems to encourage you to attack my little idea to brighten up a couple of neglected plots of land. What is wrong with wanting to do that?

2 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

Why are you so keen to portray constructive feedback as an attack? You're the one attacking people for failing to implement your pipe dreams. Simple ideas can often be complex to implement - confiscating private land to build parks on can be a very complex, costly and risky process and ideally has to be part of a much larger scheme if it is to be worthwhile.

AnonymousJune 11th 2014.

But here's a few concrete suggestions anyway: 1. Lobby the council to pilot a Compulsory purchase order (CPO) for a large collection of small separate sites within a defined area such as the northern quarter where there is a demonstrable impact on public amenity 2. Lobby the government to overhaul CPO legislation to make it easier, less costly and less risky to enact 3. Lobby the government to devolve more resources down to local councils to enable them to carry out more of this kind of work 4. Lobby the government for more tax breaks / incentives to make brownfield land cheaper to develop

AnonymousJune 12th 2014.

can someone please petition the council to get rid of that so called "joke" play area in front of the cathedral...its caused nothing but congestion & confusion...instead of widening up the crammy run-down city centre why don't they give the surrounding areas a financial boost...and stop penalising car users...

5 Responses: Reply To This...
AnonymousJune 12th 2014.

It was madness blocking off that street. Yes, daytime car use needs to decrease, but this is lunacy

AnonymousJune 12th 2014.

Oh dear another self-righteous motorist. How are car users penalised exactly? I have driven through Deansgate plenty of times via the short diversion onto chapel street. It makes virtually no difference. Surely the city centre above all should be a place attractive to pedestrians. It is only right they are given priority.

AnonymousJune 12th 2014.

Yeah anon 3, but the way it's all been blocked off looks a bloody shambles

AnonymousJune 12th 2014.

They're 'penalised' because they can't drive where they want, when they want, without other people/things getting in their way. It's a hard life.

AnonymousJune 12th 2014.

I was under the impression that the way it has been blocked off is only temporary and they will be landscaping it properly later on? Probably when the money is available?

Ghostly TomJune 18th 2014.

I haven't actually seen anyone playing in it, well no kids at least. But it does seem to attract people who enjoy a little alfresco drinking. I think that's the best way to put it.

AnonymousNovember 10th 2014.

This was passed at planning panel last week. Lets hope that the vast adjacent wasteland Middlewood Locks is next!

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 2021

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