To: Trafford Housing Trust
Shawe House and Extra Care
Proposal – Feedback Questionnaire: Group Response
Dear Sirs
Thank you for providing us
with the opportunity to consider the Trust’s outline proposals in relation to
the above.
We have considered the Trusts
proposals and are now writing to submit our comments on these.
The Group is aware that these
proposals were discussed at a recent consultation meeting where it was
explained that the Trust is seeking views about the possibility of developing
an Extra-Care housing facility at the Shaw House; which it has recently
purchased.
The proposal outlined is
dependent on the Trust acquiring and building on part of the former William
Wroe Golf Course site (WW). From an examination of documents circulated at the
meeting the Trust would need to purchase an additional 4090m2; equating
to approximately 61.5% of the entire site of the proposed development.
The comments of this Group are
as follows:
1.
The Group does not in principle disagree with
plans to redevelop Shaw House to provide a housing facility of the type
proposed; providing this is contained within the existing site curtilage.
However, the Group would be interested to know the basis on which this
property, which until recently was used as a registered care home, is deemed to
be in such a poor state of repair to justify its demolition.
2.
The Group is however strongly opposed to any
attempts to use all or part of the WW site for a housing scheme of any kind. In
this regard the Group is surprised that the Trust has come forward with
proposals of this kind, so soon after a campaign which attracted mass support
from residents succeeded in its then objective of removing the entire WW site
from the Trafford portion of the GMSF’s Strategic Allocations for housing
purposes. The Group therefore considers that residents have already rejected
proposals for housing development on this site; which remain unacceptable.
3.
The Group notes that in the written description
of the proposals the Trust states that its proposals will “complement the
masterplan for the William Wroe Golf Course”.
The Group is not aware of the existence of any such masterplan and
requests that the Trust clarifies the status of this plan and its relevance for
these proposals.
4.
Along with other local community groups and
residents, The Group is in the process of engaging with Trafford Council
regarding how the WW site might become a protected space for public use. In
this regard, the Council recently commissioned design consultants Arup to
undertake options appraisal work of the WW site. The Group understands that the
Council is expecting that a report on the outcome of this work will be received
in the next few weeks, and that a report to the Executive on the next steps
will be forthcoming later in the year. Given this situation, the Group finds it
hard to understand how proposals by the Trust take any account of this current engagement
process, or the expectations arising from this. In the light of this, the Group
wonders how the Trust’s proposals can really be said to compliment any masterplan
for the WW site.
5.
The Group notes that the use of part of the WW
site would constitute a development infringing on existing Green Belt. Together
with several other community groups within the area, this Group is committed to
preserving existing Green Belt within Flixton and will make strong objections
to any proposal to build on this. As part of this, the Group would highlight
that a large section of the site earmarked for the Trust’s development
proposals consists of the former orchard area attached to Shaw House when this was
a farm. Many of the trees within the orchard area are of local interest, and
the Group has identified this part of the WW site as being of particular
significance, for the possible establishment of a community orchard area; an
option supported by many local residents within recent public meetings held by
the Group. The Trust’s proposals are therefore considered to be totally at odds
with the WW’s protected Green Belt status, and with the Group’s (and residents)
objectives for this part of the WW site.
6.
In terms of the details submitted, the Group is
concerned about vehicular access to the proposed development which is not
clear. The Group would point out that Penny Bridge Lane is a narrow road, which
on certain days is already used for access for car parking for the Trafford FC
ground and other adjacent facilities. It is hard to see how this road could be
widened, or indeed be used as a main access point for a development of the size
envisaged. Alternatively, access directly onto Flixton Road would be difficult
given the proximity to the Bowfell Road/Flixton Road/Brook Road junction. This
junction covers a busy intersection of three roads and is very busy with local
and passing traffic. It is hard to see how direct access onto Flixton Road
would provide safe ingress/egress to the proposed site.
7.
Regarding some of the specific questions asked
in the Feedback Questionnaire, the Group would ask the Trust to clarify some of
its meanings. For example, respondents are asked to say what type of community
services they would prefer. These include facilities such as a library, GP
surgery and café etc. The Group is aware that Trafford Council closed former
Bowfell library in 2015; the site of which is currently being developed as a
care home. Is the Trust saying that this facility would be reinstated if its proposals
were to proceed? Further, can the Trust be certain that any of the other
community facilities respondents are asked to comment on can be provided? If not,
the Group would question whether it is reasonable to raise public expectations
at this stage of what is essentially a sounding board exercise, with no clear
plan or commitment regarding whether any of these potential facilities can be
provided.
Please will you consider these
comments and let us have your response as soon as possible.
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Harper,
Paul Ashworth,
Barbara Harper,
Matt Goddard,
Angela Hart,
Keith Evans,
(On behalf of the My Flixton
Neighbourhood Planning Group)
