SALFORD CITY COUNCIL
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT
SALFORD GREENSPACE STRATEGY
CONSULTATION STATEMENT
JULY 2006
CONSULTATION STATEMENT
PREPARED UNDER REGULATION 17(1)(b) OF
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (LOCAL
DEVELOPMENT) (ENGLAND)
REGULATIONS 2004
1.
Introduction
1.1 Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (England) Regulations
2004 states that the Local Planning Authority should prepare a
consultation statement summarising discussions with local communities
and stakeholders before advertising a Supplementary Planning
Document (SPD) for public consultation. This is a reflection of the
Government’s desire to ‘strengthen community and stakeholder
involvement in the development of local communities’.
1.2 In due course (May 2008), the Council will be adopting a Statement of
Community Involvement (SCI) that will set out how the public will be
consulted on new planning policy and planning applications. Once the
SCI is adopted planning documents will be required to conform to its
provisions.
1.3 This Consultation Statement has been prepared in advance of the SCI,
but aims to reflect the intentions of Government planning guidance for
reporting on community involvement in the plan making process. It
describes the involvement of stakeholders, the community, voluntary
organisations, and statutory consultees in the preparation of Salford’s
draft Greenspace Strategy SPD.
1.4 The consultation process adopted meets both the minimum requirements
set out in the Town and Country Planning (Local Development)
(England) Regulations 2004 and the gold standards in community
involvement devised by Partners IN Salford.
1.5 The Statement was made available during the formal period of public
consultation, in accordance with the Regulations. The process for formal
consultation on the draft SPD and draft Sustainability Appraisal Report is
set out in Section 8 of this Consultation Statement.
2.
Gold Standards IN Community Involvement
2.1 Partners IN Salford (Salford’s Local Strategic Partnership) have devised
5 aspirational standards for community involvement and all partners of
the Council are signed up to delivering community involvement in this
way.
(www.partnersinsalford.org/communityinvolvement).
2.2 The Gold Standard is a goal for partners to aim towards, particularly
where there is activity or proposed change within the City that will have a
significant impact upon local communities. They are:
1) Value the skills, knowledge and commitment of local people.
2) Develop working relationships with communities and community
organisations.
3) Support staff and local people to work with and learn from each
other (as a whole community)
4)
5)
3.
Plan for change with, and take collective action with, the
community.
Work with people in the community to develop and use frameworks
for evaluation.
Process of Community Involvement to Date
3.1 Extensive consultation during the preparation of the SPD was
undertaken to:
 Establish the broad principles of the Strategy and raise awareness of
greenspace issues
 Carry out an assessment of needs for open space and recreation
space in accordance with the requirements of PPG17
 Consider the implications of specific site proposals
3.2 The consultation involved a number of methods and reflected the various
stages of the development of the Strategy:
4.

Urban Open Space Strategy
- Presentations to (the then) 9 Community Committee groups (JanApril 2004)
- Article and Questionnaires to local residents (Feb-March 2004)
- Presentations to Primary & Secondary Head Teachers Meetings
(March 2004)
- Meetings with Sports Governing Bodies and Clubs (May 2004)

Wider Greenspace Survey
- Questionnaires to target 300+ Community Groups (August – Sept
05)
- Presentation to Primary School Head Teachers Meeting (Sept 05)

Assessment of Needs
- Collation and understanding of information, gathered through
Wider Greenspace Survey and from other surveys and
corporate activities.

Greenspace Strategy
- Key Stakeholder Group Workshop (Nov. 05)
- Presentation to Environmental Scrutiny Committee (Dec. 05)
- Meeting with CABEspace and Housing Market Renewal
representatives (Dec. 05)
Urban Open Space Strategy Consultation
4.1 The initial phase of the Greenspace SPD was taken forward as the draft
‘Urban Open Space Strategy’. This was restricted to considerations of
the formal outdoor recreation sites in the city and the level of provision
and access for residents to equipped play areas, formal urban parks,
sports pitches and other youth and adult outdoor recreation facilities.
Presentations:
4.2 The first stage of consultation for the draft Urban Open Space Strategy
involved taking the proposals to each of the 9 community committees, or
a sub group established for the purpose. A standard power point slide
show was presented with focus on the characteristics and proposals for
the relevant Community Committee Area. Views were obtained in
relation to the proposed access standards, methodology and site
proposals by a range of methods: group discussion around area plans;
workshops; and questionnaires.
4.3 A separate presentation was made to the primary and secondary heads
with particular focus on the dual use of school sports pitches and location
of play areas.
4.4 Presentations were given to the Football Consultative Committee and the
Housing Strategy Group. A presentation was also given to the Living
Environment Forum, one of the Delivery Partnerships for the Community
Plan which included representatives from Health Partnership and the
Community Safety Partnership.
Questionnaires:
4.5 The Urban Open Space Strategy Residents Survey was carried out with
a short article and questionnaire published in the Life in Salford
magazine and delivered to all households in the city. The article provided
a simple overview of the importance of open space and purpose of the
Strategy (An extract from Life in Salford is available on request).
4.6 The draft Urban Open Space Strategy was also made available on the
Salford City Council website, with an on-line questionnaire running
concurrently with the Life in Salford article.
4.7 In total there were 24 responses to the questionnaire, with over half of
these from the web site. The responses to the questionnaire are
summarised in the table below. Eighteen respondents wanted more
facilities at a variety of locations.
Table 1: Summary of Responses to Urban Open Space Strategy
Questionnaire
Reason for not using Open Space
New Facilities Required
Litter/ Dog Waste
Anti-Social Behaviour/ Fear of Crime
Old and Damaged Equipment
Off-Road Bikes
Too far away
Lack of Toilets/ Refreshment
Facilities
Wider Range of Facilities for all ages
Water Features
Cycle ways
Picnic Areas/ Refreshments Facilities
Organised Events, Festivals, Sports
Park Wardens and Police Patrols
Wild Areas/ Informal Green Spaces
Security Gates and Grids, Safety Mat
Seating and Toilets
Increased Maintenance
5.
Wider Greenspace Survey
5.1 The Wider Greenspace Survey was carried out to evaluate the
importance placed on the informal leisure, amenity and recreation sites.
The range of sites largely corresponds to the typology provided in
Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 17 (not including civic spaces).
5.2 Questionnaires, with covering letters, were sent out to over 300 separate
Community Groups with a wide range of leisure and community interests
during August & September. A list of open space categories was
provided with the questionnaire indicating the types of sites being
included (copies of the questionnaire and cover letter are available to
view on request).
5.3 The Questionnaire was also available for completion by members of the
general public on the Salford Website – with a link button provided from
the main internet home page.
5.4 A presentation was given at a Primary School Headteachers Meeting
outlining the coverage of the Wider Greenspace Strategy and the
relationship to the previous presentation for the Urban Open Space
Strategy. The questionnaire was distributed to all Year 6 pupils.
Response Summary
5.5 Over 400 questionnaires were returned, from a wide range of individuals
as well as from 32 separate organisations and pupils from 16 schools.
Responses were received from each of the Community Committee Areas
(CCA), only 3 responses from Ordsall & Langworthy, compared to 81
responses from Swinton and 78 from East Salford (this reflects the level
of interest that greenspace issues had generated locally in recent times).
5.6 Detailed information was provided about specific sites and their issues
as well as general suggestions and concerns city/CCA-wide (the
summary of responses is available on the internet at
www.salford.gov.uk/greenspace or on request).
6.
Assessment of Needs
6.1 The assessment of existing and future needs of the local communities in
Salford for open space, sports and recreational facilities supported the
production of the Greenspace Strategy.
6.2 The assessment of needs and expectations used information from a
number of surveys and consultation processes undertaken by the city
council, including, but not limited to, those mentioned above. These
were:
 Salford City Council’s Quality of Life Survey (2003/2004)
 Salford City Council’s Best Value Survey (2003/2004)
 Urban Open Space Strategy Consultation
 UDP Consultation & Inquiry
 Environmental Services Surveys (Parks and Openspaces Survey
Results 2002 and 2003)
 Wider Greenspace Questionnaire
Between them they highlight key issues and areas of concern relating to
greenspace provision in the city.
6.3 Key Issues identified through the assessment of need focus on 6 areas:
 Quality of Open Space
 Need for Facilities
 Protection from Development
 Accessibility & Connectivity
 Fear of Crime/ Nuisance Behaviour
 Management & Maintenance
Responses to the Assessment of Needs
6.4 The Greenspace SPD has responded to the information provided from
the Assessment of Needs in a variety of ways:
 Consideration of the potential impacts of nuisance behaviour through
increased levels of equipped play provision led
1. to the directing of NEAP facilities into neighbourhood parks
2. away from tight residential neighbourhoods, and
3. the promotion of innovative alternatives to standard fixed play
equipment in LEAPs;
 The need for improvements to connectivity and accessibility between
and to sites resulted in clear emphasis on
1. creating physically accessible sites for all, taking the approach of
standards based on walking distances and
2. developing a network of Green Access Corridors connecting the
Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace sites;




7.
The need for a wide range of facilities forms the underlying approach
of the Strategy with a hierarchy of recreation and open space site
types with different catchment distances;
The importance of semi-natural areas of wildlife potential and sites for
informal recreation led to the inclusion of wider greenspace sites in
the audit and the standards for semi-natural sites being proposed,
along with the need to change maintenance regimes within urban
parks to increase the value of the sites for wildlife;
Concerns regarding the management and maintenance led to the
development of policies which ensure no new equipment is installed
without appropriate revenue funding first being secured;
The importance of quality over quantity ensures that while working
towards meeting the standards, the focus of the Strategy is as much
about the improvement of existing sites as creating large numbers of
new ones – this is particularly the case with sport pitches.
Greenspace Strategy
Greenspace Stakeholder Workshop
7.1 The Greenspace Stakeholder Workshop was carried out to test the views
of a range of community stakeholders and relevant agencies in respect
of the approach being taken with the Greenspace Strategy and the local
standards being proposed for Salford. Attendance at the event included
Councillors, Regional Agencies, Private Landowners, Local Community
representatives, Voluntary/Interest Group representatives and Officers.
7.2 The Workshop was held in November 2005, following the completion of
the audit and assessment, but prior to the first draft of the Strategy being
completed. It was felt that this was the optimum time to hold such an
event, with sufficient information available and proposals able to be
presented to enable informed and constructive discussion.
7.3 The Workshop consisted of Officer presentations, followed by 3 separate
discussion groups (the notes from each discussion group can be
provided on request).
7.4 The overall response to the approach and proposals was positive.
Helpful discussion regarding the standards resulted in the confirmation of
2 semi-natural greenspace standards and the discarding of 2 suggested
standards (relating to woodland/1000 population and Local Nature
Reserve/1000 population).
Environmental Scrutiny Committee: Planning Sub-Group
7.5 A presentation was provided to the Planning Sub-Group of the Council’s
Environmental Scrutiny Committee to outline the proposed Standards for
the Greenspace Strategy and discuss with Councillors the approach
being taken.
Meeting with CABEspace and Housing Market Renewal (HMR) Teams
7.6 A meeting was held with the Salford/Manchester representative for
CABEspace and Salford Council HMR Officers to discuss the approach
of the Greenspace Strategy, its implications on the Housing Market
Renewal areas and the potential for implementing the Greenspace
Strategy through the regeneration process.
8.
Formal Public Consultation of the Draft SPD
8.1 Consultation on the draft SPD was carried out during a formal
consultation period, between 17 February 2006 until 30 March 2006, and
involved:
 The Draft SPD, Sustainability Appraisal, Consultation Statement, and
SPD Matters sent to identified formal Consultees and Stakeholders
(see Appendix B for list of formal consultees) with a covering letter.
 Letter sent to known interested groups/individuals informing them
about consultation on the SPD and where to view the documents
(see Appendix C for list of non-formal consultees).
 Reference copies of all consultation draft documents made available
during normal opening times at Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road,
Swinton and at all Salford Libraries. Response forms were provided
for written comments.
 Posters were displayed in libraries.
 Dedicated advertisement placed in the Salford Advertiser ( free
paper).
 Details of the Greenspace Strategy SPD consultation were included
as part of Press Notice.
 Up-dated Internet Pages included full draft documents (SPD, SA,
SPD Matters, and this Consultation Statement) and response sheet –
www.salford.gov.uk/spdconsultation
8.2 During the consultation period the Greenspace Strategy linked into work
being carried out as part of the Council’s Food and Physical Activity
initiative, and involved attendance at both the Adult Group and the
Young Persons Group meetings to highlight the Strategy and the
potential for the greenspaces in Salford to provide areas for outdoor
recreation activity and encourage healthier lifestyles.
9.
Inspecting the SPD Documents
9.1 The SPD documents were available for inspection at the following
locations:
 On the council’s website: www.salford.gov.uk/spdconsultation
 Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, Salford.
Opening times: Monday to Friday, 8.30am to 4.30pm.
 Salford Libraries
Boothstown Library
(Standfield Drive)
Monday: 1.30pm – 7.00pm
Tuesday: 9.30am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.00pm
Wednesday: Closed
Thursday: 9.30am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.00pm
Friday: 9.30am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.00pm
Saturday: 9.30am – 12.30pm
Broadwalk Library
(Broadwalk, Salford)
Monday: 9.30am – 7.30pm
Tuesday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Wednesday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Thursday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Friday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Saturday: 9.00am – 1.00pm
Cadishead Library
(126 Liverpool Road)
Monday: 9.00am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 6.30pm
Tuesday: 9.00am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.30pm
Wednesday: 9.00am – 1.00pm
Thursday: 9.00am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.30pm
Friday: 9.00am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.30pm
Saturday: 9.00am – 1.00pm
Eccles Library
(Church Street)
Monday: 9.30am – 7.30pm
Tuesday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Wednesday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Thursday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Friday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Saturday: 9.00am – 1.00pm
Charlestown Library
(Albion High School, London
Street)
Monday: 9.00am – 1.00pm &
2.00pm – 5.30pm
Tuesday: 1.30pm – 5.30pm
Wednesday: Closed
Thursday: 9.00am – 1.00pm &
2.00pm – 5.30pm
Friday: 9.00am – 1.00pm &
2.00pm – 5.30pm
Saturday - Closed
Height Library
(King Street)
Monday: 9.30am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 7.30pm
Tuesday: 9.30am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.30pm
Wednesday: Closed
Thursday: 9.30am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.30pm
Friday: 9.30am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.30pm
Saturday: 9.00am – 1.00pm
Little Hulton Library
(Longshaw Drive)
Monday: 8.30am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 6.00pm
Tuesday: 8.30am – 12.30pm
Wednesday: 8.30am – 12.30pm
& 1.30pm – 5.30pm
Thursday: 8.30am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.30pm
Friday: 8.30am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.30pm
Saturday: 9.00am – 1.00pm
Winton Library
(Old Parrin Lane)
Monday: 9.30am – 1.00pm &
2.00pm – 7.00pm
Tuesday: 2.00pm – 5.30pm
Wednesday: Closed
Thursday: 2.00pm – 5.30pm
Friday: 9.30am – 1.00pm &
2.00pm – 5.30pm
Saturday: 9.30am – 1.00pm
Irlam Library
(Hurst Fold)
Monday: 9.00am – 12.30pm &
1.30am – 6.30pm
Tuesday: 9.00am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.30pm
Wednesday: 9.00am – 1.00pm
Thursday: 9.00am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 6.30pm
Friday: 9.00am – 12.30pm &
1.30pm – 5.30pm
Saturday: 9.00am – 1.00pm
Walkden Library
(Memorial Road)
Monday: 9.30am – 7.30pm
Tuesday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Wednesday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Thursday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Friday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Saturday: 9.00am – 1.00pm
Broughton Library
(400 – 404 Bury New Road)
Monday: 9.30am – 12.00 noon &
1.00pm – 7.30pm
Tuesday: 9.30am – 12.00noon &
1.00pm– 5.30pm
Wednesday: 9.30am – 12.00
noon & 1.00pm – 5.30pm
Thursday: 9.30pm – 1.00pm
Friday: 9.30am – 12.00 noon &
1.00pm – 5.30pm
Saturday: Closed
Clifton Library
(Community Centre, 6 Wynne
Avenue)
Monday: 2.00pm – 5.00pm &
5.30pm – 7.00pm
Tuesday: Closed
Wednesday: 2.00pm – 5.00pm
Thursday: Closed
Friday: 2.00pm – 5.00pm
Saturday: Closed
Hope Library
(Eccles Old Road)
Monday: 2.00pm – 5.30pm
Tuesday: Closed
Wednesday: 9.30am – 1.00pm &
2.00pm – 5.30pm
Thursday: Closed
Friday: 2.00pm - 5.30pm
Saturday: 9.00am – 1.00pm
Swinton Library
(Chorley Road)
Monday: 9.30am – 7.30pm
Tuesday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Wednesday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Thursday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Friday: 9.30am – 5.30pm
Saturday: 9.00am – 1.00pm
Worsley Village Library
(Worsley Road)
Monday: 10.00am – 1.00pm
Tuesday: 1.30pm – 5.30pm
Wednesday: Closed
Thursday: 1.30pm – 5.30pm
Friday: 10.00am – 1.00pm
Saturday: 10.00am – 1.00pm
9.2 Copies of the document were available at a cost of £10 each by post.
Payment was by cheque or postal order for £10, crossed and marked
'Account Payee' and made payable to City of Salford, to:
Salford Greenspace Strategy Draft SPD
Spatial Planning
Housing and Planning
Salford City Council
Civic Centre, Chorley Road,
Swinton, Salford, M27 5BW
10. Making Representations on the draft SPD
10.1 Comments were able to be made in writing or by way of electronic
communication and to be submitted in any of the following ways:
 Completion and submission of the forms online on the council’s
website: www.salford.gov.uk/spdconsultation
 Return of completed forms to the following address:
SPD Consultation
Spatial Planning
Housing and Planning
Salford City Council
Civic Centre, Chorley Road
Swinton, Salford, M27 5BW
 Return of completed forms by hand to the main reception desk at
Salford Civic Centre Reception Desk.
 Return of completed forms by Fax to 0161 793 3667 or Email to:
plans.consultation@salford.gov.uk
10.2 Responses had to be received no later than 4:30pm on Thursday
30th March 2006.
10.3 Any representations could be accompanied by a request to be notified at
a specified address of the adoption of the SPD.
10.4 Consultation responses and the identity of those making them have been
matters of public record and open to public scrutiny.
10.5 All consultation responses made by 4:30pm on 30 March 2006
have been fully considered and, where appropriate, changes have been
made to the draft SPD prior to its adoption.
11
Summary of Representations
11.1
It is a requirement of the regulations that a summary of the main issues
raised in representations made during the consultation period and how
these main issues have been addressed in the SPD.
11.2
A schedule of all representations has been prepared which is attached
to this document as Appendix D. This schedule includes the policy /
paragraph to which a representation has been made, the name and
reference number of the respondent, nature of the representation,
summary of the representation and the Council’s response, including
the Proposed Change.
APPENDIX A: LIST OF CONSULTEES AS PART OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREENSPACE STRATEGY AND MEANS
OF CONSULTATION.
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Angie Taylor
Neighbourhood Coordinator
✔
Barbara Nicholas
Salford Community Network
✔
Alice Smyth
Councillor Little Hulton
✔
✔
Joan Warburton
Freda Longworth
Resident Rutland Road
✔
Alan Longworth
Resident Rutland Road
✔
Liz Payne
Councillor Walkden North
✔
D. Fernandez
Councillor Little Hulton
✔
L. Nichols
Police
✔
Keith Jackson
Police
✔
Norbert Potter
Councillor Walkden South
✔
Philip Hagerty
Blackleach Country Park
✔
Jacqui Croney
Rutland Road & Parr Fold Park
✔
Terry Gradwell
Sports Development
✔
Irlam & Cadishead Community Committee Sub Group (05/04/04)
Ursula SossallaIredale
Neighbourhood Coordinator
✔
Guy Williams
Cadishead Sports Junior Football Club
✔
Margaret Graham
New Prospect Housing Limited
✔
John Shelley
Irlam & Cadishead Friend of Parks
✔
Pat Lever
Resident
✔
Nancy Heap
Irlam & Cadishead Friend of Parks
✔
Richard Abernethy
Accord/ Festival/ Community Committee
✔
Paul Greewhalgh
Greater Manchester Police
✔
Mark Fitzgerald
Greater Manchester Police
✔
Neil Hayden
Community Sports Development Officer
✔
Cllr. Joe Kean
Ward Councillor
✔
Worsley & Boothstown Community Committee Sub Group (03/03/04)
Tim Backhouse
Neighbourhood Coordinator
✔
Irene Dawson
✔
Carole Morris
✔
Councillor Boyd
✔
Questionnaire
Walkden & Little Hulton Community Committee Sub Group (08/03/04)
Meeting
URBAN OPEN SPACES
Presentation
with workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation
with discussion
Name
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Councillor Howard
✔
Pauline Ogden
✔
Robin Garrido
✔
Mike Howard
✔
Broughton & Blackfriars Community Committee Sub Group (02/03/04)
Helen Barker
Groundwork
✔
Michael Connaughton
Groundwork
✔
Carole Sumner
Broughton Trust
✔
David Nicholas
Hill St Residents Association
✔
Mo Lamb
Sure Start, Blackfriars & Ordsall
✔
Keith Groves
Cliffside Residents
✔
J Sherliker
Cliffside Residents
✔
Peter Ball
Blackfriars TA
✔
Joan Atton
The Broughton Trust
✔
Cllr. B P Murphy
Councillor
✔
Tony Cotton
Irwell Valley Housing Association
✔
Beryl Hawke
Albert Park Tenants Association
✔
Iris Kennedy
Early Years Play & Childcare svs
✔
A Parker
CDW Community Svs
✔
A Every
NCO Broughton/Blackfriars
✔
Tom Beddington
Gt Clowes St Residents Association
✔
Frieda Rimmer
Val Broadbent
Alma
Ordsall & Langworthy Community Committee Sub Group (29/01/04)
Anne Golding
SAYO (Salford Lads and Girls Club)
✔
Gail Skelly
Ordsall Community Arts
✔
Ross Spanner
Neighbourhood Coordinator
✔
Alan Cruddos
South Clarendon
✔
Ken Atkinson
Friends of Ordsall Park
✔
Jonathon Dale
The New Barracks Cooperative
✔
Mary Rolfe
SRB Seedley & Langworthy
✔
Andy Brown
GMP
✔
Paul Fawcett
GMP
✔
Questionnaire
✔
Meeting
Lesley Wrightson
Presentation
with workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation
with discussion
Name
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Councillor Langworthy
✔
M. Lamb
Sure Start
✔
Eccles Community Committee Sub Group (28/04/04)
Gilbert Hearn
Resident
✔
Harry Sheldon
Eccles Scouts & Guides
✔
Bruce Thompson
Ellesmere Park Residents Association
✔
Elizabeth Charnley
Alma Street Residents Association
✔
Ian Wallace
Resident
✔
Edmund Rogers
C.A.R.E.
✔
Jonathan Grieves
M.R.R.E.R.A./Community Committee/ F.O.E.R.
✔
Jim Wheelton
Community Committee/ Salford Disabled
Motorists
✔
Joyce Evans
Salford Pensions
✔
Barbara Holmes
Eccles Townswomen’s Guild
✔
Sandra Dutson
Resident
✔
Joyce Phillips
Patricroft Ladies Bowling Club Rep.
✔
Eccles Community Committee Sub Group (25/02/04)
Chris Tucker
Eccles Community Development Worker
✔
Vikki Ewan
PPI Forum
✔
Mrs. B. Holmes
Eccles Townswomen’s Guild
✔
Alan Broughton
Eccles Ward Councillor
✔
S. Dutson
Resident
✔
Mark Charnley
Resident
✔
Elizabeth Charnley
Resident
✔
J.M. Phillips
Resident
✔
Diane Oakley
Resident
✔
Jonathan Grieves
Resident
✔
Harry Sheldon
Resident
✔
Jackie Matthews
Administration Assistant
✔
Eccles Community Committee Sub Group (28/04/04)
Chris Tucker
Eccles Community Development Worker
Gilbert Hearn
Resident
Mrs. B. Holmes
Eccles Townswomen’s Guild
Bruce Thompson
Ellesmere Park Residents Association
S. Dutson
Resident
Questionnaire
Cllr. Andy Salmon
Meeting
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
workshop
Presentation with
discussion
Name
Ian Wallace
Resident
Elizabeth Charnley
Alma Street Residents Association
Joyce Phillips
Patricroft Ladies Bowling Club Rep.
Edmund Rodgers
C.A.R.E.
Jonathan Grieves
M.R.R.E.R.A./Comm.Comm./F.O.E.R.
Harry Sheldon
Eccles Scouts & Guides
Jim Wheelton
Community Comm./Salford Disabled Motorists
Joyce Evans
Salford Pensions
Jackie Matthews
Administration Assistant
Claremont, Weaste & Seedley Community Committee Sub Group
(10/02/04)
Mike McHugh
✔
Mick Walbank
✔
K. Fairhurst
✔
F. Kaikumba
✔
R. Marsh
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Councillor Clague
✔
Councillor Heywood
✔
Councillor Perkins
✔
Councillor Ullman
✔
F. Butterworth
Oakwood Community Group
✔
M. Parnham
Oakwood Community Group
✔
G. Ainsworth
Hope Action Group
✔
S. Cooke
Oaklands Road
✔
A. Booth
Peoples Voice/Tootal Boys FC
✔
S. Healey
Upper Middle Victoria Road Home Watch
✔
R. Powell
Meadowgate Road
✔
L. Crowder
Meadows Resource Centre
✔
A. Marsh
SARA
✔
M. Ferrer
Claremont Community Association
✔
B. Murch
Salford Advertiser
✔
J. Leonard
Meadowgate Court
✔
P. Leonard
Meadowgate Court
✔
B. Wright
LHARA
✔
K. Archer
St Luke’s CE Church
✔
J. Burns
Eccles Old Road
✔
C. Thorpe
SPCT
✔
L. Goodier
SPACE
✔
L. Chappell
Middle Victoria Road Home Watch
✔
Swinton Community Committee Sub Group (05/02/04)
Julie McKinnon
Neighbourhood Coordinator
✔
Catharine Keelan
Administrative Officer
✔
Liz James
Swinton Open Spaces Residents Association
✔
Barry Wilde
Swinton Open Spaces Residents Association
✔
Patricia Wardle
Beechfarm Conservation Group
✔
Cllr. Bernard Lea
Councillor Pendlebury
✔
Steve Sheridan
Swinton Valley T.A.R.A
✔
Cllr. Maureen Lea
Councillor Pendlebury
✔
Jonathon Long
Groundwork
✔
Joe Marshall
✔
Questionnaire
✔
Meeting
Councillor Carson
Presentation with
workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
discussion
Name
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Head Teacher
All Hallows RC High School
✔
Head Teacher
Buile Hill High School
✔
Head Teacher
Canon Williamson CofE High School
✔
Head Teacher
Chatsworth High Community Special School
✔
Head Teacher
Harrop Fold High School
✔
Head Teacher
Hope High School
✔
Head Teacher
Irlam and Cadishead Community High School
✔
Head Teacher
Moorside High School
✔
Head Teacher
New Park High School
✔
Head Teacher
Oakwood High School
✔
Head Teacher
St Ambrose Barlow RC High School
✔
Head Teacher
St George’s RC High School
✔
Head Teacher
St Patrick’s RC High School
✔
Head Teacher
The Albion High School
✔
Head Teacher
The Beis Yaakov Jewish High School
✔
Head Teacher
The Swinton High School
✔
Head Teacher
Walkden High School
✔
Head Teacher
Wentworth High School
✔
Head Teachers of Primary and Special (Primary) Schools (17/03/04)
Head Teacher
Alder Park Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
All Souls RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Barton Moss Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Beech Street Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Boothstown Methodist Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Brentnall Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Bridgewater Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Broadoak Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Cadishead Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Cathedral School of St Peter & St John
✔
Head Teacher
Charlestown Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Christ Church CofE Primary School
✔
Questionnaire
✔
Meeting
Tony Camilleri
Head Teachers of High Schools & Head Teachers of Special High
Schools (22/03/04)
Presentation with
workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
discussion
Name
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Christ The King RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Clarendon Road Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Clifton Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Dukesgate Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Ellenbrook Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Fiddlers Lane Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Godfrey Ermen Memorial CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Grosvenor Road Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Hilton Lane Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Holy Cross and All Saints RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Irlam Endowed Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Irlam Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
James Brindley Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Langworthy Road Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Lark Hill Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Lewis Street Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Light Oaks Infant School
✔
Head Teacher
Light Oaks Junior School
✔
Head Teacher
Lower Kersal Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Marlborough Road Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Mesne Lea Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Monton Green Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Moorfield Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Moorside Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Mossfield Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
North Grecian Street Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
North Walkden Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Our Lady and Lancashire Martyrs’ RC Primary
School
✔
Head Teacher
Peel Hall Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Radclyffe Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Seedley Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Andrew’s CofE Primary School(Boothstown)
✔
Head Teacher
St Andrew’s CofE Primary School(Eccles)
✔
Head Teacher
St Andrew’s Methodist Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Augustine’s CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Boniface RC Primary School
✔
Questionnaire
Presentation with
discussion
Head Teacher
Meeting
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
workshop
Name
Means of Consultation
Consultee
St Charles’ RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Clement’s Egerton CofE Primary
School(Ordsall)
✔
Head Teacher
St Edmund’s RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St George’s CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Gilbert’s RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St James’ RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St John’s CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Joseph’s RC Primary School(Little
Hulton/Worsley)
✔
Head Teacher
St Joseph’s RC Primary School(Salford/Ordsall)
✔
Head Teacher
St Joseph’s the Worker RC Primary School(Irlam)
✔
Head Teacher
St Luke’s CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Luke’s RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Mark’s CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Mark’s RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Mary’s CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Mary’s RC Primary School(Eccles)
✔
Head Teacher
St Mary’s RC Primary School(Swinton)
✔
Head Teacher
St Paul’s CofE Primary School(Crompton St)
✔
Head Teacher
St Paul’s CofE Primary School(Heathside)
✔
St Paul’s CofE Primary
School(Kersal/Salford/Nevile Rd)
St Paul’s CofE Primary School(New
Windsor/Cross Lane)
✔
Head Teacher
St Paul’s Peel CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Peter’s CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Philip’s CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Philip’s RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Sebastian’s RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Teresa’s RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Thomas of Canterbury Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Summerville Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
The Deans Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
The Friars Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Tootal Drive Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Wardley CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Westwood Park Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Head Teacher
✔
Questionnaire
Presentation with
discussion
Head Teacher
Meeting
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
workshop
Name
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Wharton Primary School
✔
Questionnaire
Presentation with
discussion
Head Teacher
Meeting
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
workshop
Name
Soccer Consultative Committee Meeting (11/05/04)
Paul Davis
Moorside Rangers J.F.C.
✔
Brian Elsey
Moorside Rangers J.F.C.
✔
Darren Kay
Moorside Rangers J.F.C.
✔
Tony Lee
Monton Amateurs F.C.
✔
Lynn Brown
Charlestown Youth Club F.C.
✔
George Lockley
Beechfield UTD F.C.
✔
John Simpson
Eccles Sunday League
✔
Bill Taylor
Salford City F.C.
✔
George Gilbody
Salford City Council
✔
Life in Salford Magazine Article and Questionnaire
✔
Delivered to all households in Salford
Attendees at Housing Strategy Group (06/04/04)
✔
Attendees at Salford Sports Council General Meeting (10/05/04)
✔
Living Environment Forum (10/10/03)
Mr McAllister
Irwell Valley HA
✔
Andi Baxter
Portico HA
✔
General Manager of Accommodation, The
University of Salford
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport
Executive (GMPTE)
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport
Executive (GMPTE)
✔
Dr Anne GreatRex
Principal Ecologist, GM Ecology Unit
✔
Tony Hothersall
Red Rose Forest Team
✔
Pete Stringer
Red Rose Forest, Green Streets Manager
✔
Helen Barker
Groundwork
✔
Alastair Phillips
Sport England North West
✔
Kristian Marsh
Highways Agency
✔
Anne Scrase
Environment Agency
✔
Peter Neal
Cabespace
✔
SCC Assistant Director, Head of Planning and
Building Control
SCC Strategic and Business Development
Manager
✔
Sheila Murtagh
SCC Partnership manager
✔
John Howson
SCC Group Engineer
✔
Mr S Kirby
Ben Woodcroft
Mark Watterson
Chris Findley
Wayne Priestley
✔
✔
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
New Deal for Communities (NDC)
✔
Conrad Magdzinski
NDC
✔
Linda Sharples
SCC Scrutiny Support Officer
✔
Neil Loftus
SCC Economic Development Officer
✔
Carmen Martinez
PCT
✔
John Rooney
Principal Community Safety Officer
✔
Peter Cavanagh
Salford Partnership
✔
Questionnaire
Presentation with
discussion
Julie Wickington
Meeting
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
workshop
Name
WIDER GREENSPACES
Wider Greenspace Survey Questionnaire
Canterbury Tenants Association (Eccles
Housing Area)
✔
Upper Middle Victoria Road Home Watch
✔
Metro Tenants
✔
Weaste Community Watch
✔
Weaste, Seedley and Langworthy Residents
and Tenants Association
LOPRA (Light Oaks Park Residents’
Association)
✔
CARA (Church Ave Residents Association)
✔
WAG (Willows Action Group)
✔
Brookfield Project
✔
The Drying Yards Residents Group
✔
Oakwood Community Group
✔
Meadowgate Project
✔
Fairhope Residents Association
✔
Hayfield Residents
✔
Fairbridge in Greater Manchester
✔
Height Youth Centre
✔
Sure Start
✔
Height Methodist Church Parent & Toddler
Group
Mother & Toddler Group
✔
St.Peter & St.Paul’s Mother & Toddler Group
✔
Salford Community Link Project
✔
Muslim Welfare Association
✔
Claremont Over 60s Club
✔
Muslim Women’s Group
✔
✔
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Presentation with
workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
discussion
Name
Pendleton/Hope Townswomen’s Guild
✔
Ladies Guild
✔
Weaste Allotment Gardens Association
✔
Height Craft Group
St Lukes Community Centre Over 50s Dance
Club
✔
St Peter & St Pauls Nifty Fifty Dance Group
✔
Friends of Lightoaks Park
✔
Buile Hill Park Café Dancing
✔
Claremont Tennis and Social Club
✔
Height Veterans Bowling & Social Club
✔
Bolton Road Veterans Bowling & Social Club
✔
Dominion Morris Dancing Group
✔
Salford Astronomical Society
✔
Rotary Club (Salford)
✔
Salford Chartered Players (Dance & Drama
Group)
✔
Salford Floral Art Society
✔
Drama Group – Height Methodist Church
✔
S.L.A.D.S. Drama Group
✔
Weaste Wanderers Football Club (Juniors)
✔
Cliffside Residents Association
✔
Hill Street Residents Association
✔
Z. S.A.R.A.
✔
Albert Park Tenants Association
✔
Riverside Island Tenants and Residents
Association
✔
The Friars Tenants Association
✔
ALMA
✔
Blackfriars & Whitefriars Tenants Group
✔
Kinberley Norton Residents Group
✔
TETRA
✔
Duchy Community Project
✔
Duchy Community Group
✔
Greengate Community Centre
✔
Salford Youth Service
✔
Streetwise
✔
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Presentation with
workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
discussion
Name
Youth Leisure
✔
Charlestown Youth Centre
✔
Binoh of Manchester
✔
Lubavitch Youth Organisation
✔
Grosvenor Parent Toddler Group
✔
Sure Start
✔
Catholic Handicapped Fellowship
✔
Women Working Together
✔
Congregation of Spanish and Portuguese
Jews
✔
Albert Park Vets Bowling & Social Club
✔
Lower Kersal Social Club
✔
The Broughton Trust
✔
Angel Healthy Living Centre
✔
Broughton Well Being Group
✔
Broughton Men’s Health Club
✔
The Broughton Team Ministry
✔
Salford Cathedral Drop In Centre
✔
Friends of Kersal Dale
✔
Ellesmere Park Residents Association
✔
The Park Residents Association
✔
Chatworth Road Residents
✔
Monton Village Community Association
✔
Charterhouse Tenants Association
✔
CHAT – Craunton House Association of
Tenants
✔
College Croft Tenants Assoc.
✔
Enfield House Tenants Assoc.
✔
Canterbury Gardens Tenants Associations
Ellesmere/Moorfield Tenants and Residents
Group
✔
Kemball House Tenants Assoc.
✔
Mees Square Tenants Association
✔
Philip Street Residents Assoc.
✔
Southway Tenants Assoc.
✔
The Horseshoe Residents’ Assoc.
✔
Westwood Park Community Assoc.
✔
New Lane Tenants & Residents Group
✔
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Presentation with
workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
discussion
Name
Scotch Corner Tenants & Residents
Association
✔
Shepway Residents Group
✔
Brookhouse Residents’ Assoc.
✔
Ellesmere Park Community in Action
✔
Ennismore Avenue Residents Association
✔
Grange Road Residents’ Assoc.
✔
Ellesmere Park Community Association
✔
Mather Road Railway End Residents’ Assoc.
✔
Salford Lads Club
✔
Cornerstone Project
✔
The Arch Club
✔
Eccles Civic Youth Centre
✔
Youth Work
✔
Westwood Youth Club
✔
2Ms Junior Youth Club
✔
Reality
✔
Monday Club
✔
Monton Methodist Church Youth Club
✔
Youth Fellowship
✔
Rough and Tumble Girls Group
✔
St Pauls Mother and Toddlers
✔
St Andrews Mothers’ Group
✔
Salford Disabled Motorists
✔
Asian Community (Link Project)
✔
Salford Pensioners
✔
Salford Foundation
✔
Eccles Townswomens’ Guild
✔
Bangladeshi Association
✔
Salford & Eccles Pakistani Community
Association
Salford Yemeni Community Development
Action Group
Monton Bowling Club Ltd.
✔
Eccles Chess Club
✔
Monton Cricket Club
✔
Rotary Club of Eccles
✔
✔
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Presentation
with workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation
with discussion
Name
Rainbow Users Group
✔
Eccles Park Joint Bowling Assoc.
✔
Patricroft Ladies Bowling Club
✔
Bright Sparks Drama Academy
✔
Eccles Heritage
✔
Sandstorm Arab Dance/
Bellydancing
✔
Eccles Library Art Workshop
✔
Eccles Christian Centre
✔
Christ Church Over 60s
✔
Eccles Library Writers Group
✔
Boardman & Eccles Lacrosse Club
✔
Eccles & District History Society
✔
Barton Athletic Club
✔
Eccles Ladies Bowling Club
✔
Monton Local History Group
✔
St. Pauls Church
✔
Eccles Parish Church
✔
Higher Irlam Tenants Association
✔
Astley Court
✔
Caroline & Dixon Streets Tenants &
Residents Association
✔
De Traffords Residents Association
✔
Moss Vale Residents Association
✔
PATHS
✔
Irlam & Cadishead Civic Youth Centre
✔
ICY Irlam & Cadishead Young Peoples
Project
✔
Fairhills Mother & Toddler Group
✔
Fiddlers Lane Parent & Toddler Group
✔
Irlam Endowed Parent & Toddler Group
✔
Salvation Army Rainbow Parent & Toddlers
Group
✔
Friendly Faces
✔
Higher Irlam Young Over 60s Club
✔
Irlam & Cadishead Over 50s Social Club
✔
Irlam & Cadishead Social Inclusion Group
✔
Irlam Pensioners Association
✔
Salford Forum of Elderly People
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Presentation with
workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
discussion
Name
Irlam Women’s Institute
✔
Indian Sikh Community
✔
Saddletramps Western re-Enactment Troupe
✔
Irlam & Cadishead Natural History
Association
✔
Cadishead & Irlam Flower Club
✔
Irlam, Cadishead & District Local History
Society
✔
Saint Pauls Stitching Club
✔
Writers Group
✔
Write On Irlam
✔
Friends of the Parks in Irlam & Cadishead
✔
Cadishead Public Band
✔
Irlam Male Voice Choir
✔
Irlam Silver Band
✔
Morris Dance Troupe and Irish Dance
Classes
✔
Sequence/Line Dancing
✔
Boathouse Angling Society
✔
Irlam & Cadishead Cycle Users Group
✔
Cadishead Sports Junior Football Club
✔
Irlam Vale AFC
✔
Irlam Hornets ARLFC
✔
Denbigh Area Tenants Association
✔
Portside
✔
Barracks Tenant Management Co-operative
✔
Alliance Community Tenants’ Association
✔
Apple Tree Court TMC
✔
Denbigh Area Tenants’ Association
✔
South Clarendon Tenants’ Association
✔
Grain Whaft Residents Association
✔
Fitzwarren Court Tenants’ Association
✔
SALI Shop
✔
Merchants Quay Residents
✔
Peach Tree Court Tenants’ Association
✔
Albion Tenants’ and Residents’ Association
✔
Community Cafe
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Presentation
with workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation
with discussion
Name
Ordsall Cafe
✔
Windsor Albion Co-op
✔
Imperial Point Residents Association
✔
Hornbeam Court Residents’ Association
✔
Beech Court Tenants’ Association
✔
Nursery St Tenants & Residents Association
✔
Lombardy Court Residents Association
✔
Malus Court Tenants Association
✔
Holm Court Tenants Association
✔
Magnolia Court Tenants Association
✔
Mulberry Court Tenants Association
✔
Thorn Court Tenants Association & New
Weaste Allotments
South Clarendon Action Group
✔
Cornerstone
✔
Salford Community Venture
✔
Oasis Youth Centre
✔
Ordsall Youth Centre
✔
Salford Lads Club
✔
Salford Woman’s Centre
✔
Age Concern
✔
Salford African Social Club
✔
The Great Lakes Women’s Association
✔
Langworthy Men’s Action Group
✔
The British Legion Club
✔
Ordsall Community Arts Project
✔
Allotments Friends
✔
Health Walks Co-ordinator
✔
Moorside South Residents Association
✔
Swinton’s Open Space Community
Association
✔
Beech Farm Residents Association
✔
Valley Residents Association
✔
Clifton 2000
✔
Wardley Community Association
✔
PERA
✔
Clifton 2000: Transport/Environment
✔
Beech Farm Youths
✔
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Presentation with
workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
discussion
Name
Clifton Youth Centre
✔
Deans Youth Centre
✔
Eden Project
✔
Clifton Parents and Toddlers
✔
Moorside Rangers JFC
✔
Swinton Families
✔
Little Rascals
✔
Parent & Toddler Group
✔
Parent & Toddler Group
✔
Parent & Toddler Group
✔
Parent & Toddler Group
✔
Parent & Toddler Group
✔
Parent & Toddler Group
✔
Parent & Toddler Group
✔
Kids n Ko
✔
Parent & Toddler Group
✔
Parent & Toddler Group
✔
Crackerjack Out of School
✔
Happy Days Out of School
✔
Holyrood Nursery Out of School Club
✔
KENEX SPARCS
✔
OK Kidz Out of School Club
✔
Scallywags Out of School Club
✔
St. Augustines Out of School
✔
St. Marks Primary Out of School
✔
Care of the Elderly Association
(Salford Carers Forum)
✔
Swinton Moorside Cricket Club
✔
Clifton Cricket Club
✔
Clifton Country Park User Group Forum
✔
Pendleton Coyotes Roller Hockey
✔
Swinton & Pendleton Anglers
✔
The Clifton Belles
✔
Folly Lane Rugby Club
✔
Beechfield/ Beechfarm
✔
Salford CVS
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Presentation with
workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
discussion
Name
Moorside Bowling Club
✔
Wardley Transport Group
✔
Birch Road Residents Association
✔
Armitage Residents
✔
Kenyon Residents
✔
Homestart
✔
Brindley Tenants Group
✔
Hilltop Tenants/Residents Group
✔
Mostar Tenants/Residents Group
✔
New Hulton District Centre Residents Group
✔
New Peel Residents Group
✔
Bridgewater Youth Centre
✔
Greenheys Youth Centre
✔
Sure Start
✔
BookBusters
✔
Peel United Junior Football Club and youth
centre
✔
Friends of Blackleach Country Park
✔
Inskip League
✔
Cocktail Group
✔
Health Walks
✔
Cycle Group
✔
Craft Class
✔
Greenway
✔
Boothstown Residents Association 1990
✔
Worsley Village Community Association
✔
Worsley Civic Trust & Amenity Society
✔
Worsley Community Association
✔
Boothstown PATH
✔
Boothstown Youth Centre
✔
1st
Boothstown Brownies
✔
Old Warke Dam Society
✔
Boothstown Methodist Church
✔
Roe Green Art Club
✔
Beesley Green Community Centre
✔
3rd Boothstown Brownies
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Presentation with
workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
discussion
Name
1st Boothstown Guides
✔
1st Worsley Brownies
✔
1st Worsley Guides
✔
1st Worsley Rainbows
✔
1st Worsley Scout Group
✔
9th Worsley Scout Group
✔
360 Club
✔
Abigail Black School of Dance
✔
Art Club
✔
Badminton
✔
Bambi Playgroup
✔
Arts Club - Beesley Green Community Centre
✔
Beesley Green Bridge Group
✔
Beesley Green Community Centre,
Management Committee
✔
Beesley Green Parent & Toddler Group
✔
Beesley Green Playgroup
✔
Boothstown & Astley Childminders
Association
✔
Boothstown and District Over 60's Social Club
✔
Boothstown Community Centre
✔
Boothstown Community Playgroup
✔
Boothstown Disability Arts Group
✔
Boothstown Junior Football Club
✔
Boothstown Ladies Club
✔
Boothstown Lad's Senior Football Club
✔
Boothstown Luncheon Club
✔
Boothstown Methodist Playgroup
✔
Boothstown Methodist Primary School
✔
Boothstown Methodist PTA
✔
Boothstown Methodist Chruch
✔
Boothstown Methodist Starter-Out of School
Club
Boothstown Rangers Football Club
✔
Boothstown Residents Association
✔
Boothstown Tenants Association
✔
Boothstown Tenants Association
✔
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Presentation
with workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation
with discussion
Name
Boothstown Youth Group
✔
Bridge Group
✔
Broad Oak Park Residents Association
✔
Broadoak Primary School
✔
Café 55
✔
Cake Decoration
✔
Chatsworth Road Residents Association
✔
Chinese Exercise
✔
Chinese Health Exercise Classes
✔
CINBADS
✔
City of Salford Shooting Club
✔
Computer Training
✔
Country & Western Line Dancing
✔
Creative Kids Parent & Toddler
✔
Days Out West Line Dancing
✔
Disco/ Street Dancing
✔
Edgefold Players
✔
Ellenbrook & Boothstown Brass Band
✔
Ellenbrook Community Primary School
✔
FLAG
✔
Fledgings Day Nursery
✔
Flower Arranging
✔
Flower Guild
✔
Fun Club
✔
Greenway
✔
Hon Secretary of PCC
✔
Jo Jingles (Childrens Singing Group)
✔
Keep Fit
✔
Koi Club
✔
Ladies Group
✔
Ladies Yoga Class
✔
Line Dancing
✔
Local History Group
✔
Maple Lodge Voice
✔
Moorside High School
✔
Moorside South Residents Association
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Mothers Union
✔
Mums & Toddlers
✔
Mums & Tots
✔
Photo Strip
✔
Rainbows 1st Boothstown
✔
Roe Green Bowling and Social Club
✔
Roe Green Cricket Club
✔
Roe Green Independent Methodist Church Kids Club & Parent & Toddler
✔
Roe Green Independent Methodist Church
✔
Roe Green WRVS
✔
Rotary Club of Worsley
✔
Round Table
✔
Head Teacher’s of Primary Schools (14/09/05)
Head Teacher
Alder Park Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
All Souls RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Barton Moss Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Beech Street Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Boothstown Methodist Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Brentnall Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Bridgewater Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Broadoak Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Cadishead Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Cathedral School of St Peter & St John
✔
Head Teacher
Charlestown Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Christ Church CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Christ The King RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Clarendon Road Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Clifton Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Dukesgate Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Ellenbrook Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Fiddlers Lane Community Primary School
✔
✔
Head Teacher
Godfrey Ermen Memorial CofE Primary
School
Grosvenor Road Primary School
Head Teacher
Hilton Lane Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Presentation
with workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation
with discussion
Name
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Holy Cross and All Saints RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Irlam Endowed Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Irlam Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
James Brindley Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Langworthy Road Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Lark Hill Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Lewis Street Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Light Oaks Infant School
✔
Head Teacher
Light Oaks Junior School
✔
Head Teacher
Lower Kersal Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Marlborough Road Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Mesne Lea Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Monton Green Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Moorfield Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Moorside Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Mossfield Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
North Grecian Street Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
North Walkden Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Our Lady and Lancashire Martyrs' RC Primary
School
✔
Head Teacher
Peel Hall Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Radclyffe Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Seedley Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Andrew's CofE Primary
School(Boothstown)
✔
Head Teacher
St Andrew's CofE Primary School(Eccles)
✔
Head Teacher
St Andrew's Methodist Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Augustine's CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Boniface RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Charles' RC Primary School
St Clement's Egerton CofE Primary
School(Ordsall)
✔
Head Teacher
St Edmund's RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St George's CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Gilbert's RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St James' RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St John's CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
✔
Questionnaire
Presentation with
discussion
Head Teacher
Meeting
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
workshop
Name
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Head Teacher
St Luke's CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Luke's RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Mark's CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Mark's RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Mary's CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Mary's RC Primary School(Eccles)
✔
Head Teacher
St Mary's RC Primary School(Swinton)
✔
Head Teacher
St Paul's CofE Primary School(Crompton St)
✔
Head Teacher
St Paul's CofE Primary School(Heathside)
St Paul's CofE Primary
School(Kersal/Salford/Nevile Rd)
St Paul's CofE Primary School(New
Windsor/Cross Lane)
✔
Head Teacher
St Paul's Peel CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Peter's CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Philip's CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Philip's RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Sebastian's RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Teresa's RC Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
St Thomas of Canterbury Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Summerville Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
The Deans Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
The Friars Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Tootal Drive Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Wardley CofE Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Westwood Park Community Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Wharton Primary School
✔
Head Teacher
Head Teacher
Head Teacher
Head Teacher
Questionnaire
✔
Meeting
St Joseph's RC Primary School(Little
Hulton/Worsley)
St Joseph's RC Primary
School(Salford/Ordsall)
St Joseph's the Worker RC Primary
School(Irlam)
Head Teacher
Presentation
with workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation
with discussion
Name
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wider Greenspace Questionnaire Survey (15/09/05
All Year 6 Pupils at
Alder Park Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
All Souls RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Barton Moss Community Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Beech Street Community Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Boothstown Methodist Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Brentnall Primary School
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Presentation with
workshop
Presentation with
discussion
Name
Company/ Organisation
All Year 6 Pupils at
Bridgewater Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Broadoak Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Cadishead Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Cathedral School of St Peter & St John
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Charlestown Community Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Christ Church CofE Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Christ The King RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Clarendon Road Community Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Clifton Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Dukesgate Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Ellenbrook Community Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Fiddlers Lane Community Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Godfrey Ermen Memorial CofE Primary
School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Grosvenor Road Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Hilton Lane Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Holy Cross and All Saints RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Irlam Endowed Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Irlam Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
James Brindley Community Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Langworthy Road Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Lark Hill Community Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Lewis Street Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Light Oaks Infant School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Light Oaks Junior School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Lower Kersal Community Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Marlborough Road Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Mesne Lea Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Monton Green Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Moorfield Community Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Moorside Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Mossfield Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
North Grecian Street Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
North Walkden Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Our Lady and Lancashire Martyrs' RC Primary
School
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Questionnaire
Meeting
Presentation with
workshop
Presentation with
discussion
Name
Company/ Organisation
All Year 6 Pupils at
Peel Hall Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Radclyffe Community Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Seedley Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Andrew's CofE Primary
School(Boothstown)
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Andrew's CofE Primary School(Eccles)
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Andrew's Methodist Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Augustine's CofE Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Boniface RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Charles' RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Clement's Egerton CofE Primary
School(Ordsall)
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Edmund's RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St George's CofE Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Gilbert's RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St James' RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St John's CofE Primary School
St Joseph's RC Primary School(Little
Hulton/Worsley)
St Joseph's RC Primary
School(Salford/Ordsall)
St Joseph's the Worker RC Primary
School(Irlam)
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Luke's CofE Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Luke's RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Mark's CofE Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Mark's RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Mary's CofE Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Mary's RC Primary School(Eccles)
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Mary's RC Primary School(Swinton)
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Paul's CofE Primary School(Crompton St)
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Paul's CofE Primary School(Heathside)
✔
St Paul's CofE Primary
School(Kersal/Salford/Nevile Rd)
St Paul's CofE Primary School(New
Windsor/Cross Lane)
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Paul's Peel CofE Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Peter's CofE Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Philip's CofE Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Philip's RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
All Year 6 Pupils at
All Year 6 Pupils at
All Year 6 Pupils at
All Year 6 Pupils at
✔
✔
✔
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Sebastian's RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Teresa's RC Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
St Thomas of Canterbury Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Summerville Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
The Deans Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
The Friars Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Tootal Drive Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Wardley CofE Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Westwood Park Community Primary School
✔
All Year 6 Pupils at
Wharton Primary School
✔
GREENSPACE STRATEGY
Greenspace Stakeholder Group Workshop (18/11/05)
Phil Morton
SCC (Environmental Services)
✔
Roselyn Baker
Community Safety
✔
Matthew Rushton
Sport England
✔
Anne Parkes
Groundwork
✔
Eileen Hinson
Pan-Leisure (United Utilities Rep)
✔
Andrew Connelly
Swinton Open Space Community Association
✔
Peter Haymes
New Deal for Communities
✔
Kevin Birley
Community Representative (Worsley &
Boothstown)
✔
John Hesketh
SCC (Environmental Maintenance)
✔
Councillor Antrobus
Lead Member for Planning
✔
Nigel Openshaw
SCC (Engineers)
✔
Derek Richardson
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit
✔
Jon Stephenson
SCC (Partners IN Salford)
✔
Janet Cuff
Ramblers Association Manchester Area
✔
Keith Groves
Community Representative (East Salford)
✔
Bill Aspen
Community Representative (East Salford)
Community Representative (Walkden & Little
Hulton)
✔
Cllr. Maureen Lea
Lead Member for Environmental Services
✔
Marion Raines
SCC (Spatial Planning)
✔
Nigel Blandford
Red Rose Forest
✔
Paul Thomas
Salford Sports Council
✔
Elizabeth Banks
BHS Bridleways Officer
✔
Community Representative (Irlam &
Cadishead)
Swinton Open Spaces Community
Association
✔
Groundwork (East Salford)
✔
Philip Hegerty
John Shelley
Barry Wilde
Helen Barker
✔
✔
✔
Community Representative (Claremont &
Maurice Kirk
Weaste)
Environmental Scrutiny Planning Sub Group (06/12/05)
Councillor Salmon
✔
Means of Consultation
Consultee
Councillor Broughton
✔
Councillor Howard
✔
Councillor Potter
✔
Councillor Wilson
✔
Councillor Morris
✔
Cllr Lightup
✔
Cllr B Lea
✔
CABEspace and Housing Market Renewal Meeting (21/12/05)
Sue France
CABEspace representative for Salford &
Manchester
✔
Christine Duffin
SCC Housing Market Renewal Officer
✔
Mike Johnston
SCC Housing Market Renewal Officer
✔
Questionnaire
✔
Meeting
Councillor Ainsworth
Presentation with
workshop
Company/ Organisation
Presentation with
discussion
Name
APPENDIX B: LIST OF FORMAL CONSULTEES FOR GREENSPACE
STRATEGY SPD
List of Formal Consultees for Greenspace Strategy SPD Consultation
1. Bolton MBC
2. British Waterways
3. BTCV North West
4. Bury MBC
5. CABEspace
6. Central Salford URC
7. Coal Authority
8. The Countryside Agency
9. CPRE Lancashire Branch
10. English Heritage
11. English Nature
12. English Partnerships
13. The Environment Agency
14. Government Office North West
15. Greater Manchester Ecology Unit
16. Greater Manchester Police
17. Greater Manchester Strategic
Health Authority
18. Greater Manchester Waste
Disposal Agency
19. Salford and Trafford Groundwork
Trust
20. Home Office
21. The Highways Agency
22. Manchester CC
23. Manchester Ship Canal Company
24. Mersey Basin Campaign
25. National Playing Fields Association
26. North West Development Agency
27. North West Regional Assembly
28. North West Sports Board
29. Peel Holdings Plc.
30. Greater Manchester Police Liaison
Officer
31. Red Rose Forest
32. RSBP North West Office
33. Sport England North West Office
34. Strategic Rail Authority
35. Trafford MBC
36. United Utilities
37. Warrington BC
38. Wigan MBC
39. The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire,
Manchester and North Merseyside
40. The Woodland Trust
41. Philip Hegerty (Community Rep:
Walkden & Little Hulton)
42. Michael Howard (Community Rep:
Worsley & Boothstown)
43. Bob Docherty (Community Rep:
Swinton)
44. John Shelley (Community Rep:
Irlam & Cadishead)
45. Barry Wilde (SOSCA)
46. Andrew Connelly (SOSCA)
47. Keith Groves (Community rep:
East Salford)
48. Bill Aspen (Community Rep: East
Salford)
49. Maurice Kirk (Community Rep:
Claremont & Weaste)
50. Kevin Birley (Community Rep:
Worsley & Boothstown)
51. Ramblers Association Manchester
Area
52. British Horse Riding Society
53. New Deal for Communities
54. Salford Sports Council
55. Salford Local Strategic Partnership
56. Community Safety
57. Housing Market Renewal Teams
58. SCC - Environmental Services
59. Urban Vision – Engineers
60. Urban Vision – Landscape Design
61. SCC – Transportation
APPENDIX C: LIST OF NON-FORMAL CONSULTEES FOR GREENSPACE STRATEGY SPD
Planning Consultants
1.
Development Planning Partnership
2.
Paul & Company
3.
ARUP
4.
Austin-Smith Lord
5.
BDP Planning
6.
Bolton Emery Partnership
7.
Broadway Malyan Planning
8.
Calderpeel
9.
Cunnane Town Planning
10. Donaldsons LLP
11. DTZ Pieda Consulting
12. EDAW PLC
13. Enviros Aspinwall
14. Gillespies
15. GL Hearn
16. GVA Grimley
17. Higham & Co
18. Ironside Farrar
19. James Barr
20. Kenyon & Co
21. King Sturge
22. Lambert Smith Hampton
23. Ludlam Associates
24. Michael Courcier & Partners
25. Oscar Faber
26. Parkman
27. Philip Rothwell Development Services
28. Roger Tym & Partners
29. WS Atkins Planning Consultants
30. Steven Abbott Associates
31. Bidwells
32. Robert Lilburn
33. Randal Thorpe
House Builders
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Barratt Manchester Ltd.
Countryside Properties
David Wilson Homes NW
Fairclough Homes
George Wimpy Manchester Ltd.
Irwell Valley Housing Association
Lovell Partnerships Ltd.
Persimmon Homes (North West)
Redrow Homes (North West) Ltd.
Wainhomes (NW) Ltd.
Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd.
Seddon Homes
Salford MPs
46. Mr. Gary Titley (European MP)
47. Hazel Blears MP
48. Ian Stweart MP
49. Barbara Keeley MP
General Consultation Bodies
50. Salford CVS
51. Salford Link Project
52. Eccles & Salford Islamic Mosque
53. Salford Disability Forum
54. Chamber of Commerce
55. Age Concern
56. Greater Manchester Pedestrians Association
57. RADAR Campaigns for inclusive policies for Disabled People
58. Manchester Jewish Federation
59. Greater Manchester Youth Network
60. Civic Trust (Northern Office)
61. Manchester, Bolton & Bury Canal Society
62. Open Spaces Society
63. The Broughton Trust
64. Peak and Northern Footpath Society
65. Salford Community Health Project
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
Greater Manchester Federation of Clubs for Young People
Alan Wellins
Patrick Smith
Mrs. Alison Butterworth
Parkfield Estate Residents Group
Friends of Ordsall Park and Open Spaces
Health Improvement Officer, Salford PCT
Bowls Consultative
Football Consultative
Residents Groups
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
Canterbury Tenants Association (Eccles Housing Area)
Middle Victoria Road Home Watch
Metro Tenants
Weaste Community Watch
Weaste, Seedley and Langworthy Residents and Tenants Association
LOPRA (Light Oaks Park Residents’ Association)
CARA (Church Ave Residents Association)
WAG (Willows Action Group)
Brookfield Project
The Drying Yards Residents Group
Oakwood Community Group
Meadowgate Project
Fairhope Residents Association
Hayfield Residents
Bridson/Stowell Street Residents Association
Claremont Community Association
Southgarth Residents Association
Cliffside Residents Association
Hill Street Residents Association
Z. S.A.R.A.
Albert Park Tenants Association
Riverside Island Tenants and Residents Association
The Friars Tenants Association
ALMA
Blackfriars & Whitefriars Tenants Group
Kinberley Norton Residents Group
TETRA
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
Duchy Community Project
Greengate Community Centre
Broughton Action Group
Teneriffe Estate Tenants & Residents Assoc.
Beville Sq & Nathan Dr Res. Ass
Broughton Park Residents Association
Bury New Road Tenants Association
Camp Street Residents Association
Canon Green Residents Association
Cliff Area Residents Association
Linen Court Residents Association
Lockett Gardens Res. Association
Lower Broughton Residents Association
Minoan Gardens Residents Association
New Brunswick Residents Association
Oakhill Court Tenants Association
Trinity Court Residents
Wellington Street West Residents Association
Wiltshire Street Residents Association
Ellesmere Park Residents Association
The Park Residents Association
Monton Village Community Association
Charterhouse Tenants Association
CHAT – Craunton House Association of Tenants
College Croft Tenants Assoc.
Enfield House Tenants Assoc.
Canterbury Gardens Tenants Associations
Ellesmere/Moorfield Tenants and Residents Group
Kemball House Tenants Assoc.
Mees Square Tenants Association
Philip Street Residents Assoc.
Southway Tenants Assoc.
The Horseshoe Residents’ Assoc.
Westwood Park Community Assoc.
New Lane Tenants & Residents Group
Scotch Corner Tenants & Residents Association
Shepway Residents Group
Brookhouse Residents’ Assoc.
Ellesmere Park Community in Action
Ennismore Avenue Residents Association
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
Grange Road Residents’ Assoc.
Ellesmere Park Community Association
Mather Road Railway End Residents’ Assoc.
Church Street Tenants Association
Eccles Owner-Occupiers Association
Higher Irlam Tenants Association
Astley Court
Caroline & Dixon Streets Tenants & Residents Association
De Traffords Residents Association
Moss Vale Residents Association
Denbigh Area Tenants Association
Portside
Barracks Tenant Management Co-operative
Alliance Community Tenants’ Association
Apple Tree Court TMC
South Clarendon Tenants’ Association
Grain Whaft Residents Association
Fitzwarren Court Tenants’ Association
Merchants Quay Residents
Peach Tree Court Tenants’ Association
Albion Tenants’ and Residents’ Association
Imperial Point Residents Association
Hornbeam Court Residents’ Association
Beech Court Tenants’ Association
Nursery St Tenants & Residents Association
Lombardy Court Residents Association
Malus Court Tenants Association
Holm Court Tenants Association
Magnolia Court Tenants Association
Mulberry Court Tenants Association
Thorn Court Tenants Association & New Weaste Allotments
Cornerstone
Salford Community Venture
Brydon Close TA
Islington Tenants Association
North East Ordsall Tenants Association
Moorside South Residents Association
Swinton’s Open Space Community Association
Beech Farm Residents Association
Valley Residents Association
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
Clifton 2000
Wardley Community Association
PERA
Beechfield Residents Association
Mossfield Residents Association
Swinton Tenants & Residents Association
Birch Road Residents Association
Armitage Residents
Kenyon Residents
Brindley Tenants Group
Hilltop Tenants/Residents Group
Mostar Tenants/Residents Group
New Hulton District Centre Residents Group
New Peel Residents Group
Athens Drive Residents Association
Brundley Residents Assocaiation
Peel Residents Association
Worsley & Swinton Residents Association
Greenway
Boothstown Residents Association 1990
Worsley Village Community Association
Worsley Civic Trust & Amenity Society
Worsley Community Association
Boothstown Tenants Association
Boothstown Project
Chatworth Road Residents Association
Hazelhurst and Broadoak Residents Association
Worsley Green Residents Association
Broad Oak Park Residents Association
Worsley Community Association
Youth and Children’s Groups
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
Fairbridge in Greater Manchester
Height Youth Centre
Sure Start
Height Methodist Church Parent & Toddler Group
Mother & Toddler Group
St.Peter & St.Paul’s Mother & Toddler Group
Salford Youth Service
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
225.
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.
251.
252.
253.
254.
255.
256.
257.
Streetwise
Youth Leisure
Charlestown Youth Centre
Binoh of Manchester
Lubavitch Youth Organisation
Grosvenor Parent Toddler Group
Sure Start
Pendleton Under Fives Forum
Salford Lads Club
Cornerstone Project
The Arch Club
Eccles Civic Youth Centre
Youth Work
Westwood Youth Club
2Ms Junior Youth Club
Reality
Monday Club
Monton Methodist Church Youth Club
Youth Fellowship
St Pauls Mother and Toddlers
St Andrews Mothers’ Group
Irlam & Cadishead Civic Youth Centre
ICY Irlam & Cadishead Young Peoples Project
Fairhills Mother & Toddler Group
Fiddlers Lane Parent & Toddler Group
Friendly Faces
Oasis Youth Centre
Ordsall Youth Centre
Salford Lads Club
Beech Farm Youths
Clifton Youth Centre
Deans Youth Centre
Eden Project
Clifton Parents and Toddlers
Moorside Rangers JFC
Swinton Families
Little Rascals
Kids n Ko
Crackerjack Out of School
258.
259.
260.
261.
262.
263.
264.
265.
266.
267.
268.
269.
270.
271.
272.
273.
Happy Days Out of School
Holyrood Nursery Out of School Club
KENEX SPARCS
OK Kidz Out of School Club
Scallywags Out of School Club
St. Augustines Out of School
St. Marks Primary Out of School
Bridgewater Youth Centre
Greenheys Youth Centre
Sure Start
BookBusters
Peel United Junior Football Club and youth centre
Little Hulton Early Years Centre
Boothstown Youth Centre
Worsley Youth Group
Beesley Green Parent & Toddler Group
Minority Support/ Community Groups
274.
275.
276.
277.
278.
279.
280.
281.
282.
283.
284.
285.
286.
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293.
294.
Muslim Welfare Association
Muslim Women’s Group
Catholic Handicapped Fellowship
Women Working Together
Congregation of Spanish and Portuguese Jews
Salford Disabled Motorists
Salford Pensioners
Salford Foundation
Bangladeshi Association
Salford & Eccles Pakistani Community Association
Salford Yemeni Community Development Action Group
Pakistani Community Society
Higher Irlam Young Over 60s Club
Irlam & Cadishead Over 50s Social Club
Irlam & Cadishead Social Inclusion Group
Irlam Pensioners Association
Salford Forum of Elderly People
Indian Sikh Community
Salford African Social Club
The Great Lakes Women’s Association
Langworthy Men’s Action Group
295.
296.
Care of the Elderly Association (Salford Carers Forum)
Boothstown Disability Arts Group
Interest Groups
297.
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
306.
307.
308.
309.
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
319.
320.
321.
322.
323.
324.
325.
326.
327.
328.
329.
330.
331.
Weaste Allotment Gardens Association
Friends of Lightoaks Park
Claremont Tennis and Social Club
Weaste Wanderers Football Club (Juniors)
Angel Healthy Living Centre
Broughton Well Being Group
Broughton Men’s Health Club
Friends of Kersal Dale
Monton Bowling Club Ltd.
Eccles Heritage
Boardman & Eccles Lacrosse Club
Eccles & District History Society
Barton Athletic Club
Monton Local History Group
Irlam & Cadishead Natural History Association
Irlam, Cadishead & District Local History Society
Friends of the Parks in Irlam & Cadishead
Boathouse Angling Society
Irlam & Cadishead Cycle Users Group
Cadishead Sports Junior Football Club
Irlam Vale AFC
Irlam Hornets ARLFC
The British Legion Club
Ordsall Community Arts Project
Allotments Friends
Health Walks Co-ordinator
Buile Hill Friends
Clifton Cricket Club
Clifton Country Park User Group Forum
Swinton & Pendleton Anglers
Folly Lane Rugby Club
Beechfield/ Beechfarm
Beech Farm Friends
Friends of Blackleach Country Park
Health Walks
332.
333.
334.
335.
Cycle Group
Blackleach & Boatshed Action Group
Old Warke Dam Society
Boothstown Junior Football Club & Boothstown Lad’s Senior Football Club
Councillors
336.
337.
338.
339.
340.
341.
342.
343.
344.
345.
346.
347.
348.
349.
350.
351.
352.
353.
354.
355.
356.
357.
358.
359.
360.
361.
362.
363.
364.
365.
Cllr. Ainsworth
Cllr. Antrobus
Cllr. Broughton
Cllr. E. Burgoyne
Cllr. V. Burgoyne
Cllr. Clague
Cllr. Compton
Cllr. Connor
Cllr. Cooke
Cllr. Cullen
Cllr. Dawson
Cllr. Devine
Cllr. Dobbs
Cllr. K. Garrido
Cllr. R. Garrido
Cllr. Gray
Cllr. Harold
Cllr. Heywood
Cllr. Hinds
Cllr. Howard
Cllr. Hudson
Cllr. Hulmes
Cllr. Humphreys
Cllr. Hunt
Cllr. Jolley
Cllr. Jones
Cllr. Kean
Cllr. King
Cllr. Lancaster
Cllr. B. Lea
366.
367.
368.
369.
370.
371.
372.
373.
374.
375.
376.
377.
378.
379.
380.
381.
382.
383.
384.
385.
386.
387.
388.
389.
390.
391.
392.
393.
Cllr. M. Lea
Cllr. Lewis
Cllr. Lightup
Cllr. Lindley
Cllr. Loveday
Cllr. Macdonald
Cllr. Mann
Cllr. McIntyre
Cllr. Merry
Cllr. Miller
Cllr. Morris
Cllr. Mullen
Cllr. B. Murphy
Cllr. Jane Murphy
Cllr. Joseph Murphy
Cllr. Owen
Cllr. Pennington
Cllr. Perkins
Cllr. Pooley
Cllr. Potter
Cllr. Powell
Cllr. Salmon
Cllr. Sheehy
Cllr. Smyth
Cllr. Warmisham
Cllr. Warner
Cllr. Wilson
Cllr. Witkowski
APPENDIX D: SCHEDULE OF RESPONSES RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION BETWEEN
17FEBRUARY AND 30MARCH 2006.
SCHEDULE OF SALFORD’S GREENSPACE STRATEGY SPD. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
General
Respondent
(representation
number)
Walkden/Little
Hulton Open
Spaces
Committee (39)
Proposed Changes: None
General
The
Countryside
Agency (98)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Support
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
General Support for Strategy
Support Noted
Support
Very much welcome the preparation of the SPD, which is
comprehensive and useful in guiding the provision and
enhancement of green spaces in the city.
Support Noted
Referred to statements produced by The Countryside
Agency that set out policies on the treatment, and how the
new planning system can realise the potential of the
countryside in and around towns and cities.
Enclosed with the response letter was a copy of 'The
Countryside In and Around Towns - a vision for
connecting town and country in the pursuit of sustainable
development'. Published jointly with Groundwork in 2005.
Proposed Changes: None
General
Light Oaks Park
Residents
Assoc. (99)
Proposed Changes: None
General
The Highways
Agency (103)
Proposed Changes: None
The document was clear, detailed and thorough
Support Noted
No comments to make on the content of this document.
However, the Agency welcomes having had the
opportunity to comment.
Noted
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Para.1.5
Respondent
(representation
number)
SOSCA (20)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Objection
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
The plan should designate
those sites now, which have the
potential to fulfil a current
greenspace deficiency,
irrespective of current
accessibility or ownership. If
this is not done, the site might
be allocated for another use
and the opportunity to fulfil
greenspace requirements lost
forever.
The regulations governing the production of a
Supplementary Planning Document do not allow for the
allocation / designation of land for a use other than for
which it is already legally permitted. Para 2.42 of PPS12
Local Development Frameworks (2004) states
“Supplementary Planning Documents may cover a range
of issues, both thematic and site specific, which may
expand policy or provide further detail to policies in a
development plan document. They must not however, be
used to allocate land”.
The Greenspace Strategy SPD is therefore restricted to
identifying sites that are already in greenspace /
recreational use or which have already been allocated for
that purpose through the adopted UDP. Whilst some sites
may be accessible de facto, this does not necessarily
establish a legal right to use the land for recreational
purposes.
Whilst allocating sites is not within the remit of the Greenspace
Strategy SPD, the document has an important function in providing a
framework for future decision-making. In particular the document
identifies deficiency areas where the relevant recreational standards
are not being met. The document will therefore provide part of the
framework for informing future land allocations under the new planning
system. No new allocations of land will or can be made until such time
as an Allocations Development Plan Document takes over from the
UDP and this will be subject to an extensive process of community
consultation.
The Greenspace Strategy SPD is considered long term and
aspirational. It acknowledges that greenspace standards are deficient
in parts of the city , but it is constrained by what it can achieve through
specific land use allocations.
It would be possible for the Council and its community partners to try to
identify potential sites within Deficiency Areas, which might at some
stage in the future become available or be allocated and which could
help to meet standards. This is, however, a substantial task and not
considered within the practical remit of the Greenspace Strategy SPD.
Nevertheless, this task has been undertaken in relation to 20hectare
sites, but is not considered appropriate for other smaller greenspace
designations, where there would be too many potential permutations to
make it practical.
Paragraph 1.5 is a general statement, which acknowledges the role
and constraints of a Supplementary Planning Document. The wording
is considered to be accurate and no changes are proposed.
Proposed Changes: None
Para. 1.10
Architectural
Liaison Unit (8)
Objection
The levels of crime in certain
locations and the perception or
the fear of crime may require, in
some instances, restricted/
controlled access to be
considered.
Paragraph 1.10 relates to the range of issues for existing greenspace
that the SPD will seek to address. A summary of key issues identified
through the assessment of needs process carried out to support the
production of the Strategy is set out as bullet points.
Fear of crime within greenspaces is considered to be a key issue to be
considered. The second bullet point within this paragraph confirms
only 55.5% of residents feel safe in parks and formally managed open
spaces.
In this respect the Council agrees with the Respondent’s concerns
relating to the levels of crime in certain locations and fear of crime.
However, it is not considered an appropriate section of the document
in which to explain the proposed responses to this specific issue.
It is considered instead, that there may be some potential
to include reference to this point in the Design Section of
the SPD. The consultation draft Policy GS10 includes a
number of design requirements to reduce the potential for
crime or nuisance behaviour.
The Reasoned Justification for Policy GS10 confirms the need to take
account of the measures set out in Designing Out Crime guidance.
It is, however, important that measures such as restricting access, are
carried out with full community involvement to ensure it doesn’t result
in inequitable levels of outdoor recreation provision, penalising the less
affluent members of society even further.
Proposed Changes: Amend wording for Reasoned Justification to Policy GS10 to confirm that:
“Any proposals to improve sites and the connections between and within them should take full account of the measures required to address crime and the
fear of crime as set out in Salford’s Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document.. For example, a well-located play area can achieve a degree of
informal supervision from neighbouring properties making it less likely to become a potential nuisance or vulnerable to anti-social behaviour. Landscaping can
be used to minimise conflicts with adjacent uses, but dense planting which obscures views in and out of the site should be avoided, as this can impact on
personal safety. Measures such as restricted/controlled access, may have to be considered in certain locations, but this should be carried out with the
involvement and support of the local community.Liaison with the Architectural Liaison Unit should be carried out as part of the process for design and location
of any new or improved greenspace provision”.
Para. 1.11.5 Architectural
Objection
Existing social conditions and
Policy 1.11 sets out the objectives of the Greenspace Strategy SPD.
Liaison Unit (9)
crime trends may suggest a
Point 5 of this paragraph confirms an objective is to ensure that
new greenspace may be
greenspaces are safe and well used. The following paragraphs (1.12,
inappropriate.
1.13, and 1.14) explain how it is proposed to achieve these objectives.
Bullet point 1 of para.1.12 confirms the SPD will help secure the
Suggested a need for liaison
objectives by providing a framework within which decisions can be
with the Architectural Liaison
made on the protection of existing and the location of new greenspace,
Unit (ALU) to ensure detail
and bullet point 4 of para. 1.12 states that the SPD will identify the key
design is appropriate and
should be considered as part of
the agreement of any planning
approval.
design considerations for new and improved greenspaces.
New Greenspace is likely to be considered the priority where an area
is deficient in particular types of open space recreation provision which
cannot be accommodated in existing open space sites, and where a
substantial new development brings additional population which would
increase the deficiency and offer the potential (through UDP Policy H8)
to require new open space provision.
In most cases this new open space will be provided within the
development site and form part of a planning application. The
Architectural Liaison Unit would be consulted as part of the planning
process. UDP Policy H8 requires new open space provision within a
development site to be designed as an integral part of the
development to ensure that both users and surrounding residents are
provided with a satisfactory level of amenity.
Policy GS10 of the SPD emphasises the importance of greenspace
design to reduce crime and fear of crime. Reference to the existing
SPG ‘Designing out Crime’ is made in the Reasoned Justification for
this policy, ensuring any proposals should take full account of the
measures set out in that document. It does not, however, make
reference to the updated guidance provided by the Council’s ‘Design
and Crime’ SPD due for adoption in July 2006. This document requires
consultation with the Architectural Liaison Unit for such planning
applications, and recommends pre-application/early discussions.
Policy GS11 requires new and improved greenspace to be designed in
consultation with the local community. This policy prevents
improvement works from being carried out until concerns with respect
to the residential amenity have been addressed as far as practicable.
The Greenspace Strategy SPD sets out the existing open space
recreation sites which are prioritised for improvement and upgrading. It
doesn’t allocate sites for new recreation provision.
The Council does agree that local social conditions and crime trends
must be considered as part of the location and design of new sites.
However, it is not felt that the SPD should take a negative perspective.
The document seeks to secure appropriate levels of recreation
provision for all of the city’s residents. Areas with higher crime rates,
often coincide with higher population density and higher play demand.
It would not be appropriate for the starting point to be no new sites. It is
already acknowledged in the SPD that dealing with crime through
design and consultation is crucial.
Proposed Changes:

Amend the fourth paragraph of Reasoned Justification to Policy GS10: Greenspace Design, following the final sentence:
“…impact on personal safety. Measures such as restricted/controlled access, may have to be considered in certain locations where crime levels and levels of
fear of crime are high. This should be carried with the involvement and support of the local community. Liaison with the Architectural Liaison Unit should be
carried out as part of the process for design and location of any new or improved greenspace provision.”

Amend the first sentence in the fourth paragraph of Reasoned Justification to Policy GS10: Greenspace Design to refer to Design and Crime SPD instead
of ‘Designing out Crime’ guidance.
“…as set out in the Council’s Design and Crime Guidance…”
Para. 1.11
Cllr. Geoff
Objection
Concern that the objectives do
Ainsworth (81)
not refer directly to the potential
positive impacts previously
outlined in the SPD. In
particular, concern that there is
no objective related to
1
Provision of a range of
accessible facilities;
2
Ensuring that built
development makes
contribution to greening of
the city, thus ensuring that
Salford is an attractive place
to live;
3
Securing protection/
The objectives relate to the specific purpose and remit of the
Greenspace Strategy SPD. The SPD seeks to explain, in particular,
policies relating to open space and recreation (R1, R2, R4, R5 and R6)
1. In that respect Objective 1 specifically states: “To ensure that all
households are within an appropriate distance of a full range of
greenspaces”.
2. The remit of the SPD is to set recreational standards, identify sites
that contribute towards those standards and identify areas where the
standards are deficient. Other planning policies will seek to ensure that
built development makes a positive contribution to greening the city,
e.g. UDP Policy H8 “ Open Space Provision Associated with New
Housing Development”, this is referred to in Chapter 17; and the UDP
Design Policies DES3 & DES9.
enhancement of wildlife and
ecological assets.
3. It is not a specific objective of the Greespace Strategy SPD to
protect or enhance wildlife assets. Clearly, this will be done by
implication of policies relating to Semi Natural Greenspace and the
sympathetic management of sites. These positive impacts are longterm outcomes, which are also dependent on other strategies,
particularly the Nature Conservation Biodiversity SPD and Planning
Obligations SPD. It is not considered appropriate to restate the
objectives and policies of such documents here.
It is considered that the stated objectives, reflect the overriding
purpose of the Greenspace Strategy SPD and that other objectives are
adequately covered through other policies.
Proposed Changes: None
CHAPTER 2: AUDIT OF EXISTING GREENSPACE
Paragraph/
Policy/
Site
number
Respondent
(representation
number)
Worsley/
Boothstown
Community
Committee (47)
Proposed Changes: None
Baseline
Pan-Leisure
Audit
Consulting (76)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Objection
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Noted the statistics provided showing
in which respects the area is poorly or
well served for access to the different
categories of green space.
Noted
In some areas the empirical evidence
on which the baseline audit is based is
insufficient. Evidence of demand needs
to be reviewed to inform the strategy.
The Council agree that the sports pitch demand
assessment needs to be reviewed as a matter of
urgency. The respondent provides no evidence that
the data is incorrect. Without a more up to date sports
pitch assessment it is unclear to what extent demand
changes suggested by Pan-Leisure Consulting would
be balanced by the population loss that has occurred
in Salford. Despite the playing pitch assessment being
over 5 years old, it is not considered to invalidate the
conclusions of the Greenspace Strategy SPD or the
adoption of the local standard.
The 2001 Census population for Salford was 216,103,
approximately 10,000 lower than the 1998 mid year estimate
used for the KKP assessment and far in excess of the projected
population loss at this time. Projections from the Office of
National Statistics in Salford Annual Monitoring Report 2005
(paragraph 2.3.4.) point to a continued reduction in population
that is likely to stabilise over the next five to ten years, ( although
Draft RSS figures could potentially secure an increase) .
The supply of sports pitches has undergone continual
monitoring. Paragraph 20.5 of the SPD confirms the
Council’s intention to review the playing pitch
assessment every 5 years. This will commence in
2006/07. When the SPD is reviewed it will be
amended to reflect the revised assessment including
local standards, where applicable. When the playing
pitch assessment is reviewed the City Council will
require this to be in accordance with the latest
planning policy guidance and advice from Sport
England.
Proposed Changes: None
Para. 2.6
Pan-Leisure
Consulting (77)
Objection
Clarify whether the 424ha of
greenspace in Swinton is fully
accessible
The total greenspace resource in Table 1 includes all sites
regardless of type, ownership or accessibility. The statement in
paragraph 2.6 explains the data in Table 1 and indicates that for
Swinton there is 424 (ha) hectares of greenspace, which includes
significant (75ha) areas that are private and inaccessible to the
general public such as a golf course and the former Swinton
Sewage Treatment Works Site. The remaining 349ha can
therefore be assumed to be publicly accessible.
Proposed Changes: Add minor wording to the first sentence of paragraph 2.6: “The largest concentrations of greenspace, regardless of type, ownership or
accessibility, are found in Swinton (424ha), Worsley and Boothstown (423ha), and Walkden and Little Hulton (374ha), although significant areas are not
publicly accessible. “
Para. 2.13
Pan-Leisure
Objection
Clarify the concept of Higher Play
The Greenspace Strategy SPD seeks to secure LEAP & NEAP
Consulting (78)
Demand with regard to population
provision at a uniform minimum spatial local standard across the
demographics in Swinton and how this
city based on walking catchments. Areas of Higher Play Demand
is related to proposals at sites such as
recognise the need for additional facilities or higher capacity sites
Campbell Road Playing Fields.
above the minimum spatial provision. Compared with the city
average Table 3 shows that there is average play demand in
Swinton South and Swinton North. Some areas of these wards
do not meet the required minimum local standard and are
currently considered deficient in play space, such as Campbell
Road Playing Fields where new facilities are proposed.
Proposed Changes: None
Table 1
Cllr. Geoff
Para. 2.5
Ainsworth (82)
Table 2
Para. 2.8
Objection
1. Data presented in Table 1
would be better presented at a
ward level in order to understand
what local deficiencies exist.
2. Data presented at Community
Committee level masks a deficit in
provision in a particular geographical
area.
2. The Greenspace Strategy SPD aims to achieve a
best fit spatial distribution of greenspace facilities to
meet standards that are based on walking
catchments. The catchments are in no way tailored to
fall within administrative or political boundaries.
Catchments are based on walking distances which
relate to the needs and convenience of local
residents. It is not considered of interest to users of a
facility which ward or community committee it is
based.
Nevertheless, Community Committee areas have been used for
the organisation of data and production of Maps in the SPD. It is
considered that they represent the best local level of organisation
for community development and allow information to be
presented at a practical local scale which supports the role of the
Community Committee and hopefully stimulates local interest.
The map of each Community Committee is the way in which
readers of the Greenspace Strategy SPD will be able to
understand the distribution of greenspace facilities and identify
deficiencies in their locality.
To collect and present data at a ward level would cause
complications because a considerable number of sites fall within
more than one ward and data would have to be split between
wards. This approach would unduly lengthen the document with
the requirement for additional text, summaries and maps.
1. The location and accessibility of greenspace facilities and
deficiency areas are readily identifiable on the Community
Committee Maps regardless of the level of detail that is
represented in Table 1.
It is considered that the data in the Greenspace Strategy SPD
has been organised in a way that strikes the right balance
between strategic planning and local interest. It is not considered
appropriate to present data or maps according to ward
boundaries.
Proposed Changes: None
Table 2
Cllr. Geoff
Ainsworth (83)
Objection
1. Restructure Table 2 to ensure no
overlap of open space quantities.
2. Description of ‘informal children’s
play space’ doesn’t take account of the
benefits the informal open space (i.e.
amenity sites) can provide for other
categories of the population (not just
children).
1. Table 1 presents the total greenspace and total
accessible greenspace areas of all relevant sites.
Table 2 separates the total of different types of
greenspace in accordance with the audit of
greenspace which breaks the open space down by
typology. The note at the base of Table 2 clarifies that
the same area on an individual site may contribute to
more than one typology, e.g. the same site could be
designated as a Site of Biological Importance, Country
Park and Local Nature Reserve. This creates an
element of double counting which means that the
totals in Table 2 do not correspond with the totals in
Table 1.
It is acknowledged that this may provide some confusion,
(notwithstanding that the Note beneath Table 2 explains it). To
avoid this confusion, it is proposed to remove the Totals in Table
2. This will still allow the total of each typology to be understood,
but will avoid confusion with respect to double counting of habitat
types.
2. Informal open space, is measured in the SPD in two ways:
a) facilities that meet the NPFA ‘Six Acre Standard’ for
informal children’s play space ( by virtue of size, location
and overlooking );
b) other informal recreation identified as informal urban
green space.
Both categories of open space assume an element of
recreational use.
Neither categories encapsulate the type of civic / quiet amenity/
sitting space which form an important part of the urban scene
and which are recognised in PPG17. It is considered that such
sites fall outside the scope of the Greenspace Strategy SPD and
there is no standard in the UDP to which they relate.
For this reason it is not considered appropriate to include this
category of open space within the Greenspace Audit covered by
Table 2.
Proposed Changes: Remove the Totals contained within the Total Wider Greenspace row, Total Urban Open Space row and Total Greenspace row in Table
2.
Amend the Note beneath Table 2 to clarify the relationship between Table 1 and Table 2, to state:
N.B. The total quantity of the types of greenspace exceeds the overall totals set out in Table 1, as some areas will be calculated more than once. For
example Clifton Country Park (77.86ha) is also recorded as Woodland (43.97ha), SBI (36.8ha) and Informal Urban Green Space (19.93ha) as well as other
features. Tables 1 and 2 focus on different parts of the greenspace audit data and for this reason should not be compared. Table 1 concentrates on the total
area of greenspace sites. This differs from Table 2, which provides a quantity for the different types of greenspace facilities that have been audited.
In Table 2,Looplines are measured either as an area in hectares (where the loopline provides a greenspace site in itself) or as a length in metres (where the
line follows the public highway or is particularly narrow).
Para. 2.14
Cllr. Geoff
Objection
Provision of a table which lists all of the The remit for the Greenspace Strategy SPD relates to
Ainsworth (84)
existing Other Youth and Adult
outdoor recreational facilities. It does not include
Facilities provision in Ward/CCA’s.
indoor recreation facilities such as swimming pools,
sports halls, fitness centres indoor bowling clubs etc.
The area of land devoted to Other Youth and Adult facilities was
included in the baseline NPFA survey in 2001. However, a
detailed audit of other Youth and Adult facilities has not been
kept fully up to date.
There is a general difficulty with monitoring greenspaces,
including Youth and Adult, as recreational uses constantly
change e.g. football pitches may be marked out one year, but not
the next. What is most important is having the required quantity
of greenspace and that this is of good quality.
Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that an update of the range of
outdoor Youth and Adult facilities will need to be undertaken as
part of the Monitoring process.
It is not, however, considered appropriate to include this
information in the document, although what is held in the
database could be made available on request.
Proposed Changes: None
Typologies
Cllr. Geoff
of Open
Ainsworth (85)
Space
Objection
The respondent wishes the
Greenspace Strategy SPD to
recognise the role played by smallscale local amenity spaces, which may
not necessarily have an informal
recreation function, but reflect the
category contained in PPG17.
The remit of the Greenspace Strategy SPD focuses
predominantly on open spaces with a recreation function. It is
acknowledged that this does not cover the category found in
Annex: Definitions of PPG17, entitled Civic Spaces (including
civic and market squares and other hard surfaced areas
designed for pedestrians).
In accordance with the requirements of PPG17 the
Greenspace Audit covered many smaller areas of
greenspace including informal urban greenspace.
However, it did not extend to civic spaces that are
beyond the scope of this SPD.
Although there is limited reference, some local amenity areas
may be protected by UDP Policy R1, as well as the sequential
approach to development in UDP Ppolicy ST11.
It is not considered appropriate to include specific reference to
local amenity / civic areas within the SPD. Nevertheless, some
minor text changes will be made to Para 2.2 for clarification
purposes.
Proposed Changes: Amend text to first sentence in paragraph 2.2 to read: “ Salford’s …………….greenspaces, primarily with a formal or informal
recreational /play function, identifying ………….provision”.
A new sentence to be added beneath the final bullet point of Para 2.2 to read. “The audit of greenspace does not include amenity /civic open space and other
pedestrian areas that are primarily part of the urban scene, and are for quiet sitting or which act as a landscape setting.”
Higher Play Cllr. Geoff
Objection
1. To meet the standards in the Greenspace Strategy SPD,
1. The approach to Higher Play
Demand
Ainsworth (86)
existing recreational sites have been proposed for improved or
Demand is unclear.
Para. 2.13
new facilities. Paragraphs 2.13 and 2.14 set the context and
& 2.14
clarify that in some parts of the city (identified by ward based
With respect to Higher Play Demand,
2001 census population statistics) there is a higher than average
the respondent wants clarification
density of children/young people. Here, in these areas of Higher
about whether the approach is to seek
Play Demand, there is a case to be made that additional facilities
an overall increase in the total amount
are required above the minimum spatial standard identified from
of open space or a proportionate
the pattern of catchments. The higher demand is restricted to
increase of specific facility based on
provision of Equipped Play (including youth facilities).
the population characteristics of the
area.
2. The respondent would prefer an
approach based on changing small
area population characteristics. This
would relate the local standards to
population characteristics of the area –
with equipped children’s play space
based on a child density standard.
Generally, outside areas of Higher Play Demand, the minimum
spatial standard sought is based on every household being within
a minimum walking distance of a play facility. This falls below the
NPFA standard of 0.25 ha per 1000 pop. Within Areas of Higher
Play Demand, it is suggested that the level of provision could be
based on the NPFA higher minimum standard of 0.25ha / 1000
people.
The wards within the city where additional facilities may be likely
due to a high proportion of young children are identified in Table
3.
2. It is not possible to accurately predict other areas of the city
where population increases will create additional areas of Higher
Play Demand because census population data is only available
once every 10 years and small area forecasting is unreliable.
The Council considers that the approach to areas of Higher Play
Demand is clear and that it is not possible to regularly monitor
areas of changing demand, due to the lack of available data.
Proposed Changes: None
CHAPTER 3: SETTING STANDARDS
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Background
Respondent
(representation
number)
SOSCA (21)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Objection
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
In The Background to Chapter 3,
there is reference to the NPFA Six
Acre Standard, but there is no
equivalent reference to the English
Nature Accessible Greenspace
Standard (ANGSt). This is
considered to undermine the
credibility of the consultation
process.
Council accepts that the lack of any reference to the
English Nature (ANGSt) Standard is an omission,
and amendments are suggested accordingly .
Proposed Changes: It is proposed to include the following paragraph explaining the English Nature “ Accessible Natural
Greenspace Standard “ (ANGSt). (This should be read in conjunction with proposed changes resulting from Pan Leisure objection
representation no. 7).
A new Para 3.3 to be inserted to read
“The Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt), sponsored by English Nature, seeks to promote access to a range of different sized accessible
natural greenspace sites. The standard seeks to achieve the following:
 No person should live more than 300m from their nearest area of natural greenspace of at least 2 ha in size.
 Provision of at least 1ha of Local Nature Reserve per 1000 population
 That there should be at least one accessible 20ha site within 2km from home
 That there should be one accessible 100ha site within 5 km
 That there should be one accessible 500ha site within 10km.”
Para 3.3 to become Para 3.4 and to read:
“These national standards are a useful guideline, but do not take account of local circumstances. They are based purely on the supply of sites rather than
any assessment of demand, population characteristics (e.g. age structure), land availability, the quality and suitability of provision or the level of accessibility.
In the case of the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard, it is considered impractical to create sites of 100ha and 500ha within the boundaries of a single
local authority where they do not already exist. Therefore, local standards for Salford have been developed. The use of local standards is endorsed by both
English Nature and NPFA and encouraged by PPG17. ”
Existing Paragraph 3.4 to become 3.8.
Background SOSCA (21)
Objection
SOSCA consider that the amended
standard for wider greenspace (Local and
Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace) is
arbitrary and cannot be assessed, because
there has not been any baseline /
benchmarking to provide an accurate
snapshot of current provision based on the
recommended Accessible Natural
Greenspace Standard. If the council is
going to vary the ANGSt it should consult
on this.
The ANG St standard is recommended in PPG17,
but it is not a requirement and PPG17 also stresses
the importance of local standards. The Companion
Guide to PPG17: Assessing Needs and
Opportunities, states in Para 10.17,” these
standards can be difficult and sometimes impossible
to achieve. English Nature has therefore refined
ANG St to put greater emphasis on identifying local
needs and improving accessibility and site quality”.
In English Nature’s Practical Guide to Assessing the
Resource and Implementing Local Standards of
Provision, page 2 states “ While it is expected that
local authorities should aspire to meet the
provisions of the standard, it is recognised that this
will be more difficult in some urban contexts than in
others. Local authorities are therefore encouraged
to determine for themselves the most appropriate
policy response in the light of a sound
understanding of the standard………….etc”. The
Council consider that it is entirely appropriate to
have amended the ANG St standards to reflect the
nature of Salford as an essentially urban authority,
constrained by the availability of land.
Given the tight timescales for production of the
document, it has not been possible to formally
consult on variations to the Accessible Natural
Greenspace Standards in advance of the formal
public consultation for the complete document.
However, the proposed standards were considered
as part of the Greenspace Stakeholder Group
workshop and people have had the opportunity to
comment during the consultation period on the
SPD..
It is noted that there are no other objections to the
revised standards, including Sport England and
Countryside Agency, nor was there any
representation from English Nature objecting to the
proposed approach. To have adopted the approach
advocated by SOSCA would have frustrated our
best efforts to establish a realistic and
implementable policy framework within a realistic
timescale and it is considered that the standards
adopted are appropriate for Salford.
Proposed Changes: No changes to the document are considered necessary as a result of this objection.
Background SOSCA (23)
Objection
Larger areas of greenspace (100ha and
The Council does not accept that sites of over 100
potentially 500ha) should be included and
ha have to be part of the Greenspace Strategy SPD.
if this is not practical, the minimum size for
Adoption of the ANGSt approach is not a
Strategic Greenspace should be increased
requirement. PPG17 recommends it, but stresses
to compensate.
the importance of each local authority determining
its own standards in accordance with local
circumstances. It is considered unrealistic to expect
sites of 100ha and 500ha to be proactively planned
for by each individual local authority. This could only
be done working at a sub regional level with all
participants committed to ANGSt. Irrespective of
the potential beneficial impacts of Regional Park
policy, there is no commitment in the Regional
Spatial Strategy to comply with the ANGSt standard.
It is not therefore incumbent on the local authority to
do so.
The Council has taken what it considers a pragmatic and
achievable approach to the use of the ANGSt standard. The
Council can see no justification for increasing the size of
Strategic semi natural Greenspaces areas beyond 20hectares,
which is compliant with the ANGSt standard. Page 2 of the
English Nature guide to ANGSt supports this approach. It
states “ Implementing the (ANGSt) model is the starting point
for a creative process of greenspace planning and
management and not an end in itself”. Furthermore, the
document recommends that if not all of the suggested size
tiers for sites are being implemented, the smaller
‘neighbourhood’ sites should always be covered, as the most
accessible to local communities. This approach is supported
by the Salford Greenspace Strategy SPD standards.
Slack Brook Country Park is an accessible SemiNatural Greenspace site over 100ha in size. If cross
boundary greenspace is identified, the Council
considers that a substantial proportion of the
population would be within 5km of a 100 ha site.
The Council does not consider it appropriate to
include standards relating to 100ha and 500ha
greenspace sites.
Proposed Changes: None
Background
SOSCA (28)
Objection
The Council should adopt the 1ha of
nature reserve per 1000 population.
The Council has considered the standard of 1ha of
Local Nature Reserve per 1000 population. The
standard is considered unrealistic in the sense of
the formal designation Local Nature Reserve.
Nevertheless, the Council will continue to identify
opportunities for the management and improvement
of wildlife value for greenspace sites. In this context,
20ha semi natural greenspace sites provide a
framework within which to consider future Local
Nature Reserves.
The council does not propose to adopt any standard
relating to Local Nature Reserve.
Proposed Changes: None
Para. 3.3
Pan-Leisure
Consulting (79)
Objection
The NPFA Six Acre Standard has been
applied selectively. There should be
greater clarity about what standards are
being applied.
The Six Acre Standard has been used to define
some of the formal outdoor recreation categories
and against which to audit their provision (sports
pitches, other youth and adult facilities, equipped
children’s play areas and informal play areas).
The local standards adopted for formal outdoor recreation
relate to accessibility standards rather than total area
provision. This reflects the requirements of PPG17 (Setting
Local Standards) and acknowledges the walking catchments
identified in the NPFA Six Acre Standard. It is particularly
relevant to LEAPs and NEAPs. Other accessibility standards
have been derived for parks based on the common approach
used by Districts across Greater Manchester.
Local standards have also been developed for wider
greenspace (of a less formal recreational type). These have
been based on the English Nature Accessible Natural
Greenspace Standard (ANGSt).
It is accepted that it might appear that the Six Acre Standard
has been used in a partial and selective sense. However, it
has been used in a way which is considered appropriate to the
setting of Salford and in line with current guidance. It has been
supplemented with the English Nature ANGSt, and it is
considered that together, these standards are locally relevant,
practical and deliverable.
It is accepted that some misunderstanding of the derivation of
the local standards may have come about due to the lack of
explanation in Chapter 3, Setting Standards. It is therefore
proposed to insert additional explanation of the way that the
NPFA Six Acre Standard and English Nature ANGSt standards
have been used.
Proposed Changes: Insert additional text in Chapter 3: Setting the Standards, to clarify the way that the NPFA has been used and supplemented by use of
the English Nature ANGSt. Chapter 3 to read:
Background
3.1 Government guidance in PPG17 recommends that local authorities develop local standards for different types of greenspace, based on an assessment of
the supply and demand for such facilities.
3.2 The National Playing Field Association (NPFA) has developed a "Six Acre Standard", which is often used as a basis for local standards. The Six Acre
Standard recommends the provision of 2.43 hectares of outdoor recreation facilities per 1,000 population, made up of the following:
 1.2ha of Sports Pitches;
 0.4-0.6ha of Other Youth and Adult Space;
 0.4-0.5ha of Informal Children's Playspace; and
 0.2-0.3ha of Equipped Children's Playspace.
3.3 The Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt), sponsored by English Nature, seeks to promote access to a range of different sized accessible
natural greenspace sites. The standard seeks to achieve the following:
 No person should live more than 300m from their nearest area of natural greenspace of at least 2 ha in size.
 Provision of at least 1ha of Local Nature Reserve per 1000 population
 That there should be at least one accessible 20ha site within 2km from home
 That there should be one accessible 100ha site within 5 km
 That there should be one accessible 500ha site within 10km.”
3.4 This These national standards are is a useful guideline, but does not take account of local circumstances. It is They are based purely on the supply of
sites rather than any assessment of demand, population characteristics (e.g. age structure), the quality and suitability of provision, or the level of
accessibility. In the case of the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard, it is also considered particularly impractical to create sites of 100ha and 500ha
within the boundaries of a single local authority where they do not already exist. Therefore, local standards for Salford have been developed, and the use
of local standards is endorsed by both English Nature and the NPFA and encouraged by PPG17.
3.5 Due to the degree of interpretation left in relation to the definition of ‘natural’, it was considered that it would be more appropriate to the type of
greenspace provision in Salford to refer to ‘semi-natural’ greenspaces. However, the types of greenspaces being identified remained in accordance with
the guidance produced by English Nature and PPG17. This decision was made because of there has been some form of disturbance in every open space
being considered under the Model, and none could genuinely be considered fully ‘natural’. The sites identified by the Strategy as existing or proposed
semi-natural greenspaces are considered to be an important resource for the city’s biodiversity, and have the potential to provide a high quality recreation
experience for the urban population.
3.6 There are no national standards for the provision of Parks. The standards adopted by this Strategy have been agreed by the Association of Greater
Manchester Authorities (AGMA).
3.7 In 2001 consultants working for Salford City Council, undertook a Playing Pitch Assessment to establish the provision and availability of grass sports
pitches for football, rugby, cricket and hockey. This modified the NPFA Standard of 1.2 hectares of sports pitch / 1000 population.
3.8 For information, how well the city performed against the NPFA standards in 2001/2 is set out in Appendix A.
Accessibility Standards
3.9 A number of the local standards identified in this SPD (and in the Draft Replacement UDP) are based around physical accessibility, in terms of the
maximum walking distance that every household should be from different types of recreation/greenspace site. The use of accessibility standards both
promotes social inclusion, by seeking to ensure that all households have similar levels of access to a range of facilities, and helps to reduce the distance
that people need to travel and therefore the use of the private car (with consequent positive impacts on health by encouraging more walking and cycling
and reducing air pollution, and levels of congestion by reducing the number and length of car journeys).
3.10
The catchments consider barriers such as major roads, railways and canals. If footbridges and subways can be accessed, these barriers will not
restrict the extent of the catchment. However, the accessibility standards are based on walking distances which take account of the indirect nature of
many routes to facilities. This has been considered to equate to a straight-line distance that is 40% shorter on the plans (i.e. a 1,000 metre walking
distance would be assessed as a 600 metre straight line distance) and ensures that current accessibility is not overstated.
CHAPTER 4: LOCAL SEMI-NATURAL GREENSPACE
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Respondent
(representation
number)
SOSCA (22)
Objection
or Support
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Objection
Local and strategic greenspace
standards should be based on
natural, not semi natural
greenspace.
There is no precise definition of what constitutes “natural “
greenspace. It is self evident that in an urban landscape,
the type of vegetation that will predominate will have been
manmade or man managed. However, it would take very
intensive management / interference to prevent natural
processes of habitat occurring and with its colonisation by
native species of flora and fauna. Most areas of semi
natural greenspace have biodiversity interest and
therefore are of wildlife value. Likewise, given appropriate
management, such areas also have the potential to
increase in value
In the English Nature document, “Providing Accessible
Natural Greenspace in Towns and Cities”, it is argued that
“the planning system will provide an important means of
ensuring that key elements of the accessible natural
greenspace resource are protected and of achieving
improvements in the level of provision”. The key elements
of greenspace to consider are those provided in an open
space typology by the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce.
These include:
Parks and gardens
Country Parks
Natural and semi natural urban landscapes
Green corridors
-
Outdoor sports facilities
Amenity greenspace
Allotments, community gardens and urban
farms
Cemeteries and churchyards.
The Council has undertaken an extensive audit of the
above plus additional greenspace categories, but
excluding areas that are obviously intensively managed.
This greenspace resource is summarised in Table 2 (page
14) of the Greenspace Strategy SPD: Consultation Draft.
It is considered that this approach fully addresses the
issue of concern that the council has not established a
baseline to determine the amount of natural greenspace
available and from which to assess the existing provision
of sites at least 20 hectare in size and publicly accessible.
The council’s use of the term Semi Natural has perhaps
been confusing. However, the use of term “semi natural”
in the context of the Greenspace Strategy SPD is not
considered to be different to the use of the term “natural”
by English Nature in the context of Accessible Natural
Greenspace.
Proposed Changes: It is not proposed to undertake any further audit work nor to change the sites identified as semi natural.
However, it is acknowledged that greater clarity is required about the use of the term Semi Natural. It is proposed to add an
additional paragraph to Chapter 3, Setting Standards.
3.3 The Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt), sponsored by English Nature, seeks to promote access to a range of different sized accessible
natural greenspace sites. The standard seeks to achieve the following:
 No person should live more than 300m from their nearest area of natural greenspace of at least 2 ha in size.
 Provision of at least 1ha of Local Nature Reserve per 1000 population
 That there should be at least one accessible 20ha site within 2km from home
 That there should be one accessible 100ha site within 5 km
 That there should be one accessible 500ha site within 10km
3.4 This These national standards are is a useful guideline, but does not take account of local circumstances. It is They are based purely on the supply of
sites rather than any assessment of demand, population characteristics (e.g. age structure), the quality and suitability of provision, or the level of
accessibility. In the case of the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard, it is also considered particularly impractical to create sites of 100ha and 500ha
within the boundaries of a single local authority where they do not already exist. Therefore, local standards for Salford have been developed, and the use
of local standards is endorsed by both English Nature and the NPFA and encouraged by PPG17.
3.5 Due to the degree of interpretation left in relation to the definition of ‘natural’, it was considered that it would be more appropriate to the type of
greenspace provision in Salford to refer to ‘semi-natural’ greenspaces. However, the types of greenspaces being identified remained in accordance with
the guidance produced by English Nature and PPG17. This decision was made because of there has been some form of disturbance in every open space
being considered under the Model, and none could genuinely be considered fully ‘natural’. The sites identified by the Strategy as existing or proposed
semi-natural greenspaces are considered to be an important resource for the city’s biodiversity, and have the potential to provide a high quality recreation
experience for the urban population.
3.6 There are no national standards for the provision of Parks. The standards adopted by this Strategy have been agreed by the Association of Greater
Manchester Authorities (AGMA).
3.7 In 2001 consultants working for Salford City Council, undertook a Playing Pitch Assessment to establish the provision and availability of grass sports
pitches for football, rugby, cricket and hockey. This modified the NPFA Standard of 1.2 hectares of sports pitch / 1000 population.
3.8 For information, how well the city performed against the NPFA standards in 2001/2 is set out in Appendix A.
Para. 4.7
SOSCA (22)
It is noted that even after the
Noted
proposed new sites are brought
forward, there will be shortfalls in
local greenspace provision in the
three wards around the Swinton
sewage works site – Worsley &
Boothstown, Eccles and Swinton
South.
Proposed Changes: None
Para. 4.8
SOSCA (22)
Objection
The SPD does not state how the
sites that could potentially meet
any deficiency for local semi
natural greenspace will be given
sufficient priority so that they are
not developed for other purposes.
The Strategy should include a list
of further potential sites designated
to meet the standard.
The Greenspace Strategy SPD has identified and prioritised
those existing local semi natural greenspace sites that meet the
criteria for site selection and are fully accessible to the public. It
would be unreasonable and impractical at this stage to seek to
predetermine which sites might be brought forward to better
meet the standard, for those parts of the city, where it is
deficient., particularly given that an SPD cannot allocate land.
Other open land sites which could potentially help to meet
this local semi natural greenspace standard are protected
by a range of other policies. Principal amongst these is
Policy R1. It is unlikely therefore that existing open space
sites will be lost to other uses, and certainly not without
full consideration of the implications of the Greenspace
Strategy SPD and rigorous justification that it is surplus to
need.
It is impossible to anticipate what other opportunities for
creation of new local semi natural greenspaces will arise
over time and where those opportunities might be. The
local semi natural greenspace requirement will be an
important consideration for area regeneration and for new
development in an area where there is an existing
deficiency.
The wording of paragraph 4.8 is considered to be appropriate
and therefore there are no proposed changes to it.
Proposed Changes: None
ESA/003
NDC (27)
Omission
It is suggested that the MBB Canal
should also go in the proposed
section as well, since not all of the
Canal is accessible at the moment.
It is assumed that the reference to the Manchester,
Bolton, Bury relates to the protected line of the
Manchester, Bolton & Bury Canal, most of which is not
currently in water.
It is not considered appropriate to identify this line in the Greenspace
Strategy, on the basis that the final design plans and layout have not
yet been agreed. This particular stretch of the canal may have a more
urban feel and this is something to be considered at a later stage. It is
felt that the Policies in the UDP already provides protection for the line
of the canal. The deficiency area in local semi-natural greenspace
indicated by its absence from the Greenspace Strategy SPD is
sufficient to ensure consideration of this element during the design
process.
Proposed Changes: None
ESA/005
NDC (27)
Objection
Whilst there are proposals to
enhance the Former Kersal High
School SBI with future
management, the site should not
be promoted as accessible.
It is agreed that the SBI adjoining the Former Kersal High School will
not be publicly accessible, and therefore this site will be removed from
the Strategy.
Proposed Changes:

Remove reference to site ESA/005 from proposed Local Semi-Natural Greenspace in Chapter 4, under East Salford.




Remove site ESA/005 from proposed Local Semi-Natural Greenspace on Map 1.
Amend % figures in para.4.6 and 4.7 accordingly.
Remove reference to site ESA/005 from East Salford Community Committee Area Summary Appendix C – Table 8 and Map 10
Amend population and % figures in Table 9: Local Semi-Natural Greenspace row.
NDC (27)
Omission
Castle Hill Woodland forms part of Kersal Dale Local Nature
A number of other sites were 
Reserve
and is already identified as an existing Local and
suggested, although it was
Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace site.
questioned whether the
emphasis was on SCC
assets.





The Playing Fields at Salford University formed part of the
audit of greenspace and the northern section of the playing fields
(within the River loop) have been identified as part of the Kersal
Dale Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace site. It was considered
that this section of the Playing Fields is accessible and provides a
semi-natural environment, particularly benefiting from the River.
For consistency this site will be added to the Greenspace
Strategy SPD as part of the existing Kersal Dale Local SemiNatural Greenspace site.

Brindle Heath Cemetery is too small to be considered as a
local semi-natural greenspace site, being less than 1ha in size. It
is considered to be an amenity site, and would continue to be
protected by UDP Policy R1 as a place for sitting and quiet
contemplation. This site will not be added to the Greenspace
Strategy SPD.

Brindle Heath Lagoons are already identified as a proposed
Local Semi-Natural Greenspace site: ESA/006: Land at Duchy
Road. The site identified is larger than just the lagoons and
reflects the recreation allocation set out in the UDP. However, for
clarification, the name of this site will be amended.
Castle Hill Woodland
Playing fields at Salford
University
Brindle Health Cemetery
Brindle Heath Lagoons
Proposed Changes: Amend reference to ESA/006: Land at Duchy Road (Brindle Heath Lagoons)
Amend the boundaries of Kersal Dale Local Semi-Natural Greenspace to match the boundaries for the Kersal Dale Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace site,
on Map 1 and Map 10.
ESA/005
Higham & Co.
Objection
Advice has been provided that the
It is agreed that the SBI adjacent to the Former Kersal High School
(74)
SBI woodland should not be open
will not be publicly accessible, and therefore this site will be removed
for public access for ecological and from the Strategy SPD.
security reasons.
While the SBI will still function as a
greenspace and will meet other
objectives of the proposal in
providing an area for a variety of
wildlife to thrive, it will not be
accessible by the public.
Proposed Changes:

Remove reference to site ESA/005 from proposed Local Semi-Natural Greenspace in Chapter 4, under East Salford.




Remove site ESA/005 from proposed Local Semi-Natural Greenspace on Map 1.
Amend % figures in para.4.6 and 4.7 accordingly and Table 9, Appendix C
Remove reference to site ESA/005 from East Salford Community Committee Area Summary Appendix C – Table 8 and Map 10
Amend population and % figures in Table 9: Local Semi-Natural Greenspace row.
CLW/001
Cllr. Geoff
Objection
Weaste Cemetery is considered to Weaste Cemetery is identified on English Heritage’s Register of
Ainsworth (92)
not meet the requirements for a
Historic Parks and Gardens, as a Grade II listed Victorian Cemetery.
Local Semi-Natural Greenspace
due to the ‘developed’ nature of
The site includes meadow grassland and woodland supporting a wide
the burial ground and the character variety of flowers, insects, birds and bats. Salford Council has
of its use reducing its recreation
promoted a Heritage and Ecology trail through the Cemetery for
value, despite the ecological value recreation and education purposes.
of the site.
The typology of open spaces for inclusion in green space strategies,
set out in PPG17, confirm cemeteries are an appropriate open space
to be included. English Nature’s practical guide for implementing local
standard of provision for meeting the accessible natural greenspace
(ANGSt) standard, includes cemeteries with natural character as an
example of an appropriate site for this standard.
The inclusion of Weaste Cemetery as a Local Semi-Natural
Greenspace site is consistent with the approach taken across the city
– which includes 2 other cemeteries – Northern Cemetery (Swinton)
and Peel Green Cemetery (Eccles). These 3 cemeteries were all
considered to meet the requirements set out in Policy GS1 – being of
at least 1 hectare in size, providing areas for a variety of wildlife to
thrive and being publicly accessible without restrictions on entry.
Proposed Changes: None
WLH/008
Walkden/ Little
Hulton Open
Spaces
Committee (43)
Proposed Changes: None
Objection
It is suggested this site (Ashton
Fields) should be regarded as a
future proposal rather than
anything with a current existence –
it is suggested it is years from
readiness despite the
commencement of work.
Ashton Fields Colliery is considered to be an existing
recreation site, due to the implementation of a planning
permission identifying it as such. The works currently
being carried out will restore it for recreation purposes
with substantial areas of semi-natural landscaping. This
will meet the criteria for its designation as a Local SemiNatural Greenspace.
CHAPTER 5: STRATEGIC SEMI-NATURAL GREENSPACE
Paragraph/
Policy/
Site
number
CLW/002
Para. 5.7
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of
Representation
Council’s Response
Ramblers
Association (18)
Support
Support that Buille Hill
Park is big enough and
is suitable to become a
strategic semi-natural
greenspace. It is
suggested this would be
welcome in the heavily
populated area which
surrounds it.
Support Noted.
However, in response to other representations in respect of this site proposal,
it has been decided to remove Buile Hill Park as a proposed Strategic SemiNatural Greenspace sites. It is accepted that due to the historic nature of the
park and given the range of other recreation activities that the park provides it
would be inappropriate to identify Buile Hill Park as a Strategic Semi-Natural
Greenspace. The level of management required would conflict with its other
more formal functions. Nevertheless, it is considered appropriate to include
the park as a Local Semi-Natural Greenspace.
Proposed Changes:
Chapter 5: Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace

Remove Buile Hill Park from Proposed Strategic Semi-Natural Provision, paragraph 5.4 and from Map 2 as Proposed Strategic Semi-Natural
Greenspace.
 Amend paragraph 5.4:
“ 5.4 The following existing recreation sites are considered to have the potential to become Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspaces:
CLW/002 Buile Hill Park
ECC/004 Brookhouse Community Woodland
SWI/004 Clifton/Wardley Moss”
 Amend the percentage figure in paragraphs 5.5 & 5.8 accordingly.
 Delete the last half of paragraph 5.5:
“and there would be at least one such site within each of the Community Committee Areas”
 Delete paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 (amend paragraph numbering accordingly).
 Add “Claremont, Weaste and Langworthy” as a bullet point to the new paragraph 5.6 (current para.5.8)
Appendix B: Claremont & Weaste Community Committee Area Summary

Amend ‘Proposed Standard(s) Improvement’ column in Table 6, Appendix B, to delete reference to Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace in respect of 2.
Buile Hill Park.
 Amend the percentage and population figures in Table 7, Appendix B
 Delete the second sentence under “Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace” heading:
“Proposed improvements to the wildlife value of Buile Hill Park would bring the majority of households (95%) within the walking distance for this standard”
 Add new sentence following the first sentence under “Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace” heading:
“There is no proposed Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace site identified in this area.”
 Remove code ‘SG’ in respect of site no. 2 on Map 9.
Appendix F: Ordsall & Langworthy Community Committee Area Summary


Amend the percentage and population figures in Table 15, Appendix F
Delete the second sentence under “Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace” heading:
“Improvements are proposed at Buile Hill Park, which would increase this proportion to 59% of all households within this standard.”
 Add new sentence following the first sentence under “Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace” heading:
“There is no proposed Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace site identified in this area.”
SOSCA (23)
Objection
Strategic semi natural
See response to Rep. 22: Local Semi Natural
greenspace in Policy
GS2 should relate to
“natural” greenspace.
Reasoned Justification
in GS2 is misleading
because it does not
relate directly to Angst
Standard.
Greenspace.
The Council acknowledges that the wording in the Reasoned Justification
requires greater clarity with respect to the derivation of the adopted standards
from the ANGSt.
Proposed Changes: See proposed additional text to Chapter 3 Setting Standards.
Amend the Reasoned Justification to GS2 with the addition of the following wording: “ This standard is taken directly derived from……………………travel
significant distances (see Chapter 3, paras 3.3 and 3.4).
Policy GS2 SOSCA (23)
Objection

There is no

The Council does not accept that sites of over 100 ha
–
justification for
have to be part of the Greenspace Strategy SPD. Adoption
Reasoned
excluding sites over
of
Justification
100ha in the
Greenspace Strategy,
since the Angst
Standard specifically
requires this.

Concern that if
the Council is to adopt
the Regional Park
approach as an
alternative to, specific
identified “natural
greenspace” it should
increase size of
Strategic Semi Natural
Greenspace sites to
between 30 and 50
hectares.
the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard is not a
requirement. PPG17 recommends it, but stresses the
importance of each local authority determining its own
standards in accordance with local circumstances. It is
considered unrealistic to expect sites of 100ha (and even
more so, 500ha) to be proactively planned for by each
individual local authority. This could only practically be done
working at a sub regional level with all participants committed
to ANGSt. Irrespective of the potential beneficial impacts of
Regional Park policy, there is no commitment in current
Regional Planning Guidance or draft Regional Spatial
Strategy to comply with the ANGSt standard. It is not
therefore incumbent on the local authority to do so.

The Council has taken what it considers a pragmatic and
achievable approach to the use of the Accessible Natural
Greensace Standard. The Council can see no justification for
increasing the size of Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspaces
areas beyond 20hectares, which is consistent with the
ANGSt. Page 2 of the English Nature guide to ANG St
supports this approach. It states “ Implementing the (ANGSt)
model is the starting point for a creative process of
greenspace planning and management and not an end in
itself”.
Slack Brook Country Park is an accessible Semi-Natural Greenspace site
over 100ha in size within Salford. If cross boundary greenspace is identified,
the Council considers that a substantial proportion of the population would be
within 5km of a 100 ha site (52.7%).
The Council does not intend to amend policy GS2 to incorporate the 100ha or
500ha standard within the Greenspace Strategy SPD.
Proposed Changes: None
CLW/002
SOSCA (23)
Objection
SOSCA do not consider
that Buile hill Park
adequately meets the
criteria for Strategic
Semi Natural
Greenspace, bearing in
mind the formal aspects
of the park and
associated buildings.
The Council acknowledges the importance of Buile Hill Park as an historic
park. The site appears on the Historic Parks and Gardens Register. Whilst,
there is clearly a diversity of wildlife interest within the park, it is
acknowledged that, given the substantial area of formal recreation, historic
buildings and access routes, it could prove difficult to identify 20 hectares
which could be managed in the long term in a manner fully conducive to the
requirements of Policy GS2.
Proposed Changes:
Chapter 5: Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace

Remove Buile Hill Park from Proposed Strategic Semi-Natural Provision, paragraph 5.4 and from Map 2 as Proposed Strategic Semi-Natural
Greenspace.
 Amend paragraph 5.4:
“ 5.4 The following existing recreation sites are considered to have the potential to become Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspaces:
CLW/002 Buile Hill Park
ECC/004 Brookhouse Community Woodland
SWI/004 Clifton/Wardley Moss”
 Amend the percentage figure in paragraphs 5.5 & 5.8 accordingly.
 Delete the last half of paragraph 5.5:
“and there would be at least one such site within each of the Community Committee Areas”
 Delete paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 (amend paragraph numbering accordingly).
 Add “Claremont, Weaste and Langworthy” as a bullet point to the new paragraph 5.6 (current para.5.8)
Appendix B: Claremont & Weaste Community Committee Area Summary

Amend ‘Proposed Standard(s) Improvement’ column in Table 6, Appendix B, to delete reference to Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace in respect of 2.
Buile Hill Park.
 Amend the percentage and population figures in Table 7, Appendix B
 Delete the second sentence under “Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace” heading:
“Proposed improvements to the wildlife value of Buile Hill Park would bring the majority of households (95%) within the walking distance for this standard”
 Add new sentence following the first sentence under “Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace” heading:
“There is no proposed Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace site identified in this area.”
 Remove code ‘SG’ in respect of site no. 2 on Map 9.
Appendix F: Ordsall & Langworthy Community Committee Area Summary


Amend the percentage and population figures in Table 15, Appendix F
Delete the second sentence under “Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace” heading:
“Improvements are proposed at Buile Hill Park, which would increase this proportion to 59% of all households within this standard.”
 Add new sentence following the first sentence under “Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace” heading:
“There is no proposed Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace site identified in this area.”
Para. 5.8
SOSCA (23)
It is noted that even
Noted
after the proposed new
sites are brought
forward, there will be a
major deficiency in
strategic greenspace
provision around the
Swinton sewage works
site in the Eccles and
Swinton South wards.
If Buile Hill Park is
discounted from the new
provision, it is suggested
this deficiency will also
affect the neighbouring
ward of Claremont &
Weaste to the East.
Proposed Changes: None
Para. 5.10
SOSCA (23)
Objection
SOSCA consider
that it is
inappropriate not to
identify sites that
have the potential to
meet outstanding
deficiencies. This
exposes a lack of
commitment to longterm wider
greenspace targets
and misses the
point of the SPD.
Given the very limited
number of sites that fall
Whilst allocating sites is not within the remit of the Greenspace Strategy
SPD, the document has an important function in providing a framework for
future decision-making. In particular the document identifies deficiency areas
where the relevant recreational standards are not being met. The document
will therefore provide the framework for future land allocations under the new
planning system. No new allocations of land will or can be made until such
time as an Allocations Development Plan Document takes over from the
Revised UDP and this will be subject to an extensive process of community
consultation.
The Greenspace Strategy SPD is considered long term and aspirational. It
acknowledges that greenspace standards are deficient in parts of the city, but
it is constrained by what it can achieve through specific land use allocations
(see Objection to para 1.5, representation no, 22).
It would be possible for the Council and its community partners to try to
identify potential sites within Deficiency Areas, which might at some stage in
the future become available or be allocated could help to meet standards.
within the Strategic
SNGS category, these
should be identified now
and therefore protected
from development for
other purposes.
This is, however, a substantial task and not considered within the practical
remit of the Greenspace Strategy SPD. Nevertheless, this task has been
undertaken in relation to 20hectare sites, because they are few in number,
and readily identifiable. It is considered that this approach will give added
weight to their potential importance, irrespective of being identified within an
area of deficiency.
Proposed Changes: None
Further representations
relating to Swinton
Sewage Treatment
Works are considered
within the Swinton
Community Committee
Area Appendix section.
WLH/001
Walkden/Little
Hulton Open
Spaces Committee
(40)
Objection

Revise the
Country Park
boundary to be the
same as the UDP to
include John Street to
Bolton Road green
space.

Refer to John
Street to Bolton Road
green space within
Table 18 and on Map
15.

Clarify whether
the John Street to
Bolton Road green
space would be
protected from any
proposed housing
development if it does
not form part of the

The UDP Key Recreation Area boundary for Blackleach Country
Park in policy R4/1 was extended at the modifications stage of the UDP
Review but was not transferred to the boundary in this SPD. The
boundary will be amended accordingly.

References have been made to site 38 (Harriet Street Playing Fields)
and site 43 (Walkden Cricket Club) to indicate that the largely informal
country park also has some formal open space characteristics. Although
these two sites may be maintained separately they form part of the
country park.

As a piece of greenspace the land between John Street and Bolton
Road receives the protection from UDP policy R1: Protection of
Recreation Land and Facilities and R4/1: Key Recreation Areas. The
merits of individual planning applications including those for housing
development are considered on an individual basis. If this site were to be
considered for an alternative use it would need to satisfy the requirements
of this policy and others.
country park
boundary.
Proposed Changes: Extend the boundary of Blackleach Country Park on Maps 1, 2, 5, 8 and 15 to include the land on John Street / Bolton Road to match
the revised R4/1 boundary.
SWI/002
Walkden/Little
Objection
Concern with the
The Slack Brook site is identified as a proposed Country Park in the 1995
Hulton Open
proposed Slack Brook
adopted UDP. In the replacement UDP it is referred to as Slack Brook
Spaces Committee
Country Park being
Country Park.
(43)
referred to in the present
tense as if it already
It is considered to already meet the requirements of both the local and
existed.
strategic semi-natural greenspace standards set out in the Strategy. It is a
site greater than 20ha in size, providing significant areas for a rich variety of
wildlife to thrive (including 2 areas of Sites of Biological Importance) and is
The respondent
fully publicly accessible, without restrictions on entry.
raises concerns
regarding the
purchase and
ownership of the
land, along with the
amount of work
needed to overcome
industrial pollution
on the site.
Work is currently on-going as part of the Newlands Scheme to improve this
site to a high quality facility.
However, it is acknowledged that there is a discrepancy in how
the site is referred to within the document. In the Local SemiNatural Greenspace section the site is referred to a Slack Brook
Country Park. In the Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace section
the same site is referred to as Lower Irwell Valley/Slack Brook
proposed Country Park.
Changes Sought::
Regard this site as a
It is recommended the site is referred to as Slack Brook Country Park to
future proposal rather
ensure consistency within the document and also to ensure consistency with
than anything with a
the UDP.
current existence.
Proposed Changes: Amend reference to SWI/002 to Slack Brook Country Park in Chapter 5, para. 5.2.
Delete (Lower Irwell Valley) from Appendix G, paragraph following the sub-heading Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace:
Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace
Clifton and Slack Brook Country Parks (Lower Irwell Valley) provide…
5.9
Worsley/Boothstown
Community
Committee (49)
Observation
Any future proposals in
relation to Worsley
Greenway would need
to be checked against
the status of this former
railway corridor as a
potential future transport
link route.
The Council acknowledges the importance of retaining the recreation value of
the former railway as part of a potential Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace.
Any future proposals for a transport link route along this line must be
developed in accordance with the UDP policies R5 and A15. Policy A15 in
UDP refers to the protection of the line from development thereby
safeguarding its use as a transport route. Policy A15 refers to the recreation
corridor and requires the retention of the pedestrian and cyclist access.
GONW objection to
Para. 19.11 – suggests
reference to Urban
Forestry should be
made in more detail –
particularly in GS2 –
Strategic Semi-Natural
Greenspaces.
This response to this representation is ithe same as that in response to the
GONW representation under Chapter 19 Implementation.
Proposed Changes: None
CHAPTER 6: EQUIPPED CHILDREN’S PLAY SPACE
Paragraph/
Policy/
Site
number
Policy GS3
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Obsevation
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Architectural Liaison
Unit (10)
Objection
All new play Spaces should
be designed in accordance
with ‘Play Safety’ guidelines
by National Playing Fields
Assoc. and GMP’s guidelines
Parks and Public Open
Spaces.
Policy GS3 and Section 6 set the parameters for the provision of
equipped children’s play space.
The Council agrees with the respondent’s suggestion that all new play
spaces should be designed in accordance with appropriate guidelines.
The guidance provided by the GMP guidelines relates to parks and
public open spaces, and is of relevance to all the types of greenspaces
referred to in the SPD not just children’s equipped playspace.
The Greenspace Strategy SPD currently refers to the Council’s own
Design and Crime SPD document within the Design Section (Policy
GS10). The Reasoned Justification for this policy could be expanded to
include reference to the GMP’s Guidelines Parks and Public Open
Spaces document.
Within the Reasoned Justification for Policy GS3 reference to designing
out crime principles will be made. However, the main design points are
to be retained for the Design Section, to avoid unnecessary repetition.
Proposed Changes:

Amend Reasoned Justification for Policy GS3 to include a new sentence at the end of the second paragraph:
… imaginative play. Design of such areas should ensure new or improved equipped play provision addresses issues of crime and antisocial behaviour.

Amend the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the Reasoned Justification to Policy GS10:
…as set out in the Greater Manchester Police guidelines for Parks and Public Open Spaces and the Council’s Design and Crime Guidance…
Policy GS3
NDC (27)
Objection

It is considered
that LAPs have a big

The Council agrees with the important role of LAPs, particularly
in the densely built-up inner city areas, and the regeneration areas.
This is reflected in the wording of Policy GS4 which confirms that “In
areas that are deficient in equipped play space for younger children,
and where sites are unlikely to become available for new LEAPs,
consideration will be given to the introduction of smaller play areas”.
The Reasoned Justification of this policy goes on to confirm that “The
Greenspace Strategy does not set a standard, or identify specific
sites, for play areas smaller than LEAP provision. However, this type
of provision can help address the implications for areas of higher play
demand and may be appropriate in dense residential areas where
sites of the size required for LEAP provision are not available,
provided there is local support and adequate revenue funding”.
role to play especially
where distances from
homes prevent access
to equipped play.

The respondent
provided details of a
few sites developed
over recent years in
the NDC area.

Proposed Changes: None
Policy GS3 Worsley/Boothstown
Community
Committee (50)
Support/
Observation

Re-iterate importance

Omission
Agree with comments.
of:
“Playspace will only be
brought forward when
revenue funding is secured to
support the maintenance and
management of the improved
facilities”.
Proposed Changes: None
Worsley/Boothstown

It is not considered possible to identify every small area for play
in a strategic document. Existing LAP sites are protected by UDP
Policy R1, and the development of new sites, where appropriate, is
supported by Greenspace Strategy Policy GS4. It is beyond the remit
of the Greenspace Strategy SPD to include the identification of
existing or proposed LAP sites.
It is considered that the policies within the Greenspace Strategy
adequately cover this point.
 It is implicit in Policies GS3, GS4, & GS16 that these issues should be
taken into account early on in the process.
This must be covered
satisfactorily at an early
stage in relation to each
proposal.
It is noted that the west of
Cross-boundary greenspace sites that may be accessible to
Community
Committee (54)
Boothstown adjoins the Wigan
boundary with some LEAPs
and NEAPs relatively nearby
on the Wigan side which are
accessed by local people.
Salford residents and the relevant distance catchment for
each standard will also be added to the SPD maps and to
the site lists in relevant chapters.
Proposed Changes: At the end of the list of existing NEAPs add a new paragraph:
‘Existing Cross Boundary Provision
There is an additional 3 sites in neighbouring authorities that are accessible to residents of Salford:
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
Sandpiper Road
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Kersal Road
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Mosley Common



On Map 4 show the cross boundary NEAPs (and catchments) at Kersal Road (Bury), Sandpiper Road (Bolton) and Mosley Common (Wigan) that
overlap the boundaries of Swinton, Walkden and Little Hulton and Worsley and Boothstown. These sites and catchments will also need to be displayed
on Maps 10 and 14 (Bury NEAP), Map 15 (Bolton and Wigan NEAPs) and Map 16 (Wigan NEAP).
Amend the percentage of households with access to NEAP catchments in paragraphs 8.3 and 8.7 and Tables 9, 17, 19 and 21 as necessary.
At the end of the list of existing LEAPs add a new paragraph:
‘Existing Cross Boundary Provision
There is an additional 2 sites in neighbouring authorities that are accessible to residents of Salford:
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Kersal Road
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Mosley Common


On Map 3 show the cross boundary LEAPs (and catchments) at Kersal Road (Bury) and Mosley Common (Wigan) that overlap the boundaries of
East Salford, Walkden and Little Hulton and Worsley and Boothstown. These sites and catchments will also need to be displayed on Maps 10 and 14
(Bury LEAP), Map 15 (Wigan LEAP) and Map 16 (Wigan LEAP).
Amend the percentage of households with access to NEAP catchments in paragraphs 7.3 and 7.5 and Tables 9, 19 and 21 as necessary.
Worsley/Boothstown
Observation
Recreational provision for
The Greenspace Strategy SPD has identified play facilities where it is
Community
Committee (59)
community use should be
considered on school and
private sites.
known that there is long-term commitment. Such a long-term
commitment is not generally available within all school sites. It is not
considered possible to guarantee long-term provision, unless community
access is part of the agreement for new schools, and even then they
would only provide limited access outside school hours and be subject
to issues of site security, maintenance and management other than for
dual use of sports pitches. Schools generally consider this and the
associated health and safety issues beyond their remit. Opportunities
may arise but it is very much at the discretion of the governing body of
the each school.
The priority sports pitches include several dual-use sports pitches where
there is a management agreement in place but this only applies to team
sports.
There is no reason, if a school is prepared to do so, why additional play
facilities cannot be installed within school grounds. However, in seeking
to address long-term recreational standards, this SPD can only identify
or propose facilities that can realistically be implemented and for which
there is long-term commitment.
Proposed Changes: None
CHAPTER 7: LOCAL EQUIPPED AREAS FOR PLAY (LEAP)
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
SOSCA (24)
Support
Support for the proposed
LEAP provision at Campbell
Road
Support Noted
Proposed Changes: None
SWI/032
SOSCA (24)
Support
Support for the proposed
LEAP provision at Beechfield
Support Noted
Proposed Changes: None
NDC
Omission
Paragraph/
Policy/
Site
number
SWI/009
The Whit Lane site (a proposed Neighbourhood Park) – ESA/007 – is
already identified in the Greenspace Strategy as a proposed LEAP
and NEAP, however it is under an alternative name “Charlestown
Park, Britannia Street”. Reference to this site as a Neighbourhood
Park shall be amended to “Charlestown Park” to ensure consistency
through the document.
Proposed Changes: Amend reference to ESA/007 to Charlestown Park in Chapter 4, para. 4.5/ East Salford, Chapter 9, para.9.5/East Salford and Appendix
C, Table 8, no.7
CLW/005
Claremont/Weaste
Support
Support for the development of Support Noted
Community
facilities for young people,
Committee (31)
specifically referring to Stott
Lane Playing Fields.
Proposed Changes: None
CLW/007
Claremont/Weaste
Support
Support for the development of Support Noted
Community
facilities for young people,
Committee (32)
specifically referring to Dolbey
Street.
Proposed Changes: None
WBO/008
Worsley/Boothstown Objection
This SPD does not have the remit to control traffic in any way but is
Some sites identified in
Community
concerned that greenspace sites can be safely accessed. The
the SPD should have
Committee (55)
catchments of all standards (especially LEAPs and NEAPs) have been
It is confirmed that Whit Lane
Neighbourhood Park will also
contribute towards a LEAP and
there is support for this from
the local community.
reduced catchments to
represent physical and
practical barriers.
Consider additional proposals
for new facilities in Ellenbrook
to compensate for catchment
barriers
reduced where a physical barrier (canal, river, motorway, dual
carriageway or other major barrier) exists that will prevent some
households from utilising a particular site. Where a footbridge, subway,
traffic island or other crossing allows the barrier to be safely tackled it
is considered that there is not a negative effect on the size of the
catchment. For LEAP sites in particular it is anticipated that older
children and adults would accompany young children to assist in
crossing busy roads and other barriers.
Cross-boundary greenspace sites, also accessible to Salford residents
will also be added to the SPD maps. In the case of Mosley Common in
Wigan, which is within walking distance of many residents in
Ellenbrook this would provide an alternative to the site at Simpson
Grove, negating any need to cross the A580.
There are currently no additional proposals for new facilities through
this SPD other than have already been identified.
Proposed Changes: At the end of the list of existing NEAPs add a new paragraph: ‘Existing Cross Boundary Provision There is an additional 3 sites in
neighbouring authorities that are accessible to residents of Salford:
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
Sandpiper Road
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Kersal Road
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Mosley Common

On Map 4 show the cross boundary NEAPs (and catchments) at Kersal Road (Bury), Sandpiper Road (Bolton) and
Mosley Common (Wigan) that overlap the boundaries of Swinton, Walkden and Little Hulton and Worsley and
Boothstown. These sites and catchments will also need to be displayed on Maps 10 and 14 (Bury NEAP), Map 15
(Bolton and Wigan NEAPs) and Map 16 (Wigan NEAP).

Amend the percentage of households with access to NEAP catchments in paragraphs 8.3 and 8.7 and Tables 9, 17, 19 and 21 as necessary.

At the end of the list of existing LEAPs add a new paragraph:
‘Existing Cross Boundary Provision
There is an additional 2 sites in neighbouring authorities that are accessible to residents of Salford:
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Kersal Road
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Mosley Common


On Map 3 show the cross boundary LEAPs (and catchments) at Kersal Road (Bury) and Mosley Common (Wigan) that overlap the boundaries of
East Salford, Walkden and Little Hulton and Worsley and Boothstown. These sites and catchments will also need to be displayed on Maps 10 and 14
(Bury LEAP), Map 15 (Wigan LEAP) and Map 16 (Wigan LEAP).
Amend the percentage of households with access to NEAP catchments in paragraphs 7.3 and 7.5 and Tables 9, 19 and 21 as necessary.
WBO/013
Worsley/Boothstown
Community
Committee (56)
Objection
Consider additional proposals
for new facilities in Ellenbrook
to compensate for catchment
barriers
Many of the comments from Representation 55 Site WBO/ 008) are
also relevant here. Cross-boundary greenspace sites that may be
accessible to Salford residents and the relevant distance catchment for
each standard will also be added to the SPD maps. For example the
residents of Ellenbrook have access to facilities in Mosley Common
(Wigan), which means that it would not be necessary to cross the
A580 East Lancashire Road.
There are no additional proposals for new facilities being put forward
through this SPD other than those that have already been identified.
However, there is nothing to prevent further recreation / play facilities
coming forward if they are in an appropriate and with the agreement of
the landowner.
Proposed Changes: At the end of the list of existing NEAPs add a new paragraph: ‘Existing Cross Boundary Provision There is an additional 3 sites in
neighbouring authorities that are accessible to residents of Salford:
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
Sandpiper Road
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Kersal Road
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Mosley Common

On Map 4 show the cross boundary NEAPs (and catchments) at Kersal Road (Bury), Sandpiper Road (Bolton) and
Mosley Common (Wigan) that overlap the boundaries of Swinton, Walkden and Little Hulton and Worsley and
Boothstown. These sites and catchments will also need to be displayed on Maps 10 and 14 (Bury NEAP), Map 15
(Bolton and Wigan NEAPs) and Map 16 (Wigan NEAP).

Amend the percentage of households with access to NEAP catchments in paragraphs 8.3 and 8.7 and Tables 9, 17, 19 and 21 as necessary.

At the end of the list of existing LEAPs add a new paragraph:
‘Existing Cross Boundary Provision
There is an additional 2 sites in neighbouring authorities that are accessible to residents of Salford:
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Kersal Road
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Mosley Common


On Map 3 show the cross boundary LEAPs (and catchments) at Kersal Road (Bury) and Mosley Common (Wigan) that overlap the boundaries of
East Salford, Walkden and Little Hulton and Worsley and Boothstown. These sites and catchments will also need to be displayed on Maps 10 and 14
(Bury LEAP), Map 15 (Wigan LEAP) and Map 16 (Wigan LEAP).
Amend the percentage of households with access to NEAP catchments in paragraphs 7.3 and 7.5 and Tables 9, 19 and 21 as necessary.
CHAPTER 8: NEIGHBOURHOOD EQUIPPED AREAS FOR PLAY (NEAP)
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
WBO/010
Respondent
(representation
number)
Mr. Eric Hall (16)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Support/
Observation
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Support for Roe Green as
a potential NEAP.
Support for Roe Green as a potential NEAP noted.
Concerns relating to detailed
design matters – including:
traffic, drainage, parking and
historical interest of the area.
Proposed Changes: None
SWI/009
SOSCA (25)
Proposed Changes: None
CLW/005
Claremont/Weaste
Community
Committee (31)
Proposed Changes: None
Policy GS5
Worsley/Boothstown
Community
Committee (53)
It is agreed that the type of NEAP provision incorporated
in to the Roe Green site must be sympathetic to the
Conservation Area and cognisant of any Conservation
Area Assessment for Roe Green undertaken in the
future.
Support
Support for the proposed
NEAP provision at Campbell
Road
Support Noted
Support
Support for the development of
facilities for young people,
specifically referring to Stott
Lane Playing Fields.
Support Noted
Support/
Observation


Re-iterate importance
of:
"As a result of the potential
noise impacts of NEAPs a
significant buffer zone is
required around them. New
sites will only be considered
appropriate where amenity
concerns can be addressed
and there is strong local
support for them"

Support noted.
A 30m buffer zone is considered appropriate for LEAP
provision – this is stated in the Reasoned Justification for Policy
GS5. A larger area would result in disproportionate amount of
open space needed for equipped play areas, rendering the
standard even more difficult to meet.
The buffer zone calculations are based on work
carried out by Environmental Services Directorate
which confirmed the distances beyond which the

NB This is viewed to
apply equally to LEAPs and
other proposals.

This must be covered
satisfactorily at an early
stage in relation to each
proposal.
noise levels anticipated from an equipped outdoor
recreation facility could be considered acceptable.
LEAP provision is aimed at local younger children,
therefore the buffer zone can be less than those
areas which provide equipment for older children and
noisier play.

Proposed Changes: None
It is implicit in Policies GS3, GS4, GS10 & GS11 that these
issues should be taken into account early on in the process.
CHAPTER 9: NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
SWI/009
Respondent
(representation
number)
SOSCA (26)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Support/
Observation
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response



Support for the provision of
a neighbourhood park at
Campbell Road.

Concern that the provision
of formal equipped recreation
facilities will reduce the area of
natural greenspace available
to meet the ‘Local SemiNatural Greenspace’ standard
at Campbell Road.
Support noted.
Campbell Road playing fields is currently 6.4ha in size.
To meet the requirements of the standard for Local SemiNatural Greenspace the site must be of at least 1ha in size,
providing areas for a variety of wildlife to thrive.
The provision of a LEAP, NEAP and Neighbourhood Park
would have to take into consideration the need to maintain,
and enhance, the site’s value for wildlife. This would require
good design of the types of equipment and facilities provided
along with its layout, and appropriate maintenance and
management of the site to ensure it continues to meet these
requirements.
It may be considered that the design of the facility should be
more in-keeping with the area’s ‘semi-natural’ character,
rather than standard formal park provision.
Proposed Changes: None
WBO/003
Worsley/Boothstown
Community
Committee (58)

Future uses at Dukes
Drive need to be considered as
part of the greenspace
strategy.

Dukes Drive is not an
appropriate facility for Worsley
because it is predominantly
accessible to Eccles
Community Committee Area
rather than Worsley

The Greenspace Strategy will be a material planning
consideration as SPD. A specific leisure activity would need
to be compatible with the requirement of a Neighbourhood
Park particularly in relation to public access and recreational
benefit.

The chosen locations of greenspace sites citywide have
sought to meet standards and to maximise the benefits to as
many residents of Salford as possible. They have not
necessarily been tailored to specific community committees. It
is accepted that the location of Dukes Drive does provide
more benefit to residents in Eccles than in Worsley, but
without it, the residents of Eccles would not be within walking
distance of a Neighbourhood Park facility. The presence of a
community boundary is not considered a reason not to
identify a facility where one is required and a local standard
would otherwise not be met.
Proposed Changes: None
ESA/007
Higham & Co. (75)
With regard to proposals for open
space provision such as in Section
9 Neighbourhood Parks and
specifically in connection with
Proposal ESA/007 Whit Lane, it is
requested that the precise location
of any such proposal should be
informed by the wider master
planning of the area.
Paragraph 19.4 acknowledges the importance that
comprehensive regeneration activity in the city will have in
respect of assisting the implementation of the Greenspace
Strategy SPD.
It is agreed that the relocation of sites may be appropriate as
part of a comprehensive approach. The sites identified within the
Greenspace Strategy SPD show the best areas currently
available to meet the greenspace standards.
Policy GS13 confirms that a recreation facility or other
greenspace will only be deemed surplus to requirements if it can
be clearly demonstrated that the relevant standards within the
SPD can be met without that facility. If a site has been identified
in the SPD it will be clear that this site is required to be brought
forward to meet a particular standard in a particular location.
In areas of major regeneration activity, and where
comprehensive master plans are being produced, the
relocation of an existing greenspace identified in the
SPD may be acceptable, provided it results in no net
loss of greenspace provision, and where it meets the
requirements of UDP Policy R1.
Paragraph 19.4 is amended to include reference to this
approach.
Proposed Changes: Amend paragraph 19.4:
…It will therefore be essential for all major regeneration initiatives to take full account of this SPD and its various standards, and to integrate
these considerations into their project development from the start, for example through Area Action Plans, masterplans, and other strategies.
The relocation of sites identified in the Greenspace Strategy SPD may be considered appropriate as part of a comprehensive area approach.
Any new site must be of equivalent or better accessibility, community benefit and management, made in a suitable location, and be of an
appropriate use and size to meet the standards set out in this SPD. This will help to ensure that those initiatives provide genuinely sustainable
communities, which will have prolonged rather than just short-term success.
CHAPTER 10: DISTRICT PARKS
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
Comments submitted for Buile Hill
Park – dealt with under Appendix
B: Claremont & Weaste
Community Committee Area
Proposed Changes:
Council’s Response
CHAPTER 11: SPORTS PITCHES
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Policy GS8
Respondent
(representation
number)
Sport England (5)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Objection
Summary of Representation
Concern that the standard adopted for
provision per 1000 population is out of
date, since:
1.It is based on a pitch survey
undertaken in 1999, and
population data from mid 1998.
The intervening years have
seen major changes in the
structure of delivery and
participation in pitch sport,
including growth in demand for
the mini and junior small-sided
game in football and both rugby
codes. Most North West
authorities also report major
increases in the number of
female participants in pitch
sports. These changes bring
with them new requirements in
terms of pitch sizes,
accessibility standards and
ancillary provision – e.g. the
need for appropriate changing
facilities.
2.There have been recent changes in
the availability of pitches within Salford
Council’s Response
1 & 3 The 2001 Playing Pitch Assessment identified the
increasing demands for mini soccer and female football
teams. The Local Standards provide sufficient area to meet
these anticipated demands based on current population
levels. The Sports Pitch Strategy will have to respond to this
through improved facilities management.
The objector has assumed that a straight line population
projection would result in a higher demand for pitches. In
effect, the population in Salford over the past 5 years has
fallen and therefore there it is not likely that the level of pitch
demands will have risen.
Despite the playing pitch assessment being over 5 years old, it
is not considered to invalidate the conclusions of the
Greenspace Strategy SPD or the adoption of the local sports
pitch standards.
1 Nevertheless, the Council accepts that the Playing Pitch
Assessment needs to be reviewed as a matter of urgency in
order to have the most up to date view of pitch demands. This
will need to take account of the likely population increases
resulting from regeneration in Central Salford.
4 Paragraph 20.5 of the SPD confirms the Council’s intention
to review the playing pitch assessment every 5 years. This will
commence in 2006/07 and will be undertaken in accordance
with the latest planning policy guidance and advice from Sport
England.
e.g. use of artificial and 3G surfaces,
the effects of Football Foundation
investments and sports development
campaigns and the effect of school
reorganisations.
3.The 2001 Playing Pitch Assessment
Report indicates that future demand
predictions used population forecasts
to 2005 which were a straight line
projection based on population change
between 1991 and 1998 – these
forecasts are therefore not only out of
date, but may be inaccurate given
more recent trends. Taking Lower
Broughton as an example, population
change forecasts for the forthcoming
years aim to increase the number of
residents by between 7500 and 10000
– these increases are likely to have
significant impact on pitch demand and
open space demand in a wider sense.
4. The 2001 Report preceded the
publication of current planning policy
guidance note 17 and its
accompanying guide which makes
recommendations as to the
methodology for assessing need. The
survey also preceded the publication
of Sport England’s “Towards A Level
Playing Field” and accompanying
electronic toolkit, advising on the
production of playing pitch strategies.
In particular, the above documents
make recommendations for the
appraisal of latent and future demand,
5 A 2-year review is considered unrealistic in terms of staff,
co-ordination and financial resources
2 The categories of Priority Sports Pitches are defined in
paragraph 11.2 and based on the resource identified in the
Playing Pitch Assessment. This is restricted to grass pitches.
The increase in the number of artificial pitches has in effect
increased the capacity of pitches thereby helping to meet any
additional demands that might have occurred.
A sentence will be added to paragraph 11.1 to clarify the types
of pitches, which are included. Sports pitches not included as
Priority Sports Pitches (or Additional capacity) are those that
are restricted to private use or informal pitches that are not
routinely marked out or maintained to a standard required for
organised team use.
quality, accessibility and the need for
6 The Priority Sports Pitches are those that allow the Local
action planning, which were not part of Standard to be met. Additional Capacity Pitches provide an
the 2001 Report.
extra 10% of pitch area in order to allow for future increases in
5. It is usual for a Playing Pitch
demand. Loss of any of these would require like for like
Strategy to be monitored and reviewed replacement (or better).
regularly – 2 years is recommended by
Sport England.
All other sports pitches will continue to receive protection
6 The SPD acknowledges its
through policy R1 of the Revised UDP. Should any of these be
limitations (paragraph 11.4 page 46) to accepted as surplus to sports pitch needs, they would be
some extent, but I am concerned that
considered for other greenspace uses before accepted as
the quantitative standard for playing
surplus. This would be in accordance with UDP policy R1 and
pitches will be applied as a means of
policy GS13 in the Greenspace Strategy SPD.
determining surplus (GS13), leading to
the re-cycling of sites to other open
space uses or potential development.
Whilst GS12 offers protection to
PSP’s, it is not clear how many/which
sites fall outside this definition (nor
how the assessment process for
designation as a PSP was
undertaken).
Proposed Changes: Amend the note below table 4 (policy GS8): ‘Figures are based on the 2001 Census population and 2005 sports pitch data.’
Add sentence (same as change for representation 4) to the end of paragraph 11.1: ‘Priority sports pitches include predominantly grass pitches for senior,
junior and mini-football, rugby (union and league), cricket and hockey that are publicly accessible.’
Sport England (3) Objection
Whilst Policy GS12 offers protection to The Priority Sports Pitches are those that allow the Local
PSP’s, a concern is raised that it is not Sports Pitch Standard to be met. Additional Capacity Pitches
clear how many/which sites fall outside provide an extra 10% of pitch area over and above the local
this definition (nor how the assessment standards in order to allow for future increases in demand.
process for designation as a PSP was
Loss of any of these would require like for like replacement (or
undertaken).
better).
It is accepted that the SPD should refer to the pitches that
make up the Additional Capacity. Policies GS8 and GS12 will
be amended as detailed below to refer to additional capacity
pitches and include details of location, accessibility, and
timescale for replacement pitches respectively.
Other sports pitches in common with all greenspace sites are
protected by policies in the Revised Draft UDP, particularly
those referred to in the RJ of policy GS8. It is not the intention
to repeat UDP policy in this SPD. Policy GS13 clearly confirms
the position that facilities will only be deemed surplus if it can
be clearly demonstrated that other relevant standards in this
SPD are met first.
Proposed Changes: Include a new table (see below) in Chapter 11: Sports Pitches, following para. 11.7.
Table 6: Additional Capacity Sports Pitches above the local standard
Type of Site
Name of Site
Park Pitch
Albert Park
Littleton Road
Ordsall Park
Clarendon Park
Dual Use (High Schools)
Albion HS
Buile Hill HS
Swinton HS
Dual Use (Primary Schools)
Canon Williamson
Irlam CHS
Barton Moss CPS
Cadishead CPS
Summerville CPS
Seedley CPS
St. Augustine's C.E. PS
St. Mark's (Queensway) R.C. PS
Hilton Lane CPS
Our Lady & Lancs. Martyrs R.C. PS
Wharton CPS
North Walkden CPS
St. Edmund’s R.C. PS
St. Paul's (Heathside Grove) C.E. PS
James Brindley CPS
Other Sites
Higher Broughton City Campus *
Manchester United Training Ground
* Sites expected to deliver facility through regeneration initiatives.
Amend the first sentence of paragraph 11.7 to: ‘it will also be important to maintain an additional capacity of at least 10% (Table 6), including dual use school
pitches that does not contribute towards the sports pitch standards’
Add a new paragraph to the RJ of policy GS12, following the first paragraph:
“Replacement provision should be within 1km for senior pitches, and 500m for junior/mini pitches if there is a proven demand. Where a site for a replacement
pitch cannot practically be located within the relevant threshold the nearest alternative site will be considered acceptable. Where practicable replacement
provision must be operational prior to the loss of existing facilities.”
Policy GS8
Sport England (5)
It is unclear from Policy GS8 which of
Table 4 indicates that there is a surplus area provision of 12%
the standards is to be used in which
over and above the Local Sports Pitch Standard. This
circumstance – does the overall figure
represents Additional Capacity which is fully protected.
of 0.73ha take precedence over the
urban district level standards when
It is accepted that the minimum additional capacity of 10%
considering quantitative “surplus”?
(referred to in para 11.6) has no scientific basis but recognises
that the Local Sports Pitch Standard is a minimum local
How was the 10% “overprovision”
standard which could be subject to changing population and
evaluated and how is it to be taken into team demands and therefore some flexibility in supply is
account - is a standard of 0.803ha to
required..
be used in practice?
When a revised playing pitch assessment has been
How are these standards to be used in completed, the Additional Capacity percentage will be
relation to new housing and in the light reviewed.
of proposed modifications to policies
H8/R2/the proposed Planning
Sports teams are generally prepared to travel in order to use
Obligations SPD?
the type and quality of sports pitch resource that they require.
A citywide catchment for sports pitches is more realistic than a
How is the quality of sites going to be
local catchment. Therefore when considering issues around
taken into account when considering
surplus pitches the citywide standard of 0.73 ha/1000 will be
the above?
used plus 10% additional capacity. This gives a citywide figure
of 0.83ha/1000 population.
One of the key purposes of the SPD is to improve the quality
and therefore capacity of existing Priority Sports Pitches.
Where Priority Sports Pitches are to be lost, policy GS12
requires among other criteria that the replacement facilities be
of a quality that meets Sport England Performance Quality
Standards (for sports pitches) and other relevant standards.
Policy H8 requires the provision of additional open space to
match increase demands from new housing development.
This will be provided in proportion to the recreation standards
identified in Policy R2.
Proposed Changes:
Amend the first sentence of paragraph 11.7 to: ‘it will also be important to maintain an additional capacity of at least 10% (Table 6), including dual use school
pitches, that does not contribute towards the sports pitch standards’
Add a new sentence to the end of the first paragraph of policy GS13: ‘For sports pitches this will equate to a standard of 0.803ha per 1000 population (the
citywide standard of 0.73ha per 1000 population plus ten per cent additional capacity to meet future demand and population increases).’
Para.11.5
Walkden/Little
Objection
The greenspace audit reviewed all recreational sites in the city
Justify why cricket clubs have
Hulton Open
been included in the SPD when regardless of the types of facilities available, ownership or
Spaces
public access, which included golf courses and cricket pitches.
golf courses have not.
Committee (42)
The greenspace totals are identified in Table 1 and are
Include golf courses or remove cricket
represented by a pale green shading on the Community
clubs.
Committee Area maps.
The categories of sports activity used to arrive at the local
standard for sports pitches is consistent with the definitions
used by the National Playing Field’s Association. This
specifically excludes full length 9 and 18-hole golf courses, but
includes cricket clubs.
Golf courses are not considered to be publicly accessible. It is
acknowledged that public footpaths cross some golf courses
to allow limited access, but this does not constitute public
access as the routes often restrict where it is permitted to walk
and limit users to views across a site. Significant membership
fees are often payable to a private club. Cricket clubs are
considered more accessible to the public by allowing active
participation through nominal club membership and access is
commonly available to the cricket grounds to watch matches
at no cost.
Even though they are not specifically referred to in this SPD,
golf clubs, in common with all greenspace site, receive
protection from UDP policy R1: Protection of Recreation Land
and Facilities.
Proposed Changes: None
CHAPTER 12: OTHER YOUTH AND ADULT FACILITIES
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Policy GS9
Respondent
(representation
number)
Sport England (4)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Objection
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Concern that the inclusion of
reference to mini football pitches
under other youth and adult
facilities removes its
consideration as a Sports Pitch
under Policy GS8. Mini-football
should be included within a
reviewed Playing Pitch Strategy
and within standards set for
sports pitch provision in GS8.
Sports pitches identified in the 2001 Playing Pitch
Assessment were used as the basis of the Priority Sports
Pitches resource. This study includes grass mini football
pitches. Data reviewed in December 2005 identified that
Mini football grass pitches contributed 31 (0.20ha) pitches
towards the Priority Sports Pitch resource and the local
standard. There are 18 purpose designed mini football
pitches in Salford with capacity for a further 13 pitches on
other existing sports pitch sites.
There is also an additional resource of hard standing mini
football pitches that form part of the Other Youth and Adult
provision but are excluded from the Priority Sports Pitches.
Policy GS9 is being amended to make this clear.
The priority of the SPD is to ensure that there is a sufficient
area of grass sports pitches to meet demand rather than
refer to the specific details of types of pitches. In order to
reduce the length of the SPD it was not possible to refer to
the specific facilities and types of sports that are available
at every site. Where a larger football pitch is over marked
with a mini football pitch(es) the area only counts once
towards the standard.
Proposed Changes: Clarify in brackets that mini-football as an Other Youth and Adult facility (policy GS9) refers to ‘hard standing surfaces only’.

Add sentence to the end of paragraph 11.1:
‘Priority sports pitches include predominantly grass pitches for senior, junior and mini-football, rugby (union and league), cricket and hockey that are publicly
accessible. The standard pitch sizes are detailed in Table 4’

Following paragraph 11.1 add the table below and a new paragraph:
Table 4 Standard Pitch Sizes
Playing Pitch Category
Senior football
Junior football
Mini football
Rugby league
Rugby union
Cricket
Artificial Turf Pitch (ATP)
Multi Use Games Area (MUGA)
Dimensions (m)
100 x 64
90 x 46
55 x 36.6
88 x 55
110 x 53
110 x 75
40 x 18
Individual Pitch Size (ha)
0.96
0.41
0.20
0.48
0.58
1.5
0.83
0.07
11.2 In each case an additional 50% has been added to the dimension of playing surfaces to make allowance for side movement, safe playing margins and
the need for ancillary facilities, such as training areas and pavilions. This is in accordance with NPFA recommendations (‘The Six Acre Standard’ NPFA,
2001). This has been applied to pitches that are currently available for hire and, more widely, for all available pitches (i.e., those on school sites which are not
currently available or which are felt to be too expensive for most local teams). Pitches are judged to be ‘senior’ if they are recognised by users and managers
as meeting minimum Sport England/governing body regulations and are marked out, and have appropriately sized goals/posts, for use by senior (i.e. 18 years
and over) teams.
NDC (27)
Observation
It is questioned whether it is not of value The area of land devoted to Other Youth and Adult facilities
to identify existing other youth and adult was included in the baseline NPFA survey in 2001.
facilities and map these out or indicate a However, a detailed audit of other Youth and Adult facilities
willingness to in the future.
has not been kept fully up to date.
It is considered there is a need for more
guidance on appropriate locations for
youth shelters and references to crime
strategies.
There is a general difficulty with monitoring greenspaces,
including Youth and Adult, as recreational uses constantly
change e.g. football pitches may be marked out one year,
but not the next. What is most important is having the
required quantity of greenspace and that this is of good
quality.
Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that an update of the
range of outdoor Youth and Adult facilities will need to be
undertaken as part of the Monitoring process.
It is not, however, considered appropriate to include this
information in the document, although what is held in the
database could be made available on request.
The Reasoned Justification for Policy GS9
confirms the importance of locating and
designing youth and adult facilities to minimise
potential for crime and negative impacts.
The Reasoned Justification for Policy GS10 has been
amended to refer to the GMP’s guidelines for designing out
crime in Parks and Public Open Spaces. This provides
additional guidance on the provision of facilities for youths.
It is considered this is sufficient to ensure this issue will be
considered appropriately during the implementation of such
facilities.
Proposed Changes: None
CHAPTER 13: DESIGN OF GREENSPACES
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Policy GS10
Respondent
(representation
number)
Architectural
Liaison Unit (11)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Objection
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Greenspace should be accessible
but designed to restrict inappropriate
use/ activity, e.g. illegal access by
motorbikes/ cars etc. This may
require physical boundaries.
Policy GS10, bullet point 5 requires greenspace to be
designed to prevent illegal access, particularly by
unauthorised motorised vehicles; bullet point 4 requires
the design of greenspace to minimise the potential for
nuisance behaviour.
In order to ensure the details are
correctly established, designers
should contact the ALU.
The Reasoned Justification explains that any
site improvements that involve the installation of
new equipment should fully consider the amenity
of adjoining residents, mentioning nuisance
behaviour and illegal access required to be
addressed.
Spaces should be designed
adopting principles in the GMP
guidelines document Parks and
Public Open Spaces.
The Council agrees that this may require the creation of
physical boundaries. However, it is not considered that the
document should provide this level of detail, particularly
since each site is likely to require different approaches
and this must be done on a site-by-site basis with full
consultation.
The Council agrees that details of new open spaces and
improvements to existing open spaces should be carried
out in consultation with the Architectural Liaison Unit. As
stated in relation to the objection to Paragraph 1.11.5, the
Reasoned Justification to Policy GS10 has been amended
to include reference to this.
The Council agrees that spaces should be designed
adopting principles in the GMP guidelines. As stated in

relation to the objection to Policy GS3, the Reasoned
Justification to Policy GS10 has been amended
accordingly.
Proposed Changes: Amend the fourth paragraph of Reasoned Justification to Policy GS10: Greenspace Design:
“…impact on personal safety. Measures such as restricted/controlled access, may have to be considered in certain locations where crime are high. This
should be carried out with the involvement and support of the local community. Liaison with the Architectural Liaison Unit should be carried out as part of the
process for design and location of any new or improved greenspace provision.”

Amend the fourth paragraph of the Reasoned Justification to Policy GS10:
“…as set out in the Greater Manchester Police guidelines for Parks and Public Open Spaces and the Council’s Design and Crime Guidance”
CHAPTER 14: CONSULTATION
Paragraph/
Policy/
Site
number
Policy
GS11
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Worsley/Boothstown
Community
Committee (51)
Support


Re-iterate importance
"Improvement works to
introduce new functions in new
and existing green space sites
should not be carried out until
there has been local
consultation and any concerns
with respect to the residential
amenity of local residents
adjoining the site have been
addressed as far as is
practicable".

Proposed Changes: None
Worsley/Boothstown
Community
Committee (57)
Agree with comments.
of:
Observation
It is considered that the policies within the Greenspace Strategy
adequately cover these points.

It is implicit in Policies GS3, GS4, GS5, GS10, & GS11 that
these issues should be taken into account early on in the process.
This must be covered
satisfactorily at an early
stage in relation to each
proposal.
Car parking provision needs to
be part of local consultation and
the planning process.
Car usage for local journeys is a matter over which the Council has no
control and parking problems may be a result in some locations.
However it is not expected that people should travel by car to LEAP,
NEAP and Neighbourhood Parks, which are local facilities. It is
considered important to design these facilities to maximise access by
walking and cycling, hence the relatively small catchment standards. To
provide a car park may encourage use of the car, which is not
considered appropriate. The sustainability appraisal indicates that one
of the roles of the SPD is to reduce traffic, rather than encourage it, by
developing links to healthy lifestyles and cycle provision for example.
New or improved facilities on a site will involve local consultation
regarding the type of provision that is to be provided. Where planning
permission is required for new development, car parking provision will
be considered where appropriate and will also form part of the detailed
improvement plans for District Parks.
Proposed Changes: None
CHAPTER 15: REDUNDANT AND REPLACEMENT FACILITIES
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Policy GS12
Respondent
(representation
number)
Sport England (3)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Objection
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response

Policy GS8 refers to 10% overprovision of pitches which
represent Additional existing Pitch Capacity above that
required to meet the minimum local standard. Data on the
Additional Capacity pitches is available and Policies GS8 and
GS12 will be amended to provide details of their status and
location. Such pitches fall within the scope of Policy GS8.
Recommendation to
identify all pitches which are
not identified as a Priority
Sports Pitch.

Clarify degree of
protection offered to nonPriority Sports Pitches.
Those pitches which are neither Priority Sports Pitches nor
Additional Capacity are protected by policies in the UDP. Such
pitches would additionally have to satisfy the requirements of
Policy GS13 which would require confirmation that other
relevant standards in this SPD had also been met.
The Council accepts that under those circumstances where a
pitch is required to be relocated and where there is a proven
local demand, it is important that the pitch is relocated to meet
local access needs. The threshold distances proposed by the
respondent will be added to the RJ of GS12.
Provide details relating to
location and accessibility of
replacement pitches
(suggested distance threshold
of 1km for senior and 500m for
junior/mini pitches) and
timescale for delivery
(operational prior to loss of
existing facilities
Proposed Changes: Include a new table (see below) in Chapter 11: Sports Pitches following para 11.7.
Table 6 Additional Capacity Sports Pitches above the local standard
Type of Site
Name of Site
Park Pitch
Albert Park
Littleton Road
Ordsall Park
Clarendon Park
Dual Use (High Schools)
Albion HS
Buile Hill HS
Swinton HS
Dual Use (Primary Schools)
Canon Williamson
Irlam CHS
Barton Moss CPS
Cadishead CPS
Summerville CPS
Seedley CPS
St. Augustine's C.E. PS
St. Mark's (Queensway) R.C. PS
Hilton Lane CPS
Our Lady & Lancs. Martyrs R.C. PS
Wharton CPS
North Walkden CPS
St. Edmund’s R.C. PS
St. Paul's (Heathside Grove) C.E. PS
James Brindley CPS
Other Sites
Higher Broughton City Campus *
Manchester United Training Ground
* Sites expected to deliver facility through regeneration initiatives.
Amend the first sentence of paragraph 11.7 to: ‘it will also be important to maintain an additional capacity of at least 10% (Table 6), including dual use school
pitches that does not contribute towards the sports pitch standards’
Add a new paragraph to the RJ of policy GS12 following the first paragraph:
“Replacement provision should be within 1km for senior pitches, and 500m for junior/mini pitches if there is a proven demand. Where a site for a replacement
pitch cannot practically be located within the relevant threshold the nearest alternative site will be considered acceptable. Where practicable replacement
provision must be operational prior to the loss of existing facilities.”
Policy GS13
Sport England (6)
Objection
This policy would allow
The quantitative supply of sports pitches has been
redevelopment or re-use of a
sports pitch where the
quantitative standard has been
met. I am concerned that the
quantitative standard is not up
to date, and that the policy
does not take account of
quality standards, or the
quality of the individual site.
In addition, Towards a Level Playing
Field recommends that the following
measures are taken prior to the loss
of any pitch considered "surplus":
1) Promotion and marketing to
ensure that latent demand in the
area has been genuinely considered
2) A longer-tem view of demographic
and sporting trends is taken (e.g. 20
years)
3) Consider the potential for a
reduction in the number of pitches on
the site in order to improve quality on
the remainder of the site.
4) Change of use between sports is
considered (e.g. From football to
monitored regularly and updated most recently in
December 2005 for the purposes of this SPD. The
minimum local standard for pitch supply is being
met. Quality standards were incorporated in the
Playing Pitch Assessment by understanding the
frequency of demand and the actual frequency of
use. This provides a measure of capacity which is a
proxy for quality. The Council intends to assess
quality standards once more when the Playing Pitch
Assessment is reviewed.
Policy GS13 explains in more detail policies in the UDP that
protect and provide for recreational land and facilities (R1 and
R2). Among the criteria in UDP policy R1 is the requirement for
adequate replacement recreation provision of equivalent or
better accessibility and that, even if a site is deemed surplus
the development would also have to facilitate wider
regeneration of the local area.
The SPD does not seek to identify any surplus pitches. In
order to meet the minimum local playing pitch standard and the
Additional Capacity of 10% there is currently only a minimal
net surplus in terms of quantity of pitches and it is therefore
very unlikely that any disposal would be permitted unless it
was to facilitate wider regeneration, in which case replacement
rugby)
Once these have been considered,
other open space uses may be
appropriate.
would be sought. Several pitches receive additional protection
where they are located in public parks. When the playing pitch
assessment is reviewed the facts relating to demand are likely
to provide even less justification for identifying surplus pitches.
The policy (and supporting text on
P55) as written seems to prioritise
financial contributions to enhance the
quality of open space, rather than
protection of recreational land. This
is a concern, given the irreversibility
of built development.
PPG17 also recommends that where
land or buildings are deemed surplus
to requirements, developers should
consult the local community and
demonstrate that their proposals are
widely supported by them.
Nevertheless, the Council accepts that the wording of the
existing policy GS13 is not fully compliant with advice in
PPG17 and ‘Towards a Level Playing Field’. The policy will be
amended to give greater priority to pursuing different sports
and other greenspace uses before sites will be considered
surplus and available for disposal in return for a commuted
sum. When these measures have been satisfied and a
commuted sum is going to be sought the policy will clarify that
the local community should be consulted, as is already
encouraged by the Council when commuted sums are agreed
as part of new housing developments.
Policy GS12 will also be extended to include reference to
‘Additional Capacity’ pitches.
Proposed Changes: Extend policy GS13 with new text in the first paragraph: ‘if it can be clearly demonstrated that… the requirements of recreation policies
in the UDP and… the relevant standard(s)’.
Amend the start of the second paragraph of the policy to read: ‘Where a recreation facility or other greenspace has been deemed surplus to requirements for
its existing use, but there is it should be used to meet a shortfall in the provision of another type of recreation facility or greenspace within the local area, or for
more strategic facilities within the city as a whole. Where the benefits of development clearly outweigh the loss of an open space the redevelopment of that
facility/greenspace will only be permitted where the development would make a contribution to the provision or improvement of recreational
facilities/greenspace equivalent to the facility/greenspace that is to be lost, including potential requirement for on-site provision as well as financial
contribution. The contribution must be in the form of a commuted sum, works undertaken by the developer, or a mixture of the two. The contribution must be
agreed by the city council, having regard to this SPD, and where appropriate, involve local community consultation. It should be directed towards the need
that is best-related both geographically and in type to the facility/greenspace that is to be lost’.
Add to the first sentence of Policy GS12: ‘Priority Sports Pitch… or Additional Capacity Pitch… will be required to provide a replacement pitch.
Policy GS13
Cllr. Geoff
Objection
1. The respondent considers
Chapter 15 relates to development involving
Ainsworth (90)
that replacement facilities
of a Priority Sports Pitch
should be required to enhance
the loss
ecological improvements to
greenspace.
2. The recreation demand generated
by new development on redundant /
surplus facilities should be met by
the new development itself.
3. Concern regarding excluding the
cost of providing the land in the
financial compensation calculations.
1. Under the circumstances that a recreation facility is
permitted for development, a major consideration will be what
type of greenspace facility it should be replaced with. It may
not be a like for like replacement, but possibly replacement
with a facility whose standard is not met. In some
circumstances this may be local semi natural greenspace or
improvement to strategic semi natural greenspace. Under
these circumstances it would be entirely reasonable to seek
ecological enhancement of a replacement site and an
amendment is made accordingly.. Whether or not enhanced
ecological value is relevant will depend on the replacement site
and its suitability for enhancement.
2. Policies GS12 and GS13 are relevant to replacement
provision. It is acknowledged that development taking place on
a redundant / surplus facility may itself generate additional
recreational demands. In this instance Policy H8 in the UDP
would be applied. This policy seeks new open space provision
or a financial equivalent for off site improvements depending
on circumstances. This policy is referred to in Chapter 17 of
the Greenspace Strategy SPD, although it will be subject to its
own implementation guidance.
3. It is implicit in the requirements to replace a recreational site
with another that this may have to involve the purchase of
land. Land availability will be an important consideration for
any developer. It is not considered necessary to include this
within the policy.
The wording of policies GS12 and GS13 is considered
satisfactory, although a minor text addition is thought
appropriate with respect to ecological enhancement.
Proposed Changes: A new sentence should be added to the end of the second paragraph of Policy GS13. “Where practicable and
appropriate, the ecological value of the replacement site should be enhanced”.
CHAPTER 16: CONNECTIVITY
Paragraph/
Policy/
Site
number
Green
Access
Corridors
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of
Representation
Council’s Response
Architectural
Liaison Unit (12)
Objection

 Section 16 promotes the concept of Green Access Corridors. The Indicative
Routes on Map 8 are predominately existing off-highway routes which are
identified in the UDP as Strategic Recreation Routes forming part of the
Countryside Access Network, existing Public Rights of Way, footpaths
identified on the Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan, or existing public
highways.


The provision of
dedicated connection/
links to /from
greenspaces should
not be a means to
generate crime or give
succor to potential
criminals.
New or purpose
built/ amended paths/
corridors should be
designed to minimise
crime.
It is requested
that advice is sought
from the ALU.
The routes have been chosen as the best recreation corridors available to
travel between the largest recreation sites in the city.
 Improvements to them may incorporate the measures suggested in Policy
GS14, which, where required, may include measures to reduce crime. This
will be stated more clearly in the Policy through an additional bullet point in
the third paragraph relating to measures to be taken, and an additional
sentence in the Reasoned Justification.

Policy GS10 cross-refers to the Design and Crime guidance. This
document expresses the need to involve the Architectural Liaison Unit in
applications for new road and cycleways. This document also includes a
policy relating to the design and provision of footpaths, walkways and cycle
routes.
It is considered this satisfies the concerns set out in the objection.
Proposed Changes: Amend the third paragraph of Policy GS14: Green Access Corridors, with the addition of a new bullet point following the existing final
sentence:



The prevention of unauthorised use of “off highway” routes by motorised vehicles; and
The relocation of entrance points to greenspace to provide more direct access; and
The incorporation of features to minimise opportunities for crime.
Add new paragraph following the third paragraph of the Reasoned Justification to Policy GS14 to state:
“ The Council’s Design and Crime SPD provides guidance for the development of footpaths, walkways, and dedicated cycle routes (Policy DC2) to minimise
crime. The Architectural Liaison Unit should be consulted regarding the design and location of new, or significant improvements to existing, recreation routes.”
Policy
GONW (15)
Objection

Indicate links to
The Greenspace Strategy SPD is predominantly concerned with
GS14
Green Access
the protection, provision and improvement of greenspaces in
Corridors beyond
Salford and therefore this is the focus of the supporting maps.
Salford
However we acknowledge the need to work with neighbouring

There needs to
authorities and cross boundary data has been exchanged with
be commitment in the
SPD to working with
neighbouring local authorities as part of the strategy. It is
neighbouring
recognised that different types of greenspace facilities and routes
authorities to develop a
such as public rights of way are accessible to Salford residents
sub-regional network of
outside of the authority and vice versa.
such corridors.

The relevant maps will be annotated with arrows to
indicate where an existing Green Access Corridor continues
beyond the Salford boundary. Cross-boundary greenspace
sites that may be accessible to Salford residents and the
relevant distance catchment for each standard will also be
added to the SPD maps.

A paragraph will be added to the Implementation Chapter
highlighting the need to work and exchange information with
neighbouring local authorities.
Proposed Changes:

At the end of the list of existing NEAPs add a new paragraph: ‘Existing Cross Boundary Provision There is an additional 3 sites in neighbouring
authorities that are accessible to residents of Salford:
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
Sandpiper Road
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Kersal Road
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Mosley Common’



On Map 4 show the cross boundary NEAPs (and catchments) at Kersal Road (Bury), Sandpiper Road (Bolton) and Mosley Common (Wigan) that
overlap the boundaries of Swinton, Walkden and Little Hulton and Worsley and Boothstown. These sites and catchments will also need to be displayed
on Maps 10 and 14 (Bury NEAP), Map 15 (Bolton and Wigan NEAPs) and Map 16 (Wigan NEAP).
Amend the percentage of households with access to NEAP catchments in paragraphs 8.3 and 8.7 and Tables 9, 17, 19 and 21 as necessary.
At the end of the list of existing LEAPs add a new paragraph:
‘Existing Cross Boundary Provision
There is an additional 2 sites in neighbouring authorities that are accessible to residents of Salford:
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Kersal Road
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Mosley Common


On Map 3 show the cross boundary LEAPs (and catchments) at Kersal Road (Bury) and Mosley Common (Wigan) that overlap the boundaries of
East Salford, Walkden and Little Hulton and Worsley and Boothstown. These sites and catchments will also need to be displayed on Maps 10 and 14
(Bury LEAP), Map 15 (Wigan LEAP) and Map 16 (Wigan LEAP).
Amend the percentage of households with access to NEAP catchments in paragraphs 7.3 and 7.5 and Tables 9, 19 and 21 as necessary.


Annotate Maps 8, 10, 14, 15 and 16 with arrows where indicative green access corridors in Salford link to existing routes in neighbouring authorities.
A new sentence will be added to the end of the first paragraph of the RJ to policy GS14:
Where appropriate cross-boundary routes with neighbouring local authorities will be sought through joint agreement with adjoining authorities.

A new paragraph will be added to the Implementation Chapter (19) titled:
‘Neighbouring Local Authorities’
Local Authority and ward boundaries should not affect the use and enjoyment of greenspaces. In some cases the nearest local facilities available to residents
in Salford will be located in a neighbouring local authority. Salford City Council will seek to work jointly with neighbouring local authorities to protect, provide,
improve and maintain greenspaces and green access corridors. This principle will ensure that the available resources devoted to greenspaces are used most
efficiently.
Claremont/Weaste Support
Support for the
Support Noted
Community
introduction of Green
Committee (30)
Corridors
Proposed Changes: None
Policy
Cllr. Geoff
Objection
Strongly supported the
The Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company have produced a draft
GS14
Ainsworth (89)
concept, but considered
Vision and Regeneration Framework for the Central Salford area of the city.
it disappointing to note
This document introduces the concept of establishing a network of tree lined,
that the strategy does
pedestrian-friendly boulevards linking neighbourhoods.
not promote specifically
designated routes as a
The Local Green Boulevards concept is proposed as a network of
basis for future policy
attractive, safe and efficient streets. Restoring and upgrading
implementation and that
them into beautiful, tree-lined streets and introducing wider
no reference is made to
pavements and significant landscaping, will encourage
integration of the
pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle movement.
strategy with the ‘green
boulevard’ objectives of
the URC Strategic
It is also proposed that the Green Boulevard network will provide pedestrianVision.
friendly linkages between primary destinations and link the existing green
spaces in Central Salford.
It is considered that the concept of Green Boulevards should, where
appropriate, be complementary to that of the Green Access Corridors.
When undertaking the detailed appraisal of Green Access Corridors it may be
considered that some of the proposed Green Boulevards are preferred routes.
It is agreed however, that some minor wording amendment to Policy GS14 will
clarify the complementarity between some of the Green Access Corridors and
the concept of Green Boulevard.
Proposed Changes: Amend the Reasoned Justification for Policy GS14:
A range of measures will be sought through developments, open space improvements and the activities of various agencies including the city council, in order
to enhance the use of various local routes between greenspaces and their surrounding neighbourhoods. The Green Boulevard concept promoted by the Draft
Vision and Regeneration Framework for Central Salford is a model, elements of which may be appropriate to consider for some of the Green Access
Corridors.
Light Oaks Park
Support
Considered the notion of Support Noted
Residents
'green corridors' an
Association (100)
exciting idea.
Proposed Changes: None
CHAPTER 17: OPEN SPACE PROVISION ASSOCIATED WITH NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Paragraph/
Policy/
Site
number
Para. 17.2
Respondent
(representatio
n number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Sport England
(1)
Support
Support is given to the
intention to develop
Supplementary Planning
Documentation relating to
planning obligations.
Support Noted
Respondent referred to Sport
England's on-line Planning
Contributions Kitbag which
offers templates, good practice
examples and supporting
information relating to the
production of such SPD:
http://www.sportengland.org/
index/get_resources/planning
_for_sport_front_page/kitbag_f
ront_page.htm
Sport England offered
assistance through the North
West office in the development
of appropriate guidance
relating to formal sports
provision.
Proposed Changes: None
Policy
Sport England
GS15
(7)
Proposed Changes: None
Support
As per comments above
Support Noted
CHAPTER 18: MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Policy GS16
Respondent
(representation
number)
Sport England (2)
Proposed Changes: None
Claremont/Weaste
Community
Committee (33)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Support
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Support is given to the inclusion
of this policy.
Support Noted
Observation
The need for maintenance of
schemes once implemented was
outlined.
Agree with comments. Policy GS3 confirms that playspace sites
will only be brought forward when revenue funding is secured
to support the maintenance and management of the improved
facilities. Policy GS16 reiterates this, by confirming that no
scheme of improvements or new recreational function shall
proceed unless the revenue funding to secure the agreed
maintenance specification and site management has been
identified.
Section 19 relates to the implementation of the SPD, identifying a
number of mechanisms through which funding can be secured for
open space improvements. Whilst the majority focus is on capital
funding, some of these include revenue funding. For example, s106
contributions for open space improvements as a result of new
housing development includes a financial contribution to cover the
maintenance of the facility/area over a 20year period ( in accordance
with UDP Policy H8). Any improvements to the Green Access
Corridors through the public rights of way improvement plan should
be supported by revenue funding from the Council’s Highways
Revenue Budget.
Proposed Changes: None
Light Oaks Park
Residents
Association (101)
Proposed Changes: None
Observation
The importance of management,
particularly security (properly
trained wardens/CPSO's, etc)
was emphasized as integral to
the success of the venture.
Agree with comments
Representation made in relation
to Chapter 6: Equipped Children’s
Play Space, reiterating
importance of revenue funding for
management and maintenance of
improved facilities.
CHAPTER 19: IMPLEMENTATION
Paragraph/
Policy/
Site
number
Para.19.11
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
GONW (14)
Objection
It was felt urban forestry could be
given greater prominence.
Paragraph 1.11 includes an objective to ensure that all
households are within an appropriate distance of a full
range of greenspaces. This objective does not relate
specifically to access to woodland, although the amount
of woodland is audited in Table 2.
Urban Forestry is mentioned in the
Implementation section in
paragraph 19.11 but it is felt that
the contribution that urban forestry
can plan could be developed within
the heart of the document,
especially in the section dealing
with strategic semi-natural open
space, Policy GS2.
The sites identified in Chapters 4 and 5 for semi-natural
greenspaces may include some of these woodland
areas and certainly have the potential for woodland
planting. However, it is not considered appropriate to
identify one type of habitat over others in a strategic
sense. The extent to which a site would lend itself to
urban forestry would have to be examined on a site-bysite basis with consideration to issues such as
consultation with the local community, design and
crime, and management and maintenance.
Paragraph 19.11 refers to the Red Rose Forest as a vehicle for
taking forward schemes particularly on the Semi-Natural sites.
Proposed Changes: None
Claremont/Weaste
Community
Committee (34)
Observation
Concern in respect of the need to
establish costs of proposed
schemes.
Chapter 19 sets out the mechanisms for implementing the
Strategy. Para. 19.1 confirms that it is expected to take decades
rather than years for all of the relevant standards to be met.
The SPD is a planning document which sets out the planning
context for consideration in respect of open space recreation
provision in the city. It is also a tool for focusing resources where
they are most needed. The Greenspace Strategy SPD does not
have funding of its own. Section 19 identifies some of the possible
avenues to secure resources for open space improvements.
However, this should not be seen as an exhaustive list, since there
may be funding areas not yet explored or new funding mechanisms
developed in the future. Resources will have different timescales
and requirements. An important part of the Implementation Plan
will be to develop a funding strategy to support priority
improvements.
Proposed Changes: None
Partnership Worsley/Boothstown
Working
Community
Committee (60)
Observation
It was felt that this section should
make reference to alignment with
the Neighbourhood Management
and Community Committee
structures and processes.
It was considered that there needs
to be a shared understanding and
alignment of priorities in the SPD
strategy, once adopted, and the
targeting of planning gain/Section
106 monies.
Chapter 19 sets out the timescale and mechanisms for
implementing the Greenspace Strategy SPD.
It is agreed that this chapter should include reference to the
Neighbourhood Management and Community Committee
structures and processes, and the importance of these for the
delivery of the Greenspace Strategy SPD.
A new paragraph will be inserted within the sub-section ‘City
Council Activity’ to ensure alignment of priorities and funding
opportunities across Council and community. Reference will be
made to the role of Neighbourhood Management and Community
Committee Structures for implementation of the Greenspace
Strategy SPD and will refer to the Planning Obligations SPD to
outline detailed methods for targeting s106 monies.
Proposed Changes: Insert new paragraph after para.19.18:
19.19 The Community Committee process and Neighbourhood Management structure offer an important role in delivering the Greenspace Strategy in line with
the aspirations of the community. While the Greenspace Strategy SPD provides the strategic framework for open space provision and improvements across the
city, the Neighbourhood Management and Community Committee structures will seek to agree priorities for improvements and new open space schemes. These
roles should be mutually supportive. The Planning Obligations SPD will outline the mechanisms for targeting s106 monies for open space improvements in line
with any Priorities set by the Neighbourhood Action Plans.
Worsley/Boothstown Observation
Acknowledge that the SPD is one
It is the intention that the Greenspace Strategy SPD provides a
Community
part of wider recreation/health
spatial framework for other Council priorities. It is hoped that this
Committee (61)
improvements including Council
priorities
focus for resources will provide wider health and leisure
improvements.
References made throughout the document concur with this
representation.
Proposed Changes: None
Para. 19.13 Worsley/Boothstown
Community
Committee (62)
Observation
Slight amendment required to the
policy wording to clarify that Salford
may not be included within the
Wigan Greenheart proposal
Salford is not currently linked to the Wigan Greenheart proposal.
However, visioning for Chat Moss will consider the potential for
links but it is too early to state this in the SPD. The wording will be
amended slightly.
Proposed Changes: Amend paragraph 19.13 to read:
‘Two regional parks are being promoted on the western side of the Greater Manchester conurbation, the Croal-Irwell Valley and the Greenheart (focused within
Wigan) both of which could have implications for Salford.’
Light Oaks Park
Observation
Investment in the project and
Section 19 sets out the mechanisms for implementing the Strategy.
Residents
support by the Council is
Para. 19.1 confirms it is expected to take decades rather than
Association (102)
considered to be vital - but the
years for all of the relevant standards to be met. Improvement to
timing of this was questioned.
parks may be achieved through the Parks for People programme.
It may be appropriate for some schemes to be funded through
grants that are only accessible through community action.
Proposed Changes: None
CHAPTER 20: MONITORING AND REVIEW
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Respondent
(representation
number)
Cllr. Geoff
Ainsworth (87)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Concern for the reliance
placed on accessibility
standards rather than
population densities. This
might result in a less than
optimum distribution of
recreation facilities, leading to
varying intensities of use, not
necessarily consistent with
local needs.
The population census is only available every 10 years. The
2001 Census provides the most recent accurate population
source. Accurate data, giving a breakdown of population, is only
available at ward level. Population densities increase and
decrease over time at different rates throughout the city, but
small area population forecasting is an inexact science. This
makes it very difficult to accurately predict and monitor the likely
population changes across the city and therefore changing
demand for facilities.
Additional monitoring tools are
suggested which would link the
amount of open space with
population characteristics and
inherent demands.
First and formost the SPD seeks to ensure that everyone is
within a set walking distance of a range of facilities, in order to
strive for social equity, good health, and quality of life. Where
demand is particularly high, then the SPD addresses this
through areas of Higher Play Demand .
Table 3 identifies the wards with the highest concentrations of
children and where additional play demands will need to be
satisfied. It will be difficult to identify changing areas of Higher
Play Demand until the next census, but some estimates may be
made on the basis of area regeneration where it is known what
new developments are taking place.
It is not considered appropriate to use population data to
forecast and monitor the fine-grained changes in recreational
demand requested.
Proposed Changes: None
Cllr. Geoff
Ainsworth (88)
The respondent considers
that other measures of
Monitoring the effectiveness of the Greenspace
Strategy SPD is important. However, it is only
progress should be
monitored, as a result of the
strategy, including
appropriate to monitor those outputs which reflect the
primary purpose and objectives of the document.
These are outlined in Chapter 20.
Length of bridleway,
right of way, green access
corridor / recreational cycleway.
Number of access
agreements / area of land
opened to public
Areas of new open
space created / number or of
trees planted.
It is intended that monitoring of this SPD should concentrate on
the specific greenspace standards. Issues such as trees planted
/ lengths of bridleway / land opened to the public may occur as a
result of policies other than the Greenspace Strategy SPD (e.g.
Council’s Public Right of Way Improvement Plan, Cycling
Strategy and Red Rose Forest). Tree planting is not a specific
objective of the SPD and will not often not be appropriate.
-
It is accepted that measuring progress towards the Green
Access Corridors is an important component of the Greenspace
Strategy SPD. However, it is considered premature to monitor
this until the precise route of what are currently indicative routes
have been identified and the Green Access Corridors can be
incorporated within other work programmes / funding priorities.
Proposed Changes: None
APPENDIX A: SALFORD’S COMPARISON WITH THE NPFA NATIONAL STANDARDS 2001/02
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Respondent
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
No comments
Council’s Response
APPENDIX B: CLAREMONT & WEASTE COMMUNITY COMMITTEE AREA SUMMARY
Paragraph/
Policy/
Site
number
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Claremont/Weaste
Community
Committee (29)
Support
Members of the Claremont/Weaste
Community Committee indicated
that on the whole they were in
agreement with the issues detailed
within the document in respect of
the Claremont/Weaste
Neighbourhood Management Area
Support Noted
Objection


Proposed Changes: None
CLW/002
Cllr. Geoff
Ainsworth (91)

It is considered
inappropriate that the
audit/strategy (e.g. as outlined in
the Reasoned Justification to
Policy GS6) allocates the whole
of the physical space of Buile Hill
Park to the CWS area - a
significant element of it is
physically located within and
serves the recreational needs of
Langworthy.
It is considered that the
element of it located within the
Weaste Ward has little
Neighbourhood Park/LEAP or
NEAP relevance to the western
elements of the ward especially
as topography presents an
accessibility obstacle to Buile
Hill.
Buile Hill Park extends across 2 Community Committee
Areas: Claremont & Weaste and Ordsall & Langworthy (falling
in the wards of Weaste & Seedley and Langworthy).
It was considered during the audit to calculate Buile
Hill Park solely within Claremont & Weaste CCA.
This was for practical reasons only. The catchment
for greenspaces have relevance to local residents
irrespective of ward or community committee
boundaries and show the population served by the
park.

The walking distance catchments shown on the Maps for
the Neighbourhood Park, LEAP and NEAP provision (Maps 3, 4
& 5) clearly show the limitations of Buile Hill Park meeting the
needs of western and southern Weaste. The associated
population percentage calculations for each standard, relate to
the number of residents within the catchment zone. The
percentage of households within catchments for each
greenspace standard within the Community Committee Area
(i.e. Table 7 in Appendix B), relates solely to those properties
within the catchment of Buile Hill for the specified Community
Committee Area, and not those in the adjoining one.
Proposed Changes: None
Cllr. Geoff
Ainsworth (93)
Omission
It is noted that the audit and
strategy fails to acknowledge or
promote the value of the several
water resources:

Pond in Light Oaks Park

Parts of Folly Brook

Reservoirs fronting
Liverpool Street
As part of the Audit all known water resources in the
city were identified which had a known accessible and
recreational value. In many cases these are part of an
identified area of formal or informal recreation.
It is not considered appropriate to highlight the interest/potential of
specific areas/habitats within greenspace sites. This is too detailed
and a matter for consideration by a site improvement plan.
Not all water resources are coincidental with identified greenspace
sites. Those that are not may be protected through Replacement
UDP Policy EN9: Important Landscape Features.
Proposed Changes: None
Cllr. Geoff
Ainsworth (93)
Omission
It is considered disappointing to
note that the Strategy does not
acknowledge the Green Access
Corridor potential of the Broadway
Link.
The Broadway Link is recognised in the UDP as a
section of the Strategic Recreation Route (SRR) which
runs adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal, linking
Salford Quays with Barton.
This route was not identified as a Green Access Corridor in the
Greenspace Strategy SPD because it is not considered to meet
the purpose of Green Access Corridors to link key greenspace
sites through the most appropriate routes (utilising the existing and
relevant SRRs, public rights of way network, routes identified in the
public rights of way improvement plan, existing and proposed
routes in Salford’s Cycling Strategy, and other well used footpath
routes).
The fact that the route is not identified in the Greenspace Strategy
does not diminish the proposal as a Strategic Recreation Route in
the UDP.
Proposed Changes: None
CLW/005
Cllr. Geoff
Ainsworth (94)
The proposal for the strategic
development of Stott Lane Playing
fields is welcomed.
However, there is concern that the
Strategy does not fully recognise
the accessibility difficulties of this
location to the residential areas (of
Hope) further north and west.
Support for Stott Lane proposals is noted.
The catchment zone around Stott Lane shown on the Plan for each
LEAP, NEAP and Neighbourhood Park Standard provides an
indication to how far geographically the improvements to Stott
Lane Playing Fields can be expected to impact.
This provides good catchment coverage for NEAPs and
Neighbourhood Parks for the area of concern in accordance with
the distance standard. It is understood that people living in the
north and west of Claremont & Weaste are towards the edge of
these catchments and that they fall within deficiency areas for
LEAP and Local Semi-Natural Greenspace.
Proposed Changes: None
Cllr. Geoff
Ainsworth (94)
Omission
Recommendation for a combination
of partial re-designation of De La
Salle as a ‘pocket park’ accompanied by proposals to make
available locally replacement and
enhanced playing pitch provision for
use to the De La Salle ‘Club coupled with strategic development
of Duncan Mathieson playing fields,
as a LEAP and other youth and
adult facility.
The spatial distribution of greenspace facilities is based on what
currently exists and its present function. It is possible for changes
in recreation function and permutation of activities between sites to
be agreed over time provided that overall standards are adhered
to. Thus, the spread of recreational functions between Stott Lane,
De La Salle playing fields and Duncan Mathieson may vary over
time, but this would need to be the subject of careful planning to
ensure no greenspace use was promoted at the expense of
another or led to the undermining of existing standards.
Proposed Changes: None
CLW/002
Cllr. Geoff
Ainsworth (95)
Objection


The strategy places too
great an emphasis on the
capability of Buile Hill Park
meeting the accessible
recreational needs of the
neighbourhoods to the west of
the Claremont, Weaste and
Buile Hill Park is identified in the Greenspace Strategy as
an existing LEAP, NEAP, Neighbourhood Park and Priority
Sports Pitch (2 mini football pitches). It is identified as a
proposed Local Semi-Natural Greenspace.
Buile Hill Park is 27.6ha in total and includes the adjoining
Seedley Park. The park has been identified by the Council as a
Seedley wards.

proposed City Park and a restoration project has been drawn
up. The park is included on English Heritage’s Register of Parks
and Gardens of Special Historic Interest as a Grade II listed
park.
Additionally, the capacity of
Buile Hill Park to meet the
multiplicity of uses envisaged
has yet to be demonstrated as
compatible with the historic park
status that is to be targeted as
the basis for generating the
funding anticipated as providing
the means to achieve renovation
of much of it.
The Maps supporting each of the Standards in the
Greenspace Strategy show the appropriate
catchment distances. Paragraph 3.5 [will be para.3.8
following the new additional paragraphs] of Chapter
3: Setting Standards, confirms that the local
standards identified in the SPD are based around
physical accessibility, in terms of the maximum
walking distance that every household should be
from different types of recreation/greenspace sites.
From the plans it can be seen that Buile Hill Park’s contribution
towards recreation facilities in the city (and in Claremont &
Weaste) is dependent on the type of recreation facility being
considered. As a District Park the site caters for all of the
Community Committee Areas needs, along with a substantial
proportion of Ordsall & Langworthy, and part of East Salford,
Eccles and Swinton (a very minor proportion). Its impact as a
LEAP, NEAP and Neighbourhood Park however, is far more
restricted to the residential areas immediately around the site.

It is not considered that the Greenspace Strategy
overstates the capacity of this park for meeting the recreation
needs of the Claremont, Weaste and Seedley population. The
site already holds LEAP, NEAP and Priority Sports Pitch
provision and the park already meets the requirements for a
Neighbourhood Park.
The Greenspace Strategy additionally proposes Buile Hill Park
to meet the Semi-Natural Greenspace standards. It is accepted
that changes in management and maintenance would have to
be employed to enhance the nature conservation and
biodiversity interest.
However, it is accepted that due to the historic nature of the
park and given the range of other recreation activities that the
park provides it would be inappropriate to identify Buile Hill Park
as a Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace. The level of
management required would conflict with its other functions.
Nevertheless, it is considered appropriate to include the park as
a Local Semi-Natural Greenspace.
Proposed Changes: Chapter 5: Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace
 Remove Buile Hill Park from Proposed Strategic Semi-Natural Provision, paragraph 5.4 and from Map 2 as Proposed Strategic Semi-Natural
Greenspace.
 Amend paragraph 5.4: “ 5.4 The following existing recreation sites are considered to have the potential to become Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspaces:
CLW/002 Buile Hill Park
ECC/004 Brookhouse Community Woodland
SWI/004 Clifton/Wardley Moss”
 Amend the percentage figure in paragraphs 5.5 & 5.8 accordingly.
 Delete the last half of paragraph 5.5:
“and there would be at least one such site within each of the Community Committee Areas”
 Delete paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 (amend paragraph numbering accordingly).
 Add “Claremont, Weaste and Langworthy” to the new paragraph 5.6 (current para.5.8)
Appendix B: Claremont & Weaste Community Committee Area Summary

Amend ‘Proposed Standard(s) Improvement’ column in Table 6, Appendix B, to delete reference to Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace in respect of 2.
Buile Hill Park.
 Amend the percentage and population figures in Table 7, Appendix B
 Delete the second sentence under “Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace” heading:
“Proposed improvements to the wildlife value of Buile Hill Park would bring the majority of households (95%) within the walking distance for this standard”
 Add new sentence following the first sentence under “Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace” heading:
“There is no proposed Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace site identified in this area.”
 Remove code ‘SG’ in respect of site no. 2 on Map 9.
Appendix F: Ordsall & Langworthy Community Committee Area Summary


Amend the percentage and population figures in Table 15, Appendix F
Delete the second sentence under “Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace” heading:
“Improvements are proposed at Buile Hill Park, which would increase this proportion to 59% of all households within this standard.”
 Add new sentence following the first sentence under “Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace” heading:
“There is no proposed Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace site identified in this area.”
Green
Cllr. Geoff
Objection
The absence of proposed corridor
Response to Rep. 89 can be referred to for the links between
Access
Ainsworth (96)
traversing the main residential
Green Access Corridors and the concepts underpinning the
Corridors
areas and particularly the absence
Council’s approach to Green Boulevards.
of acknowledgement of the
strategic capacity of a number of
suggested routes to provide the
type of ‘green boulevard’ envisaged
by the URC is disappointing.
 Eccles Old Road
 Eccles New Road
 Lancaster Road/Stott Lane
 Weaste Lane/ Weaste Road
The routes referred to in this representation are important local
routes. These differ from the indicative routes chosen as Green
Access Corridors (and identified on Map 8), which were
predominately chosen for their strategic qualities for linking the
large greenspace sites across the city for recreation purposes. The
Greenspace Strategy SPD can only promote routes that fulfil the
strategic purpose of Green Access Corridors. It cannot act as a
vehicle for promoting improvements to other routes.
It is considered that the proposed new wording for Policy GS14
recommended in response to Rep. 89 addresses the issues raised
by this representation as far as is practicable.
Proposed Changes: Amend the Reasoned Justification for Policy GS14:
“A range of measures will be sought through developments, open space improvements and the activities of various agencies including the city council, in
order to enhance the use of various local routes between greenspaces and their surrounding neighbourhoods. The Green Boulevard concept promoted by the
Draft Vision and Regeneration Framework for Central Salford is a model, elements of which may be appropriate to consider for some of the Green Access
Corridors.”
Cllr. Geoff
Omission
It was considered a matter of Kirkham Street is a valuable amenity site but it does not quite meet
Ainsworth (97)
the standard for local semi-natural greenspace. Thornfield Street
concern that the strategy
does not meet the LEAP standard. To maintain consistency neither
does not recognise the
of these sites has been identified as priority. However, their local
strategic significance of
value is not disputed.
present open spaces fronting
streets to the residential
communities south of the
M602, e.g. Kirkham Street
and Thornfield Street.
It was considered disappointing that
the strategy does not promote
‘green accessways’ connecting the
residential areas north and south of
the M602.
Proposed Changes: None
Where these sites have an existing recreation function, even for
‘sitting and quiet contemplation’, they are protected by UDP Policy
R1.
The Green Access Corridors serve a strategic function in linking
key areas of greenspace with high quality pedestrian and cycling
routes. It is not within the remit of the Greenspace Strategy SPD to
promote a wider network of “green accessways” beyond the Green
Access Corridors.
APPENDIX C: EAST SALFORD COMMUNITY COMMITTEE AREA SUMMARY
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
Comments submitted to sites in
the NDC area covered under
Sections relating to Local SemiNatural Greenspaces, Equipped
Children’s Play Spaces, LEAP,
Neighbourhood Park and Other
Youth and Adult Facilities.
Council’s Response
APPENDIX D: ECCLES COMMUNITY COMMITTEE AREA SUMMARY
Paragraph/ Policy/
Site number
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
No comments submitted relating
to sites in Eccles, with the
exception of reference to the
catchment of Dukes Drive being
better related to the residents of
Eccles than Worsley/Boothstown
(in whose Community Committee
Area it falls). This comment is
dealt with under Neighbourhood
Park section.
Council’s Response
APPENDIX E: IRLAM & CADISHEAD COMMUNITY COMMITTEE AREA SUMMARY
Paragraph/
Policy/
Site
number
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
No comments relating to provision
or sites within Irlam & Cadishead.
Council’s Response
APPENDIX F: ORDSALL & LANGWORTHY COMMUNITY COMMITTEE AREA SUMMARY
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
No comments relating to
provision within Ordsall &
Langworthy.
Comment relating to the decision
to assign all of Buile Hill Park to
within Claremont & Weaste
Community Committee Area in
terms of calculating level of
provision, was made; this is
considered under the Claremont &
Weaste Appendix.
Council’s Response
APPENDIX G: SWINTON COMMUNITY COMMITTEE AREA SUMMARY
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Swinton
Sewage
Treatment
Works site
Respondent
(representation
number)
Mr. Barry
Woodling (13)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Objection
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Agree that significant potential SemiNatural Greenspace exists at the
former Swinton Sewage Treatment
Works.
In his report to the UDP Inquiry, the Inspector accepted that it
would not be appropriate to allocate the Swinton Sewage
Treatment Works site for recreational use in the UDP until
such time as a thorough review of greenspace resources and
deficiencies had been undertaken, through the Greenspace
Strategy SPD ( known at the time of the UDP Inquiry s the
Draft Urban Open Space Strategy)
Request the site is allocated for
recreation in the Greenspace
Strategy SPD and the UDP.
The analysis carried out for the Greenspace Strategy SPD
confirms that there may be justification for identifying the site
for recreation purposes through allocation in a new
Development Plan Document in the future, although this
would need to be considered against other competing
pressures. However, the Salford Greenspace Strategy SPD
cannot be used to allocate sites. The regulations governing
the production of a Supplementary Planning Document do not
allow for the allocation / designation of land for a use other
than for which it is already legally permitted. Para 2.42 of
PPS12 Local Development Frameworks (2004) states
“Supplementary planning documents may cover a range of
issues, both thematic and site specific, which may expand
policy or provide further detail to policies in a development
plan document. They must not however, be used to allocate
land”.
Proposed Changes: None
Deficiency
Areas and
Areas for
Improvement
United Utilities
(63)
Observation
United Utilities provided contact
details to discuss their plans for the
former Swinton Sewage Treatment
Works, with reference to the
Noted
significant demand for access to a
strategic semi natural greenspace in
Swinton South.
Proposed Changes: None
Swinton
Pan-Leisure
Sewage
Consulting (80)
Treatment
Works
Objection
The summary of current provision is
noted to highlight that within the
Swinton area there is a "large amount
of greenspace - substantial
proportion of it is semi-natural, of
particular value for informal leisure".
It is further noted that there are a
number of sports pitches albeit of
poor quality and poor provision for
Equipped Children's Play Space and
Facilities for Youth & Adult.
It is noted that in Swinton South there
is significant demand for access to a
Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace.
Concern is raised regarding the
reference to the "significant potential"
of the SSTW site and the suggestion
that discussions regarding the future
of the site for recreational purposes
will continue.
The Respondent considers that the
Strategy should recognise that it is
unrealistic to consider the former
Swinton Waste Water Treatment
Works as having "significant
potential" for use as a Strategic SemiNatural Greenspace.
It is inappropriate at this point to comment on the level of
contamination and its impact on the recreation potential of the
former Swinton Sewage Treatment Works site.
It is considered quite appropriate to consider the future
recreational potential of the former Swinton Sewage
Treatment Works. This reflects the conclusions of the UDP
Inspector with respect to the Swinton Sewage Treatment
Works “I urge the Council to complete the UOSS [i.e.
Greenspace Strategy SPD] without delay. If that shows a
local deficiency (quantitatively or qualitatively) in accessible
urban greenspace that cannot be made up on existing land or
by other proposals in the plan, then consideration could be
given to the allocation of this site for low key semi rural
recreational pursuits, linked with the improvement of wildlife
habitat”.
It is claimed that the site is
contaminated to the extent that
significant investment would be
required to render the land suitable
and capable of even informal use for
recreation. It is suggested that since
no such funding is known to be
available from the City Council, the
most appropriate way of securing this
is considered to be via an enabling
development. It is suggested to be
incorrect and misleading to suggest
otherwise.
Proposed Changes: None
APPENDIX H: WALKDEN & LITTLE HULTON COMMUNITY COMMITTEE AREA SUMMARY
Paragraph/
Policy/
Site
number
Respondent
(representation
number)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Walkden/Little
Hulton Open
Spaces
Committee (41)
Objection
The Respondent notes that:
Site 17 is listed as Roe Green CC
Site 18 is listed as Ellesmere CC
References to sites 17 and 18 in Worsley and Boothstown will be
amended in Table 20 to Site 17 Ellesmere CC and Site 18 Roe Green
CC. These sites have been referred to correctly elsewhere in the
document.
It is confirmed that these clubs are
the other way round: 17 is
Ellesmere, 18 is Roe Green
Proposed Changes: Amend Table 20 to refer to Site 17 as Ellesmere CC and Site 18 as Roe Green CC in accordance with the representation.
APPENDIX I: WORSLEY AND BOOTHSTOWN COMMUNITY COMMITTEE AREA SUMMARY
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Respondent
(representation
number)
Worsley/Boothstown
Community
Committee (48)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Objection
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
A local councillor indicated that
the list of 18 local Green Space
sites on page 97 contains
several errors.


The Council deliberately incorporated Wardley Woods
within the boundary for Worsley Woods. The name of site 1 will
be extended to clarify the inclusion of Wardley Woods.

The Council accept that an incorrect boundary has been
identified for Broadoak CPS

and that there is some confusion over the reference to
cricket clubs.
The appropriate amendments will be made.
Site 1 is actually
Wardley Woods rather than
Worsley Woods

Site 15 should be
Bridgewater School (a
private school) and not
Broadoak CPS

Site 17 should be
Worsley Cricket Club
Site 18 should be Roe Green
Cricket Club
Proposed Changes: Amend the name of site WBO/001 on pages 20 and 25 and Table 20 to refer to Worsley Woods and Wardley Woods.
Amend Maps 7 and 16 to identify the correct boundary of the school football pitch.
Amend Table 20 to refer to Site 17 as Ellesmere CC and Site 18 as Roe Green CC partially in accordance with the representation.
SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL
Paragraph/
Policy/ Site
number
Appendix 3
Respondent
(representation
number)
Ramblers
Association (19)
Objection/
Support or
Observation
Support
Summary of Representation
Council’s Response
Everything under the comments and
mitigation columns for this heading is
very much supported.
Support Noted
It is considered most important that
people have small areas of recreational
greenspace close at hand, which can
keep them in touch with the natural
world on a regular walking basis and
obviate the need to go by car in search
of this. It is considered crucial that
these areas are easily accessed on
foot and investment in rights of way
improvements to enable a great deal of
this access to be made on traffic - free
routes is supported.
Proposed Changes: None
Para. 1.14
The Environment
Agency (44)
Support
The Environment Agency agree with
and support the sustainability
objectives outlined in ‘Sustainability
Objectives’ 1.14 particularly,
Biodiversity, Air Quality, and Reducing
Impacts of Climate Change.
Support Noted
Proposed Changes: None
Para. 3.6
The Environment
Agency (45)
Observation
The Environment Agency referred to
guidance produced on objectives and
indicators for strategic environmental
assessments, which was enclosed for
information, to support the data gaps in
the Sustainability Appraisal, under
Noted
'Limitations of Information' 3.6.
Proposed Changes: None
The Environment
Agency (46)
Proposed Changes: None
The Environment Agency encourage
continued environmental
enhancements and also protection of
the greenspace that already exists.
Noted