IMPORTANT WILLY WROE ANOUNCEMENT

This week has not been the best week for our campaign.
A political bias appears to have been sought by other campaigners in our community that although outwardly want the same outcome ie no building on our precious green belt have decided to openly criticise the support from which we might add was given from the start from our MP Kate Green and leader of the opposition labour group Andrew Western.
As we have stated from the start of this thing, help contains no conditions. This community can only gain the required result by being united and we guarantee that our fight will not include any rhetoric that is not justified. On the record we have stated that this issue would've been dealt with the same vigour had Trafford been Labour controlled.
Wednesday 30/11/2017 saw a motion by the labour group to remove our precious green from the GMSF. The ruling Conservatives refused a vote on the motion which was against the constitution of the council. Labour withdrew from the meeting on a point of democracy.
Stats about the alternative to Flixton are below courtesy of Andrew Western.

The Council’s Director of Growth and Regulatory Reform reiterated to me this week that the sizes of land set aside for housing at each site are as follows:

Timperley Wedge housing allocation – 107 hectares
Flixton Greenbelt original proposals (750 properties) – 17 hectares

He also advised me of the following:

Flixton Greenbelt potential new proposals (385 homes) – land allocation for housing reduced to c.11.66 hectares

What this means is that we can divide the number of properties proposed at each site by the number of hectares allocated to get the average number of properties per hectare. I have set out the full calculations below in the interests of clarity as some have been concerned that what I am suggesting does not add up:

Timperley Wedge original proposals (3300 homes)
3300 properties divided between 107 hectares = 3300/17 = 30.84 properties per hectare

Flixton Greenbelt original proposals (750 homes)
750 properties divided between 17 hectares = 750/17 = 44.12 properties per hectare

Flixton Greenbelt revised proposals (385 homes)
385 properties divided between 11.66 hectares = 385/11.66 = 33.02 properties per hectare

What the above figures highlight is the totally inappropriate nature of the original Flixton proposals. We know that Flixton has a current average density of c.35 properties per hectare and therefore this would be out of step with the surrounding area as well as being on a totally unacceptable site. What it also shows however is that the potential revised proposals will still be of a higher density in terms of properties per hectare than the density planned for 3300 homes at Timperley Wedge.

I’d now like to set out our initial alternative, which was to incorporate Flixton’s full allocation of 750 properties into the Timperley Wedge proposals:

Initial Labour Group counter-proposal (incorporate Flixton proposals at Timperley Wedge)

3300 properties originally planned at Timperley Wedge + 750 homes incorporated from original Flixton allocation = 4050 properties divided between 107 hectares = 37.85 properties per hectare

As can be seen from the above, the alternative presented by the Labour Group in our consultation response proposed an alternative that would see no building on Flixton’s greenbelt with only a modest uplift to the Timperley Wedge proposals. Indeed it is revealing that, even after the 750 homes originally planned for Flixton are taken into consideration, if this counter-proposal were adopted the average number of properties per hectare would still be 6.3 properties per hectare less than the Council’s original Flixton proposals.

The Labour Group does of course welcome the Council’s identification of alternative sites for the 365 homes they now believe could be accommodated elsewhere. Whilst building on Flixton’s greenbelt remains totally unacceptable, what this new set of proposals does mean is that the number of homes that now need to be relocated away from Flixton is 385. If we apply the calculations above to see what adding 385 homes to the proposals for Timperley Wedge mean in terms of density at that site, we see the below:

Calculation looking at incorporating 385 properties (amended Flixton proposal) at Timperley

3300 properties originally planned at Timperley Wedge + 385 homes (proposed revised Flixton allocation) = 3685 properties divided by 107 hectares = 34.44 properties per hectare.

What the above calculation shows us is that Flixton’s new allocation of 385 homes can be relocated to Timperley Wedge and the site would require almost 10 less properties per hectare than the original plans for 750 homes in Flixton which the Council still claim are feasible and deliverable. It also highlights the fact that the Timperley proposals could be built at an average density of just 1.42 properties per more than the latest Flixton proposals (385 homes) even if they encapsulated the Flixton properties ( and meaning that the Flixton plans would no longer be required). Crucially it is important to note that the 34.44 properties per hectare figure is around the average for a typical family area such as Flixton.
In summary, what I hope this clearly shows is that Timperley Wedge could take an extra 385 properties and still retain an average density of around the same as currently exists in the Flixton area; and further that when the Labour Group put forward its original counter proposal we did so in the knowledge that even with an additional 750 homes on Timperley Wedge average densities there would still be 6.3 properties per hectare less than the densities the Council were then proposing at Flixton.

I hope the above makes sense but if anybody has any questions about these figures or what they mean please post and I will try to answer reasonably quickly. They are relatively straightforward calculations and I hope will set the record straight.

Thanks for reading, and sorry for yet another long post!

Andy

Save Flixton Green Belt

LikeShow More Reactions

Comment

Share