Browse Sections

• Education
• Special reports

Council chief says 'sorry'

Annette Lord and Stuart Pike
21/12/2007

MANCHESTER City Council's leader has said 'sorry' for broken promises made to Clayton residents, after the collapse of plans to rehouse them.

Redevelopment plans for the Eccleshall Street area are back on the drawing board five years after they started, following the withdrawal of a compulsory purchase order (CPO) which would have seen the terraced streets demolished.

The city council has attributed the U-turn to new health and safety regulations causing regeneration arm New East Manchester to pull out.

But at the council's executive, Sir Richard Leese apologised on behalf of all organisations involved in the CPO to 86 affected households still living in the "blighted" area, for having to go back on their word.

He said: "We have made commitments and promises to residents in that area that we are no longer able to meet. We have to apologise to people in that area that we are not able to make those commitments."

Changing advice from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on housing developments near hazard sites caused New East Manchester to withdraw, saying they would be "morally wrong" to press ahead.

The Eccleshall Street zone is close to chemical firm Air Products, on Clayton Lane.

The apology was welcomed by Clayton councillor Mike Carmody, who had urged the council to refurbish homes in the Clayton area, as it was "too late" for Eccleshall Street.

He said: "I've spoken with MP Tony Lloyd and he informs me that housing can no longer go on that site. Some of the property there is also a bit too far gone. But there's the Walsden Street, Ben Street and Powell Street areas they could look at. I'm trying to make stock available for people who want to stay in the area."

He added: "I don't know what they are going to do about Eccleshall Street but they need to get it sorted out double quick. They need to get people out of there who do want to go.

"I urge the council to get a move on and get its finger out instead of messing about like they have been doing. It has been dragging on and on and it is a ridiculous state of affairs."

Lib Dem Councillor Marc Ramsbottom expressed concern at a lack of specified timescale for rehousing Eccleshall Street residents, some of whom he claimed had been offered "insulting" valuations on properties by the council.

He said: "Residents never wanted Air Products to be relocated, they wanted it out of the area in the first place and now we are where we are."

He added that a financial package should be put together to enable residents effectively to move to the area of their choice.

The city council's chief executive Sir Howard Bernstein has disputed suggestions that the city council knew for some time about the changing HSE recommendations.

Last week the a spokesperson for the organisation told the Advertiser that the local authority had been advised throughout discussions that it should use the redevelopment to decrease the number of people within the consultation distance of the site.

But Sir Howard claimed that council officers first received guidance about the new rules - yet to come into force - last month, and that this was confirmed to them in writing on 7 December.

He added: "The result of this rule change is that the HSE position in respect of an application in the terms of the Eccleshall Street scheme which currently has planning permission would be to 'advise against' the grant of planning permission rather than 'not to advise against' the grant of planning permission for the scheme or for any new proposal for large scale residential development around the Air Products factory."

A ROW has broken out between the council and government advisers over the abandoning of the Eccleshall Street area redevelopment plan in Clayton.

As reported in last week’s Advertiser regeneration bosses suddenly pulled out of plans to demolish their homes after being warned by the Health and Safety Executive about the proximity of chemical factory Air Products.

Deputy chief executive at New East Manchester, Eddie Smith, said they had no option but to back out of plans to compulsory purchase 234 homes on 'moral' grounds because of changing advice due to come in next year.

Residents have been waiting 10 years for the redevelopment, on which £14m of taxpayers' money has already been spent.

The planning application, passed by councillors in June 2006, said the HSE did not advise against the granting of planning permission. But it said this did not mean the risks were negligible and the decision not to advise against was solely because houses were already on the site.

A HSE spokesman told The Advertiser last week: "HSE has [advised] Manchester City Council through its discussions ... that it should use the opportunity offered by redevelopment to decrease the number of people within the consultation distance of the site."

Now head of planning at Manchester City Council, Peter Babb, has issued a statement objecting to the HSE's comments. Mr Babb said: "The statements ... imply that the HSE did object to the planning application for the original scheme. In fact the HSE wrote on 5 October in response to consultation on proposals for 434 residential units on the Eccleshall Street site stating that 'the HSE does not advise on safety grounds against the granting of planning permission in this case.'

"This advice ... formed the basis of the decision to progress with the proposals. If the HSE had advised against the original scheme it would not have proceeded."

The HSE have said they are happy with the way they were portrayed in last week's article and the comment used.