EXCLUSIVE
As the deadline looms for objections to the £110m scheme to build a new university campus in Hulme, local residents have accused the council and Manchester Metropolitan University of excluding them from any meaningful consultation.
Residents have until 21 March to submit objections to the planning department.
Protesters claim that the development will totally dominate the area and will be out of scale with the immediate surroundings.
There are also concerns over traffic and parking issues as well as crime and anti social behaviour that already occur in areas such as Fallowfield that have heavy student populations.
However, their main objections surround the consultation process. There have, say the protesters, been just two MMU communiqués and one from Manchester City Council in the last two years.
Campaigners say that many of the events were not well attended and most people in the area are still unaware of either the timescale or the developments on show. They also say that a number of “clipboard consultations” were done outside the Asda store on Princess Road, which attracts shoppers from outside the neighbourhood who have no vested interest in what happens to Birley Fields.
A spokesman for Manchester Metropolitan University told Inside the M60: “The university has been listening to the Hulme community for well over two years as we recognise the insight of local people is vital. Our first round of consultation in 2009 showed people valued open space and we have responded by minimising the build area to around one-third of the total site.”
Manchester City Council added: “Public engagement began in June 2009. Newsletters were distributed to homes, community groups and businesses and a three-month programme of drop-in sessions and meetings were held. These were attended by MMU experts and their consultants to answer in-depth questions about the scheme. A dedicated address was also set up on MMU’s website where people were encouraged to ask questions. Feedback from these events fed into the design and development of the scheme.
“Around Christmas 2010 there was further engagement with the public. Another series of newsletters was distributed with additional drop-in sessions. Thousands of people attended over the course of these sessions. The feedback received was fed into the refinement of the proposed scheme. In all, 70% of those who commented felt the proposals would have a positive impact on the area.
However, Inside the M60 has seen a report that would suggest that, certainly within MMU, there has been some disquiet about the consultation process.
Written in August last year, the report on the Impact on the Local Community, written by Carolyn Kagan and Karen Duggan, recognised that there was minimal engagement with the community in the development of the university’s master plan and little use was made of local expertise in the planning process.
The report notes: “Opportunities were missed to specifically seek out the views of the silent majority and members of the wide-ranging and outcast communities.”
Both MMU and the council argue that ultimately it is about investing in top quality education for the people of Manchester.
A council spokesman also said: “The land has been allocated for mixed use development since the early 1990s when it was first branded as Birley Fields. The campus proposals will affect six of the nine plots of land and the remainder could be suitable for residential use in the future.”
MMU stated: “The site itself is not natural green space, it is overgrown Brownfield, but nevertheless we will be planting more trees than we remove and more than two-thirds of the site will remain open space.”
As for concerns about transport, MMU told Inside the M60: “The 320-space multi-storey (with slip-roads onto the Princess Parkway) should go some way to keeping parked cars off the streets. There are also moves to introduce new public transport.”
This development will be a disaster for the people of Hulme, who have been totally railroaded, and who are already becoming swamped by student halls and flats. The “consultation” was a joke, and most people still don’t realise just how huge this campus will be.
It is outrageous that MMU have been *given* land worth around £10 million. The real reason for doing this is so that they can then re-develop the Grade II listed buildings in Didsbury and make an absolute killing turning them into ‘luxury’ (ie, overpriced) apartments. Into whose pockets will the money then go? I think we can all guess.
Furthermore, this is just another aspect of Manchester City Council’s ongoing war on nature in Manchester. Notwithstanding their guff about it being “brownfield” – those fields and trees look pretty green to me! And it is an area of mosaic diversity. What they are doing is a dreadful and the locals that do know about it are generally horrified.
The lack of consultation with the local community has been shocking. Rules, if not laws have been broken.
The Hulme councillor team sat in for a year with the MMU to develop this plan, but neglected to inform residents.
Very few people were informed of the current planning application, so objections have been hurried. Thousands consulted, 70% positive? Utter nonsense.
The council gave this land to the MMU, free of charge, and yet they still want the roads as well.
The plan in it’s current form is like a return to the schemes of the 1960′s.
I wouldn’t trust either the Council or the MMU over any claims to have engaged with the people of Hulme.
The headline for this article is misleading in terms of what our report discussed and concluded. It is unfortunate that it is implied we have made mockery of the consultation process as we presented a rather more complex discussion of it. The quote you have used is out of context. It is part of one of the conclusions, preceded by another linked one. Also it might be of interest to note the full statement from which the quote is taken.
A large public consultation event took place over a period of 12 weeks and the responses more or less reflected the Hulme and Moss Side populations.
Opportunities were missed to specifically seek views from the silent majority, and members of a wide range of interest and ‘outcast’ communities: care will be needed to ensure the strongest voices are not just those of men. (p.21)
Elsewhere in the report this is unpacked:
The emphasis on proportional representation of age, gender, and ethnicity in the consultation process provides a degree of validity to the process, but it is not the approach that will ensure all relevant interests are heard. To their credit, the consultation team did adapt part way through the process ……. This led them to run an environmental sustainability workshop in September 2009. In addition, other specific groups were visited or requested consultation visits. Whilst it is commendable that the consultation team were able to respond to such requests and identify particular interests, there are many other groups who have not been specifically targeted. It does not seem as if the Project Board approached the consultation from the stance of understanding and reflecting the complexity of the community. Rather, the concern was to ensure that a widespread consultation took place that could be defended in terms of statistical validity. Having said this, some groups were targeted for specific consultation. (p.11)
Read the report: http://www.e-space.mmu.ac.uk/e-space/bitstream/2173/117655/1/978-1-900139-44-1.pdf