Some of you may be aware of the car park that was constructed on part of the SBI (Site of Biological Importance), currently in use by MPT during the construction of the metro link bridge over the Mersey.
There has been an application submitted to the Council by Bethel of Britain (now the Land owners), and West Didsbury and Chorlton AFC to retain this car park after MPT move out. We have been told that the new flat pitches that are currently being laid out at Hardy Farm, will be used by youth teams such as Oswald Road. They will play there instead of playing at Chorlton Park.
The application has been amended in the last few days to not include retention of the 3 portacabins MPT have left onsite. The application is being discussed by the Council Planning Department on Thursday 8th May at 2pm in the Council chambers.
This is the application in brief: (If you would like more details please visit the Council website here… and search for the planning application number 104788/FO/2014/S1)
- Retention of the ‘Existing’ MPT car park
- Retention of Access Road
- Retention of perimeter fencing
- Retention of hard standing area (previously occupied by MPT temporary offices)
- Retention of all current parking spaces
Some points to consider:
1. What possible logic can there be for more parking here? There are 63 existing parking spaces at the Hardy Farm development (according to Application 095071/FO/2010/S1). The pitches will be in use by a few local youth teams. Why is more parking required on top of that already available on the Bethel site?
2. There are plentiful alternative transport links – bus, metro, cycle ways to name a few.
3. Contravention of planning policy: Planning policy T1: encourages a ‘modal shift away from car travel to public transport, cycling and walking’. The application fails to meet this policy.
4. This is an opportunistic application. Imagine if an application had been made to turn half the SBI into a car park had the metro works not taken place…
5. Were MPT not obliged to return the section of SBI to it’s former state once they had finished?
It is simply not acceptable to give up green belt land for an unsubstantiated development of this nature…