Ryebank Fields plans tweaked after public feedback

This is a properly outstanding proposal. Can’t be cheap or easy to achieve that level of affordable, sustainability and BNG creds whilst still be viable. Well done MMU, Step Places & Southway.

“The plans will -free up larger family homes for those who are homeless or living in temporary accommodation.” How exactly, this is nonsense!
Why are MMU greenwashing their attempt to destroy an ecologically valuable local asset just to profit from land that they were given for recreation! There is asbestos under the surface that should not be disturbed as there are many homes & a school very close by. The Nico Ditch is an ancient earthwork that should be protected not bulldozed. Read the ecological surveys of the land that were commissioned by Friends of Ryebank Fields- this site is ecology very rich in flora & fauna with rare Black Poplar trees and many threatened species. The community does not want this beautiful site destroyed by MMU to “improve its green credentials “

@chorlton resident – if you actually read the consultation material you’d find out: how ‘freeing up’ will work directly from the housing association who will do it; how a net gain in biodiversity will be delivered; how the Nico ditch is being retained; and how leaving the contaminants in place is not a feasible or safe approach.

Well said YIMBY – get it built.

If only there was a massive municipal park next door to this site that all the Chorlton Nimby’s could enjoy.

Should be at least three times denser. Screw the NIMBYs, we have a housing crisis.

Good to see the image showing the amount of green space in the immediate vicinity of the site, showing the NIMBY arguments are largely baseless, especially with the changes outlined. Get them built.

The entitlement of the Chorlton NIMBYs is hilarious. Surprised they were even able to read the proposals with their heads so far up where the sun don’t shine..!

Wow, the proposals for Ryebank Fields have evolved phenomenally! Seriously, who could stand against such an inspired and well thought out design, addressing so many diverse housing needs in the community, Passivhaus standard to boot?!

All credit to MMU, Step Places and Southway, all of whom have collectively sought to address previous concerns generously and boldly! Whilst ‘Chorlton Resident’ speaks for a vocal minority; for the silent majority let’s crack on and get these much needed homes built!

I live in chorlton. I’m not a Nimby I fully approve of the Chorlton Irish Centre becoming residential accommodation and the former Islamic School on High/Edge Lane abd the former Chorlton Baths. I’m really worried about potentislly over a 100 extra cars going in and out of Ryebank Road. take a look there on a Saturday morning when Park Run happens or when St John’s Primary opens and closes. it’s going to be madness. only one way out of this scheme! I must say the tone so far on the site isn’t very nice. I’m using my real name and I live just off Ryebank Road so am not directly affected but I feel we are losing so much for housing we can do on brownsites else where. I haven’t even mentioned the former Coop funeral parlour at the top of Longford Rd becoming social housing. please don’t be rude about Chorlton people. It doesn’t strengthen your opinions it just makes you look rude which I’d like to think you are not.

This project looks really good. Passivhaus is the way forward and produces high quality low energy accommodation. Credit to Step Places for producing such a forward thinking scheme can’t wait to see it finished. Friends of Ryebank are narrow minded and selfish.

I am totally against these plans. The increase in traffic on both sides of the development will be horrendous. On the Chorlton side, traffic is already very heavy. On the Trafford side, even if the traffic couldn’t access the site but cycles could, vehicles will try and park in places which are already tight for space. Park Square, on the Trafford side, is already a hazard with vehicles parked and causing very tight access. I believe it would be more of a nightmate for residents. We actually need the green space, the ‘escape’ from traffic, fumes and further built up areas. Wildlife would be affected, old, well established trees too. Sorry, I’m totally against this.
PS there are many properties needing refurbishment around the area, plough money into those and get people living in them.

Disappointed the community centre seems to have been dropped from this – maybe as a compromise there could be some funding for improvements at Firswood centre on the other side of the park which is currently a bit ramshackle.

I’m not convinced this is the best place for 44 “over 55s” units – it’s a reasonable walk into chorlton if you have anything approaching mobility issues.

I think the middle portion could have a bit more density & height.

There will be traffic issues – these could be mostly resolved if a school streets policy was put in place with restrictions against driving up Longford road from 0730 – 0915 and 1520-1700

Hi @Darren I hear you and sadly you don’t need to look far on the Chorlton M21 Facebook to see the ‘Save Ryebank Fields’ campaign group leading the pile on. It’s as if people aren’t allowed to openly express a contra ‘save the fields’ opinion. I can appreciate some of the community may have reservations about what the future holds, but change happens. Let’s not forget that Longford Park sits adjacent and its about to undergo a vast refurbishment – lucky future residents of Ryebank and the wider community having such an asset on their doorstep.

Don’t be wowed by what is presented. It is important to understand the nature of the actual site. The proposals are exactly the type that should be brought forward on brownfield sites. The more sustainable type of development should be lauded in general HOWEVER not at this site. It smacks of greenwashing and trying to half heartedly justify the destruction and loss of should an important wildlife setting and habitat. This is a sickening money making grab by MMU who were ‘gifted’ this land and now looking to maximise sales value to housebuilder. Southway and Step Places are trying to justify the loss of precious wildlife habitat, this is really valuable rewilded habitat, with token gesture of bug hotels. This scheme should not happen here, it goes against MCCs Environment Plan and Biodiversity Strategy. This green space of high biodiversity value should not be built on. Actual brownfield sites should be used. MCC and Cllrs need to listen to the public objections here work together to protect this site and prevent this from happening. The site should be protected.

YIMPY @12.10pm – well said.

By the definition set out in the new Government’s draft NPPF this is “grey land”. Manchester needs a more diverse and affordable housing supply as we are in housing crisis – so get it built.

Your arguments regarding the proposed housing mix are weak. The housing crisis we face demands social housing which is absent from the scheme and is the only option for those most affected by high private rents, impossible house prices and low wages.
The University sector faces a funding crises and is seeking to make money from it

Liz Clay – the housing crisis is not just about social housing. It is about a shortage of homes in all tenures and at all price points. With regard to this scheme I am sure the over 55 housing provision will enable Southwest Housing to help tenants in its social rented stock elsewhere in the city to downsize thereby creating a win win and help address the supply of social rented stock for those families on the waiting list.

Just to address some previous comments; 1. Biodiversity net gain has not been addressed in the proposals. There is less detail than in the previous consultation materials but with only minor tweaking its hard to understand how the development won’t lead to a reduction in BNG credits. 2. This is greenfield land not brownfield or grey and this is something that is common ground.

These plans look really well thought through. My only criticism is why is so much of the site being given away to open space when Longford Park is on its doorstep? We need to be maximising the density and efficiency of sites like this.

Ryebank Fields aren’t in my back yard – I don’t live close enough to have got a leaflet – but I do live close enough (in Stretford) to walk to the Fields a couple of times a week and sink into Nature.
Those saying it’s next to a Park maybe don’t understand the difference between mown grass and a meadow that’s higher than your head in the summer, and all the animals that live there including Sparrowhawks and Owls.. Cities need places like this, South Manchester is one of the most Nature deprived parts of GM, and still has plenty of Brownfield land available to build on – such as Chorlton Precinct, and all the new housing coming forward in Stretford, Gorse Hill and Old Trafford.
All that photo makes me think, is look at the difference in attitude between Manchester and Trafford – most of that green you can see – Longford Park, Turn Moss, Stretford Meadows.. is in Trafford. Trafford Council understand how important Green spaces – of different types – are to people’s well being and their wish to live there.

I have lived next to and used Lonford Park since 1976. It is more than enough for recreation and look forward to this development. Appreciate others views on parking tho. Most over 55s still drive up to the age of 70/80. I myself would be interested in over 55s accommodation x 2, and appreciate any application details. Thankyou.