Chapter 24 Appendices

These appendices are referred to in chapter 24. If the section has not expanded, please click on the title to reveal the text.

Jump to Editor’s Comments


Appendix 24A : Report on activities of Central Manchester Urban Development Corporation (CMUDC)

Report to Joint Policy Committee on activities of CMUDC to end of November 1988.

The first five months of CMUDCs existence have been characterised by the UDC showing a willingness to work with the City Council and to support many of the City Council’s policies. The UDC remains an affront to local democracy, and in the medium term the real danger to us is that the UDC will claim the credit for many of the developments that take place in Manchester which would either have happened anyway, or had already been started by the City Council. The Labour Party must be very clear in continuing to explain the real purpose of the UDC, which is to undermine local democracy and to give the Government a propaganda boost…

Decisions that have been taken are as follows:

  1. An agreement… that the City Council is given the work of processing planning applications.
  2. A number of environmental improvements have been agreed. These schemes were nearly all already drawn up by the City Council but had not proceeded because of lack of funds.… Castlefield, Rochdale canal area and Piccadilly. Improvements on Oxford Road and Lower Mosley Street are also being considered.
  3. £35,000 has been donated to the City Council’s Christmas lights and £125,000 in support of the Manchester Olympic bid.
  4. Building clean-up programmes for key buildings within the UDC area have been agreed on the basis of a £ for £ scheme (ie ‘matching’ the contribution from the building owners). The building owners would also have to agree to floodlight their buildings in the evenings.
  5. The UDC is supporting a bid to encourage the British Council to relocate approximately 500 staff in the Ducie Street warehouse.

Finally, the CMUDC has been very helpful to the City Council’s case in not agreeing to Trafford Park UDC’s development proposals on the Ship Canal which could make usage of the very top of the Upper Reaches of the Ship Canal difficult. Neither the City Council nor the CMUDC have agreed to support the Harbour Revision Order necessary to close the Pomona Docks.


Appendix 24B : City Party Resolution Relating to the Urban Development Corporation (UDC)

Resolution passed by the City Party 13 July ‘88

[We] deplore the actions of the Conservative Government in setting up an anti-democratic UDC in central Manchester. We recognise this as a propaganda ploy designed to take the credit for private and public sector developments already underway and so to give the appearance that the Government is taking action to tackle inner city problems, when in reality Government policies are continually worsening the situation for inner city residents. The Government is set on a course that will entail the spending of £50-£75M of public resources over the next five years in central Manchester in a completely unaccountable way.

“We call on the Labour Group to:

  1. Identify all means possible by which the Council can inject some local democracy into the UDCs decision-making processes, including:
    • arrangements for proper consultation on the UDCs policies,
    • arrangements for the City Council to act as planning agent for the UDC,
    • Labour Councillors taking up any seats offered on the UDC Board and reporting back quarterly to the Group and the City Party.
  2. Exert all possible influence over the spending of public resources.
  3. Take action to ensure that improved employment opportunities for local people result from the UDC’s activities.
  4. Provide quarterly reports of progress or otherwise, and if this shows our objectives are not being achieved, we should withdraw. These objectives to include:
    • all UDC promotional material should acknowledge the work of the Local Authority.
    • the UDC should act as if the Local Authority Access to Information Act applied to it.
    • the UDC should set up proper consultation arrangements with city centre workers and users.
    • the UDC should produce a training strategy in conjunction with its development strategy.
    • the City Council to be given the opportunity to tender for all UDC work.
    • the UDC to have a policy of opening public access to rivers, canals and Castlefield.
  5. This City Party, supported by the Labour Group, will draw up a plan which would be a more suitable way of spending £50-£70M of public money, and submit this to the DoE pointing out the special needs of the area.”
Appendix 24C : Extracts From Reports Relating to the Central Manchester Development Corporation (CMDC)

1 Extracts from report to Joint Policy Committee on activities of CMDC to end of June 1990.

“Much of what has been achieved in its two years would have been achieved by the City Council if only the resources had been forthcoming from central government. The UDC has no democratic mandate and as such its expenditure of public funds continues to undermine local democracy…”

“We have striven to ensure that the people of Manchester gain the optimum benefit from the resources made available by central government to the UDC. On their part, the development corporation have shown a willingness to work with the city council and in doing so have supported many of the council’s policies.”

Decisions taken since November 1989:

  1. The 1990/91 budget allocation from the DoE is £24 M – the highest allocation for any 3rd generation UDC.
  2. The tender for the International Concert Hall was awarded to Beazer in January (1990).
  3. The British Council is relocating its HQ to Manchester – developing the old Gaythorn gasworks.
  4. A further £125,000 sponsorship for Manchester Olympic Bid.
  5. £15,000 grant to the Council for the Castlefield Information Centre and a £10,000 grant for Castlefield carnival.
  6. The relocation of the YMCA to its new is almost complete and the new complex is planned to open in July.
  7. Embarking on a study to assess the nature of office and retail markets in the city centre – to inform the council’s future development plans, and a study to assess childcare provision in city centre and options for companies in future.

Much of what the Development Corporation achieves are things that the Council had planned to do but were unable to begin because of central government policy. The City Council should rightly take its share of the credit for any achievements within the DC area.

2 Extracts from report to City Party – November 1990

  1. Concert Hall – detailed negotiations with Beazer on what is deliverable within the budget; advanced works on site expected to start early 1991, with construction starting in summer 1991.
  2. YMCA complex now opened at Castlefield.
  3. Childcare feasibility study published and proposals:
    • Childcare information service (to improve access to facilities) to be jointly sponsored by the UDC, the Council and interested employers.
    • Childcare good practice guide to be jointly funded by UDC, Chamber of Commerce, Council and interested employers.
    • UDC to encourage all developers in the area to include childcare provision within their developments.
    • UDC and Council to initiate discussions with the Training Agency about jointly funding a childcare facility with training provision and support for child-minders; and childcare worker training course.
  4. Castlefield:
    • Planning application submitted for housing and office development scheme.
    • UDC to create a new visitors’ centre – cost of £400,000
    • Grant of £30,000 to present visitors centre to enable continuing operation until new one opened.
  5. UDC to grant £37,500 to Tidy Britain Group to assist with litter management programme. Also £14,000 pa for three years for a ‘Water Debris’ Project officer.
  6. Setting up an employment consultancy team to pool expertise in training and recruitment.

Appendix 24D : Kath Fry's notes from the seminar on the Hulme Design Code
Although the vision and the ambition was acknowledged as being good, there was a lot of criticism of the detail within it from people attending the Conference such as: ‘Shouldn’t try to cover the whole city in one document – should differentiate between different needs of different communities and recognise Manchester’s diversity and heritage; Research [is] needed on cul-de-sacs versus ‘through’ streets – taking into account European experience; [There are] different definitions of ‘permeability’; Should be a strategy for open spaces – involving people; Environmental quality versus cars – Manchester [is a] hostile area for pedestrians; [Guide has] no references to Agenda 21, disabled access or green spaces.’

Appendix 24E : Report on “Hulme, Ten Years On” by the Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional futures at Salford University (SURF) in 2002.
A number of impressive achievements were noted… but there were also a number of shortfalls compared to the original aims.

The housing aims in general were met with a greater range of choice and a more balanced community. The main reservation was that there was limited development of family accommodation. It was felt that there were still significant problems of low pupil attainment at high school level and families were disinclined to move to, or stay within, Hulme if they were able to live further from the centre either inside or outside the city boundaries. Crime was still perceived as an issue with larger increases in crime statistics than in other parts of the city.

The quality of the physical environment had improved through the implementation of the design guide.

There had been reasonable success in creating new industrial and commercial businesses such as the Science Park and Asda. But increased development had not led to increased employment. Unemployment had fallen but at a lower rate than across the city as a whole. Evidence suggested that a vicious circle persisted with low educational attainments, limited access to employment and high levels of poverty. In 2001 25% of the pupils from the local High School (Ducie High) left school without a qualification.

In 1991 Hulme had the highest ‘Index of Deprivation’ in the city; but by 2002 it had moved up to be the 13th most deprived out of the 33 wards. This seems impressive but if the comparison is restricted to employment, education and child poverty Hulme slips down into one of the worst ten wards in Manchester, and within the worst 2% in the country.

In general the outcomes are positive and where they have fallen short, raise questions as to how a five year programme with resources concentrated on capital expenditure can turn around deeply embedded levels of poverty and unemployment. The same question can be asked about changes in Manchester over the last twenty years; there is an impressive array of regeneration achievements particularly in the city centre. But levels of poverty and unemployment are high across the city as a whole and especially high in the inner city wards.

There are still questions about the success of the mixed tenure model whereby the council owned properties have decreased (significantly). How committed are the new entrants to Hulme? Are they using Hulme as a stepping stone? Will they move on if and when they have children? Do many of the owner occupiers live their lives in different networks from those generally used by social housing tenants?

Chapter 24 Contents List

Editor’s Comments

The text in these appendices is all taken straight from the document written by Kath. These appendices relate to Chapter 24. In Appendix 24A the body is referred to consistently as the CMUDC, the Central Manchester Urban Development Corporation, but later on it dropped the Urban to be the Central Manchester Development Corporation. In Appendix 24B, the UDC is referring to the same organisation that is CMUDC and CMDC elsewhere.

Any inaccuracies or typos or comments? Add here:

%d bloggers like this: