Student at Manchester Metropolitan University should continue there fight to have MMU cancel their contract with Veolia. Failing that, it is time students started boycotting Manchester Metropolitan University. Not only for their employment of Veolia but also because of the way they have treated the people of Hulme. John Brooks the vice-chancellor, conducted secret deals with Manchester City Council, to build a campus on Birley Fields. This is totally unacceptable behaviour from a Higher Education establishment which boast it serves the community. It does not, it even tells it’s students, even those live in hall of residence in Hulme, not to go into Hulme. They claim to be building a green campus when they have felled scores of trees and want to fell another 50. And their energy plant is to be powered by natural gas, a finite resource, imported and emits CO2. How is this green?
A report from the Mancunion reported a large drop in students numbers and one article mention 3 student halls of residences in Fallowfield were empty: http://mancunion.com/2012/09/27/fallowfield-hall-empty-after-drop-in-student-numbers/. They even had an article about the rise of Asian Universities, another reason student numbers in Manchester will go down. The Daily Telegraph also had an article about the large number of course vacancies and especially mentioned Manchester Metropolitan University: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9574429/Universities-still-advertising-vacancies-before-term-starts.html.
And with the planning department and committee refused planning permission for a student block on Coupland Street; 095082/FO/2010/S1 and another on Boundary Lane: 099782/FO/2012/S1 until the need for further student commendation was proven.
Both Manchester Metropolitan University and Manchester University both opposed these developments with a statement;
‘The statement essentially indicates that there is a real danger of overprovision within Manchester resulting in a high level of vacancy. This is influenced by the introduction of the full £9000 tuition fee for undergraduates, an 8% reduction in applications to higher education and the trend for more local students to live at home. MMU has seen 27% reduction in application from first year students to live in halls’.
So where is the requirement to build student accommodation on Birley Fields? And I thought it totally hypocritical of our councillors who were against these applications whilst still supporting the Birley Fields proposals.
As part of my objection to MMU’s plans for Birley Fields campus. I raised the matter of air pollution and how the development, especially the stopping up of certain roads, would increase to poor quality in Hulme. I especially emphasised that it would have a detrimental affect of the pupils of St. Philips Primary School. I also criticised their traffic, air and noise assessment as not being adequate or of being representative of the actual conditions.
The local councillors, including the councillor for the Environment, the Planning Officer and Planning Committee, ignored such concerns. If fact, the Planning Committee never conducted a site visit, even though this is a major development. Hulme already suffers from a high rate of ill-health, mental and physical.
No one in Government, National and Local are taking this situation seriously. In fact at a recent council meeting, it was stated that the emissions from Manchester Airport, do not fall on Manchester but the North Atlantic? And the National Government does not want to comply with any EU regulations, because they say they are bad for big business?
My thoughts on Manchester Climate Monthly’s recent article on Manchester Metropolitan University.
MCFly co-editor Arwa Aburawa interviews Mary Heaney, Director of Services at Manchester Metropolitan University, whose responsibilities include the environmental sustainability agenda
Besides saving money, what are the reasons MMU is taking green action?
Money isn’t actually the top priority for us in terms of sustainability – it’s our corporate social responsibility. We are an organisation that devotes it self to the next generation and we think it’s absolutely incumbent upon us to be responsible in the way we operate and look at the way that we function from everything from the amount of chemicals the cleaners use to me pulling down the blinds when I leave that this room is bearable the next day to the way we operate our labs. It’s about being part of the solution, I guess.
Another top motivator that MMU talk about is that preparing students for new realities and embedding green thinking makes them…
View original post 1,572 more words
The Manchester Metropolitan University promised to keep Hulme residents informed of the MMU's plans. This has not happened since their marketing exercise ended in November 2010. They have felled all the large mature trees in defiance of resident's objections. They now want to extinguish all right-of-way for Hulme residents, even though they promised this will not happened. Below is a post from a Hulme resident urging residents to put objections in against this betrayal of Hulme residents by Manchester Metropolitan University and Manchester City Council and Hulme's councillors.
From; firstname.lastname@example.org :
There are just 27 days left for Hulme residents to object to
MMU's bid to turn Birley Fields into a quasi-private estate. It's bad
enough the Council have given MMU the valuable land - don't let them
privatise the streets too! Don't be fooled by their assurances about
'accessibility' for the local public mentioned in their plans - all
PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY are to be extinguished.
I would like to urge all on this group to use your right under
the Town and Country Planning Act to ask the secretary of state to
'reserve' the PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY of Bonsall Street for pedestrians
and cyclists. Otherwise residents will have no appeal if a couple of
years down the line MMU erect barriers, or put up signs saying 'no
cycling' or walking accross the campus. Just wait until a student gets
raped and you will see fences and gating go up... If you think this is
a silly objection about something not likely to happen - read on..
This happened at Manchester Science Park when they erected gates
accross a path and started locking them at 7pm every night. It
happened when they built Cambridge Hall on Lloyd Street and MMU
security jobsworths started telling local people they could not walk
through to All Saints. And it happened back in the 1960's when MMU
were allowed to build accross the Easternmost end of Cavendish
Street... there are now signs there telling you that you have 'No
Public Right Of Way' to Oxford Rd... (Recently re-worded, but it means
the same thing). Ok, so you can walk through - but isn't the sign so
damned annoying? It's like, "You may breathe near our property but it
is not our intention to grant you a human RIGHT to life".
Lets give them some annoyance back! Come on people, if enough
residents object it may trigger a public enquiry into the whole
proposal, delay it, and give further opportunity to raise concerns
about the knock-on effect of increased traffic on Stretford Rd (unsafe
for cyclists). Yes, some of the trees are gone. Yes, the land is gone.
But it's not too late to save PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY accross it.
See the notices on Bonsall Street for full details. The most
important part is this:"
"Any person may object to the making of the proposed order within the
period of 28 days commencing on 20th April 2012 by notice to the
Secretary of State, quoting the above reference*, addressed to the
National Transport Casework Team, 2nd Floor, Lancaster House,
Hampshire Court, Newcastle Business Park, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4
Quick Guidance on Objecting (by Eddie)
The closure of Bonsall Street is not essential to the campus plan.
You can object outright to ANY stopping up of Bonsall St if you wish,
or just argue to 'reserve' the Public Rights for just bikes and
The criss-crossing paths on the grass are covered by the stopping up
order too, but these are not recorded 'public rights of way' anyway,
so I don't think there is any mileage in objecting to this - they are
just included to prevent any 'potential' claim that they ought to be
'created' as Public Rights Of Way...
Personally, I am not bothering to object to the bit of 'Archway' they
want to stop up cost I just can't be bothered... but you can if you
You don't have to live in Hulme to object. Eg, if you drive through
Hulme to Stretford or Chorlton, you can object.
I think the strongest argument is that travelling East-West or West-
East accross Hulme cyclists will have to brave the increased traffic
either on Stretford Road or Greenheys Lane West (also soon to have
increased traffic when the Manchester Cronyidor Partnership thing re-
routes vehicular traffic into Hulme from Oxford Rd)
Another is access into Hulme for emergency services which may get
stuck in the gridlock on Stretford Rd.
Don't be put off by the confusing complexity of Rights Of Way law. If
you object, just say so in simple terms. The more objections received,
the more likely there will have to be a 'public enquiry" for all
objections to be properly heard.
I will post the full text of the notice in next couple of days time.
And my own objection as an example. I think there is still a lot of
mileage in the Rights Of Way thing to win concessions for local
residents about the campus plan. The planning permission is just stage
one. "It ain't over until the fat lady sings", as they say...
annoying eddie 🙂
Nottingham is introducing a work place parking levy, which to me makes more sense than the rejected Manchester’s congestion charge: Workplace Parking Levy : Nottingham City Council.
When I worked in Bolton I had work mates who were incensed over Manchester’s congestion charge proposals. As they would have had to pay it, to get to and from work in Bolton, even though they were not going any where near Manchester City: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Congestion_Charge What Manchester City Council has done is introduce residents parking schemes. And the way they are implemented, only act as a tool to tax local residents. Whilst, not preventing the the ever increasing congestion in Manchester City Centre. When I raised this issue with Nigel Murphy (Manchester Councillor for the Environment) during the Manchester- A Certain Future, workshop at the MMU (Manchester Metropolitan University). He informed me, that people who decided to live in the City Centre, did so because they do not need a car, and that as I am a member of the Green Party, I should be in supportive of residents parking schemes. I did agree with him, that I did not see why people needed to drive, as I have never owned a car, motorbike, scooter or moped. At the end of the day, the resident’s parking schemes, do not stop congestion.
Good public transport, which people can rely on, is integrated and feel safe to travel, on is what is needed. Which is the case with Nottingham, especially there far superior tram system. Which did not displace the train and uses British built trams: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottingham_tram Nottingham City also led the way with travel plans, with Nottingham City Hospital introducing a travel plan in 1997: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/AT/Active%20Travel%20Cymru/NHS/Nottinghamcityhospitalnhstrust.pdf Nottingham paid for this partly from revenue from car parking charges. I do not know were the revenue from car parking in Manchester goes to. As I have pointed out in a previous blog: https://patricktsudlow.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/climate-east-midlands-the-regional-climate-change-partnership/ Nottingham was the first City to introduce a plan for climate change, 9 years before Leese and his ‘Manchester – A Certain Future’. You might of thought, as he comes from the area, he might of learnt how things should be done.
In an earlier