rusholme district centre dossier...rusholme district centre dossier page 1 of 62 08/06/15 rusholme...

Rusholme District Centre Dossier of 62 08/06/15

RUSHOLME DISTRICT CENTRE DOSSIER

Photographs 1 - 56 on pages 7-62 in this dossier were taken between 12.10pm and 12.50pm on Thursday 4th June 2015. This was immediately after Rusholme’s third Community Conversation about health and wellbeing, led by Rich Browning of Healthy Me Healthy Communities. We were reminded at this third Conversation that “Clean Up Wilmslow Road” has been repeatedly ranked top of the list of influences on health and wellbeing in Rusholme by participants in Conversations one and two. These participants were from a range of community and statutory groups likely to have detailed knowledge of health and wellbeing issues and causes in Rusholme. It was also one day after the first new-format Rusholme Ward Forum that took place on Wednesday 3rd June at which the requirement to clean up the district centre was raised as an issue. The photographs were taken to illustrate the state of the back alleyways in the Rusholme District Centre (RDC) in order to: 1. Provide an evidence base for current discussions about the state of the back alleyways in the RDC 2. Provide a benchmark of the state of the back alleyways in the RDC as at 4/6/15. The events listed below precede, and have prompted, the compilation of this dossier:

3/2/15 In response to yet another huge fly-tip in Eva Street, email from Sue Devlin to Maria Boylan, copy to Rusholme Councillors, Anne Tucker, Jay Din and Sir Gerald Kaufman, pointing out that the Land Registry entry for a block of commercial premises backing onto Eva Street, a regular ‘grot spot’ in the RDC, seemed to indicate that half the width of the back alley was included in the curtilage for the block of commercial premises, and therefore asking for Manchester City Council MCC to take action against the owners of the block.

4/2/15 Scanned letter from Sir Gerald Kaufman expressing concern and promising immediate follow up, emailed to Sue Devlin. Said scanned letter forwarded to Maria Boylan, Rusholme Councillors, Anne Tucker, Jay Din.

5/2/15 Email from Maria Boylan to Sue Devlin, copy to Rusholme Councillors, Anne Tucker and Jay Din, stating that the full width of the back alleyway belonged to MCC.

24/2/15 Scanned letter from Sir Howard Bernstein to Sir Gerald Kaufman containing: 1. Confirmation that the back alleyway in question belongs to MCC 2. Some background on a failed attempt to work with the block owner to resolve the fly-tip problem 3. Some background on liability for commercial waste disposal and recent enforcement action 4. The difficulties of enforcing against fly-tippers 5. That officers are in the area “almost on a daily basis” 6. That MCC frequently arranges a clear up and deep clean (of) the alleyway 7. That MCC had commissioned an Urdu –speaking consultant to talk about responsibility for

commercial waste disposal and the possible penalties for non-compliance


31/3/15 Email from Sue Devlin to David Brown/Madeleine Rose, copy to Rusholme Councillors and Sir Gerald Kaufman, in reply to scanned letter dated 24/2/15 and acknowledging the points contained therein and adding the following: …now we have established that the land in question belongs to the Council, please could you clarify the Council’s statutory duty to keep this section of back alleyway clean? The frontage along the Wilmslow Road/’curry mile’ is cleaned up daily. Surely this back alleyway and all other Council-owned back alleyways in the Rusholme District Centre should also be cleaned up on a daily basis. These back alleyways are Council property, and they are public rights of way, used by visitors and traders in the district centre to move about, and by residents in the district centre to reach their residences. As such, surely they should be cleaned on a daily basis and not just left to end up looking like this: Back alleyway by Eva Street.

Back alleyway between Park Crescent and Rusholme Grove.

I consider that by cleaning the back alleyways on a daily basis: 1. The Council will eliminate the operation of the ‘broken window’ theory in Rusholme’s back

alleyways. James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling first introduced this theory in an article titled Broken Windows, in the March 1982 The Atlantic Monthly.[1] The title comes from the following example:

o Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.

o Or consider a pavement. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of refuse from take-out restaurants there or even break into cars.

I firmly believe that if the back alleyways are kept clean of litter, there will be less fly-tipping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Q._Wilson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_L._Kelling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic_Monthly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWilsonKelling1982-1


2. The Council will immediately lift the health and wellbeing of Rusholme’s residents, traders and visitors. No-one feels good when they regularly see rats scurrying across the alleyway during the day, or have to pick their way past bags of rotting waste, or have to avoid puddles of fetid liquid, or have to tolerate some of the smells in some of these alleyways, or have to see clouds of flies buzzing round discarded food, or have to tolerate rat, mice or cockroach infestation in their homes, gardens or places of work.

3. The Council will start to rehabilitate the reputation of this area so that, for example, those who live nearby yet who never spend their money in the district centre because they are aware of the dirt and infestations, will start to spend locally again.

These benefits far outweigh the risk that some traders will continue to fail to put in place a waste management contract, or, indeed, cancel one they already have in place. If the back alleyways are cleaned on a daily basis, patterns of littering and/or fly-tipping will become clearer, and I’m sure Rusholme residents and community groups would willingly contribute to the Council’s initiative by checking the nature of litter and the contents of fly-tipping to try and identify the culprits, and by keeping an eye out for fly-tipping in progress in order to capture descriptions of culprits and vehicle registration numbers. I would request and urge you not to refer this email down the ‘chain of command’ to the local Neighbourhood Delivery Team. This is a strategic matter that needs to be discussed, and a solution decided, at the highest strategic forum, giving full consideration to the Council’s statutory duties in relation to maintaining cleanliness in a busy district centre inside its local authority area.

1/4/15 Email from David Brown to Sue Devlin stating that the enquiry had been passed on to the Neighbourhood Delivery Team to investigate and respond directly within 10 days.

1/4/15 Email from Sue Devlin to David Brown, Maria Boylan and Chaz Farghaly, copy to Rusholme Councillors and Sir Gerald Kaufman, requesting a response from the Chief Executive and his strategic team.

2/4/15 Email from David Brown to Sue Devlin confirming that a complaint would be submitted to the Chief Executive’s office under reference CCT/9V7AS8/S3 for a full review at the final stage of MCC’s complaints procedure.

5/5/15 Letter via Egress Switch from Lucy Knight, Corporate Complaints Manager to Sue Devlin attaching the outcome of the complaint investigation by David Brown and confirming agreement with the findings and conclusion that there is no evidence that correct Council procedures have not been followed. The complaint investigation by David Brown is reproduced on pages 4 and 5 and contains the following: 1. There are no specific standards for the public highway 2. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) “the Council has a duty to ensure that the

land is, as far as is practicable, kept clear of litter and refuse”, and “to ensure that the highway or road is, so far as is practicable, kept clean”

3. That the Council does have a policy for cleansing the alleyway, and can demonstrate that it can and does take actions against those businesses that do not comply with the terms of their commercial waste licences

4. There is no requirement for the Council to clean alleyways on a daily basis, and the EPA does not specify any timescales as to how often the Council have to clean, merely that it must do so

5. The conclusion is that the Council is complying with their statutory duties in terms of cleaning the highway, which includes the alleyway backing onto Eva Street

6. The Council does not have the resources to put any additional cleaning regimes in the area 7. Rusholme, as a district centre has more resources than many other areas in the City 8. There is no current option to increase the frequency of cleaning in the alleyways 9. Later this year there will be a new Street Cleansing and Waste Disposal contract and there will be

a Strategic Board to direct and inform service priorities 10. Conclusion: the Council is fulfilling its statutory obligations.


5/5/15 Email from Sue Devlin to Cllr Ali, copy to Cllrs Chappell and Akbar and David Brown requesting what is the policy and what is the regime in place for cleansing the alleyways

11/5/15 Email from Sue Devlin to Cllr Ali, copy to Cllrs Chappell and Akbar and David Brown chasing for a response to the email dated 5/5/15

28/5/15 Email from Sue Devlin to Chaz Farghaly, copy to Rusholme Councillors and Muhammad Ayub requesting a copy of the “policy and regime” that the Council has in place for cleansing the back alleyways in the Rusholme District Centre, asap, and definitely before the Rusholme Ward Forum scheduled for next Wednesday 3rd June.

3/6/15 Email from Cllr Ali forwarding undated email from Chaz Farghaly with two attachments: 1. MCC Domestic Waste & Recycling Service Standard v1.0 2. Alley cleansing visits central ward map.


Conclusions Based on the above, and having read the two documents provided by Chaz Farghaly, via Cllr Ali, I draw the following conclusions: 1. The documents provided by Chaz Farghaly seem at odds with David Brown’s statement in the first full paragraph

on page two of his letter. David Brown says that “The Council does have a policy and regime in place for cleansing the alleyway”, an alleyway which it is clear is in Rusholme’s district centre. When requested for this policy and regime, Chaz Farghaly has provided a copy of MCC Domestic Waste & Recycling Service Standard which makes not one mention of an alleyway or alleyways in a commercial district centre.

2. Chaz Farghaly has provided information about “Passage Service Frequency” for each ward in the Central Strategic Regeneration area. This has the following to say about back alleyways in the Rusholme district centre. From the state of the alleyways, as evidenced in the photographs in this dossier, it would appear that MCC is not meeting this “passage service frequency”.

Passage Service Frequency – Twice A Week 1. Back alleyway between Rusholme Place and

Banff Road 2. Back alleyway off Banff Road leading to

Oxney Road 3. Back alleyway between Wilmslow Road and

Deyne Avenue 4. Back alleyway between Hibbert Street and

Wilmslow Road 5. Back alleyway between Claremont Road and

Grandale Street by Eva Street Passage Service Frequency – Weekly 6. Aspinall Street Passage Service Frequency – Fortnightly 7. Back alleyway behind Wilmslow Road leading

to Park Crescent 8. Back alleyway between Park Crescent and

Rusholme Grove All other back alleyways assumed to be as per the minimum standard stated in Chaz Farghaly’s email forwarded to Sue Devlin by Cllr Ali, copy to Cllrs Chappell and Akbar dated 3/6/15, ie, “a litter pick of alleyway on a thirteen week cycle. Minimum of 4 visits per year.”

Request Rusholme’s Councillors, with the backing of Rusholme’s MP, are requested to make an immediate review of the “policy” and “regime” for cleaning the back alleyways in the Rusholme District Centre to assess:

1. Whether they are fit for purpose. 2. Whether they are, in fact, being implemented fully and effectively, ie, twice weekly, weekly and fortnightly

as per the “passage service frequencies” information provided.


1. WHITECLIFFE CLOSE – overflow from Manchester Superstore bins


2. CLAREMONT ROAD – Land Registry shows that this land behind 120 Wilmslow Road belongs to: Continental Shelf 128 Limited (Co. Regn. No. 3379669) of Juice Corporations, 2-16 Bury New Road, Manchester M8 8FR.


3. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN CLAREMONT ROAD AND EVA STREET- land belonging to Manchester City Council


4. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN CLAREMONT ROAD AND EVA STREET- land belonging to Manchester City Council – close up of stagnant water 1


5. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN CLAREMONT ROAD AND EVA STREET- Land Registry shows that this land behind 120 Wilmslow Road belongs to: Continental Shelf 128 Limited (Co. Regn. No. 3379669) of Juice Corporations, 2-16 Bury New Road, Manchester M8 8FR.


6. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN CLAREMONT ROAD AND EVA STREET- land belonging to Manchester City Council – close up of pile of rubbish


7. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN CLAREMONT ROAD AND EVA STREET- land belonging to Manchester City Council – close up of pile of rubbish


8. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN CLAREMONT ROAD AND EVA STREET LEADING TO RAVENSDALE STREET - land belonging to Manchester City Council – close up of pile of rubbish


9. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN EVA STREET AND GRANDALE STREET - land belonging to Manchester City Council – close up of stagnant water 2


10. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN EVA STREET AND GRANDALE STREET - land belonging to Manchester City Council – close up of litter including food


11. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN HIBBERT STREET AND ASPINALL STREET - land belonging to Manchester City Council – property renovation fly-tip


12. ASPINALL STREET – pavement belonging to Manchester City Council - fly-tip


13. ASPINALL STREET – pavement belonging to Manchester City Council - fly-tips, albeit minor


14. ASPINALL STREET – pavement belonging to Manchester City Council - fly-tip


15. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN RUSHOLME PLACE AND BANFF ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council - fly-tip and stagnant water


16. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN RUSHOLME PLACE AND BANFF ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council - litter


17. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN RUSHOLME PLACE AND BANFF ROAD LEADING TO OXNEY ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council – renovation fly-tip and litter


18. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN RUSHOLME PLACE AND BANFF ROAD LEADING TO OXNEY ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council – litter


19. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN RUSHOLME PLACE AND BANFF ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council - litter


20. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN RUSHOLME PLACE AND BANFF ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip


21. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN BANFF ROAD AND DEYNE AVENUE – land belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip


22. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN BANFF ROAD AND OXNEY ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council – renovation and waste fly-tip


23. CORNER OF BANFF ROAD AND WILMSLOW ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council – renovation fly-tip


24. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN DEYNE AVENUE AND WILMSLOW ROAD LEADING TO DAGENHAM ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council – litter and fly-tip


25. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN DEYNE AVENUE AND WILMSLOW ROAD LEADING TO DAGENHAM ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council – litter and blocked central gulley


26. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN DEYNE AVENUE AND WILMSLOW ROAD LEADING TO DAGENHAM ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip and litter


27. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN DEYNE AVENUE AND WILMSLOW ROAD LEADING TO DAGENHAM ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council – litter


28. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN DEYNE AVENUE AND WILMSLOW ROAD LEADING TO DAGENHAM ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip


29. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN DEYNE AVENUE AND WILMSLOW ROAD LEADING TO DAGENHAM ROAD – land belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip


30. BACK ALLEYWAY BEHIND 79 WILMSLOW ROAD (PADDY POWER) – land belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip


31. WALMER STREET EAST – pavement belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip


32. WALMER STREET EAST – pavement belonging to Manchester City Council – continuation of fly-tip


33. WALMER STREET EAST – frontage belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip


34. WALMER STREET EAST – roadway belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip


35. BASIL STREET – pavement belonging to Manchester City Council – litter


36. BASIL STREET – pavement belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip


37. THURLOE STREET – pavement belonging to Manchester City Council – overflowing food waste


38. BACK ALLEYWAY BEHIND WILMSLOW ROAD LEADING TO PARK CRESCENT – land belonging to Manchester City Council – litter 1


40. REAR OF 171 WILMSLOW ROAD (DAR & CO SOLICITORS) – private land belonging to Dar & Co – fly-tips


42. BACK ALLEYWAY BEHIND WILMSLOW ROAD LEADING TO PARK CRESCENT – land belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip


43. STAIRWAY LEADING TO A PROPERTY BEHIND WILMSLOW ROAD, ACCESSED VIA THE BACK ALLEYWAY LEADING TO PARK CRESCENT – private land – build-up of litter


44. BACK YARD TO A PROPERTY BEHIND WILMSLOW ROAD, ACCESSED VIA THE BACK ALLEYWAY LEADING TO PARK CRESCENT – private land – standing water – blocked drains?


47. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN PARK CRESCENT AND RUSHOLME GROVE – land belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip


51. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN PARK CRESCENT AND RUSHOLME GROVE – land belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip and standing water in central gulley


52. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN PARK CRESCENT AND RUSHOLME GROVE – land belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip and litter


53. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN PARK CRESCENT AND RUSHOLME GROVE – land belonging to Manchester City Council – fly-tip and renovation waste


54. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN PARK CRESCENT AND RUSHOLME GROVE – land belonging to Manchester City Council – litter probably dropped by Antwerp Mansion’s customers


55. ALLEYWAY LEADING TO RUSHOLME GROVE – private land belonging to 231/233 Wilmslow Road – dumped renovation waste


56. BACK ALLEYWAY BETWEEN RUSHOLME GROVE AND REAR OF 239 WILMSLOW ROAD (Rusholme Pharmacy) – land belonging to Manchester City Council – litter, missing paving slab (trip and fall risk) and rats seen disappearing down the hole plus smell of rats nest

rusholme district centre dossier...rusholme district centre dossier page 1 of 62 08/06/15 rusholme...

Documents