Shutting the Gates – Gated Communities in Chorlton

A recent report on gated communities (GCs defined them as: “Walled or fenced housing developments to which public access is restricted, often guarded using CCTV and/or security personnel, and usually characterised by legal agreements which tie the residents to a common code of conduct.” (“Gated Communities in England” - R. Atkinson et al, ODPM, 2004).

The GCs in Chorlton do not contain all these characteristics being fairly small developments of flats and houses, fenced off from the rest of the community and being accessed via a locked, communal entry gate.. To my knowledge there are four recent housing developments in Chorlton that could be considered to be GCs (or at least ‘GC-lite’). These are Park Place (at the back of the MacDonald’s on Barlow Moor Road), Chorlton Green (On the site of the old Sparkes garage), Beech Road (next to the Pet food shop) and a complex on Barlow Moor Road, opposite Southern Cemetery. (see photos)

According to a recent report by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) up to 12% of Americans live in gated communities though the proportion in the UK is thought to be much smaller (“Space invaders”, RICS, 1-05-06). GCs typify a trend to creating segregated areas of affluence which aim to keep themselves separate from nearby, more deprived communities. GC’s tend to be popular in areas like Chorlton where affluent and exluded live cheek by jowl. Compare, for example, the different communities of ‘old’, Victorian Chorlton with the significant areas of poverty on the Nell Lane and Merseybank Estates

Fear of Crime

The attraction of GCs to potential buyers (and hence developers) is security, This in turn means that a development can be marketed as distinctive, exclusive and with a good re-sale value

There is no clear evidence that GCs reducing crime, and ironically they might actually increase crime and in particular, the fear of crime.

Chorlton Green

GCs as a Regeneration Tool?

GCs are typically set up to encourage internal community cohesion However, by putting up fences and gates between themselves and the wider community they may encourage a disengagement from this more diverse grouping. There is a view which asserts that GCs can be used in social housing developments in order to encourage higher income households to stay in areas of social deprivation (see T. Manzi & B. Bowers, Sep 2003) . For me, I feel there must be better ways to tackle crime, or more accurately, the fear of crime, and the social costs of GCs are higher than any potential benefits

Beech Road

Privatisation of Public Space

GCs can be linked to other trends that are contributing towards the privatisation of public space. One example are the rash of alleygating schemes in Manchester. Another are the shopping precincts (including Chorlton’s) where traditional rights of way are replaced by private security. Overall the privatisation of public space runs counter to a belief in the importance of diversity of social contacts and the right of access to free public space as a key feature of daily life.

Developers seem to have little trouble in gaining planning consent for GCs. Indeed, in the planning debate about the Park Place development (see below) there was considerable discussion about its effect on the adjoining allotments, but none on it becoming a GC. It would be interesting to find out what Manchester City Council’s policy is on such developments.

Julian Kenyon, of Bellway Homes (based in Manchester) is quoted as saying that “Bellway had some “excellent examples” of gated communities in places such as Manchester, where run-down areas had been “regenerated”” (BBC News, 29-11-02).

Park Place (at the back of the Macdonalds on Barlow Moor Road)

Bellway are amongst the strongest advocates for GCs as tools of regeneration but the only local reference I can find is an article about Bellway’s Loreto Place development in Hulme between Bold St and Chorlton Road. This article in the Metro News (12-01-06) is entitled “No gates, no lights: Welcome to Hellway”. In this residents are complaining about the lack of promised gates and the resultant crime, so maybe Bellway have made their point by not having installed the gates (so far).

I feel uneasy about the way in which GCs appear to be quietly spreading and remain opposed to their proliferation in Chorlton on the grounds of defending public access, and a preference for maintaining a diversity of social contact

Barlow Moor Road (opposite Southern Cemetery)

I’ll leave the last comment to Chris Allen (Professor of Sociology at MMU who lives in Chorlton) who refers to to a recent study of Chorlton by Mike Savage which points to the gentrification of Chorlton by a new middle class that is rich in cultural capital and ‘liberal’ minded :

“This new middle class embrace diversity (in both class and ethnic terms) albeit this is partly rhetorical as few have proper social contacts with others outside their social group. Nevertheless they are ‘liberal’ minded and engaged with Chorlton. The introduction of gated developments captures another, less liberal, element of the middle class. They are less liberal, more withdrawn, more likely to put their kids into private schools and more likely to move out of the city when they can afford it. This is also true of some of the new middle class whom problematise local schools (Chorlton High) as not good enough, but the fact that Chorlton High has improved exemplifies the fact that this element of the middle class use it in significant numbers and have therefore contributed to its improvement. What I am saying, then, is that the more gated developments, the more Chorlton attracts this less liberal, less engaged element of the middle class. Kate and I rented in <a local gated community> whilst waiting to move into our current house. The residents there were unfriendly and withdrawn. Very protective over parking spaces and all that caper. ….We don’t want our cake and eat it like these posh folk that hide in their gated communities, but the more of these gated things that spring up, the more of these types of people will be attracted into Chorlton and that is not what Chorlton is about. They should go and live in Wilmslow and leave Chorlton to Chorltonites!!!! “

Bernard Leach

References:
1. “Gated Communities in England” Rowland Atkinson, John Flint, Sarah Blandy and Diane Lister, report for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004
2. “No gates, no lights: Welcome to Hellway”, Manchester Metro News, 12-01-06
3. http://www.metronews.co.uk/news/article/1/1524_no_gates_no_lights_welcome_to_hellway.html
4. “Gated Communities and Mixed Tenure Estates: Segregation or Social Cohesion?”, Tony Manzi & Bill Smith Bowers, paper presented at University of Glasgow conference, Sep 2003
5. “Globalization and Belonging” , Michael Savage, Gaynor Bagnall and Brian Longhurst, December 2004

Transport leaders outraged by bus operators’ £85 million bill

Transport leaders have expressed outrage at a decision that will force them to hand over an extra £3.4 million in taxpayers’ money to Greater Manchester’s private bus firms every year - on top of the £82 million they already pay out.

By the end of this financial year, Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority (GMPTA) will have paid the bus operators £55 million to support cheaper or free travel for older, disabled and young people. It will also have paid them a further £27 million to fund non-profit making bus services which are essential to local communities.

But the Department for Transport (DfT) has ruled that the bus companies are entitled to more money to cover the cost of the free travel scheme for disabled people and those aged 60 and over.

At Friday’s annual GMPTA budget meeting, councillors reluctantly agreed to increase the concessionary bus fare from 50p to 70p in order to balance the budget. The fare applies to children aged under 16 as well as to older and disabled people who choose to travel before 9.30am on weekdays.

GMPTA Chair Councillor Roger Jones said: “I am extremely disappointed by this decision, which effectively forces us to give more public money to extremely profitable bus companies. In return, we have no control over the level or quality of services they provide, or the increasingly high fares they charge.

“Many older and disabled people probably wouldn’t travel by bus if they had to pay the full fares the bus companies charge. It’s ridiculous that we have to hand over huge amounts of money for services which would still run even if older and disabled people didn’t use them.

“We’re determined to provide good value public transport in Greater Manchester and we will continue to fund free bus, train and tram travel for disabled people and those aged 60 and over. It’s obviously disappointing that we’ve had to put up the concessionary bus fare. However, it is still less than many of our neighbouring areas which charge half or full fare.”

More than half a million people older and disabled people in Greater Manchester are able to travel for free on bus, train and tram services in Greater Manchester after 9.30am during weekdays and all day at weekends and on bank holidays.

The concessionary bus fare increase agreed last week is the first in two years. It is expected to come into effect in the next few months. Fares on rail and Metrolink services will remain at half the adult fare, and Ring & Ride services will stay at 50p.

The annual budget meeting is used to set the level of funding GMPTA will request from the ten district councils in Greater Manchester during the next financial year. The 2007/8 budget has been set at £151.8 million - a 4% increase on last year.

GMPTA is lobbying the government for greater control over the bus network in Greater Manchester. It wants to have a greater influence over fares, decide where and when buses run, and to be able to set high standards for punctuality and reliability.