Greater Manchester Spatial Framework
2 2

34 posts in this topic

https://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/17338732.how-the-revised-gm-spatial-framework-could-affect-bolton/

Ignoring the reference to Bolton (this article is supposed to focus on Bury and was published in the Bury Times!!) - despite a downward revision, the area is still proposed to lose a significant amount of 'green space'.  The article also makes reference to jobs, however not much is mentioned apart from warehousing and distribution.  Closer to where I live, residents in Simister and Bowlee who already have to tolerate the constant noise of the M60 and traffic at Junction 18 are only served by one road.  From what I can see both villages will be swallowed up by suggested developments.  Elton in Bury is another very familiar area and about to lose valuable breathing space for both Radcliffe and Bury residents - if the plans come to fruition.

I'm not a NIMBY as I appreciate that we have a housing shortage.  However, a number of academics in fields including sociology and environmental health have already suggested that a London-style expansion of 'Greater Manchester' will have a disastrous impact on health, wildlife etc 

  • Like Copy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, myrabury said:

https://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/17338732.how-the-revised-gm-spatial-framework-could-affect-bolton/

Ignoring the reference to Bolton (this article is supposed to focus on Bury and was published in the Bury Times!!) - despite a downward revision, the area is still proposed to lose a significant amount of 'green space'.  The article also makes reference to jobs, however not much is mentioned apart from warehousing and distribution.  Closer to where I live, residents in Simister and Bowlee who already have to tolerate the constant noise of the M60 and traffic at Junction 18 are only served by one road.  From what I can see both villages will be swallowed up by suggested developments.  Elton in Bury is another very familiar area and about to lose valuable breathing space for both Radcliffe and Bury residents - if the plans come to fruition.

I'm not a NIMBY as I appreciate that we have a housing shortage.  However, a number of academics in fields including sociology and environmental health have already suggested that a London-style expansion of 'Greater Manchester' will have a disastrous impact on health, wildlife etc 

Don't know what more the council can do to reduce traffic, they've already done great things in Prestwich village 😂😂😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ronky said:

Don't know what more the council can do to reduce traffic, they've already done great things in Prestwich village 😂😂😂

A pointless exercise but we do have a few more nice trees!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Helmshore which was described as "a sleepy Lancashire Village" when Airtours had its HQ here. Over the years we've had more and more developments dumped on us which now make us indistinguishable from Haslingden over the hill, just a "commuter" place really. The reality is Councils don't give two hoots about "The Environment"  only about maximizing council tax revenues, I doubt any councilors involved in these planning applications would live in Helmshore so are not impacted directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what Bury Lib Dems make of it: 

'Today Greater Manchester’s Labour leaders are publishing the revised proposals for the ‘Greater Manchester Spatial Framework’ to provide 201,000 new homes in Greater Manchester over the next 20 years.

Councillor Tim Pickstone, Bury’s Liberal Democrat Group Leader said:

For Bury this plan is a disgrace. While other boroughs like Bolton have maintained all future housing growth in the town centre, Bury Council seems determined to bulldoze over whole swathes of countryside.

Across Greater Manchester only 4.1% of green belt land is lost, in Bury it is a shocking 12% and in Prestwich and Whitefield it is more like 40% lost. Village communities like Simister and Bowlee will be changed for ever, as will areas near Elton reservoir and Walshaw, with a ridiculous and unnecessary level of housebuilding in the green belt.

Nobody explains how an extra 9,500 houses worth of people will somehow fit on the Metrolink or down the A56. There are vague plans for a new motorway junction at Birch services, even through everyone knows that area of motorway is already full to capacity.

We do need new houses, almost certainly not 201,000, but we do need more houses that people can afford. But we also need countryside.

Bury Council’s Labour leadership has failed to listen to its own residents and gone back on the Mayor’s pledge for no net loss of green belt.'

Edited by southstander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, RNaj1 said:

I live in Helmshore which was described as "a sleepy Lancashire Village" when Airtours had its HQ here. Over the years we've had more and more developments dumped on us which now make us indistinguishable from Haslingden over the hill, just a "commuter" place really. The reality is Councils don't give two hoots about "The Environment"  only about maximizing council tax revenues, I doubt any councilors involved in these planning applications would live in Helmshore so are not impacted directly.

There's some truth to this but in reality, the majority of councils have no choice, for a number of reasons - including the following:

Government has imposed large scale developments on LAs irrespective of necessity, and certainly without local consultation and research.  LAs failing to comply will be faced with heavy financial penalties. 

CT revenues only form a fraction of overall LA spend.  The bulk of annual LA funding is derived from central government block grants, which have been rapidly reduced since 2010.  It is anticipated that from 2020, LAs will be able to use revenue collected from local business rates in order to make up for the shortfall when capital funding expires.  This policy has dire consequences for already struggling towns and local communities for obvious reasons.

Private developers are often unable and/or unwilling to build on brownfield sites due to clean up costs.  They're also question the viability of their business if they're obliged to build a quota of so called 'affordable houses'.  Perhaps they have a point.  Councils have finally been given the go ahead to borrow (albeit a fraction of what they need) in order to invest in local authority housing for rent - however there is nothing to stop people from repeating the cycle of selling off their publicly owned home in the future.

After years of working for a neighbouring LA, I've worked alongside colleagues in the public and third sectors who have been absolutely passionate about the local environment.  The problem usually lay with local politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, southstander said:

Here's what Bury Lib Dems make of it: 

'Today Greater Manchester’s Labour leaders are publishing the revised proposals for the ‘Greater Manchester Spatial Framework’ to provide 201,000 new homes in Greater Manchester over the next 20 years.

Councillor Tim Pickstone, Bury’s Liberal Democrat Group Leader said:

For Bury this plan is a disgrace. While other boroughs like Bolton have maintained all future housing growth in the town centre, Bury Council seems determined to bulldoze over whole swathes of countryside.

Across Greater Manchester only 4.1% of green belt land is lost, in Bury it is a shocking 12% and in Prestwich and Whitefield it is more like 40% lost. Village communities like Simister and Bowlee will be changed for ever, as will areas near Elton reservoir and Walshaw, with a ridiculous and unnecessary level of housebuilding in the green belt.

Nobody explains how an extra 9,500 houses worth of people will somehow fit on the Metrolink or down the A56. There are vague plans for a new motorway junction at Birch services, even through everyone knows that area of motorway is already full to capacity.

We do need new houses, almost certainly not 201,000, but we do need more houses that people can afford. But we also need countryside.

Bury Council’s Labour leadership has failed to listen to its own residents and gone back on the Mayor’s pledge for no net loss of green belt.'

Difficult to disagree with any of that.

The existing road network / transport infrastructure is already ill-equipped to service the current local population.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, southstander said:

Here's what Bury Lib Dems make of it: 

'Today Greater Manchester’s Labour leaders are publishing the revised proposals for the ‘Greater Manchester Spatial Framework’ to provide 201,000 new homes in Greater Manchester over the next 20 years.

Councillor Tim Pickstone, Bury’s Liberal Democrat Group Leader said:

For Bury this plan is a disgrace. While other boroughs like Bolton have maintained all future housing growth in the town centre, Bury Council seems determined to bulldoze over whole swathes of countryside.

Across Greater Manchester only 4.1% of green belt land is lost, in Bury it is a shocking 12% and in Prestwich and Whitefield it is more like 40% lost. Village communities like Simister and Bowlee will be changed for ever, as will areas near Elton reservoir and Walshaw, with a ridiculous and unnecessary level of housebuilding in the green belt.

Nobody explains how an extra 9,500 houses worth of people will somehow fit on the Metrolink or down the A56. There are vague plans for a new motorway junction at Birch services, even through everyone knows that area of motorway is already full to capacity.

We do need new houses, almost certainly not 201,000, but we do need more houses that people can afford. But we also need countryside.

Bury Council’s Labour leadership has failed to listen to its own residents and gone back on the Mayor’s pledge for no net loss of green belt.'

I agree with much of this, however whilst Bolton and Stockport have the capacity to build residential areas within their town centres; Bury does not.  There are apparently plans to build an additional metrolink station at the Warth, but that's it for Bury and Radcliffe.  There are no plans to link Bury to Bolton via. the metrolink which is ludicrous given the volume of traffic commuters have to battle through on all the major roads.

I also noticed that thankfully, some areas have been retained as untouchable green space.  I also noticed those areas tend to be neighbouring well heeled areas!

The infamous Peel Holdings owns a great deal of land earmarked for development, including around Elton.  I doubt any council no matter the political affiliation would be able to afford to take them to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the answer though.

 

If the population is increasing do you:

 

Create denser housing in already highly populated areas making it less desirable to live in.

 

Expand existing local towns/villages

 

Create new Towns and villages on the Green belt in between.

 

For the MP to suggest "Boltons managed to put them all in the Town centre" is a bit rich

 

The Hulton Park development will probably go through on Appeal to a higher being.

and

 

Bolton loses Green belt to Industrial use instead.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, stonekeeper said:

What is the answer though.

 

If the population is increasing do you:

 

Create denser housing in already highly populated areas making it less desirable to live in.

 

Expand existing local towns/villages

 

Create new Towns and villages on the Green belt in between.

 

For the MP to suggest "Boltons managed to put them all in the Town centre" is a bit rich

 

The Hulton Park development will probably go through on Appeal to a higher being.

and

 

Bolton loses Green belt to Industrial use instead.

 

Many years ago I researched, designed and produced a series of  maps of Bolton town centre from the 1850s until the 1980s, showing the change in land use over time.  There's nothing new about the cycle of land use change in terms of residential replacing industry etc as Bolton's changes will have mirrored other industrial towns and cities over the same time span.  However, we have also had to deal with an additional 10 million people over the last 20 years - they need somewhere to live.  Solutions can be found within some of your answers.  However, local politics, money and influence; the poor quality and design of many existing new builds; shifting demographics and changes to the nature of employment also need to be factored in.

My guess is that the new and supposedly improved plan will be fought every step of the way!

  • Like Copy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, myrabury said:

Many years ago I researched, designed and produced a series of  maps of Bolton town centre from the 1850s until the 1980s, showing the change in land use over time.  There's nothing new about the cycle of land use change in terms of residential replacing industry etc as Bolton's changes will have mirrored other industrial towns and cities over the same time span.  However, we have also had to deal with an additional 10 million people over the last 20 years - they need somewhere to live.  Solutions can be found within some of your answers.  However, local politics, money and influence; the poor quality and design of many existing new builds; shifting demographics and changes to the nature of employment also need to be factored in.

My guess is that the new and supposedly improved plan will be fought every step of the way!

It will also be routinely over ruled by central Government because we are "Them up North"

  • Like Copy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, stonekeeper said:

It will also be routinely over ruled by central Government because we are "Them up North"

Not necessarily.

The plan is driven by "poster boy" Andy Burnham, who is ably assisted by his pals in the local media.  However, there is likely to be significant opposition from a range of political and "single issue" groups - including the Conservatives.

If implimented, the plan will utterly change the shape and character of many areas.  It doesn't address the cause of the problem, namely the rapid increase in population.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RADCLIFFE LOYAL said:

Not necessarily.

The plan is driven by "poster boy" Andy Burnham, who is ably assisted by his pals in the local media.  However, there is likely to be significant opposition from a range of political and "single issue" groups - including the Conservatives.

If implimented, the plan will utterly change the shape and character of many areas.  It doesn't address the cause of the problem, namely the rapid increase in population.

The bit that will be over ruled is the idea that allocating an amount of green belt will stop developers applying to build on other green belt areas, they will routinely take the matter to Central goverment and win the same as now.

The Hulton estate is going to have a Ryder Cup golf course apparantley :~) :~) :~)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RADCLIFFE LOYAL said:

Not necessarily.

The plan is driven by "poster boy" Andy Burnham, who is ably assisted by his pals in the local media.  However, there is likely to be significant opposition from a range of political and "single issue" groups - including the Conservatives.

If implimented, the plan will utterly change the shape and character of many areas.  It doesn't address the cause of the problem, namely the rapid increase in population.

The plan isn't being driven by Burnham (I know this as a fact)!  I appreciate that you don't like the guy Malc however I'd challenge you to find a way to escape penalties enforced by government if it doesn't get its way.  If you look carefully at the suggested plans you'll also find that a number of Conservative-led areas have had their constituency green spaces taken out of the equation.  On the other hand, the MEN has done its level best to big this up in terms of damage limitation - but damaging it certainly will be and especially to a number of Bury residents in particular.  Bury appears to have taken by far the biggest hit in % terms of lost green space, and residents are rightly furious.

Having a Conservative-led council will not have made one jot of difference.  As I've stated already, councils can't afford to take the big developers to court.  I can only hope that enough Conservative councillors and MPs country-wide will exert enough pressure on their own government to rethink major policy. 

The population has been rapidly increasing for at least 20 years - enough time for governments of all colours to plan accordingly in terms of public infrastructure.  They have failed.  I wonder what happened to the data gathered in 2011, the last Census?  Hopefully I wasn't lying to people I had to chase down for information required in order to 'plan for local services' 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Landowners are making all the money in housebuilding. Housebuilders look at the cost of land, add build cost, overheads and profits and then they have their figures which rules out affordable housing.

By focusing on the profitering of the builders is completely missing the single greatest area of cost.

That said councils & housing associations are wary of building as in just a few years tenants can claim the right to buy and get their house that they have been paying a discounted rent on for a massive discount.

There are also a number of developments, often in the city centre who are unable to make their s105 payments, this is a bit like the apparently optional corporation tax payments that certain companies make.

Focus on land costs, abolish RTB and insist on full s105 payments and we might start getting somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ronky said:

Landowners are making all the money in housebuilding. Housebuilders look at the cost of land, add build cost, overheads and profits and then they have their figures which rules out affordable housing.

By focusing on the profitering of the builders is completely missing the single greatest area of cost.

That said councils & housing associations are wary of building as in just a few years tenants can claim the right to buy and get their house that they have been paying a discounted rent on for a massive discount.

There are also a number of developments, often in the city centre who are unable to make their s105 payments, this is a bit like the apparently optional corporation tax payments that certain companies make.

Focus on land costs, abolish RTB and insist on full s105 payments and we might start getting somewhere.

Nail on the head.

We also need to acquire where/if possible, and refurbish 1,000s of existing empty properties whilst encouraging business to relocate or set up in those areas, as well as improving new build standards by law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, myrabury said:

The plan isn't being driven by Burnham (I know this as a fact)!  I appreciate that you don't like the guy Malc however I'd challenge you to find a way to escape penalties enforced by government if it doesn't get its way.  If you look carefully at the suggested plans you'll also find that a number of Conservative-led areas have had their constituency green spaces taken out of the equation.  On the other hand, the MEN has done its level best to big this up in terms of damage limitation - but damaging it certainly will be and especially to a number of Bury residents in particular.  Bury appears to have taken by far the biggest hit in % terms of lost green space, and residents are rightly furious.

Having a Conservative-led council will not have made one jot of difference.  As I've stated already, councils can't afford to take the big developers to court.  I can only hope that enough Conservative councillors and MPs country-wide will exert enough pressure on their own government to rethink major policy. 

The population has been rapidly increasing for at least 20 years - enough time for governments of all colours to plan accordingly in terms of public infrastructure.  They have failed.  I wonder what happened to the data gathered in 2011, the last Census?  Hopefully I wasn't lying to people I had to chase down for information required in order to 'plan for local services' 😉

Burnham took on responsibility for the Spatial Framework plan for Greater Manchester when he became mayor in 2015.  The revised plan was published after he instigated a review of the draft plan.  He is trying to argue that he has reduced the amount of greenbelt land required for builiding but he has displaced the net loss to areas outside the city.

The plans for Bury, Heywood and Bamford are catastrophic.  I suspect he sought to minimise the damage to his reputation by ensuring outer areas took the biggest hit.

Governments refuse to concede why our population has grown out of proportion to available resources. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RADCLIFFE LOYAL said:

Burnham took on responsibility for the Spatial Framework plan for Greater Manchester when he became mayor in 2015.  The revised plan was published after he instigated a review of the draft plan.  He is trying to argue that he has reduced the amount of greenbelt land required for builiding but he has displaced the net loss to areas outside the city.

The plans for Bury, Heywood and Bamford are catastrophic.  I suspect he sought to minimise the damage to his reputation by ensuring outer areas took the biggest hit.

Governments refuse to concede why our population has grown out of proportion to available resources. 

There is already a tremendous amount of development being undertaken within Manchester and Salford irrespective of the proposed plan.  I have no time whatsoever for Manchester CC for a number of reasons, however capacity just isn't there any longer. Many low (and not so low) waged locals are already locked out of living within these areas, sold off plan and owned by offshore investors. 

The plans for your neck of the woods look awful and without major new road infrastructure, not to mention new schools, GP surgeries etc - unsustainable.  You have my sympathy.

Whilst I agree that governments refuse to concede why our population has grown out of proportion to available resources, they could and should have instigated long term plans to deal with this many years ago.  My reference to the last Census wasn't flippant - this is what the Census is for! 

Edited by myrabury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, myrabury said:

There is already a tremendous amount of development being undertaken within Manchester and Salford irrespective of the proposed plan.  I have no time whatsoever for Manchester CC for a number of reasons, however capacity just isn't there any longer. Many low (and not so low) waged locals are already locked out of living within these areas, sold off plan and owned by offshore investors. 

The plans for your neck of the woods look awful and without major new road infrastructure, not to mention new schools, GP surgeries etc - unsustainable.  You have my sympathy.

Whilst I agree that governments refuse to concede why our population has grown out of proportion to available resources, they could and should have instigated long term plans to deal with this many years ago.  My reference to the last Census wasn't flippant - this is what the Census is for! 

My major concern is for Elton.  A housing estate was built in the Bury and Bolton Road area last year.  It takes up about 30% of the land between Ainscow's Farm and the road.  Further development will encroach on the remaining area of farmland and the land between Bury Road and Elton reservoir.  This land - and the reservoir - support breeding birds and birds in passage.  

Burnham, his journo cronies and the government would rather build on this land than do anything about the growth in population.  It is easier to spend cash than it is to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RADCLIFFE LOYAL said:

My major concern is for Elton.  A housing estate was built in the Bury and Bolton Road area last year.  It takes up about 30% of the land between Ainscow's Farm and the road.  Further development will encroach on the remaining area of farmland and the land between Bury Road and Elton reservoir.  This land - and the reservoir - support breeding birds and birds in passage.  

Burnham, his journo cronies and the government would rather build on this land than do anything about the growth in population.  It is easier to spend cash than it is to be honest.

Concerns about potential loss of wildlife and nesting grounds are already being tackled by various interested groups and organizations.  They won't go down without a fight.  You and I know the area well, having grown up here.  To state that I'm sad and angry would be an understatement.

There are woolly references to somehow forcing Peel and others to invest a percentage of profits in canal restoration, given that Elton Reservoir was constructed to feed the canal.  I'll believe it when I see it say the locals, and who can blame them.

Perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation if several generations of politicians had indeed spent cash, but on long term public infrastructure projects with a view to seizing opportunities to protect wildlife and to enforce green corridors. 

Many of these developments are not under the control of local authorities who can do little if anything to mitigate any resulting issues with increased traffic and pressure on local services.  Some have already tried only to be overruled by government or by having to pay millions in court costs.  I mentioned Peel (Holdings) - a massive enterprise owning thousands of acres throughout the UK but more specifically in the NW.

If this plan does go ahead our area will also be transformed for the worse. Time to move to another small fixer-upper perhaps, with a garden this time and north of the Greater Manchester area, when I retire - which should just about coincide with the start of these developments if/when they go ahead.☹️

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, myrabury said:

Concerns about potential loss of wildlife and nesting grounds are already being tackled by various interested groups and organizations.  They won't go down without a fight.  You and I know the area well, having grown up here.  To state that I'm sad and angry would be an understatement.

There are woolly references to somehow forcing Peel and others to invest a percentage of profits in canal restoration, given that Elton Reservoir was constructed to feed the canal.  I'll believe it when I see it say the locals, and who can blame them.

Perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation if several generations of politicians had indeed spent cash, but on long term public infrastructure projects with a view to seizing opportunities to protect wildlife and to enforce green corridors. 

Many of these developments are not under the control of local authorities who can do little if anything to mitigate any resulting issues with increased traffic and pressure on local services.  Some have already tried only to be overruled by government or by having to pay millions in court costs.  I mentioned Peel (Holdings) - a massive enterprise owning thousands of acres throughout the UK but more specifically in the NW.

If this plan does go ahead our area will also be transformed for the worse. Time to move to another small fixer-upper perhaps, with a garden this time and north of the Greater Manchester area, when I retire - which should just about coincide with the start of these developments if/when they go ahead.☹️

 

sounds like you might be coming up to Rossendale Myra to be part of the Valley shakers clan:thumbup1:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tubwash said:

sounds like you might be coming up to Rossendale Myra to be part of the Valley shakers clan:thumbup1:

Rossendale has been our consideration for quite a few years 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RADCLIFFE LOYAL said:

 

The plans for Bury, Heywood and Bamford are catastrophic. 

Not up to speed on this one, but what are these catastrophic plans?

I have walked on a fair few of the green spaces in these areas, and the only people I generally meet are dog walkers using these areas as dog toilets, and to let the said animals run wild.

I have also seen evidence of fly tipping and maybe teenage cider drinking, and now and again some interesting wild life.

I know dog ownership in Rochdale and Bury appears to be very high, but I am guessing that the vast majority of Bury and Rochdale population near use these green spaces are do not even know they exist.

But what are we talking about here (i may be writing about a different set of green spaces) , farmland that appears to be rarely used or the dog toilet/exercise areas that I refer to above?

People need houses and wild life tends to find ways of surviving and sometimes increasing in numbers in urban areas - we all seem to have bird feeders in our gardens these days.

Or is it just the extra cars that is the problem?

Or is it just that landowners/famers will make too much money from these plans?

The estimate of the number of birds on the planet is about 100 to 400 billion. Compared to 7 billion people, this amounts to about 14 to 57 birds per person, is the worry that this ratio is going to go too small, with some extra houses?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DR_PAUL said:

Not up to speed on this one, but what are these catastrophic plans?

I have walked on a fair few of the green spaces in these areas, and the only people I generally meet are dog walkers using these areas as dog toilets, and to let the said animals run wild.

I have also seen evidence of fly tipping and maybe teenage cider drinking, and now and again some interesting wild life.

I know dog ownership in Rochdale and Bury appears to be very high, but I am guessing that the vast majority of Bury and Rochdale population near use these green spaces are do not even know they exist.

But what are we talking about here (i may be writing about a different set of green spaces) , farmland that appears to be rarely used or the dog toilet/exercise areas that I refer to above?

People need houses and wild life tends to find ways of surviving and sometimes increasing in numbers in urban areas - we all seem to have bird feeders in our gardens these days.

Or is it just the extra cars that is the problem?

Or is it just that landowners/famers will make too much money from these plans?

The estimate of the number of birds on the planet is about 100 to 400 billion. Compared to 7 billion people, this amounts to about 14 to 57 birds per person, is the worry that this ratio is going to go too small, with some extra houses?

 

There will be considerable despoilment of green belt land.  The birds I referred to above don't use feeders.

There is sufficient brown belt land in Greater Manchester to accomodate the proposed housing development.

The transport infrastructure will not be able to cope with the increased volume of traffic.

  • Like 1
  • Like Copy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2