To save the Moorpool Estate there needs to be a collection point for opinions. This blog intends to freely collect the thoughts and opinions of those involved in the future of the Moorpool Estate. Please read the first posting 'What's best for the Moorpool Estate?' at the bottom of this page. (There's a link on the right) savethemoorpool@googlemail.com
Below is a link to the circular distributed around the estate.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4dkv6t_3p5h7ms
Please add comments by clicking the the word 'comments' below
• First, please read the first posting 'What's best for the Moorpool Estate' at the bottom of this page. (click text to see it) You can read through all the comments already made and add yours.
• Please add your comments to a 'posting' or article by clicking on the word 'comment' at the end of each section.
• You can then add your thoughts in the text area on the next page. There's no need to register for anything. Once you have entered your text, click on either the 'Anonymous' or 'Other' buttons. 'Other' then requires a name and website (using this address is OK) and that's it.
• You can click on the title of each posting to see all the comments on that topic. Then click the blog title at the top of the page to return to all the postings.
• If you can't make it work, email your comments to the address below and it will be added to the blog.
Please do make a comment.
26 comments:
I really could not have summed it up better. Please add 60 Margaret Grove if that is possible at this stage. The only comment I would add is that Graingers have not only failed to publicise the garages as an amenity but positively obstructed new renting, and, for the persistent, boasted that no repairs would be carried out and they were offered 'as is' - no doubt as a further disincentive. This has been their policy for some years, and I understand that recently they have also adopted this approach with the allotments, although I have no first hand experience of this.
Andrew Hackett
The proposed plans and buildings display ignorance of the 'Arts and Crafts' principles on which the Garden Suburbs, including Moorpool, were built - eg green spaces, curved roads, individualised houses with deep roofs for shelter and homeliness and of course excellent materials and craftsmanship.
From the little we can see of the proposed house design, it looks bland and inappropriate - and what's with those vertical and corner windows and modern garages?
VISTA - along a concrete road? FOCAL POINT - an unexceptional modern terrace?
The estate and its allotments need nurturing, not undermining with mediocrity.
Tricia
AH you're right about the allotments - we were refused an allotment, being told that it would cost them more in paperwork than they'd get from us in rent.
As new residents to the estate we are shocked that the heritage protection status, which appealed to us a buyers, is being ignored and ridiculed by Graingers' proposals. We have been particularly frustrtaed by Graingers referance to the'existing abandoned allotments' as a key reson for development of the site in question, as we have been trying for over one year to rent one of these allotments from Graingers. Graingers have failed to return phone calls, been unhelpful with emails and have not been available to speak to when we have gone to their office. We were informed that one reason why Graingers weren't letting allotments was because they were 'doing the allotments up' in time for the estates centenary. We wish very much to nurture and look after an allotment, as do many residents but feel lied to by graingers. Allotments are an integral, a key component to the very essence of the moor pool estate. They must be kept and protected and available to use by residents, not built upon, calved up and destroyed.
Sarah and Stuart
It seems from the above comments that Graingers have been giving a variety of excuses (lying) as to why allotments can't be rented, by people who obviously want look after them - thus stopping residents from improving the estate and allowing the Grainger decline.
Dear Residents
I am in total support for your campaign against Grainger PLC, and agree with your comments on the Blog and the circulated awareness letter for the proposals. One of the many questions which stand out is the issue of more additional property and the future proposals for the allotments and their up keep.
1. Why the additional housing? Do we need more housing?
2. And where has the equity gone from the sale of the houses?
3. The future maintenance proposals? Are these going to be in an agreed time scale or are we going to have to wait 2 or more years to see the improvements they proposal.
We are very concerned about the future of the estate, you have our full support in this matter. The moorpool estate must keep as an area outstanding beauty and we must stop this future proposal.
How about Site B on the proposal being used solely as a small traditional park for children to play in and people to relax in, with trees, benches and swings? Alternative parks for residents are not within easy walking distance and require the crossing of busy roads. For me, a park is one thing that Moorpool really does need. Does anyone else agree?
Jim Tucker
There has been discusions amongst residents that the tennis courts from Moorpool Ave. could be moved into the valley site and that area being sentitively changed to have the tennis club, garages and open parking with secure access and retaining the alotments. The site B then allowing Grainger to develop some housing.
I understand Birmingham council have a strick 2 for 1 policy on trees. I also understand that a tree is defined as 1.5m tall and 7.5cm across the truck. Than means most of the taller hedges around the estate are defined as trees. If the planned development removes ever some hedges (50 'trees' or so) then Grainger may have to find space to plant upto 150 trees. Where? Possibly the Valley site?
At the meeting a year or so ago the inclusion of a safe space for children was mentioned and many people were in agreement that this would be a positive thing for the community as a whole.
Why do we need extra tennis courts? And if people are going to be parking their cars in their back gardens, where will their children be able to play then?
Alison
At some time in the past perhaps before planning laws, some allotments may already have been lost to new garages on the valley site (on Moorpool side). These should be replaced, not others lost too, especially by deceit (see Sarah and Stuart's posting).
Jim Tucker's suggestion of a park for children as well as for adults to enjoy is an excellent idea and as he said, a badly needed amenity for the Moorpool. Isn't there a stream running along the valley site that could be made a feature?
Doesn't all this show that the residents should be planning the future of our estate, not a national building development company??
Tricia (Cusack)
Thank you, thank you for your circular which I received yesterday - it is reassuring to know that other people feel exactly as we do regarding the way Graingers think they can get away with anything they like.
I have one comment to add - is it not a fact that the government directive regarding the building of new housing was that so called "Brown Fill" sites were to be targeted and NOT "GREEN FILL" sites? - all Graingers' proposals involve destroying our GREEN areas - the very areas that make us a Garden Suburb!
I wonder if GISELA STUART is aware of the meeting on the 20th? - it would be good for her to be there in person to hear what is said.
Marion Morse
What a superb circular - I wholeheartedly agree with all it says. I agree with many of the comments I've just read too - I believe that when the Estate was first designed it included safe play areas, surrounded by back gardens and I believe that during the war these were lost to provide allotments in the Dig for Victory campaign. I can also confirm that in the 50's/60's before the second row of garages was built on the valley site - there were allottments all the way down the site. There were also allotments on site B. I experienced Graingers obstuctiveness when we wanted to rent another garage - first there weren't any free, then we could have one without a roof or door - very helpful.
I really like the idea of making a park for adults and children to relax and play. There are not enough of these spaces (in Harborne, let alone Moorpool) and most new developments seem to ignore the need for spaces for people to meet, relax and play.
This is a lovely idealistic view of what a nice open park could be.
Unfortunatley the reality would be very different. Is there such a thing as a "safe" area for children to play in anymore.
A park would just increase the problems of unsociable behaviour that currently blight the valley site.
I do not want a public park at the bottom of my garden thank you very much.
Michael.
Some thoughts;
Please copy any concerns IN WRITING directly to the Planning depertment at Birmingham City Council for best effect!!
What is the affordable housing provision for this proposal and where will it go? It should be at a rate of 25% of the scheme!
Site A
I recently lived on Moorpool Ave backing onto garages which were a constant source of problems, some of which happened after the pubs closed and I daren't mention.
In principle building on the site doesn't worry me!! However, the house-types are inappropriate - in curtillage parking goes against the grain of the estate and ground floor garages lead to blank facades -this is a device used to increase density.
Parking is an estate wide problem and the scheme ought to provide parking for residents and visitors and for those cars usually parked in the garage site.
I agree about the corner windows which sound completely out of character.
We should be careful about getting a cheap developers pastiche of the arts and crafts movement which meant something a lot deeper than an applied style - it represented quality in materials and craftmanship which made it more expensive to build!
Where is the passive supervision to the eastern garages - area 6?
Where are the grass verges?
This site was a park prior to the garages - maybe it should return to parkland?!
Site B
The Moorpool Tennis Club enjoys a lawned area - where is this to be re-provided? The Grainger letter mentions providing 2 new tennis courts - this is actually 2 replacement courts to allow space for 2 or more houses on the existing site - so don't be fooled!
How is the rear parking court supervised and how many parking spaces are to be provided for whom?
There are small parcels of land around Margaret Grove what happens to these?
Site C
How does the parking and access work?
Site D
I am concerned that there are overlooking problems from the new habitable rooms into the rear of the existing properties and their gardens! There are strict guidelines which must be followed - the western house obviously doesn't comply and the eastern house has problems complying with the 45deg rule! Note that the standards worsen for 3rd floor windows!
Where is the parking lost to West Pathway for the new access routes? There is considerable pressure on aprking in this area surely the plan should try to alleviate this problem not worsen it!!
Have the allotment sites been ear-marked for a further development phase - looks like it?
5 bed houses are inappropriate in this part of the estae which has predominantly 2 bed terraces. The estate was designed with larger houses on Carless Ave.
Site E
Are the communal areas which Grainger are kindly giving to the estate, such as the community orchard to be financially maintained by residents? What is their commitment? Apple trees need pruning!
Where is the re-provision of the lost garages which provide a vital re-source in this location on Wentworth Gate?
Site F
See over-looking comments and referece to guidelines above.
Frankly this area could do with some good quality development!
Overall
Not all development is bad development and some good quality, sensitive schemes will enhance the estate and some property values!!!
It has to be done well..anyway I've said quite enough for the time being - I'm off to the pub!
anon
To add to the previous comment by anon, never mind how does access and parking work, have you really not noticed that on site C the new houses will be facing onto Margaret Grove gardens. These new houses will directly overlook fairly short gardens. This contravenes the good design principals set out in section 3.14D of Birmingham City Council's Unitary Development Plan which says
"To ensure that places feel safe, pleasant and legible, the fronts and backs of buildings should be clearly defined. Windows and more active rooms should face the public realm and main entrances should open onto the public realm, whereas the backs of buildings should be private and face other backs"
If anyone is interested in reading the plan, its on the city council's website under planning policies and development.
That is a very valid point Margaret. Well spotted. Perhaps this is where they are planning to plant the 150 trees. Margaret Forest and the Merry Maids of Moorpool?
Andrew
The original estate layout was cleverly designed so that everyone's back garden was private with very little overlooking. This concept has been completely lost on the proposed development. Do we really need 3 storey town houses at the bottom of our once private gardens? There was a time when BCC planning policy actively discouraged this type of 'back-land' development. Has this changed? BCC also have a policy of encouraging allotment use. Grainger's plans hardly sit well in this respect. Whatever happened to the affordable housing and single storey housing for the elderly originally mused? Does Moorpool really need £400k plus, 5 bed town houses?
Michael,
You are missing the point. People have their tennis courts, a bowling green, allotments and a hall.
Why shouldn't families on the estate have a nice area for their children to play in?
You not wanting a park a the end of your garden doesn't reflect the views, and needs, of a large section of this community.
Anti social behaviour goes on around the moorpool and on The Circle, I don't think that a play area for children will cause any additional problems.
Also, it's impossible for children to play out here at the moment. The traffic is a nightmare and every few metres there are skips and building supplies on the grass verges...which are hazardous to children.
If back gardens are going to be utilised as a parking solution where on earth are children going to play?
Families with young children are just not catered for in these proposed developments, and seeing as we are the people that will carry forward the community it's simply unfair.
Alison.
We were shocked and appalled by the scale of Grainger’s proposals and simply cannot see how such a development would be approved by the council’s planning department – especially considering the effect the proposed new dwellings would have on the character and appearance of the Estate and also the much reduced allotment provision.
The tone of Granger’s proposals seem to suggest a trade-off ‘we’ll tidy up certain parts of the Estate if our development plans can go ahead’. Surely they are forgetting that keeping the public areas of the Estate in good order is their responsibility as owners and should not be used as a negotiating tool.
I believe when BPT owned the Estate, similar proposals were put forward for development – particularly on the area behind the tennis courts on Margaret Grove – and these were rejected after much public objection (this was before our time on the Estate but believe it was sometime in the 90’s). This was also long before the recent increase in conservation status which should surely offer greater protection from such gross over-development.
Such a development would never be approved on the ‘sister conservation area’ of Bournville!!!
Unfortunately we are not able to make the meeting on Sunday (which we would have liked to attend to voice our objection) – but rest assured, you have our support!
42 Margaret Grove
Grainger have requested that this document be posted. It has detailed responses to the questions raised in the circular.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4dkv6t_4fncp7f
to view the original document copy the above URL link into your browser.
Moorpool Proposals
Frequently Asked Questions
Design Proposals
1. Some parts of the Moorpool Estate may be a bit run down, but why is the initial response to build more houses? Surely the initial solution is to spend some of the considerable income the Estate has already generated (from sale of houses) on basic improvements and only then to consider a range of development options.
Grainger has owned its interest in Moorpool since 2003 and having undertaken a review of our assets we are now investing approximately £1 million pounds in a refurbishment programme of our tenanted properties. Garage courts that are not closely overlooked by housing will always be vulnerable to vandalism and security problems. We believe that the introduction of a limited number of houses would provide good levels of passive security to protect cars parked on the backland site. It is proposed that some of the profits generated from developing houses on the Estate would fund a refurbishment programme throughout the Estate and also enable the transfer of many of the community facilities to a community owned trust.
2. Why are the proposals not in keeping with the other houses on the estate (i.e. Arts and Crafts)?
The intention is come up with a design of houses that reflects the modern interpretation of the Arts and Crafts style. Much of the details and use of traditional materials will be faithfully reproduced from the original master plan. We feel it would be inappropriate to simply copy the existing houses by way of a pastiche. Our architect has come up with one solution but we would be interested to learn residents’ views on possible designs.
3. Why has there been no proper consultation in beginning negotiations? We heard about the development plans before Christmas, but why is it only now that we have seen any plans?
We have supported the introduction of the Article 4(2) Direction to give further protection to the Estate. Our discussions with the Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMP) steering group (summer 2006) regarding the 4(2) Direction inevitably involved the discussion of Grainger’s future intentions regarding the Estate. As the steering group was made up of a number of representative groups from within the Estate and beyond we felt it was a very appropriate forum to discuss our ideas. As a result of these discussions our initial proposals (for some 115 flats) have been radically reduced and the nature of the development changed towards family housing. We are now keen to receive feedback from as many people as possible on our plans hence their circulation throughout the Estate and the drop-in event on the 20th of May 2007. In addition, we will be holding a more formal public meeting to take place at a later date.
4. The proposals will destroy green areas. Surely we should be building on brown field sites?
The majority of the development, if we secure planning permission, will take place on garage sites (i.e. brown field) with a very limited loss of ‘green space’. The existing garage footprint is in fact greater than that proposed for the new scheme and the overall area of green space will be increased. A benefit we are offering the residents, as opposed to the Planners, is the chance to secure the vast majority of the existing allotment sites together with the Bowling Green, fishing pond, tennis courts, and other community facilities for the long term benefit of residents. All these facilities are currently privately owned.
5. Why do the proposals show houses on the Valley site when it was intended to be an area of open space?
The original masterplan for the Estate shows the development of 16 houses in a circle in the middle of the Valley Site. This was not implemented. As demand for private car ownership increased garages were developed on the Valley Site. Our proposed scheme is 13 houses (less than originally proposed 100 years ago).
6. Is there any affordable housing provision?
Birmingham City Council consider that the relatively small number of units proposed per site does not trigger the requirement for affordable housing.
7. Is there going to be an agreed time scale for us to see the improvements and benefits the proposals will bring?
Some elements of the planning gain package will be negotiated with Birmingham City Council as planning authority, others such as the transfer of the facilities to a community trust will need to be agreed in advance with residents. A timetable for all the benefits generated by the development will be set out before any works start on site.
8. We consider the parking and allotment facilities on the Valley Site as integral to the Estate as the Moorpool pond itself and the Bowling Green. Would building on the Valley Site produce an unbalanced development that will overstrain particular parts of the Estate infrastructure?
We are very aware of the parking issues on the Estate and also the enthusiasm for allotments. Our intention is to provide the same number of off-street parking spaces as there are garages in regular use for cars currently. The development proposed does mean that a very limited number of currently cultivated allotments will be lost together with some uncultivated areas. The allotments are privately owned and thus do not currently enjoy protection. Our intention, however, is to gift the remaining allotments to a community trust which will ensure that they are available for the community indefinitely. Given the modest number of homes proposed, we and our professional advisers believe that the development will not overstrain the infrastructure. Birmingham City Council officers will also have to be satisfied of this fact prior to the grant of any planning consent.
Conservation of the Estate
1. How did it come about that the Residents were persuaded to enhance the conservation status of the Estate by voluntarily signing up to severe planning regulations for their houses, yet it was not made clear at the same time that others retained complete freedom to consider development affecting garages, allotments and other areas apparently without the same restrictions?
The Article 4(2) Direction imposes a requirement for a planning application to be made for minor alterations; this applies to Grainger as well as any other resident on the Estate. In determining any planning application submitted by Grainger, Birmingham City Council must treat the conservation area status as a material consideration.
2. Are the hedges and trees not under some sort of protection?
There is a blanket Tree Preservation Order across the whole Estate. The removal of any trees will therefore require planning consent.
Garages, Parking & Highways
1. Why have the garages on the Estate not been actively maintained nor actively advertised for renting? Surely there was a duty to ensure the continuation of this steady source of revenue to the Estate?
Garages laid out in garage courts which do not benefit from overlooking by adjacent properties will always be vulnerable to vandalism and security problems. Grainger acquired its interest in Moor Pool in 2003 and having considered the alternatives we now propose that, rather then investing in the repair of these vulnerable garages, we instead undertake some sympathetic development in conjunction with the provision of parking spaces and a limited number of garages. Together with the planning gain package proposed, we believe this approach will result in a more sustainable future in the long term.
2. Why have there been only 10 garages proposed on the Valley site?
We recognise the need for replacement of off-street parking for regular use cars currently parked in garages. Many of the garages are not currently used for the parking of cars but for storage and some even for business purposes. In addition to the 10 garages the proposal also includes a further 20 parking spaces. The ability to park 30 cars on the Valley Site is greater than the number of regular used cars currently parked there.
3. Why do the plans show parking spaces in our back gardens on the Valley Site?
This is a trend which has begun, all be it informally and would be supported, if properly managed by Grainger. Given the level of demand for on-street parking we have sought to offer residents an off-street alternative within their garden. This is a suggestion to both help ease the parking situation on the Estate and to potentially add convenience and value to homes. It would of course be entirely at the discretion of the resident. The traffic calmed areas might also provide additional ‘safer’ on-street spaces.
4. Why are there proposals to narrow Ravenhurst Road?
We understand that speeding traffic on Ravenhurst Road is a problem - a reduced width section at the entrance and exit of the Estate would reduce traffic speeds and improve the safety of pedestrians when crossing.
5. Where are the current garage holders going to be re-located to?
The proposed development offers the same number of parking spaces as garages in regular use which will be provided on a site by site basis where ever possible.
Allotments & Open Space
1. Why are the vacant allotments not being rented and cultivated?
At current rental rates (£4.50 per annum) it is not viable for Grainger to administer the allotments. We believe the allotments should be owed by a community trust and administered by the Allotments Association for the benefit of its members Such a transfer would include covenants to prevent change of use in the future
2. Is there any space on the development proposals for a children’s play area?
No play areas have been included as a result of early consultation however we have an open mind. It has been suggested that as the houses benefit from good sized gardens the need is much reduced.
3. Can the tennis courts be located from site B to the valley site?
We are happy to explore alternative layouts/ideas.
4. Why do we need extra tennis courts?
We propose two replacement tennis courts of fast drying design which would be available for use more often than the existing clay courts (at the junction of Moor Pool Avenue and Margaret Grove).
5. Why are the allotments being taken away?
We have tried hard not to lose either important trees or well cultivated areas of allotment, the over-riding ambition being to preserve and enhance the green nature of this conservation area. It has however proven impossible to create an economically viable scheme without some minor loss which we hope we have mitigated elsewhere including by the provision of some smaller, more manageable units.
6. Why replace allotments with “biodiversity sites” and “public amenity spaces”?
Some allotments and the orchard have now evolved into areas of enhanced nature and biodiversity interest which the City ecologists would like to see preserved. Not everyone wants an allotment but residents all enjoy the open “green” feel of Moor Pool and it is that aspect both we and the Council want to retain.
7. Why have eviction notices already been served on some allotment holders before any consultation process has taken place?
The timing of the termination of an allotment agreement is governed by specific legislation relating to the growing season. These notices were served on 4th April 2007 in the expectation that we would reach agreement on the appropriate form of development. The legalistic wording is not “user friendly” and as such is unfortunate. You should note we served notice to quit on less than one third (20) allotment holder’s 11 of which were not fully cultivated. These allotments are not currently statutorily protected, unlike those commonly found in Birmingham so no precedent is being created; indeed it is our intention to give protection to the remaining allotments in perpetuity.
Future of the Estate & Community Trust
1. How will a Community Trust benefit us?
The amenities are currently privately owned and although Grainger have no current intention to change their availability for use their future is not legally ensured. A way of ensuring this might be for Grainger to gift the assets to a Community Trust.
We want to further enhance the existing popular facilities by both contributing to their refurbishment and establishing a source of funds to ensure their long term benefit to the local community.
The Planners have informed us that they will look at each proposed development site on its own merits and that the gifting of any assets to the local community is not a planning matter.
As a direct benefit to occupiers of Moor Pool we intend to gift the various amenities (all to a Community Trust which can ensure the future of the facilities):
• Community Hall
• Tennis Courts
• Bowling Green
• Fishing Pool
• Allotments (and access to them)
2. Why should we pay a yearly levy for the hall that we already have the use of?
If the community facilities are to be held in a trust for the benefit of current and future residents it must be on a sound financial footing. As happens at Bournville we are suggesting the introduction of an Estate Service Charge to ensure the facilities are kept in good order. We would pay the service charge (probably £100 pa) in respect of properties owned by Grainger and any purchaser of Grainger properties going forward would be required to pay this charge. Existing residents could not be forced to pay the Service Charge but would be invited to do so by way of a membership of the Community Trust.
The charges levied by the Trust for the use of the various facilities by clubs and individuals will be a matter for the Trust.
To Tim Nicholson Graingers
Tim
The proposed change to the public meeting is deeply disappointing. I
understood that after residents have waited so long for an opportunity to
see these proposals and air their views, and what I believed to be
assurances from Grainger at the last CAMP (4.2) meeting concerning the
format, that this would indeed be the case. BCC by my understanding no
longer accept that this meeting with revised format can be considered part
of a formal consultation process which is a good thing, because I strongly
recommend that before you proceed further, you listen to residents views and
enter into a direct consultation process with the people that matter, those
that live on the estate.
As a resident, Chair of the Moorpool Allotment Association and CAMP 4.2
Committee member I invite you to give the residents of the estate an
unequivocal undertaking that Grainger would be prepared to enter into a
genuine and detailed consultation with a properly constituted residents
group prior to any formal planning application being submitted.
I intend to post this email on the Moorpool Blog and I am sure your response
will be awaited with interest.
Rob Sutton.
Grainger said:
"No play areas have been included as a result of early consultation however we have an open mind. It has been suggested that as the houses benefit from good sized gardens the need is much reduced"
You could apply the argument about good sized gardens to the allotment situation.
An open play area with some apparatus gives families a chance to meet and socialise.
I'll ask again, people will get their allotments, their tennis courts and their hall...why can't families have a safe play area for their children?
It could be part of your 'gift' to the community.
Alison
RE: Grainger saying,
"No play areas have been included as a result of early consultation however we have an open mind. It has been suggested that as the houses benefit from good sized gardens the need is much reduced"
QUESTION - DO YOU KNOW HOW BIG MY GARDEN WILL BE WHEN I HAVE A GARAGE BUILT IN IT?
ANSWER - very small
Post a Comment