Thursday, 31 May 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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
What to do?
What to do and how it works.
• 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.
EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS HERE
If you want to email your comments send them to
savethemoorpool@googlemail.com
Related links -
- MOORPOOL REGENERATION GROUP
- Moorpool residents association
- The Stirrer - campaign coverage
- The Stirrer - Allotments news story
- The Stirrer - comments on the Moorpool estate
- Deirdre Alden's - Comments
- Gisela Stuart MP - Comments
- Grainger PLC - see what it is Grainger do.
- Grainger's maintenance of the estate?
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(14)
-
▼
May
(11)
- Gisela Stuart MP needs our views
- Moorpool Residents' Association
- Grainger's 1st public consultation.
- There will be a full public meeting.
- Grainger may change the public meeting!
- Helping our neighbours........
- GARDEN SUBURB OF MOORPOOL ESTATE THREATENED....
- Graingers' Master Plan documents
- Grainger's plans are out!
- Recent information about the Moorpool Estate
- What's best for the Moorpool Estate?
-
▼
May
(11)
7 comments:
Here's what I've written to Gisela:
Dear Ms. Stuart
Thank you for the circular received at the weekend. Please take this letter as a response to your request for questions to raise with Grainger. I'll try to be brief however there are many areas of concern to be dealt with.
Parking: In the area of the most intrusive development (Grainger’s sites A & B) around Margaret Grove and Moor Pool Avenue, there is an increasing problem with car parking.
Grainger's plans will only increase this problem by removing 70 garage spaces and replacing them with 10. At least 30 garages are used regularly and more would be if the landlords (Grainger & BPT) had maintained the lighting and structures. (Grainger’s survey is not correct)
I have a particular requirement as my motorcycle insurance policy requires a garage for safe keeping. If they are removed I cannot insure my motorcycle. Please ask Grainger's representatives to justify the loss of these amenities?
Will Grainger guarantee to rent to me one of the proposed garages at the same rent as I currently pay once the development is complete?
Adding more housing will only increase the problem, no matter that Grainger will provide parking space per house.
Allotments: We have asked to rent the allotment at the bottom of our garden on several occasions with both landlords. We have had no response by letter, email or telephone. I understand Grainger will remove the allotments sighting ‘non-use’ as a reason. Other residents I have spoken to have had similar problems in trying to obtain an allotment. If the landlords presented the allotments in a reasonable condition, at a reasonable rent I believe all the estate allotments would be rented.
Allotments are in short supply all over the country. There can be no justification to remove or develop on the Moorpool estates allotments.
Several of my neighbours have put many years worth of effort into their allotments and will be very upset to lose that effort for the sake of Grainger PLC’s profits
Please ask Grainger's representatives to justify the loss of these amenities.
Light Pollution: Grainger’s site A, the valley site is currently a peaceful haven of tranquillity in the bright urban environment in Birmingham. I have requested details of the street lighting requirements from the architect but have received no response. There are 60 or so houses that back onto the valley and enjoy the peacefulness at night (with some summertime exceptions). Grainger’s plans would destroy that view with housing and street lighting directly affecting all the houses that face the valley site. That new lighting, I believe will be obtrusive and add unacceptable illumination at the private side of our houses.
Please ask Grainger to provide details of the lighting to be used and what effects that will have on the surrounding homes and gardens. Specifally the light levels that will spill over into currently dark gardens.
Noise Nuisance: The whole of the Moorpool estate is a calm and quiet place. The design of the estate means there is little noise nuisance in any area (with some summertime exceptions). The proposed development on the Valley site would change a very quiet area with firstly construction disruption and then an open car park square with all the associated noise and disruption.
Please ask Grainger’s representatives to justify that intrusion on the residents for their profit.
Architectural Value: The Moorpool estate is an important architectural example of a garden suburbs, one of only a few around the country. This is already recognised in the conservation area status. Hampstead Garden Suburb is shortly to hold a conference as part of their centenary celebrations. This indicates the special nature of the place. A further example is a comparison with Bournville. No one would consider it acceptable to build on the open spaces there so why do Grainger consider it acceptable here. (Private landholding is Grainger’s normal response but irrelevant with a national architectural treasure)
Please ask Grainger’s representatives to justify this destruction of an important architectural asset to the Birmingham area and the country, for their profit.
Trees: There have been no details of the landscape architects survey or opinion of the estate and no clear area of new tree planning on the published plans released so far. I understand that Birmingham city council have a strict 2 for 1 policy on any loss of trees. Grainger and the architect have not responded to any enquiries regarding trees so far. Using a standard definition of a tree (7.5cm diameter and 1.5m tall) there are potentially 60 to 100 trees at risk. As the ‘green suburb’ we cannot afford to lose these trees.
Please ask Grainger’s representatives to provide details of the landscape architect’s report with details of the number of trees around the estate and which trees are threatened.
Please ask Grainger’s representatives to provide details of the land areas set aside for new tree planting for what maybe more than 120 trees.
Please ask Grainger’s representatives to provide assurances that they will invest in semi-mature trees for planting area and provide maintenance to ensure they survive. (Sapling planting is not acceptable for a mature tree area like the Moorpool estates unless part of a planned replacement programme for existing mature trees. Grading of the current trees is not an acceptable distinction for survival).
Hedges: The published plans do not appear to include the ‘trade mark’ element of the estate, our beech hedges.
Please ask Grainger’s representatives to provide assurances that any planning application will include the planting of semi-mature beech hedges in all the developed areas.
Schools, Doctors Surgeries and Public Amenities: I understand the Harborne area has a shortage of primary school places, GP facilities and other public services. Grainger PLC have no regard to the wider area of Harborne as stated by their directors.
Please ask Grainger’s representatives to justify that attitude while bearing in-mind Grainger PLC’s published Corporate Public Responsibility policy.
Please ask Grainger’s representatives to justify that external problems caused to all the Harborne residents for their profit.
Grainger’s promised benefits: During the recent display at the Moorpool hall of the proposed plans Grainger’s staff and directors made several misleading statements particularly regarding a ‘package of benefits’ to the estate residents. When pressed to example, in either financial, aesthetic or community terms the nature of this package of benefits, none of the staff or directors where able to give any indication of the actual benefits to the estate of their plans. None of Grainger’s stated benefits are actually of any benefit to the estate and mostly have long term financial disadvantages. Their vague threats that other potential owners would be harsher with the estate are unbelievable. Once planning permission has been refused it is unlikely that Grainger would be able to interest another developer given the strength of the objections raised. Grainger’s only option would be to co-operate with a community bid to re-establish the estate for the benefit of the residents and the local area.
Please ask Grainger’s representatives to provide clearly costed benefits to the estate, residents and local area of the proposed development. Specifically, how much the suggested local ‘levy or tax’ will be per household to pay for the maintenance of community facilities. (while bearing in mind the profits made by Grainger)
Acceptable Development: The estate needs investment, that investment can be paid for through a limited amount of considerate development in some areas of the estate. However this may not provide enough profit for Grainger’s management. There will need to be some compromise from all stakeholders in this dispute. Grainger’s representatives have clearly stated they are only here to maximise their profits through new housing development. The present proposed develop is inappropriate on almost every aspect. It appears to have no regard for the historical importance or community already here.
Please ask Grainger to explain in detail what profit they expect to realise from the estate’s development and the propotions of it to be distributed and to whom. I understand that they may wish to do this in your confidence, however I feel it is important for those details to be seen.
I hope you appreciate the disquiet and anger these proposals have generated around the estate. I have spoken to several of the more long standing residents who feel unable to voice their objections. The estate has been deliberately run down to allow this sort of development to look attractive. Grainger have handled the planning processes so far with carelessness and arrogance towards the residents by refusing to discuss their plans openly (to save money) and being slipshod with personal information. I sincerely hope you will publicly support the opposition to these current plans and help the community develop sustainable and symapetic alternatives.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
cc – Simon Turner, Planning Officer & Chris Hargreaves, Conservation Officer,
Planning Management, Birmingham City Council
The previous message summarises the issues that need to be addressed perfectly.
If you oppose or have concerns about Grainger's plans as they currently stand then it is vital that you must now express your views, in writing, to your local MP - Gisela. If the strength of feeling which was apparent at the recent meeting can be translated into meaningful feedback for Gisela to act upon, then I think we have a good chance of changing Grainger's plans for the benefit of the estate.
I will certainly be writing with my views and I urge everyone else to do the same. I will also copy my comments to BCC Planning Department.
I wrote to Grainger following the meeting on the 20th with copies to BCC and Gisela and have e-mailed her with my support for the questions she has raised on the Labour circular. I have also asked that the answers Grainger give be made public.
It is important that she is able to approach Grainger with confidence of numbers so even if you can think of nothing further to add, a quick e-mail of support will help her greatly.
Andrew Hackett
Well done to the author of the above letter to Gisela,
We too back onto the Valley site and you have summed up our thoughts, feelings and views on the proposals, very well.
Thankyou
Below is a copy of our letter sent to Gisela Stuart:
Dear Ms Stuart
Concern over Grainger’s proposed plans for Site D & Site E of the MoorPool Estate
We are writing to express our concern over Grainger’s plans to build two 5-bedroom detached houses on West Pathway (Sites D & E).
West Pathway is an idyllic, leafy
cul-de-sac with 3 terraces of 6 houses each, in a U-shape. The proposed detached houses are to be built in between the terraces, which will change the pleasing symmetry of the cul-de-sac to a mishmash of inappropriate large houses interspersed with the
existing small terrace cottages.
Added to this, the green space currently separating the
terraces will be lost, which includes a number of semi-mature trees (both sides) and 2 carefully
tended allotments on the western side of the cul-de-sac.
These spaces are currently home
to owls, foxes and numerous varieties of birds.
The proposed detached houses also pose considerable overlooking problems from the new habitable rooms into the rear of the existing properties and our gardens. There are strict guidelines which must be followed - the western house obviously does not comply and the eastern house has problems complying with the 45 degree rule. We will personally be overlooked by the eastern house, suffering considerable loss of
privacy.
West Pathway is a small cul-de-sac that already has problems with access (the road is too narrow for bigger cars to pass the parked cars without driving over the circle in the middle of the cul-de-sac) and parking (18 houses in a relatively small area). The proposed detached houses will require access from West Pathway, resulting in loss of parking for the existing residents. Moreover and most importantly, any access to
the eastern house would require considerable widening of the
existing ‘driveway’, which is currently only used as a
pedestrian pathway. This can only be achieved by removing mature beech hedges and some of the front gardens of existing houses (owned by Graingers)and removing a mature tree (number 0433), which is part of a set of 4 mature chestnut trees planted at each corner of the cul-de-sac. We believe that the tree at the proposed entrance for the western house (number 0434) would also be at risk for the same reasons.
Please can we ask you to keep these sites in mind during your quest to protect the MoorPool Estate. We are concerned that opposition to development on Sites D and E might be minimal, as many of the houses affected are owned by Graingers, and much of the public focus is currently on the Valley Site.
Yours sincerely,
Cynthia and Richard Marquet
(8 West Pathway)
Cc Mr Chris Hargreaves, Head of Conservation, Birmingham City Council
(Chris.Hargreaves@birmingham.gov.uk)
Mr Simon Turner, Planning Officer, Birmingham City Council
(Simon.Turner@birmingham.gov.uk)
Mr Tim Nicholson, Development Manager, Grainger Plc
(tnicholson@graingerplc.co.uk)
I recently emailed the following to Gisela Stuart with copies to Mick O’Malley (MRA), Peter Hollingworth (BCC) and Chris Hargreaves (BCC). I have only just become aware of this web site so I’m taking the opportunity of posting it here as well.
Dear Ms Stuart.
After attending the Grainger’s Roadshow at Moorpool Hall, I feel totally disillusioned. Their display to attempt to justify the necessity of their long planned for development of our Estate was completely unconvincing, yet I came away with a sense of defeat. They were prepared to listen just for show, but are, I’m sure, not prepared to take any notice of what was said to them. Their minds seemed made up. It was a case of “this is what we’re going to do to the Estate, accept it!’
Grainger’s justification for this development is that the Estate is run down and it needs their benevolent help! But this state of dereliction has been engineered by Grainger. They have systematically allowed areas to fall into disrepair by not enforcing their duty to maintain the upkeep of the properties and shared facilities to the previously high standard. The garage areas have been allowed to dilapidate so that residents are worried about leaving their cars and belongings there which only serves to exacerbate the problem. In the case of the allotments, residents have been unable to rent them, again increasing the perception of neglect. There are many residents of the Estate who would like to rent them and I’m sure that they could all be rented out if local non estate residents were allowed to rent.
The allotments and garages are part of the original Estate and its inherent charm and desirability. The common areas of land should have been properly managed to the benefit of the residents. Some of these areas are tucked away in quiet little corners of the Estate and are completely unknown to many residents, a fact that Grainger have used very successfully. If we had all been aware of these areas and their plight, I’m sure that they would have been enthusiastically brought back into use. In some respects, the Residents Association are at fault for not bringing the troubled existence of these lost corners to the everyone’s attention, but with their voluntary status and very limited resources, they cannot be blamed for not covering everything.
Last year, with everyone so fed up of the way Grainger had allowed our Estate to become run down and a magnet for small developers, we enthusiastically and unanimously voted for Conservation Status with the expectation that this little jewel, although in need of a good clean, would be safe in its present form, with Grainger being compelled to fulfil its duty to restore and maintain the Estate. Now we find that to this end, it was a waste of time! Conservation, it seems, doesn’t mean `to conserve’! It means that although we, as residents, are restricted in what we can and cannot do, Grainger are Not! The belief that it would prevent unscrupulous builders and Grainger alike from ruining our Estate any more than they already have was rubbish! It seems that Grainger are not bound by this and can do whatever they like!
I feel the residents have been betrayed! We naively believed that we had won a victory for simple values over big business. Not so. We have been manipulated by them and misguided by others. We all thought that with local politicians and councillors on our side we would see fair play and justice. How wrong we were!
Andy Millard
It's all very well Grainger making these plans when they are incapable of looking after their tenants properly.
I am so p*ssed off, that I have written a blog about the hassle I have been having.
http://brokenboiler.blog.co.uk/
Post a Comment