Grainger's 1st public consultation.
Having seen the details of the suggested development and been able to discuss the issues with Grainger's people there are many issues still unresolved.
• The allotments and their status
• Car parking and garages
• Childrens play areas
• Moorpool hall and its upkeep
• Grainger’s attitude to the development and resident’s views
Please add your comments on these and any other issues you discussed with Grainger or other residents today.
The plans may change and there will be other opportunities in publicly and in private to voice the residents’ view on the estate’s future. Today was the first of many opportunities to change the plans. Nothing is fixed yet and the more pressure we apply the more likely we are to get more for the estate. Please post your comments and views from todays meeting and use the Grainger 'feed back' forms. Please keep a record of what you send to Grainger, it may be useful in the future.
If you would like a Grainger feedback form please email us (or them) and we'll send you a .pdf version you can print out and drop into the estate office. savethemoorpool@googlemail.com
Link to Birmingham Mail articles CLICK HERE
26 comments:
I wonder how Tim Nicholson managed to take that much abuse all day and still stick to Grainger's arguements about 'a package of benefits' for the estate and 'wanting to do the best' for us. This is still a rather thinly disguised attempt to make a quick few £million profit.
It's interesting to note that John Bateman was repeatedly stating that there didn't seem to be too many objections to the plans. Everytime I joined a discussion group the objections were coming across loud and clear and I don't think I heard one person support the plans. Mr Bateman, were we at the same meeting, or were you simply unable to hear what was being said to you?
I think Mr Bateman's plan was to convince everyone that they were in a minority if they opposed to the plans, hence trying to take them over to the apparent majority and want the development...
I don't know how everyone else felt leaving that meeting today but I felt sad! Sad that the current residents of this lovely estate are potentially going to face the consequences of the The Harborne Tenants who sold their shares without protecting the life of the estate as we know it today with a guarentee that it wouldn't get into the the hands of a private property developing company with only profit in mind who have on their side this governments mandate to build more houses. I still cannot work out whether the implied threats made by Grainger today that if they cannot build they would just sell the estate off to Wimpy or some more aggresive property developer who would not be sympathetic and would pull all the local amenities down include draining the pond and just build build build has any truth or possibility or whether it was just there to unsettle us even further regarding the future of this estate.
I have to say they only made me more determined to try and do whatever I can to try and persuade those who will make the decisons about more buildings to do so with the preservation of the unigue heritage of the estate, conservation, wildlife the pond then ever and I only hope that everyone else does too !!
I totally agree with the above comment. The (not so) veiled threats from Grainger regarding selling on to a more aggressive devloper are totally under hand and I beleive an unfortunate tactic to have adopted which won't win them any favours with the planning committee. What they failed to mention is that certain of the amenities are listed (I believe) so even if they sold the land on, how could any other developer build upon them? I'm going to check this out. I also keep telling myself that if they fail with their plans, why would Wimpey or Bovis be any more successful, and indeed would they want to buy the land knowing its conservation status and the problems Grainger's have had? Or is it that Grainger dropped a clanger when they bought the land? It's a difficult one.
All I know is that they couldn't care less about the integrity and identity of this estate, despite their proposed "gifts" and this was made abundantly clear by Tim Nicholson who confirmed that they take the view that Grainger have no obligations as our landlords in relation to the various plots of land, hence their present dilapidated state. If they truly cared would they have let the estate deteriorate as they have done since 2003 without investing a penny? All they want to do now is whatever they can in order to extract the maximum profit. Fair enough for a multi million organisation, but in these specific circumstances shouldn't they have regard to the unique nature of this site and temper their greed accordingly?
Just one final point, I also beleive their position in relation to allotments is misleading as well. It's a complex area of law but even though they're privately owned they do have protection. I can't see Grainger backing down after their stance and attitude yesterday and I think if we do object we're beter off making our representations asap to the planning authorities.
IT'S A ******* OUTRAGE!! I heard Tim N and the other bloke go on about it being the estate's fault that it's come to this and if we don't let them build we'll lose the hall, allotments and garages behind fencing until they rot. It's privately owned now and we don't have any responsibility to look after the estate. JUST TO MAKE MONEY AT OUR COST. Their position is shameful.
I spoke to Tim N and J Batemen and asked repeated what the benefit to the estate was from Grainger's proposed develop. The response was a long winded 'you'll get the future security of ownership of the hall, allotments and garages.'
Asked what benefit that would be since we have use of them already the response was the threat that another 'less generous' developed would board them all up.
I don't believe that would happen to listed building and allotments. The garages might look better boarded up properly.
Bring on the full public meeting and we can demonstrate Grainger's hipocracy in front of the councilors, planning committee, MP and the council planning people.
I was able to attend the meeting on Sunday and speak to a number of residents about Grainger's proposals.
It is clear to me that the most important thing is to ensure that the estate is shaped by the people who actually live there, not by any outside interests. Moorpool is one of Birmingham's most important treasures and it is the residents who know the needs of the area best. That's why I want to see the comments residents made on the plans during the meeting published in full.
I know that many residents were disappointed with the format of the meeting and that there was no opportunity for an open debate about Grainger's plans. As your MP, I am very happy to raise any questions or further comments that residents were unable to ask directly with Grainger's management. You can contact me by emailing stuartg@parliament.uk or by telephoning 0121 454 5430.
Moorpool is a precious part of our heritage. I want to make sure it stays special.
Gisela Stuart
MP for Harborne.
The main impression I had about Sunday was that Graingers were totally open about wanting to turn a quick buck and cared nothing for the estate or the residents views. I was also impressed at Tim Nicholson's stamina at promoting this stance.
Many completed a feedback form but I have doubts that any notice will be taken of them. I am, therefore writing to them to reinforce my comments and copying this to the local council and Gisella. It was most reassuring to see her there - thank you Gisella.
I will not reproduce this feedback in full here, but the gist is:
Inappropriate housing design and density
Un-needed loss of allotments
Challenging their numbers for garage usage on the Valley Site
Failure to address parking issues and replace garages
The extent of the loss of existing gardens
Funding of these gifted assets (or lemons depending on your viewpoint)
Anything else I think of in the next few hours
In response to others I would say that their threats are meaningless, reflect their true colours and are an encouraging sign of desperation
Andrew Hackett
Gisela we need your help...
please
AH well sumed up.
I also agree with the above comments as I too didn't find anyone to talk to, who has positive comments to make about the proposals...what planet were the Grainger people on?
It was a great opportunity to meet people who love this place as much as we do, it also made me very aware of the numbers of older residents and their considerable worries, people us 'younger Moor Poolers' should all look out for.
We seriously need to think about the garaging and parking issue, especially the proposals of garages in our own gardens, i'm sure that Graingers numbers are wrong.
This is really beginning to upset me now
I take my hat off to you Tim
and I hope Grainger pay you enough
and that you sleep at night.
Veiled threats? I smelt their fear!
Tim Nicholson's threats were crazy. What property owner would deliberately run down the value of their assets? It was great to see so many people at the meeting and I think Grainger's now know the strength of feeling in the community. They admitted they hadn't invested a penny in 4 years but now want to extract millions by building in our open spaces! How did they think they were going to get us on their side with that attitude? We need to let our elected representatives know where we stand - there are a lot of votes on the estate - and make sure the planning process is open and transparent.
If you haven't filled in a responce form we can email you a copy of the form. Once completed the forms can be dropped in at the estate office. If we can help any residents that didn't attend the meeting please email the site and we'll drop a form to their address by hand.
Thanks Gisela, and everyone - we seem to have a pretty communal view of the meeting and the message. Tim Nicholson certainly did his best to represent the Grainger shareholders, and even momentarily took off his Grainger hat to admit that it was a pity for us that the estate had passed to a private company. However, someone said he may be wrong in saying that the company can do what they like with the allotments etc.
It would be really good to be able to propose something we want and need for the large valley site, together with keeping ALL the allotments and leaving people's gardens intact.
Tricia
I have just seen today's Bham Mail article - great to have their support. However, I am astonished that the Harborne Society chair Mary Abbott is quoted as saying 'We are generally satisfied, but some aspects need a little tweaking'- Who are the 'We', on what possible grounds are they generally satisfied, and for whom do they speak?
And if John Bateman is 'pleasantly surprised by people's reactions' then he must have been planning to withdraw all along.
Tricia
WE MUST BE CAREFULL!
Grainger would love it if we all start arguing about what we want and where! That would distract us from the primary aim of stopping inappropraite development around the estate and allowing Grainger to make millions in profit and leave us with what’s left.
If we spend time putting ideas together we are doing Grainger's work for them.
However we should also be posititive about the future. Just saying 'NO' to Grainger is the first step and we should not backdown from that until their plans ARE good for the residents and the estate. To look to the future of the estate we should discuss a set of principles that we can all agree with. For example:
• Development only where it does not have an impact of the architectural merits of the estate
• All development to be clearly an advantage to the existing residents, clubs and societies.
• Err… (need some suggestions).
Once complete, these principles would unite us in the defence of the estate while providing a framework for residents to suggest to the estate owners (in the future) what is best for the estate. Pleae lets not fall in to a Grainger trap of doing their work for them and lets concentrate on stopping their current inappropriate plans!
Well said Alastair, we need to show a united front in rejecting these proposals and identifying the reasons why they are not suitable. Then leave it up to Granger to bring new proposals that are more in keeping with the unique character of the Moorpool estate.
I attended on sunday morning so didn't hear all the reported comments from the Grainger people. Having advised Birmingham's Development Control Committee for 7 years and dealt with many developers I am gobsmacked at them. At this stage in "the game" you don't make threats, veiled or not. I would strongly support the idea to deal with Graingers proposals and not try to develop our own ideas. As Alistair said that leads to dissent and wasted time. Can I ask if the residents association are willing to take a lead here becuase we need to organise.
Two positive points. Firstly Timescale is in months but don't be complacent. Secondly there are so many capable people already involved and I'm very pleased our local MP is one of them.
Phil Simpson
Green party and allotment holder
I think Alastair, Tristan and Phil are all making a very valid point. Grainger gave us an undertaking that they would listen to our comments and feedback. Following last Sunday's drop-in session, I think very few, if any, are in favour of their proposals as they stand. So, it is up to Graingers to return to the table with alternative proposals which suit the estate and its residents. I don't think we should even be engaging Graingers in the finer detail of their plans and house designs until they come up with a proposal that works.
Some further thoughts about the future of the estate and Graingers proposals:-
I think some of the estate's congestion/parking problems could be solved by adopting the 'one-way' plans that were originally suggested for Moor Pool Avenue and
Margaret Grove. What ever happened to these plans? First they were watered down, then they were shelved. Perhaps the City Council are now hoping Graingers will pick up the baton as part of their 'planning gain' commitments if they ever got planning.
I completely agree with Alun's idea to make Moorpool Ave one-way in one one direction, and Margaret Grove one-way in the opposite direction. I talked to Peter Hollingworth about this at the meeting last Sunday, saying that I thought this would be much better than just making a small section of Margaret Grove one-way. Apparently nothing will happen, as the money's run out!
I was disappointed reading Mary Abbott's quote in the B'ham Mail. People are entitled to their own opinion but I thought the ethic of the Harborne Society was to protect the architectural integrity of Harborne, not support developers who want to take it away... I'm hoping it was a mis-quote by the Mail.
As for traffic, there was a crash on lower Moor Pool Avenue 2 week's ago involving several cars. Now we are a statistic, could the Council please put money back in the next budget for Phase III traffic management plan?
Regarding the Graingers proposal for Valley Site, the drawings showed some flats on Ravenhurst Rd losing rear gardens as well as allotments. Could Graingers have made a mistake on their own drawings or are they actually taking away gardens as well? I believe most if not all these flats are rented, so what does the future hold for our tenants on the estate... will they all be forced out with higher rents and their properties sold off? Graingers obviously don't want a maintenance burden - exactly why they are gifting us the Hall.
Sarah
I attended the consultation day on May 20th for several hours, and put a post about it on my blog www.deirdrealden.com on that day (as well as a previous post the week before linking to this site.)
Although I am an Edgbaston Councillor rather than a Harborne one, I am Parliamentary Candidate for the constituency, and the new Chairman of the Edgbaston Constituency Committee (a Council Committee made up of all the Councillors in the constituency) and I live very close to the Moorpool Estate. I am very concerned about what is being proposed here for lots of reasons, and will do all I can to help residents. Please do not hesitate to contact me.
Cllr Deirdre Alden
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!
Post a Comment