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
If you have not received your copy of the Grainger plans for the estate there'll be copies posted here soon. Please posts all and any comments by clicking the 'comments' link below this message. Remember, even if you agree (or disagree) with the comments already made please add your thought so we can collect together. So far most comments are attached to the first posting at the bottom of the page.
• 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.
15 comments:
Are Grainger seriously suggesting that 10 garages on the valley site are enough? 30 or 40 garages maybe but 10 is ridiculous!
I think it's rather rude and certainly lax, that Grainger have issued a map clearly detailing which homes are owned and which rented. This may cause considerable embarrassment to some residents.
If they'll let personal information like this out, what other mistakes will they make?
I totally agree that 10 garages is totally inadequate. As for the plans showing which houses are rented, a quick walk down the road and count the rotting window frames would give exactly the same information. Perhaps the Council (and lawers) should put pressure on Graingers to live up to their legal obligations before any consideration is given to plans to line their pockets.
Andrew Hackett
I agree with AH. Perhaps a mention of statutory nuisance to the powers that be should be made. It's ridiculous that Grainger wishe to hold themselves out as landlords who will enhance the estate, when all they have done is let it fall into a shambolic state until it suits their purposes to do otherwise.
I've just rechecked the circulated plans, and there is no mention of any garages on the Valley Site, only open parking. Where does this number of ten come from?
do they seriously think, once i have got a petition going from all of the estate, they will continue to build flats top and tail to our gardens? i will cry at the meeting to stop them. :-)
It's hard to know where to start with comments, having had a good look at the proposed plans - who do Graingers think they are dealing with? Certainly not intelligent, caring, educated people if they think we'll all be overjoyed at exchanging our garages for a car park or having more trees in an area already known for it's leafy outlook. Has anyone else noticed that the plans seem to ignore the sloping aspect of the site - will the new houses be overlooked by all and sundry or will there a be a magical raising of the valley? We all seem to be focused on the valley site (who else remembers it was always known as The Fordrough when I was a child?) but what about all the other areas where Graingers seem to think we'll accept new building. Not so long ago there was a huge campaign to stop building on the site at the bottom of Margaret Grove now there's a proposal to put six houses on it! I also have concerns about narowing Ravenhurst Rd which is already being used as a 'carpark' often making it difficult to negotiate - surely this will be even worse if the road was narrower?
now that the plans have been released it is more and more apparent that Graingers are in it for the money !
The promises that they show on the plans to enhance the estate are all things that they should be doing already, instead of letting things fall into neglect such as the garages and park areas.
Traffic and parking in the estate is already at breaking point which is something that Grainger PLC is well aware of and YET they still think that adding another 36 homes, totaling 131 bedrooms, with on average 2 cars per house is a good idea.
In short they knew what they were getting into when they took on the estate, as a resident who now has to apply for planning permising to change a front door how can they justify wanting to build that many new homes on our precious estate !
We use a garage for our car, where is it to go when the garages go?
Also when we moved to the estate a few years ago we asked for an allotment and were told no, it would cost more in paperwork than they'd get in rent.
Grainger's plans are more in keeping with a developer who is interested in making a quick buck whilst leaving the local residents with the bill. These plans do little to improve this unique area, but provide a great oppertunity for Grainger to milk Moor Pool dry.
They must think we are all stupid! We do know the difference between a vacant garage and one that you can't use as the roof is caving in. Its clear that, if you build houses on green space, there is going to be less green space afterwards. And, there is a difference between two parking spaces and a elongated driveway you can only just fit two Minis on!
Who expects a large five bedroom house to only have two cars anyway!
And all this for the promise of some trees, street signs and investment in the Hall (which they should be doing already!). Is it worth selling the Moor Pool soul for such a low price.
From: Mick O’Malley (Residents Association)
Dear Residents,
I’ve read the comments on the site with some interest, but it does occur to me that, even though I may not agree with some of the published material, I feel that correspondents should have wider publication. Not everyone on Moorpool has access to a computer (probably more than you may think!), and those that do may not access “Save Moorpool” or “The Stirrer”. As the Moorpool Duck has already included views from the politicians and Graingers, I would like to make the next issue available to those who are opposed to the plans. I will guarantee no editorial comment, or any other articles, just your stuff. Obviously, we do have a problem with space, so try to make your articles short and to the point – it may be helpful to list your objections, and suggest alternatives? A bit of help with distribution would also be appreciated. You can mail your submissions to myself at mromalley@hotmail.com, if you wish, and I’ll make sure they get to the editor.
I think it’s also worth commenting on the role of the Residents Association and the CAMP Committee. It has been suggested that neither group have a mandate to speak to Grainger about their plans; this is a point worth noting, and with hindsight perhaps another mechanism could have been set up. However, at the time, CAMP were meeting with Grainger on other estate issues, including the Article 4(2), and it seemed to us all that CAMP was a useful forum to start the ball rolling, and we were able to get Grainger to tone down their original ideas. I think you would agree that we have now moved past this early stage, and a new consultative process and body may be needed to move things on beyond 20/5. If residents want this to happen, the Residents Association would be happy to use our current mechanisms to help set this up although, quite clearly, we would not wish to control the process. We may also need to examine how residents, clubs, and associations would wish to structure and fund a Community Trust, if the estate decides to move in that direction. Once again, we could help to set that up, and also identify an independent Chair with experience of Trust management.
Finally, I have been asked what the view of the Residents Committee is about Grainger’s plans. The short answer is that we all have different views, some for, some against. We have, however, agreed to respect each others views. My own thoughts? I’ve always been consistent in supporting the “big picture” (sorry about the cliche), but I do not agree with much of the detail, such as the loss of garage space, traffic, building design, and the position and number of allotments on The Valley. The plans issued, thus far, are pretty poor, and certainly don’t help with my own concerns, and I consider that some of Grainger’s comments are inappropriate and misleading. But I have no intention of rejecting, out of hand, what may be an excellent opportunity for Moorpool.
Sorry this has been such a lengthy posting!
Mick O’Malley (Residents Association).
Dear Moorpool Residents
OPEN MEETING WITH GRAINGER THIS SUNDAY 20TH MAY
Following a number of calls from residents, we have been advised that we should change the format of this Sunday’s meeting to ensure we can accommodate everyone comfortably, and engage in detailed individual as well as group discussions with all interested parties.
To that end, we’re proposing that we host a drop in event from 10am – 5pm in the Community Hall. We will have all the plans on display to discuss with people wanting to hear more and so that we can listen carefully to people’s views, ideas and objections.
If you would like to pre-book a session, please contact us by calling 01235 433 520.
We look forward to meeting you this Sunday. Please also feel free to make contact with us direct at any time.
Yours sincerely
Tim Nicholson
Grainger Plc
Why do Grainger's keep referring to their proposed town houses as two storey when they are clearly three storey?
On the valley site we will lose 78 garages. Grainger's are then leading us to believe that we will get 75 parking spaces in return. However, 26 of these belong to the proposed new houses and a further 19 are shown within existing back gardens!!
Grainger's also try to justify the loss of allotments by offering 8 small new lots carved out of 3 original lots.
Please grant us with some intelligence - we can see through the misleading sales speak.
At the end of the day Grainger's priority is to keep their shareholders happy; the interests of the estate and its residents will always come second. This is why we should resist their proposals.
alun you are sooooo right
The garage / parking numbers are wrong, how can we have less garages, less allotments and then less gardens, completely against the original designs of more open space.
Also glad you too noticed the 2/3 storeys on the new houses, if they are 2 storey why do the plans show 3 storey? We saw that and wondered too
The loss of alotments would indeed be a shame. When I requested one I was informed that I would be able to use one but without any agreement. Granger have let the whole of the community down. The buildings to the valley site will overlook all the existing gardens and reduce any low level sunlight.Grainger have put our children at risk by allowing friable asbestos garage sheet roofing to be left within easy access to meet their own ends.
Post a Comment