What's best for the Moorpool Estate?
As a first posting on this site it's important to outline the discussion we are looking for. This is intended as an open forum to air your opinions on what's best for the Moorpool Estate. We welcome all comments. The as yet unpublished proposals from Grainger Trust PLC have created a lot of rumour and unease. Our intention is for this blog to gather peoples' views and thoughts, anonymously if you wish, so that,
- Grainger Trust PLC,
- the residents association,
- the CAM&P/steering committee members,
- Birmingham Council representitives & officers
- Moorpool Estate officials
- and other interested people
Please do contribute, say what you think.
90 comments:
There's a public meeting on Sunday 20th of May, I'll certainly be there and I hope we get more than the 150 or so people from last years meetings.
Have Grainger sent the plans around yet? I not sure if I've missed them.
I'll be at the meeting too. I thought the conservation area status meant the they couldn't develop. Isn't that what it's for? Lets wait and see what the plans are.
I have just seen the new plans from Grainger. Some clever things, but overall, very depressing with the loss of our allotments which we have put a great deal of work into. There will be many questions to ask Grainger on the 20th.
Igor
Why am I anonymous when I ticked 'other' and put Igor?
Igor
We have just had the plans from Grainger (apparently based on an out-of-date map of the estate, as our house lost an individual garage shown on it over 20 years ago).
We live in a 'Garden Suburb', something Grainger acknowledges in minute print. What we don't need is a Wimpey estate in the middle of it.
Furthermore, the plans show a new straight road off Ravenhurst (Don't the planners know that Garden Suburbs have curved roads, fitting in with the trees and green spaces?) The houses sketched seem like a bit of a pastiche of the Moorpool style - why don't they conform to the new conservation ruling for windows etc that we have all signed up to? How would the buildings look crafted, as the current ones are (eg modern bricks are generally ugly and untextured).
There are two beautiful Listed buildings on Ravenhurst - these are intended to have two of the new houses set between them, which would detract from both.
Allotments are going to be lost and remaining ones dug up to lay water pipes and provide unwanted tool-stores.
We do approve planting more trees and the alterations to Ravenhurst - traffic-calming and trees - could be beneficial. The proposed Trust for some of the community spaces including the Moorpool itself would also be great. But the building of 35 or so new houses as planned will certainly not enhance the estate.
Tricia
I'm not anonymous either!
Tricia
Interesting that they are trying to sell back to the residents the buildings we already enjoy the use of.
Grainger are not offering us anything we don't already have and they are asking us to pay for it AGAIN!
The plans are a nonsence and we should make sure the Birmingham planning committee know about it before Grainger try to force through permission.
Alastir
35 Margaret Grove
At the meeting in October 2005 Grainger, having been offered an invitation to attend, failed to do so. I recall at that meeting many issues relating to Grainger's repeated failure to fulfill its obligations as landlord were raised. There was clearly a great strength of feeling even at that stage. The issue of development was pushed to one side and the main discussion related to the Article 4(2) status. The inference given was that this would further protect the integrity and individuality of our estate. What we were not told was that this would not relate to proposed buildings, hence Grainger's "enthusiasm" for the proposal. I believe that we were misled at that stage.
What I find incredulous is the arrogance of this organisation in beginning negotiations in relation to development without a proper consultation, and without any mandate given by the residents to the residents' committee, and attempting to provide us with a fait accompli. The carrot at the end of the stick seems to be that in return they will improve the estate and protect certain areas e.g. the bowling green. Have they not missed the point that it is only right that the minimum expectation of the residents is that these obligations should be fulfilled in any event?
There is more than adequate resource upon this estate for Grainger to make their profit. Why do they believe that we have an obligation to assist them in maximising their profitability?
I hope that the meeting shows them that by failing to acknowledge the depth of feeling we have about our estate they have simply exhibited the height of their ignorance, and that in uniting against them we can succeed in our efforts to preserve this unique estate.
TO ALL RESIDENTS PLEASE ATTEND AND LET THEM KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS.
Emma
35 Margaret Grove
This is a great way for everyone to express their views not only to Graingers but to each other. I'm Rob Sutton and current Chair of the Moorpool Allotment Association. Firstly I believe we have to look at maintaining the integrity of the estate both in terms of the spirit in which it was conceived and also financially in terms of future maintenance. If we are to be 'given' the various amenities which are part and parcel of the estate, then we have to be sure they can be funded and will be secure for the next hundred years. I agree with the comment that there is already plenty of value in the current Grainger housing stock without building on allotments to generate even more. As an association we have agreed that if getting extra facilities on the allotments means losing some then thats not the way we want to go. We think that with the brakes taken off the letting of allotments we can really start to improve them not only for the benefit of allotment holders but those who live round them. Once they are gone they are gone.
Although Graingers appear to have eased off the Valley site (from high rise to Wimpey estate) there are lots of corners that they are also hoping to develop. There is a danger of these slipping through by distration. Take the garage plot off Ravenhurst. Four houses is pretty cramped, and where are the garaage holders there going - they don't even seem to have been included in the 16 into 10 will go formula for the Valley site. House replaces garages in Wentworth gate and so on....
Andrew
Not only have Grainger evicted us from our allotment, the plans are suggesting that we now park our car in our back garden!!
I think Grainger have been extremely cynical. They have allowed much of the estate to deteriorate and are now offering to belatedly bring those areas up to scratch (if they can obtain match funding)and want to 'gift' away their responsibility of the communal areas. These are the areas they would never get permission to develop and they should be compelled to maintain properly.
They took over an valuable architectural gem of historical interest, but there is no discernable consciousness of that in their conduct.
I shall be at the meeting, I think this can't go unchallenged.
Carol
I think it's awlfull that our allotments are being teken away and being replaced with more buildings. Al lot of hard work has gone into that allotment! How is it going to make the atmosphere of the estate better by "plonking" out-of-place buildings in the valley.
I too will be at the meeting but I feel we will be once more led down the garden path.Graingers dropped a clanger when they bought this estate,as did Bradford,so their only interest is to their shareholders not to any resident.The much vaunted Conservation upgrade seems not worth the paper-work it generated,I like many others thought the hedges and trees were under some sort of protection,not so it seems.As the B'ham City Planing department now seem to pass retrospective planing permision through "on the nod" I doubt Graingers will bother applying,built first then worry about technicalities.
As to the plans themselves,even with a magnifying glass I cannot make out a lot,but what I can see is that Graingers have down-graded their original ideas,if more pressure is applied may be they will think again,if not,then I think the plans for the Valley site are not bad,but then I don't have to look at it every day.
There remains the problem of lost garages,Graingers have moved a little but not far enough.
Mike Haywood
Does anyone know the history of the name "moorpool?" The definition for "moor" in my dictionary is "stretch of open uncultivavted land". I fail to see how we'll be left with any of that when Grainger's have finished. I'm sure the original developers of this estate had very different hopes and desires for this area.
Jenni
I'm writing this looking out of my bedroom window, looking at where 1) my new private car park will be (right in the middle of our garden!) and 2)an ugly out-of-style 21st century house will be. oh wait - right on our allotment! So supposedly in a year's time I will look out of my bedroom window and see, not a nice green open space, but ugly towering buildings, cars, more ugly buildings...get real Grainger!
My Grandparents were among the first tenants in 1909/1910, I have lived on the estate for most of my life and even when not, I was so close, Moorpool still felt like home. I have seen many changes, some good, some not so good but what has been happening in recent years as Graingers have allowed so many areas to fall into decay and neglect must surely be the worst to happen to what so many know is a 'Gem'. What an insult to those who had the original vision, raised the money and then cared for the area for so long. During the Queen's Silver Jubillee year much was done to revive the community spirit on the Estate - many of us and our children benefitted. Lets hope enough of that same spirit can be generated again so that Graingers and the City Council realise that those living on Moorpool - owners and tenants alike DO CARE and will not be fobbed off with hollow promises which in reality have nothing to do with enhancing the area but only the pockets of a minority.
Funny,no positive comments so far!!
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 !
Having read the development proposals from Grainger Trust, I have great concern about the potential negative impacts on the charachter of the Estate. My first thoughts were that Grainger Trust appear to be proposing to develop a new build, 'Brookside style' Housing Estate in the middle of a treasured Conservation Area! The new style houses will be totally out of charachter with the area and not fit in at all.
Let's all go to the meeting on the 20th, as it's up to us residents to now all join together to protect the heritage of Moorpool.
41 High Brow
We totally agree with everything written already. Does anyone know if Gisela Stuart's office and someone from Birmingham City Planning dept will be at this meeting?
83 Ravenhurst Rd
We are definately attending the meeting on the 20th, we are not being told that we have to loose our garage to have to park our car in our garden - taking up half the space.
Surely the original design of the estate was to provide open spaces for residents through gardens, allotments and undeveloped spaces.
My house backs on to the Valley Site and when I look out of my bedroom window all I see is an eye-sore. Overgrown allotments, unmaintained garages and not forgetting the teenagers who kick a football about in the summer months until 11:00pm, the boy who plays with a very loud and annoying remote control car (although thankfully he hasn't been around lately). Also, we have talk of drugs dealing and ladies of the night. What exactly are we trying to protect here? I think some people may be loosing allotments which they use as an extention to their gardens but that is all. I think they have tried to fit in too much, particularly around West Pathway and by the tennis courts but all development is not a bad thing. I think the site should have housing on it - this was in the original plans by the way. The issue here is how much and what quality of housing.
Like Margaret we look out over the Valley site. We see broken garage roofs and un-kept allotments. Yes, it does need development but not at the expense of the residents. The Valley site should be used for the benefit of the residents that are already here.
It should be, allotments maintained by residents or the Landlord (Grainger), garages maintained or replaced and their use promoted to help with the parking problem. Other areas laid out so that cars can be parked but the area can't be used for football etc. or even have control gate access for vehicles. Houses may have been considered but they weren't built. Open spaces not housing is the answer on the Valley. Let’s remember that Grainger want to make £m's in property profits then leave what's left for the residents to pay for. Why should we pay a yearly levy for the hall we already have use of? This might as well be a tax on the estate paid to Grainger. But they’ll have had the money and gone!
Development is good when it benefits the residents and not good when it removes £millions from the estate and give it to Grainger. How much have Grainger spent so far to persuade the residents that they mean what they say. Have Grainger put any money into maintenance around the estate that doesn’t help them with rent increases or the value of the rented housing stock? Not that I can see.
I fail to see how development will help with that which could be classed as unsocial behavior, 13X5 bedroom houses will bring their own problems surely?
If the valley site is built on,is it realised that some people will lose a portion of their garden?
Margaret - whilst I agree with your argument that the allotments and open spaces seem to be overgrown, I feel that the added noise pollution created by 13 new houses will be far greater than one remote control car! You say the original developers of the estate had housing in mind for this area. This is totally untrue. As stated above, the moorpool (meaning uncultivated open land) was intended as an area of open space where people could get out of a busy town. Whilst I agree that improvements need to be made, they need to be in a way that will benefit the residents, not otherwise.
From what I have seen the addtional parking spaces are to be built at the back gardens and not on them.
I have it on good authority that houses were planned for Valley site and that these are shown in a crescent shape on the original plans.
I believe very strongly that having housing on the site WILL resolve alot of the anti-social behaviour. The site would not be seen as a good hide-away for teenagers drinking and taking drugs in the garages. Open parking will just encourage kids to either play ball games etc. and would look like a large plot of tarmac.
How many people who are fighting to keep their garages actually use them for parking their cars? In winter, when the trees bare, I see builders etc using them to store work gear and even off load rubble etc.
I think a small number of houses is preferable to what we have. Even if Grainger built state-of-the-art garages I would not use one because the site is too enclosed and isolated. If there were people living there I would be more likely to want to use rear parking space.
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
Margaret rightly identifies the problems. However, building new houses is not the solution. Grainger's should be forced to live up to their obligations as landlords and make repairs to the valley site. I see they've changed the format for the meeting; running scared. We should continue to insist on an open meeting.
There's no denying the Valley Site is a mess, but why? When we had our garage back in about 1980 they were pretty well all in use. Are there less cars now per household? I think not. Have you tried renting a garage over recent years though. I am sure there are some interesting stories to hear, and about repairs too. I do my own because I wouldn't waste my time or money asking Grainger. Sorry about the run down overgrown allotment (no 40) but that's Graingers responsibility as they won't relet it. Instead like other unlet ones, it spills weed onto adjoining cultivated ones. Letting the estate run down like this is such a disgrace.
There are drawings for an alternative layout of properties but obviously these were rejected in favour of a design with open spaces behind the properties. The allotments association wants to get the allotments up and into good order, something we are being frustrated by Grainger in doing.
I would be interested to hear what the 'advice' is that has persuaded Graingers not to have the meeting in the original format.
Well done Margaret, I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with what you have to say. I am also a resident whose property backs onto the valley site and think the development will be a good thing. I have studied the plans closely and feel that considerable thought has been given to the sites that are suitable to be developed and also what will be put on each of those sites. I also feel that any development that does take place will not detract from the estate as a whole. I can't think of any problems that would be a direct result of building five bedroom houses except that I can't afford one !!!
I look forward to the meeting on Sunday so that both sides of the argument can be put forward, I find it very annoying that people seem to assume that we all feel the same way !
Margaret and Purplejam obviously have a very blinkered view of what is and is not beneficial to the Moorpool as a whole, not too mention the historic importance of the whole site.
Yes Margaret, people do use the garages to park their cars. Even Graingers acknowledge 16, but I believe a more accurate nunber is probably 25. Without the garaging, these cars will further clog overcrowded streets, and adding further housing will also add more cars. The garage area in the Valley site is very run down, due mainly to lack of any maintenance from Graingers and their obstructive attitude to any prospective new renters. Something should clearly be done to tidy the valley site but forcing more cars onto already congested roads benefits no-one.
Andrew Hackett
So Margaret and Purplejam are blinkered! I thought this blog was for people to express their opinions and not to critisise other peoples beliefs. Both Margaret and Purplejam are right that replacing the existing mess that the Valley is in with new houses would be beneficial and not everybody has the same opinion
One comment on the plans which is neither positive nor negative: where are the plans for the Affordable Housing which was promised by the Grainger representative in their Duck item? If fewer more than ?26 units are built on one site (that is not the whole of the Estate as a site but each little pocket of development) then Graingers will not have to build (or pay a cheque to Birmingham City Council for the building to take place somewhere else in the City) Affordable Housing. This will affect the Regulated Tenants and children of the Estate who wish to be first time buyers in an area they know and love. Where are the plans for a mixed Community?
From : Mick O’Malley (Residents Association)
To : Rob Sutton
Dear Rob,
As I’m still having trouble posting to the “Save Moorpool site”, can I ask you to treat this as an open letter and somehow get it posted!
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 form 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!
In response to one of the earlier posts, regarding affordable housing on the estate.
My partner has been working in a professional job for the past 10 years and we can't afford to buy a house on this estate!
Our children won't be able to afford a garage on the estate, never mind a house!
Some years ago I requested and was allocated one of the garages at the back of the even numbered houses on Margaret Grove. When I reported that the door would not close properly to Grainger, they promised to fix it but never did. I think it is still unused today.
By my rough calculations Grainger gain a regular rental income of around £50k per year from Margaret Grove alone. Plenty of money to keep all the garages on the estate in excellent working order.
And how dare they try to pass their obligations to look after all those estate buildings and facilites back to us? I might be tempted to help in return for keeping the basic shape of the estate as it is - but if Graingers cash generating plan goes ahead - they can pay for them thanks!
Hi,
Whilst i haven't got too much to add that hasn't already been mentioned i do have some sympathy for the views of Margaret in relation to the current state of, and activities in, the valley site.
It is unnerving having teenagers playing football late at night not to mention the regular flow of speeding cars in and out of the area under the cover of darkness (and that radio controlled car was REALLY annoying!).
With these problems in mind my worries over the plans submitted by Graingers relate to the parking area and "open space" that will now be on the other side to our fence at the bottom of our garden. I feel this will be an open invitation to become an area in which young people will congregate and lead to exactly the same problems that already exist with perhaps some added one's to boot. (Can't we just have some more tennis courts?)
I don't particularly want to be living on top of a building site for the next 2 years, but i can't see any solutions suggested so far (including Graingers plans) that offers a way of developing the valley site but that also negates the problems of unsociable behaviour faced at the moment.
Obviously something has to be done in this area but each solution will bring with it as many con's as pro's.
Michael, 23 Margaret Grove.
no to residential development of green space
no to jerry-built cod-period housing
no to loss of garaging for existing residents
no to garden-grabbing
no to traffic-calming
grainger have blighted this estate enough
we owe them nothing
We back onto the valley site, use a garage for one of our cars and agree that it is a mess down there.
And we feel that Graingers are to blame, for the state it's got in.
Graingers have been very unhelpful when we've approached them about the security of the garages e.g. when the lights stopped working last year.
We were refused the allotment at the bottom of our garden and did naughtilly think of cultivating it anyway (but didn't - we'd have needed a very big JCB to clear the mess and they might have noticed that!)
It sounds like if we had all been able to have the garages and allotments we wanted, then the valley site would be in a better state of repair.
A better suggestion would be clearing and replacing the garages - with parking and better garages, a gated entry, cleared allotments that we can rent and a bit of open park type land (if there's room left!)
We dont want a massive building site - I lived in an old house that backed onto land that was turned into a new estate and it was the worst couple of years - noisy dusty and a complete sense of intrusion your back garden becomes a complete no go area and im not prepared to have that again
We no longer have an open public meeting on Sunday,in which case it is pointless attending,I am damned if I am going to apply to Graingers for permision to attend.Why do the residents whose homes back unto the valley think that they are the only ones suffering noise? Try listening to the noise from the tennis courts from early till late all summer,or the late night noise from under the hall @ 3am.Football ask Trevor and Yvonne about that one!!
Any time i have visitors to my house for the first time, they always comment on what a nice place this is - I've even been told I must be living on the nicest street in Birmingham. I, of course, have to agree with them. The reason for this is not just due to the careful design of the estate informed by an actual design ethos, rather than simply a profit motive, its also because we take care of it. Look at the front gardens of these streets. With very few exceptions they're well tended and at this time of year walking around these streets is a joy.
Can you imagine what the front gardens would look like if Graingers had been left to maintain them? The whole place would just be a dump. We, the residents of this estate, are the reason that its still a pleasant place to live. We are the ones who maintain it as a desirable part of town so that Graingers will make a mint when they sell a house. That's what we do for Graingers. What do Graingers do for us?
I have read the previous posts with interest and in the most part agreement,we seem to be concentrating on the Valley site,when there are more areas affected, the development on "The Yard" site for example,from where is access proposed? If it from Wentworth Gate then parts of two front gardens will have to go,and only one is owned by Graingers.The refuse vehicles can only get in by reversing,and then only one vehicle length,there are two rows of mature trees on the site,I presume these will be for the chop!
Grainger's proposals are completely flawed. Yes, some of the proposed development sites (especially the valley site) do look untidy and neglected; however, building new houses is not the solution. Most of the problems such as empty, dilapidated garages and overgrown allotments are the result of Grainger's poor management. How many times have we heard residents say they have been actively 'put-off' or refused a garage or an allotment. The estate has congestion and parking problems. The solution is right on our doorstep - secure and properly managed garage sites. The estate is also meant to be a garden suburb. So how can anyone justify building on the allotments and green spaces? Do not be fooled by Grainger's promise to improve the estate and maintain the tenanted houses. They have an obligation to do this anyway! Grainger haven't done anything in terms of improvement and maintenance since their ownership of the estate - so why start now? It's a cynical attempt to win over residents support. Don't believe the spin!
I do not think we can hold Grainger totally responsible for the state of repair of the Moor Pool Estate and its buildings. Grainger have only owned the estate for a small number of years and the decay started a lot longer ago than that. It is now however their responsibillity but I strongly feel that more could be archieved by working together and not against them. It is their land thay have bought it fair and square and they will devllop it if the legally can. I think it might be more constructive to drop the negative feelings and try to archieve a happy compromise.
how very interesting I have just booked a personal appointment for this sunday and then realised that I may not be able to attend the time, the response from the helpfull lady at Graingers .... not a porblem we can call you back today or any time conveient to you and discuss any issues or thoughts you may have over the phone !!!!
WHY can this not be the case any how and have the open public meeting this sunday as origonally planned ?!?!?!!?
I am concerned about the garages. My insurance policy insists I have a locked garage to keep my motorcycle in. At present it's safer outside the house than in the garage. Taking away 80 garages and replacing them with 10 isn't enough.
Car parking around the east end of the estate is only going to get worse without the new houses. What’s needed is renewal of the garages in the valley site. Build new properly sized, secure garages with some open parking in a controlled access area. Use new tree and hedge planting with good low level lighting and open up the area so people feel safe. Design it so that the spaces are arranged to discourage football and other antisocial stuff. I’ve seen developments in France where they use plastic and concrete to re-enforce the ground so grass grows through but it doesn’t get muddy. Then use the rents to maintain the site, put in discrete CCTV. Like the streets outside the front of our houses, if everyone uses them they’ll be safer.
The more i read about allotments the rarer they are becoming. No-one would propose building on the allotments Yateley road. So it shouldn't be allowed around our estate. Surely the council won't allow it!
This is what the Birmigham Unitary Development Plan has to say about allotments. The whole document can be viewed at the Birmingham city council website, under planning and development. www.birmingham.gov.uk/planningpolicy
The Birmingham UDP can be seen at
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=69717&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=1454
Allotments are in chapter 3 which deals with environment. (The bits in square brackets are revisons and are scored out in the original pdf document.)
"3.62 Allotments provide a much needed facility especially in areas where private gardens are limited and they will continue to be protected. There is uneven provision of allotments across the City. Redressing this inequality is important, and every effort will be made to encourage the provision of new allotments in areas of deficiency, where the opportunity arises.
3.62A Planning permission will not be granted for the redevelopment of allotments simply because the allotments have [been allowed to fall] fallen out of use and become derelict. Where it can be demonstrated that the demand for allotments has fallen, consideration will be given to alternative uses for surplus allotments. [First consideration will be given to] Such uses will be alternative recreational, nature conservation or horticultural uses, subject to the policy set out in paragraph 3.52A. If in exceptional circumstances planning permission is granted for other forms of development on part of the site this will be subject to the provision of an appropriate, equivalent, long-term recreational community benefit[, for example, improvements to allotments on the remainder of the site]."
Apparently Graingers are arguing that the allotments aren't really allotments because the land was originally designed for another use when the estate was built and have never had any official designation as allotments. This will come down to semantics, and I'm guessing that Graingers are very experienced in using the letter of the law to their own advantage while flouting completely the spirit of the law. I can see what foreigner is saying that it would be good to come to some consensus and point of understanding with Graingers, but I fear that in the real world of property developers this kind of attitude just marks you out as a sap to be walked all over. Graingers will make the right noises about conciliatory behaviour, but organisations should be judged by their actions, not their words, and I don't see much that's positive about what they've done so far. Quaker philanthropists they ain't.
Scarlett
Having studied the plans from Grainger, which I must say are of such a low quality as to provide the barest minimum in detail, I have to say I am very concerned about what is proposed to happen around our house.
As tenants in one of the two houses at the bottom of the valley site, we find ourselves being surrounded by new development in both the front and rear of our house. One morning we are going to wake up and find that the lovely leafy view from the front of the house will change and we will be looking out onto new housing and an open car park, whilst at the rear we will be looking at a row of 3 in number 3 storey houses separated from us by another open parking area. Ok so at the moment the valley site garages are a mess, but why is that?
From the moment that the estate passed from the ownership of the Harborne Tenants to Bradford properties and then on to Grainger plc, all landlord based maintenance has slowly disappeared until enough garages (43 according to Grainger’s own figures) have dissolved into such an unusable condition that no one in their right minds would even think of using them for secure parking. Why has this been allowed to happen?
Personally we currently own 3 of the garages on the valley site, for which we pay ground rent to Grainger plc, all of which are used to provide secure night and daytime parking for vehicles belonging to our household. I also have rear access to a drive way which was installed at my own cost when we first moved into the house. This provides additional parking for when we have visitors around. Can anyone tell me where these vehicles are supposed to go when this new development gets pushed through? I say WHEN and not IF, as from the sneaky way things are being done, I feel it is only a matter of time until I come home to find the bulldozers moving in and I lose access to the rear of my house, and any semblance of secure parking. I for one do not want an open parking court / covered area at the end of my garden, especially as, from discussions with my neighbours, it would appear that we are to lose somewhere between 6 to 7 metres of said garden to provide this parking area.
Currently looking at the plans provided, the Footpath that runs across the front of our property and links Moorpool Ave to Margaret Grove and provides safe access to the front of our house appears to be disappearing, and the link it already has to the other footpaths is to be removed. Why is this? I suspect that this is to allow for it to be widened and turned into a road way that will be used to allow access to the new properties planed for the existing allotment site and Tennis courts in area B on the plans. This will remove the secluded and safe feeling that was always one of the main attractions to these houses.
It must also be remembered that BPT attempted to gain planning permission for the allotment area at the bottom end of Margaret Grove when they had ownership of the estate. This failed to be passed, so what is different now? And how, all of a sudden do Grainger’s get this permission?
Before anyone else says anything, yes I do realise this post is solely about the valley site and in particular the way we will be affected, but this is how I see the development affecting us directly and our feelings on this. Personally we do not feel that any of the proposed development on the estate is required, other than the fact that it will turn a huge profit for Grainger’s and all its shareholders.
They state in their letter that came with the plans they intend to invest in a refurbishment programme costing them in excess of £1 million, and will take several years to complete. Why was this not started sooner using the income from the rents they receive along with the proceeds from the houses they have sold off since taking ownership of the Estate, after all at today’s current housing prices for the Harborne area, that total equates to the sale of approx 6-7 houses, if that ? What happens to all of the rents we pay them, they do not appear to be using it for the upkeep /repairs to the properties and amenities currently in existence on the estate.
Are they, once this refurbishment is complete, going to use the said work to provide a route to allow them to apply for large rent increases for all the tenants on this estate? An action that has already taken place for one tenant, where a central heating boiler has been replaced, followed by an application for a rent increase in excess of 20%.
Sorry for the length of this, but once i got started it was hard to stop
Well done Andy C - I too had wondered about your house, had concerns for tenants and the tennis courts and about the position of privately owned garages - amongst other things! I am saddened by what has happened to our lovely Estate over the last few years and fear for the future.
Andy C....
Although your comments refer largely to your own situation, I believe they reflect the fears of a large majority of the residents of the estate, whose neighbourhood is being sacrificed on the altar of raw greed.
Andrew
today in the birmingham mail...
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u223/japhillips142857/moorpool2.jpg
Apologies the above link doesn't work. Click
here to view the article
very good point made by Andy C .... WHERE has all this income from the property that Graingers rent and have made from the sale of properties gone, cause none from what is apparent has been lavished on the estate !!!!
Following todays meeting at the hall, one thing that has come to light is the apparent lack of belief in how badly the area floods in the valley site.
Having searched through my image archive on my PC i have found several pictures taken in July 2005 which show damage done to the tarmac surface of the garages, Damage to the Grass embankment where the water run off from Ravenhurst road overflowed into the garages.
If you look at the full size image of Flood7 you can clearly see the geyser coming up through the man hole covering the culrt that runs beneath the garages.
Here is the link
http://images.domino.org/v/Andyc/Flood/
If anyone wants copies of the originals let me know and i can email them on
Amazing photos! Thanks for posting them on the website. Has the valley site ever flooded on another occasion?
More years ago than I like to think about I was born on this estate, and apart from 2 years have lived here all my life. A haven of tranquillity - a plan to destroy it. There have been crises - we have weathered the storms. It would appear that money is the number one priority. My Grandfather put a lot of momey into this estate when the first crisis arose in order that his hopes and ideals would be realised. (He represented Harborne on the Council)
Submitted on behalf of a resident without internet access. If you have a neighbour or friend in a similar position please ask them for their views too.
Fab flooding photos, thankyou, i never realsied it was so bad. Glad our cars in one on the dryer side! (until Graingers pull it down)
Changing direction for a minute...has anyone else (who backs onto the valley site) had the badgers in their back garden? And does anyone know approx where the set is? Am I right in thinking you can't move or destroy badger sets, do Graingers know about them?
In response to anonymous the valley site has flooded at least 3 times, to a similiar level, in the last 6-7 years.
The flooding was a major concern to severn Trent who actually issued ans installed a flood gate for our basement to try and prevent water/sewage ingress when it happens.
With regards to the Badgers, i haven't seen them down this end of the valley site unfortunately. As to whether they can be moved or not you only have to look at the new hospital site being built. I believe they were actually given permission to relocate several badgers sets before the building work could begin.
How about eco-contemporary space & privacy?
Yeah, timber-clad with a green roof
- I love it!
...and don't forget some stilts!
Hey, this might just work!!
Don't be daft. A badger would never manage stilts.
Yes, Terrific pictures of the flood - it looks lovely down the valley site, like the Amazon - with a few garages on the side.
Whatever happens to the present proposals - and I hope they are rejected out of hand - I think the idea of a modest park/children's play area is a good idea. There is no gathering place for children, teenagers or for that matter adults you do not fish, play tennis or bowl (probably the majority).
I can think of two possible locations - and there are probably others. First the Ravenhurst Rd end of the Valley site where the current tree covered bank could be incorporated (instead of being built on and so ruining the setting for the two lovely sets of listed flats - probably two of the best buildings in the city?). Whether a water feature could be built in I am not sure: it would be great but there would be safely implications etc. At least we know there is water. It might be a bit shady down under the trees.
Who would look after it? At present some of us collect the litter that the kids drop, a new resident brushes the area around the bench next the pond (thanks!!) and another has been seen cleaning the road-name signs: so there is community spirit there and I'm sure we would keep a watch out. Would/Could the city council look after a new little park - why not?
Alternatively what about the area of the circle tennis courts - move them to the valley if we really need all these tennis courts, although tennis courts can be a noisy neighbour (we did not buy a particular house when we first moved to Birmingham because of the noisy tennis court close next door). If this Circle area was grassed, a garden added plus a little children's play, area plus seats (somebody yesterday mentioned a mini plaza European style)it would be very central for all.
Anyway, apologise for the rambling post on these options - I'll be interested to hear any thoughts,
Igor Cusack
I am sure Cliff will be tickled pink to be called a new resident,he has been cleaning around the 'pool bench for years.
Nobody from Grainger PLC showed an ounce of consideration, appreciation or understanding of the heritage and environment that makes the Moor Pool Estate such a precious place to live and visit.
By their own admission, Grainger PLC's sole motivation is one of profit (and lots of it!!) The proposed 'good news' of £1 million investment, which was 'spun' at every opportunity by Grainger PLC employees, is to be spread over 5 years. How much profit is generated from the many 'for sale' signs across the estate........? Significantly more than the £200k per annum Grainger PLC propose to invest.
Now to focus on the present......what investment have Grainger PLC made for the benefit of existing tenants and the wider estate community since 2003..........? Grainger PLC should be ashamed that they have been complicit in allowing the Valley garage site to fall into such a state of disrepair. Neither John Bateman (development director) nor Tim Nicholson (development manager) were able to give any indication of the profit made from the estate or of any inward investment since 2003 - an unbelievable gap in their professional knowledge considering their responsibilities and their assertion that Grainger PLC is a company that is focussed solely on profit!
The need for investment in the CURRENT estate and its existing infrastructure by Grainger PLC is without question, e.g. parking; traffic management and transportation; preservation of heritage, environment and ecology, and, renovation of existing community facilities. However, the preliminary poposals outlined to us yesterday will irreparably damage the heritage and environment of the Moor Pool Estate both now and for generations to come. This is particularly poignant as we approach the centenary of the estate's foundation.
We also question whether Harborne has the capacity in terms of infrastructure to accommodate additional population growth, e.g. will there be sufficient places in local schools for children of the target 'family' market?
Most importantly.....we were enthused by the vibrant community spirit at yesterday's event which brought so many local people together. And together we can all shape the future of our beautiful idyll - people can overcome profit!
In response to Igor's comment about a small park, how about calling it Centenary Park to celebrate 100 years of the Moorpool community? On quite a few old photos of the estate, there are pictures of children playing by the roadside. Now we have so many cars, it's about time that their descendants can sit somewhere and watch their own children playing safely together. I would gladly volunteer to help maintain the security and upkeep of such an asset for us all.
Jim Tucker
A final thought from us for this evening.........thought we'd take a look at the Grainger PLC website (www.graingertrust.co.uk/ResidentialDevelopment.asp).
They clearly state that their residential development philosophy is based upon:
1) Understanding customers' needs. 2) Risk mitigation.
3) Effective and well considered design.
4) Commitment to sustainability.
5) Challenging conventional boundaries.
6) Open and straightforward approach to all relationships.
7) Strong team ethics.
8) Passionate about what we do.
The proposals presented yesterday would suggest a few rather glaring contradictions in their philosophy.........?!
What a great idea to have a centenary park. I support the calls from parents to have space for children to play - if its well designed and managed it doesn't have to turn into a drug dealers den by night, a fear that has been expressed by others. In fact, on a wider point, these arguments against having a play park - ie being a site of potential anti social behaviour by teenagers - could be put in any city in Britain in any residential development. Does that mean that the children of Britain today can never have another play park? Of course it must be managed, but surely that's not beyond us? Aren't there enough parents (or others) who would volunteer to act as 'wardens' so it wouldn't be too onerous a task for any one individual?
And why shouldn't teenagers have a place to gather too - they're not all drug crazed yobs. Plus, the children of today are the teenagers of tomorrow - how can we expect them to know how to behave in public when they're older if we never let them out in public when they're young? Maybe we could involve the children in the upkeep of their own park, have a wildlife club, an art club to decorate it, a children's/teenagers committee who can have a say in the development and upkeep of the park, or at least a section of it? If we give them a bit of it to 'own' themselves, they are more likely to look after it.
Hello fellow Moor Pool Residents!
A few things from us (on MPA and who back onto the 'Valley')...
1. How great it is to see everyones comments here, hello and lets just make this the beginning
2. Is it just us, or is everyone coming up with very similar solutions as to what to do with the land, we all seem to want renewed garages, allotments to rent and an open area for the children to play
3. we showed plans to an architect friend, who declared them the work of amateurs and said in 20 years of 'architecturing' hadn’t heard of the company who had produced plans.
4. we are v. unhappy with the way Graingers conducted themselves on Sunday, they seemed to all have hearing problems
Food for thought....
You really need something a little bit more concrete than a good idea. Some sort of alternative development plan for the Valley Site laid out in detail may get a lot of interest. Anyone out there any good with AutoCAD?
Apparently English Heritage has arranged a walk around Moor Pool on 12 July. As far as I know, this is unconnected with the current development plans, but simply a visit to us as a heritage site.
I understand too that the Victorian Society has recently applied to play skittles on the amazing old alley in Moor Pool Hall.
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!
I agree with Alastair,It is important that a united front is shown,there is no place for petty differances,how we unite either through the residents Assoc'.or some other banner I know not,but unite we must!
We should also enrol ANY name that has any weight,politicians,the media,tree huggers,anyone who is capable of making our point.
due to unfortunate circumstances I was unable to attend the much awaited meeting on sunday, and have only just managed to get back into the loop of the happenings over the weekend !
but I have just discovered a posting dated 19th May as submitted by Graingers
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4dkv6t_4fncp7f
sure makes for interesting reading !
I think it's a lot harder to decide what is right for the Moorpool Estate, then it is to identify what is wrong. Whilst I object to Granger's current proposals, I find it difficult to identify what I would change to benefit MoorPool residents.
Whilst there is currently a wealth of green areas in this 'Garden Suburb', many of these areas are either not assessable or suitable to be of value to the majority of residents. I feel the inclusion of a Children's Play Area / Public Space could become a great asset for the MoorPool area, and use of a key/gate system (similar to that in Moseley) could help to alleviate security concerns and raise revenue towards its upkeep. But it would need to be of reasonable size.
However, what I feel would be of greatest benefit to the Moorpool Estate would be greater transparency and understanding from Granger in developing their proposals. There is an opportunity to generate a great deal of revenue from developing this area, but Granger do not have to live with this development, we do.
If residents want a play park well so be it. I am sure Graingers may now slot one in on their next attempt. But instead of leaving it up to them to decide where it should be and how it should be supervised, perhaps we as residents should be taking the initiative and telling them what WE want. Same with garages and same with allotments etc. The main reason Graingers have got it so wrong so far is a complete lack of understanding about the estate (and wanting to make lots of money whilst offloading liabilities). This understanding is something they don't have but we as residents do. Also if we are to consider this offer of a 'trust' then it has to be looked at very carefully indeed in financial terms. That will take time.
The estate offices seem to have been inadvertently missed off the the assets that would be transferred into such a trust. I am sure that some space within them could be rented back to Graingers for the administration of their remaining assets.
I still await the undertaking from Graingers to commit to full consultation with residents prior to any planning application.
Rob Sutton.
Well said Rob. It's unlikely that anything produced will satisfy everybody, but if the main areas of allotments, garages, house styles and play areas are addressed, then it will go a long way towards a consensus for a shadow plan. The halls etc are a separate issue and should be treated as such.
Andrew Hackett
Alastair is right about the difficulty of accommodating different views, but Rob is also right that we, the residents, know more about the estate and its history than the developers.
I must say the idea of renting a very small space back to Grainger has some appeal at this stage!
An additional point to Andrew's summing-up of areas to address is that before any consideration of 'house-styles', we need to ask whether residents want new houses slotted into the estate.
I would also reiterate the expressed need for a park-area that would accommodate all ages, somewhere where young people, and adults without small children, could also meet.
Tricia
sorry for this extendend blog, but for those that have had the chance to read Graingers FAQ I revised it with a few thoughts of my own:
In relation to Graingers Publication referring to the link
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4dkv6t_4fncp7f
Design Proposals
1. The garages are over looked on all sides by occupied residential properties. The reluctance to let these garages has encouraged the degeneration of the garages. The number of houses which are proposed on the valley site all though small certainly does not allow enough parking for the occupiers of the properties or any visitors that these house may have at times such as weekend and Christmas.
2. With the recent introduction of the Moor Pool Estate being up graded to “Conservation Status” it is a sad to see that this is not being maintained when potential new developments are being planned for the area.
3. It is great to see that the original plans have been amended in light of consultation of the CAMP steering group, but a shame that at this initial stage the general poplus of the estate were also not considered, as this is a development that affects everyone who lives there not a small minority.
4. The “Brown Sites” that are being developed have been placed there for a very good reason, to try and reduce the number of parked cars on the roads around the estate. The “Green Areas” that are being developed on are few and far between in an inner city area such as Harborne and due to the continued neglect by the management company are hard to see now too. Surely it would be better to enhance these areas and the existing maintained ones that remove them all together.
5. As we are all too well aware time moves on and although there may have been 16 houses originally planned for the Valley site 100 years ago, this is the now, not the then, and we should be blessed that they did not have another 16 properties in an area which is now so potentially beneficial for clearing the roads of cars.
6. Affordable housing is unfortunately something that is not going to occur in building in the Harborne area, but coming from the construction trade and knowing the profit margins that are available in new build properties, the profit is the only thing that can be the reason behind building these properties.
7. It seems that the majority of the time scales that are being set at the moment are all being set in place by Grainger and not by the people that it really effect’s, i.e. the residents, surely they should be able to have more of a say on the matters.
8. If the final plan is to let there be the same number of garages and off street parking as there is at the moment, where is this going to happen, for as far as I am aware there are no free “Brown Field” sites that are available for development of that size. As the Moor Pool Estate and surrounding area is used already as a cut through for morning commuters and school runs, would these additional houses and cars being in the heart of the area effect the infrastructure, I think so.
Conservation of the Estate
1. I just hope that Grainger have the same struggle getting plans through Birmingham City Council as the rest of us have when trying to change the most basic of features on our properties. These restrictions are put in place for good reason, to maintain the aesthetic integrity of the estate.
2. The hedges and trees that are on the estate and area potentially going to be removed have all been there for a great many years now and have attracted a great deal of wildlife, all of which will be displaced when removed.
Garages, Parking & Highways
1. If these garages had been made actively available and maintained they would have remained in continuous use. As they have been let slip and not maintained I can now see that the cost to repair or replace is high, but surely this is going to be lower that the cost of total removal and redevelopment in the area. Also there would be a rental income from them and the overall maintenance once they had been repaired / replaced would be minimal.
2. I would suspect that the reason that so few of the garages are currently being used in the Valley site are the current state that they are in. For there are many other areas within the estate where the garages are occupied and used on a daily basis by residents that appreciate the security that the give as well as insurance benefits.
3. The trend for parking in the rear of gardens on the Valley site is only apparent in the properties which do not have garages at the end of the garden and those properties which do have garages at the end of the gardens the garages are in such a poor site of repair I would not even want to house domestic rubbish while awaiting the weekly collection let alone my car.
4. The proposal for traffic calming measures on the estate is most certainly needed and I would think a great many would be in favour of this, but what about the roads such as Moor Pool Avenue, Margaret Grove, as the main roads to mention which are heavily congested at peak times, with the verges being destroyed and the daily commuters reluctant to let others pass in safety for fear of having to let more than one car pass.
5. It is great to hear that those that are already using garages are being re-housed. I was half expecting a resounding “tough” to be sent via Grainger’s. What of those who would like to have a garage, but know that they can not due to the state of the garages at present, maintain those garages and see the numbers rise!
Allotments & Open Spaces
1. I think the majority would welcome the opportunity of safe guarding the state of the allotments by having a more personal charge over them.
2. Play areas on the estate are something that would be of a great benefit.
3. Why move the tennis courts?? They seem quite happy where they are!
4. If the tennis courts are left as they are additional courts would no longer be needed.
5. The allotment sites around the Moor Pool estate are an integral park of the environment, to think of removing any of them is neigh on sacrilege.
6. The existing “biodiversity” …. neglected sites are all areas that are much cherished on the estate, but even they need to be maintained to ensure that they do not become choked with bind weed etc.
7. I am sure that all would have understood the reasoning behind the eviction notices that were issued if they had been advised of them being issued. The initial shock did nothing to help bonds between the residents and Grainger’s at a sensitive time when co-operation on both sides was needed.
Future of the Estate & Community Trust
1. A Community trust is something that can be beneficial to all parties once it is under way; however the Moor Pool Estate as far as I am aware has never been run as such. This is where a lot of the conflict would arise with current residents as they would not see a reason to change when they have worked so well in the past.
2. On a great many private estates and gated community’s a ground rent applies, this is down to the maintenance and upkeep of the area for the tenants of the properties and apartments. The Moor Pool Estate is not as such either of the above with a management company whom has bought into the estate through a natural growth over the past few years. The maintenance of the estate has been managed through the companies in the past by a close control over the income from the properties to ensure that the facilities are properly maintained.
Well thought out comments lifemaze. A couple of points about the garaging. Many of the garages on the Valley site are in use, and I believe Grainger's figures to be on the low side. I also believe that it would be possible to incorporate garaging within any new development on the Valley Site so a new site for development would not be needed. And I don't understand your comment about the current garage users being re-housed. My understanding is that we will be invited to park on the communal area. Not quite the same level of security. Or have I missed something?
Andrew Hacektt
A latecomer to this blog but wanted to add my voice to the general opposition to the Grainger plans.
I particularly oppose any development on the green spaces, allotments and tennis courts. Like for many of you, it was precisely these assets that attracted us to this unique estate just two years ago. Once gone, that's it, they're gone forever. I hear on the grapevine that Friends of the Earth have heard about Grainger's plans and would be keen to help in any campaign to protect the green spaces - of interest?
Was also interested to hear about the flooding on the Valley site. The Environment Agency specifically advises Planning Authorities against granting planning permission on land at risk of flooding so this might be an angle worth exploring further.
Something does need to be done with the Valley site. I hadn't been down there before so I took a walk to look at it before the meeting and it ain't pretty! But like many of you, I think that cramming in as many houses as possible on it is not the way forward. The density of housing suggested by Grainger is clearly too high. I'd certainly be interested in using a garage and/or park area if they were in proper shape.
Last thing, I spoke to the architect at Sunday's meeting and they want to build an access road from Moor Pool Avenue to Margaret Grove for the planned new houses on the tennis court site. This wasn't at all clear on the plans and surely it would be too dangerous having a turning onto such narrow roads?
Kate
Slightly off-topic perhaps, but I have some photographs of the Estate taken in the late 70s or early 80s which may interest some. The link is www.thehacketts.freeserve.co.uk/Moorpool/index.html
Where are all the cars?
Andrew Hackett
Thanks Andrew. The Moor Pool itself looks particularly lovely - what has happened to all the water-lilies?
Tricia
lifesmaze
In answer to number 5 in your post on allotments, garages and highways, I spoke with John Bateman on this subject and his answer basically was Tough.
As i own 3 of the garage structures and rent the ground they stand on, he stated that all they would be doing was issuing an eviction notice for the land and not providing any replacement parking for my famillies vehicles.
This leads me to believe that the only garage users they are currently considering parking spaces for, and including in their count numbers for garages being used, are those that rent a garage from them directly and used for vehicles not storage as some are.
To this end i have requested a one to one meeting with Phil Nelson, Graingers regional manager, to discuss this matter further.
I live on Pereira Road, my garden backs on to the garage site on Ravenhurst Road. I am disappointed that Grainger has not contacted me directly about the proposed plans to build houses on the site as they will have a significant effect on my family. We will be overlooked by any structure over one storey in height. It is not only Moorpool residents who will be affected by these proposals.
I would also like to add another point. There has been a reported downturn in the purchase of houses in Harborne recently, which has been blamed on the changes in junior doctors' training. If all of these proposed houses are actually built, who is going to buy them?
Is this campaign / development/ blog etc still live? Grainger are central to a monster plan here in Tottenham to demolish an Edwardian market building and surrounding shops, building ugly slab private flats purely for profit while evicting all the traders and shopkeepers and flat-dwellers. This is happening all over, it's important that all these local groups link up to share info and support. If anyone reads this - nothing since 2007 I can find - have a look at our website at www.wardscornercommunity.org.uk for our story, or email me back at this link. We'd love to hear what has happened to you lately.
Moorpool garden city suburb must be maintained without these uncharacteristic developments within this conservation area. It will only set a precedent for other local developments in the future and must be prevented
The approval is unbelievable. Where is the sense?
Post a Comment