Proposed resiting of the Village Hall
Do you have views on the proposed building of a new Village Hall onto the old bowling green and the re-use of the land occupied by the present Village Hall? [Please do not use this discussion thread to comment directly on the reuse of the land by the proposed Waitrose food store but use the thread provided specifically for that purpose.]
January 6th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Why move the village hall anyway? Where it is, surrounded by car parks, is perfect for Blood Donors, Amateur Dramatics, Clubs etc. that use it.
Why not put whatever you have in mind for that site, onto the bowling green site, thereby saving funds?
January 16th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
I think the Village Hall is very unattractive. It was built with little consideration of the surrounding historic architecture, at a time in the 1960’s when anything went. It’s design attracts youngsters to climb onto the roof, and use it as a play area. It is remote, with dark areas, that make you feel unsafe and it’s position makes it very prominent. Looking from the Tesco supermarket, it is the most ugly of buildings, but this is what most people see of it.
The opportunity to have it rebuilt is brilliant. Especially if the design is in keeping with the Town and it looks more attractive. It seems the final layout inside can also be negotiated with the developers. But the best thing is that the Hall will be built while the old Hall is still standing, which means that events and organisations can continue to use it during it’s construction. I also think it’s new position will cause it less problems with vandalism and make it easier to access safely.
January 19th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I agree with Francis Cooper. I understand that a lot of people do not like change, but change is not a negative change and can often be for the better. Whilst they are at it perhaps they could do something with the scout hut!
January 26th, 2010 at 12:40 am
What will happen to the badgers who now live on the ex-bowling green land - are these not a protected species? Would it not be illegal to disturb there sett?
January 26th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Re D Hewitt’s comments, I spoke to the architect about this and they knew all about the badger set and have experts working on it.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
I agree that the existing Hall looks a mess, both architecturally as well as for presentation. However I feel that it would be better placed on the reserved building land down Hampton Road where more adequate parking provision can be made. Look at other villages around Knowle like Dorridge and Meriden. The Village Hall in these locations are nowhere near the centre of the community but placed on sites that make them more accessible for the whole village.
March 21st, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Yes it is most definitely illegal to harm badgers or interfere with their sett.
The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 covers this (see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1992/Ukpga_19920051_en_1.htm )
There are 2 setts on the old bowling green and the good news is they alive and active as of 20/3/10 (They were in my mothers garden adjacent to the old bowling green)
March 24th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
That is wonderful news!
Made my day!!
I must admit I had had growing concerns about their welfare with no sightings of them since November.
So as a protected species they cannot be removed.
Is there a license on the land where the 2 setts are?
As if you read the link it says it6 is illegal … “for the purpose of any development as defined in section 55(1) of the [1990 c. 8.] Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or, as respects Scotland, section 19(1) of the [1972 c. 52.] Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, to interfere with a badger sett within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified;”
So the 2 setts they must now occupy will cover even more of the old bowling Green than the Google Earth picture taken in March 2007.
And after going in very close on the area whilst preparing my response to the letter sent out to ‘neighbours’ I reckon from the change of grass colours that they may have occupied about 40% back then.
And maybe even now under part of the bungalow gardens.
By the way a group of badgers are called a cete of badgers!
So are 2 cete’s of badgers living in 2 setts on the old Bowling Green.
May they continue to live a long and peaceful life there without any disturbance from developer’s.
Kimberley could be seen as a decent company if they did a charitable deed and return the land to the people of the village and it is set up safe for them there, and let the Red Lion pub have their spaces back too.
And may people the people who see these lovely animals wandering around foraging at night be able to enjoy seeing animals normally usually in a more rural area.
So now perhaps the Old Bowling Green becomes a Special site?
April 1st, 2010 at 10:18 pm
The Village Hall is more important to the community than a branch of Waitrose. Relegating it to a less prominent location and up close to the proposed old peoples new homes is not satisfactory. Why not revamp it in it’s current position. Building the villlage hall out of the village to allow for easier parking may be a more applicable response to the proposal of building a branch of Waitrose. Having the village hall ” nowhere near the centre” isn’t much use to the elderley who may not be able to jump into their cars to use the hall.
April 7th, 2010 at 10:34 am
I believe that the Village Hall fulfils a wealth of vital functions and that its character and facilities are greatly enhanced by its location. I am indignant that it should be shunted to an inferior location in order to allow room to a supermarket that is superfluous to to the needs of Knowle. The building was originally built by public subscription: I am sure that many of those who state that the current building is “falling down” would rather contribute something towards a new building, rather than have the nature of the village centre irreversibly ruined through this new development.