Replacement of bungalows in new locations
Have you views on the proposed replacement of bungalows on the east side of St Johns Close with new bungalows and the subsequent demolition of the old ones, to be replaced by car parking to service the proposed redevelopment of St Johns Close?
January 19th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
My concern here is whether or not the residents of these bungalows have a choice. Whilst they will be re-housed in two-bed apartments (compared to their current one-bed cottages), is £3,000 really sufficient to compensate them for leaving their home of many years? Most of these people are elderly and this sort of upheaval is very stressful for them. What if they refuse to move? If they do move, will their rent be increased due to the enhanced facilities they will have?
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Several of the bungalow residents have cars on drives outside their homes.
Where will they park if they move into the new accommodation?
I live on the opposite side of St Johns Close to the bungalows and I am physically disabled and unable to walk more than 10 yards.
I have a car and use a powered wheelchair to get out wherever I drive to and also locally in the village.
When I moved here, I did not realise that all the shop workers parked around the curved area all day Monday to Friday.
I have on many occasions asked why they did not use the special long stay car park in Lodge Road and “it is too far” and too much hassle.
I applied for a disabled persons parking spot outside of the property I live in.
This was refused as I live within so many metres of a shopping centre.
And if it had been allowed it would not have a house number put on it so any Blue Badge Holder could park there.
Where the sites of the proposed new housing is, the plot sizes do not look big enough to have drives on them.
This would mean the residents will have to battle with the other residents and the shop workers, in finding a place to park.
And that is not counting the possible number of new employees that Waitrose will employ in their not ’small’ by square footage store, and their workers who will also need parking spaces.
When I went out in the week, 95% of the times when I arrived home, I would have to park in the Shoppers car parks and every 20 minutes drive around to try to find a place to park nearer to my home as I could not walk from where I was originally parked.
One cold day it was 3 hours and 4 different parking places before I found a space by the little cul de sac, from where I managed with a stop to get my breath back and finally home. To have to go out again later and move the car back outside the maisonette.
The designated building sites for the new housing do not look big enough to allow drives to be put on them.
The block by the Red Lion -those residents will face noise in the longer days from drinkers at the pub and also the young people who gather there trying to get alcohol.
Even if you placed the residents without cars there, by my reckoning 3 do not have cars, I was told it is a block of 4 homes so one person would still have a need for parking.
If Solihull Council gave them designated disabled and possibly numbered spots to park, which I believe would be good for them, then I would feel that I was discriminated against when I applied in 2006.
One rule for the Waitrose/Kimberely development and another for all other residents.
In the end I was lucky and my landlords installed a drive for me and my upstairs neighbour to park on.
It was such a relief to know I could home and get inside the house without parking and waiting for hours in further away places.
I hope the bungalow residents ask about the parking facilities if they choose to move to what look lovely brand new energy efficient homes.
I believe there will be no compulsion on them to move.
And them moving is key to the widening of the road etc.
March 20th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Just asking!
Has anyone living in the bungalows with a car on a driveway asked about where they would park if they were to move? I am not sure how many it affects but on the original Google Earth picture has ?5
Looking at the plans the sites look too small.
I live on the other side of the green directly opposite the bungalows.
I applied for a disabled persons parking spot outside of the property I live in.
I rent from Knowle United Charities.
This was refused as I live within x number of metres of a shopping centre.
And if it had been allowed it would not have a house number put on it so any Blue Badge Holder could park there.
Where the sites of the proposed new housing is, the plot sizes do not look big enough to have drives on them.
This would mean the residents will have to battle with the other residents and the shop workers, in finding a place to park.
And that is not counting the possible number of new employees that Waitrose would employ in their not ’small’ store, and their workers who will also need parking spaces.
In the end I was very fortunate as my Landlords agreed to put a driveway in for me and my upstairs neighbour.
Unless the Council were to make them a special case.
Which could cause potential problems if in the future any other resident were to ask for a designated spot and be refused, it could be seen as discrimination.
March 21st, 2010 at 12:56 pm
The proposed replacement bungalows are indeed small. They are devoid of any garden. All of the existing bungalows that will be demolished enjoy a sunny garden space helped by the bowling green at the rear. Access to the new properties for residents and visitors looks very problematic and I cant imagine access for emergency vehicles such as ambulances will be easy for the old people living there.
The new properties are wedged tighly between the existing shops and restaurants the new village hall and car park. The peace and quiet of the existing bungalows will be exchanged for noise, smell (from the restaurants) and a severe loss of space and privacy at a time of life when they deserve better.
Incidentally - None of the unfortunate residents of the existing bungalows have ever been told that relocation is optional! Quite the opposite in fact
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Optional!?? Thats a joke!
Kimberley told me, (well the lady who was at the exhibition in a phone call) that there would be no compulsion on them in any way and they were supposed to have been told that.
I would go and talk them but I am not too good at present.
I think it would be good if a person or persons were to go and talk to each of them, and make sure there has been no coercion on them or guilt factors like if you will not move you will spoil the plans etc. and make them aware if they have a car that they my have parking problems.
Plus issues like Council Tax bands and rents on the 2 bed bungalows.
Particularly the one detached bungalow on the corner of Lodge Road and Longdon Road.
The 2 proposed for by the existing old peoples flats where you turn onto the straight part I am wondering if some of that green area is like a garden to the residents and that a new building there might block light to some of the residents. It is a space marked for 2 semi detached bungalows.
There is a path right up the middle leading to the back of the flats.
If you have Google Earth their has been some updates only in the last week.
Well I am a Mac user so PC users may have had it longer.
I opened it to have a closer look a week or so ago and the camera’s were not there.
They have blurred car number plates etc. for privacy but it allow you to view each property from the front.
If you put a house number in you will see camera’s on the road and paths etc. so you can view the areas of the 3 seperate applications for the other 4 homes not by the Bowling Green.
Also the one detached 2 bed for on the area by the garages. They say they are to demolish garages.
No number of how many, it is an untidy area again but a lick of paint on the garage doors, plus the Council recent replacement of the tarmac surface in December I think it was, so the surface looks much better.
A while back I enquired about getting a garage and was told there was a long waiting list for the ones in St Johns Close.
I was told they are like ‘hot cakes’.
And I asked what was an average wait and was told several years.
So the people who rent the garages to be demolished have they been told and where will they then park. It may add to yet more cars parking on the road.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:57 am
re: The repossession of the bungalows. I am in the process of constructing my overall response on the Waitrose Development and to this end I am trying to acquire as many facts to validate (or contradict) the murmurings going round the village. In this context I have a page ready to send to anyone who may be interested which gives relevant extracts from the standard Solihull MBC tenancy, and outlines the circumstances under which a landlord (in this case the Council) can gain possession via a Court Order of a property which is let under a ’secured tenancy’. To anyone who is interested if you would like to send me your email address I will happily email it to them. Mine is june.withers63@btinternet.com.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:33 pm
I hope that the elderley residents are not forced into something that they may be able to avoid. The attraction of a purpose built home may appeal in some respects but to be located alongside the car parks and the village hall amidst the late night revellers and possibly no area to enjoy outside in a garden cannot be that appealing. They deserve better than being split up and ” squeezed ” into isolated spots amongst family housing. Why trade an attractive outlook for a car park or somebody’s garden fence.
April 3rd, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Hello all,
I have left some other longer messages under the Waitrose bit on this forum, please read. It’s good to have read these comments, there are many interesting valid points that people have posted. Our Easter weekend is blighted by having to write letters of opposition, it’s very sad that it has come to this.
For those who are Solihull community housing tenants, you can write into them as well with a letter of objection to meriden drive, or people on tenants behalf, please do! Not eveyone feels able to write in for one reason or another.
I completely agree with the comments of concern for the people being moved, and have heard that a few of them do not want to move.
I am also fed up of people saying that St Johns Close looks scruffy, I think they are over reacting. I agree with what someone has wrote about a lick of paint on garages etc would help. Are these people looking down on St Johns Close as they are not all bought properties? If so then why don’t they just come right out and say that. I’m sure that isn’t the case for the most but I do wonder with some.
Someone even said on the forum that he wants a waitrose for the snob value. I can understand wanting a nice shop, but does he not realise the disasterous consequences for local residents. When the damage is done in Knowle, Waitrose will be long gone buying up other Morrison stores around the country. Once this is on that site, anything could end up there in the future generations. The local people will lose out as Waitrose provide specialality foods at under cutting prices.
I am pleased that people are speaking up for the bungalow residents and am also pleased that Michele has given us a mention- the residents where the bungalows are to be sandwiched between!
We’ve had no consultations, If we had then we would have told Kimberley developments that their plans are encroaching onto our boundary and our privacy. I would also have told them that we are using our shed for a room on medical grounds for our child who has a long term disability, and that this has taken us months to have granted by solihull community housing, which has been granted.
We are disappointed at how we have been treated, and will fight this all the way. The residents the other side of us do not want to have their sunlight blocked either or privacy taken away. They need that path that runs up to their flats at present. I allow my children to sit on the grass in the summer but never to play ball games out of respect, thinking of the noise nuisance this could create, so imagine the extra noise and nuisance of two bungalows.
I also worry about my children walking up and down our path with the cars. This is very dangerous for them as they are young and vulnerable. The proposed parking for these cars would also look straight into our livingroom! We are already over looked by the sorting office and other buildings, this really is not fair to put anything else hovering over us.
In the paper this week it says that plans have been amended to give the residents of the bungalows more garden and court yard. In this location this is at the expense of our garden and the right to enjoy our home.
We are waiting for Julia Sykes to query the developers on several issues. In the mean time I urge people to write in to reject these plans.
April 24th, 2010 at 1:55 am
Just to let people know that Kimberley have ammended plans on St Johns Close, and despite being advised by the council that they would not be permitted to encroach onto our boundary, they have applied for more of it in the revised plan! They now wish to encroach over our foot path and only access to our house. Their drawings are still incorrect and still encroachment our boundary where our shed is.
I have recieved reassurance today from the council that they will again be advised to ammend the plans accordingly.
My point is this, if the developers really wanted to work with the residents of Knowle, then why haven’t they been out to visit these sites, speaking with concerned residents?
They are still being inconsiderate, and even more so with their ammendments. Also, their drawings are all out of line to our property. It is easy to see this when comparing their proposed plan to the actual site on google earth!
I have now learnt that there is talk of them looking at moving the elderly person’s kitchen window, the other side of proposed build, to around the back somewhere! I feel that the developer should come out and check the boundaries properly, and to also ask that resident if they want their window moved-a lot of stress for a 96 year old!
April 24th, 2010 at 1:59 am
There are also bats living in these bushes, their nests are apparantly protected. The development would see the bushes/trees replaced by a brick wall.