Welcome to Acocks Green Focus Group’s Website

May 11th, 2009 Posted in Header Post | 2 Comments »

The Green at Acocks Green, August 2012,  featuring an individual ‘Arts and Crafts’ style flower bed prepared by local resident Fran Lee and her team, as part of the Acocks Green in Bloom entry.

Welcome to the Website of Acocks Green Focus Group.  We are an active local campaign group in Acocks Green.   We campaign for the fixed physical environment of Acocks Green: both to conserve what is good, and to improve what is not so good.  Our concerns are buildings, trees, street layout and street furniture and green open spaces.    Our  site is regularly updated, below, with new posts of ongoing news and campaigns.   Along the right hand side you will also find some permanent pages about issues of local interest and a set of links to other local websites and to national websites of relevance to our work.

It may be that a particular search term brought you here and you started with the posting with that term in it.  If you live in Acocks Green you will probably find other items to interest you here as well.   Have particular things you are interested in, and no time to look through everything?  Try our search box, top right.

What’s happening about the Glynne Edwards Hall?  Keep track of our updates here – scroll down for a series of posts. You will see it has now been confirmed that the building is locally listed Grade A.  Also note our Stop Press link to our Flickr file, for a report on our recent visit to the Baptist buildings.

The DRAFT Smart Route plan for Acocks Green centre is on the link here.  Note this is a DRAFT.  There will be public consultations on this – most likely starting around early January next year.  We will put up more detailed comments later.

This year we expect to produce a 2013 calendar of attractive Acocks Green views, like the one above  – in time for Christmas shopping!  Watch out for more details later.

You can now simply click to follow us on Twitter:


Glynn Edwards Hall – Stockfield’s Secret List

May 7th, 2013 Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Stockfield Secret

Shhh – Stockfield has a secret.  Alternative plans showing new designs for the building which Stockfield Community Association and Acocks Green Baptist Church hope to build to replace the much loved locally Grade A listed Glynn Edwards Hall in Acocks Green were shown on Tuesday 7 May 2013,  but only at two non-publicly advertised events and only to a carefully selected few who had received letters.    After repeated questioning Daphne Francis of SCA, who initially talked of having written to local residents and of  having taken names from Birmingham City Council Planning Department’s list of those who commented on the previous plans refused point blank to reveal the source of the list of people she had contacted.  Instead she finally agreed, in front of four witnesses, that it was the case that she was keeping the source of her list secret and accepted that this fact would be recorded.  A group of four local residents who had all commented on the previous plans and who attended to  view the plans had none of them received notification either as local residents or as previous commentators, even though two of them lived in Alexander Road, which The Glynn Edwards Hall sides onto.   The four were forced to rely on information from someone who had received a letter.  Stockfield delegates also agreed that there were no notices outside advertising the event and agreed that they had not advertised the event in the press, or via the constituency officer who usually circulates details of local meetings to local organisations, and seemed unable to explain these points.

When it was pointed out to the Stockfield representatives that this meant that many people would have had no chance to comment on the plans and they were asked if they would be holding another, better advertised, session they said no.  They had had the sessions on this day and that was it.

In other words it would appear that Stockfield is trying to cherry pick those who will comment on its new plans, and then, by refusing to reveal the source of their list so that there can be any checking of the number of people on it who were actually contacted (As would be the case with either a road list or a BCC list of objectors)  to conceal this tactic as well.   Moreover the form for comment is worded in such a way as to make it very difficult to indicate a dislike for both plans and a preference for the existing building.  Yet, being  no strangers to the tactics of SCA Acocks Green Focus Group members now suspect that the opinion forms now being collected in will be the ones which will go to BCC Planning,  in support of a claim that local residents support one of the two options rather than supporting the retention of the existing hall.

Incredibly, and despite our report of our flickr site visit in July 2012 which has been endorsed by both local MP John Hemming and local Conservation Architect Joe Holyoak, showing that the Arthur Moore requires about £120,000 of works, is slightly neglected but is not falling down, a member of the Stockfield board then trotted out the same tired old story that if the Glynn Edwards is not demolished and rebuilt at a cost of around two million  the Arthur Moore would somehow rapidly deteriorate and collapse through lack of funding: funding which  incidentally could quite easily have been found if Stockfield had stuck to plan A in 2009 and purchased a lease to the Arthur Moore Hall from Acocks Green Baptist Church.  Instead legally acquired documents show that Stockfield has poured away over £100,000 and rising into unwanted plans for The Glynn Edwards Hall.  We still await the publication latest accounts, showing latest spending on Glynn Edwards plans.  These accounts (which have to be placed in the public domain) were already late at the beginning of April.

Ms Francis also refused to allow the plans to be photographed.  In fact the sheer nervousness of the plan proposers was almost tangible.   However, they could hardly prevent sketches being made.  So, with apologies for not being able to bring you the originals (Ask Stockfield and their architects if they are feeling brave enough to show the originals of these in Acocks Green yet!)  Here is our approximation of what they were too frightened to show you the general public of Acocks Green and other interested parties who care about what happens in our period suburbs.

Glynn Edwards Plan 2013 - collage

Glynn Edwards Hall – Existing Building front and side and Options A & B front and sides compared.

Note the two versions of the front.  Option A prominently features a plate glass door – those are the four small squares in front.  Option B features a kind of Gable end with window, in a vague nod to the original  and plain oblong windows on the right but the overall effect is plainer and more angular.  All designs are in red brick, but the attractive Arts and Crafts patterned brick design across the main gable end in the present building is gone as also  is the black and white timber frame detailing which echoes many local buildings around this spot.

Here, below is a closer look at the side.

Glynn Edwards Hall - side elevations old & new 2013

Glynn Edwards Hall – side elevations: existing and options A & B 2013

The difference is striking.  Distinctive Arts and Crafts style gable ends and black and white timber framing, both of which fit well into the local street scene in the view of various key national and Birmingham conservationists who have commented, have been replaced by dreary flat oblong rows of plain windows.  Option B, which we suspect is the option those few who saw the designs were expected to vote for has a little more variation at the end, on the right, but not much. Is this a church hall, a modern factory or a prison block?  Is this what we want for this corner of Alex Road?

Watch this space … shortly we will consider the fixed two option form which requires participants in this exercise to vote for one of the two options (‘keep existing hall please’ not permitted as an option.)  We will display both the form itself and an alternative three option version (Option C – ‘Keep existing 1924 Grade A listed Glynn Edwards Hall please.’) which you may send to Planning yourself if you wish, in order to help counterbalance the two option forms which we are fairly sure will be sent in to Planning as evidence of support for the demolition scheme.  These will be forms completed by a highly hand-selected invite list crowd who were encouraged to view and comment on the options. (And perish the thought, but we are tempted to speculate on the fate of any of those handed in to Stockfield which did not bring in the desired response as well.)   Do you live in Acocks Green?  Were you on that list?  Thought not!

Stockfield’s Plans for the Glynn Edwards: Their Two Option Form and our Modified Three Option Form with the Missing Option C

First here is the Stockfield form as it was offered to a limited selection of apparently hand-picked Acocks Green residents on May 7 2013.   We strongly suspect that this will form the basis of a rigged ballot in which completed forms will be sent to Birmingham City Council Planning Department in support of a claim that local residents have voted for demolition of the building and the provision of the supposed very unclear ‘facilities’ offered by its replacement.  Note there are two options only: Option A, or Option B – both imply support for demolition of The Hall: a good old fashioned sales tactic.  You are also invited to tick to say that you support ‘the proposal for a new Community Facility’.  The ‘facility’ consists of a cafe (In an area away from the main centre of Acocks Green but where there is already a nearby cafe.)  a ‘training kitchen’, a computer skills training room (There are already a number of computer skills training facilities in Acocks Green for the increasingly dwindling number of people who do not already have computer skills)  and a number of very small rooms.  No details of how this ‘facility’ might better serve the community than the existing large well lit and airy meeting room were on offer at the exhibition.

Glynn Edwards Hall - Stockfield Two Option Form: Demolition or Demolition?

Glynn Edwards Hall – Stockfield Two Option Form: Demolition or Demolition?

Below is our new, improved, options form with the missing Option C: retention of existing building, included.

Glynn Edwards Hall - the Form with Option C & Options Images

Glynn Edwards Hall – the Form with Option C & Options Images – double click on form for clearer view

You can download the pre-completed form here:

Glynn Edwards Hall Pre-Plan Consultation Option C (Keep Existing Hall)

Or, if you would rather have a blank version for your own comments download this one.  Glynn Edwards hall pre-planning consultation Option C (Keep Existing Hall) Blank Version

We suggest that you send either of these forms not to our friends at Stockfield Community Association but to Justin Howell, Planning Officer, Planning and Regeneration, PO Box 28, Birmingham B1 1TU, where your form may then keep company with completed  limited Option A/B forms which we imagine will shortly be arriving from Stockfield in support of their latest about to be submitted  demolition plans.

 

Glynn Edwards Hall P.A. is Withdrawn! (But … )

March 23rd, 2013 Posted in Campaigns | No Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Baptist Hall Acocks Green (Glyn Edwards 1924)

Learn below how the pounds have been flying out over the years on unwanted and abandoned plans to replace this popular building.

Finally, after much waiting and wondering how much longer this could be drawn out the extremely unpopular plan to demolish the popular Glynn Edwards Hall in Acocks Green has been withdrawn: check it out here: Glynn Edwards Hall demolition plan withdrawn However, just when you thought it was safe to get back into the Baptist Church Hall (without first checking to see if those impressively solid  Arts and Crafts style rafters underneath the modern ceiling insulation tiling are about to come down about your ears)  …  it seems the plan proposers have already been busy again.

If you live around the Glynn Edwards you may indeed have already been one of the lucky recipients of this letter, which we reproduce below, explaining how it will be business as usual as Glynn Edwards Hall Demolition Plan Proposal Mark three hundred and something will swing into action some time or other, but doubtless not before lots more loot has flow out of the Stockfield Community Association coffers rather than been spent on improvements to the Estate.

Stockfield Baptist Letter March 2013-1

Simply double- click this image to read the letter clearly

Everyone concerned about the Glynn Edwards, but Stockfield residents in particular,  may be interested to read below about the money which has flown out from Estate in the past few years, without a penny being seen by residents.  How much more is to be spent in this way?

Stockfield Spending – Glynn Edwards Hall Plans: 2005 -Present

In 2005 we learn from the 2005 Stockfield Community Association Report that :

The Association is actively pursuing the provision of a Community Facility and other Community Programmes for the benefit of residents of the Stockfield Estate.  The Association has set aside a reserve of £250,000 to meet the associated costs, of which £160,000 remains unspent.

You can read that report the  Stockfield Community Association – Annual Report 2005  here - see p. 10.

What happened to that £160,000?  By December 2007  this figure had been boosted  to £186,021.00  out of which £16,835.00 had been spent.  See p.10 (page no. printed on doc.) of  Stockfield Community Association Accounts – End 2007 In 2008 £15,302.00 of £169,86.00 was spent – See p. 11 of the report: Stockfield Community Association Accounts – End 2008

After that things start to liven up more because in this year an additional £96,111.00 was transferred into the  ‘Community Facility’ account to bring it back up to £250,000.  By this point our good friends at Apec Architects had been engaged and were beginning to carry out ‘feasibility studies’.  However,  architects who carrying out feasibility studies and drawing up plans do not come cheap.  Various meetings were held and material was produced. Matters really took off, along with those flying pounds, at the end of  2010 when, as we see on p 9 and p. 10 for Stockfield Community Association Accounts – End 2010  a sum of £41,647.00 was spent on the eternally planned ‘community facility’.*   The logical conclusion though would seem to be  that this is the sum which funded glossy designs and a 3D model which were produced for an earlier, informal, plan shown in the neighbourhood, but not submitted to Planning, in 2010.   During 2011 a further plan was drawn up for display, complete with many drawings and a 3D model and this became the plan just abandoned, which was submitted to Birmingham City Council Planning Department as a Planning Application last June.  We learn on pages 10 and 11 of the Stockfield – Accounts – End 2011 that a further £28,567.00 was paid to ACBC Design Works for works on the never appearing ‘community facility’*  There is probably more spending to be revealed in the pipe line.  This is information which appears within the public realm.  Next accounts, which will cover 2012, are due to be filed at Companies House on 31 March 2013.  (Will they appear on time, or will they as has been a pattern with Stockfield recently, be filed late?) We also include the above information here because accounts no longer appear on the SCA website.

So, to date:  how we are doing?

  •  £16,835.00
  •  £15,302.00
  •  £41,647.00
  •  £28,567.00
  • £102,351.00

Wow!  We only have accounting information for up to the end of 2011 but So far Stockfield would appear to have spent at least £102,351.00 on a non-appearing community facility which involves demolishing a much loved and attractive church hall in order to impose something new upon a community which clearly (even their own letter somewhat haltingly acknowledges this) does not want it!!  To date they are nowhere with this scheme, but have now announced that they are literally going back to the drawing board?  Why?  If you live on Stockfield what else would you like your money to be spent on?  Is everything in your property up-to-date and working? No repairs needed?  No additional facilities you would like or need in your own home on Stockfield?  If the situation is otherwise why not drop a line to Stockfield and tell ‘em now?  You can do this simply by emailing the contact given on the letter:  info@daphnefrancis.co.uk  We are sure they would love to hear from you with your alternative suggestions about how another 100K might be spent before the board goes back to its favourite hobby of  funding unwanted plans for the Glynn Edwards. 

The Stockfield/Baptist Rationale

Two reasons have been continually put forth, with the plan proponents frequently and somewhat dizzingly switching between the two.  Now two separate and unrelated reasons or explanations for something generally attract suspicion don’t they?  Don’t the police tend to say:  ‘Which is it then?’

Reason 1: ‘Facilities’

The area needs more ‘facilities’.  Exactly what ‘facilities’ might these be?  This was seldom spelled out. Closer inspection of the last plans strongly suggested that since most of the facilities would have been taken up by the well funded Jericho organisation most of the money would have been going into a Jericho employment training centre, complete with Jericho style ‘training’ kitchen, a cafe facing the road (which is partly why the existing Glynn Edwards ‘had’ to go) and five counselling rooms.  Five counselling rooms?  It was somewhat implied in one meeting held by the proposers that this was for the dysfunctional, chaotic drug-ridden unemployed lot of us who live around here: drug addiction counselling came up as a theme rather a lot.  However, police have informally confirmed that there is no marked drug problem in the vicinity of the Glynn Edwards and council statistics show that unemployment in Acocks Green is slightly lower than average.  We now have it on good authority though that, despite some earlier signs of support, Jericho have now changed their minds, stated that they do not wish to have a facility in Acocks Green anyway.  After the long pause when council officers  first made it clear to the plan proposers that the present design would be recommended for refusal,  this about-turn by Jericho may go also go quite a long way towards explaining the present climb down.

Reason 2: ‘The Stat Listed 1903 Arthur Moore Hall next door is falling down.  This is the only way to save it’ 

Oh yeah? A party of us, including local MP John Hemming and well known Birmingham Conservation Architect and Conservation Panel member Joe Holyoak visited the very lovely but battered Arthur Moore Hall last August

Arthur Moore - Upstairs Hall - Chimney Damage

Everyone agreed (and Joe and John were happy to put it in writing) that The Arthur Moore is not falling down.  What it does need fairly urgently is some TLC.  For example, as any property owner will tell you, properties tend to become damp and to develop mould patches when damp is allowed to enter unchecked:  a stitch in time saves nine.

Arthur Moore Hall - Damage to side window - enlargedPerhaps, for example, there could have been a congregation whip around to pay for some sticky tape to cover over this window?  The damp entering here is clearly responsible for some of the damage inside the upper hall.  The link above shows in much more detail many similar, and even worse, instances of the same kind of problem.  Obviously sticky tape will not see to all the problems, but a little modest attention would have helped some of these problems getting worse.  However, in 2009 it was planned that Stockfield would buy a lease on The Arthur Moore.  This could have made a proper facility for Stockfield people (Rather than an unemployment/counselling centre … ) and given Acocks Green Baptists the right funding to do up the Arthur Moore, which we estimated needed, and still needs fairly urgently,  around £100,000-£120,000 spent on it.  It is a reasonable sum of money … about the same as that which has now been thrown at unwanted plans for the Glynn Edwards.

Who suggested that the only way to fund the relatively minor repairs on The Arthur Moore was to demolish and rebuild The Glynn Edwards and then to make money on that building by leasing most of it to Jericho?  This wonderfully contorted sounding scheme was the idea of the architects’ firm.  We could say more on these charming individuals. (People who have met them will know what we mean.)  For now we are biding our time and waiting to see whether the Baptist/Stockfield letter is a purely a face-saving exercise with no serious plans behind it and also waiting to see whether or not the same architects’  firm will be engaged again  if the letter means what it says.

Watch this space.

* Presumably ACBC Design Works which appears in the 2010 and 2010 SCA Accounts is a misprint for Apec, or was there also another organisation involved; maybe one of the parties involved would care to clarify?

Our Fab Acocks Green Calendar – Just a Few Left

December 12th, 2012 Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Brendon’s Tree – our April pic

Support Acocks Green Focus Group and Acocks Green BID in our work to improve Acocks Green by buying a beautiful Acocks Green calendar: great pictures all of Acocks Green, all by local photographers: can Acocks Green look gorgeous?  Yes it can.  Yes it does.  See our samples here:

The Inn on the Green: Bronze Award for Acocks Green in Bloom Entry – our August pic

Acocks Green in the Snow – our December pic

Alexander Road Sunset – our February pic

Victorian house in Acocks Green – our September pic

Hazelwood Road – our June pic

The calendar is £7.50, and it comes with a date grid space to write down each day’s appointment and details of local meetings and local politicians’ surgeries.  How do you get your hands on one of these and brighten your house for the next year?

Look out for us at the next Acocks Green Farmer’s Market on 15 December, or check out Jeffries or Sainsbury’s in the Village, or Shah’s Newsagents next to Acocks Green Railway Station.  Can’t make any of those?  Drop us a line on ‘Contact Us’ and we will arrange for you to pay on-line and post you one.

Know someone in Acocks Green, or who comes from Acocks Green, who you have not yet bought a Christmas Pressie for … well that’s another problem solved, isn’t it?

Glynn Edwards Hall Saga: The Mystery of the Missing Listing

August 3rd, 2012 Posted in Campaigns | No Comments »

Update: This story is still ongoing.   At some point the Application will go to Planning Committee for a decision.  (Controversial applications are normally decided in public by the Planning Committee, which is 15 councillors from a cross section of parties, and usually after a short speeches  from both applicants and the opposition.)  No date has yet been set for Committee.  (The provisional 13 September was cancelled.)  This is an unusually long-running application.  Apparently the architects are still deliberating, but leaving The Planning Department, Acocks Green Baptists, Stockfield Community Association, and the rest of us, all in the dark.  Some aspects of this story are starting to look increasingly odd.  There will be another full new post shortly.  (This update written 19 October 2012.)

 

Stop Press 1 – look out for our new ‘Save Glynn Edwards Hall’ petition – now at Jeffries Hardware, in the village, more venues coming.  

Stop Press 2 -  See our illustrated report on our visit to all the Acocks Green Baptist buildings  This was a very interesting visit, suggesting, perhaps, most importantly that (1) The very attractive, stat listed, Arthur Moore Hall needs some urgent maintenance work because of damp problems.  Help is needed to find money for this but (2) The problems involved are, thankfully, relatively minor.  Repair to guttering, a chimney and a broken window plus central heating installed upstairs would all make a welcome difference.

With over 200 comments now logged with Planning the Glynn Edwards Hall is becoming not only the most hotly contested plan in Acocks Green for decades, but, currently, the biggest Planning Application show in town.

Apart from the desire of most to conserve as opposed to demolish, this charming local building which belongs in a set with the statutorily listed buildings on the site, one particular point has been a bone of contention.  Every time members of the community have mentioned that the Glynn Edwards Hall is locally listed Grade A the developers have dismissed this, using the argument that there is no sign of the Grade A listing on the Birmingham City Council Local List website.  The answer that we had been advised by the Conservation Department that the building was locally listed Grade A, and, even, the point that the BCC official Conservation Officer’s Report makes this point were repeatedly shrugged away on the basis that the on-line list does not mention it.

We can now clear this mystery up, once and for all.  The Glynn Edwards IS, beyond a shadow of a doubt,  locally listed Grade A.  The public domain document, from 1991,  supplied to us by BCC Conservation, which is shown in a screen shot above,  and available for downloading in its entirety, at the end of this post, proves this.

The story is as follows:  the Baptist Church (1913) and The Glynn Edwards Hall (1924) were locally listed together  in 1991, as a single batch local listing, at Grade A – Item 12  out of a number of items for Acocks Green (Item 11 was Acocks Green Police Station, Grade B)   If you look carefully, at the screen shot of the typed document above,  you will see that, in fact the second paragraph here is describing the Glynn Edwards Hall, which is the corner building on the plot.  Indeed it even gets slightly more attention in this listing description than does the buy cheap cialis Church itself  Later on the church and the Arthur Moore Hall  (also listed in this batch)  were put forward for, and achieved, Statutory Listing Grade II.  It would seem that, technically, though they don’t need it, they are still, also, locally listed at Grade A.  This entire listing, including for the Glynn Edwards Hall, is as valid as the day it was made.  The reason why the Glynn Edwards did not appear on the Local List on the internet was because its old typed listing document, above, was not on computer and was, wrongly,  filed only as part of the data for the Statutory Listing of the other two buildings.  Conservation had another list they used, saying the building was on their A list,  but the building was missed off the on-line list because the listing document was, in effect, lost.

Incidentally, both buildings are by the architect F. B. Andrews, and both are described as having Arts and Crafts style features.

Why does this matter?  A listing matters when a building goes before Planning Committee.  A Grade A local listing says, in effect:  ‘this building matters a lot’. It sends a strong signal to Planning Committees to think very carefully indeed before authorising a plan which would result in demolition.

However, this is not the end of the story.  In recognition of this serious admission, and the controversy it has caused, BCC Conservation have now withdrawn the entire local list from the BCC website because it is incomplete and misleading.  We are advised that the list will remain withdrawn until it is properly amended to show the listing of the Glynn Edwards Hall, Acocks Green. Instead, on this page, note the message:

A copy of the Locally Listed Buildings in Birmingham is available on request and will be online shortly.

Here is the famous missing document, in its entirety.   Again, note this is a batch listing document, for various buildings in Birmingham.   Look for item 12.  on page 5

Glynn Edwards Hall – Grade A listing document 

The Plan Application will probably now go to Committee on 30 August.  view the Plan and add comments here  If you would like to view missing documents in the on-line documents list on these BCC Plan pages see our list of downloadable docs in our earlier posting here

Report on Meetings re Glynn Edwards Hall, 20 July 2012

July 23rd, 2012 Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

There have now been two meetings on the Glynn Edwards Hall.  The first was at the Hall itself.  The second meeting was the Ward Meeting on 25 July.   At both meetings we were confronted with the assumption (stated with much aggression and force at the 20 July  meeting by both plan proposers and archite  and reiterated on 25 July by the proposers that there is a problem which is best solved by demolishing and rebuilding the Glynn Edwards.  With vast confidence, this takes for granted that it will be lucrative to let small rooms in the newly rebuilt Glynn Edwards Hall, and that, therefore, the estimated two million to rebuild the hall will be money well spent.  This should be considered against the likely two hundred thousand or so to properly renovate the Arthur Moore Hall, to make minor improvements to The Glynn Edwards and to utilise the existing roof space there.

One member of the audience on at the earlier meeting was a particularly dramatic lady, who was a member of a party from Solihull, who appeared to have been brought in to instruct the benighted residents of Acocks Green, in how to run their affairs.  (One has to have sympathy with the proposers We guess. They were clearly finding it a bit difficult to find any locals to support them.)

This lady informed us all, at some length, that the wind would be blowing through the broken window panes of the Glynn Edwards in ten years time, if it was not knocked down and replaced, forthwith, by Naomi’s two million quid monstrosity.

This, however, assumes that the small rooms in the new building will be easy to rent out.  In point of fact, rooms, ready to let, in another Acocks Green church building, owned by Acocks Green Methodists have proved impossible to let, at a market rent, to the kinds of socially orientated organisations which the Baptists, also, appear to have in mind.  The renting ideas presented in the  Planning Application documents connected with the proposal to demolish and rebuild the hall  remain vague and insubstantial.  At the meeting, by way of proof that this scheme would now work,  we were invited to rely on a secret Business Plan which we were informed was now completed, though, we understand,  not yet voted and ratified by a quorate Church meeting.

The worrying alternative scenario, based on the real facts of the position in buy cialis Acocks Green, in this economic climate, is that the building with the broken glass and the wind and the tumbleweed etc blowing through it in ten years time will not be the existing, very popular, 1924 Grade A locally listed building, but the new one with the now famous small rooms with the decidedly dodgy sounding rental plans which cannot be revealed.

At the Ward meeting the developers were quizzed on their claim that English Heritage supported them, after portions of a letter from the local English Heritage inspector, Dr Sarah Lewis, was read out at the meeting. The letter from Dr Sarah Lewis of English Heritage plainly does not support the proposers.  (This letter, originally addressed to Justin Howell, at BCC Planning Department, on 15 June,  was kindly re-forwarded by Dr Lewis to Acocks Green Focus Group on 25 July 2012.) The developers amended their claim that English Heritage supported them, to them claiming that the Lottery ‘branch’ of English Heritage supported them.  However, the Heritage Lottery is a different organisation, not connected with English Heritage.  Therefore, we find the claim, proudly made at the first meeting, that ‘English Heritage supports’ somewhat disingenuous,  to say the least.

May we also remind that Naomi Fisher and her associates at Apec are essentially salespeople for their product.  They are quite good at it,  but in the circumstances, one would expect no less.  We understand that they have already been handsomely paid, by Stockfield Community Association, many thousands of pounds of their funds,  for the plans they have drawn up and they certainly stand to make much, much, more if the Plan Application goes through.  Meantime, Stockfield who, we are advised, have been pouring their community funds into the Apec coffers for this, for some time, are now, also, one would imagine, desperate, to have something to show; Stockfield residents in particular, please note, and weigh carefully any approaches now made to you.

The Glynn Edwards Hall – Conservation Officer Recommends Refusal

July 16th, 2012 Posted in Conservation area | No Comments »
Tags: , , ,

Just for a change … front view (Also may help with understanding C.O’s comments.)

The Birmingham City Council Conservation Officer for this area has now released their report on the Glynn Edwards Hall planning application proposal.  It makes interesting reading.   You can read the full report here: Birmingham City Council Conservation Officer’s Report on the Glynn Edwards Hall Planning Application

It is all worth reading, but here are some extracts:

The application site is set between two grade II Listed Buildings, and is a curtilage property to the Church. In addition it is Locally Listed in its own right at grade A. In addition the properties on the opposite side Alexander Road and No 50 Yardley Road is also Locally Listed. These buildings are typical of the range of architectural styles dominant at the time and combine to give this part of Acocks Green a specific sense of place and character.

[...] we have provided clear pre-application advice expressing our considerable concern regarding the principle of demolishing the existing building, which we consider to have merit both in terms of the setting of the Listed Buildings and the wider streetscene. The existing building turns the corner extremely well and is respectful to the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings.

[...] As you know we have previously expressed the view that greater thought should be given to the better/more efficient use of the existing buildings with some judicious demolition and modest extension. In my view this has not been adequately considered and robustly analysed within the supplementary documents. The assessment of the value of the existing buildings to the overall heritage asset is somewhat cursory; and I am not convinced that all other alternatives to demolition have been considered.

[...] The scale of the current building respects the church with the elements closest to it being of the lowest level. As a result even though there is little space between the two structures, the Hall is subservient and not unduly dominant. In contrast the proposed two-storey arrangement creates an extremely overbearing and uncomfortable juxtaposition with the Church. The proposed Alexander Road elevation is similarly extremely incongruous.

[...] The expanse of roof to Alexander Road is unduly dominant, further exacerbated by the lack of decoration and the use of the palette of materials. In addition I am unconvinced as to the proposed ‘link’, and the unsympathetic additions to the west elevation which slices across the existing windows. Powder coated grey aluminium roof panels are not an appropriate material in this location.

[...] in view of the above I would recommend that this application be refused as adversely affecting the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings and having a negative impact on the surrounding streetscene.

We agree with all of this, and much of this has also been put to us by local people, especially the point about the materials, which are inappropriate and insensitive for this location.  One point which we think this report brings out particularly nicely is that, in effect, the Glynn Edwards is a bungalow with dormer windows. One good reason for this is that the architect, who had also, nine years earlier, designed the 1913 church itself did not want to create a building which would compete with his own, master, creation.  The Glynn Edwards is, deliberately, a less striking building than the church.  It is the, sympathetic, supporting act, but keeping more quietly in the background, lower in height.  The new building is a full two buy cialis online stories.

If you are reading this, and you are wishing you had written in yourself, to planning, there is still time to join the many others who have written.  Planning have said they will take comments until at least 20th July.  You can download our suggested, draft, letter here: Glynne Edwards Hall – Standard Letter opposing demolition This letter can be simply be completed with your own address and signed and posted to the address shown,  it can be added to in the additional space at the end, or it can be used as a model for your own comments.   Alternatively, you can comment on-line here  (Plan details are also here.  Some print documents, which will not download from the BCC website Planning page,  are on our own site, in our previous postings here.)

If you have not seen our postings before, don’t forget to check out our previous two postings, with more info on the Glynn Edwards, and on this plan.

The Glynn Edwards Hall & More Little Economies with the Truth

July 1st, 2012 Posted in Campaigns | 1 Comment »
Tags: , ,

Further to our recent post on The Glynn Edwards Hall  in response to the  recently submitted plan to demolish this building     Acocks Green residents on the Hall side of Acocks Green have had a leaflet has dropped through their letter boxes.  We reproduce it below. (Double clicking will enlarge to readable size.)

SCA/AGBC Justification for Glynn Edwards Demolition Leaflet p. 1

 

SCA/AGBC Justification for Glynn Edwards Demolition Leaflet p. 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This leaflet purports to explain the current Stockfield Community Association/Acocks Green Baptist Church scheme.     Except that it is stunning for what it does not say.  In the middle of page 1 it says

We have reached an important stage in the project and while we continue to work on the plans we want to keep you updated.  We know that that there are aspects of the scheme that have attracted interest and some concerns and we therefore want to ensure that residents have the correct and up to date information.

Excellent – so it is frankly explained here that it is planned to demolish this popular,   locally Grade A listed building to replace it with a plain modern,  angular, looking featureless building, with no proper hall?  Er, actually, no.

There is no mention, anywhere in all of these two A4 sides of  ‘correct and up to date information’ that it is planned to demolish The Glynn Edwards Hall.  There is no mention of the building that will replace it.  Check it out.

 In fact there is no reference to the plan application currently up on the BCC Planning website at all.   Apart from these teensie-weensie little omissions,  what do we learn from this latest missive?

  • ‘The scheme is to support and serve the community’  We say: By demolishing a much loved local building and removing a meeting hall?
  • It will ‘Provide excellent facilities that will last.’  We say: The existing hall has lasted since 1924
  • ‘Seek to balance past, present, and future community needs.’  We say: What exactly does this mean?  How can one ‘balance’ past community needs?  Exactly when did the community say it did not need the present hall?
  • ‘Local views have been taken into account’?  We say: Um, this would include all the letters against demolishing the hall and the petition against it … or maybe not … ?
  • They are ‘ensuring the heritage of the buildings on the church site is preserved’.  We say: This is highly controversial for the reasons set out in our previous post.  There is no clear indication of how they are going to make enough money letting out small rooms in the new building in order to finance renovating the other buildings.  Acocks Green Methodists have found that such a scheme is unworkable as a way of raising finance.  They carefully fail to mention the destruction of one piece of heritage: the Grade A locally listed Glynn Edwards itself.  They also omit to mention that some of the money they hope to raise would go towards destroying interior features in the Statutorily listed Baptist Church itself, where original pews would be ripped out.
  • ”We are in close communication with the relevant authorities, including on the issue of listed buildings.’  We say: What they fail to mention is that they have had no support from any ‘relevant authorities’ on the subject of demolishing The Glynn Edwards.  There is a letter included in the Planning Application (Appendix E) from Birmingham City Council Planning Department, from when this scheme was first being discussed.
  • ‘A robust business plan is being prepared‘   We say: Suggested Translation: ‘After faffing around for three years with this idea we have put this plan in to the Planning Department and we still have not got our act together and prepared a credible business plan, so we can offer zero ‘correct and up to date information’  about this and we are hoping you will not notice.  We expect that the Council, the Planning Committee and local residents will be stupid enough to wave this through without seeing any plan.  As long as we say that the plan is ‘robust’ (sounds kinda cool??) we are desperately hoping everyone will be convinced.’
  • ‘This is not a rush job’ We say: Er, why has the Planning Application been sent in before the Business Plan is finished and before you have asked anyone what they think then?  And why, then, two weeks after putting the application in  are you now rushing out a letter saying that a ‘robust plan’ is in the pipe line, and asking us for suggestions about what to do with the new building when you have demolished the old one?
  • ‘We welcome your views on how you think the proposed scheme could benefit the local community/  We say: Er, what scheme?  You have not explained what the ‘proposed scheme is’ .  You have left people to work out that there is a Planning Application in, but you have not even mentioned it.  Suggested Translation: ‘We have picked up the vibes that a lot of you don’t like this.  We are now feeling desperate, and  hoping that,  that some of you will swallow our vague claims, not write to the Planning Department objecting, and, maybe even, give us the odd letter we can show to the Planning Department so that we claim the community  support us … but we will, of course, only show the Planning Department letters in favour.

Sorry Stockfield and Baptists. You might have asked us before the plan went in.  Now the only sensible place to send views is the Planning Department.  It is the Planning Department and the Planning Committee who will decide on this.   If people would like to write to the Planning Department, respond on-line here  also, for main points, or if you would prefer to post, see our downloadable  model letter Glynne Edwards Hall – Standard Letter Opposing demolition – re Plan June 2012

In summary, this is one of the most extraordinary documents we have ever seen.  It attempts to defend a scheme – demolishing the Glynn Edwards Hall – without even owning up to what it is really talking about, let alone offering any pictures of the planned new building.  Instead it talks vaguely, and somewhat repetitively about benefiting the local community in a way which is not clear.

Here is that comparison pic again with the proposed replacement building above, and the existing Glynn Edwards Hall below.


 

 

Save the Glynn Edwards Hall (Yes – Again …)

June 23rd, 2012 Posted in Campaigns | No Comments »
Tags: ,

The Glynne Edwards Hall – buy cialis 1924 Arts & Crafts Style Building Below & Proposed Brutalist Inspired Replacement Above

We are in the unhappy position of having to announce that a plan has been submitted to Birmingham City Council  to demolish the much loved 1924, Grade A Listed, Arts & Crafts style Glynne Edwards Hall.  This is one of the two Baptists Church Halls in Acocks Green: the one which fronts onto Yardley Road and sides on to Alexander Road.  Details of that plan are here: Submitted Plan to Demolish The Glynne Edwards Hall and to Remove Pews from Acocks Green Baptist Church

There are many, many documents within this application (See ‘View Related Documents’ at the end of this page.)  This take a lot of working through, but we suggest that you study the first document, which is a picture of the suggested new building.  A number of documents are missing.  The Council are working on this, but, meantime, we supply some of them on the links below, here:

Documents Currently Missing from BCC Planning Website

Design and Access Statement – Planning Ap. June 2012

‘Appendix H  – Statement of Justification Demolition of the Glynne Edwards Hall – Planning Ap. June 2012

Supporting Statement Appendix L – Record of Pre-Application – Planng Ap. June 2012

Supporting Statement Appendix P – Diagrammatic Plans of Concept Options – Planing Ap. June 2012

Supporting Statement Appendix S – Letters of Support – Planning Ap. June 2012

Our Points – in a Nutshell

Having studied the documents our comments would be:

  • We remain well aware that the key rationale for demolishing the building is that the new building, with a number of smaller rooms could be let out to various good causes, in order to raise revenue for the renovation of the statutorily listed Arthur Moore Hall and the Church itself.   On a purely practical business level this seems hard to justify when the nearby Acocks Green Methodist Church has failed, after eighteen months of trying, and regular meetings, to find tenants for its already fully renovated ‘Institute’ building (The former Neighbourhood Office, now transplanted to Acocks Green Library) which is in a more accessible position, closer to Acocks Green Centre.  It is unclear to whom the proposers of this plan believe they could rent the building.  Many laudable schemes are mentioned, but no firm offers are tenancy are referred to, although one potential applicant (See Appendix S, letters)  ruefully refers to the need to find funding.   In this, present, economic climate, the hope that funding will suddenly materialise for these schemes seems optimistic, to say the least.
  • The Glynn Edwards is an attractive, and distinctive building in its own right, with Arts and Crafts style black and white timber, prominent roofing and gable ends and some intricate brickwork and bell tower and chimney designs.  It fits well into the street scene and local people find it pleasing and very welcoming.
  • Apart from the fact that, as a matter of principle we do not believe that locally listed buildings should be destroyed in order to aid the renovation of statutorily listed ones in this particular case the street scene is of particular importance.  The present Glynn Edwards is crucial in its position both between two early twentieth century Stat listed buildings and opposite two striking locally listed ones (Acocks Green Police Station and the former Acocks Green Fire Station.)  To impose a starkly modern, even brutalist, design in amongst this group is aesthetically very insensitive and the Conservation department have already observed upon this point.  (See their earlier response in Appendix L.)
  • The Glynne Edwards has, for many years, done sterling service as a local village hall this side of Acocks Green.  In addition to being the meeting place for organisations like Acocks Green Neighbourhood Forum, it is home to a plethora of Scout groups, Mother and Toddler Groups, Play Groups, Weight Watchers and other local organisations.  The new design does not contain a hall of any size and it is unclear when (if ever) there would be sufficient money raised to provide a replacement hall in the Arthur Moore building.
    .

More Pics

The  interior of the Glynn Edwards Hall during an meeting of Acocks Green Neighbourhood Forum on 19 June 2012.  The Planning Application claims that the present hall is also in need of replacement because it is ‘unwelcoming’.  There was much concern expressed about the plan during this meeting and many people took away a model letter of objection.

Glynn Edwards Verite This is an old video (very short) which we made of the hall in context with its surroundings.  Nothing has changed since then.  The context is part of the concern.

The Front of the Glynn Edwards, from Yardley Road

Interesting Arts & Crafts Brickwork Detail – double click for clear view

Bell Tower Detail (Bell tower Harmonises with the Tower on the Arthur Moore Hall.)

This collage shows how the planned building against the context of the Arthur Moore Hall on the left, the Baptist Church on the right and the existing Glynn Edwards again, below.

Objecting to the Plan

What to do if you are unhappy about this new design as well?  You still have time to object.  (Advice from Justin Howell, Planning Officer for the application – this will go to Committee, probably on August 30,  and it is therefore safe to ignore the stated 12 July date – Planning normally takes comments almost up until the Committee date.)   You can object online to the Glynn Edwards Hall plan Alternatively you can   our  standard letter opposing demolition of the Glynn Edwards Hall Plan  This letter can be amended as wished, and posted to the address on the letter.  (It may also be used as a template for online comment.)

The Baptist Church, Acocks Green – also in Planning Application

If you are objecting to this plan then you might like to spare a thought for the Baptist Church itself, as well.  It seems that some of the money supposedly to be made from this scheme would go to removing the original 1913 pews from this statutorily listed church.  You may wish to give this point your consideration, as well.

History Spot – Who was Glynn Edwards?

Glynn Edwards was actually J. Glynn Edwards (1876-1945) He was  Minister of Acocks Green Baptists 1920-1932. One old journal (The Organ, 1941, presumably for church organists) describes a Baptist minister in Norwich a little earlier, also called J. Glynn Edwards, ie almost certainly the same person, as ‘a most loveable personality’.  Another source describes Mr Edwards as ‘a pleasing correspondent’ * It also looks as though he was involved in some reforms in the Baptist movement.**  It seems Mr Edwards  initiated the building of the Hall, in 1924.

*Frank Dunham, The Long Carry: The Journal of Stretcher Bearer Frank Dunham (1970, p. 231)

** ‘Through the Windows of a Baptist Meeting House’ Baptist Quarterly, 36 (6). p. 304.

Morrison's & Asda Succeed for Acocks Green: What now?

June 5th, 2012 Posted in Campaigns | 1 Comment »

A shopper walks past shabby and boarded up shops somewhere ... could this be Acocks Green soon?

On 26 April Birmingham City Planning Committee voted by seven to five to approve an application to build a Morrison’s on the  Shaftmoor Lane/Spring Road old Lucas/Denso site about a mile from Acocks Green centre, and, also, voted to approve an Asda and smaller shops on Reddings Lane, Tyesley  a little further away.  There are two Birmingham Mail reports  here from   before and after the Planning Committee Meeting.   Some councillors, like  Cllr Barry Henley (Lab) expressed concern about loss of jobs, pointing out that more jobs would be lost than gained, and some councillors tried to gain a cast iron agreement that the promised ExtraCare Retirement ‘village’ also to be built on the site, after the supermarket, will, actually, be built.  All to no avail.

What does this mean for Acocks Green?   Out of town supermarkets like this frequently cause blight in town centres as shoppers flock to the new supermarket.  The existing centre loses not only some of its existing trade with smaller, supermarkets, but, even more importantly, the ‘footfall’ to other shops;  shoppers in urban centres typically visit other shops in the locale, when they visit a local high street supermarket.   Some correspondents to this site have been keen to assure us that they would, also, continue to use Acocks Green centre for other shopping, when new supermarkets are  built.  However, research shows that, despite promises that are made in such instances, the fact of the matter is that shoppers using the new supermarkets do not return very often to their old haunts.  Therefore, even allowing for the fact that some our correspondents may be unusual people who will keep their word, their behaviour will not be typical.  Check out our page on Llandrindod Wells.

The rationale for approving both of these developments was, ultimately, a strange one: it did not matter that a new Tesco’s had recently opened nearby, or that three shops had recently closed in Acocks Green.  The catchment area for the new developments would be approximately 500,000, i.e. half the size of Birmingham.  This assumption is based on a lot other very tenuous seeming calculations in the odd seeming HollisVincent  Audit report, upon which the decision by the Planning Committee was largely made.  HollisVincent is a small, year old, company based in Manchester.  By 2016 it is assumed, in this report, that, because of increased demand (Advertising is going to be buy viagra online so good it will increase demand and, hey, we going to get richer, in the next four years, folks!) 17,000 additional square meters of supermarket will be needed in a block of areas including  Solihull, Saltley, Stechford, Birmingham City City South, Sparkhill, Acocks Green, Kings Heath and Kings Heath;  people from all these districts, it seems,  will happily drive to Morrison’s on Shaftmoor Lane, or Asda on Reddings Lane.  How often  you pop into your local supermarket, and say to yourself: ‘ This is a bit crowded.  I think I will pick my way through the Birmingham traffic to drive to another supermarket five to ten miles away.’

There is more: it is admitted that  Acocks Green Sainsbury’s will probably lose one third of its trade, and Acocks Green centre as a whole, one fifth of its trade, estimates of ‘over trading’.  HollisVincent then go on to concede that their over trading figures of Acocks Green Sainsbury’s might be a bit of an over estimate, but, um, they are sure that they must be pretty right, because Mr Vincent and Ms Hollis popped in, and had a look and Acocks Green Sainsbury’s was crowded … so it must be over-trading.  So they dropped in several times to get an overall picture and  included days, dates and times for these visits, – and date stamped photographs?   Well, um, actually, no.   They didn’t.  In other words HollisVincent’ claim (a key point in their argument) that Acocks Green Sainsburys is ‘over trading’ and – so they are keen to tell us – at a level which is causing ‘customer discomfort’.  However, is their opinion any more valuable than the opinion of any Acocks Green person?   Or, you might possibly feel it is less valuable?  If you live in or near Acocks Green we are guessing you have been in Sainsbury’s more than once, and might feel that Birmingham City Council might have got better value money had they paid you for your opinion, based on more than one visit?

What other pearls of wisdom from HollisVincent?  Well, the Fox Hollies shops are nearer to the planned Morrisons … so that’s OK because they will benefit from being close to Morrison’s … won’t they?  Funny that Bal’s supermarket, which collected over 300 signatures because they were worried about loss of trade to a big glossy rival did not see it quite that way.  HollisVincent offer no estimates of how much Fox Hollies shops  like Bal’s will be affected, only a bland assurance that proximity will be to their advantage.

Also, Acocks Green Sainsbury’s, it seems, supported the plans by a letter.  So that is all right then?   Well … who owns Acocks Green’s Sainsbury’s building?  Morrison’s do.  Sainsbury’s have bought The Trader public house next to their land and have indicated that they might demolish for extra car parking.  (Not, note, to extend the shop.)  This was mentioned in the report too.  Will Sainsbury’s really want to extend for extra car parking if they are anticipating loosing around one third of their trade?  

Also, if Sainsbury’s are so keen to demolish the building why does it currently have signs on the side saying it is to be re-let … as a pub?

If you would like to pursue this further …

Here is the full (64 pages) HollisVincent Report on the viability of building a Morrison’s and/or an Asda Supermarket in the B27, B28 & B11 Areas of Birmingham Note: you will need to read and/or download this from Scribed.  This link will take you there.

For lighter reading there  is a bullet point digest of our responses here.   All comments are related to points in the HollisVincent report.  Note, for detailed comparison of these two documents, downloading of the HollisVincent report  is recommended because page numbers given here refer to the page numbers in the HollisVincent report, which will differ slightly from the page numbers at the side of the Scribed document; check numbers on pages of the report itself.

Note ‘Overall Catchment area’:  How do we know what they mean by all the numbers given for different areas of Birmingham?  (p. 30).  The key is in another report, from which we have extracted the vital page, here

So … OK.  The Planning Committee voted in favour.  That is usually the end of the line.  What else, can protesters do?  This time, because this decision was taken after new National Planning Policy Framework came into effect at the end of March,  we are taking a leaf out of the book of other recent supermarket protest groups, e.g. in Newport  York and Malton  and we are writing to Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to ask him to examine the basis upon which this decision was made, watch this space.

Meantime, in case, in the light of our final comments you are wondering, how far has the building for Morrison’s actually yet got?  Well, judging from these recent pictures of the old Lucas Denso/Shaftmoor Lane site  (27 May 2012) not very far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acocks Green May 3 Elections: Candidates Answers

April 22nd, 2012 Posted in Election | 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,

Stop Press:

O’Shea Wins Acocks Green (According to RedBrickPaper.co.uk)

  • Labour gain Acocks Green: Labour – 2,170, Liberal Democrat – 1,993, UKIP – 269, Conservative – 247, Green – 168, BNP – 166, Trade Union and Society against cuts – 58, Social Democrats – 15
    by Freddie Herzog / News 1:41 AM

Comment: We look forward to working with John O’Shea, a sometime member of Acocks Green Focus Group.  At the same time, we note that, unlike many other areas last night, the Lib-Dem vote in Acocks Green held up remarkably well.  We believe this is testimony to the genuine commitment Roger Harmer showed towards improving Acocks Green.  One of the things Roger called for, and upon which he was widely supported,  was the ‘de-dualling’ of the Warwick Road in Acocks Green centre, in connection with the Smart Route plan to be reconsidered this July.   This, we think, would make  it easier for pedestrians to use the area to shop.  It would mean there would no longer be two rushing lanes of traffic to negotiate between Sainsbury’s and the Olton end of Acocks Green, and there would be much needed extra parking space, and other

buy cialis online

features, like more trees.  We know that John O’Shea is also concerned for the future of a suburb which has suffered some neglect, over recent decades.  We hope to be able to work with John to build on both his own wishes to improve the suburb and upon some of Roger’s objectives, like his support for ‘de-dualling’ and his support for the Conservation Area.

Both lead candidates have commented on the result on their own blogs: John O’Shea  Roger Harmer 

***

It’s that time of the year again, and Acocks Green could be an interesting ward to watch as popular, and hard working, Lib-Dem councillor of the past four years, Roger Harmer goes head to head with Labour’s Labour’s John O’Shea an active, pithy, and very well informed commentator and critic on the local political scene for years.  Last year, this, previous Lib-Dem stronghold lost a seat to Labour, in a surprise win. This time, in our ward, there are also six other candidates, including Acocks Green regulars Joe Edgington for the Conservatives and Amanda Baker for the Green Party.  Who do you want to represent you as your elected representative on Birmingham City Council?  How  are you intending to vote on May 3?  To help Acocks Green people who care about the future of Acocks Green, to decide we have put our own questions to some Ward candidates.*   Acocks Green Focus Group is concerned with the appearance and physical structure of Acocks Green: buildings, street furniture, road layout, trees and green spaces.  As last year, our questions are designed to reveal how candidates will help to look after the fabric of Acocks Green Ward.

What they told us

Click on Candidates name under their photo to be taken straight to their answers page.

Amanda Baker (Green Party

Joe Edgington (Conservative Party)

Roger Harmer (Lib-Dem Party)

John O’Shea (Labour Party)

* This year there is an unusually high number of candidates running for election in Acocks Green; there are eight candidates. We have taken the decision to invite half of these candidates to answer our questions. With apologies to the other candidates, we have invited the two candidates who are widely considered to be most likely to win this election and two others who have run in an Acocks Green Ward election before.

Stop Press/News Flash

We would also like to draw attention to our new page When the big supermarket came to Llandrindod Wells Note:  This page was added after the candidates had given their answers, and it is NOT connected with the election candidates statements, because the real matter in hand (Morrison’s Planning application for Shaftmoor Lane.) will have been decided a week before the May
election.

 

« Older Entries