The long awaited Morrison’s plan for Acocks Green has finally arrived.  The various documents involved are on the Birmingham City Council website here Acocks Green Morrison\’s Plan whilst the associated Retirement Village plan is here: ExtraCare Shaftmoor Lane Retirement Village  There is clearly a great deal of material to absorb in both applications.  Here we only offer a few preliminary observations.

The Morrison’s plan documents claim a high percentage of community support in their ‘Supporting Statement on Community Involvement’  It has become apparent that there is  some desire for this plan around the Yarnfield area of Acocks Green, and in Tyseley, where residents are clearly keen for there to be a supermarket.  Some residents also appear to have  accepted the virtually standard issue supermarket plan promise of 400 jobs (Please think about this, people.  Some ‘creative’ estimating’ goes into these figures.  How many supermarkets do you know where there are 400 employees?  Do not allow yourselves to be cleverly conned.)   At the same time, there is also considerable disquiet amongst other inhabitants of Acocks Green.  This  has been reflected in the steady filling up of ‘Stop Morrison’s'  petition sheets around Acocks Green centre.  There are already more signatures on these sheets than the support figures claimed for the Morrison’s scheme.   Pop into Jeffrey’s Hardware, The Swan Trio or Bal’s Supermarket, amongst others,  if you will like to add  your name.  Many Acocks Green residents have voiced to us their own concerns both about the gradual closing down of Acocks Green Centre which the Morrison’s scheme could help increase, and about the loss of a site where skilled jobs could have been created in Shaftmoor Lane.

Meantime, the plot thicknened when we discovered that the Morrison’s plan has a potential rival: A  ‘Tyseley Regeneration Scheme’ has been mooted by Mucklow and Helical Retail.  This contains a large Asda supermarket, but, also, would offer over 1,000 jobs, including, it would seem,  skilled jobs.  This scheme, which describes itself as ‘putting Tyseley back on the map’ is based on a 13 acre site at Reddings Lane in Tysley: the old Eaton Electric site.  This plot, further from Acocks Green centre,  would include  a 71, 600  sq foot Asda, a 70,000 ft retail park, but also an industrial manufacturing scheme involving Eaton Electric and EDF.  Whilst the Morrison’s scheme involves  a ‘Retirement Village’ (the drawings have been described by some as ‘a block of flats’) the Mucklow/Helical scheme  includes a site with previous planning permission for five acres of residential development and up to seventy new homes.  You can read more about the scheme in this Birmingham Post report.  The 60 m. Regeneration Scheme for Tyseley    It is expected that plans will be submitted by the end of November.

An extra twist in the plot: Mucklow/Helical say that if the Morrison’s plan goes ahead then they are likely not to submit their own plan.

So do Acocks Green Focus Group, or any other Acocks Green organisations, yet hold any  position on the battle of the plans?  As of yet Acocks Green has not formulated any general view on the two schemes.   The Mucklow/Helical ideas were only on view a week ago.  Morrison’s plan was only available on line this week and it is too early for any meetings to have taken place.   However, there will be a discussion between representatives of Acocks Green organisations and Mucklow/Helical taking place soon.  Watch this space.

I don’t think any of us are pleased with this at all. I would like to see that site redeveloped, I don’t see the need for another supermarket.

The poster reproduced below, currently on display in the exhibition,  is causing particular bemusement.

Morrison's claim to have identified a gap ...

Firstly, it  is clear from the comments in the Birmingham Mail (See link above) that Fox Hollies traders  are considerably less than convinced about the supposed ‘revitalisation’ on offer to them here!!

Secondly, there is also puzzlement over claims of discomfort and overcrowding at peak times in Acocks Green Sainsbury’s.  When,  exactly, would that be?  If anybody believes that they have experienced these conditions please let us know.  We plan to add some date and time stamped pictures of  Sainsbury’s tills at peak times as soon as this can be arranged.

Finally, Acocks Green Town Centre Manager, Melinda Brown pointed out,  in connection with the statement that Acocks Green Sainsbury’s is trading at 164% of company average, that Acocks Green Sainsbury’s presently has little competition.  However, this is about to change because of the new Tesco’s Yardley (‘Swan’) development, to open in 2012,  the Parkgate Shopping centre scheduled for Shirley and a new supermarket in Sheldon.  In the light of the fact that the poster wording clearly suggests that Morrison’s expect to take trade from Acocks Green supermarkets, Melinda  went on to express concerns, also, about the existing 188 other, smaller, units in Acocks Green, not mentioned in the exhibition. Melinda said:I

If you look at the current lack competition around us it isn’t that surprising that Sainsburys is ‘statistically’ over-performing but we are more than just Sainsburys!  I would be delighted to see a report that evidenced that the 188+ other businesses in the Village (many of which depend on the footfall created by our larger stores)  were also over-performing.   What these reports also do not capture is the  sustainability of the businesses in the Village.

She went on to list a number of, mainly long established,  Acocks Green businesses which have recently closed like Wave Fashions, Acocks Green Cafe, Freshey, Prontaprint, Tiffin Lounge and Retro Hair.  Beyond these, though, Melinda believes that, in the face of the impending supermarket competition with Acocks Green centre, long established ‘absolutely treasured independent’ shops which are currently ‘solid businesses’ could also be ‘pushed’ too far.

On a more positive note Melinda added

We are working hard to find ways to revitalise the Village with the proposed ‘Business Improvement District’.  No matter how large  a supermarket may be or how vast a product range it stocks, it doesn’t offer the local flavour of our Village. We have listened a great deal to what local people have to say about their local shopping centre and if we get the Yes Vote from businesses I do think we will keep many of our shoppers coming to the Village, and I hope, some new ones too. 

We hope she is right.  Meantime, though, there seems plenty here to worry about.  Acocks Green shopping centre  is undoubtedly vulnerable and a the report referred to on the poster by  Roger Tyme and Partners  – see link to Pdf for ‘Retail Needs Assessment Summary’ – noted that access to the village facilities is still an issue.  The village has difficult parking and we have been campaigning on this for years.   If people drive to a big supermarket with lots of facilities and easy parking what will happen, as Melinda asks, not only to our supermarkets, but to our smaller shops, our banks, our cafes   and maybe other facilities like our library. Will these be less used?  Could Acocks Green village become a ghost town?  Will we cease to run into each other ‘in the Green’ because with so few facilities left we don’t go there much?   If  so, how would that affect the life of our community round our centre, as well?

We are told that there will be more local jobs.  This does not, however, take into account the likely loss of jobs from the present Acocks Green centre.

What happens next? Morrison’s have said that the plan will be submitted to Birmingham City Council Planning Department by the end of August.   If you are concerned about these plans download the petition at the top of this post and watch out for the petition appearing in local shops.  Also, drop us a line and let us know what you think and do drop Morrison\’s a line

Updates

See, also, this post on The Birmingham Press for more info on the present worrying trend, this summer, for new supermarket plans in Birmingham, and the recent work of campaigners.

Interesting programme on towns.  Ludlow, ten thousand residents, actively campaigned for a Tesco’s IN town, as opposed to away from their centre – for all the kinds of reason we give below.  See near the beginning of the programme on this  link: BBC iPlayer – \’Town\’

The Guardian magazine carried a very timely article this weekend \’The People vs The Supermarkets\’ by John Harris

‘Once planning permission has been granted and another supermarket goes up, the inevitable happens: local traders suffer, and many go out of business.’   (John Harris, The Guardian 6.8.2011)

Anyone who thinks that that Morrison’s is just another addition to a merry smorgasbord selection of new supermarkets around Acocks Green, please note!

Below is a potentially important extract from Vol 1 of Birmingham City Councl’s Retail Assessment Needs Survey. p. 93. (BCC website.)  Trading in Sainsbury’s will go down anyway when the other three supermarkets planned for around are built, but this extract suggests that the over-trading argument put forward by Morrison’s about Sainsbury’s is not going to be at all useful to them.

BCC Retail Needs Assessment Survey Vol 1, p.93

We thought this little film would be useful in the debate, making it possible for anyone to check details, without having to rely on memory.  This is only our second experiment with a moving camera, ever, and Tom Hooper can probably sleep easy that we are not going to be a threat to his position for a while. However, we have dubbed this film ‘Glynn Edwards Verite’. This is partly because of a fragment of accidently caught chatter, but, more to the point, the aim of ‘verite’ is to accurately show what is there.  (For non Film buffs ‘ Cinema Verite’ was a French Film term which became international.  It refers to  truthful filming, using a hand held camera out in the street in a spontaneous, ‘Never mind the shake, let’s just show the raw truth.’,  style. This become famous in the 1960s, when it was popular with campaigners.)

Whilst we are on the subject of truth … because of questions which certain parties have been raised about the local listing status of the Glynn Edwards, we have double checked. It is definitely locally listed Grade A. (A quick call to BCC Planning on 0121-303 1115 will confirm this, if anyone is still in doubt on the point.)

Stockfield Community Association and Acocks Green Baptist Church have issued a response to their recent opinon survey.  Incidentally, if you have not yet completed that (see top of our previous post here)  it is clear this debate is going to run for some time – our advice would just be to get it in now anyway.

The whole of the  new three page letter from Stockfield and Acocks Green Baptists, sent those who have responded to their questionnaire is available for download by clicking here We have added a few boxes to draw your attention to controversial points.

Page 2 – Box 1 ‘The Glynn Edwards Hall is not itself listed’.  (This point is repeated several more times in the document.)  This is untrue.  The Glynn Edwards Hall is not statutorily listed.  It is locally listed Grade A.  A local listing is still a listing.  A listing at this level denotes a building of a quality capable of achieving statutory listing.  A local listing does not automatically preclude demolition.  However, what it does mean is that the Council Planning Committee will consider any plans brought before it very carefully indeed in the light of that high local listing. A plan for a replacement building can still be refused.  That SCA and AGBC are trying to conceal this local listing status is worrying.  At planning stage this point will be noted and they will not be allowed to continue to deny it.  Meantime we will be giving this present little economy with the truth maximum publicity.

Page 2 – Box 2 Which local groups have called for the destruction of the main hall space?  A number of local groups are concerned about this loss of space in an area where we have no village hall.   It would be interesting to see a list of local groups (apart, presumably, from SCA and AGBC)  who want this.

It is highly questionable whether removing the middle building is beneficial to the statutorily listed buildings on either side.  From a Conservation point of view the view of the buildings either side will be seriously affected in this exercise.  It is very interesting that it is noted that ‘Conservation focus’ (Who are they.  Could we at least try and get our terminology right?  Would that be a reference to Conservation officers by any chance?)  have been consulted.  We note that we are, ahem, not advised on what they actually said …  Come on Stockfield, come on Acocks Green Baptists.  We need a little more openness than this.

Page 3 – Box 3 ‘The vision’ does not ‘serve the prime needs of the area’ which are to have a large hall available as a village hall and to maintain that hall’s present attractive and welcoming exterior which blends in well as part of the face of  primarily Victorian to nineteen-thirties Acocks Green.   Comments we have received suggest that if this plan were to go ahead the new building would experience a down-turn in use.

The Glyn Edwards Hall (Acocks Green Baptist Hall) 1924 Locally Listed Grade A (Side Elevation - Alexander Road)

Many Acocks Green residents have expressed horror at the present proposal put forward jointly by Acocks Green Baptist Church and Stockfield Community Association to demolish the much loved 1924, locally Grade A listed,  Glyn Edwards Hall at the corner of  Yardley Road and Alexander Road, Acocks Green.  (You can read more about local listing, and this building here.) The current proposal (we understand shortly to be put forward to Birmingham City Council Planning Department) is to demolish the hall and to replace with the design below.

The Glyn Edwards (Baptist) Church Hall Design Proposal - Artist's Impression

Below  is the present Glyn Edwards Hall, front elevation,  from Yardley Road, and the proposed Stockfield/Baptist design compared.

Double clicking will enlarge for clarity (Please ignore apparent grained effect on roof - a trick of the light.)

The present Glyn Edwards Hall is a distinctive Arts and Crafts Building with unusual roof features in keeping with the Arts and Crafts style where roofs are often an important part of the design.    See below for detail (Note, any of these pictures can be double clicked to enlarge.)

Glyn Edwards Hall - Detail

It is not hard to see why The Glyn Edwards Hall was awarded its Grade A status.  It  also has some striking brickwork patterns, see below:

Glyn Edwards Hall - Detail (Double click to enlarge)

The replacement building is a plain and featureless  seventies style  building with a large flat expanse of plate glass.   It has limited features of any kind and is not, in any way, in keeping with the surrounding buildings in this area.  It would jar  badly with its mainly Edwardian and nineteen-twenties surroundings in this part of Acocks Green.    Local people have already described it as a plate glass shed.

So why do Acocks Green Baptists and Stockfield Community Association want to dispose of this charming and welcoming looking building and replace it with such a bleak, souless, monstrosity?  Their rationale seems to be as follows.  We reproduce it as best as we can:

The new building would be (we quote) more ‘useful’.  The plan for the new building involves dividing it into sections – see paper plan below, followed by three dimensional model:

The Stockfield/Baptist Paper Plan for the Glyn Edwards - note double clicking will enlarge to give good clarity

This plan shows the proposed new layout, with a range of small rooms inside, to be used for different purposes.  These would replace the present large village hall style room inside, which is currently popular with local groups for meetings.  (Acocks Green lacks a parish hall.)

(Note the present Baptist buildings complex also includes 2A Alexander Road.  [Shaded pink on the plan above.]  This is the original Baptist caretaker’s house.  It is currently partly used as office space, with one flat above.  It is next to the Glyn Edwards on Alexander Road.  Next to 2A, on Alexander Road,  is the Arthur Moore Hall.  [Shaded green on the plan above.] This is the other Acocks Green Baptist Hall [here are two.] built 1903.  Next to the Glyn Edwards Hall on the Yardley Road is the Baptist Church itself  [Shaded beige on the plan above.] This is part pictured in the present and proposed front elevation pictures.)

Below is the same idea in 3D, but showing, also, how the upstairs space would be used.

Stockfield/Baptist Proposal for Glyn Edwards Hall (3D Model) Double click to enlarge for clarity.

The theory is clearly that a several smaller rooms would be more ‘useful’.  We are unclear about how far this theory has been tested in practice.  At a meeting about two years ago local residents involved in community work were invited to give their opinions on what would be appropriate for their needs.  At this time it was being suggested that the new facilities, already being discussed, would be designed with the needs of all residents this side of Acocks Green.  The five delegates who were not from the Baptist Church or from the Stockfield Estate did not express a strong preference for this type of division into smaller rooms, at that time, and  concerns are now being expressed that the loss of the larger hall could mean the loss of the most popular facility of this kind in the area.   There is a meeting room currently available to local groups  at 2A Alexander Road, but it would appear that, apart from Stockfield Community Association and the Baptist Church ,there is only limited use of this facility by other local residents’ groups.  It seems unclear why three small meeting rooms are now required upstairs.

This much said, we accept that if Stockfield and the Baptists can make better use of the space than is being made at present then there is an argument for changing the space arrangements inside th building.  However, what remains disturbing about the design,  even if such a division of space inside the building can be demonstrated to be ‘useful’ is the complete demolition of the building – why not simply adapt and build onto the existing one?  Much of the new design rationale seems, on further questioning, to centre on a perceived need for more light  (though the building seems already quite light enough in the daytime for most tastes) and an idea that the building would be more ‘welcoming’ if passers by could see inside it.   However, no-one we have spoken to,  finds this design ‘welcoming’.  Instead, people have been shocked by the cold, uncaring, atttitude  involved in removing, for ever, an attractive building from the local landscape, and imposing, instead, such an ugly building as this upon the community  here which contains many people who care passionately about their surroundings.   In addition, as a number of people have pointed out, plate glass windows can bring problems of their own.  They limit privacy, can make people inside a building feel uneasy and, moreover,  people have quoted local experiences in which such a large expanse of glass  has attracted unwelcome attention from bored local teenagers, eg banging on the glass.  This can be very unnerving for people trying to conduct an activity inside the building.

Finally, one of us was told ‘Well it’s our building.’  Well, yes.  It is.   This makes us sadder than anything else.  Over the years, local campaigners have heard this, final, somewhat aggressive statement many times.  Generally it comes from insensitive property developers:  ‘It is my building.  It is nothing to do with you.  I can do what I like. ‘ We would have hoped that two locally well respected organisations like Acocks Green Baptist Church and Stockfield Community Association: both organisations we have worked with before, and organisations who do much good locally, would have shown greater awareness of the feelings of the residents of Acocks Green.  Demolishing  The Glyn Edwards Hall would bring division and pain to this part of Acocks Green.   It will not be a happy outcome for anyone if these two organisations end up coming face to face with other local residents’ groups across the  Planning Committee Room floor in a wrangle over the planning proposal set out here,  and we are still hoping to avoid this.

We appeal to local residents to make their views known to Stockfield Community Association and Acocks Green Baptists now, by downloading and completing their questionnaire on the plan.  The questionnaire is available here.  It should be returned to 2A Alexander Road, B27 6HE.   We are also in the process of producing materials suitable for petition (leaflet and petition form) and have already promised one road that such materials will be available shortly.  Please contact us, using our ‘Contact Us’ link, see near top right of this website,  if you would also like petition materials.

We are  also appealing directly to Stockfield  Community Association and Acocks Green Baptists to reconsider their plans now,  before any more harm is done.   We will be writing to them separately.

Moseley Shared Space Artist's Impression (Hamilton-Baillie Associates)

The Birmingham suburb of  Moseley has in common with Acocks Green that a lot of its residents feel that a Shared Space scheme would be right for the area.   There is much about Shared Space on this website, see special Shared Space section links on the right, but, essentially, Shared Space  means removing most (not necessarily all)  street furniture and signeage  and reducing the distinction between road and pavement, causing traffic to slow down and negotiate more carefully with pedestrians.  The initial reaction when people are first told about this is often a horrified gasp followed by a question like ‘But isn’t that dangerous?’  It seems not.  Everywhere so far, where such schemes have been introduced accident rates have dramatically fallen whilst use of use of public street spaces, communty spirit and local trade has generally improved.

Moseley recently commissioned a report by Alison Millward Associates on the viability of Shared Space for Moseley.  The detailed, 33 page,  report is now available on the Moseley Forum website, together with a PowerPoint show,   here (See end of the Moseley Forum post.)   Moseley Forum kindly invited Acocks Green residents to attend its meeting to present this report, on 21 September 2010, and a number of  Acocks Green Focus Group members attended.  Alison began by drawing our attention to a recent Guardian Report on Shared Space.  This refers to the fact that Ashford in Kent which introduced Shared Space over a year ago has experienced no accidents whatsover since the scheme was introduced.

Alison then presented her detailed  findings in a talk and a PowerPoint show.   We thought she was very fair, and thorough, in her information, and that she had worked hard to identify particular concerns which had been expressed in connection with some Shared Space schemes, whilst showing how these could be overcome (eg concerns about visually impaired people can often be addressed by providing extra ways of  marking the surroundings, eg with tactile surfaces, designated crossing points and GPS systems are being increasingly a possibility)  For her study she reviewed Shared Space schemes in the UK and across Europe and she  interviewed  visually impaired and disabled pedestrians and also pedestrians with learning difficulties and mental health issues.  At the same Alison showed how   improved safety statics are a regular feature of Shared Space schemes.    Successful schemes generally slow the traffic to 20 m.p.h. or less, whilst overall journey times are usually not reduced.  One scheme showed that bus waiting times at junctions in Shared Space was in fact reduced from 9 seconds to 5 seconds.  There is more on reduced journey times and Shared Space in the Newland Avenue Report (See Shared Space links on our right, again.)

Alison also stressed that Shared Space schemes need to be designed specifically for each suburb.   A scheme for Moseley, on a cross roads, might be different from one for Acocks Green.  One question from the audience centred on whether Shared Space would be more appropriate for Moseley than for Acocks Green.  Our own findings, having discussed this over the years with Ben Hamilton-Baillie, whose firm designed the Shared Space  Artist’s Impression  for Moseley is that this is not so.  Acocks Green does, indeed, require a different type of approach from Moseley, but Acocks Green is very similar to Drachten, in Holland: a small town with a busy central green island and several entrances: a structure  slightly similar to our own beloved Green.  This has an early (2003) highly successful  Shared Space Scheme: see link on right of our website  to the Ben Hamilton Baillie 2008  ‘Improving Traffic Behaviour through Urban Design’ report  for further details.    Here is Drachten.  (Serious accidents reduced from around 8 per year to almost zero since the introduction of Shared Space.)

The Famous Shared Space Island at Drachten - note simple layout.

And here is an overhead shot of our own island – ‘The Green at Acocks Green.

The Green at Acocks Green

It was interesting to see that Doug Hyde, Head of Transportation Strategy for Birmingham City Council, was in the audience.   Doug was a little wary of very high volume traffic schemes in connection with Shared Space but stressed that he is ‘… not fundamentally against Shared Space’ in fact he likes a lot of these schemes he said.  He mentioned John Bright Street in town as an example of a succssful Birmingham City Centre Shared Space scheme.  He seemed not to yet  know a great deal about Acocks Green’s opposite number at Drachten, but this is something we are happy to further assist Doug on!   Doug also mentioned the up-coming, long awaited,  report from the Transportation Scrutiny Committee on Shared Space, saying that this would be available soon.  As Acocks Green and Moseley are both now fond of saying: Watch this Shared Space for further developments!

Tweet

Any Old Iron?

‘Communities secretary Eric Pickles and transport secretary Philip Hammond have written to councils to ask them to reduce the amount of highway signage in urban and rural areas.’    This is from the Government ‘Planning portal’.   Read the rest   here

This is not new.   There have been campaigns to do something about the invasion of, mainly, metal clutter on British High Streets for years now.  It is ugly.  It does no favours to to the often interesting, characterful,  architecture of older suburban high streets and it makes them harder to get around.   Plants in metal cages, or attached to metal cages,  really is not a good look.  Also,  statistics show,  clutter can be dangerous.  English Heritage has campaigned.    Living Streets has campaigned.   The Department for Transport’s own ‘Manual for Streets’ says quite a bit about it, and there has been plenty of comment, over recent years,  from organisations like CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Build Environment).  Kensington, famously, dumped most of its street clutter in 2001, and has been enjoying dramatically reduced accident rates ever since.  The Shared Space movement has been around since 2002.  Acocks Green Focus Group has been talking about street design  since 2004.

This is the BBC’s take on the new campaign Councils Urged to Move Unnecessary Street Signs (And more – the reporter here appears to have been genuinely irriated, herself,  at the amount of  ironmongery she was surrounded by!)

Eric Pickles explains his campaign (Including a reference to Oxford, where work has recently been done  by the Shared Space company,  Ben Hamilton-Baillie Associates.)  \’We treat pedestrians like cattle\’ in this recent TV interview,  And see The Guardian: Crack down on \’Bossy Bollards\’

Finally Acocks Green Focus Group -  see our own page, written some time ago,  here:  How Acocks Green Looks Now (Yup.  We’ve said it once, and we’ll say it again, and go on saying it … )  Nice to know it looks like the whole idea is receiving increased interest from those in power.    Maybe one fine day, in the not too distant future …

Save Birmingham City Council Conservation Department

Note the actual petition link is now  just below, for ease of access.  Reasons for signing follow.

Click here now to sign the petition.  It is easy.  (By all means add a  comment, if you wish, but it is also fine to leave the comment space blank.)    Sign the Statement

Note: we are not possessive of this petition!  Please feel absolutely free to Tweet it on Twitter, Flog it on Face Book, Stick it up on The Stirrer Mail it to The Mail, post it to The Post,  Bang it on your own Blog, or just email it to your friends.  Lets get as many signatures as possible.

Why Sign?

Great concern has now been expressed by Birmingham’s conservationists  at the 23rd February 2010 Council approved Budget plan to disband Birmingham City Council Conservation Department, in order to save £350,000 a year.    Here is one recent piece in The Birmingham Post:

Fears For Birmingham\’s Historic Buildings if Conservation Group is Disbanded

The Council has a ‘Conservation Panel’ of local conservationists who work with the Conservation Department.   The Chair of this panel,  Cllr Paula Smith was, herself, so concerned at the plans to disband the Department that she went against her party in abstaining from voting for this measure.   Birmingham’s Conservation officers are highly trained and experienced not only in Conservation work, but, more specifically in Conservation work in Birmingham.  They know the history of the areas they work with, and they know many of the active voluntary conservationists among the residents; residents who are used to being able to contact the Conservation Department with their concerns and speak to ‘their’ local officers.

There have now been assurances that Birmingham’s Conservation officers will continue but they will be ‘absorbed’ into the general Planning Department.  This is unlikely to be satisfactory.  There seems a real danger that much of the time conservation officers will no longer be engaged on conservation work, at a time when we are already seriously behind on city conservation projects.  Very recently Acocks Green councillors and concerned residents were told that plans to designate an area in Acocks Green as a Conservation Area had been put back from six months to eighteen months, because of the huge backlog of work, and other projects in the pipeline.  This is not just about Acocks Green, though.  This is a city wide petition.  How much Conservation work will happen anywhere in the city after the disbanding of the Department.   How many of our fine buildings will we now lose?

Oxford Circus (Barry Phillips, Daily Mail Read the rest of the Daily Mail piece below)

We’d like to think so …

See Channel 4 New’s coverage of the redesigned Oxford Circus here

The Daily Mail’s take is also available here

Shared Space is taking hold in more and more places around the country.  Why?  It makes sense.  It looks better and it is safer. Check out the media links here.  If this works in Oxford Circus think how it could work in Acocks Green!

Draft: Examples from West Brom, Sheffield and Dublin in Connection with the Acocks Green Feasibility Study.

There has been renewed interest in suburban centre re-design in Brum  in the past few weeks.   The kinds of ideas Acocks Green Focus Group has been proposing since 2005 are starting to become a hot topic in the city.  Cllr Martin Mullaney chaired a Birmingham City Council Transportation Strategy group discussion with Ben Hamilton-Baillie .  Moseley Forum has commissioned a Hamilton-Baillie Associates designer to draw up  a Shared Space Scheme for Moseley centre. See here:  Birmingham Mail: Moseley Shared Space Plan 14. May 09

Meantime, Acocks Green had a by  invitation only exhibition of three alternative new designs for Acocks Green in March this year.   (Sorry – the ‘by invitation’ was the Council’s idea, not ours, though we managed to get a few more names added to the list!)  The three designs were by James O’Sullivan of the Birmingham Landscape Practice.  James has viewed the Kensington ideas and likes them, as does Acocks Green Councillor Roger Harmer, who came with us to Kensington (see our posting on Kensington below).  Two of the three schemes involved making the two Acocks Green islands into one, adding some more trees, and flowers, retaining some car parking space and providing a public area for events.  On special occasions one road would be closed off.  Generally speaking traffic flow would be smoothed by various measures, clutter would be removed and more trees added.  We would also get much needed extra parking space.

Everyone who saw these ideas seemed very enthusiastic and many positive remarks were recorded on the provided slips of paper.  This seems all round a community and trader friendly scheme, which will still leave it possible for traffic to get through without problems.  A 500 page traffic monitoring report has recently been submitted to Planning and Regeneration for consideration.   This will need to be combined with other local reports which council officers have been working on for some time.    A Local Area Action plan will follow, sometime in the late summer or early Autumn.  In conjunction with this, we have been advised that there will be a further exhibition of plans, to which the general public will be invited.  The date has not yet been set, but watch this space.

Meantime, below, are a quick preview of the ideas collected from the Sheffield and West Bromwhich studies:

Pictures From the Landscape Planning Files: Ideas collected for Acocks Green