Olive Mount Redevelopment:

OBJECTION BY THE
OLIVE MOUNT RESIDENTS'
ASSOCIATION (continued)

14. Pictures in DS show photographs of mature landscapes and what seem to be parterres from French chateaux! They show wide perspectives and are wholly ridiculous since the park is only a narrow strip a few metres wide with roads along both sides and fenced in, presumably to deny access to vandals and revellers from the High Street pubs. The LHAT Board approved [at its meeting of 30 November 2001] a 'contribution towards the cost of developing the new open space provision of up to £350,000.00.' This is presumably to be added to by Wimpeys to make an extremely expensive and complicated layout.

15. We are concerned about the long-term management of this park. The gates will have to be locked and unlocked daily and the complicated 'wave motion and ship forms' will need constant care from expert gardeners. No doubt LHAT and Wimpeys will make short-term provision for maintenance but we envisage the park deteriorating into squalor in a few years time. City Council staff have told us that the council could not afford to include this park in its budget.

16. The linear park is no substitute for what we already have: a pleasant grass area surrounded by attractive, mature trees and used informally by our children. There are already many children living in the estate and the proposed family houses will increase their number. The linear park is of no use to these children and parents could not oversee them like they can now. If the UDP principle of building on the school footprint were to be adopted then the area of grass opposite Wellstead Road could be kept and the existing fencing removed. We would expect the City Council to be able to keep the grass cut.

17. Trees: The new housing will leave a series of gardens along Childwall Road. DS says:

'These gardens will preserve the existing trees lining the sandstone wall along Childwall Road where possible ... and will include extensive replacement planting for those trees which need to be taken out.' [DS 5.4]

In fact, most of the trees are to be felled. This felling is only needed because of the dense building which is proposed. Replacement trees will take a decade or more to enhance the landscape and in the meantime our views and the surroundings of the village green will be desolate.

Olive Mount Heights site

18. It is the decision to relocate the social housing which requires the over-development of the school site. We have examined the reasons given in the application documents and can find no factual basis in them. DS states:

'The three tower blocks of Olive Mount Heights are a visually dominant feature in the landscape, out of scale with the surrounding dwellings. They detract from the character of Wavertree and its surrounding conservation areas ... Options for the refurbishment of these blocks were examined but discounted due to the falling demand for high-rise accommodation in the city and the poor structural condition of the blocks. Being located on top of the hill with no private gardens, the blocks also provide accommodation which is not particularly suited to the elderly or the families with young children. The majority of the existing tenants are aged over sixty, with 53%of tenants over seventy. The age profile of existing and prospective tenants calls for specialist housing designed for older people and this cannot be accommodated in a tower block'. [DS 2.3]

continued . . .

Page created by MRC 15 January 2003  Previous page  HOME PAGE