Olive Mount Redevelopment:

OBJECTION BY THE
OLIVE MOUNT RESIDENTS'
ASSOCIATION (continued)

PS refers inaccurately to the LHAT 'preferred option' which was published in its Olive Mount Consultation Newsletter of October 1998. This states 'pros' of the option to include:
'A mix of high-rise refurbished flats and 44 low-rise high quality 2-bedroom flats will be available so that tenants have a choice of accommodation to suit their needs.'
'Keeps the community centre which will run services throughout the development programme.'

We still regard this as the best way forward for the social housing provision. The site is quiet and secluded and vastly better than either the crammed back-to-back chalets of the three-storey flats right alongside the busiest traffic intersection in Wavertree and facing, on expected trends, annual increase in traffic of 5% or so.

21. Community Centre: DS states:

'The building neither provides an appropriate frontage towards the site of the art annexe to the north nor to the private gardens of the existing terraces to the south. It is planned to demolish the existing buildings and relocate the community centre within the new LHAT sheltered housing complex on the southern part of the development site.' [DS 2.3]

This statement is typical of the meaningless justifications given in the planning application for the huge upheaval and massive expenditure of public funds which the proposals involve. In fact the community centre is a neat brick building, newly re-roofed, and surrounded by beautiful grounds and garden. It is one of the most pleasant centres to be found in Liverpool.

22. The community centre is a contentious issue for OMRA members. The centre was for the benefit of all residents until acquired by LHAT. We accept that LHAT has comprehensively improved it but this makes it all the more irresponsible to propose spending £500,000 [LHAT board meeting of 30 November 2001] to replace it a few hundred yards away. The community centre would not need demolishing if LHAT reverted to the 1998 'preferred option' and OMRA believes that this option is the right solution for this site.

23. Garages: The 'preferred option' of 1998 retained 28 out of the 42 garages and these would benefit the estate, several of whose residents rent garages.

Conclusion

24. This scheme proposes to spend a total of around £11.3 million of public funds to disrupt our area and fill the last open space before the inner zone with a grossly over-dense development. The traffic arrangements are seriously deficient. The open space provision is expensive, complex, and of little use to our children. Its future maintenance is likely to prove highly problematic. All this is to remove social housing from the best site in the area and dump it on the least attractive locations, all to provide 94 units at a gross cost of £120,000 each. We urge the City Planning Committee to reject the proposals.

Ann Dwyer
Chairperson, OMRA

Page created by MRC 15 January 2003  Previous page  HOME PAGE