Letter of objection from the Wavertree Society, May 2002
To: Development Control Division, Liverpool City Council
Application No. 02F/0792
These comments reflect the views of the Society's Executive Committee, which discussed the matter at its meetings on 10th April and 1st May 2002.
1. General points.
We accept the fact that the Olive Mount Wing of Childwall Comprehensive School is to close, and we recognise the benefits of single-siting the school in Queens Drive.
We would be strongly opposed to retail development of the school site, such as the building of a supermarket as once proposed.
We would support re-use of the existing buildings, provided the grounds were maintained to an acceptable standard, the character of the boundary wall was preserved and the new use did not involve excessive traffic generation or other adverse effects on the amenity of nearby residents.
We would support housing development on the site, in the event of the school buildings being demolished, but only on a limited scale so as not to impinge on the recreational, visual and nature conservation value of what is designated as Green Space in the Council's Unitary Development Plan.
2. The concept.
We support the applicants' idea of a 'linear park' across the site, opening up new vistas towards both the Wavertree Village and Wavertree Garden Suburb Conservation Areas.
We support the introduction of new pedestrian routes across the site, linking Thingwall Road with Mill Lane and Wellstead Road with Childwall Road, which would improve pedestrian access to bus stops, shops and other local facilities.
We support the declared aims of retaining the sandstone boundary wall and existing trees, especially those around the perimeter of the site.
We support the retention of the open aspect of the site when viewed from Childwall Road.
3. The reality.
We feel that the central strip of greenery in the submitted plans is much too narrow to merit the name 'linear park', even when compared with the diagrams in the Design Statement which set out the thinking behind the scheme. We note that much of the so-called 'major public open space' consists of residential access roads on either side of the green strip.
We note that the Housing Action Trust's proposal is to fence-off the green strip itself; and to lock the gates at night. We feel that such fencing will considerably reduce its visual impact and its attractiveness as a pedestrian route, as well as its recreational value.
We note that a large number of the existing trees along the Mill Lane/Childwall Road frontages of the site are not, in fact, to be preserved but have been condemned as 'hazardous' and/or unsuitable for retention. We question this verdict.
continued . . .