THIS weeks Redditch Standard Letters.
Demolition of library would leave…nothing
REGARDING the Community House discussion, I was thinking that in most lease or licence agreements, there is a contractual responsibility for the landlord to maintain the structure of the building in return for the rent paid or from a service charge provision.
If Redditch Borough Council is in breach of this responsibility, perhaps it should be refunding a proportion of the rent to the tenants/licensees equivalent to the cost of the repairs, which means the tenants could then use this money either to repair the building or buy the site.
Alternatively, the tenants could be rehoused in the area of the town hall that Coun Dormer had set aside for the library (the areas are about the same) as the library is presently a draw into the town centre.
Demolishing the library is against all principles of reducing the impact of climate change, especially as the result would be six months of eyesore, disruption, noise and pollution during demolition.
That would put people off visiting the town altogether and then…nothing, just a space which can be of no use to the town at all.
As a final alternative, perhaps whoever buys the site should have to incorporate a community area suitable for the present tenants to reinhabit on completion of the development and before any other houses can be sold.
Good luck tenant.
Maybe it is another attempt by Coun Dormer to boost his business in hiring plant to the building trade. Maybe he should declare an interest in the matter and thus refraining from voting on the outcome.
Margot Bish
Practical measures are needed, not pie in sky
IT SHOULD not have come as a surprise that Headless Cross and Oakenshaw were lost to Labour after many years under the Conservatives.
There comes a point where even the most loyal supporters say enough is enough when measures which affect the whole community are pushed through with no consultation.
If Community House needs money spent to make it viable, then spend it instead of grandiose pie-in-the-sky plans which seem very short on detail except that they involve knocking down the library.
Community House and the library and indeed the open market are assets which enhance the lives of the community and as such cannot have a monetary value put on them.
I hope the Standard will keep a close watch on further council proposals, especially the promised public meeting about the library and help to ensure it is held publicly in an easily accessible location, and not on the internet which the PCC and others seem to think is the only form of consultation, thereby excluding the many residents who are not able, or do not wish to use a computer.
Mrs M Morley
What is the best use of £2.5m Govt cash?
IN APRIL this year our town received a £2.5million funding boost, thanks to the government’s levelling-up scheme.
MP Rachel Maclean said: “I am incredibly proud of Redditch and know that our best days lie ahead.”
Does this mean next month, next year, perhaps, next century?
Maybe we should not ask.
Our MP also indicated she would be working with the council and local businesses to decide how the money shall be spent.
Will it, for example, help Coun Dormer to achieve his dream and do a levelling-up exercise near Mercian Square in the Town Centre by demolishing Worcestershire County Council’s library?
This £2.5m is from the pot of gold named the UK Shared Prosperity Fund which allows councils to invest in ‘local priorities’ such as regenerating rundown high streets, fighting anti-social behaviour and crime, or helping more people into decent jobs. We shall see.
P Bladon, Southcrest
Make your opinions known on cemetery
WHILST accepting that events relating to the late Queen where always going to predominate in the September 16 issue, I find it strange there was no mention at all of the plan to appropriate land for the cemetery development at Arrow Valley Park.
Surely that was important enough to warrant at least a small article.
Devotees of the midget print on page 29 in the classified advertisements public notices section, were informed we can contact [email protected] or alternatively write to Michael Birkinshaw, Bereavement Services Manager, The Town Hall, Walter Stranz Square, Redditch, B98 8AH and give our comments on this proposal.
I would urge everyone who opposes this ill-conceived plan to contact Mr Birkinshaw with your objections, detailed and specific or vague and general it matters not just let the council know you oppose it.
If you’ve done it before PLEASE do it again.
K Wass
EDITOR’S NOTE:
We have previously covered the cemetery plans for Ipsley Meadow and will continue to do so as and when the story develops.
We have also given extensive column inches on this very letters page to keep the conversation going and keep the issue in the public interest.
