YOU probably know of the opposition to building a cemetery on Ipsley Church Lane Meadow (over 700 written objections).
And perhaps you are aware of the Council Leader and Deputy more recently telling us not to worry about losing it; the proposal is that instead of a traditional cemetery there will be “…a modern, green and ecologically sound cemetery.. one to “encourage and support wildlife and provide amenity interest too”.
The politicians listening to those worrying about the loss of the meadow is very encouraging; burying our loved ones in such a cemetery is also welcome; and it is good to read the promise that ‘…. whatever development takes place must give more back to the parks and the people who use them than it takes out’.
Imagine that ‘A cemetery which could also be used for recreation and leisure’ has been built.
If you believe the place you used to enjoy will be lost to you, and you decide to no longer go there, you are not alone. In the recent questionnaire by the Ipsley Preservation Society Facebook group, 83 per cent of people said they would not feel comfortable attending a funeral if leisure activities were also taking place.
A further 81 per cent said they could not see themselves exercising, dog walking, running and taking part in other leisure activities in such a cemetery.
Let us hope our councillors look outside Ipsley Meadow or other locations in Arrow Valley Park. It is not as if there are no other potential suitable places, for example, the area by the Abbey Cemetery.
Dr E Soady, Ipsley
WHEN apartments were built in Shottery Close, the Law Society offices converted to apartments in 2014 and the subsequent additional construction of Manor View (all off Berrington Close and totalling 81 residential dwellings), planning permission was granted for each by RBC on the basis that residents had access close by to Ipsley Meadow, part of Arrow Valley Park South.
This green, vitally important space is now threatened by the development of a cemetery, an enormous loss to those without gardens.
The argument that residents from all over Redditch and locals can continue to enjoy Ipsley Meadow to run, jog, walk dogs, fly model planes, fly kites, picnic, play games and allow children to run around whilst at the same time being used as a cemetery for burials and interments is utterly ridiculous.
H Hill, Redditch
REGARDING Ipsley Meadows, Councillor Matt Dormer, Leader of Redditch Borough Council, has rejected the extension of the existing Abbey Cemetery, proposed by local planning expert Ivan Willcock.
Coun Dormer, a keen supporter of local beauty spot Ipsley Meadow as the place for his vision of a modern burial site with no headstones or wrought iron surroundings, rejected the Abbey proposal citing that the two open land areas, identified by Mr Willcock, were unsuitable.
One, he said, had an unsuitable water level reading whilst the other was used to scatter the ashes of cremated loved ones!
Ace planner Ivan Willcock told us that the Council Leader Dormer was right about water levels and ashes scattering but wrong about the two areas for the Abbey cemetery extension!
Mr Willcock said that Coun Dormer had misunderstood the area in his plan to be used for the Abbey Cemetery extension and further advised the Council how to apply for permission to change the use of this now existing ‘Scheduled Monument Land’ for burial usage!
Onwards and Upwards,
I Pickles, Ipsley
HATS off to your contributors in last week’s Letters page; I think they reached a new high in daftness.
T Jones opened by querying why Bromsgrove’s MP welcomed the new Amazon facility ‘in Redditch’ rather than the Redditch MP – well, Sherlock, probably because Hedera Road is in Bromsgrove.
Next, two prospective Labour candidates tell us they will strongly support all views on the proposed new cemetery.
So, whether you have never heard of it, are for it , against it or couldn’t care less – they will support you.
Admirable flexibility and no reason to doubt their sincerity.
Mr Pound then writes of the ruthless intervention of the ruling political group before becoming very excited indeed talking of ‘Orwellian censorship’ after his beat combo were excised from the Redditch’s answer to Woodstock.
I’m not sure which Orwell novel he refers to when Winston Smith faced his nemesis in the rat filled Room 101 I doubt he was thinking ‘it could have been worse – I could have been stopped from performing in a Redditch Park.
H Bellaby, Feckenham
RBC Planning Committee: Proposal 20/00178/FUL: CAMHS TIER 4 WEBHEATH…
When it came to the elected members of the local planning committee on 14th April, there was a very long consideration of pros and cons. When it came to the crunch – there was no support for the proposed prison-like fence in Webheath. The issue was centred on the fence, as follows…
There exists a genuine need for quality CAMHS Tier 4 low- security mental health units in the UK. No question. So where is an appropriate location for these disturbed young patients? Is Webheath, or any residential area, the right location for such a CAMHS unit for distressed patients?
With one voice, despite planning officer recommendation to approve, committee said ‘NO’. But due process goes on – an appeal by the private healthcare applicant, on behalf of private money interests.
Residents of Webheath will continue the fight!
Retired Seaman Officer