End of an era for Lucy Baldwin site as housing plans approved (From Kidderminster Shuttle)

End of an era for Lucy Baldwin site as housing plans approved

9:12am Wednesday 13th March 2013 in Local Photograph of the Author By William Tomaney

A LANDMARK former Stourport hospital will be demolished to make way for 41 homes, after plans were given the green light.

Councillors on Wyre Forest District Council’s planning committee at a meeting last night admitted they could find no planning reason to refuse Taylor Wimpey’s application, as they had last November.

It will see the site’s main building knocked down and construction of 38 new houses and three flats in the existing lodge building. The Lucy Baldwin plaque will be retained at the site.

The committee’s main concerns were access to the site at the narrow Olive Grove, although planning officer Paul Round said opening up the Lucy Baldwin site would allow residents to turn their cars around.

Plans will see access from the north and south of the site but Conservative Stourport Town councillor John Holden urged the committee to consider a one-way gyratory highway system.

Independent Community and Health Concern (ICHC) councillor Nigel Thomas objected to the plans, saying the land had been “stolen from the people of Stourport” referring to a covenant, which has since been removed, placed on the land in 1931.

Liberal councillor Fran Oborski said, however: “This site has got to be developed. We cannot afford to have what is a relatively valuable site in a residential area just lying there decaying and rotting.”

ICHC councillor Liz Davies, born at the hospital, said she was disappointed it would not be put back into use as a community care facility but glad more than £200,000 would be given in education, highway and open space contributions as part of approval.

The site will also contain 29.3 per cent affordable housing.

Conservative councillor Marcus Hart said just two letters of objection had been received by planners and none were about highways.

“There were vehicles using it previously and there would be vehicles using it in whatever future usage it would have,” he added.

Lucy Baldwin Hospital was opened on April 16, 1929, by then Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and named after his wife but has fallen victim to vandalism since closing in 2006.

Comments(35)

mrs coops says...
10:16am Wed 13 Mar 13

"ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL" with the greatest respect councillor oborski your comment was a load of ********* you wouldnt have kept your mouth shut and made such a comment if the issue had been in kidderminster! i wish that stourport town council had fought a bit harder to try to save this historical building but i would also like to question why the civic society have kept quiet?especially as lucy baldwins is mentioned in the unlocking stourport history references?? im sick and tired of stourport's history being destroyed at every available opportunity, i run the facebook page we love stourport on severn past and present day facebook page and i speak on behalf of all the the users on the page that this is a very sad day for Stourport and all those people that just stood back and let the town be robbed of more history should hang their heads in shame! years ago the important business men in the town looked out for their community and a gentlemans word was his bond,land was gifted several times for the good of the whole town and greed was never an issue, covenents should have been shown a bit of respect and as was the case with the covenent on vale road its been removed without a second thought other than to make a bit of money !

Report this post »

kjb1 says...
10:34am Wed 13 Mar 13

well said mrs coops The £200,000 to be given in education, highway and open space contributions as part of approval. helped them destroy stourports history .

Report this post »

stour67 says...
12:55pm Wed 13 Mar 13

bribery always work ie £200k and they would have had to pay wimpey the money back, also what happened to that money as it should be spent in stourport ONLY,and well said mrs coop.

Report this post »

The Egg says...
1:57pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Agree with all the comments already made, it's a real shame that we're once again we're losing more of Stourport's history to make a quick buck, rather than redevelop or upgrade our existing buildings. But look on the bright side, the £200,000 secured should just about provide Kidderminster's Council, sorry, Wyre Forest's District Council with enough money to cover the bar tab for this years staff Christmas party as long as Stephen Clee doesn't show his ugly head - then the budget is blown!! Oh if only I was kidding eh readers.....

Report this post »

FranOb says...
2:07pm Wed 13 Mar 13

The covenant has been removed. The site is not going to be used for any medical purpose.
Would you really rather see it left empty and houses put on greenfield sites?
Local residents did not put in objections.
I would have preferred a nursing home type use but no one has come forward to use it for that purpose.
£200,000 will help develop local facilities and with nearly 30% social housing this will help local people!

Report this post »

fizzlywizzly says...
2:49pm Wed 13 Mar 13

30% social housing?! So not only have the local residents got to put up with 41 new homes being built on a beautiful site that should be saved and not bulldozed, now 30% of residents will be jobless and drug addicts?! Poor local residents!

Report this post »

pottery1 says...
3:21pm Wed 13 Mar 13

What a statement, I was brought up in social housing and am not or ever have been a drug addict or jobless and as for a Christmas Party in my 16 years as a Councillor I 've heard of one but then perhaps they just didnt want to invite me!

Councillor Helen Dyke

Report this post »

pottery1 says...
3:56pm Wed 13 Mar 13

should have read - i've never heard of a Christmas Party!

Cllr Helen Dyke

Report this post »

jon cooper says...
3:57pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Typically there is a touch of hypocrisy about all of this. The access issues to the former Lucy Baldwin Hospital site are indeed questionable, and more than worthy of concern. It speaks for itself that with the construction of 41 brand new properties that will be squeezed into such a small area will in fact cause traffic issues. How on earth has this been dismissed ?

What is even more bizarre is that the councillor who cannot see any problem with the projected congestion in the Olive Grove area, seems to quite adamant in standing firm against any development on Naylors Field, (his patch), in Kidderminster. Although Councillor Hart has taken the heat off any development on Naylors Field in the foreseeable future, he seems oblivious to any situation elsewhere outside of his own ward or town. In his role on WFDC, it is entirely fair to question again his weird meaning for the term of being "fair and consistent" to ALL of our residents in the Wyre Forest area.

The ignorance to the access issues in Olive Grove are outrageous, but equally as outrageous is the way the original wishes of three late benefactors have been treated by modern day local authorities, and by some political movements. 'FranOb' states that she would have preferred a nursing home type use on the Lucy Baldwin site, but no one has come forward to use it for that purpose ... I wonder if 'FranOb' has ever wondered why ... Does she honestly think a potential buyer could take on such an ill maintained building that has been left "lying there decaying and rotting" ???? (Your words Councillor Oborski - not mine) ! Show me any organization in our current economic climate who could have risen to the challenge of reversing the decay at Lucy Baldwin's !!!!

Sadly the fate of the former Lucy Baldwin Maternity Hospital has been rubber-stamped by the sheer vandalism of the Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust, who have systematically run the building into the ground; all of this despite the wishes of the original benefactors - The Baldwin's and The Cahn family. It even took the Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust 66 years to overturn the original covenant that was placed on the site in 1931, that clearly states that at times hereafter it was to be used, (the Lucy Baldwin complex), primarily as a maternity hospital and secondarily for such maternity and child welfare work".

Of course the maternity unit disappeared long ago, but the building could and should have been used and maintained at least as a child welfare base as were the wishes of the the Baldwin's and the Cahn's all those years ago.

There is a wonderful film clip out there of our then Prime Minister, Mr Stanley Baldwin, opening the Lucy Baldwin Maternity Hospital primarily for the use of our then residents and future generations of the area. I hope to God that the new owners of the land - Taylor Wimpey - will keep true to their word and incorporate the historical aspect of the Lucy Baldwin Hospital building into their plans, and show justified respect towards the efforts of the late Lucy Baldwin and Sir Julien Cahn who gave so much of their personal wealth towards the betterment of the people of the town; something that modern day local authorities have failed to do !

Typically there is a touch of hypocrisy about all of this. The access issues to the former Lucy Baldwin Hospital site are indeed questionable, and more than worthy of concern. It speaks for itself that with the construction of 41 brand new properties that will be squeezed into such a small area will in fact cause traffic issues. How on earth has this been dismissed ? What is even more bizarre is that the councillor who cannot see any problem with the projected congestion in the Olive Grove area, seems to quite adamant in standing firm against any development on Naylors Field, (his patch), in Kidderminster. Although Councillor Hart has taken the heat off any development on Naylors Field in the foreseeable future, he seems oblivious to any situation elsewhere outside of his own ward or town. In his role on WFDC, it is entirely fair to question again his weird meaning for the term of being "fair and consistent" to ALL of our residents in the Wyre Forest area. The ignorance to the access issues in Olive Grove are outrageous, but equally as outrageous is the way the original wishes of three late benefactors have been treated by modern day local authorities, and by some political movements. 'FranOb' states that she would have preferred a nursing home type use on the Lucy Baldwin site, but no one has come forward to use it for that purpose ... I wonder if 'FranOb' has ever wondered why ... Does she honestly think a potential buyer could take on such an ill maintained building that has been left "lying there decaying and rotting" ???? (Your words Councillor Oborski - not mine) ! Show me any organization in our current economic climate who could have risen to the challenge of reversing the decay at Lucy Baldwin's !!!! Sadly the fate of the former Lucy Baldwin Maternity Hospital has been rubber-stamped by the sheer vandalism of the Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust, who have systematically run the building into the ground; all of this despite the wishes of the original benefactors - The Baldwin's and The Cahn family. It even took the Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust 66 years to overturn the original covenant that was placed on the site in 1931, that clearly states that at times hereafter it was to be used, (the Lucy Baldwin complex), primarily as a maternity hospital and secondarily for such maternity and child welfare work". Of course the maternity unit disappeared long ago, but the building could and should have been used and maintained at least as a child welfare base as were the wishes of the the Baldwin's and the Cahn's all those years ago. There is a wonderful film clip out there of our then Prime Minister, Mr Stanley Baldwin, opening the Lucy Baldwin Maternity Hospital primarily for the use of our then residents and future generations of the area. I hope to God that the new owners of the land - Taylor Wimpey - will keep true to their word and incorporate the historical aspect of the Lucy Baldwin Hospital building into their plans, and show justified respect towards the efforts of the late Lucy Baldwin and Sir Julien Cahn who gave so much of their personal wealth towards the betterment of the people of the town; something that modern day local authorities have failed to do ! jon cooper

Report this post »

stour67 says...
4:47pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Funny how they did not remove the harry Cheshire covenant when that was down the pan, and was going to be built on ?also noted vale was lost as well so more money could be taken from stourport.What about the money that Wimpey paid for the site where has that gone .

Report this post »

mr&mrsb says...
5:30pm Wed 13 Mar 13

The shuttle report says 29.3% is to be affordable housing, but Fran Ob says it is to be social housing....two very different things??? as for the 200k sweetner, I expect this will go on building yet more council offices as they appear to new a new build every few years.

Report this post »

Stephen Brown says...
5:38pm Wed 13 Mar 13

The problem is that the authorities use and abuse covenants at will to suit them and not the people they were originally intended to benefit. The same applies here, along with the financial sweetner used to get this application through - another often used tool in these cases.

Am I surprised? No.
Am I disappointed about it? Yes.

It is not outside of the wit of man to come up with a scheme that would satisfy the original benefactors intentions, and the housing aspects but sadly money talks as does big business and the people suffer for it - especially those who now have to put up witt the consequences of this decision.

I suspect that even if there were hundreds of objections, they would have been ignored anyway, just like they usually are when money and vested interests talk so saying there were only '2' objections is neither here nor there. People have simply lost faith in the processes designed to give them a voice so don't be surprised if they no longer use them when the authorities do what they want anyway.

Stourport and its people deserve better in my view.

Report this post »

jules1611 says...
6:18pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Fizzlywizzly! How dare you insinuate that people who live in social housing are jobless or drug addicts! I've live in social housing,work full time and I'm not a drug addict. Local residents would of had time and opportunity to oppose the plans. It's called progress whether we like it or not. The same thing happened with the croft in Kidderminster

Report this post »

Pookie100 says...
7:16pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Well done to the Council. We need more houses and the council now has a windfall of 200 grand. This building isn't a stately home or castle its a falling down old house. Only 2 people objected, if people didnt want it why didn't they object?

Report this post »

No to CALA says...
7:38pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Unfortunately it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference if 2 or 2000 people objected. The result would be the same. The New Homes Bonus is driving planning decisions in local authorities, not safe sustainable development criteria. Look at the Cala and other developments in Hagley.

Report this post »

fizzlywizzly says...
9:01pm Wed 13 Mar 13

@jules1611 if you work full time why do you live in a council house?! Why haven't you bought your own home or privately rented? Why keep a house that some poor jobless person could desperately need?!

Report this post »

jon cooper says...
9:54pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Pookie100 wrote:
Well done to the Council. We need more houses and the council now has a windfall of 200 grand. This building isn't a stately home or castle its a falling down old house. Only 2 people objected, if people didnt want it why didn't they object?

Both the building, and the land it sits on were not financed from the public purse, or any other authority for that matter: Both however were donated to the town by generous benefactors who wanted to do something unique and special for a specific purpose as stated in the original covenant that was overturned in a rather underhanded and sneaky manner by the Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust.

Objections were certainly not limited to two residents either, it was far wider than that, as was demonstrated at the open public consultation that Taylor Wimpey conducted a little over a year ago. And as 'No to CALA' observed, its true, whether there were 2 objections or 2000, do you honestly believe WFDC would have listened to public opinion ? Did they take any notice towards public opinion regarding 'Wyre Forest House' and the proposed new leisure centre ? Not a chance, they have an appalling legacy in turning a blind eye to public opinion and moral obligation !

I actually don't think we need more housing developments. The population of Stourport has rocketed in recent years without adequate modernisation to its infrastructure. But for arguements sake, if it really is necessary to place even more housing in the district, then why has an area of the likes of the Lucy Baldwin site and the restricted access to and from Olive Grove been approved as quite acceptable for squeezing 41 residential homes onto it, but other areas in the district are deemed to be no go areas for development - as is the case of Naylor's Field Kidderminster ?

Perhaps Naylor's Field sits on an oil reserve, or has an even more elaborate covenant placed on it ?? I actually believe there is a more straightforward explaination that is staring everyone in the face, and the hypocrisy of questioning the validity of traffic access in a restricted area such as Olive Grove, whilst overlooking the possibility of development in Naylor's Field is farcical and selective to say the very least !

[quote][p][bold]Pookie100[/bold] wrote: Well done to the Council. We need more houses and the council now has a windfall of 200 grand. This building isn't a stately home or castle its a falling down old house. Only 2 people objected, if people didnt want it why didn't they object?[/p][/quote]Both the building, and the land it sits on were not financed from the public purse, or any other authority for that matter: Both however were donated to the town by generous benefactors who wanted to do something unique and special for a specific purpose as stated in the original covenant that was overturned in a rather underhanded and sneaky manner by the Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust. Objections were certainly not limited to two residents either, it was far wider than that, as was demonstrated at the open public consultation that Taylor Wimpey conducted a little over a year ago. And as 'No to CALA' observed, its true, whether there were 2 objections or 2000, do you honestly believe WFDC would have listened to public opinion ? Did they take any notice towards public opinion regarding 'Wyre Forest House' and the proposed new leisure centre ? Not a chance, they have an appalling legacy in turning a blind eye to public opinion and moral obligation ! I actually don't think we need more housing developments. The population of Stourport has rocketed in recent years without adequate modernisation to its infrastructure. But for arguements sake, if it really is necessary to place even more housing in the district, then why has an area of the likes of the Lucy Baldwin site and the restricted access to and from Olive Grove been approved as quite acceptable for squeezing 41 residential homes onto it, but other areas in the district are deemed to be no go areas for development - as is the case of Naylor's Field Kidderminster ? Perhaps Naylor's Field sits on an oil reserve, or has an even more elaborate covenant placed on it ?? I actually believe there is a more straightforward explaination that is staring everyone in the face, and the hypocrisy of questioning the validity of traffic access in a restricted area such as Olive Grove, whilst overlooking the possibility of development in Naylor's Field is farcical and selective to say the very least ! jon cooper

Report this post »

jules1611 says...
10:07pm Wed 13 Mar 13

izzlywizzly,its not council its housing association.providin
g affordable rent. Not that I need explain myself but private renting is expensive.

Report this post »

kjb1 says...
10:38pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Wonder where they will invest their £200,000 this time ?

Report this post »

richbarring says...
10:39pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Part of the probelm with stourport is this ridiculous obsession with it's past. The town is a mess, and clinging to it's boring carpet making past isn't helping!!! Lucy Baldwin is just a building. An old, decrepid building. Knock it down and put something in it's place that might actually add something to the town's economy. Pookie100 is spot on. It's not an ancient monumnet or an area of any interest. Bulldozei t and stop whining!

Report this post »

caronhw says...
10:46pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Mrs coops and Jon cooper are dead right. They should both be elected to council. Their words echo the majority of us. We need articulate people like them to stand up and be heard on our behalf.

Report this post »

richbarring says...
10:55pm Wed 13 Mar 13

We need councillors who can see past this obsession with local history and work towards progress for the town. Leaving old buildings standing serves no purpose whatsoever. The Swan could have been knocked down years ago and something useful put in it's place. The town needs to move on. It's not exactly Oxford or Canterbury is it? It has SOME industrial history, but so what? Let it go - this town needs to move on and fast.

Report this post »

F Fish says...
11:43pm Wed 13 Mar 13

I just hope the Planning Committee (and some of WFDC's Planning Officers) have the sense to apply some of their many "Standard Conditions" to this approval bearing in mind the residential area and obvious access problems.

WFDC has a lengthy book of them, but few are implemented with their "friendly" large housebuilder applicants.

They have been lax to to do so in the past - is that due to pressure from the developers or perhaps the same planning officers dealing with the same applicants too many times?

A search of developments on the WFDC planning website suggests a trail of the same officers dealing with the same applicants - perhaps they are specialists in larger residential schemes??

The Planning Committee needs to stand up and be counted when consents are granted on such large sites in residential areas on the Officer's recommendation without proper working hours restrictions, wheel washing, noise, dust mitigation, etc

Or is WFDC just interested in the new homes allowance and extra Council Tax, and all do what Marcus Hart says?

Numerous similar planning consents have been granted, which are quite frankly a shame on democracy/ Localism? and several members of the District Council, including those on the Planning Committee, and those who have spoken allegedly on behalf of their residents should be prepared to face up to their voters who they turned their backs on over similar matters.
I hope they took more than 30 pieces of silver this time?

Report this post »

stour67 says...
7:29am Thu 14 Mar 13

I live passed the brinton arms pub,good luck to these people trying to get to work in a morning getting onto the bewdley road as the traffic is often passed my house waiting to get to the lights at the top of vale road due to the stupid way they are timed to run single lines only like the burlish when then causes traffic down passed blackstone .And with even more when the morgan matroc site is finished with 140 new houses,so in the past yr we have nearly 200 new homes built within 1/4 mile,going onto a B road,but it not in there back yard.At least stourport town is not full of down and outs like Kidderminster and in the papers every week with people being beaten up and scared to walk in the park at night.

Report this post »

Jane Gordon says...
12:51pm Thu 14 Mar 13

I am surprised the residents of Olive Grove did not object. I understand that yellow lines are going to be applied in this area and will little or no off street parking this will surely cause problems for existing residents.
Yes something needed to be done with the site but better access is really needed. No doubt highways and the planners looked at the site via google earth. I cann't imagine a site visit was done otherwise anyone with an ounce of common sense would see the problems extra congestion on this road will cause. Potentially 82 car park spaces will be needed - I doubt that there will be that many on the site

Report this post »

Shibdrift says...
1:56pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Surely it needs an asylum building here. Then all the lunatics who are running WFDC can be housed appropriately!!

And.............

Money could be saved on heating and lighting as they obviously like the cold and dark !!!! (Finepoint design flaws?!)

Hee hee.

Report this post »

stour67 says...
4:05pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Funny how trees were being cut down tuesday on the site before planning was past,? must have had the nod.

Report this post »

JKay00 says...
6:20pm Thu 14 Mar 13

It's a tiny abandoned hospital of no real historical or architectural significance. What exactly, to those who are complaining, do with it?

It good that the town has a bit of development.

Report this post »

caronhw says...
6:55pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Jkay, it does have historical significance. Look it up :-)

Report this post »

JKay00 says...
8:52pm Thu 14 Mar 13

caronhw wrote:
Jkay, it does have historical significance. Look it up :-)

Caronhw, an endowed hospital is hardly significant, hundreds of schools, clinics, hospitals and the like were funded by donations from wealthy benefactors. The building is hardly the Sagrada Familia and is of little architectural merit, the services aren't coming back due to the changing nature of healthcare, so what is the point of just having an abandoned building?

Report this post »

jon cooper says...
11:25pm Thu 14 Mar 13

@JKay00: You're right, there is no point whatsoever hanging on to an abandoned rotting building: The real outrage is how it got to be a virtual ruin in the first place: Why it took the NHS 66 years to overturn the original covenant, (not done in an open handed way), and the selective nature of the question of access to potential developments in different locations in the district. Olive Grove is certainly not capable of handling extra traffic to 41 new properties; and for anyone who knows the area will know this planning is ludicrous !

Regarding the former Lucy Baldwin Maternity Hospital building itself, it's a matter of taste of course whether it's approved of in an architectual sense. I'm certainly not on my own who actually has a lot of affection for the building, and of its historic significance - and believe me, the whole Lucy Baldwin vision for a maternity hospital in Stourport is both historic and unique.

Again both the land and the building it sits on was DONATED with a specific intention of being used initially as a maternity wing or at the very least as a child welfare centre as what's been explained before. A legal covenant was set in place, but sadly but predictably due to modern legality, the covenant was thrown out - a disgrace !

For many people the substantial money that will be generated from the sale of the land and the destruction of the building should go back to the Baldwin Trust and directly to the Cahn Family. The original benefactors intention for the site was certainly not to make money from it, but to actually give something for the town, something that is unheard of in modern times !

I really hand on heart mean this, but it really saddens me that our previous benefactors memory is being insulted in such a way to make money. The outcome of the Lucy Baldwin Hospital issue was predictable; and as it was stated 18 months ago, covenants are pretty easy to overturn in the modern legal system, but this sort of business leaves a very sour taste in the mouth for the many people who have a great respect towards the good deeds that were directed at our communities by the likes of the Baldwin's and Sir Julien Cahn.

As i have previously said, unlike the NHS, 'Taylor Wimpey' will commemorate the work of Lucy Baldwin and Sir Julian Cahn into their new development, which comes of some relief, and something i actually respect them for if they're true to their word: But this doesn't erase the real issues of access to and from the Olive Grove location, which has been totally and utterly overlooked by WFDC ...

@JKay00: You're right, there is no point whatsoever hanging on to an abandoned rotting building: The real outrage is how it got to be a virtual ruin in the first place: Why it took the NHS 66 years to overturn the original covenant, (not done in an open handed way), and the selective nature of the question of access to potential developments in different locations in the district. Olive Grove is certainly not capable of handling extra traffic to 41 new properties; and for anyone who knows the area will know this planning is ludicrous ! Regarding the former Lucy Baldwin Maternity Hospital building itself, it's a matter of taste of course whether it's approved of in an architectual sense. I'm certainly not on my own who actually has a lot of affection for the building, and of its historic significance - and believe me, the whole Lucy Baldwin vision for a maternity hospital in Stourport is both historic and unique. Again both the land and the building it sits on was DONATED with a specific intention of being used initially as a maternity wing or at the very least as a child welfare centre as what's been explained before. A legal covenant was set in place, but sadly but predictably due to modern legality, the covenant was thrown out - a disgrace ! For many people the substantial money that will be generated from the sale of the land and the destruction of the building should go back to the Baldwin Trust and directly to the Cahn Family. The original benefactors intention for the site was certainly not to make money from it, but to actually give something for the town, something that is unheard of in modern times ! I really hand on heart mean this, but it really saddens me that our previous benefactors memory is being insulted in such a way to make money. The outcome of the Lucy Baldwin Hospital issue was predictable; and as it was stated 18 months ago, covenants are pretty easy to overturn in the modern legal system, but this sort of business leaves a very sour taste in the mouth for the many people who have a great respect towards the good deeds that were directed at our communities by the likes of the Baldwin's and Sir Julien Cahn. As i have previously said, unlike the NHS, 'Taylor Wimpey' will commemorate the work of Lucy Baldwin and Sir Julian Cahn into their new development, which comes of some relief, and something i actually respect them for if they're true to their word: But this doesn't erase the real issues of access to and from the Olive Grove location, which has been totally and utterly overlooked by WFDC ... jon cooper

Report this post »

stour67 says...
8:14am Fri 15 Mar 13

Wait until the tipper wagons and diggers try and get up the roads.

Report this post »

stour67 says...
8:15am Fri 15 Mar 13

Also i wonder what happens to the residents cars in olive grove when the double yellow lines go down where will they park.

Report this post »

caronhw says...
9:04pm Fri 15 Mar 13

I guess jkay is a leading historian and eminent architect..... Or works for Taylor wimpey ;-)
You have completely missed the point, jkay. What has happened with Lucy baldwins should never have been allowed on a matter of principle. It's quite simply wrong and completely unethical.

Report this post »

richbarring says...
10:01pm Mon 18 Mar 13

I was born in Lucy Baldwins' and I've spent most of my life living around 100 yards from it. And I don't care one jot about it being knocked down. People need to grow up and stop making out like their saviours of the town simply because they bleat on and on about the most pointless of things. Get a life. It, like hte town, aint worth saving.

Report this post »

End of an era for Lucy Baldwin site as housing plans approved (From Kidderminster Shuttle)

Local RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

End of an era for Lucy Baldwin site as housing plans approved

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies