I am writing in response to your article entitled “People 3000: Shops 0” (The Village July/August 2011).
I firstly would like to ask where the writer lives and how much investment in both time and money have they afforded to their property?
I find this article offensive; excessively negative and feel you have dedicated little time to any true research of the area. I will explain using your article as follows:
The Oakalls and The Parklands are completely separate developments in both design and quality. The Oakalls demands a “higher price tag” not due to when the houses were built but because generally they are larger and better built homes.
For example, my husband lived on The Parklands many years ago in a one-bedroomed semi detached home and now we live on The Oakalls in a five-bedroomed detached house; of course there will be price differences!
The Oakalls was not marketed as a “self contained rural village” and you are assuming quite incorrectly that the residents would welcome any form of shop or other commercial enterprise within this tranquil estate.
The residents are mainly professional individuals who drive and surely, not surprisingly, shop near their work places; at the local supermarkets or online. I think your views are dated to think we have the time and the inclination to walk to and buy items from a local shop when most of us are full-time workers commuting each day. Surely those days have gone and particularly on an affluent estate such as The Oakalls.
You speak of the “large expanse of grassland . . . somewhat overgrown” with disparaging terms. Does every piece of land have to be built on? This grassland is quite attractive and it is regularly maintained and I am certainly not one of “the thousands of residents . . . crying out for a village store and other community facilities.” I wonder if you have a list of these “thousands of residents”?
You then back track with a bracketed ‘may not’: “ . . . amenities that may (or may not) have been promised . . .” Have you done any research into this condemning article?
Now the last major negative points you have chosen to kindly advertise is the cannabis incident and the flasher; I was not even aware of the flasher!
What was the point of raising these two “events”? What does negative re-reporting achieve? The grassland (which is not overgrown) has one use and that is for a flasher? What an absurd remark to make!
I now want to repeat my initial question to you: “I would like to ask where you live and how much investment in both time and money have you afforded to your property?”
I strongly believe if you are a home owner, you have not invested your hard-earned income into a property on The Oakalls after writing such an ignorant report.
We needed to live in Bromsgrove as my husband has his business here and we chose to live on The Oakalls as we considered it to be best suited to our needs. It was not an easy decision as it took a large amount of investment and committed us to a lifetime of mortgage payments.
We have a young son and thought the environment it offered was superb for him. We find it peaceful and safe and the residents are respectful to each other. One day we hope it will have been a good investment as well and we can pass the equity down to our son.
Homes are the biggest investment and obligation a person can have and along with the maintenance costs and the council tax bills it is the main reason for working.
We do not need to read demeaning pieces of journalism such as this.
Surely the objective of The Village is to give a positive view of the neighbourhood we are all living in together? I do not see how your article fits in with this hopeful objective.
Name and address supplied, The Oakalls