Harman Technology plans for site redevelopment

[StoneNYC]

Yeah, I've live nearly all my adult life in well-planned, fast-growing suburbs. It works pretty well when infrastructure is put in first, but not so fast as to outpace the tax base. The Ilford factory development though, is on a little 2-lane road out in the countryside. There's even one of those little red phone booths at the corner. Man, it's a pretty area.

They have a working phone booth???!!! Wow!!! I've always wanted to take a picture of a phone booth, and do a model shoot in one, but I can't find one anywhere near me, I've not seen one since I was a kid...

 

[AgX]

It's possible ilford has plans for creating additional products in the new factory that require more workers, but that's internal knowledge I'm sure.

In the current plant only 1/10 of the original number of employees are at work.
"This coupled with changes in consumer demand for HARMAN’s products require the company to reshape their
operations"

I consider such consolidation of downsizing more likely than re-building for a future growth.

 

[Truzi]

But the housing increase doesn't mean populous increase, the people already living near the factory would most likely move into the new homes, that's where they abandonment issue of the other older houses comes into play that I mentioned.

It's not like they are merely trading up. People will move there from outside of Mobberly. Even if people move from an old to new house withing the area, people from other areas will move into the older homes.

There is little manufacturing where I live. Most of my city is like a large apartment complex for people who work in neighboring communities. You have larger houses and lots, a nice "rural" feel even though it's merely suburban, and lower prices than equivalent homes in a more populated area. Don't get me wrong, we have businesses in my city, but not nearly enough to support the number of people who live there. Most of the residents work in other communities. I personally commute 23 miles every day to work in Cleveland, and have no desire to live in Cleveland.

 

[StoneNYC]

It's not like they are merely trading up. People will move there from outside of Mobberly. Even if people move from an old to new house withing the area, people from other areas will move into the older homes.

There is little manufacturing where I live. Most of my city is like a large apartment complex for people who work in neighboring communities. You have larger houses and lots, a nice "rural" feel even though it's merely suburban, and lower prices than equivalent homes in a more populated area. Don't get me wrong, we have businesses in my city, but not nearly enough to support the number of people who live there. Most of the residents work in other communities. I personally commute 23 miles every day to work in Cleveland, and have no desire to live in Cleveland.

Your second paragraph answers my retort to your first paragraph.

I do not believe there will be enough jobs in such a small area for there to be new people moving into the old houses, they will become abandoned and the town may suffer unless some other business or employment opportunity comes into the town/village.

 

[MattKing]

Your second paragraph answers my retort to your first paragraph.

I do not believe there will be enough jobs in such a small area for there to be new people moving into the old houses, they will become abandoned and the town may suffer unless some other business or employment opportunity comes into the town/village.

If my understanding is correct, areas like Mobberly have more people wanting homes than there are homes available. So an additional 375 homes will most likely mean an increase in population.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

As a chemical engineer, a couple of phrases in the article concern me: "The Ilford Way site has been our home since 1903" and "the 40-acre brownfield site on Ilford Way".

Any site that has been involved in chemical manufacturing for over one hundred years is certain to have soil contamination (thus the brownfield comment). Cleaning up such a site for residential and community garden use, could probably be quite expensive.

I wish the folks at Harman Technology luck in converting the brownfield site to community use.

 

[pbromaghin]

Your second paragraph answers my retort to your first paragraph.

I do not believe there will be enough jobs in such a small area for there to be new people moving into the old houses, they will become abandoned and the town may suffer unless some other business or employment opportunity comes into the town/village.

Maybe you should try looking at a map. This development is about 2 miles from a rail station with a 10-mile ride to the middle of Manchester - the 2nd most populous region in the UK. This ain't the middle of North Dakota.

 

[pbromaghin]

As a chemical engineer, a couple of phrases in the article concern me: "The Ilford Way site has been our home since 1903" and "the 40-acre brownfield site on Ilford Way".

Any site that has been involved in chemical manufacturing for over one hundred years is certain to have soil contamination (thus the brownfield comment). Cleaning up such a site for residential and community garden use, could probably be quite expensive.

I wish the folks at Harman Technology luck in converting the brownfield site to community use.

My impression is that the property is owned and being developed by some rich family and Harmon is just a major tenant.

 

[pentaxuser]

Under the document mentioned by Oren Grad it is worth looking at one of the posts made by someone calling him/herself "soontobeoutofwork" . He/she mentions that it is funny that they do not mention the 130 soon to be made redundant. He clearly is somewhat less enamoured of the proposed changes to the site than the picture painted by Simon of what appears to be welcome changes to Ilford's future, helping to secure said future.

He/she doesn't actually say "Ilford redundancy" but if not Ilford then as the only employer on the site it is difficult to work out to whom he might be referring.

He might of course be speaking out of the proverbial hole in his head but using his "name" as he does suggests that he has already been told of his impending redundancy and has knowledge of 129 others similarly affected.

The consultation document mentioned by paulc_5x4 has a Q&A and in this a figure of 200 employed by Ilford is mentioned. If this is correct and if the 130 is correct this means that Ilford will employ a total of 70 which is a serious reduction in staff and would seem to augur badly for Ilford and the future of Ilford film.

Maybe Simon Galley can clarify matters for us on what seems to be a very serious reduction in staff.

Unless "soontobeoutofwork " is either deranged or is referring to a redundancy that has no connection with Ilford I have to say I find this worrying

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

As a chemical engineer, a couple of phrases in the article concern me: "The Ilford Way site has been our home since 1903" and "the 40-acre brownfield site on Ilford Way".

Any site that has been involved in chemical manufacturing for over one hundred years is certain to have soil contamination (thus the brownfield comment). Cleaning up such a site for residential and community garden use, could probably be quite expensive.

I wish the folks at Harman Technology luck in converting the brownfield site to community use.

"To demolish redundant buildings and decontaminate the site would cost many millions of pounds. This
cannot be funded by HARMAN Technology or LPC Living and would be an unrealistic proposition for
the local authority or another developer to undertake. For Cheshire East to grow economically there
is an established need for future development and the Ilford Way site is suitable and available to
meet this demand."

 

[StoneNYC]

If my understanding is correct, areas like Mobberly have more people wanting homes than there are homes available. So an additional 375 homes will most likely mean an increase in population.

That's great news

 

[Prof_Pixel]

"To demolish redundant buildings and decontaminate the site would cost many millions of pounds. This
cannot be funded by HARMAN Technology or LPC Living and would be an unrealistic proposition for
the local authority or another developer to undertake. For Cheshire East to grow economically there
is an established need for future development and the Ilford Way site is suitable and available to
meet this demand."

So where do those many millions of pounds come from?

 

[StoneNYC]

As a chemical engineer, a couple of phrases in the article concern me: "The Ilford Way site has been our home since 1903" and "the 40-acre brownfield site on Ilford Way".

Any site that has been involved in chemical manufacturing for over one hundred years is certain to have soil contamination (thus the brownfield comment). Cleaning up such a site for residential and community garden use, could probably be quite expensive.

I wish the folks at Harman Technology luck in converting the brownfield site to community use.

I was thinking that also...

 

[Ian Grant]

As a chemical engineer, a couple of phrases in the article concern me: "The Ilford Way site has been our home since 1903" and "the 40-acre brownfield site on Ilford Way".

Any site that has been involved in chemical manufacturing for over one hundred years is certain to have soil contamination (thus the brownfield comment). Cleaning up such a site for residential and community garden use, could probably be quite expensive.

I wish the folks at Harman Technology luck in converting the brownfield site to community use.

Ilford were historically based in Essex, the Rajar company's site was in Mobberley and they became part of Ilford, the current factory was built when they moved their main operations from Essex in the late 1970's or early 80's after selling off their Medical and Graphic Arts side to Agfa-Gevaert and rationalising.

So what the land owners are are selling is unlikely to have any contamination, one plot was earmarked for a colour coating plant. So it's brown field in terms of being classed as an industrial site and some buildings may be demolished but it was essentially a Green field site when built.

Because only modern production of - I think from memory - emulsions will have taken place on the area it's not the same as the contamination we hear of at former Kodak, Agfa & Orwo sites that have been in use for 100 years before companies became more environmentally aware.

Ian

 

[Alan Johnson]

I went on the Ilford factory tour some years back and with the amount of empty grassland space on the site was a bit concerned that the site was more valuable as building land than as a manufacturing plant and could all potentially be sold for building.So the fact that it is hoped to continue the manufacturing on a smaller site whilst building on the rest looks like good economics and good for continued photographic material production.
btw IDK where the 1903 date came from, IIRC the large coating machine was moved to the site in the 70's from its previous location in Essex and production moved with it.

 

[AgX]

So where do those many millions of pounds come from?

To my understanding there will be no costly decontamination to turn to "green land" instead it will remain "brown land".

 

[Ian Grant]

Under the document mentioned by Oren Grad it is worth looking at one of the posts made by someone calling him/herself "soontobeoutofwork" . He/she mentions that it is funny that they do not mention the 130 soon to be made redundant. He clearly is somewhat less enamoured of the proposed changes to the site than the picture painted by Simon of what appears to be welcome changes to Ilford's future, helping to secure said future.

He/she doesn't actually say "Ilford redundancy" but if not Ilford then as the only employer on the site it is difficult to work out to whom he might be referring.

He might of course be speaking out of the proverbial hole in his head but using his "name" as he does suggests that he has already been told of his impending redundancy and has knowledge of 129 others similarly affected.

The consultation document mentioned by paulc_5x4 has a Q&A and in this a figure of 200 employed by Ilford is mentioned. If this is correct and if the 130 is correct this means that Ilford will employ a total of 70 which is a serious reduction in staff and would seem to augur badly for Ilford and the future of Ilford film.

Maybe Simon Galley can clarify matters for us on what seems to be a very serious reduction in staff.

Unless "soontobeoutofwork " is either deranged or is referring to a redundancy that has no connection with Ilford I have to say I find this worrying

pentaxuser

Look at the dates though, January of this year, 6 months old.

It's likely that Ilford will be able to modernise and stream line production facilities.

Ian

 

[railwayman3]

The reference to 1903 would, I think, relate to the Rajar Photographic manufacturing business which Ilford took over when they moved to Mobberley. Thos was on part of the site which has been already developed for housing, so any land contamination would presumably have been dealt with.

I would imagine that Ilford are and have been more aware of environmental matters than a company would be 100+ years ago! And why is it always assumed that chemical factories are all filthy places, pouring foul chemicals into the ground? Having been on a factory visit, Ilford appears a spotlessly clean facility, with its own waste processing and recycling plant.....as you might expect for a company manifacturing fault-free high quality products.

The proposed development would seem a sound compromise....I'm afraid that some objectors, and not just in this case, only want things to stay nicely the same for ever. Then in a few years, if and when Ilford closed through being unable to support a huge outdated factory, "they", be it the local authority, developers or the Ilford themselves, would be blamed for "doing nothing" and lacking foresight.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

And why is it always assumed that chemical factories are all filthy places, pouring foul chemicals into the ground? Having been on a factory visit, Ilford appears a spotlessly clean facility, with its own waste processing and recycling plant.....as you might expect for a company producing fault-free high quality materials.

Yes, that also applies to Kodak. However accepted practices of 100 years ago were very different from current standards - and spills and leaks do happen over the years.

It used to be said "The solution to pollution is dilution." but that just isn't acceptable today.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Under the document mentioned by Oren Grad it is worth looking at one of the posts made by someone calling him/herself "soontobeoutofwork".

Or how about the one two posts down that says:

"PS. Isn't this site in the Manchester Airport Runway 2 Crash Zone?"

Yikes. As the homes are to be right next to the factory, I hope that isn't true...

:eek:

Ken

 

[railwayman3]

Under the document mentioned by Oren Grad it is worth looking at one of the posts made by someone calling him/herself "soontobeoutofwork" . He/she mentions that it is funny that they do not mention the 130 soon to be made redundant. He clearly is somewhat less enamoured of the proposed changes to the site than the picture painted by Simon of what appears to be welcome changes to Ilford's future, helping to secure said future.

He/she doesn't actually say "Ilford redundancy" but if not Ilford then as the only employer on the site it is difficult to work out to whom he might be referring.

He might of course be speaking out of the proverbial hole in his head but using his "name" as he does suggests that he has already been told of his impending redundancy and has knowledge of 129 others similarly affected.

The consultation document mentioned by paulc_5x4 has a Q&A and in this a figure of 200 employed by Ilford is mentioned. If this is correct and if the 130 is correct this means that Ilford will employ a total of 70 which is a serious reduction in staff and would seem to augur badly for Ilford and the future of Ilford film.

Maybe Simon Galley can clarify matters for us on what seems to be a very serious reduction in staff.

Unless "soontobeoutofwork " is either deranged or is referring to a redundancy that has no connection with Ilford I have to say I find this worrying

pentaxuser

"Soontobeoutofwork" has only made a one line post, with no references or back-up for his suggestion. If the modernisation did result in greater efficiencies, I don't think it augers badly for Ilford or Ilford film, although any redundancies are sad and difficult for employers or employees.

 

[railwayman3]

Or how about the one two posts down that says:

"PS. Isn't this site in the Manchester Airport Runway 2 Crash Zone?"

Yikes. As the homes are to be right next to the factory, I hope that isn't true...

:eek:

Ken

It's not quite as awful as it sounds ! These assessments of safety zones near airports are very complicated, but basically all it is is the common sense conclusion that the nearer the airport the less safe an area is statistically. Doesn't mean that planes are going to crash every day, or every 10,000 years for that matter. Some people wouldn't live or work near an airport (or a motorway or a HST line or a nuclear power plant), others don't mind.

 

[StoneNYC]

Yes, that also applies to Kodak. However accepted practices of 100 years ago were very different from current standards - and spills and leaks do happen over the years.

It used to be said "The solution to pollution is dilution." but that just isn't acceptable today.

I always thought that was a joke, was that really a believed concept once?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I always thought that was a joke, was that really a believed concept once?

Isn't that what photographers did with used photo chemicals for years?

 

[Truzi]

Your second paragraph answers my retort to your first paragraph.

I do not believe there will be enough jobs in such a small area for there to be new people moving into the old houses, they will become abandoned and the town may suffer unless some other business or employment opportunity comes into the town/village.

At risk of sounding like the Argument Clinic routine, no it doesn't!

The point is people will move to an area they don't work in for various reasons. Add increasing lifespan and new births, and we have plenty of people to fill homes - there is not a finite number of people in the world. I, for one, will eventually move out of my parent's home (I hope, lol). I will not move to the city I work in, but will likely move to another small city nearby that is a little more rural than where I am now. My mother will still occupy this home, I will occupy another.

The worse place here is safer than the best in Cleveland. The tax rates here are lower. Property costs less compared to three of the five cities we border (let alone Cleveland), and about equal to one of the others (which is also seeing an influx of residents).

My city did NOT experience a net loss of industry. Instead, people keep moving here while maintaining their jobs in other cities. They like the suburbs, lower prices, larger homes, etc. Then we need a few more stores and other businesses to support these people - though we are not "booming" as most major retailers are in neighboring cities. (Then the city does stupid things for lack of a master plan or common sense, but that's another story.)

There were never enough jobs in my city to support the people who lived here (at least for the past 60 or so years). People moved here not for jobs, but because they wanted to.