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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
So where do those many millions of pounds come from?
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
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.
Under the document mentioned by Oren Grad it is worth looking at one of the posts made by someone calling him/herself "soontobeoutofwork".
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
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
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?
At risk of sounding like the Argument Clinic routine, no it doesn't!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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?