Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Update on the Highbury Trust

I’ve just come back from the meeting of Birmingham City Council’s Charties and Trust Sub-Committee meeting where the future of the Highbury Trust was discussed.

It was a very positive meeting and I would like to thank Cllr John Alden, Chair of the Committee for his sterling work.

The following was agreed:

  1. 1CCllr John Alden and Cllr Mike Wilkes to arrange a meeting with the Charity Commission within the next 4 weeks to discuss removing the secton on the new scheme for the Trust which mentions disposal of parts of the estate.
  2.  To urgently arrange a meeting between the Council Officers involved with managing the Trust and the Moseley and Kings Heath Ward Councillors. The meeting would discuss the future of the Trust.

 I was then given an opportunity to speak to the Committee – and again I would like to thank Cllr Alden for allowing me to do this.

I raised a number of points, which included the following:

a)    We need to do a Conservation Survey on the buildings on the Trust land – in particular Highbury Hall and Chamberlain House.

My concern is that  we need to understand whether Chamberlain House should be retained. For example who was the architect and does it add or detract from Highbury Hall. Points to remember about Chamberlain House was that it was built on the footprint of the glasshouses of Highbury Hall. When it was built in 1940, the 10foot high wall that runs the length of Queensbridge Road, also extended into Yew Tree Road up to the present entrance of Highbury Hall.

What this indicates to me is that Chamberlain House was built with the historic layout of Highbury estate in mind.  It was also built at a time when it would not have been viewed from Queensbridge Road, due to the 10foot high boundary wall. What we see of Chamberlain House from Queensbridge Road is really the functional back of the building. It's comparable to judging some of the fine buildings along New Street, by looking only at their rear elevations. Chamberlain House was built with it frontage facing onto the park. The complete wooded mass that hides it from Highbury Park did not exist when it was built. It wouldn't surprise me that it was designed to be seen from a distance from within Highbury Park and maybe looks very elegant along the top of the ridge on which it sits. Finally judging by the stonework (maybe William Bloye?), it wouldn't surprise me if a quality inter-war architect designed it - maybe Philip Boughton Chatwin?


b)    We need to do a proper structural survey of Highbury Hall to understand what work needs to doing to the building. I recently had a tour of the building and I there appeared to be little or no structural problems. I accept that it needs re-wiring, the floor boards need sorting out in places and there are a few wet patches on various walls. However, this is  nothing unususal in any empty building, including many post-war domestic houses.


c)    We need to have a clear Conservation philosophy on how we treat Highbury Hall. An over intensive use could destroy it. For example if we made the entire building into a museum of national importance, would we be required to erect external lifts, all internal doors changed for fire standard doors, and so on.....  We need to identify where the balance is between pickling Highbury Hall in vinegar where nothing is changed anywhere and actually using the building.


d)    We need to keep the Four Seasons Horticultural project on site. This project fits in perfectly with the heritage of the site and its charital objectives. It helps children and adults with learning difficulties by involving them in small horticulture projects. In turn this project is located on the site of the original kitchen gardens of the Highbury Hall estate. One of the physical boundaries of the project is a fruit tree pergola which dates from 1890 and is one of the few original features from the kitchen gardens that remain.


e)    We need to look at maybe moving other Council departments into Chamberlain House, if Social Services move out either partially or completely. Possible Council departments include:

a.    Hall Green District Office – presently located at Greencoat House, Stratford Road, where they rent out space from the owner. It’s not a pleasant work environment and Chamberlain House would be far more attractive.

b.    The Councils Trees section, presently based at Kings Heath House, Kings Heath Park. The Horticultural College, also based at Kings Heath House, is unable to expand its courses, despite demand,  due to a lack of physical space. Moving the Trees section into Chamberlain House would allow the college to expand its range of courses at Kings Heath House.

c.    The park services contained in the Queensbridge Road  depot. There is a long term aspiration to demolish the depot – located across the road from Yew Road junction – so that two playing fields can be joined. One of the playing fields is managed by Queensbridge School, while the other is managed by Bishop Challoner School.


f)     We need to involve groups like the Friends of Highbury Park, the Moseley Society, the Moseley Community Developement Trust and local residents in deciding the future of this Trust.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

In Search of the Birmingham apostrophe

In the last few weeks, Birmingham City Council has been on the global media when it announced that it was going to maintain the long establish practice of dropping apostrophes from road signs.

In this article, I have tried to establish how many apostrophes remain on Birmingham’s street nameplates and when did they start to dissappear.


The answer to the first question is that few apostrophes now remain on any of Birmingham’s street nameplates. For example, the following roads no longer have their apostrophe: St.Peters Road (Harborne), St.Marys Road (Harborne), Barlows Road (Harborne), Harrisons Road (Edgbaston), Wheeleys Road (Edgbaston), St.Marks Street (Ladywood) and King Edwards Road (Ladywood).


I admit that I have not examined every single road plate that has a road name ending in ‘s’, but I have had a damned good search.


The only roads I have been able to find that still retain the apostrophe on some of their signs (in some cases painted out) are St.Marys Row (Moseley), St.Pauls Square (Jewellery Quarter) and Wheelers Lane (Kings Heath). I did find two roads, that have had an apostrophe added within the last two years to one modern road sign – Queens Road (Aston) and St.Marys Road (Harborne)


So when did the apostrophe dissappear?


Birmingham Nameplates – prior to 1900

The use of the apostrophe in place or road names only started about 1800. Maps prior to this show no apostrophes. Victorian nameplates still exist in Birmingham, dotted about, however I have not been able to find a Victorian nameplate on any road that used to have a apostrophe.


A photo of a Victorian nameplate can be seen at:


This design was used until approximately 1900.


Birmingham Nameplates – 1900 to 1930

The design of Birmingham nameplates changed in 1900 to the following design:


Wheelers Lane, Kings Heath -

St.Pauls Square, Jewellery Quarter -

St.Marys Row, Moseley -


The use of the apostrophe in nameplates during this period was sometimes not consistent. The following photograph shows the apostrophe has already been dropped from St.Peters Road in Harborne.


Birmingham Nameplates – 1930 to 1940


The design of nameplates in Birmingham, slightly changed in the early 1930s with the addition of postal districts identification onto the nameplate. This design would remain until the start of the Second World War in 1939.


Examples can be seen as follows:

Wheelers Lane, Kings Heath -


Birmingham Nameplates – 1945 to 1975

After the Second World War, the design of Birmingham street name plates radicially changed to cast aluminium, with the letters standing proud of the background.


I have tried to identify the exact font used in these signs. The closest font, I have able to find is Gill Sans font, but with a modified letters M, S and W. The Gill Sans font was designed by Eric Gill in 1927


It was at this point that the apostrophe began to be significantly dropped from road nameplates in Birmingham.


The cast aluminium name plate was used until 1975.


Examples can be seen as follows:

Wheelers Lane, Kings Heath -

Wheeleys Road, Edgbaston -

St. Marks Crescent, Ladywood -

St.Marys Road, Harborne -


Birmingham Nameplates – 1975 to 1985

1975 saw the introduction of flat aluminium nameplates with white reflective vinyl used for the background – this meant the sign reflected in car headlights. The design was very similar to the previous cast aluminium sign.


This design was introduced after the incorporation of Sutton Coldfield into the City of Birmingham. Sutton Coldfield had a heat applicator for producing vinyl signs and these signs were significantly cheaper than cast aluminium.


Examples can be seen as follows:

Wheeleys Road, Edgbaston -

Harrisons Road, Edgbaston -


Birmingham Nameplates – 1985 to present

In 1985, the design of Birmingham nameplates was radicially altered, with a new font and inclusion of the Birmingham Coats of Arms. The font used was the Kindesley font


Examples can be seen as follows:

Wheelers Lane, Kings Heath -

Wheeleys Road, Edgbaston -

King Edwards Road, Ladywood -


Birmingham Nameplates – replica cast iron signs – 1995 to present

Since 1995, there has been a number of cast iron signs produced for Conservation Areas made in same design used in the 1930s. None of these retro signs included the apostrophe. These signs were:


St.Marys Row, Moseley -

St.Pauls Square, Jewellery Quarter -

St. Peters Road, Harborne -



Very few apostrophes remain on Birmingham’s road nameplates, with the majority dissappearing between 1945 and 1975. Even replica cast iron nameplates produced in the mid-1990s did not include the apostrophe.


With the annoyance expressed publicly by a number of local politicians about the decision to continue the practice of dropping the apostrophe in road signs, you would think the road signs in their own Wards would be ‘grammatically correct’. They are not and it begs the question – have they been a sleep for the last 50 years? Or maybe, they simply didn’t really care whether the road signs in their Ward had an apostrophe or not.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Councillor update on Planning Applications of importance in Moseley & Kings Heath Ward – Monday 16th February 2009


Below is my own personal list of planning applications that I am keeping an eye on, due to residents raising concerns with me or the applications clearly being contentious.


Drawings and further details on each of these planning application is available on-line at



The planning applications


S/05886/08/LDE - 7a Park Hill, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8DU - Certificate of Lawfulness for existing use of the property as a haulage yard in excess of 10 years - Under consideration


S/06141/08/FUL - St. Marys Row, Former Bristol Street Motors, Meteor Buildings, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 9EG - Demolition of existing dealership/buildings and redevelopment to provide a mixed use development comprisi   - Withdrawn - Decision date 16/02/2009


S/05750/08/FUL - 66 School Road, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 9SW - Deletion of condition C2 of application S/06949/05/FUL (Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Cou  - Under consideration


S/06208/08/FUL - 48 St. Marys Row, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8JG - Erection of a single storey side extension - Under consideration


S/06555/08/FUL - 30 Amesbury Road, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8LE - Erection of single and two storey rear extensions, single storey side extension, 2 no. velux rooflights to front - Under consideration


S/06441/08/FUL - 17a Alcester Road, Selly Park Motor Bodies, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8AR - Erection of new building to create an MOT working bay and associated facilities - Under consideration


S/00036/09/FUL - 80 Russell Road, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8NH - Erection of two storey and single storey rear extensions and single storey side extension.  - Under consideration


S/06388/08/FUL - 57 Billesley Lane, Land adjacent to, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 9QT - Erection of detached dwelling  - Withdrawn - Decision date16/02/2009


S/00059/09/DEM - 225 Alcester Road, Woodnorton House, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8PY -

Demolition of dwelling - No Prior Approval Required - Decision date 10/02/2009


S/00092/09/FUL - 207 Billesley Lane, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 9RR - Erection of two storey and first floor rear, two storey side and forward porch extensions.  - Under consideration


S/00128/09/FUL - 82 Russell Road and Pitmaston, Land At, 123 Moor Green Lane, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8NG - Conversion of buildings and erection of new buildings to provide 31 dwellings, car parking and landscaping  - Under consideration


S/00551/09/FUL - 9 King Edward Road, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8HR - Retention of dormer to rear  - Under consideration


S/06487/08/FUL- 12 Russell Road, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8RD - Erection of two storey side and single storey rear extensions  - Under consideration

Tesco application for Moseley withdrawn

The planning application for the redevelopment of the Meteor Ford site on the corner of Oxford Road and St.Marys Row, Moseley, has been withdrawn today - 16th February 2009.
The planning application involved a Tesco supermarket on the ground floor, sheltered accommodation on the first floor and a doctors surgery on the second floor.
Applicants normally withdraw their planning application if the planning officers are about to recommend refusal. Withdrawing means the applicant has a second opportunity for a planning application for the same site, without losing their planning application fee. In the case of the Meteor Ford site, the planning application fee would have been several thousand pounds.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

My objection to the disposal of land of the Highbury Hall estate


I have today formally objected to the Charity Commission and Birmingham City Council’s application for a new scheme (case number 90550) to update the governing of the charity known as Highbury Trust (1039194) and provide a limited power of sale.


A copy of the text of my objection letter is below.


Residents can comment of this application by e-mailing the Charity Commission at . Any comments have to be sent to them by Saturday 21st February 2009


Text of my letter:



Our ref: mu2014


Date: 12th February 2009


To: Charity Commission Direct, PO Box 1227, Liverpool L69 3UG

Copy to: Cllr John Alden, Chair of Trust and Charities Sub-Committee



Re: Highbury Trust


Dear Sir or Madam,


I wish to object to Birmingham City Council’s application for a new scheme (case number 90550) to update the governing of the charity known as Highbury Trust (1039194) and provide a limited power of sale.


The issue I strongly object to is paragraph 7 of the scheme, which states:



7. Disposal of land

If and in so far as the land identified in part 2 of the schedule to this scheme is not required for the object of the charity, the trustee may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of it. The trustee must comply with the restrictions on disposal imposed by section 36 of the Charities Act 1993, unless the sale, lease or disposal is excepted



This paragraph is clearly the first stage in the possible selling off of a large section of the Highbury Hall estate. I believe this is fundamentally wrong for the following reasons:




The land the Trust wishes to dispose of is part of the original Highbury Hall grounds. Chamberlain House is on the footprint of the glass house that adjoined Highbury Hall. The car park and vegetable gardens to the side of Chamberlain House are part of the original Kitchen Gardens of Highbury Hall. The Lodge was the original entrance to the Highbury Hall estate. The Gardeners Cottage, Farm Bailiff’s Cottage and metal pergola for fruit trees are all part of the original Highbury Hall estate.


To dispose of these parts of the original estate, most likely to become part of a small housing estate would be pure vandalism.


The importance of this land is highlighted in the recently published Highbury Park, Historic Landscape Appraisal. This report can be downloaded at


The report explains the importance of the Highbury Hall estate in a national context, as follows:


From page 6 of 116


To the north of The Henburys the gardens of Highbury are of considerable historic importance and a great asset to Birmingham. They were laid out from 1879 to 1914 and were the creation of Joseph Chamberlain, the head of Birmingham’s most distinguished political family, who employed the well known landscape architect, Edward Milner and subsequently his son Henry. In their day were they were the most renowned gardens in Birmingham, and possibly the West Midlands, and were widely written about. They provided a suitable setting for Chamberlain’s political entertaining of both leading politicians and his political supporters.


The fame of Highbury was due to the fact that within seventy acres there were many different features and these contributed to the feel of being in the country on a large estate, rather than in the suburbs of a major city. They display the quintessence of high Victorian taste in gardening and, moreover, the taste of one man, having been created on an undeveloped site, and having remained intact and substantially unaltered since Joseph Chamberlain’s death in 1914.


The gardens at Highbury are distinguished in another respect in that the mansion designed by John Henry Chamberlain, a leading Birmingham architect, also survives. A quality Victorian house and a quality Victorian garden surviving together is an extremely rare occurrence, not only in Birmingham, but in any major industrial centre.



Further on in the report, it shows which original parts of the Highbury Hall estate still remain. The ones that this proposed scheme would depose of are as follows:


From page   73 of 116


4 Moor Green Lane entrance Lodge, gate piers and gate

The two storey lodge was built in 1878 at the same time as the house and by the same architect. A bathroom was added in 1950 and a single storey room on the SW front in c.2000. The entrance porch has been enclosed. It is listed Grade 11*. It stands to the southwest of the principle entrance to Highbury which is through gate piers of brick with carved stone cappings and the remains of brackets for lanterns. In addition to the main gate to the driveway to the house there was a smaller gate for pedestrians. The present gates are

of oak and may date to c. 1915 and have contemporary decorative hinges. The original gates were probably of close boarded wood but were replaced by ornate cast iron gates in the early 20th century. These were removed when the Chamberlain family left Highbury.




From page   74 of 116


5 Gardener’s Cottage

The cottage was built c. 1879 and was probably designed by J. H.Chamberlain. It is positioned at the end of the Highbury garden boundary wall, which forms the outer wall of the cottage. Originally the back drive to the farm from Queensbridge Road started by the cottage but the drive was realigned further to the east in c. 1894. The cottage is built of quality brickwork and has a rubbed brick string course, but has less decorative detailing than

the entrance lodge cottage. It has been reroofed.




From page   75 of 116


6 Farm Bailiff’s Cottage

The cottage was built on the new line of the back drive in 1904 by the building firm of

James Bullock and Sons of Alcester Road, Moseley. It is of brick and in a much plainer

style than the other lodge cottages. The front door has been replaced and there has been

some alteration to the brickwork of the wall in the adjoining yard.





From page   78 of 116


14 Garden/boundary Wall

The garden wall which was built in 1879 runs along Yew Tree Road and continues along Queensbridge Road forming the boundary to the roads on one side and the kitchen garden on the other. Only the Queensbridge Road section is still at its original height though sections of this were rebuilt in the 1890s when an extensive range of wall greenhouses were erected by Wright and Holmes. Some insertions of blue bricks have been made where the red bricks have been damaged by road salt. The wall is in English bond and has its original blue brick copings. Brick piers were added using re-used bricks in the 1950s.


The first part of the wall where it fronted what is now Chamberlain House along Yew Tree Road was considerably lowered in the 1950s and rendered on the side facing the road in c.1980




From page   79 of 116


15 Metal pergola for fruit trees

The fruit tree pergola probably dates from the earliest laying out of the kitchen garden from 1879 onwards. It is made of wrought iron and extends for 25m. It is planted with pears and apples in beds edged with the original blue brick copings. An original pebble path runs up the centre of the pergola.



As you can see, large sections of the original estate would be lost and no certainty as to their future well being



Lack of consultation

The Highbury Trust is part of the Moseley and Kings Heath Ward, which I represent along with Councillor Ernie Hendricks and Emily Cox. At no point have we been consulted about this proposed scheme to the Charity Commission.


Indeed, this proposed scheme has raised alot of angst within the local community and media.


The long term desire of the Highbury Trust to dispose of sections of its land has been known for several years that pre-date my election as a Councillor in 2004. However, there has never been any formal consultation with the community as to whether this was the right thing to do, or what the alternatives were. Prior to the recent publication of the Historic Landscape Appraisal, I did not object to the demolition or sell off of Chamberlain House, as long as what replaced it was a community use. I spent some considerable time and effort investigating the possiblity of the neighbouring Queensbridge School purchasing the land for a multi-media centre. What I always opposed was any housing estate being built on this site.  In light of the findings of the Historic Landscape Appraisal, I think it is now important that the original Highbury Hall estate is kept intact and within the Highbury Trust.



No vision and no management plan

I have seen neither a management plan nor a vision for the Highbury Trust. Indeed, the proposal to dispose of the Chamberlain House and associated land is based more on a desire to be seen to be doing something, rather than working towards an pre-planned end result.


There is now a need for the Trustees of the Highbury Trust to go back to basics of what the Chamberlain family would have envisaged as the future of this trust when they handed it over to the city in 1932.


What they would have wanted is simple:


Maintain the historic and formal gardens of Highbury Hall, which would be part of Highbury Park and free to the public. Have some form of museum inside Highbury Hall that would be open to the public for free several days a year. The rest of Highbury Hall and the ancillary buildings (Lodge, Gardeners Cottage, Farm Bailiff’s Cottage and later on Chamberlain House) would be used to raise funds to pay for the upkeep of both the gardens and Highbury Hall.  The Highbury Trust would be financially self sufficient from the Council.


What has subsequently happened is that the estate has become a de facto Council owned property. The gardens have fallen to pieces, though repeated Council cut backs. Both Chamberlain House and Highbury Hall have been used to base Council departments inside them free-of-charge or to raise money through weddings or conferences to subsidise the Council coffers.



The Council needs to create a business plan that would make the Highbury Trust financially self-sufficient. All money raised through renting office space in Chamberlain House or Highbury Hall, must go back into the Highbury Trust bank account. Rents from the Lodge, the 1950s caretakers house, the Gardeners Cottage and the Farm Bailiff's Cottage must also go into the Highbury Trust bank account. Indeed, it is scandalous that both the Farm Bailiff's Cottage and caretaker’s house have been vacant for several years.


Highbury Hall does need basic maintenance work, but there is nothing structurally wrong with it. Indeed, no survey has been done of Highbury Hall to assess what work is required. Figures are thrown about in the local media, which are based on finger-in-the-air estimates.


A long term future for Highbury Hall could be based on its well established and popular conference and wedding facilities. There is scope for expanding these into having over-night accommodation for weddings and conferences by converting the upstairs rooms in the two wings of the building. Highbury Hall has two massive wings which have stood empty since 1984.


The historic ground floor rooms of Highbury Hall could be open to the public on a number of days throughout the year.


Chamberlain House could be rented by either Council departments or even commercial organisations – again this money would be used to maintain the gardens and Highbury Hall.


It is frustrating that the Trustees want to sell off sections of the estate to raise money to repair Highbury Hall. However, they don’t appear to have any idea what to do with Highbury Hall once it is repaired - will it simply remain half empty as it has done so since 1984?



....and finally

I hope the Charity Commission will reject this scheme and force the trustees to rethink their proposals for this trust and this time involve the local Councillors and local community groups that are interested in restoring Highbury Hall and its gardens back to its former glory and for the benefit of the citizens of Birmingham.


Councillor Martin Mullaney
(0121) 689 4372

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Highbury Park Historic Conservation Survey now on-line              
The Council have released the recently completely Historic Conservation Survey of Highbury Park, Moseley, Birmingham. I have uploaded the document at . The document is 35Mb in size, so will take a minute or two to download. The document has been watermarked, so as to permit its public distribution.
This document is crucial, since the City Council, through the Highbury Trust, are requesting permission from the Charity Commission to dispose of sections of the Highbury Hall grounds – more on this issue later. Photographs showing which sections they intend to sell off, can be seen at:

This survey will now provide guidelines for any future changes or restoration projects in the park AND will form the basis for a future Heritage Lottery bid for monies to restore the gardens of Highbury Hall.
The report is 116 pages long and goes through in fine detail the history of the park and which landscapes and features are of historic importance. It also puts into a national context the importance of the heritage of the park.
Highbury Park is one of the few parks in Birmingham that is protected by its inclusion on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest.
The report shows that Highbury Park contains two preserved estates that are of historic significance in Birmingham:
1)      The southern section of the park contains the early 18th century landscape of the Henburys – it contained landscape gardens and farm land. This is a rare survival from this period, especially in an urban environment.
2)      The northern section of the park contains the gardens of Highbury Hall. These were laid out between 1879 and 1914 and were the creation of Joseph Chamberlain – head of Birmingham’s most famous political family. His son Neville was Prime Minister of Britain between 1937 and 1940. His other son, Austin received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1923. Joseph Chamberlain is described by many as the founder of modern Birmingham and after whom Chamberlain Square in central Birmingham is named.
The report also shows that many features survive, that pre-date the opening of the public park in 1921, and these include:
a)      Late Neolithic to Bronze Age (2,500BC to 701BC) burnt mounds. Burnt mounds are believed to have been prehistoric saunas
b)      Medieval to post-Medieval plough and furrow features. Plough and furrow was a pre-enclosure form of growing crops, which improved the drainage on the land. These are rare to find in an urban environment
c)       Many of the paths, trees and hedges in the park originate from either the early 18th Century Henburys estate or the late Victorian Highbury estate.
Highbury Hall and its grounds are owned by the Highbury Trust, which in turn is managed by the City Council. The Highbury Trust consists of: Highbury Hall (statutory listed Grade II*); the Lodge (statutory listed Grade II*) at the corner of Moor Green Lane and Yew Tree Lane; Chamberlain House which was built in the 1950s on the footprint of the former Highbury Hall glass houses; the former kitchens of Highbury Hall – now used by the Four Seasons Project – and the section of park between Highbury Hall and the main pond.
The Highbury Trust was created in the 1920s for the benefit of the citizens of Birmingham, but contained no endowment to maintain the parkland and buildings.
The Charity Commission in the year 2000 criticised the Council for using both Highbury Hall and Chamberlain House for non-charitable uses. Highbury Hall is used for weddings and conferences, while Chamberlain House is used as offices for Social Services.
As a means of raising money to repair the structure of Highbury Hall, the Trust are in the process of asking the Charity Commission for permission to dispose of parts of the grounds of Highbury Hall – namely the former Lodge, the 1950s Chamberlain House  and associated car park
Residents have until 21st February 2009 to comment on this disposal to the Charity Commission at
From my perspective, I will be objecting to this disposal in light of the information contained within the Highbury Park Conservation Survey. It is important that the entire Highbury Hall grounds are kept as one, OR if sections are disposed of, then there must be strict guidelines are what can be demolished or built on these grounds. I am concerned that selling off Chamberlain House and the attached car park will lead to a small housing estate being built here......this is totally unacceptable.