Voting Guide Meerhoven

Question 4: Alternative location of police facility

A possible alternative location for the police facility is Trade Forum. See our letter of February 15, 2022. What do you think about the idea of realising the police complex at that location?

We greatly appreciate it when residents think about possible solutions. As far as we know, there are other plans (in concept) for Trade Forum, namely as a “shop window for Brainport”, located between the motorways. In addition, in view of the current development plans of the police facility, the area is too small.
Since 2006, under the leadership of Mary Fiers, the PvdA has devoted itself to making Meerhoven a spacious, green, low-traffic neighbourhood. With homes for starters, space for children, facilities for everyone and lots of green.  We think this plan has succeeded. An urban neighbourhood needs urban facilities. A police complex for students and staff is a great opportunity for Eindhoven as a city. Together, we have to fill the limited space. We believe that the chosen location lends itself perfectly for this facility. And again, in view of the conversations we had in the neighbourhood, we dare say that the resistance is not felt by everyone. You mention Trade Forum as an alternative. We see many opportunities for realising housing there to help starters find an affordable home.
To be honest, we don’t think that the location of the complex will change anymore at this stage of the process. Nevertheless, we would like to take a look at it and see if there are still possibilities to realise the complex there.
We do not have enough insight into this. The Board of Mayor and Aldermen has already made its final choice.
Het Ouderen Appel – hart voor Eindhoven agrees with you that the fallow land behind the P+R site and the Campanile hotel is a more obvious location, especially since the larger size of the proposed police complex will generate more traffic movements. This larger traffic flow fits better at a location directly along the N2/A2. Moreover, this location is much better accessible from the city than the Land Forum location, especially for vehicles other than passenger cars.
he current location was determined with residents, the City Council and the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.
ChristenUnie Eindhoven will not respond to the questions that you have put forward, for the fundamental reason that in this day and age – prior to the elections – you can seduce politicians into making any statement if that will bring in votes in his/her eyes. We are in the council on the oath that we have been elected there without ‘charge or consultation’ and committing ourselves in advance to positions of interest groups feels to us contrary to that principle.
At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge of the location to be able to assess the possible siting of the police complex at the location you propose. We do believe, however, that the municipality should seriously consider alternatives for desirability and feasibility together with you.

Not unwillingly, the arguments sound plausible, but we are too little at home in this dossier to make any meaningful statements.

FVD thinks this location is a good one for the proposed police accommodation because it meets the interests and wishes of both residents and the police.
For the Partij van de Dieren, the public interest always outweighs commercial interests, which is why we consider it a possible alternative. However, as with all plans for the construction of the police facility, this will also be built in the green. Undeveloped land may not be interesting to people, but it is precisely here that animals find peace and quiet. The Partij van de Dieren will take the importance of nature very seriously, but has too little information at the moment to give a thorough opinion.
We cannot oversee all the consequences at the moment. But we don’t know of any obstacles to including it as an alternative location in the discussion about an optimal plan of requirements for everyone and how exactly to realise that. So it should be included there because you have put it forward as an alternative.

The following parties did not respond: