| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 12:42:00
|
I have recently been looking into the concerns from some residents in Hartfields where they did not get told that a park was being built right next to their apartments.
When you picture retirement village, you think settlement, tranquility, close knit community, calm, safety and health...?
However, the residents feel they have no chance of living their dream with the news of the play park, yards from their doorstep.
The 'consultation' on the plan took place before the majority of the residents even thought of Hartfields. In fact they probably weren't even eligable age-wise as it started and was secured in 1997!
The council say there is no chance to change the plan. This is when I have just read a statement which stresses that changes have been allowed as a result of feedback from the residents as they arrive and settle at Middle Warren.
Though they would be immediately affected, the Hartfield residents were missed out of the loop when a recent notice of planning application hit door mats. The residents only found out when they noticed something in the mail.
I am not saying what they want, should be agreed regardless of other opinions, but I really think that the basic principles of what they bought into (in some cases with their life savings)is breached with this plan. It is not something you would expect to be built there and so during 'marketing', I am sure the questions will not have been put by buyers as they explored whether the retirement village was right for the rest of their lives?
I would appreciate views as I am concerned and the distress this is causing residents may impact on factors of age and health; stress is the last thing they need. They feel betrayed and ignored however and I think we should work to remedy this as soon as possible.
It seems Joseph Rowntree has made decisions which impact and tick the box regarding consultation for the retirement village tenants.
They pay a lot of money, but it seems that further goals of income generation is a priority for this park as it is planned to be positioned where it will provide and promote access to toilets, shops and the restaurant within the home.
Please note that the residents are actually willing to look at a balance so that use of facilities are promoted if it is needed but this is a step too far when the park is placed a step to near.
Wider views requested as it is a matter or urgency that a response is considered so that discussions can commence. |
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 13:27:29
|
The park was one of the many things that was promised by the sales / marketing staff when we first moved to Bishop Cuthbert over ten years ago. The majority of the other things promised have either fallen by the wayside or, if they have been delivered, fallen well short of expectations (the 'green wedge' for example). The estate is crying out for play facilities and any resistance to it by residents will only play into the hands of the housebuilders, who I'm sure will be only too happy to delay it further or, better still for them, not provide it at all and build a few more units in it's place.
As I understand it the provision of the play park was either a condition of the planning consent granted for the retirement village or imposed via a S106. Either way it has been on the masterplan for a long time now, certainly as long as the approved version of the retirement village. The plans for the play park were on display at an open day organised by the Middle Warren Residents Association over 2 years ago (the venue for the open day was Hartfields itself!). I am surpised that it is becoming an issue at the 11th hour, just as the developers are finally about to deliver, but would suggest that the Hartfields residents' beef ought to be with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation rather than the council's planning department.
A huge caveat to all of this is that, to be worthwhile, it needs to be delivered to a decent specification and sufficient funds allocated to maintain it (echoes of Thornton Street linear park here). You only have to look at the green wedge to see how something so promising (on the landscape architect's plans at least) can materialise into something so disappointing in such a short space of time. I had the misfortune to take my young family for a walk through the section situated North West of Merlin Way and won't be going back in a hurry. The area is full of rubbish, many trees / shrubs are dying or have died, the path is cutting up badly, the stream is choked up with all sorts of debris at the culvert under Merlin Way and the whole area is covered in dog dirt (either deposited by the dogs thesmeves or neatly bagged and discarded in the grass / hanging in the bushes by the 'responsible' owners). What started as a pleasant alternative to walking alongside Merlin Way, with the perils of the speeding traffic, soon became a thoroughly unpleasant experience with perils of it's own.
So, part of me can understand the Hartfields residents' concerns but a bigger part of me thinks please don't give them more excuses for not delivering what has been promised for such a long time. |
 |
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 15:44:46
|
Thanks Mike and rest assured, the residents want the park and the sooner the better! The thing is that some people have not been given information so when it seems to drop on them when they have invested so much money into their home, it smacks of how residents felt about the social housing. Again, the principle there was not about preventing social housing as the majority of people welcome that for Hartlepool. It was how it was handled and the lack of respectable communication that put residents' back's up.
The issue here is how do people feel about the position of the park?
All the residents are asking for is for the park to be set further forward so the noise will not be as loud for those in the apartments. Presently, it just seems too close for comfort.
I admire the residents as they truly feel ignored and they are managing to cope with the anguish by putting heads together to put forward options so that their needs will reflect in the park provision. Remember, some residents in Hartfields have grandchildren so they will welcome a facility like this near by.
It really starts to bother when we look at those parks that have been trashed a few months after officially opening. The residents want to ensure that security is in place. There is nowhere for young people to go on our estate on an evening. There are youth facilities around Middle Warren Estate but not right in it. This needs to be addressed. What are the implications for security, how ill it be monitored etc?
It is just about managing the park so that it is one such expectation we have looked forward to, which actually delivers and remains! I have not met one resident in Hartfield who does not want the park at all and I have to admit that everyone is pleased to support it.
You are right that the issue is a matter of ensuring that the residents are seen as individuals with their own minds and their own opinions. This is what we are looking at and I am positive about this issue being resolved. Fingers crossed that this is an effective trigger towards a consensus where tenants across Hartfields feel listened to and empowered within their home.
|
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 16:38:50
|
The difference between this and the social housing is the fact that, with the social housing, the goalposts were very definitely moved (in a hasty and opportunist way). With the park, as far as I can see, the goalposts have remained in the same place. The Hartfields residents have my sympathy if they asked the question about the surrounding area and were told a pack of lies, surely they will have some recourse against the developer on that score.
I think any lobbying on this matter would be better concentrated in getting it delivered to a high quality and getting the assurances that monies / other resources are in place to police it and maintain it so it doesn't become the eyesore and anti-social behaviour focal point for the estate that the the Hartfields residents fear it might. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 19:19:44
|
Agreed Mike, that is exactly what we are doing. It would be terrible to see the same thing happening to the park on this estate as elsewhere.
One resident moved in six months ago, and was not giving any indication whatsoever. I know it is clear what happened with the silverbirch road issue, but this is also clear in that people 'avoided' discussing the plans to that degree. Let's face it, if it was a selling point it would have been shouted from the roof tops!
The residents are simply making a stand. It will not stall building - it is already long overdue. They are in the same mindset as you in that they want the park to make a positive contribution to the whole estate. It is just they want it carefully thought through as to where the land lies.
The play equipment is amazing and one resident actually describes it as a theme park, not a play park. Gosh nothing like this in my day!! It is an exciting development. We need to get the best out of it.
They do not want it to be built with no plan in place to keep it maintained and monitored, so that in a few years, it is closed to the public whilst the equipment is replaced and made safe!
With regards to the green wedge, I actually thought that the reason it was not up to scratch was due to the delay with the park. I thought they were being sorted out together.
I did not realise it was as bad as you describe as you walk through. Again, this is not good enough. I will report it to the council. |
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 21:16:15
|
I think if I was about to invest tens of thousands of pounds in one of the retirement apartments and I saw a large expanse of undeveloped land next door I would have asked the simple question, "What is going to be built there?".
I was surprised to learn when viewing the planning application, given the concerns you refer to above, that the Hartfields residents have played an active part in finalising the layout / content of the park (meeting at Hartfields 8th December 2008).
Anyway, just had a look at the plans on the planning portal and they look great! Mind you, so did the plans for the rest of the green wedge and, so far, it's been something of a let down as far as I am concerned. Not sure about the bandstand, seems old fashioned and out of keeping with the rest of the proposals and I suspect it might also end up as a semi-alfresco 'youth club'. Either that or boarded up 99% of the time like the one in Ward Jackson Park, ie an eyesore.
Back to the subject of the green wedge, yes the section we walked through really is that bad. I can't vouch for the South / East section but the North / West section is rapidly becoming buried in dog waste. Not sure of an answer to that problem other than taking up a sniper position over there every now and again - only (half) joking! |
|
|
|
johnny mac
Administrator
774 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 22:11:08
|
speaking of dog sh**e ...
If it's at all possible to gain some sort of interest out of the subject it is this. Would anyone like to guess how many years this has been an issue for people in the town? It's not a complicated matter. We know what the problem is - we'd like to put our feet down without having to watch were we put them.
Now in all of those years, if a £250m a year council can't come up with a solution what chance do they stand with the complicated stuff? |
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 00:05:35
|
| I know it's a rhetorical question, and ever so slightly off-topic, but I'm going to answer it anyway. My guess is approx 25 years. I'm knocking on 40 now but remember laughing with my mates when I was a kid about how much coverage the topic got in the Hartlepool Mail and how uptight grown-ups could get over something so banal. Now I'm one of those complaining about it (I really am turning into my Dad!). And yes, the Mail really has been full of S**T for that long. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 00:17:46
|
The issue with residents approving plans etc, is that there is a token arrangement of resident's consultation, the usual is a manager from York!
Since the resident's brought this to my attention this week, we are working on getting a clear message to the partners that resident's feel left out in the dark.
So as I said, it is the assertion from the residents what will ensure that the issues you have raised above are sorted out, and dog dirt is going to be a priority (for a change)!
The bandstand is the genius idea of our 'all encompassing'residents association. No matter how many times people tried to flag it up about the use but more so the possible abuse of the bandstand, you get barred from the committee!
However, hopefully this group will realise that there are other views on the estate. For the Hartfield residents, they want all issues regarding the bandstand to be explored before it is possibly dumped on us, luring young people to congregate for the latest alco-pops!
Hey maybe the bandstand could be a doggy toilet!
So the real view of the residents of Hartfields is not a million miles from you Mike, it is just they want to explore moving the plan over a little if possible or at the very least have realistic consideration of possible anti-social risks so that they don't become a reality and a nightmare!
I think the green wedge should be the working example of what we don't want to see happening. It might even spur them on to sort the wedge out!? |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 15:27:53
|
Been in touch with the council Mike. They are going to arrange a meeting with me to consider the issues around dog dirt and rubbish. Also to consider maintenance of the green wedge.
Something to look forward to I hope! |
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 21:00:14
|
Hmmmm, not sure about that one being one to look forward to.
In my experience the developer would normally by liable for maintenance for a period of time before it is then passed over to the council. In reality this amounts to the developer doing as little as possible and then giving it a spruce up just before hand over. It would be interested to know who owns the wedge and when ownership will change hands (if it is to / if it hasn't already). If the council have taken it on, or will in the future, it will be interesting to know which department will be responsible for it. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 22:13:16
|
I understand your reservations but I am definitely meeting with them next week to scrutinise the current responsibility or neglect!
I am confident we will get somewhere, I dont know how far but will report back on here.
The Council Officer agrees that if the area is in such a state when it is the green wedge that was supposed to be an attractive walking area, something should be done.
As it is getting out nice, I would like to think that this can be sorted quickly and then for the new park to come into being very soon after!
I was pleased to see that the park in clavering is getting spruced up. The resident's Association in that area are really positive and do as much as they can for the whole area they cover.
Unfortunately, as Middle Warren does not have such an active group, they even helped me to sort out the builders so that the thefts and vandalism reduced.
They are also going to put notices on the notice notice board for Sainsburys so that any activities can be promoted. I will be encouraging Throston groups and centres to promote their programme too. I am concerned that there is nothing specific on the estate for young people. I dont want them to get bad reputations for hanging about the shops.
When the park and the wedge is completed, I want to ensure that the young people do not look after it. It is such a waste, hense the current work with Hartfields residents to ensure that security is sorted properly.
|
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 20:21:46
|
Last night I attended a Hartfield's Retirement Village Residents Association meeting. There were nearly 80 people there. What a vibrant Resident's Association which were continuing their communication strategy this morning to inform all residents of the plans about the park.
All residents have expressed concern so far, particularly given management and proximity to Hartfields. This is another issue on this estate whereby people have not really been alerted to plans but later find out that the dream they bought into is turning into a nightmare.
Residents are objecting to the plans and hope that the park will be moved further into the estate so they regain tranquillity.
More than anything, I hope this issue gets resolved quickly as usual. My grandson is 18 months and I would like to think the park is up and running within six month rather then when he is 18 years!
Got to say that the Resident's Association is fantastic. HBC should go check it out and they will see a shining example of democracy and accessibility. Fabulous group of people. I am proud to be their neighbour! |
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 22:26:13
|
| I've got to say that, having read through most of the neighbour responses on the planning portal, not all Hartfirlds residents are opposed. I would say the 'supporters' / 'objectors' were about 50/50 last time I looked. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2010 : 01:19:54
|
Yes and this is why I think that the Residents Association is so good, they do not bar out anyone who has their own opinion.
There are definite issues regarding park being so close to the retirement village. The residents already suffer from the mini motor bikes as a nuisance and one group even tipped the petrol out of it and lit the trail with a match.
I believe such discussions will allow for sensible debate on the practicalities of such a park setting. Just like on the Falcon Road issue, it is about letting people voice their opinions. Remember that I went straight to Carl Richardson when I heard the strong feeling on the social housing issue. I was told I should just accept it and not build people's hopes up. Can you imagine if we had not objected, feeling defeated before we start?
My principles on this are the same as ever: builders should not dictate what happens on an estate once they have lured residents into it.
Whatever happens, I want all residents to feel involved and heard. It needs to be developed in the right setting with the right conditions so that it will not be ruined within weeks of being constructed. |
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2010 : 13:16:31
|
| Coming pretty much full circle to my original comment - I'm fairly sure that the play area was on the plans at or even before the retirement village was given planning consent so it isn't exactly as if the builders are moving the goalposts! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Hartfields Retirement Village Play Park?
