| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Apr 2010 : 14:19:03
|
The park was on the plans from 1997. Some residents were not told even as recently as the last few months ago. Other residents thought it was a natural park, for walking through or sitting in.
My point is that builders keep info that might be a bit controversial away from buyers. Then new owners get a shock when the implications of what they have bought in to comes to their attention.
Lack of communication is a regular reason for tension in these circumstances. The residents in Hartfields found out in the newspaper as HBC had forgotten to inform them!
The residents feel as strongly about the park as the residents on Silverbirch Road felt about the social housing and residents feel about Falcon Road.
I am just waiting for a community notice board (being made in the prison) to go up in Sainsbury's. I aim to put any documents on this kind of thing up there. That is another reason that David and I have gone for councillor as councillors get the information in advance. We would ensure that local people get to know 'hot off the press'. If things were discussed openly, the fear and suspicion would be alleviated.
I hope things get sorted soon after 6 May 2010 as want the play park to be up and running for the summer, we don't get very much of it!! |
 |
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2010 : 22:49:51
|
I don't think the plans for the park were that well hidden. They have been in the public domain for some time and any buyer, or their legal representative, could have accessed these plans without too much difficulty.
Like I said earlier, plans for the park were on display in Hartfields itself some two years ago.
Like I said earlier the change in plans for Silverbirch Road doesn't really compare with the longstanding plans for the play park.
I admire your patience re the notice board, I seem to recall that this was in the pipeline back in October.
Don't bank on the play park being up and running in time for this summer. The target decision date is not until sometime in June and then they have got to build it, assuming they get permission rather than being sent back to the drawing board. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2010 : 10:26:49
|
Sadly Mike, the residents in the retirement village did not know how open their home was going to be. I know it is different to the Silverbirch Road issue but the background is the same, lack of communication.
I do think with the recession, more people are doing more research regarding their home but in this case, I am just pleased there is a chance that the park can be considered in reality rather than just in theory. Then I feel it will be built to a high standard with factors in place to reduce the chance that it will be vandalised.
I know about the timescales, and I don't want any further delays but I do not want to simply think of myself when others on the estate feel they have been let down. The plans were available two years ago, but many of the residents bought their apartment after that.
It simply shows that the consultation is not consistent. After all, consultation is about empowering the community and actually it can be so positive in flagging up issues that the planning department might have missed.
There are enough objections to go to committee. I just think that moving the park away from the front door of Hartfields Manor will actually make it quicker to get to for the families on our part of the estate. |
|
|
|
snowy
Frequent Contributor
161 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2010 : 13:02:05
|
The reference to the plans being in the public domain is one of those catch all phrases that isn't as clear as it implies... especially if you don't know just what you're looking for. it may well be accessible, but if you have no idea what it is, why would you look fpr something you never anticipated...?
It's like being told they're going to bury nuclear waste in your garden, you query this and they say..."Well it's in the public domain"it may well be, but if you can't imagine the possibilty, you wouldn't be wasting your time scouring the dusty files in anticipation.
It's the councils duty to inform all those affected, not the recipients of their schemes to go looking. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2010 : 21:33:09
|
Thank you snowy, that is exactly the problem. Sadly people can buy properties round here and suddenly a really inappropriate plan is proposed.
My huge concern on this one is that there are residents who are ill, vulnerable and then just the traditions of age means that they are really distressed at the plans.
You are right when you say that sometimes things are put forward as if it is just a minor detail, this leads to a false sense of security.
I am sure that this can be sorted. It is a simple case of moving the park forward a bit. What is the harm in that?
After all, they had plans for a school. Why dont they just move it to that location?
The residents are lovely people who deserve their retirement to be stress free. I hope that will be the case. Got to say that if this park gets built there, I think Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust will not be filling the vacant properties for sale in a hurry?
|
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2010 : 22:33:02
|
Snowy / Christine, if I was buying a property next to undeveloped land I would ask what the plans were for that land. If I didn't then I would expect whoever was doing the searches on my behalf to ask the question. I wouldn't assume or anticipate anything if I was shelling out £100k plus. Even if you didn't anticipate a play park wouldn't you be curious anyway? It's not the council's duty to inform a prospective buyer, what contact would the council have with the buyer during the purchasing process?
There are people who have lived on this estate a lot longer than the residents of the retirement village who believe these facilities are long overdue. The park hasn't been proposed after the retirement units have been sold, it was proposed at least contemporaneously if not before. To say they can be moved a bit is to oversimplify the situation. Hasn't the remaining land already been carved up between Persimmon / Bellway and planning permission sought / obtained?
Regarding the retirement complex being open to the public, surely the residents were made aware of this? If not then their beef has got to be with the Joseph Rowntree Trust rather than being with this planning application.
I feel that if this gets knocked back then there is a danger we won't get anything. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2010 : 22:49:39
|
Mike I understand and fully support you. I too want this park as soon as possible. However it simply needs moving away from their front door.
I will be following this up. When discussing it with planning and the residents, I do not want this to turn into a Falcon Road scenario. Hopefully, HBC will learn their lessons and get this sorted out.
I am looking to speak to the developer early next week. I will keep everyone updated but please don't think that any objections can be used as an excuse to stall this further. In fact, I think it makes good business sense for the aprk to be started asap, families will be attracted to the estate with such a fantastic park in waiting.
I think we have had very bad press over the past few months. Maybe it is time for things to change. Development of communication, real consultation and respect for residents would be good this time round! |
|
|
|
snowy
Frequent Contributor
161 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2010 : 21:11:37
|
| Even if the loaction of the proposed park and the retirement complex were known previously, you have to call into question the logic of anyone who thinks it a good idea to locate the two uses adjacent to each other, I'd have thought it was not the most obvious of bedfellows. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2010 : 22:32:35
|
This is what makes me mad. The thing that is a miss is logic in HBC! At the same time, it professes to empower, consult and have expertise across it's ranks and it's councillors.
The reason that David and I are standing as councillors is because we know what is going on and watch them all let it go by whilst we the tax payer picks up the invoice!
David and I will not stand by in order to keep in with whoever! If it is wrong we will challenge it and there will not be this nonsense of delaying decisions which creates massive rifts for communities.
We will not let them explain their way out of it. We will not accept maladministration. Then we might actually be able to see value for our council tax...for a change!
After all, if David and I had been councillors, there is no way that the financial director would have still been in post and paid a substantial early retirement package. Having been a liability for bullying staff to a figure way past quarter of a million, he would have been sacked.
Remember that councillors under pink papers (abuse!) allowed that to happen. So we cannot blame the officers all of the time, councillors did not challenge it despite breaches of equality staring them in the face! They should all be ashamed! |
|
|
|
johnny mac
Administrator
774 Posts |
Posted - 03 May 2010 : 09:43:57
|
| what exactly will this park consist of? |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 03 May 2010 : 12:00:47
|
Off the top of my head...a huge array of play equipment, football pitch and walkways. Oh and a band stand which Middle Warren Residents Association is hell bent on getting despite question marks from the residents they are supposed to be representing.
In my view, I suggest that we drop the band stand and let young people control what goes in for their benefit as they will probably take over the band stand anyway. We have a better chance of young people looking after the park if they are consulted and brought on board.
I have suggested that the land in front of the retirement village would be great if developed in to a tranquil park with a pond and running water. Benches to sit down too?
I would value forum member's suggestions and I will ensure that this is taken into consideration. As a resident representative or councillor, I will fight against slow processes to get this matter resolved. It is important that this is set for the time scale promised, we have waited for too long and been let down too many times on this, what should be, iconic estate for Hartlepool.
|
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2010 : 15:01:38
|
| The Planning Committee meets on Wednesday at 10am to see what happens regarding the park. |
|
|
|
johnny mac
Administrator
774 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2010 : 14:26:15
|
I have to say I'm all in favour of it. I can't imagine people being much disturbed. Hartfields is a large, multi-story complex bedecked with double glazing and which has been planned for years. There's far too little greenspace in Hartlepool and even fewer facilities for youngsters to use up energy.
Let's be grown up here. We demolished their youth clubs, provide few facilities, move them on from shop fronts .... it's not a good picture is it?
One thing I would say is that if it does go ahead the money needs to be there to look after it and for it to be regularly patrolled. No point in building anything otherwise. aka Thornton Sytreet Linear park. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2010 : 14:54:20
|
I agree with you. There are not enough well kept play areas for children and a shocking lack of respect for young people whereby they are seem as trouble makers loitering around meeting points.
The reason the retirement village residents are unhappy about the plans is because they thought it was going to be a naighbourhood park, seating and plants to walk through. A Play Area is a different and inappropriate addition to their peace and tranquility plan!
The expectation is that the retirement village security gaurd will look after the park out of hours. Through the day, families will use the restaurant, bar and toilets. So the residents are simply subsidising a community centre rather than buying into a retirement village dream.
Many residents still want the park, it si just they want it moved further up towards the family houses that the park will be serving. I am all in support of that, the quicker the better!
I have been to South Park and it is fabulous. Ice cream van there out the front, birds in an avery, excellent and well used play equipment. I then went to Ward Jackson's Park and look in disappointment at the band stand boarded up. We have to live in the real world, as you said, a realistic plan must be put in place to get the best out of the park so it remains a great area for children to let off energy and learn, parents are able to afford (free!) and young people have an area that they embrace as their own.
You will not get this on the doorstep of a retirement village, you might if the park is moved over a bit so the residents are not feeling cheated when they have all paid premiums for their properties. I still think it would be a good idea to create the neighbourhood park in front of the village. It would make for an even more attractive entrance. Maybe a pond, and sanctuary type feel. I think everyone could benefit from this as the setting is appropriate.
This is really the straw that is breaking the camel's back! However, as on a positive level I am now supporting the residents in their quest to have a say in their own home. This is in line with Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust. This is being supported by Head Office in York. A protocol will be developed to ensure that any future plans are considered by them. It is not good when you find out about planning applications through Hartlepool Mail. They should have had letters but they were missed out.
I simply put myself in the shoes of someone who has sold up their home to go to a setting away from the hussle and bustle of family life. The point is, if they had wanted to live in a community centre, many of the residents would never have upped sticks and moved one last time to a retirement village.
I understand from the council's point of view, generating income and utilising security is a good thing in keeping the GP practice and care services that are based there with a roof over their heads. However, let people know the score when they are deliberating over buying a property. |
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2010 : 21:53:25
|
I genuinely feel that some people are being slightly disingenuous here Christine. I was aware of the plansd for the play area years ago, along with the trust's intention to open up the retirement village's facilities to the general public. I understood the philosophy to be that the retirement village was to be integrated into the community, a hub if you like, rather than all the people of a certain age being lumped in one place and isolated from it. If I was aware of all of this and, as you know, I'm not quite ready to be taking an active interest in the offerings of retirement village's just yet, I find it hard to believe that all of this is coming as a surprise to some of the residents.
Could it be the case that they were told about this but, as it has been so long in coming, they got to used to life without it?
Finally, I would repeat one of my earlier posts in that quite a number of Hartfields residents support the proposals, or at least have stated that they do not object. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Hartfields Retirement Village Play Park?
