| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
 Posted - 17 May 2010 : 01:37:15
|
I agree Mike but I can only speak for those who have contacted me for help; they do not want the park in front of their door but would happily embrace a park a little further away.
There are a number of issues with the retirement village and I feel that one positive from this situation is that the residents are becoming more involved and that is long overdue. As was stated in the Mail, there are a number of residents in their later years who do not understand the process of complaining or researching. This does not mean they have no opinion, it may be age or illness that creates barriers.
Some people have said they do not object I agree but with such strength of feeling, I think moving the park further up towards the likes of you and I is a reasonable alternative.
I do understand where you are coming from and hopefully into the future, people will use this experience to ensure they look carefully into plans. I was at Norton today, I think a pond down near the village will be much more in keeping. Norton's pond is gorgeous with duck and birds. It has been there ages and the ducks are still safe!
Let us just hope that this gets sorted on Wednesday so that no real delay can occur. Excited for the park opening as my grandson will love it!
|
 |
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2010 : 13:07:22
|
Great! The decision has been deferred. According to the Hartlepool Mail there has been no date set for the committee's site visit and no date set for the application to go back in front of the planning committee. This plays into 'Leebells' hands. They have a legal obligation to provide this but can't get planning for it!
These proposals existed long before any of the residents invested in Hartfields. It's a shame the rest of the estate, or at least those that would make use of the park, have to go without because the residents of Hartfields either didn't bother to do their research or they simply didn't appreciate what their research told them about the future neighbouring land use. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2010 : 13:25:45
|
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Vandals-wreck-school-playground.6310731.jp
The resident's are just being mindful that everything is considered properly. Leebell will be building the park but hopefully nearer to the estate which will get the benefits of it.
I suggest people lobby the council to hurry themselves up and get it sorted! It is the council that did not do their job by getting all the evidence together. This is a huge undertaking and therefore ensuring it can be sustainable and appropriately placed are key. Both of which have not be considered as they should have been.
I am currently to ill to deal with this at the moment. |
|
|
|
marky
Occasional Contributor
48 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2010 : 17:17:12
|
Doesn't this sound a bit like people have looked around the complex and the facilities but didn't bother to check what was going to be built around them? This is the opposite of the Bishop Cuthbert/Affordable Homes fiasco where people did bother to check but then found the plans were changed from under them.
I think it's a case of 'buyer beware' and besides - what would those same residents think if the park idea was dropped and the land was used to build social housing instead? Personally, I would have thought that they would have liked the idea of a park and bandstand close to them. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2010 : 19:30:20
|
The residents did ask what was being built in some cases, they were told a neighbourhood park with trees, shrubs and seats. Suggestion of a bowling green was put forward...to their delight.
The residents are not in the main, complaining about the park, they are complaining that the park is classed as 'secure' as the retirement village security will see to it that it is not vandalised.
Further they are concerned that it will not be managed so children will go the park and then run around the retirement village as an alternative activity!
I am urging that the site visit is carried out as soon as possible. I will be following up with your concerns expressed here to ensure that momentum is not lost, yet again!
The fact remains just like with social housing that people are told one thing but sold another!
I actually think Leebell will consider the concerns and I am sure that a slight move up the estate is a possibility. Therefore I would ask that everyone who wants this to be a speedy process from now on, complain to the council as if in a planning meeting, you know there will be objections, why don't site visits get carried out first?
I am sure as a result of these disputes over Falcon Road, Silverbirch Social Housing and now the retirement village, people will be more attentive to detail.
However, sales officers can be very clever in the way they 'sell' things. I think Leebell and the council have to hold their hands up here.
Again lack of communication or misinformation leaves residents paying the price and losing out. |
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2010 : 23:40:59
|
Marky, I agree 100% with your observation. This case is the exact opposite to the Silverbirch Road fiasco in terms of the sequence of events and I fail to understand why the comparison keeps repeatedly being drawn.
If it is as simple as Christine makes out, ie move it away from Hartfields, then fine. Is it really that simple though? The worry is that Leebell take advantage of the council's procrastination and the failure to obtain planning becomes a convenient excuse for not fulfilling their obligation to deliver this element of the masterplan.
What have the council and Leebell got to hold their hands up for? I'm not in the business of defending the council or Leebell but a quick check of the timeline here will identify that the only people who should be holding their hands up are the residents of Hartfields and / or those they employed to do the checks on their behalf.
In the meantime it's the rest of the Bishop Cuthbert residents who go without. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2010 : 00:28:09
|
As I said earlier I will be pressing once again for speed on this. I would hope it would be as simple as moving it over a little, we are not even talking about a huge upheaval, simply nearer to the housing estate side of the estate.
This will still allow for access to the car park though this is always full during the working day as staff use it. Access to the restaurant and bar will be possible but it will not feel as though they are living in a community centre.
There are always two sides. Hopefully a speedy balance will be achieved by considering the options and respecting all residents regardless of their personal view.
I will update the forum on Monday when I have discussed this with councillors. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2010 : 22:15:05
|
UPDATE:
Over the past week I have been researching factors about the play park position.
I have spoken to planning and note that the site visit is set for 16 June 2010. The Planning Committee meeting on that day will then deliberate the plans.
I would like to let you know that the retirement village are not against a play park. They want it as much as families at the top of the estate do. They believe that children should have something to do and it will be good to have a local park for such a huge estate. They would also hope that the park considers older children and young adults as there is very little for them. This is a responsible attitude.
After speaking to Leebell, I spent time exploring reasoning, timescales, costings, consultation and noted quite a few issues. The retirement village residents who want peace and tranquillity on their immediate doorstep. They simply would appreciate consideration and would be delighted if the park could be situated up towards the roundabout or other areas around. Very few residents opted for no park at all in a recent meeting. I am sure there will be some family homes at the top of the estate who do not want a park. This is representation and democracy.
As the majority want the park, the residents in Hartfields simply want people to realise that they were not consulted, or at least they were not given the finer details and were allowed to assume that the park would be simply greenery and shrubs. Oh and a possible bowling green!
What you are sold and what you are told are two different things!
Even now, the retirement village residents have been considering appropriate alternatives using their skills from working before they retired. These plans are not a millions miles away, they are simply up a bit rather than right on their doorstep.
I would expect that representation allows exploration to move the park up a little. This should not be an excuse to not build the park.
I was told that the estate has a thirty year plan so is well ahead of schedule when I urged that this is sorted out quickly. Planning stated that it is hoped that the park is built before the end of the year....still on and actually ahead of schedule. Please note that these discussions in deliberating new resident's opinions have not stalled the building of the park.
With regards to Middle Warren Resident's Association, they are exclusive not inclusive. They hid in the background with other hot potatoes like Falcon Road and the Silverbirch Road Social Housing issues. They want to focus energies on the bandstand and in theory this would be great but simply go to Ward Jackson Park and note the boarded up bandstand. A 'site' for sore eyes!
The security, facilities and maintenance is going to be the clincher as there are very few toilets in Hartfields. The marketing info for Hartfields discusses the high security which will not be available if unaccompanied children see Hartfields as part of the play park!
Just to give an example to those who need it in explaining why there are such concerns, recently and luckily, a resident spotted that someone had jammed a razor blade into the handrail in front of the restaurant. I am relieved he saw it because I or anyone else who sometimes needs assistance when walking could have had a nasty and serious cut, had that remained in place?
Let's work together to support the play park and ensure everything is in place so when it is built, it always looks great and is used by many. Safety is a priority for everyone.
|
|
|
|
johnny mac
Administrator
774 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2010 : 23:09:49
|
Actually Christine, on the subject of the bandstand at Ward Jackson, one of the guys paid a visit the other day with the intention of photographing this 'eyesore'. The outcome was that he decided that it wasn't an eyesore at all. Describing it as being 'boarded up' is inaccurate and a bit unfair. In truth, it is fitted with rollers which can be closed up when not in use. Looking at the pic, it seems a sensible solution to me as I'm sure it would have been targetted by vandals in due course if left fully open. A similar solution at Hartfields may be a good idea.
The real shame of bandstands be they the one on the Marina, Ward Jackson or Hartfields is that they are hardly ever used and seem to fall into the category of visually interesting follies more than anything else. The council employees people to organise such activitities but bandstands don't appear to be on their list - actually, apart from what goes on at the Town Hall it's hard to know what is.
 |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2010 : 23:34:57
|
The photograph is very useful Johnny. I am simply saying that such a project needs to be managed and used. I do not want a new bandstand to be shuttered up or boarded up. I agree you need security and so roller shutters are ideal but it is the last bit of your post that explains where I am coming from.
Who is going to organise events? Can we rely on the weather? Will it be inclusive? Will there be anything for young people which is actually high on the list of priorities for Hartfield's residents.
What is not that well known is that Middle Warren Resident's Association showed no concern for the burglaries and arson on Silverbirch Road in relation to show homes, houses under construction and then our homes if the opportunity arose. My neighbour got gorgeous lights smashed as opportunists came through the estate looking for mischief.
I worked with the police and Resident's Association Clavering and Hart Station (RACHS) to get security tightened up. Although members of RACHS go through the estate or use the pub and the shops, they should be admired for helping me to get this matter sorted.
The police did a great job of showing the builders how ignoring these problems as it is cheaper to accept higher insurance premiums would be to the detriment of selling homes in a recession. This was really successful and in fact, within the month after the advice and discussions, crime dropped significantly.
If this was handled properly, I am sure that Hartfields would be all to willing to engage and get the best out of the land. Again, if a well maintained and security controlled park with bandstand, bells and whistles was being built at the top of the road rather than right on their doorstep, the residents would be celebrating this and getting their spades out to pitch in!
|
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2010 : 02:02:27
|
After speaking to Leebell, I spent time exploring reasoning, timescales, costings, consultation and noted quite a few issues. A bit late! The retirement village residents who want peace and tranquillity on their immediate doorstep. They simply would appreciate consideration and would be delighted if the park could be situated up towards the roundabout or other areas around. How could they be considered before they purchased? Very few residents opted for no park at all in a recent meeting. I am sure there will be some family homes at the top of the estate who do not want a park. This is representation and democracy. a referendum of the whole estate would be true democracy, not just listening to those who have time on their hands to make their voices heard
As the majority want the park, the residents in Hartfields simply want people to realise that they were not consulted b]how could they have been consulted when they hadn't yet purchased ?, or at least they were not given the finer details and were allowed to assume that the park would be simply greenery and shrubs. Oh and a possible bowling green!
What you are sold and what you are told are two different things! don't I know it!
Even now, the retirement village residents have been considering appropriate alternatives using their skills from working before they retired. These plans are not a millions miles away, they are simply up a bit rather than right on their doorstep. have Persimmon / Bellway / Leebell (the landowners!) been consulted on this?
I would expect that representation allows exploration to move the park up a little. This should not be an excuse to not build the park. hmmmmmm
I was told that the estate has a thirty year plan so is well ahead of schedule when I urged that this is sorted out quickly. Planning stated that it is hoped that the park is built before the end of the year....isn't going to happen! still on and actually ahead of schedule. Please note that these discussions in deliberating new resident's opinions have not stalled the building of the park. I suspect they have!
With regards to Middle Warren Resident's Association, they are exclusive not inclusive. Christine, please do not let your history with MWRA get in the way if the greater good, I'm trying not to! They hid in the background with other hot potatoes like Falcon Road and the Silverbirch Road Social Housing issues. They want to focus energies on the bandstand and in theory this would be great but simply go to Ward Jackson Park and note the boarded up bandstand. A 'site' for sore eyes!
Let's work together to support the play park and ensure everything is in place so when it is built, it always looks great and is used by many. Safety is a priority for everyone.
Johnny, I've found that you and I agree on a great number if things but I'm afraid that this isn't one of them. A bandstand that is roller shuttered / boarded 99.9% of the time is an eyesore in my book! I had the pleasure of listening to a band al-fresco, in the mini-Summer of last weekend, at Wallington (Northumberland) and thoroughly enjoyed it. I suspect that the roof is not required and that, if it rained, there would be no-one there to listen to them anyway. An area of 'village-green' would suffice (and be a lot more vandal proof). |
Edited by - Mike BC on 30 May 2010 02:09:41 |
|
|
|
johnny mac
Administrator
774 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2010 : 10:40:23
|
I don't think I've explained myself very well over the Ward Jackson Bandstand. Comments had been made that the Bandstand had been 'boarded up' which suggested it now resembled one of those horrible boarded up shops or houses which litter the town. One of our contributors did a 'revisited' page which highlights past 'regeneration' attempts which often cost a lot of money and then are neglected afterwards (Thornton Street Linear Park, Block Sands etc). From the sound of it, the Bandstand seemed like another contender - if I remember rightly, over £1m was spent on Ward Jackson Park.
Anyway, off he went to take a pic but after seeing the bandstand first hand he concluded he couldn't fairly describe it as being an 'eyesore' in the way that it had been suggested and that it would be unfair to make a comparison with Thornton Street or indeed the rapidly deteriorating Block Sands. Yes the green shutters were down but apparently it seemed to be well maintained and there was no graffiti daubed anywhere.
The fact that the Bandstand appears to be unused (and that the park fountain seems to be permanently switched off) is another matter and begs the question why bother to refurbish them both in the first place.
This is the point that I was trying to make about Hartfields. What is the point of incorporating a Bandstand into the plans if there is no intention to use it as such - and, from the existing examples already in the town, there is no reason to believe that it ever will be.
As for the Hartfields Park itself, most decent parks consist of various components aimed at different groups. Surely it's not beyond our ability to, within the overall design plan, site those quieter parts targetted at older people near the Hartfield complex while play facilities are sited towards family homes.
I have to say that Hartlepool as a town is rubbish at providing play facilities for both children and teenagers or even providing open space where they can kick a ball around. It also allows developers to cram in houses on new estates provided they 'chip in' to pet schemes to build playgrounds elsewhere which may well be suitable for toddlers but do very little for older kids. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2010 : 23:10:30
|
Mike, again thanks for your comments and I agree with you!
First though, as usual as a resident representative, I informed the council that I should be informed regarding developments in Hart Ward as councillors are. I only found out about the concerns at Hartfields when a resident contacted me as I have introduced myself to Hartfields and offered to support where needed. Although late, I still put the effort in to see if there are any plausible alternatives. I have put hours into this as I am not simply siding with one opinion I am being practical and looking at what can be done.
The residents have documents which show that as the estate has grown, newer residents have been considered and consulted.
I really think it is time to lobby the council and builders regarding misrepresentation. I have bought a dictaphone and I have decided that in future I am getting the over zealous sales staff to be recorded. I can cope with being mis-sold a mobile phone but when it is a house, I draw a line!
On Tuesday, I am contacting councillors involved in planning to ensure that they are considering the full picture. This will include telling them that Leebell has advised me that it is the council that is the stumbling block in being sensitive around the neighbourhood park.
Check out this bid application when HBC were offered the chance of Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust building a state of the art retirement village. You will find that the council allowed the builder to simply place the park anywhere, I am sure therefore that the park was placed on the flattest part of the estate.
You will see that HBC were thrilled to think that this retirement village was a great way to accommodate those needing sheltered accommodation - saving money!
They could also site a GP surgery. They could also site a care service and day centre. They could also rent out rooms and in some cases these are at low or no rate regardless of the residents needs in paying premium charges for their home. Social housing is also involved with the variety of housing options available, Some people rent, some part own and some own outright.
Whatever the tenancy agreement, the charges for living there are high.
I will be ensuring that the park does get built and quickly. I will however, not simply allow the park to built if it ends up a dross area like other parks, which Hartlepool is renowned for...sadly.
Through researching this I have noticed that there is no valid plan for security and maintenance. I know they aim to put the park as close to the restaurant as possible so that the facilities can be used, thus generating income which will support a sustainability plan even if all apartments/cottages are not taken.
Especially in a recession, we cannot be certain that the retirement village will be there for ever. It is in the interests of HBC that it continues with the village hosting a day care service with 24/7 care, a GP service to meet the criteria for Throston stats last year even though Hartfields is in Hart Ward and meeting rooms and facilities for the very large estate which is not finished building yet.
With regards to Middle Warren Resident's Association, I will be honest but I am not dwelling on it unnecessarily. It was the email I received from a Hartfields resident that alerted me to the newspaper article, posted here. I am simply highlighting that the representation is not there. There needs to be an equal consultation with both resident's associations as they are both on the estate. Look back through my posts and I do not think I have mentioned it much or ever before on here?
I am relieved that we are all pointing out the obvious, a park should cover all age groups, not just little children, youth and young adults too. No harm in putting a diverse range of equipment in including the new older people's health park and items which children/adults with disabilities could access and enjoy. I am happy to speedily put a bid in to match fund the park costs and make the park even better (though will not be wanting to delay the build, only that if funding bids are successful, extensions could be achieved).
I think that the scope should be that the quieter items could be nearer to the retirement village and the noisier areas could be further away, certainly not a million miles from anyone's considerations!
The bandstand needs to be discussed with regards to usage throughout the year, maintenance, accessibility and security. Get all this sorted without any sticking points and I would love the theory to come into practice.
Looking forward to 16 June 2010 when this gets settled one way of the other.
Here are the attachments discussed above:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:y2s9V7Hj2HAJ:www.dhcarenetworks.org.uk/download.cfm%3Ffile%3D..%255Csecure%255Cem%255Cevents%255C96%255CMiddleWarren_Hartlepool_Bid.doc+middle+warren+residents+association&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Play-area-plan-wins-support.6328626.jp
|
Edited by - Christine Blakey on 30 May 2010 23:15:56 |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2010 : 19:46:20
|
| Update - the site visit on 16 June 2010 is at 9am. I have been advised that because the planning committee has changed so much, they may be starting the process again. Please note that this has nothing to do with the residents of the retirement village, it simply shows again that people have not got their act together and the consideration of residents is zero! |
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2010 : 23:38:43
|
"people have not got their act together" = Hartfields residents / their representatives when checking the plans for the surrounding area.
"consideration of residents is zero" = again, check the timeline, they can't consider non-existent residents! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hartfields Retirement Village Play Park?
