| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Jun 2010 : 00:45:52
|
Mike I understand your frustration. However there is much more to it than simple time line and a retirement village was not there or planned until 2006!
It is again about chasing money. On a positive note, Leebell and Joseph Rowntree are negotiating a plan to move the park up a bit. This is due to the residents in the retirement village bringing it to the attention of Joseph Rowntree who were not fully informed and involved in the plans. They didn't even realise about the park as with the residents!
I am still resident representative and I am attending the planning meeting and the site visit. I am also speaking to councillors to ensure that this does not get stalled. I am as furious and disappointed as you are that time is wasted and residents, that is you and me too, get ignored and have to fight for simple respect! |
 |
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2010 : 11:10:09
|
To everyone who is interested (not just Christine), the play area was planned long before the retirement village. When the retirement village went in for planning the play area was right next door and part of the reserved matters application. Retirement village residents moved in having either not looked into the wider plans or having chosen to ignore them. Plans were on show / consultation was undertaken some time ago (2 to 3 years?) re the exact content of the park IN HARTFIELDS ITSELF!
At the eleventh hour some of the residents of Hartfields (quite a number have indicated 'no objection' but you don't hear much from them) have decided they have an issue with it. The council of course don't know which way to jump meaning we have Leebell frustrated in their attempts to fulfill their legal obligation (and lets face it they would dearly love to not bother and build a few more houses in its place) and the wider residents of Bishop Cuthbert frustrated that yet another of the promised facilities is being delayed / not delivered at all.
There really isn't too much more to it than that but no doubt I will get another response from Christine. This is, however, my final post on this subject. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2010 : 15:12:14
|
I am Hart Resident Representative. I will therefore be letting people down if I did not consider the requests for support from Hartfield's residents.
Things are getting resolved. Leebell is not looking for an excuse to get out of it. As my previous post outlines, they are actually working with Joseph Rowntree to consider how they can move the park up a bit and get it finished this year. I think we have been sold down the river too many times on this estate.
I will be putting your views to the meeting as I will fight for urgency on getting the park in place, in an appropriate location; not on Bluebell roundabout but further up that way, nearer to the family homes it will serve.
Please understand Mike I am not simply dragging things out, refusing to be objective and trying to gain favour. I am just trying to ensure that this park is near to the family homes and the chances of it being destroyed minimised. I am even offering to fundraise to get any finance where possible to secure it and get it as good as it can be for families near and far.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23803628-oldest-swingers-in-town-pound-40000-playground-for-pensioners-in-hyde-park.do |
Edited by - Christine Blakey on 05 Jun 2010 15:16:28 |
|
|
|
Roland Ratrunner
Occasional Contributor
68 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2010 : 12:36:43
|
I agree that the estate needs a play park, but looking at the plans, it appears to be all child orientated.
Bearing in mind its proximity to retirement accommodation wouldn’t a bowling green have been more appropriate than a football pitch ?
Also is there a need for another bandstand, how often do the 3 existing ones get used ?
|
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2010 : 14:32:34
|
Thank you for your very obvious observations Roland. Those that did ask for answers around what was going to be in front were told a neighbourhood park with a bowling green and walk through areas. Those that didn't ask were told nothing. We have to ask why the park was not promoted?
It was noted promoted as it would have lost sales!
The retirement village residents are getting the flack for contesting the plans once they were told what was happening out there. At their first opportunity they highlighted problems so that the park was not wasted and put outside their front door with the thought that the retirement village security could look after it! Just like with the day care (24/7) and the GP surgery.
However the security cannot stop what is happening now, as expressed in earlier posts with mini motor bikes, scramblers and other anti-social opportunists.
Joseph Rowntree are only now aware of what they have been supporting. They too now are realising that it is basically a park for young children situated next to the restaurant to ensure that families will be enticed in to generate income. This is because the hope is it will be sustainable with additional income. I think this is wrong. Just like the inconsiderate plans for social housing (though I think we need more social housing but certainly not implemented in the shoddy cloak and dagger way that was the consultation last year! Also Falcon Road, well you know the score and are living with it Roland!
I think it is good of the residents to put their retirement on hold whilst they utilise skills to sort out the ill-thought out plans that are the neighbourhood park. They have suggested alternative sites further up the road. All it takes is a little extra money (and I have offered to quickly put bids together to match fund the money we have got and get an ever more diverse park so everyone are happy.
There is no way that Leebell will get out of this. There is no way that the plans will be dropped as it is a need and people power should win through, just as with social housing exclusion plans that we successfully fought. Hopefully we will get the same results as we put our heads together to consider the current and future residents on this estate. Community cohesion and segregation is being developed when these plans are supposed to integrate. I cannot believe that people involved have not considered this.
Leebell was oblivious to the extent of outrage regarding the social housing. Yet, I have talked to them now and they have backed down and not appealed as a result. That is real progress.
It seems that we have to question every planning application from now on as it seems they look at the process in theory not in practice. This is why Hartlepool is going to the wall! Wonder if they had planning permission for that as it is resulting in neighbours blaming each other, dividing from each other and basically wasting potential money and real community spirited concepts and plans.
The police are going to Hartfields re the park, and organising to meet with the traffic dept at HBC for Falcon Road. I hope those interested will consider contacting the police and arranging to go to the meeting/s. |
Edited by - Christine Blakey on 08 Jun 2010 14:35:36 |
|
|
|
Tom
Occasional Contributor
36 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 00:07:31
|
I was at the Hartfields Residents association meeting this evening, there were 63 in attendance but it was a wet and windy night for those living in the cottages and flats located away from Hartfields Manor where the meeting took place otherwise the numbers would of been much higher. The meeting lasted for 2.5 hours and was very productive.
The ratrun was debated and quickly came to the conclusion that whenever possible we would avoid using it. Also, the police (3), gave a talk on their responsabilities in the Hart Ward. They were questioned at length about the Neighbourhood Park and in particular as to how they would respond in situations there. This police talk/question and answer session lasted about an hour. There then followed questions from the floor through the Chair and all things seemed to be answered satisfactorily. Questions were in general regarding the Park project and what was going to take place at the site visit and after it.
As a resident of Hartfields I can say that many people have purchased their homes here, the most expensive ones being £165,000. Some of them had to puchase to get into Harfields for the peace and medical cover it provides. Some of these purchasers were in their middle eighties when they bought. I still have the complete file and package that was given to me in May 2006 and it makes for some very interesting reading. There are several parts in this package that have not yet been mentioned yet on line or in the press. These "several parts" greatly improve the case for the residents not having a park in the location it is shown in at the moment. I have pointed out these parts to an/the upper management of York JRHT only last week and await any feedback that is due. I was not alone at this meeting with the JRHT Director, several couples were present.
Everyone should know that most of us who came to Hartfields did so because we are aware that we are in deteriorating health and want some peace for our final time here. Hartfields is a small village community loved by most where people pass away quite regularly and are missed by those of us who are left behind.
The people of Hartfields want a nice neighborhood and the park that goes with it but they would just like to see it moved a little further away from them and closer towards where the children live, that's all.
A Communist styled EU already has accomplished more than 95% of its mission to eradicate the UK and Britain as well as the other 26 countries that it has consumed. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 13:47:21
|
Thank you so much for your feedback Tom. I am pleased the meeting was positive. Hartfields Residents Association is working well to engage everyone in the area, not just a few people who wish to dominate and get their own personal )and sometimes very ignorant views heard at the expense of everyone elses!
I was surprised seeing Charles King's piece in the paper where he has been led to believe that people who are left on the Middle Warren Committee are devoted to the cause when they simply ignored his views saying it was democratic as it was 5 to 1 for the park.
Charles will never be able to get the retirement Village views heard when he is the only person on the committee from Hartfields. Rightly so, other residents refuse to involve themselves with Middle Warren RA as they are dictators and exclusive.
The reason that people come and go in that association is because people with a wider view to represent the whole estate have their membership terminated if they do not budge when made to feel the outsider and resign voluntarily. I have spoken to a number of 'victims' of this, so this is not just relating to me.
I was even threatened from the previous chair that if I dared to challenge them further and let people know how I have been treated, the executive committee would go all out to ruin my reputation! Huh!
I did keep quiet to some degree but since we have a third example where this committee totally keep out when they are supposed to help the estate, people need to know what they are dealing with!
This group needs to be challenged and is certainly an inadequate consultation tool when during the open day a couple of years ago, they didn't make it clear to Hartfield residents just what was planned for their doorstep.
As part of that Open Day, I wrote in to the funding application that every resident would get the opportunity to give information on what was liked about the estate and what they didn't. This was ignored and they still carry on to this day in that manner. |
|
|
|
Tom
Occasional Contributor
36 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 17:17:45
|
Hi Christine, the Middle Warren are a group of maybe half a dozen and as such can not qualify as being an Association whereas the Hartfields Residents Association is extremely large with possibly 150/170 members in it. This number is growing by the day and will soon break the 200 member mark and then head for the 300 mark as the last properties here fill up.. They have a voice as they are all voters in this town.
I spoke with Charles last night at the meeting and he seems to be commited to the Hartfields Residents Association 100% as he was the Treasurer for it until recently.
The Neighbourhood Parks location problem is ongoing as you know and the residents are preparing for battle to keep the park but have it placed nearer to the homes that the children occupy in Middle Warren.
One thing is for certain, the JRHT and everyone else associated with the park ideas are now fully aware that the Hartfield residents are organised, mobilised and ready to speak out for themselves as we will be doing shortly. Let's all hope for an amicable and sensible result that will be of benefit to all of us, and especially to the children of the area.
A Communist styled EU already has accomplished more than 95% of its mission to eradicate the UK and Britain as well as the other 26 countries that it has consumed. |
|
|
|
mk1
Frequent Contributor
366 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 18:58:25
|
| So in the end it is just another NIMBY issue. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2010 : 21:19:39
|
I totally admire the strength and inclusive nature of Hartfields Residents Association. I am confident that the best location for the park will be realised.
It is not a NIMBY type position as it will still be near to Hartfields. It is simply that Hartfields is not an appropriate location when noting users of the park and anti-social behaviour issues that may stem from the false sense of security that Hartfields will monitor the park 24/7.
With the support from the family homes, I am sure that we can locate the park nearer family homes as they will be benefiting from the park. Personally I cant wait to use the park for my grandson!
Anyway, thank you and welcome to the forum Tom! |
|
|
|
Tom
Occasional Contributor
36 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2010 : 20:33:49
|
| Thank you Christine, we at Hartfields look forward to next weeks site visit. In the event that should the result go against Hartfields I expect us to protest such decision and after that go for a Judicial Review. We are ready and prepared for whichever eventuality arrives at our table. |
Edited by - Tom on 11 Jun 2010 20:34:40 |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2010 : 21:08:45
|
I am hopeful that with awareness raising of the real concerns that are not of Hartfield's residents making, people will arrive at a sensible decision to locate the park higher up, not miles away but in a more meaningful position.
I have offered to put bids together for additional cash. I would hope it does not get delayed to the level you have outlined as I know that everyone simply wants it built as soon as possible further up.
However I am sure you will professionally do what you can to ensure that the park is not placed at your door so that Hartfield's has the impossible task of playing monitor for the park 24/7. I would hate for you to be listened to due to the park being built on your doorstep and then as you fear, it is destroyed just like any other park.
You have heard of the saying, once it's gone, it's gone! It does not just happen in the bargain basement, it also happens to very expensive parks!
|
|
|
|
Tom
Occasional Contributor
36 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2010 : 21:48:24
|
| Let me say that if the park was moved 60m or so from Hartfields I would be happy. My desire is for a park on that land. My fears are really regarding the fragility of the many Hartfields residents who frequent the carpark, footpaths, gardens and entrance to Hartfields. I am of the opinion that should a ball hit a fragile person walking or in a wheelchair it would be devastating for them and perhaps fatal. My concern is for them, we must remember that these elderly people are the Mothers or Fathers of someone. or perhaps a sister, brother or grandparent. I will do my bit for them and so will the rest of us here in Hartfields. Moving the park a few metres will not disadvantage the children and their guardians but it will certainly help the residents of Hartfields for sure. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2010 : 23:06:47
|
Tom I feel the same way. Not only do I worry about the current plan to place it as your doorstep, I am equally concerned about this current fight for those people who are very fragile.
It is true to say that the majority of residents are either ill, a carer of an ill partner or have moved there as they know their health will deteriorate and they desire a supportive housing arrangement that Hartfields was built for.
I have concerns that already this whole debate is impacting on resident's health. I am sure it is also impacting on those people who are concerned we will lose the park.
I was told that the park could be moved (by LeeBell) but money will be an obstacle. I would gladly fundraise to raise additional funds. As this will be an integrated resolution so that everyone is happy, I am sure that this will be positive for the communities across Middle Warren. Definitely worth the effort I think!
|
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2010 : 23:58:48
|
I know I said my previous post would be my last on this subject but, well, I lied!
Thinking out loud / online (you know what I mean), why exactly would moving the park cost Leebell any money? Presumably it would be a straight swap, ie housing for park? Sounds to me that Leebell are setting their stall out for avoiding delivery altogether, or am I just being cynical?
Christine, I know you have beef with the MWRA but if I were you I would let it go and ignore them. It would seem that, given the success and growing numbers of the Hartfields RA, coupled with the dwindling numbers of the MWRA and their lack of involvement with the real issues affecting BC, then MWRA are fast becoming an irrelevance.
Just a thought, but why doesn't the Hartfields RA broaden it's membership to include the whole of the estate (if they are inclined to do so)? From what I've read of Tom's posts then they seem to be have members who are more likely to make things happen for BC and, not meaning to be rude / offensive / patronising to those residents of the estate 'of a certain age', have more time available to fight our corner. They may, of course, wish to concentrate their efforts purely on Hartfields related matters, and I wouldn't blame them if they did. Like I said, just a thought. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Hartfields Retirement Village Play Park?
