| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Jun 2010 : 10:29:19
|
Mike, glad you have joined in again. I totally agree and have offered that Hartfields do expand membership to consider a strength across the whole estate. Even if it is a partnership approach with a family homes association and they work in harmony.
One thing is that the residents in Hartfields are totally committed to supporting each other. They understand the need for the park and so are fighting for it too.
I have not brought anything up as forcefully regarding MWRA until this last mess they are simply standing and watching and care not for the wider more representative opinion.
I am hoping to establish a committee to look at this, and I am in discussions with Hartfields RA given that I think they have an excellent model to join with or model off.
Just been to the play park in Burn Valley. My grandson loved looking into the beck running through the park from the top and on the bridge. He didn't worry about the rubbish floating in it!
Then in the play park, a couple of swings were not in use, one snapped off and one tied up. The graffiti is appalling. Lots of low level vandalism. Rhys enjoyed running around poles but it was obvious they were once probably really cool play equipment but things have been pulled off including the signage.
I think there are ways to get young people and vandals to channel their energy into preserving the park. Might take a while but willing to work on it!! |
 |
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2010 : 10:35:29
|
Oh regarding Leebell and movement of the park, the costs will be in levelling out the land further up. Probably some other admin costs etc. However this will not be a problem if we need to raise additional cash. Firstly, they need to consider that they did not deliver the school or the church. The church land is up for sale, I suggest they ring fence that money to consider a more appropriate site for the park and the costs in achieving that.
With regards to the school, I wonder if they persuaded or were persuaded to scrap the plans and investment may have been diverted to Throston Primary? Will ask and report back?
I believe if we all fight together to insist on tackling the real concerns with the park at the door of Hartfields, we will all win out including HBC and Leebell to boot!
|
|
|
|
bobo
Occasional Contributor
19 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jun 2010 : 17:12:34
|
Christine Just to say thanks and well done for fighting for us all here in Hartfields, I have been reading all the messages on the park. We agree 100% it would be best all round to move the park further up to the plot of land near Sainsbury's. This is where all the families live, it would be ideal. The land nearer to Hartfields could be used for more building of bungalows and housing to tie in with the retirement theme.
keep up the good work
|
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jun 2010 : 00:51:19
|
Thank you so much. I will continue to ensure that residents are heard as I feel that is how we will secure the best future for Hartlepool as a whole.
For that reason I am continuing in my role as Hart Resident Representative for the next two years. I am delighted to work with you and value the research you have carried out over the past few weeks to ensure the park goes ahead rather than drops out like the other dreams that were promised. |
|
|
|
Roland Ratrunner
Occasional Contributor
68 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 01:39:00
|
Just a thought.
Why do the plans for the play area include a large car park.
If the park is for the community, surely it’s close enough to walk to!
|
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 08:54:22
|
| They are hoping people come to the park from outside our estate just like in Ward Jackson Park. Then more business for the restaurant in Hartfields. |
|
|
|
bobo
Occasional Contributor
19 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 15:23:26
|
| This park will be like a theme park so they will come from far and wide to see it and use it, as for using Hartfields restaurant, I dont think that should be allowed as there is vunerable people living there and this is there home and would not want people from outside wondering around the place, Hartfields is supposed to be a safe environment, but it wont be if they allow this. To use the Restaurant they would have to provide toilets which again is the same scenario. This is private property, and the council know this now isn't thats why the council wont provide doggy bins?? Hartfields have to provide their own or pay the council to provide them. We cant have double standards now can we???? |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2010 : 14:44:16
|
Went to the site visit but had important health appointments so could not attend meeting at civic.
I hear that the decision has been deferred again. It shows that members did not have all the information to make an informed choice. Credit to them that they did not just push this through.
I am going to send the information I have to all councillors including the plans created to offer valid options for alternative sites.
They is no football area now as the money was diverted to Grey fields improvements. I suggested that with such a space, maybe the park could simply be put there instead. Other avenues to explore but credit to the team that they deferred it appropriately. Hopefully not too long before next meeting scheduled. |
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2010 : 20:59:29
|
| Are you suggesting Bishop Cuthbert's park should be at Greyfields? Or that it should be moved to wherever the football area was to be on Bishop cuthbert? I do hope you mean the latter Christine. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2010 : 22:27:19
|
I will be furious if it gets moved to get Greyfields Mike.
I propose the site where the school was as a deal was struck to put the money for the school in to Throston Primary School or as you say where the football pitches should have been. I think this estate has lost enough. I have also heard they are going to divert the land near Sainsbury's for more houses. This was supposed to give us an opportunity to have more shops for example, but it seems we are to be deprived of that too?
This is at the same time as hearing that this estate was supposed to be a primary location for housing with around 2,000 houses. However a lot of the facilities have been diverted so we have to go off the estate. The chemist for example? Football Pitches, the school. I wonder what happened to the money/land allocated for a church?
I have no problem with changes in plans if it is to benefit the estate. However the way this master plan has been handled has made a master mess!
There is a lot to do to get the tight knit community we envisaged from 1997 as these planning problems are dividing not integrating communities and neighbours!
|
|
|
|
bobo
Occasional Contributor
19 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2010 : 20:07:56
|
| Any news on the western front of this Play park? What is happenng about it? and where is it going to be? Anyone know? Hope it doesn't get used by the morans who crashed the digger into the house in Bishop Cuthbert. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2010 : 20:29:39
|
I have spoken to Jonathan who is leading on Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust negotiations with HBC and Leebell. He was very supportive especially when I pointed that the residents in Hartfields have actually been extremely forward thinking in considering location for this new park. I emphasised with such a facility parked in Hartfields, people would move out and fewer people would move in.
They are considering other locations now. The digger issue shows that despite the executive feel of this estate, children can get up to mischief anywhere. It is not stereotyping to say that this is already a serious problem. IT IS NOW. I feel so sorry for the poor family in the house which has such serious damage from this mischief.
The strength of feeling form Hartfields has been noted. The partners hope to start bringing forward proposals over the next week. If I get any updates I will let you know. Still keeping an eye on this so we get the best out of the park AND Hartfields.
|
|
|
|
SRMoore
Occasional Contributor
63 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2010 : 22:49:38
|
This is the problem I have with large residential developments like Bishop Cuthbert & Ingleby Barwick (not in Hartlepool I know but relevant).
When these developments are planned they should be made, as part of the planning permission, to provide shops, a pub, playgrounds and other amenities that nearly every other estate in the town has.
As a few of you know, I have just moved back to the town from living in Yarm for 3 years and this was a massive problem with the residents on Ingleby Barwick. Ingleby, as a development, was initially supposed to be a number of smaller 'village' type developments spread out across the land. This idea was soon scrapped when developers realised that far too much money was to be made by using the other land and the result meant that Ingleby Barwick became the largest modern housing estate in Europe!
It took the residents there a long time to get the basic amenities there and they are still fighting for playgrounds!
I hope the residents up there all the best in getting this issue sorted but I fear it's going to be a long and awkward one now that so many people live there already and although many people want it, most don't want it on their doorstep. :o(
There is no Plan B |
|
|
|
Mike BC
Occasional Contributor
55 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2010 : 20:26:49
|
Yes, I get the feeling that the playpark will get moved around on paper for quite some time until either they bite the bullet and build it or, and this is my worry, they ditch the idea on the basis that it is unpopular and no-one wants it. The playpark was a condition of the overall planning permission (masterplan / development agreement?) and a location was identified. The mistake was to have such a relaxed timescale attached to it, meaning people bought properties in the vicinity first and then felt they had the right to object to it. It ought to have been built first and then those buying near it would have know exactly what they were letting themselves in for.
On the subject of the JCB incident, my understanding is that it was an attempt to steal it rather than just a joyride. They bailed out leaving it to run on driverless until it hit the house. It all happened at teatime Friday, meaning it was fortunate I suppose that the only damage was to property rather than people. Hopefully the housebuilders will now secure their plant and equipment more effectively, if ever there was a case for the use of immobilisers then x tonnes of a potential lethal weapon parked unguarded in a residential area each weekend would be it! |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2010 : 20:45:00
|
This play park will be built I am confident. I will contact someone and let you know any updates and feedback.
Even though no one was hurt, the distress for the family who own the house was something not to be pushed to the side. I hope the builder has to pay for the damage. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Hartfields Retirement Village Play Park?
