Paving

[Tim Godsmark]

I objected to the proposed ball play area next to the swimming pool but now the planning application has been approved I guess that it is inevitable. However walking across the estate today, looking at the floor it occurred to me that a lot of the original paving has been replaced with the cheapest unsightly concrete slabs and whether these could be replaced with the original slabs taken up from the ball area.

The terrace in front of Bayer House looks particularly bad.

The estate was designed with high quality landscaping and this is one of the main reasons that it has been listed. It would be a waste if the paving was just dumped and the attention to detail will help preserve the character of the spaces.

[JM]

I objected too.  I don't think I ever got a notification that it was going ahead, despite someone from the Corporation asking for my e-mail address so they could respond as appropriate when the decision was made.  I think all the responses to the proposal were objections (six objections from local residents).  So, no matter what we say, the Corporation will do as it pleases anyway.  City democracy in action.

You make a good point re the paving.  Let's hope someone who can influence this has the sense to do it.

;-)

[JM]

How do we do this Roland?

Roland Jeffery said:

I dont think we should give up on the ball playing area - this is a wholly unjustified incursion into our common areas.

What's more, a new ball playing area is, and always has been, totally unnecessary. To create it would be an amazing waste of public money.  There is already a ball playing area, purpose built, with muti-pitch marking, boundary fences, the works, just a few metres from the proposed new ball playing area.  The purpose built ball playing area has been there since the estate was built and was intended for residents and their children.  This has been taken from us and handed to the Fusion company - and it is almost totally unused.

Our ball playing area should be returned to residents  - and the plans for the new pitch dropped.

[Steve Daszko]

I don`t know why we need a ball play area?

[JM]

As far as I recall the planning application doesn't say why this was proposed, or by whom.  Roland is right, we already have a ball playing area which has been privatised by stealth and now we will end up paying for another.  If they go ahead despite our objections, I wonder how much it will actually be used by people on our estate or, more likely, by people who don't live here.

How much money does Fusion contribute to the Corporation, how much does all this 'leisure sport' cost us as residents, how much, if any, of the Fusion money reduces our service charges?  Public use of our (private) estate leads to wear and tear, which we pay for.

It really is unacceptable that we have so little say.  I remember a video about GLE where Wendy Giaccaglia says "it's their [residents'] decision how the estate is run, we just provide them with the resources".  Ha ha ha ha ha.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWZbT6yz6AQ

I'm still feeling very grumpy about this meddling with our listed estate by the Corporation.  They should spend the money on making it a lot cleaner and tidier.  Grrrr.

[Daniel Elson]

This area has been a designated ball playing area since at least 2003. The City ran a survey about the open spaces on the estate a couple of years ago and a majority were happy with the designated use of this area (49 for, 9 against). However, I do not know how the decision was made to change the surface and don't remember any further consultation. There were a handful of responses to the open spaces survey that requested that the hard surface was unsuitable for the designated use and should be replaced with something softer.

You can see the original documents on this discussion post from 2011:

http://www.goldenlaneestate.org/forum/topics/open-spaces-survey-result

[Steve Daszko]

Love the video with Wendy etc!

Jean McMeakin said:

As far as I recall the planning application doesn't say why this was proposed, or by whom.  Roland is right, we already have a ball playing area which has been privatised by stealth and now we will end up paying for another.  If they go ahead despite our objections, I wonder how much it will actually be used by people on our estate or, more likely, by people who don't live here.

How much money does Fusion contribute to the Corporation, how much does all this 'leisure sport' cost us as residents, how much, if any, of the Fusion money reduces our service charges?  Public use of our (private) estate leads to wear and tear, which we pay for.

It really is unacceptable that we have so little say.  I remember a video about GLE where Wendy Giaccaglia says "it's their [residents'] decision how the estate is run, we just provide them with the resources".  Ha ha ha ha ha.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWZbT6yz6AQ

I'm still feeling very grumpy about this meddling with our listed estate by the Corporation.  They should spend the money on making it a lot cleaner and tidier.  Grrrr.

[JM]

Thanks for the info Daniel.  Although, to Roland's point, why did we need another area designated at all when we had one already - surely one is enough for c500?  It's interesting to note what residents have asked for and what the Corporation has chosen to do.

Daniel Elson said:

This area has been a designated ball playing area since at least 2003. The City ran a survey about the open spaces on the estate a couple of years ago and a majority were happy with the designated use of this area (49 for, 9 against). However, I do not know how the decision was made to change the surface and don't remember any further consultation. There were a handful of responses to the open spaces survey that requested that the hard surface was unsuitable for the designated use and should be replaced with something softer.

You can see the original documents on this discussion post from 2011:

http://www.goldenlaneestate.org/forum/topics/open-spaces-survey-result

[JM]

Aye, made me titter that one.  Although I note that CWH was, as if often the case, not mentioned/forgotten. :-(

Steve Daszko said:

Love the video with Wendy etc!

Jean McMeakin said:

As far as I recall the planning application doesn't say why this was proposed, or by whom.  Roland is right, we already have a ball playing area which has been privatised by stealth and now we will end up paying for another.  If they go ahead despite our objections, I wonder how much it will actually be used by people on our estate or, more likely, by people who don't live here.

How much money does Fusion contribute to the Corporation, how much does all this 'leisure sport' cost us as residents, how much, if any, of the Fusion money reduces our service charges?  Public use of our (private) estate leads to wear and tear, which we pay for.

It really is unacceptable that we have so little say.  I remember a video about GLE where Wendy Giaccaglia says "it's their [residents'] decision how the estate is run, we just provide them with the resources".  Ha ha ha ha ha.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWZbT6yz6AQ

I'm still feeling very grumpy about this meddling with our listed estate by the Corporation.  They should spend the money on making it a lot cleaner and tidier.  Grrrr.

[Steve Daszko]

Let`s start a "Cullum Welch House" rules campaign then?
 
Jean McMeakin said:

Aye, made me titter that one.  Although I note that CWH was, as if often the case, not mentioned/forgotten. :-(

Steve Daszko said:

Love the video with Wendy etc!

Jean McMeakin said:

As far as I recall the planning application doesn't say why this was proposed, or by whom.  Roland is right, we already have a ball playing area which has been privatised by stealth and now we will end up paying for another.  If they go ahead despite our objections, I wonder how much it will actually be used by people on our estate or, more likely, by people who don't live here.

How much money does Fusion contribute to the Corporation, how much does all this 'leisure sport' cost us as residents, how much, if any, of the Fusion money reduces our service charges?  Public use of our (private) estate leads to wear and tear, which we pay for.

It really is unacceptable that we have so little say.  I remember a video about GLE where Wendy Giaccaglia says "it's their [residents'] decision how the estate is run, we just provide them with the resources".  Ha ha ha ha ha.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWZbT6yz6AQ

I'm still feeling very grumpy about this meddling with our listed estate by the Corporation.  They should spend the money on making it a lot cleaner and tidier.  Grrrr.

[JM]

I'm in! ;-)

Steve Daszko said:

Let`s start a "Cullum Welch House" rules campaign then?
 
Jean McMeakin said:

Aye, made me titter that one.  Although I note that CWH was, as if often the case, not mentioned/forgotten. :-(

Steve Daszko said:

Love the video with Wendy etc!

Jean McMeakin said:

As far as I recall the planning application doesn't say why this was proposed, or by whom.  Roland is right, we already have a ball playing area which has been privatised by stealth and now we will end up paying for another.  If they go ahead despite our objections, I wonder how much it will actually be used by people on our estate or, more likely, by people who don't live here.

How much money does Fusion contribute to the Corporation, how much does all this 'leisure sport' cost us as residents, how much, if any, of the Fusion money reduces our service charges?  Public use of our (private) estate leads to wear and tear, which we pay for.

It really is unacceptable that we have so little say.  I remember a video about GLE where Wendy Giaccaglia says "it's their [residents'] decision how the estate is run, we just provide them with the resources".  Ha ha ha ha ha.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWZbT6yz6AQ

I'm still feeling very grumpy about this meddling with our listed estate by the Corporation.  They should spend the money on making it a lot cleaner and tidier.  Grrrr.

[Steve Daszko]

Excellent Jean!

Jean McMeakin said:

I'm in! ;-)

Steve Daszko said:

Let`s start a "Cullum Welch House" rules campaign then?
 
Jean McMeakin said:

Aye, made me titter that one.  Although I note that CWH was, as if often the case, not mentioned/forgotten. :-(

Steve Daszko said:

Love the video with Wendy etc!

Jean McMeakin said:

As far as I recall the planning application doesn't say why this was proposed, or by whom.  Roland is right, we already have a ball playing area which has been privatised by stealth and now we will end up paying for another.  If they go ahead despite our objections, I wonder how much it will actually be used by people on our estate or, more likely, by people who don't live here.

How much money does Fusion contribute to the Corporation, how much does all this 'leisure sport' cost us as residents, how much, if any, of the Fusion money reduces our service charges?  Public use of our (private) estate leads to wear and tear, which we pay for.

It really is unacceptable that we have so little say.  I remember a video about GLE where Wendy Giaccaglia says "it's their [residents'] decision how the estate is run, we just provide them with the resources".  Ha ha ha ha ha.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWZbT6yz6AQ

I'm still feeling very grumpy about this meddling with our listed estate by the Corporation.  They should spend the money on making it a lot cleaner and tidier.  Grrrr.

[Daniel Elson]

Not sure how the city used the consultation documents that I linked to when making decisions on what changes were prioritised. It would be nice if someone could post something on this website about the conclusions that were drawn.

By the way, I don't think that the tennis courts are a good place for kids to informally play ball games. For organised team sports it could work well, but not for casual play.

Jean McMeakin said:

Thanks for the info Daniel.  Although, to Roland's point, why did we need another area designated at all when we had one already - surely one is enough for c500?  It's interesting to note what residents have asked for and what the Corporation has chosen to do.

Daniel Elson said:

This area has been a designated ball playing area since at least 2003. The City ran a survey about the open spaces on the estate a couple of years ago and a majority were happy with the designated use of this area (49 for, 9 against). However, I do not know how the decision was made to change the surface and don't remember any further consultation. There were a handful of responses to the open spaces survey that requested that the hard surface was unsuitable for the designated use and should be replaced with something softer.

You can see the original documents on this discussion post from 2011:

http://www.goldenlaneestate.org/forum/topics/open-spaces-survey-result