Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JM on June 18, 2013 at 21:19

That's interesting, why do you say not? 

Reading some of the comments in the docs you shared, it seems people wanted somewhere appropriate for play for both estate kids and residents  - this tennis court area is overlooked by three blocks of flats and is bounded by a high fence, which should keep errant balls in the court, not residents' windows!  And presumably the surface is more forgiving than the slabs the Corp is determined to replace in another part of the estate.
I'm not mad about the noise from the courts as it is, but realise residents like the amenity (although I'd bet most use is by non-residents) but I do wish the original plan of having it as a green space (e.g. bowling green - or how about pétanque/boules?!) had been adopted as it's a sound amplifier as it stands and grass would have alleviated that.    People who don't overlook it directly might not appreciate how noisy it can be.

If we're talking about really young children playing then presumably all play is supervised by a parent/carer, and is unlikely to be of the 'hard ball' variety.  It's shame the paddling pool was taken away due to lack of use/lack of maintenance (I don't know what was the reason given for it being grassed over) but it does seem an office workers' canteen in good weather (as some residents pointed out in the survey).

Daniel Elson said:

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

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on June 19, 2013 at 17:44

Well said Jean.  I am also sick and tired of the way the general public encroach on our Estate.  My pet hate is the abuse of Hatfield House lawn by office workers during lunch times.  Us, as residents, don't get a 'look in' as its so crowded.  But, us residents have to pay for the upkeep, including the rubbish these people leave behind, not to mention many of them littering the lawn area with cigarette butts!  How is that fair for the residents, particularly little children?  Gggggrrrrrr!!!
 
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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel Elson on June 19, 2013 at 18:30

Hi Jean

I think the tennis area would be perfect for children's ball games except that it's currently used for tennis and other team games. That requires the area to be booked out in advance so not compatible with kids just playing. You probably know better than me how often the courts are used but I do notice some matches taking place at weekends and after school hours in the week.

dan

Jean McMeakin said:

That's interesting, why do you say not? 

Reading some of the comments in the docs you shared, it seems people wanted somewhere appropriate for play for both estate kids and residents  - this tennis court area is overlooked by three blocks of flats and is bounded by a high fence, which should keep errant balls in the court, not residents' windows!  And presumably the surface is more forgiving than the slabs the Corp is determined to replace in another part of the estate.
I'm not mad about the noise from the courts as it is, but realise residents like the amenity (although I'd bet most use is by non-residents) but I do wish the original plan of having it as a green space (e.g. bowling green - or how about pétanque/boules?!) had been adopted as it's a sound amplifier as it stands and grass would have alleviated that.    People who don't overlook it directly might not appreciate how noisy it can be.

If we're talking about really young children playing then presumably all play is supervised by a parent/carer, and is unlikely to be of the 'hard ball' variety.  It's shame the paddling pool was taken away due to lack of use/lack of maintenance (I don't know what was the reason given for it being grassed over) but it does seem an office workers' canteen in good weather (as some residents pointed out in the survey).

Daniel Elson said:

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

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page