Heaton Park

[edcorkie]

Too right i'm celebrating this is a great decision. With Children soon to be going to St Monica's who will get free use of the facilities this is just what we needed.

The sports centre will be very popular and used daily unlike the bowling club.

Had to laugh at the small crowd outside the town hall whose average age must have been 70 with there libdem printed placards. There'll be ten times that number queing to get in to the new centre.

[edcorkie]

The brand new facility will be tucked away in the northwest area of the

park next to the bowling-green and pavilion, which were purpose built for

the Commonwealth Games in 2002. It will be created in the area

traditionally utilised for sports activity and will use 3.4 hectares of the

260-hectare park, leaving the rest of the parks vast landscape undisturbed

and enabling the other park activities to continue as normal. Still leaves you 256.4 hectares of park for everyone.

[edcorkie]

Get in there I can't believe the council have given it permission. Better go and buy myself some new footie boots.

[thirteenfingers]

In a truly corrupt bit of scumbaggery it was passed.

Planning is a NON party political issue, yet all the Labour councillors voted against extra time for statutory reports *omitted* from the proposal to be considered against a site visit and then FOR the proposal.

The press release announcing the permission was released mere minutes after the "decision" was made.

There was no planning process, no committee meeting, merely party-political steamrollering of opposition and historic parkland.

[thirteenfingers]

And the really sick part, is the celebratory 'tone of voice' with which you posted that comment.

Proper process was ignored. Party politics and a small handful of people took away the last line of defence for open, historic parkland enjoyed for free by thousands and handed it on a silver platter to a private corporation to destroy; even though you "can't believe" it has been granted permission, your "new footie boots" jibe is bewildering in the face of what actually went on.

[edcorkie]

I was in the park today speaking to one of the council groundsmen who told me there was twice as many trees cut down when the park was revamped a few years back than what are intended to be cut down for this centre. Where were all the tree huggers then? Stop using the trees as yor argument when noone complained last time.

It just sounds like you've got something against 20 to 30 year olds. Do there opinions not count?

[edcorkie]

Who keeps deleting my comments? I thought the libdems were for free speech?

[thirteenfingers]

Heaton Park was sold to Manchester Council to be kept for the recreation and enjoyment of the public (not "Manchester public" - just "public")...

...nothing about converting par to an eyesore commercial facility.

Why have Manchester Council not considered any other location for it?

Why have they chosen the point of the city furthest from any Mancheser voter?

Not that it's only people from Prestwich that object... Park users from Salford and Manchester do too. Relevant questions though.

[edcorkie]

They should make the peolple of Bury  share the upkeep of the park from there council tax than they'd be entitled to a say. I

[thirteenfingers]

Yadda Yadda Yadda.

Prestwich only became part of Bury in 1974.

With the exception of 6 houses on Old Hall Lane, every single house that fronts or backs onto the park is "in Bury". (Of course, it is and always has been in Manchester, just our votes and taxes were shifted to a town hall this area has never really been connected to).

But the really daft thing about your comment, is someone 12 miles away in Benchill has more say in Heaton park than one who could walk there in 2 minutes.

[thirteenfingers]

That said - I think the park should probably be either shared between Bury and Manchester or in whatever area the houses surrounding it are in (that'd be Bury as things stand).

This situation where the Goals planning application has a Blackley address when it's 30 yards from the nearest Prestwich house, and a mile from the nearest Blackley one is utterly stupid.

I still think it's no coincidence at all that the chosen site is as far from a Manchester voter as physically possible.

[edcorkie]

Is it prestwich manchester or prestwich bury?

[thirteenfingers]

Eh? The address for the whole area is

[Number] [Street], Prestwich, Manchester. If that's what you're getting at.

You're still way off the point.

1st you objected to Park 66 due to busses then because Park 66 is in Bury MBC.

And from non-arguments about golf, boats and bowls being pay-for, squirrels and so on to objections about council borders.

It's STILL grade 2 listed parkland, greenbelt, an eyesore, a massive imposition on the local residents.

Council borders don't come into it!

[thirteenfingers]

Let's say a resident of Carlton Avenue (Bury MBC, just south of Brooklands Road) wants to build floodlighting to shine on the backs of Rothesay Road, while playing recordings of 130 twenty to thirty year olds swearing at eachother until 11pm daily at volumes loud enough to be heard on Huntley, Haversham and Edilom Roads, while blockading all the surrounding roads at peak times and leaving many cars parked on residential streets . Is that OK because those residents are in Manchester and not Bury?

[thirteenfingers]

That's only the impact on residents, of course.

The point stands though - resorting to the non-argument about whether or not the site is in the governmental City of Manchester or under Bury MBC is a smokescreen.

The development affects local residents in an unacceptable manner regardless of which council wastes the taxes they pay.

Again, this "which council" argument has no bearing on the loss of Grade 2 listed historic parkland, greenbelt and distrubing protected species.

[edcorkie]

Its seems the people of prestwich are on a good thing. Great park on their doorstep and don't pay a thing. And then complain when they decide to use a small part for what would be a well used facility. I hope the planners take this into consideration this would be a very popular sports centre instead of just anither place for dogs to shite.

[thirteenfingers]

What does that have to do with Grade 2 listed historic parkland, greenbelt, protected species, local roads unable to cope with traffic for the park, light pollution and noise?

You're avoiding those points so far, so I don't expect much, but I ask anyway, just to see.

Turning free-for-all open spaces into £50/hour 5-a-side pitches is bad enough without all the above problems.

Tell you what - why don't you avoid those questions again and tell us how Prestwich has no say?

[thirteenfingers]

Goal Soccer Centre - supposedly it's part of "Blackley".

The nearest Blackley house to the centre is just a scratch under 2.5 miles away.

From Blackley proper it's more like 3 to 4 miles.

Since the park will always close before the centre, it's a nonsense to suggest the distance is any shorter as most users (particularly in winter) will not be able to cut through the park.

[edcorkie]

Just seen the plans for the Goal centre on the Save heaton park website. Wow now that looks amazing. Who cares if a couple of squirrels have to move trees this is just what the kids locally need.

[thirteenfingers]

Squirrels = invasive pest species.

Bats = protected species.

Bats, particularly species that avoid artificial lighting, can be disturbed by as little as 0.06 lux.

The Goals proposal would emit 5 to 10 lux within 10m of the touchlines.

(These numbers all taken directly from the Goals planning application)

Though 5-10 lux is "typical" for an urban area (these numbers quoted in reference to light impact on residents) but 83 to 166 times the light levels considered disruptive to bats.

[edcorkie]

@thirteenfingers move with the times the house you live in was once woodland. its called progress

[thirteenfingers]

Historically, the house I live in was Farmland.

If we take your last comment as a model for behaviour, we should abolish all the green belts, develop Heaton Park for housing and private neterprise, let Middleton, Whitefield and Prestwich merge together and stuff the consequences to heritage, open spaces and protected species.

This isn't a matter of moving with the times, though I'm a long way from some miserable old fogey (in both outlook and age) it's a matter of doing what's right.

[thirteenfingers]

Taking an open space, free to use for everyone and home to protected species - and bulldozing it for commercial use is not positive progress by any standard.

When there are PLENTY of other sites without the historical, ecological or informal/open nature that Heaton Park has such "progress" is entirely undesirable.

[thirteenfingers]

For anyone who thinks the traffic problems some people raise as objections are trivial...

Watch YouTube video v=R_uMMYZIfas and think about it.

That's in spring.

Imagine that road at the height of summer when there's potential for up to 158 people arriving hourly for tennis and football (plus those comeing to watch and use thing like climbing - for the record, I climb and wouldn't use it).

It will be a nightmare, and there's not enough extra parking proposed to even cover the increase.

[edcorkie]

Were all entited to our opinion but i hope manchester city council know that there is just as much support for this than against it. Growing up in Sedgley Park we never had facilities like this and what bus would take us to pilsworth?

[thirteenfingers]

Objectors can only be satisfied if the Grade 2 listed, greenbelt parkland, home to protected species and open to all isn't bulldozed and floodlit for eterntiy.

The support can be satisfied by improving existing provision and adding more (if needed) on brownfield.

Bus? From Prestwich (Polefield area, close to Goals proposal) the 154 (18 mins journey) will drop you a 5 minute walk from the Vue site (closer than the nearest 135 stop is to Goals' proposal)

There are other potential sites too.

[thirteenfingers]

Growing up in Sedgley we never *needed* facilities like this. We played for free in the park. Many of us played *on that field*.

Kids aren't the target market of this centre though.

As much as the "for the children" line is being bandied about - the taget for these facilities is 20 to 30odd years old. Evidenced by current usage of similar and the percentage of other Goals' centres income that comes from the bar sales.

Most 20+ have access to cars so locations like Park 66 are reachable.

[edcorkie]

@thirteenfingers Park 66 is miles away in bury. this application is in Manchester please use manchester brownfield sites for reference,

[thirteenfingers]

Oh here we go! As typical with this - when your back's against the wall you come out with the tired old reference to the completely artificial/political distinction between Bury and Manchester.

The (commercial) facility does not particularly need to be in Manchester - especially when the boundaries are so arbitrary, just as they are between Manchester, Bury, Salford, Stockport and Oldham.

Strange you didn't object on those grounds when you thought you couldn't get a bus out there though. ;)

[thirteenfingers]

If you insist though...

Between Middleton Rd and Glenbrook Rd is an area around the same size as the Goals proposal. Already loud and light.

The area around Monsall Rd and Northampton Rd is huge.

Why the Bury end of Heaton Park and not Boggart Hole Clough? Because developing green belt like this is *not on* - but when it's as far away from a Manchester voter as that - it's less noticable. That's the real reason no other site has been considered (and none has).

[edcorkie]

@thirteenfingers There's still gonna plenty of places to play for free in the park. It is the biggest park around

By the way you've got to pay to play golf,pitch and put,rent boats and ride horses so whats new about having to pay.

Goal are not purchasing the land only leasing it

[thirteenfingers]

1> Paying for those activities contributes funds to Heaton Park's upkeep. Paying at Goals contributes nothing.

2> Rent from Goals will be £90k p/a to be shared right across Manchester. No real benefit to Heaton Park at all.

3> Other places to play, but the field is historically public and quiet (not everyone wants to be in a busier part).

4> No excuse to close it, charge for entry, & leave nought for the park but eyesore.

Regardless it's greenbelt and a totally inappropriate development.

[thirteenfingers]

The big issue here isn't payment. Though handing free-for-all parkland to a private company to turn into £50/hour football pitches is a pretty objectionable idea.

The big issue is the eternal loss of 8 acres of Grade 2 listed parkland; increase in traffic and parking problems over and above the bad present state; loss of greenbelt and the impact on a protected species brought about by an increase in light to a level 12,500% above the lux considered disruptive.

It's indefensible.

[thirteenfingers]

That Goals are "only" leasing the land is irrelevant.

Whether they buy it or rent it, the land will be lost either way.

Whether they buy it or rent it we still lose grade 2 listed parkland, greenbelt and negatively impact park users, residents and at least one protected species. (It's my understanding that there are owls in that area too, but I can't find an online reference to back it up at the minute - of course, all owls are protected in the UK too.)

[jonnigee2810]

Think about the employment opportunity's for local unemployed residents, and it may come as a surprise to you sir but THERE ARE UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE IN PRESTWICH!! If you're so concerned about keeping your cul-de-sac car-free apply for 'residential parking only' permit scheme from the council. HP is a park for the people not just you snobby neighbours.

[thirteenfingers]

Not just some cul de sac. The whole area is cluttered with cars in the summer as it is.

The small number of jobs are no compensation.

You make a good point without even realising it though. The park is for the people... not for some big, dirty company to concrete over and charge "the people" for the privilege of using it... and as for the acres of grass- and mature woodland that would be bulldozed for the privilege never to return? Lost for good.

It's an idiotic idea from start to finish!

[edcorkie]

What about all the mature woodland that was ripped out when the park was revamped a few years back? Where were all the tree huggers then?

Its what the area needs where else is there for kids to play football locally during the winter.

It should have nothing to do with the people of prestwich the park is owned and run by mancheter council you lot have still got prestwich clough to visit.

[thirteenfingers]

When the park was revamped it was returned to its historic condition as originally designed and laid out.

Do we REALLY need more football facilities?

There are "safe" football facilities already built at great public cost in various high schools (including Phillips and Parenthorn) at Maccabee (near Woodthorpe) just off Victoria Avenue (far closer to the Blackley residents the Goals proposal is supposedlyly aimed at) and more besides... none of them are at capacity. There's an OVER provision.

[edcorkie]

@thirteenfingers Philips park pitchs are terrible and as for the other 2 near on impossible to get an evening block booking. These pitches are much needed.

[thirteenfingers]

So? Let's improve the Philips park pitches.

It's not my experience that it's so hard to get an evening booking, but let's say it is. Still no excuse to destroy 8 acres of *green belt* historic parkland and turn it over for private use.

Why put it there at all? Why not put it on the site of the Vue Cinema in Pilsworth when it closes? No lost parkland, tons of parking, no houses imposed on, no protected species disturbed and easy access for the *real* target market, 20 to 30 year olds.

[thirteenfingers]

Just seen your comment about bowls.

No, it there wasn't a bowling area in the original layout. The reason for the tree felling was part of the return to the historic layout and landscaping.

While I've said activities like bowling and tennis are quiet, don't intrude on the park's neighbours and aren't floodlit - at no point did I say I think they should be there.

The fact is, the bowling pavillion is an eyesore, only open to the public a couple of days a week and lost greenbelt.

[edcorkie]

Wasn't the park orginally designed with tennis courts? This new proposal has 6 fully maintained teniss courts wow

[thirteenfingers]

No.

The courts were added when the park was municipalised.

The courts were:

1> Nowhere near houses.

2> Not floodlit.

3> Not open until 11pm every night.

4> Not full of young men swearing at eachother.

5> Cheap.

I live 150 metres away from Maccabee. With noise from the main road, double glazing and houses between me and the pitches, I can still clearly hear both syllables of "Wanker" and every top-of-the-lungs four letter vent. The Goals site is closer to houses, in a quieter area.

[thirteenfingers]

As for the people of Prestwich having nothing to do with it... it directly affects the people of Prestwich. Particularly the people who live around St Margarets. Not a single Manchester resident will be affected by increase in traffic levels, problem parking in residential areas, the sound of 20 to 30 year olds (the real target market of "Goals") swearing at each other under floodlights until 11pm nightly or the unsightly fencing and light pollution.

[edcorkie]

@thirteenfingers suppose you complained after the oasis concerts as well? If you live in a city then you have to put up with change or move to the country

[thirteenfingers]

I'm no fan, but it was just a couple of nights. No big deal.

The management could have been better, a friend of a friend needed to get to the tram, but since Heaton Park was closed and she didn't know the area she was a bit lost - other than that it wasn't too bad. Issues with litter and people urinating in gardens - but that's down to them being scummy rather than the use of the park.

Oasis = temporary and good for funds.

This = permanent, destructive, and bringing in a paltry rent.

[jonnigee2810]

Did you have permission to stand in those bushes and film those innocent children playing football?? You film kids playing football whilst protesting about building somewhere safe for kids to play football??!!!!! Smarts of hypocrisy to me sir!! I bet you're a member of the enormous golf club or bowling club though aren't you, Heaton Park is big enough to cater for all peoples requirements. Stop being such a snob.

[thirteenfingers]

1> No permission needed, legally or morally. It's in public.

2> There's nothing unsafe about the current football facilities at the park (markings and goalposts near the Metrolink station) or at places like Maccabee.

3> The golf and bowling aren't causes of huge traffic problems, aren't floodlit and are quiet pursuits.

Oh and I'm no snob - I couldn't care less about golf or bowling.

This abortion of a proposal would be an irreversible blot on the park. Right idea - wrong place entirely.

[wtfisntunavailable]

brings back good memories

[nicow07]

ils love 2 tear all tht grass up on a KTM 450 !!!

[thirteenfingers]

Come off it...

It'd be a sin to own a KTM 450 and only use it to blat around on the flat.

Complete waste of a good bike. :D

[edcorkie]

Didn't hear anyone complaing when they built the bowling centre. The park is big enough and should be used for more events. Build the football centre it would get a hell of lot use.

[thirteenfingers]

Bowling = 4 greens and a building built on grassland.

This proposal = 8 acres of grass- and mature woodland bulldozed and floodlit until 11pm forever.

I can't think of many duller pursuits than bowls, I'm more inclined to hurl myself off the tops of hills on bikes or boards, climb, surf, walk and so on. This isn't bias... the two just aren't equivalent in any way.

All that aside there's a key difference.

Bowls/golf = municipal.

"Goals" = private.

Turning parkland to private is inexcusable.

[petacavanagh]

****ing ridiculous, reckon every1 hu petitions could stand there and physically stop them? i call a protest me thinks.

[thirteenfingers]

If it comes to that... I'll see you there. ;)

I'm no "Swampy" - don't have dreadlocks, know what a shower is for and actually have a job - but if needs must.

[petacavanagh]

Good :)