Petition to save Teessaurus Park

[TheLodger]

That seems almost nonsensical, using part of the park and car park, seems very short-sighted and was only ever going to bring objections.

Why are councils obsessed with selling off, destroying or re purposing social infrastructure and leisure facilities?

If I had to guess given the alternative sites you have mentioned, it seems the council have thought DP would bring the least objections and has nothing to do with it being more suitable compared to the others. The suggestion to "move the dinosaurs" give Middlesbrough authority's financial situation also seems a non-starter and would likely be just lip-service paid to negate objections but would never actually actualise.

The officers who drew this up need a swift kick up the backside!

All for providing safe and usable sites for the travelling community, it should not come at the expense of our leisure and play areas though and doesn't need to.

No one wants to sell off, destroy or re-purpose anything, we do what we have to do to survive.
The reasons the "DP" was agreed in the local plan was because we approached the Gypsy and traveler community and they requested it close as possible to the existing site- even growing gypsy families rely on a network to help them.

Officers follow the rule of law including the costs and appropriate details.

 

[TheLodger]

So agree to it or we'll put them near your house - really?!

Well, where do you suggest these people live?

Lets have it.

It's easy sat in your chair lording it, lets see your suggestions.

 

[Primus84]

No one wants to sell off, destroy or re-purpose anything, we do what we have to do to survive.
The reasons the "DP" was agreed in the local plan was because we approached the Gypsy and traveler community and they requested it close as possible to the existing site- even growing gypsy families rely on a network to help them.

Officers follow the rule of law including the costs and appropriate details.

and if that doesn't work they'll threaten to put things near your house instead of on an industrial park somewhere further away and that'll definitely convince you...

 

[Primus84]

Well, where do you suggest these people live?

Lets have it.

So the only options are to replace a community resource on an industrial estate or put them in "Acklam, Marton, Nunthorpe and Stainton"?

It's absolute nonsense, playing to the lowest common denominator and you're better than this.

 

[JonnyHistory]

No one wants to sell off, destroy or re-purpose anything, we do what we have to do to survive.
The reasons the "DP" was agreed in the local plan was because we approached the Gypsy and traveler community and they requested it close as possible to the existing site- even growing gypsy families rely on a network to help them.

Officers follow the rule of law including the costs and appropriate details.

But they are doing exactly that here. We would be losing parts of teh car park and the actual park potentially as per your previous post.

It is unnecessary and it would come with a cost potentially as you stated "possibly moving the dinosaurs" which is just an absolute non-starter given Boro councils financial state.

This is a short-sighted decision imo and the rationale you have laid out does not pass the smell test for me.

I am of no doubt that from a legal perspective it ticks all the boxes but from a community perspective they are simply sacrificing yet more leisure infrastructure to avoid a potentially even more unpopular decision.

 

[Air Resistance]

Land availability is something MBC is always going to be hamstrung by. It’s by far the smallest of the former Cleveland area and not having all planning under one plan for Teesside just doesn’t make sense for a large urban area. This is just one example.

I feel for the council to a certain extent, they are hamstrung by what has preceded them. On the flip side, I do think outdoor leisure areas such as this should be protected from development and change of use.

 

[atypical_boro]

It's easy sat in your chair lording it, lets see your suggestions.

how do you know he’s sat in a chair? Could be on a bus, on a train, on a treadmill or lolling on his sofa.

That’s all I can really contribute to this thread. Would be sad to see the park go however.

 

[Slipperutb01]

Sure the late night doggers will sign it
Utb

 

[Loop]

Where is it never heard of it

Same

 

[Rofesleg]

whole dinosaur park could also be moved elsewhere.

Where to? And wherever it is could that be a possible alternative location for the traveller's site?

 

[Rofesleg]

travellers have a legal right to a pitch

Agreed. But that isn't really the argument is it?
Does it really have to be at the expense of the dinosaur park? Hard to believe there is absolutely nowhere else.
Actually, the Lodger has already suggested alternatives - Acklam, Marton, Nunthorpe and Stainton.

 

[SilentProf]

Where to? And wherever it is could that be a possible alternative location for the traveller's site?

You’re probably looking at Albert or Stewart Park.

I’d like to see the numbers for monthly visitors to dinosaur park before I make a decision. If it’s not providing value for more than a few local families, it could be better utilised in another location.

 

[JonnyHistory]

You’re probably looking at Albert or Stewart Park.

I’d like to see the numbers for monthly visitors to dinosaur park before I make a decision. If it’s not providing value for more than a few local families, it could be better utilised in another location.

So a bankrupt council should spend money on a piece of work to study numbers of visitors to a location and more money on carefully dismantling and re building the structures in another part of Middlesbrough?

And that's a better option than putting the traveler site on a different unused location that is not used for residents recreation?

Sorry do not see how that's logical at all!

 

[SilentProf]

So a bankrupt council should spend money on a piece of work to study numbers of visitors to a location and more money on carefully dismantling and re building the structures in another part of Middlesbrough?

And that's a better option than putting the traveler site on a different unused location that is not used for residents recreation?

Sorry do not see how that's logical at all!

All I’m saying is there’s a tipping point where it’s not worth keeping as it is for the numbers using it. They may already know roughly how much use it’s getting. They will certainly know how much it’s costing to maintain and secure the site. It could also cost more to put the traveller pitches elsewhere. I don’t know what those options are but who says they’re not being used for recreation too?

 

[JonnyHistory]

All I’m saying is there’s a tipping point where it’s not worth keeping as it is for the numbers using it. They may already know roughly how much use it’s getting. They will certainly know how much it’s costing to maintain and secure the site. It could also cost more to put the traveller pitches elsewhere. I don’t know what those options are but who says they’re not being used for recreation too?

There will be sites in Middlesbrough that are not designated for recreation like dinosaur park. As Lodger had already named.

The park is regularly used, how much and how often I concede I do not know but the literal suggestion from council is to use both part of the parking facilities and the actual park as part of the travellers pitch. The rationale being it's closer to the existing travellers site than the other areas suggested.

To appease the public the council are suggesting they may need to move the park altogether which coming from a bankrupt council sounds like pie in the sky.

I believe we should be providing facilities for travellers, but that can't come at the expense of the already diminishing public leisure spaces. There are at least 4 other sites the council have identified that could be used, and certainly at least one of them won't involve the additional costs of moving a whole park or repurposing and destroying another outside recreational space in the area.

I do not see how your suggestion provides either value for money or would lead to a better outcome.

In my opinion (and I have seen similar decisions taken by Redcar officers) The council are being cynical here, they feel placing it there is the easiest option in terms of public complaints and the offer to move the park is nothing but lip service considering the budget deficit already being run.

Have to hard disagree with you on this one.

 

[SilentProf]

There will be sites in Middlesbrough that are not designated for recreation like dinosaur park. As Lodger had already named.

The park is regularly used, how much and how often I concede I do not know but the literal suggestion from council is to use both part of the parking facilities and the actual park as part of the travellers pitch. The rationale being it's closer to the existing travellers site than the other areas suggested.

To appease the public the council are suggesting they may need to move the park altogether which coming from a bankrupt council sounds like pie in the sky.

I believe we should be providing facilities for travellers, but that can't come at the expense of the already diminishing public leisure spaces. There are at least 4 other sites the council have identified that could be used, and certainly at least one of them won't involve the additional costs of moving a whole park or repurposing and destroying another outside recreational space in the area.

I do not see how your suggestion provides either value for money or would lead to a better outcome.

In my opinion (and I have seen similar decisions taken by Redcar officers) The council are being cynical here, they feel placing it there is the easiest option in terms of public complaints and the offer to move the park is nothing but lip service considering the budget deficit already being run.

Have to hard disagree with you on this one.

I haven’t once said it would be my preferred option. Only that I don’t have enough information to sign a petition against it. I agree they have almost certainly chosen the option they feel people would be most comfortable with and used the threat of putting the site closer to residential housing to limit complaints. That doesn’t necessarily mean the proposed site isn’t the most appropriate one either.

 

[JonnyHistory]

I haven’t once said it would be my preferred option. Only that I don’t have enough information to sign a petition against it. I agree they have almost certainly chosen the option they feel people would be most comfortable with and used the threat of putting the site closer to residential housing to limit complaints. That doesn’t necessarily mean the proposed site isn’t the most appropriate one either.

Appropriate how and to whom?

I never said you had a preferred option, what I disagree with was the suggestion that committing money and time to a study of it's use and then committing more money to moving the whole park potentially is illogical.

How much recreational space do we have to see sold off and destroyed before enough is enough? If you don't feel you can sign fair enough, but your rationale that a bankrupt council needs to spend more money rather than just consider areas that are not already used for recreational purposes is (in my opinion) flawed.

 

[Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants]

The dinosaurs would be better along the Riverside walks between the barrage and Newport bridge. A nice little walk out to tire kids legs.

 

[Beverleyred]

Same

Riverside Park Industrial Estate, by the river further along from Middlehaven, if that helps.

 

[TheLodger]

So the only options are to replace a community resource on an industrial estate or put them in "Acklam, Marton, Nunthorpe and Stainton"?

It's absolute nonsense, playing to the lowest common denominator and you're better than this.

We have to identify land that the council owns, I'm still waiting for your suggestion.