Petition to save Teessaurus Park

TheLodger said:
We have to identify land that the council owns, I'm still waiting for your suggestion.
Click to expand...
Honestly - why so aggressive? I think you can tell from the other posts on here how your post which boiled down to it’s there or near your house was received.

I think you as a councillor would be able to list the land available - are you saying they only land MBC has is either at the dinosaur park or Acklam, Marton, Nunthorpe and Stainton?

I’m a Labour Party member, I’ve followed your posts on here with interest and thought you were one of the good guys and made sense but this is really poor. If Andy Preston had proposed this you’d have been all over it with criticism.

You’re better than this.
 
I'm not being aggressive, but simply setting out how it is, if we had land elsewhere we'd be suggesting that! The only suitable land we have that's close to the Metz bridge site that the council own is land at the dinosaur park. Other land that we own that might be suitable are in the areas that I have already mentioned, it's not a threat, it sadly just how it is.
No Labour councillor wants to remove a free facility that residents enjoy, especially when it doesn't have a cost! As I've said we are where we are, we have to identify a site by law, this is the site that makes the most sense, but it's up for consultation, of course the council want people to suggest other options, but just saying we're not having it at such and such a place really doesn't help.
 
Glover_elbow said:
Where is it never heard of it
Click to expand...
It's on that industrial estate over boro way - for some reason it's a local treasure, it used to be on my running route and I always remember it as a bunch of random dinosaurs and a spot where there was always clouds of midges. There's existing traveller site nearby already


TheLodger said:
I'm not being aggressive, but simply setting out how it is, if we had land elsewhere we'd be suggesting that! The only suitable land we have that's close to the Metz bridge site that the council own is land at the dinosaur park. Other land that we own that might be suitable are in the areas that I have already mentioned, it's not a threat, it sadly just how it is.
No Labour councillor wants to remove a free facility that residents enjoy, especially when it doesn't have a cost! As I've said we are where we are, we have to identify a site by law, this is the site that makes the most sense, but it's up for consultation, of course the council want people to suggest other options, but just saying we're not having it at such and such a place really doesn't help.
Click to expand...
can you not put it on muirfield for clllr smieles
 
TheLodger said:
I'm not being aggressive, but simply setting out how it is, if we had land elsewhere we'd be suggesting that! The only suitable land we have that's close to the Metz bridge site that the council own is land at the dinosaur park. Other land that we own that might be suitable are in the areas that I have already mentioned, it's not a threat, it sadly just how it is.
No Labour councillor wants to remove a free facility that residents enjoy, especially when it doesn't have a cost! As I've said we are where we are, we have to identify a site by law, this is the site that makes the most sense, but it's up for consultation, of course the council want people to suggest other options, but just saying we're not having it at such and such a place really doesn't help.
Click to expand...
The council want residents to suggest other options? They have other options, the council have rejected them and potentially limbered themselves with a cost they can't afford.

As you state it's a free facility but they are suggesting moving them which will have a cost attached the council can't afford.

If you can't see the cynicism in this decision you must be blind.

How as a councillor can you support yet more change and destruction to our dwindling leisure spaces?

One question the other identified spaces do they have parks or leisure facilities on them or is that just DP?
 
JonnyHistory said:
The council want residents to suggest other options? They have other options, the council have rejected them and potentially limbered themselves with a cost they can't afford.

As you state it's a free facility but they are suggesting moving them which will have a cost attached the council can't afford.

If you can't see the cynicism in this decision you must be blind.

How as a councillor can you support yet more change and destruction to our dwindling leisure spaces?

One question the other identified spaces do they have parks or leisure facilities on them or is that just DP?
Click to expand...
What part of "We have to identify a new site, by law" don't you understand?
 
TheLodger said:
What part of "We have to identify a new site, by law" don't you understand?
Click to expand...
I understand all of it and as you stated you had identified other sites.

I am asking if Acklam Martin et al that you stated had been identified as potential sites have existing parks on them?

Your response here has been shocking btw!
 
JonnyHistory said:
The council want residents to suggest other options? They have other options, the council have rejected them and potentially limbered themselves with a cost they can't afford.
Click to expand...
What other options, I have re-read this whole post, not seen one option including from you.
We are waiting for suggestions, please do make them, it's why this is a draft, so we can look at all suggestions before adopting the local plan.
 
TheLodger said:
What other options, I have re-read this whole post, not seen one option including from you.
We are waiting for suggestions, please do make them, it's why this is a draft, so we can look at all suggestions before adopting the local plan.
Click to expand...
Again you stated other sites had been identified by the council in 4/5 different areas. Do they have existing parks on them?
 
JonnyHistory said:
I understand all of it and as you stated you had identified other sites.

I am asking if Acklam Martin et al that you stated had been identified as potential sites have existing parks on them?

Your response here has been shocking btw!
Click to expand...
I said we have other land that could be used as a Gypsy/Traveller sites. including in Acklam and Marton. we do, but the option at the DP was the one favoured by the community.
 
TheLodger said:
I said we have other land that could be used as a Gypsy/Traveller sites. including in Acklam and Marton. we do, but the option at the DP was the one favoured by the community.
Click to expand...
So does that land have existing parks on it? Why are you being so evasive?
 
JonnyHistory said:
So does that land have existing parks on it? Why are you being so evasive?
Click to expand...
I think you need to re-read the thread which is about putting a site next to the dinosaur park for Gypsys and travellers in the local plan, no idea what that's got to do with parks in other parts of town.
 
TheLodger said:
I said we have other land that could be used as a Gypsy/Traveller sites. including in Acklam and Marton. we do, but the option at the DP was the one favoured by the community.
Click to expand...
Sometimes unpopular decisions need to be made I get that, but I never thought I'd see the party I'm a member of support yet more erosion of our public spaces.

You and I both know those dinosaurs won't be moved and as you have stated the travelling community is growing, part of the park and car park will soon become a bit more and a bit more.

This just seems short sighted and cynical and i am not the only one. Then the arrogance and cowardice to suggest it's the publics job to suggest somewhere else when you have clearly stayed that other sites have been identified is shocking. The council don't want to face off with residents by putting the site closer to residential areas or looks like.

This is pretty poor mate.
 
TheLodger said:
I think you need to re-read the thread which is about putting a site next to the dinosaur park for Gypsys and travellers in the local plan, no idea what that's got to do with parks in other parts of town.
Click to expand...
No I think you need to stop being so evasive.

It's quite simple.
This site has an existing park that's used by the community and this will encroach and in some parts take over some of that.

I'm asking if the other identified sites have existing parks on so we can provide a site without the expense of moving an existing park.

It's not a hard question to understand and you're deliberately avoiding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top