Petition to save Teessaurus Park

Johnny Vincents Motorbike said:
not interested - travellers have a legal right to a pitch - rather than being hostile towards them - in the style of a popularist maverick isnt the way forward - accommodation and inclusivity is.

remind me again what good the judgement and term in office was for the maverick - and why is he bawling about this.

absolute raw, naked racism.
Click to expand...
Apologies if I have missed something but the petition isn't to replace a traveller site with a Dino park is it? If it was that way round then I would agree with you.
 
Johnny Vincents Motorbike said:
not interested - travellers have a legal right to a pitch - rather than being hostile towards them - in the style of a popularist maverick isnt the way forward - accommodation and inclusivity is.

remind me again what good the judgement and term in office was for the maverick - and why is he bawling about this.

absolute raw, naked racism.
Click to expand...
I get your point, to a degree, but there is acres of land around Dinosaur park that could be utilised. Not sure this is about xenophobia (although it may have some baring) but more about keeping a communal recreational area for what it was intended.
 
JonnyHistory said:
I get your point, to a degree, but there is acres of land around Dinosaur park that could be utilised. Not sure this is about xenophobia (although it may have some baring) but more about keeping a communal recreational area for what it was intended.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I bet the vast majority that sign don’t give a second thought about the dinosaurs.
 
Frankie Lee said:
I don’t know. I bet the vast majority that sign don’t give a second thought about the dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
As I said it may have some baring, but that doesn't make the overall point invalid. That space is a recreational one for the people and visitors of Teesside, Travellers included. and there is plenty of land in that area that could be utilised as a site for travellers that would enable them and local residents to enjoy the park as it was intended.
 
The petition seems to be simply asking for alternatives, rather than saying travellers don’t have a right to land.
 
I'm really not sure what the rational of using the Dinosaur Park for a future traveling site. I do know that there isn't a huge amount of land in that area that's owned by the council.

The proposal is for this land to be available in the future for use for travellers, but I will ask officers why they agreed that this site would be the best place, see what is said.
 
Frankie Lee said:
I don’t know. I bet the vast majority that sign don’t give a second thought about the dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
Last season when Preston attended The Riverside for their Gents Day, two guys who attended made a YouTube video of their time in Middlesbrough and visited the Dinosaur Park. Both were wax lyrical about it.

Like many on here and in the Middlesbrough area, I took my children to see the dinosaurs and still ride over to that area on our bikes.
 
Hi all, today I have spoke about these plans for the dinosaur park.

We have to by law cover the possible increase in population of the gypsy and travelling community in the local plan, we also by law have to have a local plan.
If this area is proved to be not acceptable then we would have to look elsewhere, Acklam, Marton, Nunthorpe and Stainton are amongst others, areas that we do own land and we'd have to look at.
This local plan is the master plan for the council for the next 15 years
The only land the council own in that part of town that's suitable is the dinosaur park.
The Dinosaur park wouldn't have to move, the existing footpath along the river is a protected right of way and the proposed new local plan protects that.
The site identified would include the current car park and a small area of the park, the rest of the park could remain in situ and or the whole dinosaur park could also be moved elsewhere.
Even if it's in the local plan doesn't mean that a new gypsy/traveller site would open there, there would have to be a need for the site- the current site has 3 empty units, it would also still require planning permission and go through the full planning process.
The need could never be met so planning permission might never be sought, and if it is, it's unlikely it will happen for a number of years.

This is a draft plan, it's open for consultation from 1st Feb until middle of March, please do get involved in the consultation.
 
Last edited:
TheLodger said:
Hi all, today I have spoke about these plans for the dinosaur park.

We have to by law cover the possible increase in population of the gypsy and travelling community in the local plan, we also by law have to have a local plan.
If this area is proved to be not acceptable then we would have to look elsewhere, Acklam, Marton, Nunthorpe and Stainton are amongst others, areas that we do own land and we'd have to look at.
This local plan is the master plan for the council for the next 15 years
The only land the council own in that part of town that's suitable is the dinosaur park.
The Dinosaur park wouldn't have to move, the existing footpath along the river is a protected right of way and the proposed new local plan protects that.
The site identified would include the current car park and a small area of the park, the rest of the park could remain in situ and or the whole dinosaur park could also be moved elsewhere.
Even if it's in the local plan doesn't mean that a new gypsy/traveller site would open there, there would have to be a need for the site- the current site has 3 empty units, it would also still require planning permission and go through the full planning process.
The need could never be met so planning permission might never be sought, and if it is, it's unlikely it will happen for a number of years.

This is a draft plan, it's open for consultation from 1st Feb until middle of March, please do get involved in the consultation.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TheLodger said:
Hi all, today I have spoke about these plans for the dinosaur park.

We have to by law cover the possible increase in population of the gypsy and travelling community in the local plan, we also by law have to have a local plan.
If this area is proved to be not acceptable then we would have to look elsewhere, Acklam, Marton, Nunthorpe and Stainton are amongst others, areas that we do own land and we'd have to look at.
This local plan is the master plan for the council for the next 15 years
The only land the council own in that part of town that's suitable is the dinosaur park.
The Dinosaur park wouldn't have to move, the existing footpath along the river is a protected right of way and the proposed new local plan protects that.
The site identified would include the current car park and a small area of the park, the rest of the park could remain in situ and or the whole dinosaur park could also be moved elsewhere.
Even if it's in the local plan doesn't mean that a new gypsy/traveller site would open there, there would have to be a need for the site- the current site has 3 empty units, it would also still require planning permission and go through the full planning process.
The need could never be met so planning permission might never be sought, and if it is, it's unlikely it will happen for a number of years.

This is a draft plan, it's open for consultation from 1st Feb until middle of March, please do get involved in the consultation.
Click to expand...
So agree to it or we'll put them near your house - really?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top