Selling small parks to pay for big ones?

[davieG]

From the Merc

Pockets of green space across the city could be sold off to pay for improvements to some of Leicester's main parks.

The move could see the city council dispose of small parks in areas such as Beaumont Leys and Eyres Monsell.

The money would raise the standard of five key parks, and pay for improvements to some smaller green spaces.

The plan, which is at an early stage, is being considered by the city council's culture and leisure task group.

A document released ahead of the group's meeting tomorrow states there are seven parks in the city which have achieved Green Flag status, and five more the council would like to bring up to that standard. They are Western Park, Braunstone Park, Victoria Park, Spinney Hill Park and Humberstone Park.

Green Flag status – awarded to parks that meet strict criteria – enables councils to apply for funding, such as Heritage Lottery grants.

The document also states that part of the money needed to make the improvements could come from "the sell-off of significant oversupply of open green spaces", and gives Beaumont Leys and Eyres Monsell as examples.

Councillor Piara Singh Clair, chairman of the task group, said it was too early to say which land would be sold off if the plans went ahead.

Families in Beaumont Leys and Eyres Monsell say they are upset their green space might be sold.

Mum Liza Barradell, 30, and seven-year-old son Aiden use the park off Hillsborough Road in Eyres Monsell every day.

She said: "I can't believe this is even being considered. Where are the kids supposed to go?

"Me and Aiden come here every day for a 10-minute run around after school. He loves his park.

"Also, if I found out that parks around our home were being sold off to help fund parks far from here I'd be furious. We can't drive to those fancy parks far away so we'd have no where to go."

Nicola Verma, 36, of Abbey Rise, walks through a green area near Beaumont Leys shopping area most days.

She said: "Before we know it, we are going to have nothing left.

"We ought to be treasuring green spaces, not getting rid of them."

Tomorrow's meeting has been called to see what work would need to be done to bring the five parks up to Green Flag standard.

Criteria includes having an effective marketing programme and being safe and welcoming.

Coun Clair said: "I think 'sell-off' is too harsh a word and would like to think of it as more of a potential disposal of land.

"If necessary we would choose areas that have anti-social behaviour problems – where there's litter or youngsters hanging around – and would clearly talk to user groups."

The Mercury asked the city and county councils how much it costs to bring the average park up to Green Flag standard, but neither said it was possible to say.

[davieG]

I fail to see the logic in this, where's the joined up thinking?

Will it not involve putting more cars on the road as people travel to their nearest park?

Will it not reduce the amount of exercise kids get already criminally low?

Will it solve the anti-behavioural problems or will problems just move to shops and people's garden fronts?

This should be in the Management speak topic!

Coun Clair said: "I think 'sell-off' is too harsh a word and would like to think of it as more of a potential disposal of land.

[Dr The Singh]

I fail to see the logic in this, where's the joined up thinking?

Will it not involve putting more cars on the road as people travel to their nearest park?

Will it not reduce the amount of exercise kids get already criminally low?

Will it solve the anti-behavioural problems or will problems just move to shops and people's garden fronts?

This should be in the Management speak topic!

Get councillor Clin on the case, this is a reason as good as any for him to drop his trousers!!

BTW, I agree with Davie G, instead of selling off the land, they should be looking at how best to use it!!

[davieG]

I guess this sums up their logic

The 'sell off' of land would allow property developers to build houses on that land.

Every new house carries a section 106 agreement, which means the builder has to pay to the council a sum of approximately £1500.

Whereas, a playground requires an annual ROSPA inspection and ongoing servicing/repairs.

conservatively set at £1,500 annually

So , (get your calculators out)

the council has the choice of PAYING OUT an annual fee of £1500...for each playground...

or COLLECTING a one-off £1500 for each house

and then COLLECTING Council tax from each house thereafter

Anyone want to guess why the council wants to sell it off?

oh pardon me, it's not a sell off....

MrA, leics

It's all about short term money saving but this sort of action just increases costs in other less visible areas and builds up problems for the future. Why not look at local communities and sports bodies to help to maintain the open spaces and parks maybe even some of those 'youngsters hanging around'?

[Lillehamring]

typical leicester, i can see the merit in improving the 'key' parks, but like everything else they do, they never seem to make the whole better.

it's the haymarket and phoenix over again.

there's plenty of brown field sites for housing, they shouldn't take away parks, where are the people in the new houses going to go?

[James.]

The logic that removing green spaces will cut anti social behaviour is actually pretty embarrassing. I don't even think the idiot who said that really believed it, as per davieG's quote it seems like it's more to do with money than anything else.

[Bellend Sebastian]

My office is very close to what I think you would call a 'problem' park, and I don't think many people locally would disagree that the impact of the anti-social behaviour associated with it far outweighs its value as an amenity. That said, even in these circumstances, we're pushing the council to explore options such as closing it temporarily to let things calm down, or restricting access by giving keys to local residents (apparently this happens in that London quite a bit), and would be very much against it being closed permanently and built on.

There is so much derelict and knackered property about (particularly on the 'brownfield' sites already referred to) that it's a nonsense that this should even be being considered. I know next to nothing about planning law, but it seems to me a bit mad that there can be pressure on green space, but no pressure to bring property and land into proper use

[James.]

My office is very close to what I think you would call a 'problem' park, and I don't think many people locally would disagree that the impact of the anti-social behaviour associated with it far outweighs its value as an amenity.

Do you think closing it (even temporarily) will solve the problem though? Surely the problem just moves elsehwere - street corners, another park nearby, bus stops, outside shops, etc etc...

[davieG]

Do you think closing it (even temporarily) will solve the problem though? Surely the problem just moves elsehwere - street corners, another park nearby, bus stops, outside shops, etc etc...

The City Council should consider just closing all the parks that border their boundary so all the problems move to parks in the County

[Bellend Sebastian]

Do you think closing it (even temporarily) will solve the problem though? Surely the problem just moves elsehwere - street corners, another park nearby, bus stops, outside shops, etc etc...

It's very difficult to say, but it would encourage those causing the problems to make proper use of facilities intended for them elsewhere. At worst I think it would spread the problems around a bit, which would lessen their impact.

It's a relatively unusual situation as there are very specific reasons for the problems we're facing and it's just unfortunate that the park is so close by. If it were only a few streets further away it would probably be fine.

What I'd really like to see is that those who live locally and can use it responsibly for its intended purpose have access and its access is restricted to everyone else. I suspect this may be a bit too complex for the parks department to get their head round but we're trying

[Trav Le Bleu]

Forget parks, think parts.

Body parts.

Get rid of a needless appendix and surplus kidney and get an extra heart instead!

Or a third lung!

Double your IQ with an extra brain!

It's all so clear now... why didn't I think of this earlier?

[Bellend Sebastian]

Forget parks, think parts.

Body parts.

Get rid of a needless appendix and surplus kidney and get an extra heart instead!

Or a third lung!

Double your IQ with an extra brain!

It's all so clear now... why didn't I think of this earlier?

With an IQ of 120 who knows what I could achieve!

[samlcfc]

I think it's a stupid idea. people use the parks around the city as small and insignificant as the council may believe them to be. I fail to see what the council thinks the communities and public are going to get out of this and don't think they would do it without the belief that they (the council) are going to benefit from it in some way. I dont know what they plan to do to the bigger parks with the money they would make but can't see that they need to be greatly improved or added to tbh for people to enjoy or use them.

As for the anti-social reasoning behind it, i cant see that taking away the parks that people congrigate at is going to do anything. Taking something away from somebody doesnt change their mindset or their behaviour. The people behind any anti-social behaviour if they hang around in the parks regularly will just move along elsewhere or fook about on the streets that replace the parks.

I know that in the past ive probably used regularly or not most of the parks around the city inner and suburbs and know that the ones i have used regularly are used by a lot of people. People that won't bother travelling any distance to reach the bigger parks just so they can hang about or play footy. Theyll just find something else to do like hang about the area they live in, which some residents of villages, esates etc seem to take offence to whether your doing wrong or not.

For people on the most part, no significant change for the bettter is going to come out of this. If it isnt broken, don't fix it

[Head Honcho]

Ridiculous idea.

Why don't they raise the cash needed to maintain all the parks, large and small by selling off all the redundant buildings the council no longer use.

...............or have they already done that

[Finnegan]

Not being funny but why are we actually winging about this?

Typically British, really. Nobody actually gives a toss until there's a notion that something "for the public" is being cut. We're losing stuff right, left and centre, the country is in absolutely massive debt, we all agree that spending has to be lowered but - wait a minute - please don't take away a few grotty green spaces on a few shit estates!

I used to work on the sort of spaces that they'll be removing and it has to be said, they're not exactly going to be tragically missed. Most are eye-sores and the council grounds maintenance contracts either don't pay to upkeep them or they get, at most, a look at once a year. They're always overgrown, full of litter and just generally shit.

It's not ideal, I admit. And in a perfect world I'd celebrate more and more green space about the city. But given just about EVERYTHING else is apparently under budget reviews I don't really think we can afford the liberties of saying our parks are immune.

... and no, Jon the Hat hasn't stolen my keyboard.

[Head Honcho]

Not being funny but why are we actually winging about this?

Typically British, really. Nobody actually gives a toss until there's a notion that something "for the public" is being cut. We're losing stuff right, left and centre, the country is in absolutely massive debt, we all agree that spending has to be lowered but - wait a minute - please don't take away a few grotty green spaces on a few shit estates!

I used to work on the sort of spaces that they'll be removing and it has to be said, they're not exactly going to be tragically missed. Most are eye-sores and the council grounds maintenance contracts either don't pay to upkeep them or they get, at most, a look at once a year. They're always overgrown, full of litter and just generally shit.

It's not ideal, I admit. And in a perfect world I'd celebrate more and more green space about the city. But given just about EVERYTHING else is apparently under budget reviews I don't really think we can afford the liberties of saying our parks are immune.

... and no, Jon the Hat hasn't stolen my keyboard.

According to the tories we'll be out of debt within 5 years. Can the council then buy the land back! This land will be lost forever.

There's plenty space for developers in and around the city and this is just a lazy way of making money by the council.

[Zingari]

I'll have to let my dog shit in someone's garden now ,

it's very inconvenient

pull your pants up colin and sort this mess out !!