Monday, April 20, 2009
Into the blue
What a difference a day (or two) makes! No time to write any more. My request to meet a local politician to discuss the future of "threatening" Battlefield has not as yet received a reply. All my previous e-mails to local elected politicians were ignored by their recipients.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Fret. Fretting
At times when the rest of the UK is "sweltering" a cruel climatic feature spites the life of the north east Sun worshipper. The heat which elsewhere drives up the sales of ice creams and easy chairs, with us combines with a cold sea current and accompanying cold air to give a cold damp overcast which the beaming sun cannot penetrate. It is possible by driving west, away from the coast, to slide out from underneath this eiderdown of dampness; but otherwise one just endures it and hopes for a change of wind direction.
Another cold wind is blowing over Battlefield and I fear for the trees and the birds and other creatures. Years ago I noticed a sudden and welcome increase in Song Thrushes on Battlefield, itself well suited to their needs. These birds had something of a decline in numbers throughout the UK in recent years and there were fears for their future as one of our emblematic song birds, beloved of gardeners and allotment holders for their snail and slug devouring diet. I counted four together beside the foot and cycle path. A week later the Council chopped down all the nearby shrubs and I have not seen nor heard a Song Thrush there since. Newcastle City Council has however, together with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, issued a leaflet on the Song Thrush which urges those interested to write in and identitfy places where this lovely song bird can be found. I thought about sending in my comments but what would be the point? One senses people 'going through the motions'.
I have written to a local City Councillor about the current threat to "forbidding" Battlefield and City Stadium from proposals linked to the building of 2000 student 'flats' on the former paint factory site. If I get a response I will write further. Perhaps, I will learn how Metnor Group plc, the developers of the paint factory site come to propose alterations for a piece of open space they do not, as far as I know, own.
Meanwhile here are some recent images of the sky over Battlefield and blossom in the gloom.
Another cold wind is blowing over Battlefield and I fear for the trees and the birds and other creatures. Years ago I noticed a sudden and welcome increase in Song Thrushes on Battlefield, itself well suited to their needs. These birds had something of a decline in numbers throughout the UK in recent years and there were fears for their future as one of our emblematic song birds, beloved of gardeners and allotment holders for their snail and slug devouring diet. I counted four together beside the foot and cycle path. A week later the Council chopped down all the nearby shrubs and I have not seen nor heard a Song Thrush there since. Newcastle City Council has however, together with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, issued a leaflet on the Song Thrush which urges those interested to write in and identitfy places where this lovely song bird can be found. I thought about sending in my comments but what would be the point? One senses people 'going through the motions'.
I have written to a local City Councillor about the current threat to "forbidding" Battlefield and City Stadium from proposals linked to the building of 2000 student 'flats' on the former paint factory site. If I get a response I will write further. Perhaps, I will learn how Metnor Group plc, the developers of the paint factory site come to propose alterations for a piece of open space they do not, as far as I know, own.
Meanwhile here are some recent images of the sky over Battlefield and blossom in the gloom.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Over the Hill and far away
I have today received a letter from Louise Hill, Senior Administrative Officer in the office of the (deep breath) 'Director of Strategic Housing, Planning and Transportation Environment and Regeneration Directorate' (presumably run by, er, God) concerning my objection to the development of 2000 students flats on the former paint factory site*.
Ms Hill writes:
"I refer to the above proposal. The City Council either notified you about the application when it was received or you submitted your comments about the proposal to the City Council." (Sub text, either way, what does it matter?)
"I now have to inform you that the local planning authority considered the proposal and the following decision has been made:
To grant permission subject to conditions." (Unspecified)
" In coming to a decision, the local planning authority took account of the views you expressed." These were also 'expressed' by all three local Councillors and the local representatives of another political party. Only one letter of support for the scheme was received.
"A copy of the Decision Notice is available to download from:" LINK
Except it is not. Instead I was today greeted by this:
'WARNING: The record you have tried to retrieve could not be found. It may have been deleted by another user or process. Please verify that the record exists by using the search tools.'
So I am still in the dark as to why a scheme which was opposed by all the elected and virtually all the interested local parties was shuffled through. But, with this city's record in urban planning, who could really be surprised?
* Actually addressed not to me but to the 'Owner/Occupier'.
Ms Hill writes:
"I refer to the above proposal. The City Council either notified you about the application when it was received or you submitted your comments about the proposal to the City Council." (Sub text, either way, what does it matter?)
"I now have to inform you that the local planning authority considered the proposal and the following decision has been made:
To grant permission subject to conditions." (Unspecified)
" In coming to a decision, the local planning authority took account of the views you expressed." These were also 'expressed' by all three local Councillors and the local representatives of another political party. Only one letter of support for the scheme was received.
"A copy of the Decision Notice is available to download from:" LINK
Except it is not. Instead I was today greeted by this:
'WARNING: The record you have tried to retrieve could not be found. It may have been deleted by another user or process. Please verify that the record exists by using the search tools.'
So I am still in the dark as to why a scheme which was opposed by all the elected and virtually all the interested local parties was shuffled through. But, with this city's record in urban planning, who could really be surprised?
* Actually addressed not to me but to the 'Owner/Occupier'.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Ham Actor
The Journal article about the student ghetto planned for the former paint factory site (see also below) quotes Mr Brian Ham, director of the Metnor Property Group, who said: “We are aware student developments are a sensitive issue. But both the universities are in competition for students and if Newcastle isn’t able to offer good quality student facilities they will go elsewhere".
Mr Ham is not an educator, I presume. I rather believe Mr Ham is the director of a company wishing to diversify away from a slackening demand for factory and wholesale warehouse construction into the rapidly expanding and lucrative student warehousing market. His views about the two city Universities as quoted are interesting and contradictory.
According to what I read in The Journal I learn from Mr Ham that the two universities are in competition for students who are seeking better than average accommodation. Providing better accommodation will resolve this competitive difference.
How comes? Surely, students are firstly attracted to courses in disciplines which they wish to study? En suite bathrooms might just swing it, but surely this must be something rather less tangental to other factors? An opportunity to study law at a leading British university might one feels weigh more heavily than considerations of which ones can provide fitted carpets and Wi-Fi equipped 'rooming'.
Unless of course this is nothing whatsoever to do with academic excellence but a chance to suck yet more cash out of the student loan into the coffers of one of these 'competing' universities.
Despite Mr Ham's company profitting by this scheme, he remains "sensitive" to the feelings of the objectors – one hundred per cent of both Liberal Democrats and local Labour party officials and a sizeable number of private objectors. Mr Ham's sensitivity makes all the difference. It would make more of a difference if Mr Ham were to move into the area he is so committed to turn into an above average student ghetto and experience for himself the price others will pay for the revenue stream his company is creating for itself and the University of Northumbria.
Meanwhile back at Low IQ Central ...
Councillor Gareth Kane said: “We would have preferred family accommodation there to re-balance the community ... (Which is why the Council never produced any such scheme and the site was twice ear marked for offices – of which several large, modern and very empty examples dot the city already) .. but legally we knew we were in a difficult position to argue and the committee couldn’t turn down the proposal.”
Why ever not? Proposals are turned down all the time. What hold has Metnor and client the University of Northumbria have over the Council? And why not argue any way? You do have an argument, don't you?
AOB
Undiscussed by The Journal but of potentially greater importance to the future of the open space, were the examples of 'doing up' the "threatening" City Stadium site presented by Metnor – who do not own this ground. These include proposals which suggest this piece of open space will effectively come under the control of whomever controls the new student accommodation development – Metnor or its client, the University of Northumbria. This does "threaten" to turn this precious piece of inner city landscape into a private pitch for students to play on and the rest of us to skirt around. Remarks made by Metnor's PR representatives at the public presentation I attended made this intention – to control the open space – clear. To them obvously, it was done deal.
Older posts which are relevent to this subject include (oldest first):
The Letter
An Exchange of Views
BREAKING NEWS!
But will it ever happen?
It is all becoming clearer now
Mr Ham is not an educator, I presume. I rather believe Mr Ham is the director of a company wishing to diversify away from a slackening demand for factory and wholesale warehouse construction into the rapidly expanding and lucrative student warehousing market. His views about the two city Universities as quoted are interesting and contradictory.
According to what I read in The Journal I learn from Mr Ham that the two universities are in competition for students who are seeking better than average accommodation. Providing better accommodation will resolve this competitive difference.
How comes? Surely, students are firstly attracted to courses in disciplines which they wish to study? En suite bathrooms might just swing it, but surely this must be something rather less tangental to other factors? An opportunity to study law at a leading British university might one feels weigh more heavily than considerations of which ones can provide fitted carpets and Wi-Fi equipped 'rooming'.
Unless of course this is nothing whatsoever to do with academic excellence but a chance to suck yet more cash out of the student loan into the coffers of one of these 'competing' universities.
Despite Mr Ham's company profitting by this scheme, he remains "sensitive" to the feelings of the objectors – one hundred per cent of both Liberal Democrats and local Labour party officials and a sizeable number of private objectors. Mr Ham's sensitivity makes all the difference. It would make more of a difference if Mr Ham were to move into the area he is so committed to turn into an above average student ghetto and experience for himself the price others will pay for the revenue stream his company is creating for itself and the University of Northumbria.
Meanwhile back at Low IQ Central ...
Councillor Gareth Kane said: “We would have preferred family accommodation there to re-balance the community ... (Which is why the Council never produced any such scheme and the site was twice ear marked for offices – of which several large, modern and very empty examples dot the city already) .. but legally we knew we were in a difficult position to argue and the committee couldn’t turn down the proposal.”
Why ever not? Proposals are turned down all the time. What hold has Metnor and client the University of Northumbria have over the Council? And why not argue any way? You do have an argument, don't you?
AOB
Undiscussed by The Journal but of potentially greater importance to the future of the open space, were the examples of 'doing up' the "threatening" City Stadium site presented by Metnor – who do not own this ground. These include proposals which suggest this piece of open space will effectively come under the control of whomever controls the new student accommodation development – Metnor or its client, the University of Northumbria. This does "threaten" to turn this precious piece of inner city landscape into a private pitch for students to play on and the rest of us to skirt around. Remarks made by Metnor's PR representatives at the public presentation I attended made this intention – to control the open space – clear. To them obvously, it was done deal.
Older posts which are relevent to this subject include (oldest first):
The Letter
An Exchange of Views
BREAKING NEWS!
But will it ever happen?
It is all becoming clearer now
Lose some win some
Lose.
As predicted the student 'ghetto' proposed for the former paint factory site overlooking Battlefield is to go ahead. I received no acknowledgement of my objection having been considered; however it seems I was not alone. Read more here.
Locally elected Councillors were 'over ruled'.
Win.
The Newcastle "Journal" is reporting (11.04.09) that the long saga over permission to build a thirty something storey tower in the Lower Ouseburn is over. The developers have sold their slab of land and the scheme which has hung over the area like a curse is finished. But given this city's record – what next?
Incidentally, The Newcastle "Jounal" and journalist Tony Henderson have a fine record of standing up for what is best in the built environment and campaigning against the excesses of the planners at the Civic Centre. It is they who have given voice to the many who regarded the tower scheme as a nail in the coffin of the regeneration acheived by local enthusiasts and visionaries.
As predicted the student 'ghetto' proposed for the former paint factory site overlooking Battlefield is to go ahead. I received no acknowledgement of my objection having been considered; however it seems I was not alone. Read more here.
Locally elected Councillors were 'over ruled'.
Win.
The Newcastle "Journal" is reporting (11.04.09) that the long saga over permission to build a thirty something storey tower in the Lower Ouseburn is over. The developers have sold their slab of land and the scheme which has hung over the area like a curse is finished. But given this city's record – what next?
Incidentally, The Newcastle "Jounal" and journalist Tony Henderson have a fine record of standing up for what is best in the built environment and campaigning against the excesses of the planners at the Civic Centre. It is they who have given voice to the many who regarded the tower scheme as a nail in the coffin of the regeneration acheived by local enthusiasts and visionaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)