spowell 92

The filled in dental practice/school corners making the ground look unique iss the worse barrel scrapping argument I've heard to justify the (not)grandstand.

Plymouth has loads of parks and woodland and it only take half an hour to get to Mt Edgcumbe or the Moors. Have a look at Google Earth - it's surprising just how green Plymouth is.

p.s. Master Powell, having been here a while now - still think we are all freaks and weirdos?

hairy j wrote:

Plymouth has loads of parks and woodland and it only take half an hour to get to Mt Edgcumbe or the Moors. Have a look at Google Earth - it's surprising just how green Plymouth is.

Let's hope James Brent doesnt get his hands on either

So, that's it then. If a boulevard ain't packed, it's of no use. Philistines rejoice. Rickler, what is your idea of healthy inner city space ?

Parks are supposed to be places of exercise, sport, peace and contemplation in the urban sprawl.
The Hoe is pretty empty most of the day, every day. Do you want that to also be yet another long retail and eating opportunity ?

Hairy J .... Do you know it costs a family of 5 nearly £15 just to get to Mount Edgcumbe and back ? and if they're on bikes, another £5.00. Are you one of the new internet Philistines that can only judge Plymouth's environment by using Google street view ? "
How many parks would you despoil in the Plymouth City boundary ? What would actually induce you to go to the park with your children ? a sweet shop, a KFC ? a cinema ? Maybe Brent is right with you lot ... maybe he's got you sussed. How many burger opportunities do you need in your daily city life ? In fact how many green spaces are there in Plymouth compared with burger opportunities ? Best check Google earth I guess.

Why does it cost 15 quid to get to mount edgecombe ?

20 facts about urban green spaces

Urban green nation: building the evidence base draws together over 70 different sources of information to find out what it can tell us about the state of England’s publicly owned urban green spaces.

Parks and open spaces were the most frequently used service of all the public services tracked as part of the Place survey, with respondents reporting higher use of parks than the other cultural and leisure services such as sport and leisure facilities and libraries.

In urban areas, 87 per cent of the population have used their local urban park or open space in the last year, and 79 per cent have used it in the last six months

In England 81 per cent of respondents have used their local park or open space in the last six months. This compares with 32 per cent that had used concert halls, and 26 per cent that had visited galleries.

In 2007, 91 per cent of people thought it was very/fairly important to have green spaces near to where they live, and by 2009 this had risen to 95 per cent.

Overall, 99 per cent of urban authorities either have a green/open strategy in place, or are in the process of preparing a strategy.

In England 80 per cent of people are very or fairly satisfied with their local area as a place to live. This falls to around 50 per cent in deprived areas.

General satisfaction with parks and open spaces in urban areas is 69 per cent (2009).

The most affluent 20 per cent of wards have five times the amount of parks or general green space (excluding gardens) per person than the most deprived 10 per cent of wards.

Areas that have very few black and minority ethnic residents (less than 2 per cent of their population) have six times as many parks as wards with populations that comprise 40 per cent or more black or minority ethnic residents. If one looks at all types of green space (not including gardens) a ‘broad’ definition of quantity of green space – this difference is around eleven times.

In the most affluent areas, fewer than 0.5 per cent of the population experience more than three least favourable environmental conditions; in the most deprived areas it is 22 per cent.

Fifteen per cent of 16-24 year olds think parks and open spaces most need improving, compared with 8 per cent of 55-74 year olds.

Only 50 per cent of residents in wards with more than 40 per cent of black and minority ethnic residents are satisfied with their local area as a place to live.

The most deprived 10 per cent of wards have a frequency of 51 visits to green space per year, compared with 62 in the most affluent wards.

The most deprived wards have only 40 per cent of adults doing moderate physical activity regularly, while this rises steadily across the bands to nearly 60 per cent in the most affluent wards.

Areas with intermediate proportions of black and minority ethnic people (between 11-40 per cent of ward population) made the greatest use of parks and open spaces.

In terms of physical activity, moderate physical activity is lowest in the areas that have a population of more than 40 per cent black and minority ethnic people and highest in those areas that have a population of between 11 and 20 per cent.

Between 7 per cent and 18 per cent of households live within 300 meters of green space. 25 per cent of homes have a green space of some sort within 500 meters.

The British Household Panel survey asks respondents the reasons why their area is a good or bad place to live. 44 per cent of the reasons given related to quality of public space.

The Survey of English Housing asks respondents to list the three main things that would improve their local area. Issues relating to aspects of public space are cited as many times as factors relating to employment, health and housing.

The number of urban parks receiving a Green Flag Award rose from 487 in 2008/09 to 594 in 2009/10.

Winter Green wrote:

So, that's it then. If a boulevard ain't packed, it's of no use. Philistines rejoice. Rickler, what is your idea of healthy inner city space ?

Really, Winter Green?

Don't put words into my mouth. I only raised a valid question.

What? Where did I say any of that. In the Summer, we freqeuntly use our local park - my youngest are five and seven and they love the park. During last Summer, we took them up to either Central Park or Freedom Fields almost every week day. We often take a walk around Saltram and they love Burrator - we tend to take a picnic. Living in Lipson, there's Freedom Fields, Beaumont Park, Trefusis Park, Central Park and Saltram within a 30 minute walk - and Lipson Park, Hartley Park and Tothill Park. That's a lot of parks.

There's a load of green places in Plymouth to go to.

Plymouth has 4 parks that are Green Flag rated.
http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/homepage/leisureandtourism/parksnatureandgreenspaces/pnrgsmanagement/greenflag.htm

Dane. wrote:

Why does it cost 15 quid to get to mount edgecombe ?

Cremyl Ferry price, I would guess.

It's a bit bonkers to genuinely reject to AFT plans on the basis of them taking up an extra few hundred yards of dog toilet land. In the grand scheme of things the impact of losing that tiny area pales in to insignificance when compared to what their version of Phase 2 would have brought to the club, the city, and indeed the park by way of asthetics.

Dane. wrote:

Why does it cost 15 quid to get to mount edgecombe ?

Cremyll Ferry   fare 2 adults 3 children (5 to 15) 3 bikes £15.60 plus expense getting to Stonehouse

Dougie wrote:

p.s. Master Powell, having been here a while now - still think we are all freaks and weirdos?

Yes   but then what does that say about me?   

Dane. wrote:

Why does it cost 15 quid to get to mount edgecombe ?

Unless you fancy the absolute doddle of a swim  , try the Cremyll ferry. That's what it costs.
Some Devonport kids have never been there unless their school has taken them. A lot use the excellent Devonport park these days though. It just takes a bit of effort, community involvment, and a bit of investment and belonging. And guess what, not a banker or retail opportunity in sight.
Why would anyone want someone to lay more concrete in a park when there are hectares of derelict land still begging to be built on within the city. I myself live next to a WW2 bomb site where at least 10 residents died. And it still hasn't been rebuilt 60 years on !
Madness.

Winter Green wrote:

Some people just don't get municipal parks.
How often do you use the park Angry ?
Is it a park you use at all ?

I walk through it quite often Penzance  

Angry, I use it every day. I have an allotment there. Again, how often do you use the park ? Only fair to answer.

spowell92 wrote:

Dougie wrote:

p.s. Master Powell, having been here a while now - still think we are all freaks and weirdos?

Yes   but then what does that say about me?   

Spowell have you reported back to the farm the warm welcome you have received from us.

I can remember going by ferry from Mutton Cove to Cremyll for one old penny, before your time Dane

The worst thing their did to Devonport Park was to split in in half by building that road.

Winter Green wrote:

Angry, I use it every day. I have an allotment there. Again, how often do you use the park ? Only fair to answer.

what has my usage or anyone else's got to do with anything? what is your agenda with this topic as you seem to be on the defence for no real reason.

People always play the loss of green space card when talking about central park, but if the council removed the spoil heaps left over from the building of the life center and returned them to useable parkland that would then free up cottage field.

My preferred option would have been for Argyle, an adequate stadium and everything else to stay completely within the old footprint. Sadly that was not an option given that Brent's quart-in-a-pint-pot plan had already splurged out onto 1.22 acres of Central Park but I would have sacrificed Cottage Field if it meant that we had ended up with a development that allowed Home Park room to expand should it ever need to.

The lack of possibility for any realistic, affordable and viable expansion in the future (and forget the Lyndy thing because that's just, at best, piffle or, at worst, deliberate smokescreening) means that Argyle, if it ever is to be sustainably successful, will one day have to leave Home Park. At which point nobody else will have a use for the stadium and it'll be flattened and built upon in some way.

This is the very worst scenario imaginable for Plymouth, Plymouth Argyle, the people of Plymouth and Central Park and to avoid the possibility of this then losing Cottage Field (which is still ear-marked for development don't forget) was a price well worth paying.

Still we have what we have and what that is is a plan so complicated, so completely rubbish and so tellingly lacking in funding that it'll probably, hopefully, never be realised at all.

And if/when it all finally collapses and gets junked it won't be because I, or any of the rest us appalled by it, didn't support it it'll be because it was such a fundamentally shit plan from the very beginning.

And all it would have taken was a little genuine consultation and compromise during the early planning stage and it all could have been so very, very different.

I've no agenda. It's far too late for that.
Someone just stated they didn't support the AFT working group proposals wanting to annexe Cottage Field to allow commercial activity, and I agreed I also didn't support their angle. Way off beam in my opinion.
I like the idea of a Trust owned and run club far better than the present set up. But their Cottage Field thing just split any opposition there and then and was never a political goer. Typical Southern football centric solution from football fans. I wonder what would have happened to Liverpool's Stanley Park if Argyle fans had had their say ?
I'm afraid my green credentials come before my football supporting credentials.

Me? I would build over the whole of Central Park. I'd build a new shopping centre based on Nandos & McDonalds. I'd build a couple of multiplex cinemas. I'd build a Drake Experience theme park. I'd build a new road to get rid of that awful Outland Road. I'd build a couple of cheap hotels for the customers of the Drake Experience theme park. I'd provide a state of the art computer building to enable the people of Plymouth to access web-cams spread around the empty spaces of the south-west peninsula to give an idea of what it looks like. And I'd build a huge Jazz Club.

If Argyle benefit from that I'd be more than pleased.

Winter Green wrote:

I've no agenda. It's far too late for that.
Someone just stated they didn't support the AFT working group proposals wanting to annexe Cottage Field to allow commercial activity, and I agreed I also didn't support their angle. Way off beam in my opinion.
I like the idea of a Trust owned and run club far better than the present set up. But their Cottage Field thing just split any opposition there and then and was never a political goer. Typical Southern football centric solution from football fans. I wonder what would have happened to Liverpool's Stanley Park if Argyle fans had had their say ?
I'm afraid my green credentials come before my football supporting credentials.

I am all for keeping the park a communal green space for sport and leisure pursuits never been against it i want it to be protected more so than it has been by the council who seem to bend the rules of its existence when money is offered.
The park is doomed with this level of development Brent plans to make him and his wife rich at the expence of others and its only a matter of time before council greed gets the better of them and they start accepting other applications to build on the green areas as money talks at the end of the day.

With that said i did approve of Cottage field being sacrificed like the AFT planned on as it would have been a far better sacrifice to make than what brent plans to do with the cutting down of trees and building a road cutting through a public pathway and going around two busy football stands. The road that is used now to enter the carpark could have been saved and used still and the rest of the park wouldnt be affected.

Ultimately despite Tudor Evans and his clowns assurances cottage filed will be built on before too long regardless and Brent will be the one doing it no doubt.

lawnmowerman wrote:

People always play the loss of green space card when talking about central park, but if the council removed the spoil heaps left over from the building of the life center and returned them to useable parkland that would then free up cottage field.

Hang on. Both should be returned to green space. If that sort of logic were used, what would be the point of any planning policy at all.
But then that would mean private contractors actually sticking to the contracts they signed.

I suspect the "resurfacing" of Cottage Field that has been quoted may well signal some future training move from Harpers Park to Cottage Field, hence opening up certain opportunities there regarding University activities that was muted years ago before the big swindle and education budgets were slashed. That cricket club/ council depot land etc is still the land profiteers have their eyes on to develop further, not Cottage Field.
But hey, it's only a park, whadda I care ?