fox20thc Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Originally posted by i_8_1_2 Aah, these are the plans which have been in planning - by 'Menta' - for over a year, yet which residents have only been informed about very recently? Are these the plans reported to be 'welcomed by residents living nearby', despite a majority of said residents signing a petition opposing the proposal of the new path and bridge across the Don? Are you in favour of the potentially vast amount of trouble the bridge will bring to the Winn Gardens estate? Do you look forward to being 'really put on the map' with regards to an increase in crime for the immediate area? No disrespect but do you really think a little footbridge is going to bring about an increase in crime? Regarding the petition, if it is representative of the majority of residents please let me know why when I have asked people in passing if they have been approached to sign, quite a few had no clue what petition I was speaking of. I am aware of the petition and as a resident have not seen it either. The reasoning behind this was due to me being at work. Surely if a petition is representative of the people it should be made acessible to us all, (perhaps put in a local shop or tenants office?) therefore giving EVERYONE a chance to read the opposition statement and make a decison. It appears that the petition reflects the views of the people approached and not the views of the whole community. In addition, it appears in your post that you choose to highlight a footbridge and nothing else. The footbridge will be key to investment in the estate as a whole and without it the whole thing would collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_8_1_2 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Thanks for your pm, however it wasn't neccessary to duplicate your post. Originally posted by fox20thc do you really think a little footbridge is going to bring about an increase in crime? Do you really think it won't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox20thc Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 No I don't the bridge will in effect create a larger cul-de-sac as it will only lead to the new development and no further. You still didn't answer my question regarding the 'so called' representative petition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox20thc Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Originally posted by i_8_1_2 Thanks for your pm, however it wasn't neccessary to duplicate your post. I pm'd the post as I wasn't sure you would be back. Only having one post, I assumed you only registered to state your view on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgharston Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Originally posted by fox20thc I am aware of the petition and as a resident have not seen it either. I am aware of a petition re the SWFC training ground, but not of any petition about Claywheels Lane/Beeley Wood Lane. If there is one I should have ensured I was aware of it as the Chair of the Area Panel (nb: not the Area Planning Board, sorry the names are so similar). If this is a different petition I shall try and find out about it. Regarding the bridge, again, there are two proposed bridges. A footbridge south of Winn Gardens (town side) linking the Tram Terminus with Claywheels Lane neare Niagra. The other a road bridge somewhere to the north of Middlewood Park linking Middlewood Road North with Beeley Wood Lane, effectively creating a trough-traffic bypass link to Penistone Road. I beleive this would be a good thing, especially for the residents of Winn Gardens, as it would move the through traffic away from running past Winn Gardens's windows and squeezing down past Hillsborough School over onto the other side of the river. As long as the build the bridge properly. The plans propose a 'T' junction which would just result in south-bound traffic hurtling straight across the junction and continue striaght into Middlewood. It needs to be a 'Y' junction with the natural flow acorss the bridge and a stop, pause, think, signal, turn junction into Middlewood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgharston Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Does this map make it any clearer? (229K) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox20thc Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Fully aware of the plans jgh, unfortunately some of those in opposition are not. There is a fear factor on the estate that they have been isolated for so long, the idea of people walking through the estate is worrying. The petition has been raised by some older residents of the estate who have been collecting signatures ad-hoc. But as I said before, a random selection of people asked does not offer fair representation as to how people feel. I for one have not seen it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgharston Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Originally posted by fox20thc Fully aware of the plans jgh, unfortunately some of those in opposition are not. There is a fear factor on the estate that they have been isolated for so long, the idea of people walking through the estate is worrying. From what I've seen of the plans - and I only spent 90 minutes reading them, so I may have missed something - the footbridge is proposed to go from the tram terminus/park & ride, running south of Winn Gardens. I didn;t see any suggestion that there would be a link from Winn Gardens itself to a point along the route of the footbridge. Pedestrians would not be able to get to it by walkling through Winn. They would have to go the the tram terminus. You have a valid point, though. Tell planners that if there is a pedestrian bridge, residents of Winn Gardens feel that there should be no access to it directly from the Gardesn itself to prevent non-residents wandering through Winn as a shortcut to the bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BW_resident Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I can see your point about the traffic flow being better for Winn gardens residents, although obviously worse for Beeley Wood Residents (but there are fewer of us and if we get demolished we won't be there to complain)! But the roundabout at Leppings lane is already very busy with long queues on both halifax and Penistone roads, surely this will push more traffic (going to and from town) onto that roundabout possibly creating grid lock? Any plans for solving that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_8_1_2 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Originally posted by jgharston I didn't see any suggestion that there would be a link from Winn Gardens itself to a point along the route of the footbridge. Pedestrians would not be able to get to it by walking through Winn. They would have to go the the tram terminus. ...You have a valid point, though. Tell planners that if there is a pedestrian bridge, residents of Winn Gardens feel that there should be no access to it directly from the Gardens itself to prevent non-residents wandering through Winn as a shortcut to the bridge. Herein lies the confusion. Why then, the need for regeneration on the black path? Personally, I would support a path which does not open the estate up. But one which connects the other side of the river directly to the estate - I truly feel is inviting trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.