Umeeksk Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 "Selling off the family silver" is of no use in the long term. It is often a short-term measure to: - obtain building land for a developer to profit from. - obtain some capital revenue which will mostly disappear into the communal pot. - reduce the total area of green space that has to be maintained. - provide some money to "improve" the remaining green space. Rarely is there any guarantee of funds for long term upkeep. The relative "benefits" to the neighbourhood and the remaining green space do not always warrant the loss (for ever) of the land sold off. I think that's an excellent assessment of the situation. I'll sign the Richmond Park petition - is there an online version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHarper Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 When/where has the council previously sold off parkland? Wasn't Oakes Park at Norton given to "the people of Sheffield" and then subsequently sold off to a private developer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROUTE66 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 look on the web site http://www.freethefields.co.uk Pettitions never work. Look at the evidance form the freethefields web site. Apply for Village Green Status. Look on the open spaces web site Ask individuals to write to the council. Send the council e-mails. Form a committie. Act fast. Use the freedom of information act to your advantage. Have people been using the land for over 20 years without being challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 .........Pettitions never work......... Sometimes they do. Rarely as a sole gesture though. The best thing that they can do (if designed correctly) is to give a mandate to individuals/groups to carry something forward. i.e. when FYTC's friends request meetings with officer's, councillors etc. it is clear that they have the support of xx,xxx residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted December 5, 2006 Author Share Posted December 5, 2006 To all who have posted thank you for your support and information. When I have more details I will post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prioryx Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 "Selling off the family silver" is of no use in the long term. It is often a short-term measure to: - obtain building land for a developer to profit from. - obtain some capital revenue which will mostly disappear into the communal pot. - reduce the total area of green space that has to be maintained. - provide some money to "improve" the remaining green space. Rarely is there any guarantee of funds for long term upkeep. The relative "benefits" to the neighbourhood and the remaining green space do not always warrant the loss (for ever) of the land sold off. Correct. Yes governments sold off gas, now a very high profit organisation, electricity again high in profit, BT high in profit, railways, properly run another profitable company. It would be interesting to find out how much money the govt could have made out of the profits by still owning these organisations, compared to the money they got for them or from the tax that they claim back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric_Collins Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 why do they want to take a park when houses around parsons cross have been bulldozed and not been replaced ? why have they let that stand with empty green fields for 2/3 years ? ________ Washington medical marijuana dispensaries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted December 5, 2006 Author Share Posted December 5, 2006 why do they want to take a park when houses around parsons cross have been bulldozed and not been replaced ? why have they let that stand with empty green fields for 2/3 years ? I think we need to ask the developers, whovever they are, that question. Could it be they will make more profit building in the park than a council house area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Richmond Park is clearly shown as green belt (unless my eyes are going funny) on the unitary development plan. You can download the maps here - Richmond Park is in the SE Sheffield one. (ps it's a big file so only download if you've got broadband). http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=16366 I'm certainly against any erosion of Sheffield's Green Belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazman Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 why do they want to take a park when houses around parsons cross have been bulldozed and not been replaced ? why have they let that stand with empty green fields for 2/3 years ? Eric in response to the above question, I think it is something that they have to do in relation to some sort of regulations. It has been exactly the same up on the Manor when they knocked down the top of Raynald Road and Queen Mary Road. They have stood as open fields for a number of years and now there is housing going up. I do believe that it is something to do with the landowner which might be the Duke of Norfolk or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.