City Farm riding arena (in the park)

[Joe K]

Yesterday, I attended the (public) meeting of TETRA, at the Big Vic. When they handed out the minutes for the previous meeting, I was slightly surprised that it was one I hadn't attended, but wrote it off on being one of those occasions when I just couldn't raise the enthusiasm to brave the customary awkwardness arising out of being somewhere I'm not entirely welcome.

It only hit me late this morning that the reason I didn't attend is that the minutes given out were for the committee meeting on September 9th, which I did go to, mistakenly thinking it was the public meeting, but didn't stay for, obviously. It seems odd that the minutes for this meeting would be handed out to residents, let alone a Bartonite, but I'm not complaining.

These minutes help to explain why Imran Atcha is claiming the riding arena is 'public knowledge', if a private meeting three months after the plans were submitted can do that:

(any typos are probably mine, but I take no responsibility for the grammar)

IA stated they have a plan for the riding school they have already applied for planning permission. IA stated that at the start they stated that one of the plans was to have a riding arena. They have been riding with different organisations already they have their support as well. The riding school will open to all ages. IA also stated very few from this area got to Hartpury or other places for riding. They wil have own volunteers from this area and own riding. People from this area can learn about basic riding and then move on to Hartpury if they wish to go into that field. They will need 40X20 for the area.

IA stated that in the lease the paddock area was already marked in. They stated from the start that they would like to have that area for the riding school. IA wanted to clarify that it was already part of the plan. IA also stated that it will be a big project that would cost around £55,000 and will be a supported by a charity called wooden spoon.

KP stated that it was a good idea and the area was checked and they were happy with it. Existing space is not big there is space for 3-4 ponies. IA also stated that they have been in contact with Cheltenham Racecourse and they came along to have a look and gave advice. KP stated it would be a good idea to get an article in the citizen to show support from the different organisations. KP also stated that even though the young don't use the area but to avoid them complaining you should maybe talk to the young people to make any suggestions and get their views to make them feel included. IA also stated that the volunteers are good very divers and they have also had some Czech volunteers. IA also stated that the area can also be used for other things like sports and if they would like to visit the site they can arrange with Imran. IA also stated that they can leave comments on the website about this plan and if TETRA can leave some comments supporting the plan. PS agreed to this. IA also stated that Adult Education will be making a mural. KP stated that the St James Park Mural is looking tatty and needs changing. Group to make suggestions and what they can do. TW will be liaising with the farm to keep group updated. IA also stated that the friendship cafe will be moving to Chequers Bridge and will be opening soon. PS also stated if their volunteers can help to deliver some of the newsletters.

[Joe K]

New comment:

So you added two documents last week, planning department, but you've dated them for 10th of July and 19th of August respectively. as if they've been on display to the public all that time. Why?

[New para]We know now that the closest Gymnasian came to publicising the arena plan was a meeting of TETRA on September 9th, and even that was to committee, held privately. Where is the evidence of a public consultation?

[Deleted]

It's like the motorway service area application all over again, with schmoozing and bribery behind the scenes for years beforehand in order to get the support of 'community groups'. The real difference is that some clever clogs barrister hired by Gloucestershire Gateway had discovered a legal loophole relating to MSAs, and this was exploited so that the planning application got approval; whereas this current application is illegal, and I'm going to make sure that everyone knows it! I've got an ever-increasing list of people who have conspired to circumvent the rules on the disposal of public open space.

[Joe K]

Indeed, I was beginning to come around to this before, but after being told by Timothy Wood that I couldn't join the new Friends of St. James' Park group either, because the partnership was involved in that as well, I think I have no choice but to take legal action against the BTNP, and thus test this lazy assertion/assumption that any individual can be barred from involvement in activities beneficial to the community, purely on the say-so of a small and unrepresentative group of people, accountable to nobody.

[Deleted]

The all new Friends of St. James' Park is obviously going to be a hand-picked group of people who will do as they are told. Unless the group is independent of any other, both financially and intellectually, then it is meaningless as far as representing the views of the geneal public is concerned.

[Joe K]

Certainly, the 'agencies' running the group can be relied upon to be on message, and the few people who become actively involved in the scheme will probably be pretty pliable, or they'll soon be made aware that their opinions are not conducive to best practise.

Between being kept out, kicked out or just drifting away, it'll soon be just another project that failed because 'we' didn't show enough interest...

Incidentally, the Barton Police have a messageboard now...

www.bartonstreetpolice.forumchitchat.com/

[Deleted]

Five weeks ago, I attempted to raise this issue with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, but they weren't interested, preferring to think that this is a planning issue (which is not in their remit). I went back this evening and read them the riot act, so to speak. I made it plain that the sell-off of the public open space in the park was illegal, and they promised to look into it.

[Joe K]

I hope they do. Saw Kate Haigh tweeting about the meeting: 'Call-in of decision on Llanthony Priory is before Scrutiny, was there sufficient information for the Cabinet to waive the covenants?'

All very dry stuff, but the bit about the Priory's ownership reverting back to the city council if the trust failed was depressingly familiar. Most people said the Barton & Tredworth Community Trust couldn't sell the 'Trust Centre' building to get off the hook for their financial mismanagement, but in fact, they could dispose of any assets they wished to and then hey presto, back in credit and facing no penalties, wind up the trust. The council should be concerned about what is actually left to 'revert' to them if this 'management trust' should 'fail'. Not that I'm familiar with every, or indeed any detail of the proposals, but suspicion about decisions passed by these committees seems to have served well enough in the past.

Was Said Hansdot there, and if so, did he make any comment about the park land?

Sorry I couldn't be there myself, and I'm glad that you were, Kay. We should try to make people more aware of when these meetings are happening, because not everyone is as apathetic as the great majority. There are people, like 'Richardburton' in this article, who want to know more.

The link below contains the minutes for the previous meeting (Agenda Item 3), and as well as all that unsettling info about the priory, refers to your question, Kay. I look forward to this latest meeting's details being posted.

democracy.gloucester.gov.uk/documents/g5085/Public%20reports%20pack%2014th-Oct-2013%2018.00%20Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Committee.pdf?T=10

[Joe K]

By the way, next time you attend a meeting (the next for planning is Nov 5th, I see - Browse meetings and agendas for this committee), could you ask if they permit video recording of proceedings? I'll ask myself if I can make it, but as a carer, evenings are hard to clear. It would be interesting to get an answer, even if it's 'no'...

[Deleted]

Yes, Said Hansdot was there, and he declared an interest when he realised that I was alleging corruption. This means that I was right - he is related to a trustee of Gymnasian.

Saj Patel was also there, observing proceedings from the public area. Perhaps he thought that he might be called over to be questioned about the Llanthony Priory deal by the committee, although I thought that that was Paul James' job; he and Julian Wain were in the seats set aside for those taking part in the meeting but not members of the committee.

[Joe K]

I see that my latest comment, dated 11/10/2013, has been added to the site. Now, however, there are duplications. 'Covering letter', for example, is the Martin Collins Quotation all over again, which is a queer document to begin with, as it puts statements to Gymnasian like 'You have been awarded planning permission to extend onto the park', as if they were recognised facts. 'Planning Statement' is just 'Design & Access Statement' again, so why post it, supposedly, just over a month after the first document?

'Screening report' is yet another blank page. 'Transport statement' is new, albeit upside down, and interesting as a detailed map of the area, but as it describes the patch of land that's been fenced off as a 'Play Area', that only further serves to beg the question; what, if anything were residents told before Gymnasian sought to lease that spot from the city council for twenty years minimum?

It seems, though, that the consulation period is still open, so it's a shame that the notice outside the farm entrance hasn't been renewed to reflect that fact.

[Deleted]

Well, that's odd, because I can't see even one of the new documents. I saw your last comment on the bottom of the list yesterday, but nothing else seems to have been added. I assume that their website is playing up again. As you mentioned months ago, some documents seem to vanish and then reappear.

As for the statement about planning permission in the quotation letter, I assume that that was what the supply company was told by Imran Atcha back in the summer of 2012.

[Joe K]

Interesting. The duplicates have indeed all gone now. Still no answer about the consultation period, and I doubt I'll have time to visit them today. I may go down to the Farm later and see if I can spot these four stables, though.

I'm putting the application link on this page, and any subsequent page, because it's easier than navigating to page 1...

glcstrplnng12.co.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=MPO8VKHMC0000

[Deleted]

I'm having difficulty getting the lease documentation out of the city council. Ruth Silk claims that it has already been sent to me, and that she has also sent it, but I haven't been able to access it yet. It's not the map, which I already have, but the writing that goes with it.

I assume that the stables are the indoor areas where they keep various animals at the city farm. I agree that they would just about be big enough for four horses, but then where would the other large animals be kept when they have to be inside? They've still got pigs and sheep there, haven't they?

[Joe K]

Sounds about right. When I finally got tired of waiting for a straight answer from the city council to my request about Community Emergency Planning, and requested an internal review, I got an answer from Ruth Silk 15 days later, telling me how I could request a review. I replied that I thought I already had...

Community Emergency Planning in Barton & Tredworth