City Farm riding arena (in the park)

[Deleted]

Joe, that link can't be clicked on.

I tried to contact the legal department at the city council, as I assume that they have a copy of the pdf file of the lease, but I didn't have the correct email address.

[Deleted]

Julian Wain is now reviewing the whole issue.

[Joe K]

Oct 18, 2013 14:49:37 GMT @kaypowell said:

Joe, that link can't be clicked on.

Think I've got it sorted now. I forget sometimes that direct pasting of an url doesn't always result in a clickable link.

Hope Julian Wain's involvement will mean something. Usually, round here, the people above just rubberstamp the decisions below.

[Deleted]

Personally, I think that they're in the manure. One get-out would be to claim that no-one knew anything about anything except Phil Staddon, because he had a lot of power and doesn't work for them any more. I have a feeling that they're going to brazen it out, though. I believe that they're going to claim that the area of St. James' Park that was leased to Gymnasian at the same time as the city farm was, in fact, generally recognised as being part of the city farm. I can't think of any other claim that they could make, can you?

[Joe K]

It passeth all understanding. Blaming it all on Staddon would be a good move, but I think it hinges on the nepotism allegations, and few people are prepared to push that issue.

It's like people parking on the edges of junctions on 'quiet' streets. We're supposed to take it as read that that's not really so serious, all told, but when the regulations were being reviewed, none of our councillors suggested the DYLs should be removed, as they were for the Charles Street corner. Nor that the DYLs could be replaced with single lines, allowing parking at certain times of day.

If councillors didn't make such recommendations, you'd think they would have to fully support enforcing the DYLs we have left, but in practise they get away with doing nothing because they're not challenged by enough residents on their apathy. Nor by our MP. It's not easy countering such indolence, and don't think I didn't try...

[Deleted]

Well, I was sent the lease document today (by mistake, I suspect, as the sender tried to recall the email). It shows that the city council were stating that about 850 square metres of St. James' Park was actually part of St. James' City Farm on 1st August 2011. Let them prove that. I'm awaiting the documents from the planning approval, which should show the extent of the city farm when it was first set up. There was never another planning application till the one for the cafe in 2011, so how can the city farm have expanded lawfully?

When the city farm was first being planned, which I now know was in 1995, the then city council actually purchased a building plot with planning permission for redevelopment (21-23 Albany Street) in order that less of the actual public open space at the park would need to be fenced off and used for the city farm. This whole sorry affair is almost the reverse.

[Joe K]

You asked me what I thought about the document, Kay. Mainly, I think that the City Farm has shown not one piece of evidence that they, or the council, ever consulted residents about a section of St James' Park being withdrawn from public use, and if residents weren't inclined to be doormats in the face of anyone who give the impression of authority, that paddock fencing would be torn down immediately.

On a side note, they scanning of that document is extremely amateurish, with lettering being missed out on the margin repeatedly. But they never really expected the public to get a look at it, did they?

[Deleted]

Joe, you're better than I am at finding things on the internet; could you look up how long a piece of land has to have had a different use (e.g. an agricultural field being turned into a garden) without planning permission before there is nothing that can be done about it? I can't remember exactly when the paddock came into being, but I think that it was around 2006 or 2007. I have an idea that it would have had to be in existence unchallenged for six years. I don't think that at the date of the lease the public open space could have become legally subsumed into the city farm. Also, of course, part of the extra land that was given to Gymnasian had never been used at any time for grazing, so that part can't possibly have been lawfully claimed to be part of the city farm.

[Joe K]

Was it really as early as that, Kay?

I suppse a Freedom of Information request to the city council might shake something loose, or at least shake them up. Nothing quite beats a visit, though...

[Joe K]

By the way, Kay, can you do me a favour?

Can you tell 'Glos10s' that that wasn't the question I asked, that I asked specifically if tenants would care *whether or not* their properties were managed by the city council or some other body? Not whether tenants would care in general.

And he/she still hasn't declared their interest in this.

Council housing sell off 'welcomed by tenants'

Oh, I think I'm banned by the way, because my own attempt to comment is going nowhere. Not sure why.

[Joe K]

I've tried to cover the bases with this request. Getting to think it will make no difference what we say...

St. James' Park; can it be chopped up and sold off?

Dear Gloucester City Council,

Is there any justification in law for a large section of St. James' Park to be leased to the Gymnasian Muslim charity, then fenced off, without any consultation of residents? Do those residents still have a right to appeal against this restriction of public use?

Yours faithfully,

Joe Kilker

(response by 20th November)

[Deleted]

I'm not sure how long ago the 'temporary' paddock came into being, but it looks as if the wood is rotten. I'll quietly ask someone who might remember.

I've posted a reply to the council housing sell-off story that links it with this one rather nicely, I think.

[Deleted]

The council's planning portal is playing up again today. I've just tried twice to search for the document list, and it thought about it for a few minutes before declaring "Invalid configuration".

[Joe K]

It was working again an hour or so back. However, as you'll have seen from my email, the consultation period was never extended, the council receptionist now claims, and my email asking for clarification of this a month back was ignored. It's down to Julian Wain now, I guess...

Planning » Planning Application Documents

[Deleted]

There's a public question time at next Tuesday's meeting of the Planning Policy Sub Committee...