By the time you get this newsletter, the public the Green space consultation meetings will have finished. Thank you for your letters, unfortunately due to the lack of space we can only publish one in this newsletter. The rest have been published on our website. We ask for your understanding.
“Further to Richard Pyle's missive (Issue 11), I disagree totally with the theorisations made.
1) it is stated that "there is a proven need for additional housing in Henbury and Brentry with 389 people on the Council Waiting list". So, where is the proof? I have not the slightest doubt that every area has a waiting list - most greater than this one. Moreover, there are many areas of the city that are derelict or semi-derelict (Stokes Croft, around Temple Meads and areas around the canal basin) that are crying out for redevelopment from their current appalling states. Why not use these areas for housing? 2) it is stated (without any proof being offered) that Henbury has "one of the largest elderly populations in the city". Yet, flats in Henbury specified for the over fifties cannot find tenants within this age group according to the Council. There appears to be a conflict of evidence here? 3) the previous housing development on Crow Lane Open Space was turned down by the Council on the grounds that the positioning was "isolated". Has the area suddenly become less isolated? 4) there is already a clinic and health centre which serves Henbury very well. Why spend yet more money reinventing the wheel?
5) is this the same Richard Pyle who supported the Wheels Park on Crow Lane Open Space? When this support was challenged, was it the same Richard Pyle who wrote that any noise from the Wheels Park was of no consequence as the adjacent flats were double glazed? If so, is it the case that people are not allowed to open their windows? 6)and lastly, the reality is that there will soon be no Open Space in Crow Lane with the planned supermarket destined to be there. This is undoubtedly going to cause severe traffic congestion - despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary” Chris Cross, resident
“Chris is cross and wrong too. 1) Bristol City Council provides the official housing need figures not me , 2) Population age groups can be obtained from the last census 3) The housing application on the old swimming pool site was rejected as over intensive 4) Local health providers have been seeking a new site for a modern clinic, 5) At no stage did I say the Wheels Park was of no consequence to flat dwellers, 6) I believe that Crow Lane open space will stay an Open space” Richard Pyle answered.
We would like to thank Jenny for the support she has given to the newsletter group. We will miss you! Good luck , Jenny.
We would also like to thank all the people who are helping to deliver the newsletter. It’s a fantastic team!
Lastly, we would like to thank all the organizations who trust our newsletter with their adverts for their support.
We are very proud to welcome 2 more students to the group , Ryan and Tallen. They are willing to help with our website on the internet.
Do get in touch with us by emailing us at henburyandbrentrynewsletter@gmail.com or on mariannapaf@hotmail.com or by phoning to Marianna on 0117957032 or 0791337199.
If you would like to give us an article or your input for the next issue please send your email to
mariannapaf@hotmail.com or contact us on 07913037199 or 0117 9507032 before the
28th of February 2011.
1 comment:
urther to my published letter in the last Newletter issue, my name is not "Chris Cross" - but Chris Evans - as was clearly stated at the bottom of my emails. I also note that Richard Pyle was apparently given access to my letter prior to publication - an advantage that I was not accorded in respect of his response! However, addressing the issues raised by Richard:
Richard Pyle maintains that I was wrong. So, let us examine his reasoning.
1. I am not querying the accuracy of the official housing needs figure of 389 for Henbury - but only its quotation out of context with the figures for all other areas of Bristol. To pluck a figure from any source and cite it apart from the wider context proves nothing of any worth.
2. The last census is now a decade or more out of date - so that is not particularly useful concerning current issues.
3. My quotation of the word "isolated" (concerning the Council's rejection of social housing planning permission for the Crow Lane Open Space site) was taken directly from the Planning Department's own documentation. This apart, whilst I was not in favour of this development, the fact that Richard now seems to favour its rejection does nothing to help the 389 people he claims to be concerned about. Better an over intensive home location - than the shelter of a bridge or a cardboard box! However, I note that no response was given to my listing the many sites within the City that are crying out for redevelopment e.g. Stokes Croft/Temple Meads/the Canal Basin.
4. Local health providers and every other bureaucracy are always seeking to expand their empires. Given impending cuts in governmental expenditure - it seems unlikely that such measure will ever attain fruition.
5. Crow Lane Open Space will not remain an open space - and is already in the process of demonstrating this. First we had the "abominable" skateboard park - abominable by location - not of itself. Next a supermarket. Now yet more proposals for further housing provision is already being mooted as the Council are desperately trying to flog off vast tracks of open space within the city to prop up their faltering economy!
7. I also note that many other salient points that I raised remained unanswered. Interesting!
Post a Comment