Home / Consultation / Discussion Forum / Disagree with the proposals?

Consultation

Disagree with the proposals?

«

Previous topic

|

Discussion Forum

|

Next topic

»

You need to be logged in to get access to the forums. You can do so here

Author	Message
Administrator User	Monday 05 November 2007 4:58:20 pm Please tell us if you disagree with some or all of the proposals. If you don’t like any of the scheme, please tell us, or if there are particular parts you don’t like, please tell us about these as well.
Richard Burton	Saturday 01 December 2007 5:08:28 pm While I support many of the proposals I am concerned about the affects that some of the major projects would have on the existing park environment. Removing the concrete edging from the lakes, changes to the Ver and replacing Westminster Lodge would cause serious, long-term, disruption to wildlife and visitors. These projects would also absorb large amounts of money that could be better spent on other improvements such as the creation of ponds around the park. The lake does need some improvement but why not naturalise just part of it ? Could Westminster Lodge not be refurbished – although I appreciate that this could well cost as much as its replacement. Other issues that must be considered: Any improvements must not be detrimental to the natural environment. Improvement work to the river, lake and parkland must cause minimum disturbance to the existing resident wildlife. Consideration must be given to birds to avoid disturbance especially during the nesting season. Mature trees must be protected and should only be felled if they pose a confirmed safety hazard or a disease threat to other trees. Public transport should be promoted with people being encouraged to use the bus and train links to visit the park. No new land should be provided for car parking and any improvements to car parks must not damage trees. New paths should avoid tree roots but also be direct in order to avoid people taking shortcuts across grassed areas. Cycle paths should be carefully planned to avoid tree roots, clashes with wildlife, clashes with pedestrians or shortcuts across grassed areas. Littering, fly-tipping, vandalism and general damage to the environment could result from easier access to the park and this must be considered Litter problems associated with any increased catering provision must be taken in to account. Any new attractions must not disturb the peace and tranquillity that is currently a major positive feature of the park. Increased housing in Hertfordshire will result in more water being extracted from the river Ver and this should be considered in any improvement plans. The possible future affects of global warming should be considered.
Nick Hill	Saturday 12 April 2008 3:02:41 pm I definatly do not want cyclists in the park, especially if it was going to encourage the younger generations with their unwashed hair and unruly manner, riding around on their 'trick' bikes. It would be a living nightmare if the teen area (as outlined in the review) was to be one of those concrete parks. Unlike some I'm of the opinion the video games are good it keeps them indoors and prevents them running me over.
Oliver Blowey	Wednesday 23 April 2008 9:56:27 pm Fantastic - After years of endless consultations and frustration we're finally getting cycle paths through the park. No, hang on a minute - what's this in the project programme? Another round of consultation after which we MAY get cycle paths in phase 2 - for completion in 2018! Why is this issue pushed back again when the poll on this website identifies cycle access as a priority? How much more consultation do we need? How do SADC expect the HLF to approve this scheme when it gives such a low priority to the needs of cyclists? Hopefully I've just misunderstood the programme!
Eduardo Alonso	Saturday 21 June 2008 10:07:29 am I have brought many visitors to the Park and all have praised its beauty, wildlife and peace. Hence, I am rather reluctant to introduce any changes that may jeopardize the preservation of our little ecosystem. It seems to me that the proposal will affect our natural environment within St Albans with animals and trees being removed and vehicles (be it as cycle paths or space for car parks) being brought in. Regardless of how carefully such amendments are considered to be made and of the promise of carrying them out in a nature-friendly way I am rather unwilling to initiate such a process. To put it simply: What is wrong with our Park?
Esther Mondragon	Saturday 21 June 2008 10:16:29 am Maintaining the existing wonderful natural enviroment that the park provides all of us with must be a priority. Any improvements, when and if requiered, should be welcome but it is my believe that carring out this project will seriously affect the park's natural life. New and extensive vehicle paths are just not adequate nor necessary to preserve the park and certainly will jeopardise its beauty and peace.