‘Complete disregard of park’s worth’
QUEEN’S PARK FRIENDS’ OPPOSITION TO PROPOSALS
THE Friends of Queen’s Park group has raised strong objections to controversial town proposals – which include the building of a three-storey apartment block, right next door to the award-winning Loughborough beauty spot.
The Friends is a volunteer group devot- ed to the care and protection of the park.
In a special letter to the Echo, chair Julie Strong, writing on behalf of the group, says that proposals included in the new draft Town Centre Masterplan show a “complete disregard of the park’s worth, “historical value, and the health and wellbeing benefits that it provides to the people of Loughborough.”
WITH reference to the Loughborough Town Centre Masterplan 2017 and the effects the proposed changes will have on Queen’s Park.
We object to all proposals within the Masterplan that adversely affect the nature, history and the present boundaries of Queen’s Park and those plans within the extended Conservation Area that directly affect the values and amenity of the Park.
We consider the award-winning Queen’s Park to be a fine example of a Walled Victorian Park, well-kept with excellent sight lines, and beautifully designed to meet the needs of all its visitors. It continues to thrive and enjoys an enviable position close to the busy town centre yet remains true to its original concept as “a place where the people of Loughborough may take their ease”. Queen’s Park sits perfectly within a border of mature trees which not only give a sense of pleasure but also protects it from the noise and pressure of our busy lives.
So many changes are within the Master Plan that will affect the park and it’s hard to see any advantage there will be for the park itself. In fact, it can be clearly seen by the proposals that there is a complete disregard of its worth, historical value, and the health and well-being benefits that it provides to the people of Loughborough.
We oppose the proposal to sell off a large portion of the popular, profitable and well-placed Granby Street Car park for the building of apartments and mews as this will have a huge detrimental effect on the park. The three-storey building with, we presume, a high-pitched roof to accommodate a lift, will tower above the park and sit uncomfortably on the boundary with no buffer zone between the two.
The apartment windows (to enjoy the view?) will give park users an uncomfortable feeling of intrusion by the owners’ ability to view their activities and directly overlook the children’s playground which is totally unacceptable.
The bowling green, which needs light and air to flourish, would be overshadowed by the proposed development and would result in the green deteriorating over time.
We oppose the proposed cycle path for the following reasons:
It will cut an intrusive new pathway across the park incongruous with the nature and history.
We see from the plans it will run through the rear of the children’s playground across the New Street entrance to the park and through the British Legion Memorial site. This is neither a safe or acceptable option.
We also note that you state the access entrance to the proposed apartment block will be via the New Street entrance which would constitute a development within the park’s boundaries and create an even bigger safety issue. It must be remembered that the park is an enclosed but open space, affording families the freedom to relax without hazardous conflict which, looking at the proposed cycle path and access road, has been woefully ignored.
The Carillon War Memorial is an accepted landmark, not only observed from distant views, but also the present open aspect is an important amenity to retain for the benefit of local people within the town. Its placement within the park was carefully planned and its vista is perfect with the avenue of Limes and pathway up to the New Street entrance. The installation of a cycleway straddling these historical gates and a block of flats butting up to the park’s perimeter would be visually intrusive to the architectural interest of the Carillon, and its purpose.
We oppose the creating of another entrance into the park. Queen’s Park is not a huge park; it is only four hectares in total and has six entrances already.
We oppose the Park yard being sacrificed for the proposed new entrance. The yard is a necessary area for the gardening equipment, parking of the vehicles, storage and recycling that is used on a daily basis.
We consider there is no need for another cafe to serve the park. The present park cafe is a thriving business with an outside space and ideally placed.
We oppose the moving of toilets. The toilet block within the park are in the ideal position next to the children’s playground and we have a further one within the museum.
We presume that the thinking behind the new entrance to the park and the idea of a cycleway is to open the park to the town 24 hours a day thus allowing access without security to the children’s play equipment, the floral displays and flower beds, the water features, the bowling green, the aviaries and the Carillon.
We believe this action would be highly damaging to Queen’s Park and would result in continuous vandalism and a slow deterioration of its standard of care, and finally ceasing to be a safe and beautiful example of a Victorian Park that Loughborough could be proud of.
This Master Plan is insensitive to the park in that it would damage the natural and historical character, valued vistas and principal views both within and through the wider area of the park.
Julie Strong, chair Queen’s Park Friend’s Group.