“Access denied”

Between the stadium buildings in the background and the canal embankment just to the left of the frame of the photograph above is a wide strip of land that used to slope gently to Perry Reservoir.

To provide facilities demanded for the Commonwealth Games, this area was landscaped into two plateaus - the lower one now housing an athletics warm-up track, ringed by floodlights - the upper one theoretically a field for throws events, but even during the games it seems nobody used it.

So, what’s the issue?

Well, this wide strip of land was a well-utilised and important area for residents in the surrounding streets - families would take their kids to play, walk their dogs, or generally enjoy a stroll in the park down to the lake.

People reluctantly resigned themselves to losing part of the park for the new running track - and yes, it was new, there didn’t used to be a warm-up area in this location, contrary to some attempts at rewriting history to justify decisions.

But the community was promised that the upper plateau would be restored as parkland and returned to the community as part of the public park.

We know now that the Council’s promise to its people is at risk of being broken - unless we can stop plans to permanently deny the public access to this important community asset.

We know this because the community was told so at a public meeting on 25th January.

But we can also infer it from the next photograph…

This photograph shows the extremely narrow gap along the northern edge of the upper plateau (the “throws field”).

We were repeatedly promised that people would be able to walk along a proper path from the northwest entrance to the park (behind the camera position) down the hill to Perry Reservoir (out of shot in the distance, to the left of the image).

What you can see in this photograph is the boundary fence for the “throws field” on the right of the image, and baby trees (“whips”) planted along the foot of the canal embankment on the left of the image - with barely enough room for a single pedestrian to walk in between - let alone anyone with a pushchair, or allowing space for people to pass.

Once the whips have established and filled out, how much space will there be?

Once the white, temporary fencing on the left has been removed, and the vegetation blends in to that of the canal embankment, is the intention that there is to be any meaningful gap between the embankment and the black mesh boundary fence?

What are the most likely explanations for this?

Bizarrely-phased and unnecessarily expensive work, requiring the fence to be relocated?

Dubious measurements (there are, after all, dead ends of paths that stop at angles that point towards the canal embankment)?

Or, quite simply, the intention to deny the community access as had been repeatedly promised?

If you agree that the community deserves answers - and that promises need to be kept - please sign our petition!