I would support all that has been suggested above.
I would like to see the fishing platforms removed as they are never used. These sort of platforms are more for fly fishing to enable the fisherman to reach further into the lake.
These platforms are in the way and never used. They should be removed but replaced with a flat square area on the edge of the lake to enable a fisherman to sit on the bank side on a flat surface.
I would also like to see about 3 or 4 pathways made up to these area’s to enable a wheel chair to get up to a fishing hard base where he/she could sit in their wheel chair and fish. Killingworth Lake is or should be the centre of life for Killingworth and should be used to its full capacity of events.
Comment by Wally Gargett — August 28, 2011 @ 10:29 pm
I would support most of the idea’s but would oppose a few, for example;
1) To suggest you just go ahead with changes regardless, is in my opinion asking for trouble. You have to get agreement from the Lakeshore residents after all they live there and nobody likes dictatorships.
“A Fence built around the small grassed area to prevent wildlife spoiling this area of grass”
I think fences would look horrible and spoil the open aspect of the whole area and not control the birds, as they have the means to go where they want. You also have the cost of putting fencing in place and any ongoing maintenance with every chance of being vandalised. With reference to the suggested plan above any fences erected in front of residents houses would be vigorously opposed.
3 )” The field backing on Hallington mews levelled and grass replanted. Where this field meets the lake a boulder area shelving into the lake or a gentle shelf area. ”
I don’t like this idea because I don’t think this would stop erosion but encourage it. The boulders would also collect all sorts of rubbish. Best idea is to completion the edging repair work until its done right around the lake.
“A path completing the full walk around the lake.”
This is an old chestnut….check out a letter from North Tyneside ‘Environment, Regeneration & Housing Directorate rate’ 7th August 2003 ref fabian yc….in response to a petition opposing the installation of a path to link the car park with Hallinton mews adjacent to 19 Hallington Mews. The Head of Environment Ken Wilson stated ..’The path WILL NOT be installed as originally proposed were it passed by No 19.’
Comment by Robert Wilson — September 1, 2011 @ 3:44 pm
I would just like to say that myself collected a petition regarding a path from Hallington mews to the boat house which received great response. It was then Hallingtom Mews decided to get their petition against this pathway. My petition collected hundreds of names including many from Hallington Mews who said they would love to have this pathway. Many residents new nothing about what their association were doing
Comment by Wally Gargett — September 2, 2011 @ 6:10 pm
Go for it!!
Comment by Richard Alnwick — September 25, 2011 @ 1:34 pm
I agree that it seems pointless if it is intended to build a fence to stop birds from eating etc the small grass area, as they will surely just fly over the top.
My main concern is the persistant flooding of the kid’s play park, which makes large sections of it unusable in any inclement weather. It does seem rather, that a large investment, which is much used and loved, goes to waste due to poor drainage.
Comment by Robert Macaulay — October 26, 2011 @ 7:01 pm
Thanks for your comments Robert.
The park area has been brought up in recent user group meetings which I will post the minutes from. The park drainage has been improved this year. Please remember the park is built on an area of water run-off so drainage levels in this area are higher than others.
There has been a vast improvement in the drainage of this area since the works in the last few months and its currently being monitored by park wardens to monitor progress. Water should be draining within 24 hours. If its not please keep us posted and we will feed the info back at user group meetings with the council to look at solutions.
Thanks for the reply. The area between the lake and the fenced in small kiddy’s play park has been saturated for the last few days, and the sand pit under the rock climbing wall seems to be in almost permanent flood, making these areas useless for their purpose. The play park is without doubt the most utilised area of the lake complex but is the worst affected area. I understand the problems of drainage from low lying areas, but there does appear to be sufficient drop to the lake to allow drainage.
Comment by Robert Macaulay — October 27, 2011 @ 2:44 pm
regarding the path around the lake.i have been informed that originaly there was a path around the lake,from what i have been lead to belive,someone illegaly put up a structure prohibiting people accessing the path
Thanks for your reply, it is very strange,Especially as your acknowledgement to my comments also disappeared?
However as you suggest I will resend my comments.
Comment by Robert Wilson — December 24, 2011 @ 6:08 am
Here are my re-submitted comments about the boathouse pathway from a residents point of view, after my last submission some how disappeared.
Residents objections to a pathway from the boathouse into Hallington Mews are mainly from a PUBLIC SAFETY point of view.
Hallington Mews was created as the result of a nationwide competition initiated by the Council. The winning design by the internationally famous Stockholm based architect Ralph Erskin (who later designed the Byker Wall) was based on an original concept of a PEDESTRIAN ONLY residential estate, completely segregating homes from traffic and guaranteeing safety for children and the elderly – hence a lot of narrow walkways and blind corners.
Creating a pedestrian pathway into the Hallington Mews is not a problem, but BIKES and OTHER TRAFFIC would be. I feel a path would encourage bikes to cycle the path, as they do on the South side of the lake and travel at speed into the estate, which was never designed to accept such traffic. This would present a major PUBLIC SAFETY issue not only for residents but to ALL PEDESTRIANS walking in Hallington Mews.
Any sort of barrier to prevent bicycle entry into the estate has also to allow wheelchairs and pushchairs entry (they must NOT be obstructed) as well as emergency vehicle access (i.e. Fire & Ambulance).
This is not NIMBY stuff as, even now without a proper boathouse pathway, we have had – A HORSE AND BUGGY, QUAD BIKES and MOTOR BIKES, as well as REGULAR BICYCLES travelling the PEDESTRIAN ONLY estate and a lot of ‘near misses’ from this ‘traffic’. It is very dangerous to all and I believe is an accident waiting to happen.
The council proceeding with a pathway from the boathouse into Hallington Mews( without the necessary safety restrictions in place ) would not only 1) change the whole original unique design concept of the estate;
2) but have some hefty litigation claims for negligence on their hands, if an accident did happen.
These are genuine concerns of residents on the estate; so people who do favour the pathway, PLEASE also come up with a solution that would address all of the points above.
Comment by Robert Wilson — December 24, 2011 @ 11:15 am
I have read with great interest the comments above and can add some of my own. I have had a long association with Killingworth Lake, being a local resident and a member of Killingworth Water Sports Association (now not in existence) and Killingworth Model Boat Club. There was originally a pathway right around the lake and a bridge over the cut at the last house on the lakeshore. This was illegally blocked off by the then resident of this house. Killingworth Lake was a beautiful spot on sunny days, with dinghies sailing on the lake, we also had wind-surfers and canoes using the lake. The old block-house at the top end of the lake was originally Council storage for grass cutting equipment and also public toilets. It was an eyesore in those days and remains an eyesore even today, especially after the extension fitted to the back of this building. This building is currently occupied by KMBC and KMYC, who by the way, do not pay any fees to the Council or pay for the electricity they use.
This building should be demolished entirely and not attempted to alter its purpose to a so called Cafe. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and what a sow’s ear this place is. What is needed at the top end of the Lake is a purpose built Cafe with inside and outside seating, an office for a Lake Warden who could collect fishing fees, control litter and prevent vandalism, patrolling the lake regularly and preventing wholesale feeding of the wildlife. By having a cafe at the top end of the lake, this would provide facilities for parents taking their children to the play area, and also encourage people to use the lake more frequently. The model boat/yacht fraternity do not require any special facilities as they only use the lake for a couple of days during the week. Killingworth Lake should be a place where families can take their children for an afternoon out, where local people can enjoy a stroll around the lake and also a place which attracts visitors.
Comment by Chris Wilson — January 23, 2012 @ 12:56 am
An excellent post. How unusual that out of all of the posts your earlier post appears to have vanished until you brought the matter to attention. I haven’t heard of a retrospective scanning spam filter that automatically removes postings?
It is interesting that despite an e-mailed request to the council I have received no acknowledgement of potential liability from North Tyneside Council were the lake to flood and cause damage to property and buildings in Hallington Mews. Under Rylands v Fletcher the council would appear to owe residents a duty of care were the lake to flood onto properties causing damage. The vast majority of Home insurance policies exclude flood damage where a property is located within a set distance of a body of water or rivers and streams.
I would not like to find in the event of the lake flooding that there was no agreement in place to indemnify residents by either the Insurers or the Council.
In my opinion this is of far greater importance than where a bird box should go or a herb garden.
Comment by Martin Clarke — January 23, 2012 @ 11:04 pm
I know the lake flooded a couple of years ago where it nearly got to the houses, this was due to a number of factors including the sluice gate not being opened in time as it had already flooded, the water run of was blocked, the water level being incorrect to start and of course rain fall.
After this the council took measures to clear the water run off and repair the gate, the water level has also been reset, the lake has never come close to even raising since. I believe the council have taken reasonable measures here and of course I think they will do everything they can to prevent flooding. I know my insurance asks which most do now, the distance you live from waters and if there has been flooding in the past.
I think moving next to a lake you are aware of the circumstances and yourself has a certain duty of care to have provisions to protect and insure your property, rather than look for an escape goat.
Where the council have not done there part ie maintenance and upkeep and protecting the water level then I would agree there is a responsibility or duty of care on there behalf.
I don’t think the area is even classed as a risk or flooding area its certainly not registered as one or seen as a risk? I think, please correct me if I am wrong the lake has had only flooded once where it has touched the houses. It has broke its bank a few times but I would not refer to it as a flood?
An interesting opinion, apparently the law doesn’t see it your way: The rule as in “Rylands v Fletcher”; that “the person who for his own purpose brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief, if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape”.
Comment by Martin Clarke — January 24, 2012 @ 8:04 pm