Additional Information (if any): These pocket parks were accepted on appeal a few months ago and were recently removed. When I appealed the removal I was told that Pocket Parks no longer meet criteria. I am asking for clarification over Pocket Parks. The first park has a bench and numerous “No Ball Games” signs to stop people from playing football but otherwise is visited widely by numerous people in the community for recreation. The second park has just the 1 sign asking that visitors not play ball games. But still is visited by numerous people playing other games and walking their dogs. I know the residents in the area and none of them requested any removal of these wayspots. I’m happy to abide by new guidance on the acceptance of Pocket Parks. These Pocket Parks were created when the estate was established in the 1940/50s. They are permanent features with public right of way.
I have marked this topic to “watching.” Simply not meeting criteria has never been a reason for removal in the past. How did you appeal these removals to get this statement?
I feel like it’s a bit of a stretch to call the Ascot Avenue submission a park, but I can appreciate opinions may vary here. Patches of grass like that are not uncommon on British streets, and grass doesn’t automatically equal a park.
I have a small field right outside my bedroom window that’s popular with dog walkers and people having a kick around, but I wouldn’t attempt to submit it as a park because it isn’t really a park, it’s just a field of grass that makes me very sneezy during the summer months.
If these random patches of grass are deemed eligible, maybe I should submit the field, but to me it doesn’t really seem noteworthy.
I’m in the UK and have never considered spaces like this to be parks. Using the phrase “pocket park” is disingenuous. I understand the attempt to get more pokestops, but not stretching definitions this much.
These are managed green spaces. There’s lots of them around and they are just part of the furniture (basic infrastructure). We are lucky in the UK to have publicly accessible green spaces like this, but not every piece of mown grass deserves to be a wayspot.
I appreciate your opinion. The second picture is not just an open field but a council manicured green which is intentionally created by the council for public recreation. It was part of how the council developed the area. Which is why the houses next to it don’t have gigantic back gardens like the rest of the houses to the side.
I personally are not confident in the eligibility of these “greens” (this is what we have always called them, only heard the term “Pocket Park” recently.
We did have a discussion a few weeks back and people did state their opinions but nothing really convinced me.
As a “Pocket Park” I would expect something else here that might be eligible such as picnic benches but to me these are just gaps when the estate was built grassed.
As stated, this is just an opinion based on local knowledge so on the couple I have received to review I have skipped.
It’s possible (complete guess here) that the appeal, which was originally accepted, was re-evaluated.
We’ve seen in other threads that this does happen to rejected appeals, as these can sometimes turn into acceptances after someone posts here requesting a re-evaluation. Therefore it should be possible for acceptances to turn into rejections without the full “does this meet removal criteria” rules being applied.
I disagree that it is disingenuous. Councils all over the UK have provided residents with curated green spaces for years. These aren’t just a field which hasn’t been developed yet.
@NianticAaron I appreciate you have resolved the original issue and are busy. I was wondering about the wayspot move.
Per guidance, wayspots for greens/pocket parks should be located in the middle of the area submitted. This is where the wayspot was originally located. Any move pushes it outside of the middle of the green. Is this a correct move and If I ever submit a pocket park again or advise someone about a similar submission, should I submit them elsewhere?
