Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
6 February 2010
20:1639814John you are wrong there my feeling and plans for this great park and to make it better are the same now as they have always been,As for U.K.I.P. I have said this before to that they will go along with their own local Candidate on local issues,and that will come about in next years local council elections,anyway if the public did not think the same way as I do then I would drop it. I also go along with what Mr Cooper says I have always said in local issues vote for the person and the party should take a back seat and U.K.I.P. will do just that.
By now I have like most of you,said all I can at this time about the playgrounds it is good to see some of them geting a make over,but we still need the ones in the wards,they are more then just playgrounds to they are meeting places for the young mums and some dads so they can get to know each others and talk about their own chidren to.
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
6 February 2010
20:5239821I agree Vic and we need more play areas,I was talking about your idea of selling off part of Connaught Park for housing to pay for updating it and having a full time attendant.Not custard pie throwing Andy,just reminding Vic what he has said in the past.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
6 February 2010
20:5439823a point i have made many times on this subject andy, politicians have lost us a play area in my part of town, they still bicker over who is to blame.
victor makes a very good point about the parents(usually the mums) getting together too.
where i live the houses are small, some of the families are large, they have to get out and the old play area at the foot of the western heights is standing empty, must be about 7 years now.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
6 February 2010
21:0139825John I do not mind you sayig that,but the very few houses I was talking about was at the very top of the park and "Yes They would be build for the very well off with the homes cost around £700.000 or more,I think we in Dover need more homes like this I feel it would bring in more funding for the town,but this post is about play areas so if we could keep it to that for now please .Thank you.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
6 February 2010
21:4139837Vic, when I win the lottery and have £700,000 to spend on a house, it won't be in Dover !!
The park is a green wedge/belt, adjacent to a cemetery, access issues and something that should forever be a public area....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
6 February 2010
22:1839842Sorry Paul but this post is about the play areas,but I do understand what you are saying,thank you.
6 February 2010
22:4339847If we're going to degenerate into political sarcasm, can someone direct me to the nearest operational £100k "Spend Spend Bannister" bus shelter please? I presume we are still getting a return on that investment?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
6 February 2010
22:5139851lost me there sid.
where is the political sarcasm, more importantly where is the bus shelter to which you refer?
i will not ask about your bannisters.
6 February 2010
22:5439853Oo er, I typed my post on a different thread about play areas and DDC funding and stuff; I have no idea what it it doing here.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
7 February 2010
00:0439858howard
I think clarendon allocated dosh £100.000 from council coffers(plus 106 planning dosh) should never have been allowed to spend the £100.000 elsewhere.
a meeting shouldh have taken place stating a number of sites preferred by the council.
wouldnt please everyone, but at least we would have a play area.
Those allowing this money to go out of priory should hold there heads in shame.
whatever party.
PRIORY DESERVES BETTER
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
7 February 2010
12:5239889Keith as you know I am with you all the way on this one,and when the time is right I will be asking where the funds went.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
7 February 2010
19:0339925While people argue about where the hospital should be, the funds might disappear because the funds are needed elsewhere; this is exactly what happened to the money for Clarendon Play Area - I'm not saying that was right, or defending it in any way, but that's what happened.
Howard, the play area equipment wasn't taken away by politicians, it was health and safety who decided it was unsafe so had it removed. The question you could ask Howard is why was it unsafe ?
The money has gone and only section 106 money will be used to find any new equipment.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
7 February 2010
19:5539933roger
surely replacement equipment would not have been costly?
it was hardly disneyland, i seem to remember a couple of swings and a roundabout.
i am sure that cool heads can find a way around the problem.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
8 February 2010
07:5439968Play area equipment is very, very expensive nowadays and with the added "consideration" of Health and Safety, everything has to be stronger (to withstand vandalism), safer (so the kids can't hurt themselves) and safety matting provided, in case they fall off. This safety matting is incredible expensive too.
Clarendon could/should be a proper adventure play area, with its natural surroundings it's perfect for it.
Even with just a couple of pieces or so of play equipment, it will cost a fortune and the funding bodies are only funding Strategic Play Areas so I've been told.
I've tried every avenue and I can't make much progress.
I don't agree with Keith's approach about stick one anywhere, as this will lead to even more discontent; put one in a location where it would serve the majority of people/families and the majority of people will be happy.
We all know you can't please all of the people all of the time, but at least go for the majority.
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
8 February 2010
08:3439973ROGER
Before you mis quote me let me make my position very clear!!!!!!
Yep priory had p[lay area had equipment removed through health and safety,(thats questionable, but i suppose in todays compensation climate it is a must, )
Many areas had been put forward but none taken up, the oifficers appeared to want 100% support for a site, which was never going to happen.
Before the equipment was taken out there was a guarentee it WOULD BE replaced.
So instead of going for a site that the majority would have gone with, and had an extra £100,000 the cllrs have allowed
1; The dosh to be spent elsewhere
2; No consultation
3; play area lost (or at best play area of poor quality)
4; only section 106 planning dosh to be spent on play area, which will be minimal(if any) because its not guarenteed,
So overall PRIORY again has lost out
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
8 February 2010
11:4939983Roger I say it again the funding it was well over £100.000 was put by for a play area for the Clarendon St and Folkestone rd area only,it was not the District Council that put that fund there but the companys who build the flats ,and that funding should still be there if it was taken out and used for other projects that was wrong in my eyes the only word is stolen from the Priory ward, we must know where that money went to and why.
8 February 2010
13:2240001Vic, surely this is just a FOI request to DDC to get an answer?
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
8 February 2010
14:2840010For the life of me I cannot understand why our local politicians find it necessary to squabble and bicker with one another whilst the playgrounds are left untouched. If consensus needs to be agreed before replacement kit can be organised, FGS stop blaming one another and find a way to resolve it. Whitfield managed to upgrade their play equipment (and even add to it), so why can't Dover?
I can confirm Roger's statement that play equipment is very expensive, having seen first hand how much the new equipment cost at Whitfield Rec. So, what if it is? The rest of the country seem to be able to provide facilities for their kids, so (again) why can't Dover?
I believe that Party Politics is hampering any progress in this town. The politicians seem to enjoy fighting among one another more than righting wrongs. They all seem to find Vic laughable because he's not one of them, but at least Vic wants things done. This pathetic in-fighting just detracts from the issues at hand, like ensuring Dover doesn't become a third world enclave in a country so badly managed we have become, as Barry says on another thread, S.T.U.P.I.D. If we have, it's because of stupid, dogmatic politicians on both sides.
True friends stab you in the front.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,023
8 February 2010
18:1240033Well Andy you stated it on here .Whitfield has provided new play equipment paid for by Whitfield residents .River and Temple Ewell have done the same .We are now back to the toilet arguement .Would DTC take the play area on ??Now we start another debate .
DDC will only support the strategic areas
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
8 February 2010
18:5440038Sorry Sue,but by the time Paul Watkins and the rest sell off anything else,there won't be anything to be a Counillor of,at the rate of sell off and joining forces what will be left for DDC to run in say 2 years.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!