Yep, I confess I do remember. However, if the equipment was removed what happened to it? Why wasn't it replaced. It's the kids who are missing out here.
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
All up and running.
And the sun is shining.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
Paulw
yep like you EVERY constituent in priory will also remember
and I will remind them
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
But Keith, it was your administraion that didn't invest in the play equipment - should I remind them of that ?
Sid, about the time the equipment was taken out, there started a review of all the play areas across the whole District.
Play area equipment is very expensive and it was supposed to have been put back as a sum of money was put aside and some section 106 money too, but then disagreements started about whether the Clarendon was actually the best site for a play area and then because no concensus was forthcoming on the best site, the money got used somewhere else.
This has been argued over time and time again and still no concensus, but now of course, we can only (?) use section 106 money.
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
THE FACTS;
I have nowt to gain any more over this, so i will again put FACTS out.
The play area was taken out as ROGER says but remember it can be said all administrations had neglected them.
But we are now in a different climate, in my day you could play on equipment, fall off and learn from that not to do it again!!! today its all about health and safety
no one wants anyone to be unsafe, but it did me and thousands of children before no harm at all.
The promise at the time was that equiment would be replaced immediatly.
Since all the talk, hidden agendas/
we now find that not only is priory to lose oput on its play area, but also the money promised by mr watkins has been spent e,lsewhere.
Ant the priory residents have been left to hope they MAY (and its a big may)
get 106 dosh
so lets not let the facts get i the way.
And yes Roger you can tell the people what you like, bring it on.......................
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
Good to see this facility up and running. Sadly though, Keef, for every winner there's another that misses out. Would that it were otherwise. I know that this is an area that has provoked many rows, and obviously continues to do so. From the view of one who isn't involved, I'm just glad to see one area where the kids can enjoy themselves again.
Sid's point is valid, though - why wasn't refurbishment done? That way, some other play areas might have been able to be afforded.
True friends stab you in the front.
Unregistered User
It was removed two weeks after the 2003 election for H & S reasons .Funny that. It must have done a lot of deteriorating in two weeks.
We concluded that there were instructions not to close it during the election period. Whose instructions? Who was the influential ward Cllr.?
He says a lot, but did little.
People will remember the financial mess at the time.
Auditors criticisms etc.
Our wonderful Keith had ten years with his crew running DDC , of which he was a leading light, remember he was not just a District Cllr, he had the full hand, with Town & County. Could he not put a funding deal together?As I have said before, his reputation belies his effectviveness for delivery in his community. Zilch.Remember every site put forward , he objected to or alternately failed to deliver.Remember Elms Vale had an uplift after all the hype. Nothing to do with Keith.Sue and Nigel delivered that one with Roger.Play areas delivered, skate parks delivered.Section 106 money can only be used in the areas it is designated for.Watty
Unregistered User
It was removed two weeks after the 2003 election for H & S reasons .Funny that. It must have done a lot of deteriorating in two weeks.
We concluded that there were instructions not to close it during the election period. Whose instructions? Who was the influential ward Cllr.?
He says a lot, but did little.
People will remember the financial mess at the time. Sid in particular.
Auditors criticisms etc.
Our wonderful Keith had ten years with his crew running DDC , of which he was a leading light, remember he was not just a District Cllr, he had the full hand, with Town & County.
Could he not put a funding deal together?As I have said before, his reputation belies his effectiveness for delivery in his community.
Zilch.
Remember every site put forward , he objected to or alternately failed to deliver.
Remember Elms Vale had an uplift after all the hype.
Nothing to do with Keith.Sue and Nigel delivered that one with Roger.
Play areas delivered, skate parks delivered.
Section 106 money can only be used in the areas it is designated for.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
thanks for the clarification on 106 dosh paul.
looks like we will have to see westmount developed before any more becomes available.
incidentally, i don't think keith was ever a town councillor.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
PAULW
Nice to hear from you pal
Nigel and Sue got Elms vale??? lovely guys and girls
but just like the lib dem leaflet during that election period you now want those two(as nice as they may be)to take all the credit.
When in reality, it was working WITH the local community this facility came into being.
I realise sue doesnt need any credit as she works hard, and nigels toilets fiasco you have at last realised he has been badly damaged, but it wont be that easy.
I did actually work closely with Roger on many issues within the ward in my short 29 years, and ok if you feel you have to just promote ROGER thats fine the locals know better,
ROGER works hard, we may not always agree, but yep he grafts for a belief he has.
Nope i was never a town cllr, nor wanted to be, in fact i have always been critical of them (and i think they are labour control?)
On the sites THERE ARE NO FACTS, THIS IS A ;LIE to say that I objected to every site, shows paulw you are not aware of the sites/details
but hey ho must be an election in the air
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I am with Keith all the way on this one.I was a town cllr for that ward at that time and like the other cllrs of the ward well the red ones anyway keep asking where the £100.000+ funding went and again we are asking today,we have not been told,so I am going to aske under the freedom act what happen and I will need to see all the paper work .I must say I do not know anything about this act but I soon will.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
You are obviously entitled to ask all the questions you wanted to Vic and I hope you get the answers you're after.
The fact is, as PaulW has stated, the Labour group had taken the decision to remove the play equipment in Clarendon, but asked that it wasn't taken out during the 2003 local election period.
I don't know of any site that you did agree to Keith; I know you thought a little play area at Vale View might be good, but that wouldn't help the people/families who live in and around the Clarendon area.
Roger
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Roger, That has nothing to do with the funding that the D,D,C. got for puting a new play area in the ward it could jhave been done some 5years ago thesites where in place and the funding the D,D,C, got would have gone a very long way for paying for it.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,023
I beg to differ .At that time I was Portfolio Holder and Nigel ,an Officer and Myself explored many sites .At that time the then HeadMaster of Vale View would not co-operate ,the WestMount site took an age for planning to be resolved .The original site had problems with access and the site behind the Community Centre was rejected by residents .I think Roger attended meetings of the Priory Forum
Rather than hold up other sites we were able to refurbish Pencester ,Mark Wood ,ElmsVale ,the Butts and now Connaught Park Kearsney Abbey shortly .
Not bad considering we are a low cost rating authority
Its not as easy as appears everything has to have Is dotted and Ts crossed .Agendas double checked etc .
Ok to shout from the touch lines ,so instead of Harping on consider what has been done
FIO availabl;e for all too see . .
Sorry to harp on, but aren't we talking about an already established play area? I hear all the arguments about alternative sites and election manouvering etc., etc., but the point being missed here is THE KIDS ARE THE ONES GOING WITHOUT.
Faulty and/or damaged equipment was removed, there can be no excuse for not repairing/replacing/refurbishing and then reinstalling it. The money to do the job must have been available, even if it was to come from a contingency fund.
Shouting from the touchlines is all I want to do, and from where I stand it seems to me both parties, red and blue, have failed the kids of that area. So how about a bit less of the political posturing chaps and chapesses and get some play equipment back to the kids of that area?
Find a way to make it happen, it's why you were elected.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Mr PERKINS Thank you for saying that, you put it better then I did.
Unregistered User
Find us a suitable site Sid.
But ask Keith's permission first.
Watty
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Mr Watkins there was sites then and still is,I can take you to them if you wish,by your post are you saying that the above funding is still there ,and it is only the site that is holding it up?
Vic, don't start another debate on which site for heaven's sake; we'll never get a solution. PaulW, from the touchline I would suggest the original site.
However, I'd rather not open up the "H&S (or someother reason) stops us reopening that site" argument, so, and I hate to use this word, a holsitic approach to doing what is needed to get the original site up and functional should be adopted methinks.
Unregistered User
I'm not saying anything Vic.
If an unencumbered site can be found that meets all requirements fine. We can start talking at all levels of local government to find a funding solution.
It is not for the trying as Sue and Roger have highlighted and Nigel found out.
Let us not forget the original site had problems as far I am aware, other than equipment.
I'm not chasing this one at the moment because I want to see Vic's solutions.
Section 106 money comes from completed or bond deposited guarantees. It is only applied on completed projects and applies to original applicants [I believe]only.
Of course you have to gets Keith's approval Vic, otherwise He'll start a campaign against YOU.
Watty
