Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
20 January 2009
09:1613278No play area is closing Howard.
I think it is difficult to explain why play areas have been in the state they are in, with out making a political statement.
In 2003, shortly after May, all play areas around the District were assessed and some like Clarendon were found to have had no investment in the previous ten years or so and the equipment had become unsafe - on health and safety grounds. and so the equipment was taken away.
Since then there has been an assessment and consultation about play areas and a number of sites were designated "strategic" play areas and were/are to have new equipment and safety matting - there's also new ideas about what constitutes a play area and what equipment youngsters now like to play on - we all know how strong it has to be with all the abuse that young teenagers put on the new equipment in Pencester and it is very, very expensive.
Any local authority can only raise money through council tax and their prime responsibility is to balance the books, maintain or improve services and fullfil their statutory responsibilities and obligations.
District Council taxes are capped, usually around 5%, so what money does come in has to be carefully and responsibly looked after.
If there isn't spare cash to spend on play areas, what should suffer in its place ? What service that is currently provided for, should be done away with to pay for new equipment in all play areas ?
Money is always being applied for from somewhere or other Sports Council, Lottery etc.), some we win, some we don't, I am not a Cabinet Member so don't know all the ins and outs of this, but in the main that's how it is.
If that is political, then I'm sorry, it's the best I can do.
Roger
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,018
20 January 2009
09:4913285Wifthout being political Roger a good summary of the way it is .THere is confusion over playareas ,some are paid for and maintained by funding which comes through the Housing Revenue account .Tenants were consulted and they drew up a list of the ones which could be funded through the HRA.Parish Councils own many and they are funded through their Parish precepts .DDC have stragetic sites ElmsVale being one of them .We have had this debate for the past 5/6 years .If posters can name the play areas they think are closed name them and I will tell you how they are funded .On another note tell me what services we should cut to maintain outdated play areas.d Difficult times to balance budgets .
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
20 January 2009
09:5213287No play area is to close?????? not the same documents im reading?
A number of sites(even the leader of council agreed) play areas will have equipment taken out(so ok the green space or tarmac might still be there but the play area as an area will be gone)
So itsagain playing with words.
But if Rogers saying that the council had a re think and not taken the consultants advice, and will now NOT be closing play areas Ie taking equipment out, then i welcome this move.
Maybe Roger would like to clarify.
Whilst Roger talks about the Clrendon play area wots the latest on the new play area? taken away from clarendon, was going to be replaced, still nowt, wots the update.
I can now tell residents around the Mount Road site that there play area down for closure is not going to close
is that correct roger?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 January 2009
20:4413346i suspect that a game of semantics is going on here somewhere.
thanks anyway for the replies.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
21 January 2009
08:5813384Sue
Can you then(as a challenge) put out the play areas that will close wheher hey be under District council control or houing revenue account.
Then maybe we can look at these and give some suggestions
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
22 January 2009
08:2813438Keith - I was trying to make an honest non-political posting.
Now you've turned it political and stirring it up again as usual.
In 2003 as you well know, the adminstration at DDC changed from Labour to Conservative and shortly after (through visits to the play-areas) it became evident that Labour had invested nothing in the play-areas or equipment they now purport to make out are so important to our children.
If they were/are so important now, why didn't they invest in them during their ten years or so of running DDC, instead of wasting the £11 million in the reserves ?? They wouldn't have been in that (unsafe) state when we took over would they ?
Why do you continuously gripe now you lot are NOT running the adminsitration.
Whether it is semantics Howard I'm not sure, you may be right - Keith certainly is playing that game, but no area of play will close; the equipment, when it becomes unsafe for children to play on, may well be taken away if there is no money to pay for new equipment, or the Town Council(s) feel they don't want to take over ownership.
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
22 January 2009
09:0413454Isn't it funny, cos im saying it, its allpolitical, I dont care if its a labour administration lib dem or tory i would say the same.
Just pointing out and now roger confirms it, play areas will be closing(equipment taken out)
and people should know.
Think thats fair enough?isnt it?
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,018
22 January 2009
10:1913472This was a good news story and here we have our X Councillor Keith stirring yet again .There has been plenty of consultations many hours walking round play areas ,trip to London which gave us Refurbished facillities in Pencester and Walmer .Discussions with Town Councils and I think only Sandwich have agreed to take one on Conservative..Now this is political neither Dover or Deal Labour administrations have agreed thus far to take any on .Parish Councils maintain theres and for info River Rec costs nearly £30,000 to maintain .Keith I have given the sites out before .There has been equipment removed from a play area in Deal.I think also one on Buckland estate .
Stop stirring matey .
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
22 January 2009
10:3313475Sue
not stiring, just making people aware play areas are closing as you say.
think its right people should know.
wots latest on replacement play area for clarendon? gone very quiet
Guest 682- Registered: 19 Jan 2009
- Posts: 146
22 January 2009
10:4413478Julie Rook and I met with Officers yesterday morning regarding the strategic play areas.
Pencester Gardens - refurbished 2008
Markewood - refurbished 2008
The Butts - refurbished 2008
Elms Vale - should be open again in a couple of weeks - weather permitting
Connaught Park, Kearsney Abbey, Russell Gardens and Victoria Park Deal - intention is to do work on these during this year in design stage.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
22 January 2009
10:4813479and clarendon?
Guest 643- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,321
22 January 2009
12:1013484For goodness sake!
The council are doing what they can with what resources they have. Surely it's better to remove unsafe equipment from play areas than to have a child hurt, maybe seriously, by something that should not have been there. It has been said that it's not the play areas that have closed, just that some equipment has been removed. As I've said before on here, what's wrong with playing with a ball, skipping rope, hoola hoops etc in the areas? Give kids a bit of a hand with ideas and don't hand them everything on a plate, that way they learn and grow. Let's see a bit of encouragement here and not constant knocking.
There's always a little truth behind every "Just kidding", a little emotion behind every "I don't care" and a little pain behind every "I'm ok".
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
22 January 2009
13:0213490When the equipment is removed from a playground (which is closing it no matter what else you like to call it) they are not levelled and made safe for play. What you are left with is an area of uneven ground, part hard surface, part weeds and full of holes. Often the footings are left in place providing dangerous hazards. They are not left as areas suitable for ball games, or any other sort of imaginative play. Having prestige sites in town centres is fine for the press pictures but children need safe and suitable play areas in a convienient proximity to where they live so that both parents and children can enjoy the relaxation and play.
Rant over, back to you Keith.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
22 January 2009
18:1313512I'm sorry Chris, it isn't closing the play area; if it was closing it would not be accessible to the kids.
Why do children have to have a play area a few feet from where they live, what's wrong with walking - walking to a play area.
Why keep griping when we have done more for play areas in Dover District in five years than the Labour administratrion did in ten; that's not to say we are complacent at all.
Let's not also forget that the District Council rates are capped, Town/Parish Council precepts are not.
Roger
Guest 643- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,321
22 January 2009
18:4513518Well said Roger - with you 100%.
There's always a little truth behind every "Just kidding", a little emotion behind every "I don't care" and a little pain behind every "I'm ok".
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
22 January 2009
20:4913534I am sure we have been all over this before on here, but anyway...........
If a site is left unusable, even if it is 'still accessable, it is closed as a play area. The report attached to the new development proposal for Westmount states that a play area is not required because it is within walking distance of Pencester. It is, down the busy Folkestone Road, across the very busy York Street - High Street junction and through the constant traffic at the top of Pencester Road. Not, I would suggest, a route parents of under tens would be happy with their children wandering to unaccompanied. Families that live further afield have to make it an outing or send their children on their own, not a safe option, or keep them near to home, to play in the streets, again not a safe option, or keep them in. During the week school times preclude packing the family up to go to Pencester (or whichever prestige site) which means reserving young childrens safe play activities to weekends, preferably in fair weather.
I personally don't really care which colour administration did what to them in the past as it is the current state that concerns the children that are now looking for somewhere to let off steam. Those play areas were and are the responsibility of DDC and it is to DDC we have to look to for sensible provision. The constant cries of, 'it's not our fault it was the previous administration', are excuses. The problem is now, it is the problem of whoever is on the council now because that is the situation in place when they stood for the job. If you stand for election on the claim that you will try to improve things you cannot then brush it off with the claim that it's not your problem because 'the other lot' left it that way.
Playgrounds are meant for very young children, not teenagers that could be trusted to attend other organised activities, and they need to be close to their homes where their families and friends can know that they are safe.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
22 January 2009
21:5713548just a glimpse through the posts and the confusion of responsibility is clouding things.
district council, town and parish councils and housing revenue account(whatever that is) seem to stand accused to some extent.
i will await a comment from the fuhrer, he normally cuts through the fog.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,018
22 January 2009
23:5413562Local government finance is a minefield Howard .I suspect Paul will squash this debate as it been rehashed so many times .HRA Howard tenants pay their rents and it goes into a ring fenced account .Rents pay for repairs ,housing management ,play areas etc .THe naughty government takes over five million of this money and gives to they say more needy authorities,This is being looked into currently.Hence my little trips out of town . to listen and learn .
When little pigs fly and local authorities have more money then perhaps we could please everyone ,until that day comes Councils have to prioritise.The people were given a chance to say what their Council tax should be used for and play areas did not come up as a high priority .
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
23 January 2009
00:0913563thanks for that susan.
the subject gets ever more complicated.
time for you to get home and sort out nigels dinner now, i think.
23 January 2009
07:1313567I think "the people were given a chance to say....." is a bit of an overstatement!!! And it implies that the LA was "giving" the proles something extra - a say in local government is a right, not a privilege! And we all know what Consultation means..... But I am not carping, it is true LAs have to prioritise and that is a tough call - just don't flannel us with loose talk about consults and choice.