Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
20 November 2008
11:079528#1
Remember Keef many months ago telling you that play areas will be closing.....well in Deal 5 in Mill Hill area have been demolished a week after the new skateboard park was opened,this policy was denied but I had told you of a list of hit areas,now the DDC are saying that some play areas can be kept opened if Town/Parish Councils provide financial support.
This is known as double rating,thru your Council Tax you already pay for these parks and open spaces,if Parish/Towns take them on you will have paid for them thru your DDC rates and then again thru your Parish rates,if you Parish hasn't got the money then kiss goodbye to your Childrens playareas.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 November 2008
20:129569#2
last posting we had from a town councillor on the subject, it was said that there was no planned transfer
from district to town/parish councils.
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
20 November 2008
20:309570#3
So if your Town Council don't pay for the Play areas what will happen to them,close!
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
20 November 2008
20:309572#4
This stinks.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 November 2008
20:339575#5
this is a subject i have given up on, 5 years since we lost the one near me.
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
20 November 2008
20:369577#6
Bern the answer you get is we have spent all the money on Pencester,thats fine if you have young children and are in the Town,but I can't see 5 and 6 year olds walking down from Aycliffe,Buckland St Rad's to play on the kiddies swings for 15 mins.No of course not,and as a parent would you let them no of course not.
The money for Pencester came from the Lottery not the DDC.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Unregistered User
20 November 2008
20:529581#7
Wrong JHG. One area [not five] had play equipment [play area not closed]removed after residents complaints & vandalism. Deal Town Council were asked whether they wanted to support this area & said no.Residents complaining were asked to contact his local councillor & I personally spoke to your group leader , one of the wards councillors about residents complaints.
This play area is not one suppported by council tax payers but paid for from housing tenants rents. This is one of a group of areas that tenants viewed & gave opinions on regarding their long term future.
The only issue I can see that caused immediate controversy was the removal of the equipment without prior notice.
Currently as your leader knows there are moves to replace the smaller areas with modern better equipped locations. In the Deal area discussions continue via the Community Development team to establish new facilities in a better sited location.
We have upgraded Pencester & delivered a new skate park. In Deal we have upgraded Marke Wood & built the new skate park. Elms Vale is on the list for upgrading & we still search for a suitable site for Priory area. Even the original site although not ideal is not ruled out.
There is no doubt in some areas equipment will be removed as their recommended life use comes to an end. If towns & parishes wish to support future provision we have said we will engage.Again these areas are predominantly paid for by council house tenants, who have listed their priority areas.
This issue has been rehearsed on this Forum for many years.
Watty
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 November 2008
22:439586#8
paul
the issue has been rehearsed on this forum for years?
i have been banging the drum about the priory lost one for about this time.
no councillor has responded on the matter.
we were told that the developers of the "webbs hotel site" had set aside a sum for a play area as part of the deal.
what are the facts here?
Guest 652- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 595
20 November 2008
23:169590#9
Priory are still waiting, we have been promised one as we are a deprived area, but we supposedly have nowhere to put it,
why not let us have part of Westmount ground for a play area, Oh no I forgot, we need another 96 flats and few houses built on there, we have not got enough in this area, where are the families of this new development going to play? Answer: the street, the same place as the children are playing today.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 November 2008
23:489594#10
sadly sheila, that seems to be the way.
more and more building of flats(some look very nice i have to add), but no facilities to go with them.
as we are an unofficial dumping ground for problem families from outside of the area, one would imagine that extra funding would be put in place to deal with the obvious problems.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
21 November 2008
08:189603#11
Howard - you know that I have spoken to many people about the Clarendon Play area and have pushed for a new site, or even a revamped and re-equipped old one.
You can't keep saying no Councillor has responded.
Whether you have a serious litter/rubbish/fly-tipping problem, problem families creating all sorts of havoc, no play area, whatever it may be in the Priory part of the Ward, you know you only have to let me know.
I have been speaking to Janet Dawson the new PCSO here and she is working on a number of initiatives including working with the Outreach guy.
Any problems, let me or Janet know.
There is a new body that's been st up at DDC to sort out the various section 106 monies and you are right, there has been money put aside for play areas.
KCC own Westmount and it is their (legal) duty to get as much for it as they can as it all goes back into the (County) pot.
I agree it is a shame that an area could not be given to play, but like almost everywhere where there's play equipment, there is also a hooligan element of people wanting to spoil it; it would probably be not allowed because of the housing there (too much of a temptation for break-ins etc.)
Unregistered User
21 November 2008
10:049614#12
Sheila why don't you & Roger meet Nigel with DDC officers to discuss the way forward. This one seems to go one step forward & THREE steps back. We have had sites identified , sites agreed & then someone or something seems to get in the way.
Watty
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
21 November 2008
15:209622#13
The Westmount proposed development has no space allowed for a play area and the reason stated in the planning application was that it was within walking distance of Pencester. As this is out on to a busy road then across a very busy and dangerous junction it serves as a perfect example of the lack of realism in the planning for play areas. In areas where there is a large percentage of council housing DDC gets a percentage of the rent income for the provision of play areas and yet the suggestion is that Town councils pay for them while DDC spend the money for them and retain the sites. In effect this is asking people to pay for them twice, once in their rent and then again in their council tax. Meanwhile children are left to play in the street or make the journey to the few 'prestige sites' for half an hours play between school and dinner, bed, homework etc. Add to that the fact that if parents were prepared to do that they would be paying full price on the buses for them because it is close to school leaving hours.
And instead of an anti-social behaviour unit and PCSO's & police dealing with the problems of vandalism etc. we are told that it is easier to give in to them and just remove the equipment from the few play areas left.
Have I missed anything out?
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
21 November 2008
17:589629#14
roger
i have asked about the proposed money from the webb's developer for a play area on here many times.
you have never ever responded.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
21 November 2008
18:019630#15
chris
please clarify the last 3 lines of your post, i am confused over the part about the ASBO unit and PCSO's.
Unregistered User
21 November 2008
18:279637#16
Surely, Howard I have invited your elected reps to talks.Does that not signify some response rather than innuedo.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
21 November 2008
20:529653#17
not to my knowledge paul.
would you be so kind as to furnish me with details.
Unregistered User
22 November 2008
08:479665#18
See my ptrevious posting
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
22 November 2008
18:009684#19
misread your post of 5.27 pm 21/11 paul.
i assume that you were referring to previous talks