Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
Very good post Keith.I agree it should be a joint effort.Surely the children come before politics.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Three questions Keith.
1) Why would the Town Clerk apply for money then refuse to take it?
2) Where are the alternative sites?
3) Most important of all, how would a dinosaur fit into a sand pit?
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Howard;
I can't answer for other ward cllrs but I will answer what I know;
Of course without any doubt I stood in priory as a community representative against the 2 political parties as I don't believe political parties should have cllrs on there.
of course children's play areas should come before party politics.
on your 3 questions;
1; I'm nothing to do with the grant but I have asked for the item to be clarified
2; When the CAWCA committee met the Cllr involved they were in agreement to look at the lower play area. of course I still believe the football pitch is an option but I'm aware not all the community agree on this site .
3; have no idea
I think what is more important is, the publicity put out was to replace the play area not a sand pit, even more important is that if the money was sent back the Cllr has not told anyone,
I for one still assumed hehad the £8,000.
I'm still hopeful the DTC application is not one and the same.
but we will have to wait a reply.
Keith
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Heard through the grapevine today that the Tesco money was sent back to them. Such a pity that hopes were raised and then dashed without people having the decency to come clean about the whole thing.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Howard;
I have the info now from DTC.
DTC were unable to accept the bags for life grant from Tesco's as the area was unsuitable for a play area for the following reasons;
1; Contractors are unable to safely install equipment because of the gradient of the site
2; Gradient meant that the proposed location was unsafe as a play area.
DDC officers and some Cllrs tried to find an alternative site. but unable to do so, within the time scale of the grant process.
As the ward Councillor I was unaware that this money had not been accepted.
I was in recent weeks going to raise the issue again in an attempt to try to get momentum for a play area.
Sadly it looks like the play area has gone.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
A shame those who deemed the site unsuitable had not heard of earth moving equipment that could have created a flat area. I am sure the removed earth could have been created a safe giant slide or small hill for children to roll down on site.
I know this would have added to the cost unless it was done for free as those generous contractors do on tv shows like the Big Build, our Mayor would surely have enough contacts that could have been asked.
Where there is the will a way can nearly always be found.
Judith Roberts and howard mcsweeney1 like this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
I agree Jan all those years ago when I was the Councillor who was heavily involved with play areas I at that time did not agree with that arguement,however I recall the area was approached by a narrow road / Lane was deemed as remote.!,Again that piece of land had been used for years by children.I think the will was not there.I brought the subject of a play area for Priory up many times.The problem at that time DDC had many play areas all over the district,plus many also provided by the housing revenue account.
The cost of maintaining so many all over the district was a headache.
On a positive note when a grant is given as in the case in question from TESCO surely solution should have been found.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
What is annoying many people is the lack of candour on the subject. We had the celebratory bit in the local press many months ago then silence and all along it was known that the money was being returned. I have lost count of the times I have asked what was happening on the play area but with no response, that's politics I suppose.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Howard;
Like many locals I share your frustration, I did in more recent months meet the DDC portfolio holder(now leader of the council) and suggested a number of sites.
Even got an agreement with the campaigning Cllr in the press to go for the lower playground site.
As ward Cllr I have had no input into this grant,
It is a shame that now it looks like Priory has been given up again on.
If DDC/DTC has decided it's not going for a play area, it will be a struggle to achieve it.
I feel sorry for locals who thought the plans were still in the pipeline,
K
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
