Ampney Times - Special edition
Playground Report
The Parish Council met in special session on 9 June to debate the next stage of the children’s playground project. Since the earlier report in the last edition of ‘The Ampney Times’, there had been discussion between the Parish Council, the County Council and the school and this produced some positive results. The idea of a playground has the enthusiastic backing of the County Council and the school with the positive result that the rent for the land will be ‘peppercorn’ i.e. £1 per year.
Before the Parish Council meeting itself, time was set aside for public discussion. This started with two presentations from the Playground Group on the design and costs of the proposed playground. A number of points, for and against, were made in the following discussion and these were taken into account during the Parish Council meeting. One key point was made by the new District Councillor, Edward Horsfall, and that was that Cotswold District Council, in awarding grants, have a positive policy towards rural communities and projects for young people.
The Parish Council considered three key facts:
· The need for a playground had emerged during the Village Appraisal.
· A group had been set up voluntarily to examine this and had done a considerable amount of work in getting the project to its current stage.
· There was a good deal of support for a project involving young people.
Given these facts, the basic position of the Parish Council was that it should be saying ‘yes’ to the proposal unless there were over-riding reasons for saying ‘no’.
The potential reasons for saying ‘no’ were under three headings; the difficulties in keeping up the commitment in the future, the potential for vandalism and the impact on the precept.
There was a good deal of scepticism amongst the Councillors regarding the future commitment of the Group. It is relatively easy to develop and maintain enthusiasm when the project is being created. Later on, as the project settles down and commitment is tested by the need to ensure that litter bins are being emptied every week, commitment can falter.
However, this can only be a prejudice and was not seen as an overriding reason for saying ‘no’. What the Council does want to see, however, is regular evidence that the commitment is being maintained and will always reserve the right to ‘pull the plug’ on the project at any time in the future if it is seen to be failing.
This was discussed under the rather broader heading of ‘crime and disorder’. Under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, all Parish Councils have a legal duty to consider the crime and disorder implications of their decisions. Usually, it is not an issue but the establishment of a children’s playground clearly raises unwelcome questions.
Regrettably, vandalism is seen as almost inevitable because that is the way of things at the moment. There are a number of ways in which it can be reduced and there are individuals around who can advise on design and structure so that vandalism can be minimised. The point had also been made that involving the younger people in the project gives a personal input which can help to reduce the unwelcome attentions of others.
Once again, councillors did not see the threat of vandalism as a reason for saying ‘no’ but they have a responsibility to see that professional advice regarding design and other measures that can be taken is requested, acted upon and monitored subsequently.
This is very fluid issue as new information is constantly being received. The following summarises the position which was used by Councillors to make their final decision:
· The entire capital cost is to be funded by funds from the grant making bodies and some form of local fund raising. There was some concern that other village facilities like the church, the school and the Village Hall may suffer as there is only so much fund raising that can be achieved. However, It was thought that villagers would have their own priorities regarding donations and this concern was therefore discounted. It is impossible to give a precise figure for local fund raising requirements as the grant giving bodies have differing criteria as to the amount required and exactly what constitutes ‘funds’ (e.g. some count time spent as equivalent to cash raised). The only clear statement is that the precept will not be increased to provide any part of the capital cost.
· It also seems clear that some of the grant making bodies will include start up costs (e.g. legal and inspection costs) as part of a grant application and some may even include running costs for the first two or three years. Consequently, it is equally difficult at this stage to give a clear idea of annual running costs.
· The Parish Council considered the running costs under three headings – insurance, maintenance and a ‘sinking fund’ and concluded that the best estimate at this stage would be an increase in the precept in the region of £1,500 per annum to start no earlier than financial year 2004/05.
· The sinking fund would be to build up reserves towards the refurbishment of the playground area after, say, ten years or to pay for its removal if it failed before then.
· Councillors agreed that as part of their commitment to the project, the Playground Group should accept the full responsibility for the routine maintenance of the playground i.e. painting and oiling, minor repairs, litter bin emptying and so on.
Councillors finally considered the subject most often raised as an objection – were there not groups in the village who could put up an equally good case and would this project merely lead to further calls for help from other groups in the Parish? The discussion that followed came to a number of conclusions.
· The specific project under discussion was of a type being specifically encouraged by the District Council. It could seem perverse if a project of a type being funded out of Council Tax for other communities was rejected by the local community because of the impact on the precept.
· The project would be tightly controlled. If the required grants could not be obtained, the project would not progress. If it did, but failed in the future, it would immediately be wound up to prevent further expense.
· As to precedent, if another group in the village could provide a proposal backed up with a high level of support with funds available from grant making bodies, then it would receive exactly the same degree of consideration by the Parish Council.
Having considered all the above points, the Parish Council voted unanimously to support the project. This will now enable the Playground Group to start the process of fund raising and there will be regular reports of progress in future editions of ‘The Ampney Times’.
Councillor Hartshorne
There were insufficient candidates for the May elections as only six candidates stood. The Council decided at its annual meeting to co-opt Mrs Hartshorne so that if the playground were approved, the Council could be kept fully informed of progress or otherwise of the project. At no time did Mrs Hartshorne approach the council with a request to be co-opted.
In view of her involvement with the project, Mrs Hartshorne did not attend the Parish Council meeting on 9 June.
Copy deadline for next issue (Aug/Sept): Tuesday 15 July 2003
Send to: Elisabeth Gerver, Cider Orchard, Ampney Crucis, Gloucestershire GL7 5RY. É850508
Editors: Christine Cridford, Elisabeth Gerver and David Vessey
Produced by Ampney Crucis Parish Council for the information of residents of the three villages. No liability can be accepted by the Council or Councillors, or the Parish Meeting Chairmen, for any losses, however caused, arising from this publication.