Archived Parish Council minutes 2018-2019

• There had been time pressures, at the last meeting and in hindsight Council should have called an Extra Ordinary meeting to consider the Bill Bailey Playing field item;
• Immediately after the last meeting on 10 September 2019, five Councillors submitted a request for the decision to be put aside and for it to be revisited due to procedural issues having been identified; the Chairman subsequently called an Extra Ordinary meeting;
• He had felt unable to give his comments, at the last meeting, due to a complaint having been received against the Council about the Bill Bailey proposals.  This had now been investigated and a response given; consequently, he now felt able to continue with his discussion about the proposals; 
• Following the last meeting, correspondence had also been submitted to Council alleging that there had been pre-determination or bias, by Councillors relating to the decision made about siting of equipment at the Bill Bailey site;
• When making decisions, Councillors need to look at all resident’s views not just those of a few.  It was also normal to express different opinions and in his view no pre-determination had occurred, in this respect.
• The Chairman concluded that once the introduction was finalised: 
• The meeting would be opened up to hear from members of the public;  
• Representatives from the Working Group would provide feedback about the site options developed during the last three years and provide any associated recommendations;
• Comments would then be received from Councillors;
• He would provide a final summary and ask Councillors to vote on motions received.

• Who supported the option for the new equipment to be installed to the front of the site and felt it best for all concerned e.g. young people, residents and the safer position as parents could be in the centre and have a birds eye view – but if sited at the upper tier, parents wouldn’t be able to see so well;
• They felt that whilst the additional cost was discussed at previous meetings, they felt that best value doesn’t always mean going for the cheapest option;
• The resident expressed concern at some of the language used at the last meeting e.g. ‘self-serving’ which they took to be a derogative term; that whilst they are looking at their own quality of life they are also looking for the ‘win win’ where residents co-exist with others using the park with the least impact on residents;
• Requested that the new equipment be sited at the front of the park, furthest away from all residents and felt that young people wouldn’t care if equipment was sited at upper or lower tier
• Suggested that Council could explore opportunities to make savings e.g. felt there was no need for of the fencing for the bump in the ground and should negotiate with suppliers or do fund raising for an additional bench.  
• Advised that the upper tier & bank is well used by children & spectators – also as an over spill for parents and universally.

• He confirmed that since the Parish Council meeting, held in November 2018, a number of residents have raised concerns about the proposals, primarily about noise and anti-social behaviour;
• Advised the he felt the need to recognise the noise impact after school, in holidays and evenings when larger groups of children can be noisy and that residents are anxious that their lives, in their gardens, will be affected (if the play area sited in upper tier).
• Stated that when groups of children congregate only 20 to 25 meters away from your garden it makes residents fearful; also the screening doesn’t make it easier – screening can make it worse.
• Stated he felt that there will be natural migration of people up the park (parents & children), if the equipment is sited at the upper tiers.
• Advised that another resident had done some sound recordings and as a resident and taxpayer he would be fearful to see the equipment removed later, (due to noise).

• Featured all of the equipment sited on the upper tier.  
• The old fence would be removed;
• Several equipment layouts had been considered within this option;
• This option would be sited the closest to residents;
• Older children would need to go through the small play area gate – to access the equipment.

• Whilst most of the equipment would be sited at the upper tier, with this option;
• The largest piece of equipment – Kielder Fort, would be sited to the side of the play equipment, sited at the front of the site.

Option 3: 

• This option had all equipment sited on the lower tier alongside the existing play equipment;
• Younger children would need to access existing play equipment via the new equipment area;
• Residents at Scothern Rd and The Dene would not directly face on to the new play area;
• There would be two separate fenced areas – thereby separating younger and older children, at play;
• This site would be closer to the Scothern Road and may reduce the potential for ASB;
• Option 3 would leave the upper tier available for any future plans or proposals for the site.
• This option would use some of the existing main play area (e.g. may impact the football area) and the existing bench would need relocating.
• Fencing would be installed at the bank to prevent children running down into the Zip wire run area.
• The cost would be more expensive – due to the provision of extra fencing.

• That since joining the Council, in May 2019, he had received many emails about the Bill Bailey proposals.  However, he had been saddened by some of the comments received about the young people of the village which he considered somewhat insulting and his view was that the village and parents should be proud of their young people (in the village).
• When he first looked at the well-established proposals for siting of the new equipment at the upper tier it seemed to him, the right option.  However, after personal discussion with some residents he began to think about what other plans were or could be put in place, for the whole Bill Bailey site, particularly as the football pitch appears under-utilised and there are potential options for providing additional seating. Other options could include provision of wi-fi at the upper tier and provision of picnic tables and these could give a positive reason for using the park.
• On this basis he now felt that siting the equipment at the lower tier seems the most appropriate option and that the Council should continue to look at developing plans for the future use of the whole of the Bill Bailey site.