*** ALL
ENTRIES BEFORE THIS TIME WERE RELEVANT TO THE RIVERSIDE PARK
PROJECT ***
11/05/2007.
Maddy Bristow, Deputy Town Clerk.
Number 33 – posted 10/05/07.
Environment Agency.
The
Environment Agency has neither given a formal agreement
or formal objection to the building of anything in this
area, and this is why there has been such a lack of
forward movement on the project since the public meeting
in January while we tried to get this answer from them
to gauge whether it is worth progressing to submitting a
Planning Application. Cllr. Deegan has asked me to send
a letter to the EA querying the information it released
in January in respect of the anticipated level of
flooding in the Lower Earley area. This was not
specifically in relation to the Riverside Park project,
but more a concern that many more properties in Lower
Earley were now being shown as being at risk of flooding
in the flood data issued by the EA as compared to flood
data they had previously issued. Matt felt that,
regardless of the BMX Skatepark Project, the EA’s view
of the extent of potential flooding in the Lower Earley
area was of considerable concern and the accuracy of it
should be queried with them.
Number 32 – posted 10/05/07.
Alternative sites & noise assessment
Both
the Events Field in Kilnsea Drive and Chalfont Park were
looked at in the early stages, and discussed with the
Borough Council, who owns these two areas .
We
were advised that the site in Kilnsea Drive would not
receive Planning Permission as it was too near to
houses. Also the site is used for other events in the
year, and the provision of the BMX track/skatepark at
this location, would reduce the overall area and may
limit its future use for other functions which WBC would
not be happy with.
We
were advised that Chalfont Park could not be used as it
is designated playing field and has to be left as such
and therefore this would not receive Planning Permission
either.
We do
not consider that noise from the facility if it is built
at Riverside Park is an issue. The noise emanating from
the use of the BMX track will be very minimal. The
noise from the skatepark will be slightly more, but the
level can be gauged by anyone who has heard
skateboarders using facilities elsewhere, or indeed
skating down pavements or in ASDA car park. The reason
the noise from the facility in relation to traffic noise
has been mentioned is that the view is that any noise
from the facility will be unnoticeable above the traffic
noise.
There
is no intention to produce a noise assessment unless
this is specifically requested by Councillors, or, if
the project gets as far as the Planning Permission
stage, is specifically requested by the Local Planning
Authority.
21/02/2007.
Maddy Bristow, Deputy Town Clerk.
Number 30 – posted 18/02/07
asks in the final sentence what the next step will be.
Currently, Town Councillors have not suggested that they
will be carrying out any further public consultation.
However, they have requested that, should the project get as
far as submitting planning applications, a special edition
of the Town Newsletter will be sent to all households who
were invited to the public meeting, detailing the concerns
that have been raised about the project, and outlining how
these could be addressed. Secondly, should the project get
to the Planning Permission stage, the Local Planning
Authority (i.e. Wokingham District Council) will circulate
letters to ‘affected neighbours’, and planning notices will
be posted on site. At this stage, anyone has the
opportunity to write to the Local Planning Authority about
the project.
Number
29 – posted 14/02/07
An
extract from the pre-amble posted on the petition created by
Mr. Warburton states:
“It has been suggested that they may build anyway regardless
of any risk or objection from the Environment Agency (EA),
as they do not have to adhere to EA recommendations.”
I would be extremely interested to know where Mr. Warburton
obtained this information. To my knowledge, the Town
Council has never stated that it would build “…….regardless
of any objection from the Environment Agency……”.
In fact, if such an objection were received by the Local
Planning Authority, Planning Permission would not be
granted.
Ref No 20 – 30/01/2007
The facility that the Town Council is proposing for
Riverside Park is less than 6% of a site of nearly 40
acres. There will be considerable open space left for the
games mentioned in this section. Furthermore, within
walking/cycling distance of Riverside Park there is Laurel
Park off Rushey Way, and the Events Field off Kilnsea. Both
these sites, whilst being unsuitable for the BMX/skatepark
facility, have ample room for the activities mentioned.
Ref No 19 – 30/01/2007
The letter sent out on 12th December did not
‘deliberately give no hint to the size of the development’.
What it did do, however, was to invite interested residents
along to a public meeting on 8th January to view
the proposed plans for the facility and learn more about the
project, including its size. Full contact details were
given on the letter and anyone not certain about what might
be discussed at the meeting, or requiring more details of
the proposal had ample opportunity to contact the Council
Offices prior to the 8th January to find out any
details (as indeed a couple of people did).
I am quite happy to supply a copy of the letter for
publishing on this Forum if required.
The issue of security of the site has been dealt with
elsewhere on this Forum.
With regard to the motorbikes on the site last Saturday, if
the author would be good enough to let me know at
approximately what time he contacted the Police about this,
I will be more than happy to take up the matter with the
local sector inspector, and particularly as it does appear
that there was not an adequate police response.
We did look at other areas in Earley for siting this
facility, and this issue has been dealt with elsewhere on
this Forum. Other than a small area in Hillside Ward, the
Local Plan for this area does not show any available
building land.
With regard to the final sentence, the comments are noted.
Should Planning Permission be granted for this project, the
Town Council has a vested interest to ensure that it is not
‘a disaster’ as the writer suggests. A well managed and
well maintained facility is far more cost effective to run
and maintain than one that is allowed to ‘get out of hand’,
never mind the negative feedback which the elected
representatives might receive.
Finally, with regard to the first section of this item
posted on the Forum “Shame on local CC”. This is a Town
Council initiative, the County Council have been dissolved
some six or so years ago in favour of a Unitary Authority
system of local government.
I will try to access the website on a fairly regular basis
over the next couple of weeks (workload permitting) and will
try to answer any new points which are posted. I do not
intend to continue to answer points already made, and would
ask contributors to the web site to look back at what has
already been said.
Ref 18 29/01/2007
I think most of the comments here have been answered in
other sections below. However, I would reiterate that other
sites were looked at prior to Riverside Park, and this area
was the only one that met a number of the necessary
criteria. Furthermore, the position of the proposed
facility is in an area farthest away from houses, and, with
the ever present traffic noise from Lower Earley Way and
Rushey Way, there will be no noise intrusion to local
residents. The facility has been designed so that it is
more or less self contained and other than some banking, and
possibly the sight of a CCTV mast above the tree line will
not be noticeable from the main routes through the Park.
With regard to the specific points
-
Answered elsewhere
-
There is no intention to lock or patrol the area at
night on a regular basis. However, if there is evidence
of antisocial behaviour occurring when the facility is
closed (i.e. after dusk) youth workers, the police or
the PCSO will be asked to patrol as appropriate
-
A high percentage of young people canvassed were in
favour of the provision of this facility. Until it is
built, we can not give numbers of the people who are
likely to attend. Ultimately, it will depend on the
quality of the facility, not only the design but also
how it is run and whether young people feel welcome
there and feel able to use it without interference.
Ref 17 24/01/2007
Please see response to Ref 12 below
Ref No 16 23/01/2007
The area will not be ‘destroyed’ or ‘lost’. It is being
adapted from and area of mown and rough grass to a
landscaped area offering leisure facilities. This park is
C40 acres and is one of the largest open spaces in Earley
and is currently used by a small percentage of the
population. Should we not make those open spaces that we do
have attractive to more residents?
Ref No 15 19/01/2007
Thanks for the positive attitude.
Ref No 14 19/01/07
No Comment Required
Ref No. 13 19/01/07
No Comment Required
Ref No. 12 18/01/2007
The area of the Riverside Park site chosen for this facility
is the least attractive in terms of the flora and fauna it
contains, it being made up almost entirely of mown and rough
grass. Whilst the plans show the removal of a small clump
of ash trees to the centre of this site, the plans also
allow for numerous new trees to be planted, as well as
significant areas of landscaping that can be shrub planted
or planted with ‘meadow mix’ seeds which will actually offer
an enhanced habitat for birds and insects. Information we
have received about the ecological value of the site
indicates that this value is based around the riverside and
banks, not in the area where we are hoping to build this
facility. The Town Council takes the ecology of the Town
very seriously, and this can be seen by the improvements in
areas for which we have responsibility. Biodiversity
surveys have been carried out or are programmed, in these
areas and the management is aligned to promoting
biodiversity without loosing sight of the original purpose
of the areas in question. Whilst the Town Council is keen
to promote biodiversity, there is also a responsibility upon
it to try to provide for shortfalls in facilities for all
its residents, including those who are most likely to use
this facility if it is built.
It would be wrong of the Town Council to pretend that there
is likely never to be any problem with this site in terms of
anti-social behaviour – indeed evidence was given at the
public meeting that there is already such behaviour in the
park, as there is regrettably, in other areas in the Town,
in this area of Berkshire and in many other areas of the
country. However, measures were discussed at the public
meeting as to how these could be kept to a minimum or
eradicated completely. Other sites were investigated, but
all those considered were eventually dismissed for one
reason or another. These included – too close to houses, no
safe access, insufficient room, and in one instance,
existing designation of the land as playing fields for
Maiden Erlegh School. The Riverside Park site was deemed
large enough to take this facility, was far enough away from
existing houses not to create a noise nuisance (particularly
bearing in mind the existing traffic noise already
experienced in this area) and had safe access for potential
users via the existing cycle network and signalised crossing
in Rushey Way.
Councillors do have a mandate to try to provide facilities
for all sections of the Community and a facility such as the
one the Town Council is now trying to provide has been
requested time and again. Our Councillors, who give of
their time free of charge for the benefit of the whole
community, are elected to make decisions on behalf of the
community. It is recognised that there may be, on
occasions, some opposition to some policies of the Town
Council, but, Councillors have to balance this opposition
against the advantages to the community as a whole. The
setting of such policies, and the making of such decisions
cannot always be made with ‘an eye to the ballot box’.
Ref No 11 17/01/2007
This section seems to relate specifically to the consumption
of alcohol. Evidence from other open spaces throughout the
District as a whole indicates that the consumption of
alcohol at the site will be a possibility. Indeed the
number of empty ‘alco-pop’ and cider bottles found in the
vicinity of the existing children’s play area would suggest
that this site is already being used for that purpose. CCTV
will assist in identifying continual offenders and will also
give knowledge of whether excessive drinking is occurring at
any particular time of the day or week. However, the Town
Council has never seen the use of CCTV as a ‘cure all’. It
will be backed up by regular visits to the site by the PCSO,
youth workers and Town Council staff. The CCTV will not be
watched 24/7. At sometimes of the day, and particularly, I
would suggest, during term time, it is unlikely that the
facility will not be greatly used.
The Town Council has recognised that the consumption of
alcohol is taking place at Sol Joel Park and is taking the
proactive step of considering the introduction of an Alcohol
Designation Order. This is to allow the police to take
prompt action against those illegally drinking on the site,
and particularly under age drinkers.
Ref No 10 17/01/2007
As mentioned at the public meeting, this is intended to be a
facility for local people, the majority of whom will come
from the Earley area, and will access the site from the
existing cycle network in place along Rushey Way and Kilnsea
Drive; there will be no need for them to be in Lower Earley
Way. Whilst it is accepted that part of the BMX track runs
parallel with Lower Earley Way North, there is an area of
woodland, a path, an embankment and a safety fence in
between, so I regret I am sure what point is being made
here.
Ref No 9 17/01/2007
The track proposed is not large enough to be a competition
track, both in terms of its length or its width. I would
concur with the view that we should be encouraging teenagers
to be competitive. However, if the writer can suggest a
suitable site within the Town’s boundaries where such a
track could be built we would be happy to investigate it.
Ref No 8 17/01/2007
I cannot comment specifically on this, as I do not know
where the author lives. However, the Town Council has
considered access to the site, which is why the plans
propose a much improved entrance to the park, and the
locating of this entrance immediately adjacent to the
pedestrian crossing in Rushey Way. It is hoped that this
will provide a safer entrance into the area which potential
users of the facility, and indeed people using the other
facilities of the park, will have the benefit of. Users of
the facility will be encouraged to cycle of walk to it, so
there may be an increase in pedestrian/cycle traffic,
depending on where the writer lives. The Town Council would
not be considering providing this facility if it was felt
that it would not be used.
I cannot comment on whether the writer’s “enjoyment of the
area” will change, as this is subjective. A search of the
Web will reveal where other facilities such as this have
been built and may answer this point.
Ref No 7 17/01/2007
The Town Council is aware of the site’s propensity to flood
and is continuing negotiations with the Environment Agency.
Planning Permission would not be granted by the Local
Planning Authority if the Environment Agency was not happy
that the flooding issue had been satisfactorily dealt with.
Ref No 6 17/01/2007
The plans currently under consideration do not allow for the
creation of any new entrances to the Park as a whole, only
the re-alignment of the existing entrance beside Rushey Way
to bring it in line with the existing pedestrian crossing.
It will also be necessary to create a temporary vehicle
access off Rushey Way to bring in raw materials for the
construction of the facilities.
The site of the facilities will have more than one
entrance/exit into the rest of the Park for safety/security.
Ref No 5 17/01/2007
Noted – thank you I will have a look at this web site.
Ref No 4 16/01/2007
Please see response to Ref 7 above.
Ref No 3 16/01/2007
Please see response to Ref 7 above
Ref No 2 15/01/2007
As mentioned at the public meeting, the Town Council has
already been in discussions with the Police, the PCSO, and
the local youth service about monitoring the activities in
the area. There is also an intention to install CCTV. We
can not ensure that youngsters will not come to the site to
take drugs, smoke, etc., neither can we ensure that
paedophiles are not drawn to the area. However, the same
can be said about any of the existing open spaces in Earley,
or indeed Wokingham District as a whole. From the Town
Council’s point of view, we will try to ensure that, should
such situations occur, we have the mechanism in place to
deal with them quickly and effectively.
There will be prescribed times during which the facility is
open.
The users are likely to be based in and around the facility,
unless they are actually just arriving or leaving. The Town
Council does not envisaged ‘gangs of youths’ as quoted by
the writer, roaming about the Park.
Ref No 1 12/01/2007
Seems to have been more than adequately dealt with – thanks!
Maddy Bristow
Deputy Town Clerk
