Issue - decisions

The Committee received a report from Tim Wetherfield (Urban Growth Project Manager) which provided an update on progress in taking forward the East Area Committee’s first three priority projects from the first round of devolved decision-making over the use of developer contributions.

 

The report also invited the Area Committee to set a fourth 1^st round priority from options for a local play area improvement, now that further funding had been made available for this purpose. Reference was also made to a further report to the Environment Scrutiny Committee on 11 June 2013 on the proposed process for the second priority-setting round.

 

Alistair Wilson (Assets Manager) tabled further briefing papers, including photographs of each of the current play areas under consideration for improvement and the latest demographic data from the 2011 Census on number of children and young people by age group in each ward.

 

Councillor Blencowe summarised the background to the process. Three first round priority projects had been identified by the East Area Committee, now another was being selected from a shortlist.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

 

(i)             Sought clarification regarding the budget available for play area improvement. Councillor Owers asked if the total figure of £67,500 on page 20 of the agenda papers was correct.

 

Action Point: Urban Growth Project Manager to clarify the budget available for play area improvement to Councillor Owers.

 

(ii)            Asked for future reports to provide further information and needs analysis to help councillors identify gaps in facility provision and prioritise options for new projects.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager replied that officers would explore ways of doing this for future reports.

 

(iii)          Queried whether it would be possible for more than one play area improvement project to be prioritised (including mini improvements across a number of play areas) in the East Area at this stage, if resources were available.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager explained that this would not be possible at this stage, given the need to make sure that a fair and consistent approach was taken to all Area Committees. There would be a further opportunities for play area improvements to be identified in the next priority-setting round this autumn. The Environment Scrutiny Committee report on the proposed process for the second priority setting round also raised the possibility of similar or related project ideas being consolidated into larger project proposals.

 

A member of the public raised the following issues.

 

1.       Ms Roberts expressed concern that:

·       Decisions would be made regarding the next priority for section 106 monies for new play equipment without any reference to a needs or gap analysis.

·       The Officer’s report did not provide an understanding of what is currently available. It implied that a play area would be provided for under sevens whilst making no note of whether play areas are needed for over sevens.

·       The consultation process was not joined up or feedback to residents.

 

The Asset Manager said that local play areas in need of improvement, which were identified in the East Area workshop last September, had been looked at by officers to map facilities provision for different age groups. He referred to the play value scores for each play area included in the report: lower ratings on the A-E scale denoted lower amounts and lower levels of sophistication of the current play equipment.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager clarified that the play area improvements would not be limited to those for children under seven. The example given in the reported was aimed simply at illustrating one option of the sort of equipment that could be provided. The fund would include developer contributions from the ‘provision for children and teenagers’ category. As part of the next steps of project scoping and appraisal, there would be further opportunities for local residents and community groups to be consulted on the specific type of equipment to be provided at the play area prioritised for improvement.

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (unanimously):

 

(i)             To note the steps being taken to deliver the East Area Committee’s current first round priority projects (to be funded by devolved developer contributions) and the progress of other on-going projects.

 

Members resolved (by 9 votes to 0 votes):

 

(ii)            To identify St Thomas’ Square play area improvement project in Coleridge ward as the East Area Committee’s fourth priority project from the first round of developer contributions devolved decision-making.