Cerberus1984 - Community Activist - A Walk Through Community Involvement: 2010-01-10

Below is copied an email sent by me to Paul Faulkner (Parks) and other ECC departments and individuals on 14th September, 2009. This email was distributed in response to Paul Faulkners answer to various complaints raised by a community rep re their (Parks and Plannings) lack of serious involvement in ongoing plans for the Lower St.David's community and Looe Road Park specifically. The reps email also expressed concerns re childrens safety and damage to vehicles arising from the kids cycling in the adajcent streets.
This, in my opinion, reinforces my belief that the threat of the Parks Department's withdrawal, as a consequence of CF/SDNP/SL/EPWs 'exit' from the Lower St.David's Community if I failed to 'toe the line', have become a reality.

Lower St.David's Community Association is a very proactive organisation that works very hard to improve the quality of life for all that live and work in our community.
I have included the Paul Faulkner's email below, with my additional comments in blue, to highlight LSDCA's commitment and enthusiasm for change that is clearly not shared by those that should be embracing our contribution. It appears that no matter what LSDCA do to facilitate changes and to reduce the financial impact on service providers it would appear that this counts for nothing. Despite my request for clarification of 'key ommissions', as mentioned in the email below, I have received no response to my message which merely adds weight to my argument re the lack of even basic communication and co-operation.

Further details of the 'community facility' referred to in the email below are outlined in the next Post above.

Email begins -
Hello Vince,

You sent your email to a wide audience but as manager of the Council's Parks and Open Spaces (POS) perhaps it would be useful for me to re-affirm points already made by myself and other Council officers. You commented on a number of issues, and I will try to provide a comprehensive answer to these.
Your ‘comprehensive’, if somewhat ‘politic’ responses, are noted and responded to below.
I believe that I am, literally, in a better position to comment on Looe Road Park usage than anyone. Vince’s, and many other resident’s obvious frustrations are understandable, given the frequent use of Looe/Tavistock/Clayton Roads for cycling/scooter activities and subsequent damage to vehicles and the obvious risks to the safety of local children. Perhaps if the footpaths in Looe Road Park had been improved, as has been requested for many years, this situation would not have arisen. There have already been injuries to some of the children as a result of the poor state of the park’s footpaths. It is perhaps fortunate that so far, if only from an ECC perspective, their parents have decided not to progress their complaints other than to express their dissatisfaction to LSDCA. It is an unfortunate state of affairs that parents believe that their children are safer riding cycles on the road/pavements of our community rather than using the footpaths in the park.

The football pitch and play area are both well used. Understandably, further frustration arises from the continued, and considerable, expenditure on many other parks in Exeter, something that ECC and POS are more than happy to publicise, whilst claiming ‘lack of resources’ for Looe Road Park. LSDCA’s request for ‘white lining’ of the football pitch being a prime example ( see below). LSDCA are currently exploring the possibility of a ‘Road Safety Awareness’ event for the children and hope to that our Neighbourhood Policing Team will be involved in this project.
I appreciate that Looe Road Park probably will never achieve ‘Green Flag’ status but, hey…, just for once, let’s put the well-being of our community before ‘Council Kudos’.

If Looe Road Park is not a well used park, then I have to ask what has happened following all the work put in by residents, Councillors, the police, Parkswatch and the Council (amongst others) ? Assurances were given by residents that in return for some investment, the community would be able to turn around many of the problems in the area, and the park would be the catalyst for this. This small open space was seen as a very important recreational asset for the children of the area.
Ask away! Our community are more than happy to respond. Looe Road Park always was, and continues to be, a very important asset to Lower St.David’s. LSDCA’s proposal for a community facility, albeit small, would tremendously increase the scope for further involvement by the community and also a wide variety of external/outreach organisations that have already expressed an interest. The objections raised by POS and Planning re the provision of a community facility are viewed as nothing more than both departments failure to take into account the obvious benefits and are based on outdated ideas. Yes, LSDCA’s concept for this community facility may be viewed by some as ‘radical’, but the welfare of the community has to take priority, doesn’t it? Our experiences so far re the provision of a community facility and other matters would indicate otherwise.

From your comments, it seems that unless others bodies fund and arrange events (eg Ward Cllrs, Parks, police [Chris] ), nothing happens.
I’m not entirely sure how you arrive at this conclusion from Vince’s email. However it ‘seems’, these conclusions are incorrect. Whilst funding has been provided by others, (surely this is precisely why the funding is in place?) contributions have also been made by some local businesses and members of our community, both ‘in kind’ and financially. It would be a much more positive approach if POS and Planning were to adopt a similar ‘can do’ attitude instead of rejecting our proposal based on your/their existing criteria. Here is an ideal opportunity for community and council to work together towards a positive conclusion. Your concerns expressed re ‘setting a precedent’ fails on all counts. It may also be worth pointing out that ‘considerable’ resources was available through Section 106 funding from redevelopment in St.Davids. The decision, by Planning, to allocate the full amount of £60,000 of S106 money to Bury Meadow Park in the St.James’s ward, rather than using some of this funding to improve Looe Road Park, in St.David’s, does raise questions re the decision making of how S106 money is allocated. It would seem that Exeter Parks Watch’s reassurances that Looe Road Park would receive at least part of this £60,000 was yet another ‘urban myth’.

Since Parks Watch’s withdrawal, that occurred without any community consultation, all of the ‘organisation’, has been arranged by LSDCA, despite my (since) being informed that a requirement of some of the funding granted was on the basis that the applicant (not LSDCA) were responsible for organising the specific event for which the funding was provided. The LSD community have invested considerable time and, personally, I have contributed no small amount of my own money to improving the quality of life for the youngsters within our area. It may be as well to also to remember the considerable contribution of our community when Parks Watch were involved.
The fact that some members of Parks Watch clearly had their own personal agendas, that put their own interests before that of our community, is something you and others were made aware of but chose to ignore. Perhaps this also needs to be remembered.

The planter that was installed earlier this year for local children to plant up is untended and full of weeds,
A disingenuous comment this – You may recall, but have apparently forgotten, that during our ‘informal’ discussions re this planter it was agreed that it would, as much as possible, extend to the existing footpaths to enable access by the disabled/wheel-chair bound. This was possible on three sides, the fourth side being problematic because of the presence of BT access chambers and a telegraph pole. I even provided you with a plan, including all of the dimensions to, hopefully, simplify/reduce the financial impact of, the installation process from a POS point of view. It was also agreed, between you and I, that any plant contribution by POS would allow for a 1-1.2 M ‘empty border’ within the planter for use of the children of the community. Unfortunately the planter was considerably smaller than had been ‘informally’ agreed and was subsequently filled with plants by POS, leaving insufficient space for any meaningful use by the children. It was clear that the ‘informal’ agreement was not followed and the planter was reduced in size, presumably to reduce the financial cost to POS, whilst appearing to fulfill the agreed provision of a planter. Creation of flowerbeds around the outside of the planter entirely defeated our object of enabling access/participation by anyone that may be disabled or confined to a wheelchair. Whilst the final size of the planter was not as agreed, LSDCA are grateful for this contribution. More re this (inevitably) below.

Whilst I appreciate that the planter is in need of weeding again, it should also be noted that it was weeded some weeks ago by LSDCA and some of the children of our community. Your enthusiasm to ‘nitpick’ over a few weeds in the planter, whilst footpaths are over-run with weeds, says considerably more about your attitude than that of our community. The youngsters have participated in the trimming of the grass verges where they border the footpaths. Yes, this is not yet completed but our contribution is ongoing, in fact we are in the process of organising a ‘Tidy Your Park’ event for later this month when it is hoped that trimming of the verges, and the removal of considerable quantities of weeds from the footpaths and at the base of the fencing will hopefully be completed. Also, prior to the planter being constructed, it was agreed that POS only supply the plants for planting. LSDCA were to organise the planting as part of a community event. I even offered to collect the plants myself from Bell Isle, (both of these suggestions being made to minimise the costs to ECC and as a sign of our appreciation) , and the only other contribution required from POS would be to provide some guidance re ‘spacing’. This request, like so many others, was ignored by POS and your own staff carried out the planting. The promised consultation with the community re positioning of trees also never materialised. Despite this, the trees are a welcome addition to the park. I believed at that time it would be churlish to ‘complain’ about these valued contributions by POS even though they did not fulfill the verbal/informal agreements.
It should also be noted that, despite the ‘continued monitoring’ so freely publicised by Exeter Parks Watch (and presumably POS) it has been the responsibility of LSDCA to identify and remove poisonous Belladonna plants from Looe Road Park.

the only plants in there being those the council planted as a framework. It should be noted that you, Paul, after the construction of the planter, stated that an area around the outside of the planter had been ‘left’ for the community to use as flowerbeds ( despite your previous reassurances that the planter would extend to the footpaths where possible). You also suggested the possibility of additional flowerbed(s) at the Tavistock Road end of the park and offered to advise accordingly, and this offer was appreciated. Unfortunately, due to other commitments the anticipated, and unnecessary creation of flowerbeds had your department fulfilled their agreement, have not yet materialised. A ‘seed planting’ event did take place in the park and a considerable number of local children participated and produced flowers from the seeds that they had planted. Unfortunately, there was insufficient time to prepare flowerbeds around the planter for transfer of the youngsters seedlings. Preparation of flowerbeds would , as previously stated, have been unnecessary if POS had constructed the planter to the originally agreed dimensions. If POS had fulfilled their aspect of the agreement there would have been sufficient space available within the planter for the youngsters to transfer their seedlings to.

The noticeboard (albeit a temporary one) is unused.
The notice-board has been used but, due to the lack of security (lockable access/cover), posters have frequently been removed by some of the local youths and, for this reason, LSDCA have had to depend on costly and time consuming mail shots to keep the community informed. This ‘temporary’ notice board appears to have become a ‘permanent’ fixture ( I make this assumption, perhaps incorrectly, based on the fact that POS have never contacted LSDCA re a permanent replacement. LSDCA accept some responsibility for this, having failed to contact POS re the installation of a permanent noticeboard). POS have not indicated in any way there would ever be a permanent replacement of the notice board since the departure of Parks Watch. Equally noticeable, by its absence, is the sign promised by POS for the planter. This addition to the planter was designed by one of the local children at a community event and is yet another example of community expectations being raised and subsequently ignored.

There have been a number of reports of stones and glass on the football area. Each one has been followed up and each time there has been no evidence of stones that would cause injury, and certainly no glass.
This concern was raised based on frequent comments made by qualified Football Association Coach Chris Webster re the general state of the pitch and, specifically, the area where, for many years there had been a bonfire. Given his many years of experience as a professional football coach, Chris was worried about the possibility of injury to anyone using the football area, as was LSDCA. The fact that POS found ‘no cause for concern’ would possibly be because it would have been removed by our community prior to use of the pitch. You also conveniently seem to have forgotten the contribution of our community on the day of ECC’s 2008 Bulk Collection to avoid further bonfires in the park. LSDCA produced and distributed mail shots informing our community of POS’s position on bonfires. LSDCA also organised the transfer of potential bonfire materials to the Cleansing Departments collection point in Looe Road on Bulk Collection day (an exercise that is being repeated again in 2009). As a direct result of co-operation between LSDCA’s and ECC’s Cleansing Department there have been no subsequent bonfires in Looe Road Park. It would seem that POS’s concept of ‘shared responsibility’ for Looe Road Park, as discussed between a senior officer of ECC and LSDCA, differ.

Most soils naturally contain some stone, and as grass surfaces erode these will become exposed.
We are not referring to ‘erosion of grass surfaces’, but to the area where the November 5th bonfires used to be and little or no grass grows or ever has. We were informed that this bare patch would be repaired and the simple fact is that it hasn’t been. If it had been repaired, as promised, then there would be no/minimal ongoing cause for concern.

Your comment that an unnamed source suggested the park could be closed due to a health and safety risk is another of the unfounded urban myths that seem to surround Looe Road Park. The grass is cut to the same standards as elsewhere in the City, and we have received no complaints this year apart from that in your email below. If there was an issue I would have hoped the LSDRA would know how to contact us to report this.
“we have received no complaints this year”. An interesting point this. I have been informed by another Community Association, elsewhere in Exeter, that POS made their displeasure all too clear because they (the CA) had cut the grass themselves, in preparation for a community event, after frequent requests to POS, by the CA, were refused. The CA had expressed concerns re the length of the grass in relation to possible Health and Safety issues and their (the CA’s) provision of ‘hot drinks’ at an event.

LSDCA requested ‘white lining’ of the small football pitch in Looe Road Park and were informed, by POS, that there were ‘no resources available’ to do this, but admitted that the probable cost would be “about £20.00”. I offered to pay this myself (as did Councillor Phil Brock when he became aware of the POS’s refusal) or, alternatively, borrow or hire the equipment from POS. If the latter had been acceptable, I even offered to collect the necessary equipment from Bell Isle Nursery and return it after the lining was completed. My request was refused or, more to the point if I recall correctly, my email went unanswered, so yes, LSDCA does know how to contact POS.
It is my understanding that there are ECC guidelines in place relating to the ‘response times’ for the answering of emails and that email should be treated, by ECC, the same as the normal postal service (urban myth?). Frankly, I have more productive things to do with my time than waste it on emails to POS and Planning that are either ignored or take weeks/months to receive a response. Whilst on the subject of Planning. It took many, many months to arrange a site visit by Planning to discuss the possibility of a Community facility in Lower St.David’s. It was only due to the intervention of Councillor Phil Brock that a site visit with Planning happened at all.

I have attended numerous meetings that focus on ‘improved communications’ between community and Council departments and experience no subsequent improvements in some areas. This said, I ‘salute’ ECC’s Cleansing Department staff, for both their response times to emails and requests for removal of ‘unanticipated’ waste/fly-tipping. There are a number of other ECC staff that can also be relied upon to respond to requests for the provision of services/information within a reasonable time-frame.

It is disappointing that once again the facts surrounding issues have been overlooked. Of the three main original concerns of residents, dog fouling was the top one. It was for this reason that the Council fenced the remaining grass area.
I couldn’t agree more, “that it is disappointing that once again the facts surrounding issues have been overlooked”.
Yes, dog fouling was the main concern, closely followed by the condition of the footpaths and new play equipment.
I have been informed by two St.David’s School Governors that the only reason that the fencing had been installed in Looe Road Park was to facilitate the use of the pitch by the school’s pupils because their own was unavailable due to ongoing building work. The same governors also told me that considerable pressure had been applied to POS to install the fencing in Looe Road to enable use by the school. Possibly, of course, another ‘urban myth’? Obviously, if the school want to use the pitch it is not an issue, LSDCA endeavour to work in close co-operation with St.David’s School to encourage their participation in our community events. Whatever the reason, the fencing is a substantial improvement and appreciated. The lack of use by St.David’s School may be as a result of the lack of toilet facilities. I have been informed that St.David’s School have to ‘bus’ their pupils to a suitable ‘open space/playing field’ because of the absence of satisfactory local provision. LSDCA’s proposal for a community facility includes a disabled toilet facility for precisely this reason, plus other obvious benefits.

The request for consideration of a Community Hall was sent to ECC Planning, and Tom's reply briefly but adequately explains the council's position on this. Normally residents groups wishing to make changes to open spaces have informal discussions with the POS team first, so that the scope and benefits/disadvantages of any project can be defined at the outset. Your proposal has a number of key omissions,
These are? I would appreciate a specific response detailing our ‘key omissions’. Whilst it’s possible (very likely) that certain of your protocols may have not been observed, there is no reason why these could not be fulfilled now, or possibly would have been in the past were it not for the ‘tardiness’ of response times from both POS and Planning that, inevitably, result in a reluctance by LSDCA and probably other community organisations to enter into any meaningful? dialogue with these particular ECC departments.
LSDCA’s proposal for a community facility was rejected based on current ‘mindsets/guidelines’, without giving any serious consideration to the obvious benefits, or offering any sort of compromise or constructive comment.

and also appears a fundamental about-face on the part of the community regarding the value of the open space for children. Based on the information provided, the council has little option but to respond in the manner it has.
“Based on the information provided”. There is a certain irony in this comment. For years our community have ‘provided information’ and expressed their concerns re the reluctance of POS’s ongoing and positive involvement in Looe Road Park. Suddenly, based on one email, “the council has little option but to respond in the manner it has”. Quelle surprise!
However it may ‘appear’, and ‘based on the information provided’, this is also incorrect. LSDCA have devoted a considerable amount of time and resources canvassing community opinion on the future of the park and the provision of a community facility and the feedback has been very positive. It is continually disappointing that POS/Planning apparently do not share our community’s enthusiasm for change. External organisations have also expressed an interest in using a community facility although, yet again, this interest is not apparently shared by either POS’s or Planning.

I can assure you that the Council makes it's decisions in an impartial manner taking into account the facts, and this will continue to be the case.
Both from a personal point of view, and as Chair of LSDCA, I am reassured to be informed that Council decisions will, “continue to be made on an impartial basis”. It would be very disappointing indeed to think that any previous disagreements could possibly impact on your, or other ECC departments, impartiality re decisions that affect the well-being of the Lower St.David’s Community.

In conclusion – The ‘Tidy Your Park’ event went ahead as planned, on Saturday 26th September, and the verges were trimmed and the footpaths swept and cleared of considerable quantities of weeds. The planter was also cleared of weeds. This work is not quite finished but completion is anticipated in the next 7-10 days. It is unfortunate that your operatives, having cut the grass today, preferred to ‘mow’ straight over litter rather than clear it first. This has resulted in ‘minced’ litter that could have easily been cleared prior to their work. As a result, considerable amounts of mess remain to be cleared from the park. Also, the paths that our community devoted so much time to sweeping on Saturday are now covered in grass-cuttings that will also need to be swept up. The ‘Birds of Prey’ event took place on Sunday, 27th September, and was a huge success and, as a result, LSDCA have been requested to assist with the organisation of a ‘Halloween Street Party’ for our community, an event that we are more than happy to participate in.

I have had several very positive meetings over the past few weeks that have reassured LSDCA that some are taking the council/community co-operation seriously. Unfortunately, the attitude of POS and Planning, so far, offers no similar encouragement.
I have a meeting with Home Office representatives in November at which I will be raising this, and many other, concerns.

Yours sincerely

Paul Faulkner

Cerberus1984 - Community Activist - A Walk Through Community Involvement

Saturday 16 January 2010

It Would Appear That,....

Community Facility - The Sequel

Friday 15 January 2010

Lower St.David's Community Facility

Thursday 14 January 2010

Exeter City Council Parks and Planning

Blog Archive