The residents of a property in Clayton Road have been evicted today as a consequence of the sheer hard work and determination of the Lower St.David's Community and Devon & Cornwall Constabulary.
I was a little bemused at the presence of Christine Fraser/SDNP in the Magistrate's Court during the proceedings.
Not wishing to make any assumptions, of course, but it will be interesting to see (as we inevitably will) CF/SDNP's 'slant' on things.
Pure conjecture on my part, but will this be yet another 'success' attributed to CFs/SDNPs 'input' into something that, well, umm.. their input was actually nil?
Heaven forbid that the considerable hard work of our community could reach a satisfactory conclusion without the 'last minute' (as usual) intervention of CF/SDNP.
Friday, 19 February 2010
Monday, 15 February 2010
Street Representatives
Due to the wide variety of issues that need addressing within our community Lower St.David's Community Association are forming a local group of 'Street Reps' to act as the voice of the residents within their own street/road.
The concept is that each street will have its own representatives(s) that will have the opportunity to express their views and concerns, and those of their neighbours, to LSDCA and relevant organisations.
It is anticipated that the valuable contribution made by street reps will enable our community to push forward some much needed changes and improvements.
The concept is that each street will have its own representatives(s) that will have the opportunity to express their views and concerns, and those of their neighbours, to LSDCA and relevant organisations.
It is anticipated that the valuable contribution made by street reps will enable our community to push forward some much needed changes and improvements.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
How Low Can 'Someone' Go?
Very low, apparently.
I am involved in voluntary work for a very large organisation and, it would seem, that 'someone' has attempted to undermine my position and credibility with them.
To avoid any possible embarrassment to this organisation I have, this week, offered my resignation and, thankfully, it has not been accepted. I appreciate their vote of confidence.
I have no idea who was responsible for this 'action', and care even less. However, it is unfortunate that, whoever this 'someone' may be, they are clearly happy to question my integrity when, perhaps, in view of their actions, they should be questioning their own.
I am involved in voluntary work for a very large organisation and, it would seem, that 'someone' has attempted to undermine my position and credibility with them.
To avoid any possible embarrassment to this organisation I have, this week, offered my resignation and, thankfully, it has not been accepted. I appreciate their vote of confidence.
I have no idea who was responsible for this 'action', and care even less. However, it is unfortunate that, whoever this 'someone' may be, they are clearly happy to question my integrity when, perhaps, in view of their actions, they should be questioning their own.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
What Next? Pistols at Dawn?
Because of 'incidents' that have occurred this week I have decided that today, 27th January, 2010, I would set out a few details of SDNP's attempt to gag my exposure of their disgraceful behaviour. It is clear, both from what is detailed in this Post, and (possibly) other more recent events, that there really are no depths to which SDNP will not stoop in trying to intimidate and discredit me and salvage some degree of credibility for themselves. It perhaps should be noted that SDNP have acquired £1.2 million of funding from the provider referred to below in this Post and this may go some way towards explaining SDNP's 'lack of enthusiasm' for any exposure.
Firstly - an email that I sent to a prospective SDNP funding provider on 26th November,2009.
I am contacting you to express my, and others, ongoing concerns regarding the suitability of SDNP’s involvement in the control of this community facility.
SDNP representatives as potential, if not already existing, ‘trustees’, have shown themselves to be both devious and untrustworthy in the way that they operate and misrepresent themselves as a ‘community’ association.
Whilst I have no doubt that the Community Centre is a valuable local asset, the actions of SDNP and their associates raises serious doubts re their motives.
If required, documentary evidence and personal testimony from other residents can be provided to support my argument.
Secondly - Extracts from a letter sent to me by legal representatives of SDNP. I have ommitted some of the usual verbal diarrhoea normally associated with such documents but would like to reassure you, the reader, that this in no way detracts from its contents.
"We have been consulted by the St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership and the Exeter Community Centre Trust in connection with the contents of an email sent by you to (Funding Providers) on the 26th November 2009" (copied above in this Post).
"These statements are very serious allegations and are libellous. They have been issued to a third party and therefore are defamatory in nature and our clients are currently considering what further action to take in the matter."
"In the meantime, we must ask you to contact (Funding Provider) immediately and withdraw these statements and forward to us a copy of your letter. Our clients are also entitled to an unqualified apology."
"Finally, we must warn you that if any other statements or correspondence is issued by you to any third party which contains allegations similar to those set out in your email of the 26th November, our clients will have no alternative but to apply, without notice, for a Court Injunction to prevent any further publication and to ask the Court to award substantial damages".
You can draw your own conclusions as to the reasons why SDNP have chosen to take this course of action. If, as I recommended in the Mission Statement at the top of this Blog, you have read the previous posts starting at the bottom, you will perhaps understand why I have taken my course of action.
"Substantial damages"? What about the damages to recompense our community as a result of your clients actions? It would be an interesting exchange of opinions.
Firstly - an email that I sent to a prospective SDNP funding provider on 26th November,2009.
I am contacting you to express my, and others, ongoing concerns regarding the suitability of SDNP’s involvement in the control of this community facility.
SDNP representatives as potential, if not already existing, ‘trustees’, have shown themselves to be both devious and untrustworthy in the way that they operate and misrepresent themselves as a ‘community’ association.
Whilst I have no doubt that the Community Centre is a valuable local asset, the actions of SDNP and their associates raises serious doubts re their motives.
If required, documentary evidence and personal testimony from other residents can be provided to support my argument.
Secondly - Extracts from a letter sent to me by legal representatives of SDNP. I have ommitted some of the usual verbal diarrhoea normally associated with such documents but would like to reassure you, the reader, that this in no way detracts from its contents.
"We have been consulted by the St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership and the Exeter Community Centre Trust in connection with the contents of an email sent by you to (Funding Providers) on the 26th November 2009" (copied above in this Post).
"These statements are very serious allegations and are libellous. They have been issued to a third party and therefore are defamatory in nature and our clients are currently considering what further action to take in the matter."
"In the meantime, we must ask you to contact (Funding Provider) immediately and withdraw these statements and forward to us a copy of your letter. Our clients are also entitled to an unqualified apology."
"Finally, we must warn you that if any other statements or correspondence is issued by you to any third party which contains allegations similar to those set out in your email of the 26th November, our clients will have no alternative but to apply, without notice, for a Court Injunction to prevent any further publication and to ask the Court to award substantial damages".
You can draw your own conclusions as to the reasons why SDNP have chosen to take this course of action. If, as I recommended in the Mission Statement at the top of this Blog, you have read the previous posts starting at the bottom, you will perhaps understand why I have taken my course of action.
"Substantial damages"? What about the damages to recompense our community as a result of your clients actions? It would be an interesting exchange of opinions.
Sunday, 24 January 2010
'Communities First'
Exeter Parks Watch and SDNP represented at Exeter City Council’s Communities First Day (2nd meeting) at St.James's Park (Exeter City Football Club HQ).
Leader of Council asks for update and progress report and congratulates community and Parks Department for their efforts (Mmm.. Interesting comment. At one stage the Communities First Day (2nd Meeting) seemed to be more like the ‘EPW/SDNP Roadshow’.
Christine Fraser invited me to attend this event. My understanding was that this event would provide an opportunity for me to participate in a various 'skill-building' workshops, which is why I attended, and also to 'compare notes/battle scars!' with other community groups.
I attended a workshop, run by Exeter Community Initiative, that offered specific information that I believed would be particularly beneficial to my own community.
I had missed the obvious fact, apparently, that my presence had been "expected to contribute to the promotion of EPW and SDNP". I received considerable criticism from CF for “failing to support EPW and SDNP”.
I can only aplogise to all concerned for my total stupidity in believing that my participation in this event was for the benefit my own immediate community, and not merely to promote and massage the egos of EPW and SDNP.
Leader of Council asks for update and progress report and congratulates community and Parks Department for their efforts (Mmm.. Interesting comment. At one stage the Communities First Day (2nd Meeting) seemed to be more like the ‘EPW/SDNP Roadshow’.
Christine Fraser invited me to attend this event. My understanding was that this event would provide an opportunity for me to participate in a various 'skill-building' workshops, which is why I attended, and also to 'compare notes/battle scars!' with other community groups.
I attended a workshop, run by Exeter Community Initiative, that offered specific information that I believed would be particularly beneficial to my own community.
I had missed the obvious fact, apparently, that my presence had been "expected to contribute to the promotion of EPW and SDNP". I received considerable criticism from CF for “failing to support EPW and SDNP”.
I can only aplogise to all concerned for my total stupidity in believing that my participation in this event was for the benefit my own immediate community, and not merely to promote and massage the egos of EPW and SDNP.
Friday, 22 January 2010
Bridge and Bell Courts - Exe Street - St.David's
I have been approached, as Chair of LSDCA, by Devon and Cornwall Housing Association (DCHA), enquiring if our community association would be prepared to be involved in various proposed improvements to Bridge and Bell Courts.
Previously, DCHA had attended several SDNP meetings endeavouring to enlist their support in this project, and each time SDNP had refused to be involved. DCHA gave up trying because, as one DCHA representative commented, ”With SDNP, it’s not what they can do for you, but what you can do for them”. SDNP are always complaining re various drink and drug incidents relating to Bridge and Bell Courts but, despite SDNP ‘HQ’ being only yards from these flats, refuse to offer any support to DCHA. Clearly, SDNP’s concept of ‘community’ differs to that of Lower St.David's Community Association.
Previously, DCHA had attended several SDNP meetings endeavouring to enlist their support in this project, and each time SDNP had refused to be involved. DCHA gave up trying because, as one DCHA representative commented, ”With SDNP, it’s not what they can do for you, but what you can do for them”. SDNP are always complaining re various drink and drug incidents relating to Bridge and Bell Courts but, despite SDNP ‘HQ’ being only yards from these flats, refuse to offer any support to DCHA. Clearly, SDNP’s concept of ‘community’ differs to that of Lower St.David's Community Association.
Jubilee Court Funday
I contributed to the organisation of a ‘Funday’ at Jubilee and Richmond Courts in May, 2008, these are flats are within the SDNP catchment area. I, and two of the Jubilee Court residents, organised this ‘Funday’ as part of Emma Hall’s (Exeter Community Voluntary Service) ‘Speaking Up in Your Community’ project. Since the ‘Funday’, SDNP have extended their remit to include Jubilee and Richmond Courts, which is, of course, a positive step. It unfortunate that it appears to have taken my involvement with Jubilee Court to bring about something that Exeter City Council staff had been trying to do for a considerable time, but had constantly been refused by SDNP.
Oh Dear, Kelvin, and You Believed That YOUR Contribution REALLY Counted!
Hi Kelvin - You attended a meeting with Christine Fraser relating to SDNP's proposed take-over of the Community Centre. My understanding is that this meeting was with Devon County Council representatives.
Apparently, according to Christine, your contribution was 'f*****g useless'. Neeedless to say, Christine's comment was followed with appropriate apology of , "Excuse my French"! It would appear that your 'contribution' to this meeting did not fulfill the required SDNP mantra and was therefore viewed as um... 'disappointing'.
If it is any comfort, although I doubt it, I too have proved to be a 'disappointment' to the self-seeking/promotion of St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership, view the 'Communities First' Post above for more information re my 'failure to please'.
Apparently, according to Christine, your contribution was 'f*****g useless'. Neeedless to say, Christine's comment was followed with appropriate apology of , "Excuse my French"! It would appear that your 'contribution' to this meeting did not fulfill the required SDNP mantra and was therefore viewed as um... 'disappointing'.
If it is any comfort, although I doubt it, I too have proved to be a 'disappointment' to the self-seeking/promotion of St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership, view the 'Communities First' Post above for more information re my 'failure to please'.
To Sue Lawrence - Your valued Contribution as Perceived By Christine Fraser/SDNP
Extract from email sent to me by Christine Fraser/SDNP. This message was sent to me in response to Susan's continued failure to respond satisfactorily to my requests for specific information relating to an event within our community. I contacted Christine in order that some progress could be made, and in the hope that Christine's contact would prove more positive than my own.
“I will try to get Sue (Lawrence) to butt out - a third and unnecessary event manager!”
It would seem that even Christine Fraser's/SDNP's ‘ally’, Susan Lawrence, is not immune to CF's criticism and controlling remit.
“I will try to get Sue (Lawrence) to butt out - a third and unnecessary event manager!”
It would seem that even Christine Fraser's/SDNP's ‘ally’, Susan Lawrence, is not immune to CF's criticism and controlling remit.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Graffiti Wall
CF/SDNP/SL/EPW pressed very strongly for a ‘Graffiti Wall’ in our community. In spite of strong opposition from the residents (believing it could add to existing graffiti problems), it took many months to convince CF and SL that the community didn’t want it. Despite objections being raised, by various community reps and the community, it was very much a case of having to force this issue. Residents had always vigorously expressed their concerns re inclusion of a graffiti wall, but CF and SL continued discussing it as though it would be implemented. They eventually, and very reluctantly, conceded that our community didn’t want this and it was excluded from the ‘Action Plan’. Yet again CF and SL pushed ‘what was best for our community’ despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Saturday, 16 January 2010
It Would Appear That,....
.... despite Exeter City Council's and Central Government's continuing 'mantra' of greater 'community participation', the reality paints a different picture. Lower St.David's Community Association have made various proposals that would make considerable positive changes/improvements to our community and every time these are rejected, based upon existing 'rules and regulations'. Wake up Exeter City Council and listen to your public, what we have to contribute is important and should be valued. Indications, so far, are not encouraging.
Community Facility - The Sequel
Given the 'knee jerk' rejection of our original proposal by ECC Planningfor the siting of a community facility in Looe Road, on land offered for free use by Cornerstone Housing, and the possibility of their providing suitable insurance cover, an alternative proposal was suggested by Lower St.David's Community Association.
Our second option was to site a mobile classroom within Looe Road Park itself, on an unused area at the Tavistock Road end of the park. These plans were considerably more ambitious than our original proposals and included a disabled toilet facility. As a Community Association we believe that the inclusion of a toilet would encourage greater community involvement, from all areas of Exeter, including St.David's Primary School.
Lower St.David's Community Association have formed a community Gardening Club and part of our remit was to create a 'veggie patch' adjacent to the proposed community facility in which the youngsters would grow their own vegetables. Water from the roof of the mobile classroom would be collected and used to water the produce. It was also our intention for the children to 'soft landscape' their new Kabin with various plants to reduce the impact on the park.
Yet again our proposals were rejected on the basis of "loss of valuable green space", by Parks, and by Planning based on , "impact on the properties that overlook the park".
Both Parks and Planning are unable, or unwilling, to accept that a survey, carried out by Lower St.David's Community Association, made it clear that 99% of the residents support our proposals, including those residents that overlook the park.
Again, LSDCA's proposals were rejected by Parks and Planning, despite the obvious benefits that the provision of a community-based facility would contribute to the future well-being of the residents within Lower St.David's.
Our second option was to site a mobile classroom within Looe Road Park itself, on an unused area at the Tavistock Road end of the park. These plans were considerably more ambitious than our original proposals and included a disabled toilet facility. As a Community Association we believe that the inclusion of a toilet would encourage greater community involvement, from all areas of Exeter, including St.David's Primary School.
Lower St.David's Community Association have formed a community Gardening Club and part of our remit was to create a 'veggie patch' adjacent to the proposed community facility in which the youngsters would grow their own vegetables. Water from the roof of the mobile classroom would be collected and used to water the produce. It was also our intention for the children to 'soft landscape' their new Kabin with various plants to reduce the impact on the park.
Yet again our proposals were rejected on the basis of "loss of valuable green space", by Parks, and by Planning based on , "impact on the properties that overlook the park".
Both Parks and Planning are unable, or unwilling, to accept that a survey, carried out by Lower St.David's Community Association, made it clear that 99% of the residents support our proposals, including those residents that overlook the park.
Again, LSDCA's proposals were rejected by Parks and Planning, despite the obvious benefits that the provision of a community-based facility would contribute to the future well-being of the residents within Lower St.David's.
Friday, 15 January 2010
Lower St.David's Community Facility
Mobile Classroom (The Kabin) for Community Use – Approx 7M x 3M (22ft x 10ft) - A resident has requested LSDCA to explore the possibility of a Mobile Classroom as a community facility to provide somewhere for year round indoor activities and storage for play equipment for use in the park. The Kabin would enable events to be organised throughout the Winter months.
As a result of this request we have been engaged in consultation with Cornerstone Housing, owners of social housing within our community, and they have generously offered the free use of a small piece of land that they own in Looe Road on which to site this unit, subject to further discussions. This small plot of land is currently little more than a dog's toilet and frequently used for fly-tipping. Cornerstone has also agreed to consider the possibility of including insurance cover for the Kabin within their existing arrangements.
Western Power have provided a quotation for the electricity supply.
We have also met on-site with the Crime Prevention Officer for input and their comments have been noted.
A water supply has been excluded at this stage because it is thought that the ‘ongoing’ costs cannot be justified. This decision will be open to review in the future if this project goes ahead.
Various sources of funding are being/will be explored. There is a strong possibility of Section 106 money being available to part fund this community amenity. (Section 106 funding is a financial contribution, towards local amenities, provided by a developer. In this instance, the developers of the Apollo site in Looe Road).
Preparation of suitable concrete base for the Kabin will be sought free of charge from various construction companies, Rok, Cowlin Construction etc. Alternatively, provision of materials FOC from builders’ merchants, to allow the community themselves to prepare the base, will be explored.
A community survey, carried out by LSDCA, resulted in 99% positive support for this project. The 1% that disagreed expressed concerns regarding the loss of parking spaces and the possibility of excessive noise during the evenings. A meeting with Cornerstone has confirmed that the Kabin can be installed with minimal (or probably zero) reduction in parking. Also, LSDCA will implement controls/use of the Kabin during any evening events to ensure that it has minimal/no impact on the nearby residents.
Possible uses of Mobile Classroom Include –
Childrens Toy/Book Library
Model-making
Storytelling
Film shows
Meetings
Art and Craft Workshops
Gardening Club
Environmental issues
Nature/Woodland WorkshopsBirthday Parties .
Basically, anything the community wants, within reason, we will try to organise it.
All a very worthy proposal, you may think. Unfortunately, the Planning Department disagree on the basis that it would have a 'detrimental impact on the street scene'. Mmm...I see, dogs toilet and rubbish tip replaced by a 'soft landscaped' community facility. No contest really!
As a result of this request we have been engaged in consultation with Cornerstone Housing, owners of social housing within our community, and they have generously offered the free use of a small piece of land that they own in Looe Road on which to site this unit, subject to further discussions. This small plot of land is currently little more than a dog's toilet and frequently used for fly-tipping. Cornerstone has also agreed to consider the possibility of including insurance cover for the Kabin within their existing arrangements.
Western Power have provided a quotation for the electricity supply.
We have also met on-site with the Crime Prevention Officer for input and their comments have been noted.
A water supply has been excluded at this stage because it is thought that the ‘ongoing’ costs cannot be justified. This decision will be open to review in the future if this project goes ahead.
Various sources of funding are being/will be explored. There is a strong possibility of Section 106 money being available to part fund this community amenity. (Section 106 funding is a financial contribution, towards local amenities, provided by a developer. In this instance, the developers of the Apollo site in Looe Road).
Preparation of suitable concrete base for the Kabin will be sought free of charge from various construction companies, Rok, Cowlin Construction etc. Alternatively, provision of materials FOC from builders’ merchants, to allow the community themselves to prepare the base, will be explored.
A community survey, carried out by LSDCA, resulted in 99% positive support for this project. The 1% that disagreed expressed concerns regarding the loss of parking spaces and the possibility of excessive noise during the evenings. A meeting with Cornerstone has confirmed that the Kabin can be installed with minimal (or probably zero) reduction in parking. Also, LSDCA will implement controls/use of the Kabin during any evening events to ensure that it has minimal/no impact on the nearby residents.
Possible uses of Mobile Classroom Include –
Childrens Toy/Book Library
Model-making
Storytelling
Film shows
Meetings
Art and Craft Workshops
Gardening Club
Environmental issues
Nature/Woodland WorkshopsBirthday Parties .
Basically, anything the community wants, within reason, we will try to organise it.
All a very worthy proposal, you may think. Unfortunately, the Planning Department disagree on the basis that it would have a 'detrimental impact on the street scene'. Mmm...I see, dogs toilet and rubbish tip replaced by a 'soft landscaped' community facility. No contest really!
Thursday, 14 January 2010
Exeter City Council Parks and Planning
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
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
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Section 106 (S106) Funding
Section 106 funding is an agreement entered into between the local council and a property developer. This agreement requires the developer to provide a specific amount of funding for the improvement/implementation of community amenities. There are certain restrictions that stipulate which type of redevelopment is subject to a S106 agreement (eg student accommodation and hotels are not subject to S106 agreements and therefore there is no funding available from this type of development).
Redevelopment within St.David's resulted in a S106 funding provision of £60,000 for improving community facilities. Not unreasonably, I believe, it was anticipated that Looe Road Park would receive at least a share of this funding, given the desperate need for improvements.
The majority, if not all, of the £60,000 was spent on another park (Bury Meadow). I had discussed this matter with CF/SDNP, prior to the expenditure, and she assured me that, "she would deal with it because she knew who was responsible, and she saw no reason why they (Bury Meadow Park) should have this money, they're not even in St.David's". Our community was misled again by CF/SDNP and we received nothing.
Redevelopment within St.David's resulted in a S106 funding provision of £60,000 for improving community facilities. Not unreasonably, I believe, it was anticipated that Looe Road Park would receive at least a share of this funding, given the desperate need for improvements.
The majority, if not all, of the £60,000 was spent on another park (Bury Meadow). I had discussed this matter with CF/SDNP, prior to the expenditure, and she assured me that, "she would deal with it because she knew who was responsible, and she saw no reason why they (Bury Meadow Park) should have this money, they're not even in St.David's". Our community was misled again by CF/SDNP and we received nothing.
Sunday, 3 January 2010
Greater Involvement With Social Housing Tenants - Deja Vu!
At about the same time that I organised the Express & Echo article I also approached the Chair of Exeter Housing Society's (now Cornerstone) Tenants Representative Committee to request a meeting to discuss any support that they may be able to offer. Frequent requests made, again over many months, to CF/SDNP/SL/EPW to arrange this meeting, were ignored.
As with the newspaper article, CF/SDNP/SL/EPW were supportive when I informed them that I had taken the initiative myself and organised a meeting with the Tenants Reps Committee. Once again, CF/SDNP/SL/EPW withdrew their support at the last minute and I was informed that, "Any views that I expressed at this meeting could only be from a personal point of view and were not endorsed by CF/SDNP/SL/EPW". Why not? You constantly bleat on about 'active community participation' but the reality is that, as always, you only want it on your terms, if at all. Thank you all very much for 'support', not.
As with the newspaper article, CF/SDNP/SL/EPW were supportive when I informed them that I had taken the initiative myself and organised a meeting with the Tenants Reps Committee. Once again, CF/SDNP/SL/EPW withdrew their support at the last minute and I was informed that, "Any views that I expressed at this meeting could only be from a personal point of view and were not endorsed by CF/SDNP/SL/EPW". Why not? You constantly bleat on about 'active community participation' but the reality is that, as always, you only want it on your terms, if at all. Thank you all very much for 'support', not.
Friday, 1 January 2010
Further Community Involvement with 'The Art Guy'
Based upon the obvious rapport that The Art Guy and his team had with the youngsters of our community during the 'Sign Design' event I thought it would be a positive step to build on this and organise another art based project in Looe Road Park.
The concept was that the children, assisted by The Art Guy, would create their own designs and these would be reproduced on T shirts by our local Community Association.
I spoke with Christine Fraser/SDNP with a view to arranging this event with the co-operation of Exeter City Council's Play Rangers. Christine informed that there was, "no way that the Art Guy's manager at the Scrapstore, Perry Evans, would agree to this".
Based upon my previous experiences of Christine's manipulative and self-seeking attitude, I decided that I would contact The Art Guy directly and discuss our Association's proposals with him personally. The information that I had been given by Christine Fraser was again untrue. Whilst The Art Guy was funded by ECC's Play Ranger scheme his participation in the T shirt event was not a problem as long it could be organised around The Art Guy's existing commitments for Exeter City Council. A date for this event was organised and it was very successful.
Once again our community had been misinformed/misled by Christine Fraser. It would not be unreasonable to comment here that Christine's bombastic personality had yet again created an element of ill-feeling with the very people that have so much to contribute to what our Community Association is trying to achieve on a local level. It was made clear, in emails to myself from Christine, that she had no time for Exeter City Council's Play Rangers generally, and Perry Evans specifically.
Christine, you should be ashamed of yourself for your attitude. Of course, you won't be, such is the level of your own arrogance that you believe that your behaviour is acceptable. It isn't.
My continued attempts to implement some level of control over Christine's behaviour, made to Hannah Reynolds, as always, resulted in no response other than the comment from Ms Reynolds that, "It's us (the community) against them, (Exeter City Council)".
Thank you for your support Hannah, your attitude is clearly no different to that of Christine Frasers.
The concept was that the children, assisted by The Art Guy, would create their own designs and these would be reproduced on T shirts by our local Community Association.
I spoke with Christine Fraser/SDNP with a view to arranging this event with the co-operation of Exeter City Council's Play Rangers. Christine informed that there was, "no way that the Art Guy's manager at the Scrapstore, Perry Evans, would agree to this".
Based upon my previous experiences of Christine's manipulative and self-seeking attitude, I decided that I would contact The Art Guy directly and discuss our Association's proposals with him personally. The information that I had been given by Christine Fraser was again untrue. Whilst The Art Guy was funded by ECC's Play Ranger scheme his participation in the T shirt event was not a problem as long it could be organised around The Art Guy's existing commitments for Exeter City Council. A date for this event was organised and it was very successful.
Once again our community had been misinformed/misled by Christine Fraser. It would not be unreasonable to comment here that Christine's bombastic personality had yet again created an element of ill-feeling with the very people that have so much to contribute to what our Community Association is trying to achieve on a local level. It was made clear, in emails to myself from Christine, that she had no time for Exeter City Council's Play Rangers generally, and Perry Evans specifically.
Christine, you should be ashamed of yourself for your attitude. Of course, you won't be, such is the level of your own arrogance that you believe that your behaviour is acceptable. It isn't.
My continued attempts to implement some level of control over Christine's behaviour, made to Hannah Reynolds, as always, resulted in no response other than the comment from Ms Reynolds that, "It's us (the community) against them, (Exeter City Council)".
Thank you for your support Hannah, your attitude is clearly no different to that of Christine Frasers.
Sign Design Event
An event was organised in Looe Road Park at which the youngsters of our comunity would create designs asa basis for new signage in the park. This event was organised with the co-operation of Exeter City Council's Play Ranger initiative and 'The Art Guy' (Stuart Dawson), also funded by ECC. This event proved to be very popular and new signage for the park was created and installed by ECC funding. A success, although our community is still waiting for for the sign that was promised for the new planter that was installed in the park. To date there is still no indication when this sign will be provided for installation by the youngster that designed it, despite reminders to ECC Parks Department.
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Resignation from Exeter Parks Watch
Below is a copy of another document (highlighted in blue) presented to Susan Lawrence for inclusion in the minutes of the EPW meeting at which I resigned. Despite several requests to Susan Lawrence to accept this document for inclusion in the minutes, she refused. A copy was given to her and also distributed to others at this meeting.
Despite this post's reference to my resignation from EPW there is still a considerable quantity of information that will continue to be posted on this Blog.
It was also at this time that I resigned my 'position' on the SDNP committee.
Exeter Parks Watch Meeting – Hayes Barton – Friday, 14th March
It is with some regret that as of today I am withdrawing my involvement with Exeter Parks Watch. I feel that, at this time, there are irreconcilable differences and, in spite of trying vigorously to resolve these, I am left with no option but to withdraw, if only for the time being.
I have been concerned for some time about various issues, some of which I raised again at the previous meeting on 8th February. Whilst the points that I raised on the 8th February may have been viewed as critical, if I had been given the opportunity to finish speaking it would have been clear, to all those present, that I was using them as examples to highlight areas where there was scope for reappraisal of ‘working practices’. Unfortunately, my efforts at serious constructive discussion were responded to with open hostility from Christine Fraser/SDNP and, to a lesser degree, Susan Lawrence/EPW. Following the meeting of 8th February, I was asked, by Susan Lawrence, to provide a statement for inclusion in the minutes of that meeting. I provided the statement, as requested, but it was not included in the minutes when they were distributed. This failure is symptomatic of the way Exeter Parks Watch is run by CF/SDNP and SL.
During the interim period between the meeting of 8th February and today (14th March) I have received no information/emails relating to our community from Christine Fraser and only the minutes (incomplete and excluding my first statement) from Susan Lawrence. I have also been excluded from the ‘mailing list’ relating to the 14th March meeting but another attendee did forward a copy of the minutes to me. A clear attempt to exclude me from the information chain. If ‘constructive dismissal’ was applicable to committees then my departure from Parks Watch would, I’m sure, qualify.
In spite of this and, yet again, in an effort to reach a satisfactory solution, I invited Susan Lawrence to my home yesterday for an informal discussion. I asked Susan Lawrence if ‘the ends justify any means’, she chose not to respond. Susan, as always, was not prepared to accept any of my opinions. Susan also commented, "Paul Faulkner is a committee member of Parks Watch and, if Parks Watch pull out of Looe Road Park or are asked to end their involvement, Paul Faulkner goes as well, taking any funding with him. Any requests for funding would then have to be made directly to Exeter City Council". Whilst this comment may be true, the tone in which it was delivered was again typical of the ‘browbeating’ stance taken if anyone has the temerity to raise unwelcome issues. As far as I am aware, Paul Faulkner is an employee of Exeter City Council, and not ‘joined at the hip’ to Exeter Parks Watch. I have always appreciated Paul Faulkner’s commitment and contribution to our community, something I’m sure he is well aware of. It is regrettable that my opinions of Paul Faulkner have since changed, it would seem that Susan Lawrence's threats of the Parks Department's departure with EPW became a reality.
There have been minor successes for which our community is appreciative; this has never been disputed. There have also been many failures and misrepresentations, but it is essential that, as far as CF/SDNP/SL/EPW are concerned, these can only be presented with a positive ‘spin’ or not at all.
Despite this post's reference to my resignation from EPW there is still a considerable quantity of information that will continue to be posted on this Blog.
It was also at this time that I resigned my 'position' on the SDNP committee.
Exeter Parks Watch Meeting – Hayes Barton – Friday, 14th March
It is with some regret that as of today I am withdrawing my involvement with Exeter Parks Watch. I feel that, at this time, there are irreconcilable differences and, in spite of trying vigorously to resolve these, I am left with no option but to withdraw, if only for the time being.
I have been concerned for some time about various issues, some of which I raised again at the previous meeting on 8th February. Whilst the points that I raised on the 8th February may have been viewed as critical, if I had been given the opportunity to finish speaking it would have been clear, to all those present, that I was using them as examples to highlight areas where there was scope for reappraisal of ‘working practices’. Unfortunately, my efforts at serious constructive discussion were responded to with open hostility from Christine Fraser/SDNP and, to a lesser degree, Susan Lawrence/EPW. Following the meeting of 8th February, I was asked, by Susan Lawrence, to provide a statement for inclusion in the minutes of that meeting. I provided the statement, as requested, but it was not included in the minutes when they were distributed. This failure is symptomatic of the way Exeter Parks Watch is run by CF/SDNP and SL.
During the interim period between the meeting of 8th February and today (14th March) I have received no information/emails relating to our community from Christine Fraser and only the minutes (incomplete and excluding my first statement) from Susan Lawrence. I have also been excluded from the ‘mailing list’ relating to the 14th March meeting but another attendee did forward a copy of the minutes to me. A clear attempt to exclude me from the information chain. If ‘constructive dismissal’ was applicable to committees then my departure from Parks Watch would, I’m sure, qualify.
In spite of this and, yet again, in an effort to reach a satisfactory solution, I invited Susan Lawrence to my home yesterday for an informal discussion. I asked Susan Lawrence if ‘the ends justify any means’, she chose not to respond. Susan, as always, was not prepared to accept any of my opinions. Susan also commented, "Paul Faulkner is a committee member of Parks Watch and, if Parks Watch pull out of Looe Road Park or are asked to end their involvement, Paul Faulkner goes as well, taking any funding with him. Any requests for funding would then have to be made directly to Exeter City Council". Whilst this comment may be true, the tone in which it was delivered was again typical of the ‘browbeating’ stance taken if anyone has the temerity to raise unwelcome issues. As far as I am aware, Paul Faulkner is an employee of Exeter City Council, and not ‘joined at the hip’ to Exeter Parks Watch. I have always appreciated Paul Faulkner’s commitment and contribution to our community, something I’m sure he is well aware of. It is regrettable that my opinions of Paul Faulkner have since changed, it would seem that Susan Lawrence's threats of the Parks Department's departure with EPW became a reality.
There have been minor successes for which our community is appreciative; this has never been disputed. There have also been many failures and misrepresentations, but it is essential that, as far as CF/SDNP/SL/EPW are concerned, these can only be presented with a positive ‘spin’ or not at all.
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Fencing Around Part of Looe Road Park
Following on from a previous post relating to the football pitch.
This pitch is not full-size and had become effectively little more than a dog's toilet and was also used for the annual November 5th bonfire.
The single most significant improvement to Looe Road Park has been the erection of metal fencing around the main section of the grassed area that includes the football pitch, funded by Exeter City Council. This has resulted in a virtually dog-mess free zone that provides a healthier recreational environment for our community and for this we are grateful. A community survey revealed that provision of this fencing was judged to be a high priority by the residents.
I have been informed by two governors of St.David's Primary School that the only reason that this fencing was installed was to enable use by the school because their own playing field could not be used due to ongoing building work that made use of their own football pitch impossible. I have also been informed that considerable pressure was applied to Exeter City Council to provide this fencing for the school's benefit. Clearly, the school children couldn't use the park whilst it presented a potential health risk due to contamination by dog faeces.
As a community we have absolutely no problem with the local primary school using Looe Road Park but, please, CF/SDNP/SL/EPW, do not inform our community or anyone else that the fencing was installed only because we wanted it, because this is clearly untrue. The fencing was installed first and foremost for the benefit of St.David's Primary School pupils, and not for our community, as you prefer to publicise.
It would appear that, despite the additional fencing, the primary school have visited Looe Road Park on only one occasion, and then only very briefly. Could this have been because of the lack of suitable toilet facilities in Looe Road Park for the schoolchilden? St.David's Primary School have had to transport their pupils to an alternative park elsewhere in Exeter that, presumably, had adequate facilities for the youngsters.
This pitch is not full-size and had become effectively little more than a dog's toilet and was also used for the annual November 5th bonfire.
The single most significant improvement to Looe Road Park has been the erection of metal fencing around the main section of the grassed area that includes the football pitch, funded by Exeter City Council. This has resulted in a virtually dog-mess free zone that provides a healthier recreational environment for our community and for this we are grateful. A community survey revealed that provision of this fencing was judged to be a high priority by the residents.
I have been informed by two governors of St.David's Primary School that the only reason that this fencing was installed was to enable use by the school because their own playing field could not be used due to ongoing building work that made use of their own football pitch impossible. I have also been informed that considerable pressure was applied to Exeter City Council to provide this fencing for the school's benefit. Clearly, the school children couldn't use the park whilst it presented a potential health risk due to contamination by dog faeces.
As a community we have absolutely no problem with the local primary school using Looe Road Park but, please, CF/SDNP/SL/EPW, do not inform our community or anyone else that the fencing was installed only because we wanted it, because this is clearly untrue. The fencing was installed first and foremost for the benefit of St.David's Primary School pupils, and not for our community, as you prefer to publicise.
It would appear that, despite the additional fencing, the primary school have visited Looe Road Park on only one occasion, and then only very briefly. Could this have been because of the lack of suitable toilet facilities in Looe Road Park for the schoolchilden? St.David's Primary School have had to transport their pupils to an alternative park elsewhere in Exeter that, presumably, had adequate facilities for the youngsters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
