To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Note: A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
Minutes:
Referring to item 7 on the agenda (Play Area Update) Mr Ursell stated that Willand Parish Council had responded comprehensively to the survey and also wrote a covering letter dated 26th January in which they asked for further information in relation to provision of map overlays, clarification was requested as to what was meant by ‘ownership’ of the play areas and challenged the number of play areas in the village. This did not appear to be consistent with the statement in section 2.4 in the report which stated that Willand generally provided a positive response. We had no acknowledgement or answer. We ask why not? Bearing in mind that a Member criticised Town and Parish Councils for not communicating information to officers is it the wish of Members that communication should be a one way process only?
Mr Grantham, referring to item 7 on the agenda, said that the meaning of ‘ownership’ of the play areas was not answered at the January meeting and so our District Councillor pursued the matter and was told by an officer “I consider the point that you have raised should be addressed in the report to the March PDG and discussed”. We note that this issue appears to have been dealt with by a two word bullet point in paragraph 2.8. Is there an attempt to mislead Members or Town/Parish Councils on the intention of MDDC on this issue?
R Mander, referring to item 7 on the agenda, stated that in the report Willand are shown as answering ‘no’ but that was qualified and without Members being aware of that qualification it could give a misleading impression. Further at annex 4 we gave detailed comments against each site. In the main these comments have been subject to précis thereby watering down their meaning and in two cases they are wrongly attributed to sites. Is not this action likely to mislead Members as to the views of Willand Parish Council?
Referring to item 7 on the agenda Mr Warren said that paragraph 3.8 of the report states it will be not be necessary to have further detailed consultations with Parish and Town Councils involved in those play areas identified in annex 5. This will involve addressing their concerns listed in 2.8 above and any other points specific to the identified sites. This is found to be misleading – are we to be consulted further or not over this issue?
He also stated that in annex 5 the scoring for fencing in relation to the Willand sites was misleading as there appears to be little wrong with it. Further the + or – signs referred to in paragraph 3.5 are not in evidence. Further the suggested closure of Chestnut Drive is contrary to comments in the Willand profile where it is stated that “a priority is to improve the play area at Chestnut Drive” – what is the true position please?
Mr Warren continued to ask if play areas are decommissioned what is to become of the land as these play areas were created as part of the planning approval for provision of houses in that area? Would MDDC be seeking to sell off the ground for the building off more houses on a windfall site?
The Chairman informed the public that their questions would be answered at the appropriate agenda item.