Recreational Land Debate

[neilmurg]

I am posting this message on the Whitley Blog to express my views on the proposed recreational area. My main concern regarding these plans relates to the probable increase in anti-social behaviour this proposal will lead to. I see little (if any) signs of such behaviour in the village at present, but this sort of development will change this - take a look at the area surrounding Eggborough Village Hall, or read the story in last weeks Pontefract & Castleford Express about a similar development in Purston. The planned development in Whitley could turn this area into a congregation place for ill-intending youths from across the area. I have already raised this concern with the Parish Council and received the response - "It is possible that the space may result in youths congregating and anti-social behaviour, but it is up to all residents to be on the watch-out and report it to the concillors or the police" - how reassuring !!

Also, take a look at the costs involved - according to the report from the Parish Council, costs are well in excess of £60k initally and are then £9k per annum thereafter, and if I'm reading the report correctly, the Council are looking at taking out a mortgage (to be paid for by us, the council tax payer) in order to purchase and develop the land. Local Council Tax will increase by £22 to pay for this, yet who can really justify the requirement - there are already recreational areas at either side of the village. A typical mortgage payer would be able to save just under £1000 in interest on their mortgage repayments if they were to pay an extra £22 per year on their mortage rather than in additional Council Tax - I know what I would rather do !!

[pells]

Do you happen to live next to it by any chance? What a load of tosh, the village is crying out for development and such facilities are desperately needed. Development and particulary such community facilities should be positively encouraged.

The Parish Council is absolutely right, it is up to the community to look after it and use it, thats the whole point! We can't reject it and do nothing because of what are essentially percieved fears about youths hanging round.

The childrens play areas on the two new housing estates are excellent and of real benefit to the community.

[neilmurg]

Yes, I do live near the proposed development and the perceived fears are not "a load of tosh", they are real fears based on previous experience and the experience of others who live near similar developments. The current plans are ill thought out - the location, the layout, the access, the car park and the facilities within. As they stand, they would represent a severe invasion of privacy to anyone living near it.

[T Rogerson]

I too live near the development, however that is not why I am opposed to this. I share the same concerns as neilmurg, but I also question what the purpose of this area is. We are told that it to provide facilities for teenagers as there is currently nothing for them in this village and that the play areas are aimed at 3-10 year olds. I do not think this land will solve our problem of not having facilities for teenagers as after looking at the plans there will be nothing there apart from space which will provide a meeting place but lead to boredom and therefore anti social behaviour.

The church conversion better addresses this issue where social clubs youth groups etc could take place, I feel that the resources would be better ploughed into this project, rather than purchasing this land which will no doubt end up becoming a dog walking area for dog owners in this village.

The two new play areas provide play space for children, we now have a fantastic sports facility in the grounds of the school with possible changing areas if the plans go ahead and we will have a village hall facility with outdoor space at the site of the church.

With these facilities in place then you have to question what the purpose of this expensive development is and should such a large amount of money be spent?

My understanding is that there is a smaller cheaper option in an alternative location which would not involve borrowing money but would provide albeit a smaller but perfectly adequate recreational space (especially taking into account the above facilities), on grounds of cost and practicality should this option not be considered by the residents and maybe a vote given to people of the village of their preferences.

If we can avoid increases in council tax but still provide the village with an array of adequate facilities this would surely be better for all.

[jackfrost01@gmail.com]

Who on earth dreamed-up this ludicrous idea?

Planning permission cannot be obtained to build facilities, no car parking facilities, no toilets, no childrens play area - what use is it??? Recreation only - the plans are to erect trees and fencing, maybe it can be used as a local toilet for dog-walkers??

Having made enquiries, I have discovered that 106 funding is being sought to help purchase the land together with loans by Parish Council. I also understand that this funding could be accessed for "other" facilities in the village, so why don't the Church people apply to obtain some funding from 106 for the conversion. Also, why can't the Parish Council organise Christmas lights along the A19 like Burn did last year?

[stevej]

I must agree with jackfrost on this and the eco-town topic. Why are we buying this land - there appears to be little, if any, demand for it. Also, can anyone answer who this land is being bought from?

Having read the views of some Kellington locals on the proposed new Eco-town (follow the link on the home page of this site), its seems that this is being allowed for by the availability of land from Poskitts. I'm not sure of this, but is this land in Whitley also owned by Poskitt? If so, why are we lining the pockets of someone who appears willing to sell this whole area down the river for a few pieces of silver???

[Sponsored content]