Playground fears delay final verdict
PLANS to build a playground behind homes will be reconsidered following opposition from residents.
The proposal to reinstate the former play area in Marsh Way, Wolstanton, was approved by Newcastle Borough Council's cabinet last month.
But after residents organised a 100-name petition against the plans, cabinet members have agreed to take another look at the issue.
Families living in Albert Terrace, which backs on to the site, fear the playground will attract anti-social behaviour.
They say that when there was a playground there in the early 1990s, they had to put up with gangs of up to 50 teenagers drinking, shouting, damaging fences and leaving litter.
That play area was removed in 1995 due to changes in health and safety laws, and residents do not want a recurrence of the problems.
Geoff Pardoe, aged 78, said: "I'm glad that they're reconsidering, but I'm also cautious, as they haven't said it definitely won't be going ahead.
"It took us four years to get something done about the problems in the early 1990s, and I believe they will be even worse now, because the prevalence of drugs and alcohol is much greater than it was then."
Charlotte Pound, aged 20, of Albert Terrace, was also glad the council was reconsidering the plan.
She said: "I know this play area has to go somewhere, but does it really have to be behind our houses?
"We've had problems in the past with kids drinking there, and it's not really what you want in your neighbourhood."
The borough council had originally planned to build a play area on Wolstanton Marsh, at the junction of Southlands Avenue and Milehouse Lane.
But residents there submitted a 94-name petition against the plans.
One site will have to be chosen, as the borough council is legally obliged to spend the £125,000 it received from local developers to improve children's facilities in the area.
Councillor Mary Maxfield, cabinet member for culture and active communities, said: "It is going to be reconsidered. I think wherever we put this there will be some objections."
4 Comments
by mark, wolstanton
Saturday, March 20 2010, 2:21PM
“Paul
It was a failure to comply with European Legislation that meant the original playground was removed.
Lynn
The open space there is already used daily by kids playing ball games. I live there (with 3 children) and enjoy that, so it's certainly not a case of NIMBYism.”
by mark, Wolstanton
Saturday, March 20 2010, 2:19PM
“The real story here is that the playground was going to be on Milehouse lane.
Objections were raised by Porthill (strange but true), and as a result the idea was moved. The planning officer found no evidence to substantiate any of the complaints raised by residents opposed to the Milehouse development.
Objections were raised by residents of Marsh Way (with evidence to substantiate those objections), although no response was ever received from the Council, so the decision is now being reviewed.
It's worth noting that the Council have taken 3.5 years to get to this stage, and now only have 18 months left to spend the money!”
by Paul, Newcastle under Lyme
Friday, February 26 2010, 6:28PM
“Lived round here all my life and there were never groups that large,
When my daughter discovered it gone[must have been around around 1999 not 95] she was heart broken,
I used to think it was just health and safety loonies that had it shut down,but reading this i gather some sad individuals were involved in its demise,
I say lets get this play area built.
Too late for my daughter but good for lots of younger kids.”
by Lynn, Wolstanton
Friday, February 26 2010, 1:28PM
“The only disruption in the area is the people sitting outside the Wulstan pub on a late evening where's the petition for that noise during unsociable hours. The old play area was never a place where young people sat and drank late at night because it was to publicly visable and open to the elements. Our children need open spaces and parks to play in that are close to home..you cannot hide them away they need to be out playing and being active instead of sitting watching TV or playing on their computer. A 98 signatory petition has been signed by those opposed what about those who dont really have a problem..98 isnt alot considering the number of people that live in the area.
the council should rethink and look at the number who will benefit rather than than 98 people who probabley dont have children and are in the minority.”