To receive petitions, comments and questions from the public.
Decision:
(i) Emma Bown (Hitchin resident): petition against the proposed closure of Rosehill Play Area in Hitchin
Minutes:
(i) Emma Bown (Hitchin resident): petition against the proposed closure of Rosehill Play Area in Hitchin
· to keep a park and its equipment that was well used properly and professionally inspected and maintained. The maintenance company themselves had told residents that this park was well used and, indeed, of their surprise of the categorisation that there was low use and therefore the play equipment was to be removed. The residents had heard first hand stories from parents and grandparents who tell them of their own play time on the well-loved the ‘rocking horse’ which had been at the park for over 50 years. It was understood that the cost of the park was £2,200 per annum, set against some tens of thousands to remove the equipment. This information had not been readily forthcoming, and the residents had needed to persist to get this information. She asked councillors to pause and consider that figure of £2,200 per annum; and
Ms Bown considered that a grassy area, as per the Council’s plan, was not the same as a play area. Children needed to climb, interact, explore. This would not be possible if there was only grass available to them.
Ms Bown trusted that councillors had seen the petitioners’ assertion that there were clear and distinct differences between Rosehill and the nearest alternative park, Walsworth Common. She expected that the Council would argue that the costs involved were such that it had no choice, but she felt that there was always a choice. Elected Members had to choose from a variety of priorities and the allocation of scarce resources was part of that job. If Members decided to always cut and snip at the least glamorous services, then the effect was felt at all levels.
Ms Bown stated that, nationally, the Conservative Party had felt such an effect at the recent General Election. Right across the country, and here in North Hertfordshire, people were fed up with cuts to the basics. And so were the petitioners, in their Walsworth ward and neighbourhood.
Ms Bown was of the view that, for children and for families, playgrounds were the basics. To argue that a Community Group could take over the Play Park as a trust was passing the buck. By so doing, Members were denying their responsibility. There is no precedent in setting up a CAT for a park such as Rosehill.
Ms Bown stated that the residents elected Members to the Council to be responsible for all the Council’s communities. It was the Members’ job to look after the needs of the District’s young children. She felt that this was not a lot to ask.
Ms McDonald advised that the reason she was speaking was because of the unsatisfactory and delayed response from Councillor Tony Hunter (Executive Member for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs) to her questions raised at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 21 March 2017 about the Hitchin Town Hall and District Museum. In his response letter dated 13 June 2017, the following questions were not answered to her satisfaction:
How much was the project likely to cost? The answer was an estimate of £5.81M in May 2016 which was outdated, she was led to believe projected additional expenditure to open the museum was likely to be approx. £1M, bringing the total cost to around £7M. Why was there no project cost update for 2017?
£29,250 of Section 106 money was spent on a youth facility at Hitchin Town Hall. Where was this youth facility? – the public needed to know.
Her concern was that the Lucas Room could be hired without it being Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant. The answer was that this room was exempt from Building Regulations. Given that the Council had sold off buildings with entrance steps because of being DDA compliance she found this answer hard to believe. The purpose of the DDA made it unlawful to discriminate against people because of their disabilities in relation to employment, the provision of goods and services, education and transport and required "reasonable adjustments" to be made when providing access to goods, facilities, services and premises. No “reasonable adjustments” appeared to have been made to make it easier for disabled people to reach the Lucas Room.
She asked about the proposed £30,000 per year savings, and Cllr Hunter was not aware of this. In 2004/05, NHDC undertook a Fundamental Service Review (also known as a Best Value Review) of its Museum Service to close the two existing Council-run museums and instead run a museum and gallery on a single town-centre site, with a saving of £125,000. In February 2009, the Council proposed a scheme which envisaged revenue savings of £180,000p.a. This was under the portfolio of former Cllr Tricia Cowley, so it was unlikely that Cllr Tony Hunter would know about it. It seemed there had been several figures quoted, but she would be grateful to see an answer showing any saving to justify the massive expenditure so far.
Cllr Hone stated that the Council did not need the former 14/15 Brand Street in order to operate the new museum and Town Hall facility. We asked, if this is so, what were the cost implications to tax payers for the possible demolition of the building constructed on land that the council did not own? This was apparently commercially sensitive information, why then did Cllr Hone mention it? Surely any solution to open the District Museum as soon as possible would be welcome
Ms McDonald stated that because the District Museum was closed some people see this as a godsend for the Council. Once open expenditure would increase with additional staff to be employed along with costs for security, cleaning insurance maintenance etc. People were asking if this Museum was really necessary having been closed for so long.
Ms McDonald commented that, as Members would be aware, the members of the public social media group “The Future of Hitchin Town Hall & Museum” had called for a full independent public enquiry into the financial management and upgrading of the Hitchin Town Hall and construction of the new District Museum. Involved was Mr Peter Lilley and the newly elected MP Bim Afolami who was dealing with it. Hopefully this, and her group’s request for answers from her presentation to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would help the Council to become more transparent on this matter.
The Chairman thanked Ms McDonald for her presentation.
The Executive Member for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs (Councillor Tony Hunter) stated that NHDC was now on its own in attempting to complete this project. In 2012, the Council had hoped that it would be working with a partner, but unfortunately that had been fraught with problems, which was why the current position pertained.
The Executive Member for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs explained that the £2.3Million cost quoted in previous reports was the projected cost when the Council was just looking at the Museum and Town Hall. Things changed when 14 and 15 Brand Street were added to the scheme, and hence the figure of £5.81Million was the revised projected cost. To date, NHDC had spent £5.329Million on the project.
The Executive Member for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs advised that all financial decisions on the town Hall had gone through either Cabinet or Council, and the last time a report was presented for a change in the budget was in May 2016.
In respect of Section 106 monies, the Executive Member for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs commented that the deployment of those funds was administered by the NHDC Planning Department, and had to meet the strict criteria for the use of such monies.
In relation to the DDA, the Executive Member for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs stated that on some occasions it was recognised that compliance would be difficult and so in these cases building operators were expected to do as much as they could to facilitate disabled access.
With regard to the statement made by Councillor Hone, the Executive Member for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs clarified that the Council could put a new lift in the part of the premises under its control and ignore the space occupied by 14/15 Brand Street. He added that the Council was now in a position where it could open the facility to the public in a selective manner, and that would be happening in the coming weeks. Council members would be shown around the facility in the next week, following which it would be opened up to selected groups from across the District.
The Executive Member for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs apologised for the fact that he had not been made aware that he had to reply to a letter from Ms McDonald until quite late in the process, partly due to the May 2017 Elections. He added that it had been agreed that the project would, at the appropriate time, be reviewed by the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
In response to a Member’s question regarding how Ms McDonald had been led to believe that an additional £1Million had been spent on the project, she replied that this was information that had been provided to her by other people in the town.
The Cabinet Chairman asked the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance to check whether or not the building in Brand Street opposite the Town Hall referred to by Ms McDonald was DDA compliant and advise accordingly.