Presentations and Cabinet member response in full (Brent Council)
Monday's Cabinet was unusual in that there was almost a debate. Normal Cabinets usually rubber stamp decisions with a few remarks from members praising each other's proposals.
Members did not debate with each other on Monday but unusually permission was granted to a group of residents to respond to another group's petition presentation. Not a real debate as no interaction was allowed but there was at least presentation of differing points of view.
The focus was proposals for the improvement of Preston Park that arose as an NCIL (Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy) initiative, It had been discussed for several months and discussions continued perhaps ill-advisedly over the local election period.
The initial proposal was for a MUGA (Multi-Use Games Area) on one of the tennis courts in the park (Red rectangle on map below).
The petitioners objected to the proposed site as it was close to nearby houses and gardens and would cause more noise than a tennis court. They proposed an alternative site (Yellow rectangle on map) next to the children's playground and away from back gardens and homes.
Angela Barrett, presenting the petition on behalf of residents, said the alternative site had the backing of Brent Parks Forum and the Preston Park Safer Neighbourhood team. The original site was in a secluded part of the park that attracts anti-social behaviour raising safety and inclusion issues. She said:
I can begin with good news: since our petition was submitted, the Head of Parks Kelly Eaton has confirmed that the tennis court site is no longer being considered
A new location adjacent to the children's playground in the centre of the park would create a unified, safer family activity hub. It was more visible and easier to overlook, making it safer and more welcoming.
The meadow from the children's playground
The area was intended to be a meadow, but has not established successfully and remains grass of relatively low ecological value. There would be potential to incorporate a rain garden and pollinator planting.
Angela suggested that rather than a caged tarmac MUGA, which research shows can often not feel welcoming for girls and younger users, LINK LINK, a flexible grass-based alternative area or natural adventure playground could be provided. Positive proposals for better engagement have been put to Brent Council LINK.
She concluded by asking the Cabinet to support a new location and thoughtful design that will enhance the park for everyone. A facility that works well for all young people, feels safe and inclusive, fits into its surroundings and could even include a net ecological gain.
Soulla Kwong then spoke on behalf of Friends of Preston Park that began as a litter-picking group and developed as a group to improve the park, particularly for young children.
They had spoken to local children who had supported the idea of a MUGA and a chess table and table tennis table that have already been installed. However, I understand that the alternative ideas for youth provision outlined above by Angela have not been presented to local children yet.
Soulla said that the 'disused' tennis courts had been suggested as a MUGA site by children. As the court already had a firm foundation it would be less costly install a MUGA there. No floodlights would be installed that would disturb neighbours.
She said that building a MUGA on the meadow would amount to loss of green space that the Friends would oppose: 'We have a duty not to destroy what little we have. Should we leave behind a concrete jungle or something that future generations can enjoy?'
Soulla Kwong did not respond to Angela Barrett's suggestion of a lower impact grass football field and natural adventure playground instead of a MUGA.
It was a pity that there were no questions allowed from Cabinet members or interaction between the two groups that might have established some common ground.
It was left to Cllr Promise Knight to respond. She said that the proposal had started as part of the NCIL process with support from school children for a place where they could be active. She recognised residents' concerns over noise levels and the enjoyment of their homes and gardens.
Having considered the feedback received she could confirm that the Park Service would continue to review the improvement programme in more detail, weighing up all the options and what was possible:
I hope this provides reassurance to residents and demonstrates the council is listening carefully to both sides.
Cllr Knight did not say explicitly that the tennis court site was no longer being considered.
Interestingly, in one of a series on access to play on BBC Radio 4, there was a discussion about another area of controversy, whether council tennis courts should be free and self-run or taken over on the council's behalf by the Lawn Tennis Association, with coded locks and charges. HEAR IT HERE
Soulla Kwong called the tennis courts 'disused', however I understand the courts are used for tennis and remain available to book via the LTA, although there are question marks about how well the current arrangement with the LTA is working. Angela also mentioned that occasional ASB occurs at the site. This may be a separate issue for the Parks Service to review.
The existing children's playground has safety and maintenance issues. What would be the maintenance programme for a MUGA and how would it be funded. LINK
6 comments:
This is a fair and well-balanced analysis, and it rightly recognises the need to improve facilities for young people in Preston Park while also taking proper account of residents’ concerns. The key point is not whether better play and activity provision is needed — clearly it is — but whether the proposed location is suitable. In my view, the current tennis court location is not appropriate given its proximity to homes and gardens, the likely noise impact, and the wider concerns about safety and inclusion in a more secluded part of the park. Brent Council should now focus on identifying a more suitable, visible and inclusive location, with a design that benefits children and young people without unnecessarily harming residential amenity or the character of the park.
This article makes me wonder whether a MUGA is really the biggest priority for Preston Park. The children’s playground clearly needs investment, including better equipment and a safer surface.
There are also other things that could benefit a much wider range of people, more seating, picnic tables, something kids can climb (since I see them climbing on various things in the park), better planting, shade, and spaces that older residents and families can enjoy too.
I hope the council looks at what the park actually needs as a whole, rather than focusing too narrowly on one expensive facility.
Add the three children's playgrounds removed in South Kilburn to support NOT its more than doubling of population since 2001. Brent park upgrades and care really are NOT when compared to its neighbouring good growth boroughs.
There was no debate because the Council Leader doesn’t want it and is still trying to act as if the election never happened. This call for a real look at the park priorities is what is needed - but will be ignored.
The NCIL investment in the park was a failed attempt to re-elect the Labour councillors and now the Council leader wants to punish the electorate for exercising their democratic rights by manoeuvring to install the MUGA – it doesn’t matter what residents want it’s what the council leader wants.
It’s ironic that the two new conservative councillors - who are responsible for this failed administration staying in power - have this mess in their ward.
The lady who spoke for Councillor Butt – the second speaker – was ridiculous. She was talking about children walking through the ‘meadow’. It’s full of dog excrement, dead tree branches and litter and is another failed Labour policy. Call it a meadow and it will be a meadow is about the level of effort that Labour put into this part of the park.
I say she spoke for the leader because I was present in the meeting and Cllr. Butt paid no attention to the first speaker who was against the MUGA and was nodding and engaged when the second speaker said the MUGA was needed.
Cllr. Promise Knight – just like the leader doesn’t seem to know what happened in the election and the days of ‘see no evil, speak no evil, hear no residents’ are over in Brent!
I got involved with this project whilst campaigning for the local elections. It became quite obvious that this project was being pushed by the leader of Friends of Preston Park who was not prepared to listen to the resident's views.
I had meetings with Angela Barrett and went to the cabinet meeting to support the objectors.
What is needed is dialogue: The Friends of Preston Park have not engaged with the local community, If they had, they would have heard the objectors points and considered other positions for the MUGA.
MUGA's by their very definition generate noise from those playing the games. Tennis is a much quieter game and given that the courts are very near the rear of peoples homes, means that they are not suitable for conversion into a MUGA.
I am liaising with Brent council officers in order that we can find a solution that suits everyone.
The tennis courts are used most days, the games tend to be
As a resident whose property backs onto the park and specifically the tennis courts , I have been surprised and appalled by the lack of consultation over park improvements by FOPP . I commend their hard work in winning the grant and their efforts to improve the park . They say they consulted with young people who wanted a chess table and table tennis table as well as a MUGA . I’m guessing there was very little consultation with other park users , namely parents of young children who use the play ground every day . The surface is failing and unsafe and equipment is over twenty to thirty years old yet not one penny is being spent on the most used area of the park !
I am a regular visitor to Harrow rec a park that is widely used by many groups , where football is played on the grass , kids cycle along the paths , there is a cafe , well equipped playground and a community hut and not a MUGA in sight !
To propose putting one in Preston park on tennis courts that are very much still used feels like someone’s vanity project . It is easy to propose something when you are not directly affected by it and therefore ignore the views of those that are .
Judging by the comments here it looks like the Council leader is also prepared to do the same . Given there are s number of priorities and serious issues the council should be dealing with across the borough the provision of a MUGA next to residential houses surely cannot count as one of them
Post a Comment