Despite Edwinstowe Parish Council’s continued attempt to portray the skate park as something the whole village wants, evidence from their own files shows no demonstrable demand other than those on the design committee.
The Parish Council states “some concerns were raised by the residents and where possible these have been addressed to mitigate the impact on them.”
This does not reflect the fact that 75 households (90% of those living closest) strongly object. The main reason being that the location is inappropriate. Just because the Parish Council own the land and have grants based on this location does not mean that it is suitable.
Barratt Homes agree with this and have written to the Parish Council removing their constraint that the monies had to be used within the Estate.
No consultation with residents has ever taken place and we have lobbied vigorously over the past months. We have raised several points regarding location, noise, antisocial behaviour and many other issues.
These have not been addressed, they have merely been avoided and marginalised. The Noise Assessment and final plan have been received by the Parish Council and they reported “the predicted impact (from a noise point of view) is slight”.
If this is so why in the table on page 14 of the report is it recorded that the likelihood of complaint will be of “marginal significance” when finally adjusted difference figures to current noise level indicates, from the IOA/IEMA table on page 6, that it should be considered “substantial impact”?
We cannot understand why the Parish Council still thinks it is the correct decision to proceed with this project.
Especially in the current economic climate where the County Council is consulting on a proposal to cut funding to many youth services and projects in next year’s budget. A similar skate Park in Milton Keynes built the same distance from residential properties had to be demolished because, despite all attempts, they could not mitigate the noise impact.
We feel that building this skate park would be taking a very high real risk of wasting £100,000. Surely it would be more fitting to look for an appropriate location or better still use the money to provide facilities in the village for a greater number of children, including the physically less able and special needs children, to use.
On behalf of Friars Park Residents Group