Agenda item

£110k capital was provisionally allocated by the Council, to the installation of a skate park within the east of Bath locality in February 2014.  After site searches, the only site that would be appropriate and could accommodate such a structure was found to be Alice Park. 

A public consultation led by the Council in December 2014 came out with a two thirds majority vote for the skate park, however there was and remains strong local feeling about this proposal.

The Alice Park Trust Sub-Committee is asked to consider whether the proposed skateboard park is a suitable use of the Park in accordance with its objectives, and if so to consider and identify their preferred option.

The Sub-Committee noted that £110k of capital funding had been provisionally allocated by the Council for the installation of a skate park within the east of Bath locality in February 2014.  The only site that was appropriate for such a structure was found to be Alice Park.

A public consultation led by the Council in December 2014 came out with a two thirds majority vote for the skate park.  However, there remained strong local feeling about the proposal.

Discussions with skate park designers suggested that £110k would deliver only a limited project and with additional offers of support from third parties outline proposals for a scheme with a value of up to £150k had been commissioned.

Councillor Appleyard pointed out that a petition containing 500 signatures had been received requesting a skate park.  The park was well supported by families but there were currently no specific facilities for 9-14 year olds.  During the consultation he could not recall any mention of a “sub-optimal” design.  If necessary further funds could be raised in the community or a modular development could be undertaken.  It was noted that the London Road Partnership was currently holding the funds that it had raised for the skate park.  He stated that the Council had agreed to allocate the funding to the provision of a skate park and should listen to the community and take into account the results of the consultation.

Officers explained that the design of a skate park had to be age appropriate and contain adequate complexity to retain the interest of users.  The funding available could alternatively provide play equipment for older children.

Councillor Veal stated that interest in skateboarding was not currently on the increase.  There was a skate park at Victoria Park which was accessible from the east of Bath.  He did not feel that a scaled down version of the project would work and favoured reallocating the capital funding to improving the infrastructure of Alice Park (as outlined in Option 4 in the report).  This would provide a greater range of facilities and would provide a more inclusive scheme for all.

Councillor Patterson did not agree that Victoria Park was accessible for 9-14 year olds.  The route was along a busy main road or involved 2 buses.  There was a large amount of support for the skate park and she felt that the Council should find a way to provide this facility.

Councillor Norton stated that he felt that the Victoria Park facility was accessible.  He expressed concerns about the type of facility that could be provided with the funding that was available and whether this would meet the requirements.

Councillor Appleyard then stated that he believed Councillor Veal, as Cabinet member and ultimately budget holder for Community Services had a conflict of interest and should not be involved in voting on this decision.  He stated that the decision should be deferred until this issue was clarified by the legal team.  Officers confirmed that the set-up of the Alice Park Sub-Committee had been agreed in consultation with the legal team.  The Group Manager, Neighbourhood and Environmental Services agreed to clarify this issue.

Councillor Patterson stated that, if a decision were made not to provide a skate park, despite Council agreeing a budget for this and the public consultation showing a majority of people in favour, then there should be further consultation as to what should be provided in the park.  She felt that people would feel betrayed and that this would be harmful to the Council’s reputation if the skate park development did not go ahead.

On motion by Councillor Veal, seconded by Councillor Norton it was:

RESOLVED to ask officers to report back with further detail on Option 1, to enable the Trustees to assess the sub-optimal  design of the skate park within the budget available (including the £25K from the London Road Partnership) to enable the Trustees to determine if Option 1 represents value for money, alongside further detail on Option 4 being presented.