Following representation by parents in my Ward, and adjoining Wards, who have expressed concern that Cabinet in December last year agreed to divert section 106 monies from refurbishing Castroggi Park in Caldicot to the Leisure Centre ATP pitch. They say that the refurbishment is long overdue and believe that they have been ignored; that the park would be better used if the equipment was up to standard. Cabinet, when challenged, and following officer advice, stated that section 106 money from the White Hart site when developed, would be earmarked for the work needed to be carried out at Castroggi Park. I therefore bring a motion to Council, seeking support to vire monies from reserves, to bring the park back up to a high standard with the knowledge and confidence that it will be reclaimed from section 106 monies, in full, in due course.
Minutes:
Following representation by parents in my Ward, and adjoining Wards, who
have expressed concern that Cabinet in December last year agreed to divert
section 106 monies from refurbishing Castroggi Park in Caldicot to the Leisure
Centre ATP pitch. They say that the refurbishment is long overdue and
believe that they have been ignored; that the park would be better used if the
equipment was up to standard. Cabinet, when challenged, and following
officer advice, stated that section 106 money from the White Hart site when
developed, would be earmarked for the work needed to be carried out at
Castroggi Park. I therefore bring a motion to Council, seeking support to vire
monies from reserves, to bring the park back up to a high standard with the
knowledge and confidence that it will be reclaimed from section 106 monies, in
full, in due course.
The motion was duly seconded.
The Leader understood the frustrations expressed and explained that officers had been to inspect the park. He agreed that the park did look tired but was safe and useable. Some surfacing issues were to be addressed immediately. It was explained that it was not possible to use 106 monies before they are received but in the meantime, design works could take place, and it was appropriate for Caldicot members to be involved in the process. He was therefore, unable to support the motion.
Councillor J. Watkins expressed disappointment that Councillor Easson had not discussed this with her, as it is in her ward. She added that there is grant funding from other sources, and suggested that this funding be used in collaboration with 106 money. She requested that officers liaise with community groups to enable discussion.
Councillor Greenland supported these views but was unable to support the motion.
Councillor L. Guppy proposed an amendment to the motion:
To seek support for the virement of money to bring the park up to a high standard with full engagement of the community, and exploration of further financial contributions to the project, and that these monies will be reclaimed from 106 monies at a later date.
The amendment was seconded and became the substantive motion. Debate ensued.
Councillor Murphy said that as the amendment include the term ‘vired’ he was unable to support.
Councillor Easson expressed concern of double standards of Council, in that reserves had previously be used in Portskewett. The Leader explained that 106 monies had been allocated in Portskewett but could not recall it being vired from reserves. He added that he could not support the motion while it still included virement from reserves.
As a point of personal explanation, the Leader asked financial officers to provide clarity o the distribution of 106 monies to Portskewett. The Chief Executive confirmed this would be clarified in writing, and explained that there is a clear process within Council on how 106 monies are spent.
Upon being put to the vote, the substantive motion was defeated.
The original motion was put to the vote, and was defeated.