Angry parents and kids protest over skate park axe (From Bucks Free Press)

Well done to you all, keep up the protesting, and lets hope you get what you want.

This is one of the reasons I left my job in the public sector. I feel sorry for the one person who has a problem with the park, but the overwhelming support for it has to count for something. The hours and hours I wasted mitigating such disputes, writing letters, talking to MPs (who also had better stuff to do with their time) and sending officers out over and over to nonsense issues used to make my blood boil. save the time, energy and money these campaigns cost and make a common sense decision. Let it stay.

Surely though, even if the skate park (which is quite small really) is removed, the rest of the park is going to remain and therefore so are any alleged noise issues.
Would the person complaining like the whole park closed down.

Why do people buy a house adjacent to a public park and then complain about the noise from people using said park ?

Gerry47 wrote:
Surely though, even if the skate park (which is quite small really) is removed, the rest of the park is going to remain and therefore so are any alleged noise issues.
Would the person complaining like the whole park closed down.

Why do people buy a house adjacent to a public park and then complain about the noise from people using said park ?

I am sure that if WDC think logically about this problem they will be able to come up with a solution to suit everyone. But the children's needs are very important. Everyone complains that children watch too much TV or sit at their computers and do not play outside enough and yet here is a facility that is threatened with being closed down.
.
Build noise barriers or whatever you have to do to consider the neighbours, but do not close it down.

Organise a Parish Referendum:

While not binding, it should concentrate the mind of the Parish Council Chairman.

http://www.planet-th
anet.fsnet.co.uk/par
ish_referendums.htm

The village's MP Dominic Grieve told the BFP he has been inundated with letters on the subject, from residents opposing the change, but also from a gentleman who is unhappy about the impact the skate facilities have on his life.'

I am a bit suspicious of this - it is a classic ploy by kids behaving anti-socially to say that only one adult individual is opposed to them - the facilities at Blind Lane were closed because the same kids were making noise late into the night. Sometimes there IS one individual who just represents themselves and sometimes the individual is articulating the views of a lot of other people and sometimes there is a large number of people and not just one individual.
If there is only one individual are they not entitled to relief from noise while at home or is that unacceptably selfish?

What result did the noise survey undertaken at the request of the worried resident come up with?

whilst Ivor may have a point (are the kids really nosiy), perhaps the solution should be rethought

After all, don't we have council noise abatement teams and theoretically a police force to deal with these matters (when they're not setting up speed cameras or monitoring twitter) ?

I would like to point out that several people who live very close to the playing field have signed the petition to retain the skatepark. Please don'think that everyone living in close proximity to the playing field,and I am one, is opposed to children playing there. It is a playing field and not a park. There is a difference, apparently. The question of noise and anti-social behaviour is a police matter and taking away the younger kids play equipment is not going to stop that.

In answer to Gerry's question Yes an objection has also been made about the other play equipment although I understand this has since been withdrawn. There has been play equipment on this playing field since the early 50's and as many people are saying "why buy a property close to a playing field and then moan when it is used for it's proper purpose."

Ivor Medium One wrote:

The village's MP Dominic Grieve told the BFP he has been inundated with letters on the subject, from residents opposing the change, but also from a gentleman who is unhappy about the impact the skate facilities have on his life.'

I am a bit suspicious of this - it is a classic ploy by kids behaving anti-socially to say that only one adult individual is opposed to them - the facilities at Blind Lane were closed because the same kids were making noise late into the night. Sometimes there IS one individual who just represents themselves and sometimes the individual is articulating the views of a lot of other people and sometimes there is a large number of people and not just one individual.
If there is only one individual are they not entitled to relief from noise while at home or is that unacceptably selfish?

Isn't it MP Dominic Grieve saying only one adult is opposed to them, rather than the kids? It is easier than ever to complain if you have a problem, and the folks of this area don't usually have a difficulty with that. If people don't act they don't get to complain when nothing is done. You can talk to the council by email, phone, web, text.....they have hotlines and response teams. One person may represent more, they may just represent themselves. If it is just a matter of numbers of folk either for or against that will resolve the issue, then if there are more against they should make themselves known.

hm1 wrote:

Ivor Medium One wrote:

The village's MP Dominic Grieve told the BFP he has been inundated with letters on the subject, from residents opposing the change, but also from a gentleman who is unhappy about the impact the skate facilities have on his life.'

I am a bit suspicious of this - it is a classic ploy by kids behaving anti-socially to say that only one adult individual is opposed to them - the facilities at Blind Lane were closed because the same kids were making noise late into the night. Sometimes there IS one individual who just represents themselves and sometimes the individual is articulating the views of a lot of other people and sometimes there is a large number of people and not just one individual.
If there is only one individual are they not entitled to relief from noise while at home or is that unacceptably selfish?

Isn't it MP Dominic Grieve saying only one adult is opposed to them, rather than the kids? It is easier than ever to complain if you have a problem, and the folks of this area don't usually have a difficulty with that. If people don't act they don't get to complain when nothing is done. You can talk to the council by email, phone, web, text.....they have hotlines and response teams. One person may represent more, they may just represent themselves. If it is just a matter of numbers of folk either for or against that will resolve the issue, then if there are more against they should make themselves known.

I assumed Dominic Grieve had been told it by kids and as I said it’s a classic ploy by kids behaving anti-socially to say that only one adult individual is opposed to them.

The rest of your post seems to be pointing out all possible points of view.

Ivor Medium One wrote:
What result did the noise survey undertaken at the request of the worried resident come up with?

Does anyone know the answer to this?

Ivor Medium One wrote:

hm1 wrote:

Ivor Medium One wrote:

The village's MP Dominic Grieve told the BFP he has been inundated with letters on the subject, from residents opposing the change, but also from a gentleman who is unhappy about the impact the skate facilities have on his life.'

I am a bit suspicious of this - it is a classic ploy by kids behaving anti-socially to say that only one adult individual is opposed to them - the facilities at Blind Lane were closed because the same kids were making noise late into the night. Sometimes there IS one individual who just represents themselves and sometimes the individual is articulating the views of a lot of other people and sometimes there is a large number of people and not just one individual.
If there is only one individual are they not entitled to relief from noise while at home or is that unacceptably selfish?

Isn't it MP Dominic Grieve saying only one adult is opposed to them, rather than the kids? It is easier than ever to complain if you have a problem, and the folks of this area don't usually have a difficulty with that. If people don't act they don't get to complain when nothing is done. You can talk to the council by email, phone, web, text.....they have hotlines and response teams. One person may represent more, they may just represent themselves. If it is just a matter of numbers of folk either for or against that will resolve the issue, then if there are more against they should make themselves known.

I assumed Dominic Grieve had been told it by kids and as I said it’s a classic ploy by kids behaving anti-socially to say that only one adult individual is opposed to them.

The rest of your post seems to be pointing out all possible points of view.

Totally lost me. The piece says: "The village's MP Dominic Grieve told the BFP he has been inundated with letters on the subject, from residents opposing the change, but also from a gentleman who is unhappy about the impact the skate facilities have on his life." It sounds like Mr Grieve has been contacted directly,both by the BFP and complainants both for and against the change and made this quote himself. Doesn't sound like the Attorney General has had the wool pulled over his eyes by some pesky kids.

I assumed Dominic Grieve had been told it by kids and as I said it’s a classic ploy by kids behaving anti-socially to say that only one adult individual is opposed to them.

The rest of your post seems to be pointing out all possible points of view.
Totally lost me. The piece says: "The village's MP Dominic Grieve told the BFP he has been inundated with letters on the subject, from residents opposing the change, but also from a gentleman who is unhappy about the impact the skate facilities have on his life." It sounds like Mr Grieve has been contacted directly,both by the BFP and complainants both for and against the change and made this quote himself. Doesn't sound like the Attorney General has had the wool pulled over his eyes by some pesky kids.

I’m not sure why I’ve lost you but we seem to be in agreement.

Hazlemere is watching this game of parochial ping-pong with neighbourly concern. Two points: the residents association should speak up for the public interest and the parish council requires a dose of democracy. Putting it another way, councillors should be responding to their electorate not special or private interests. Because they have no electorate they like Mr Grieve (whose view is too global to be of much use) are making it up as they go along. Sorry Jeff, but there it is.