I have resigned from Reepham Town Council, at which I was chairman, and I understand at least two other long-serving councillors have also resigned. In order to avoid any misunderstanding I am writing to explain the rationale for my decision.
I have enjoyed working with councillors over a number of years to raise the profile, reputation and effectiveness of the town council. It has also been good to see the number of councillors increase from four, when I became chairman, to the current 11.
As well as maintaining important services to the people of Reepham, the town council has achieved a great deal, including the introduction of Reepham Town News, which, with the support of the Reepham & District Rotary Club, has been very successful.
As a result of the town council’s lobbying of Norfolk Highways, improved traffic signage has been erected to reduce the use of the Market Place and Church Hill by goods vehicles and improve road safety outside the schools. We have also provided a defibrillator and seating at Stimpson’s Piece and seating in the Market Place.
Major improvements have been made to the community hall at Stimpson’s Piece, including repairs, decoration and insulation. It has been a joy to see its usage increase to a virtually full weekly programme with a wide variety of activities available.
At its meeting on Wednesday evening at which, having just come out of hospital after a major operation, I was not present, the town council, as trustee of Stimpson’s Piece, decided to replace the skatepark at a likely cost of £175,000 and, as the town council, to allocate £25,000 of Reepham tax payers’ money towards this.
This is money that was previously allocated for repairs to the churchyard wall but, as this responsibility has now been transferred to Broadland District Council, could be used for other purposes. However, it is highly likely the district council will charge the town council for any works that are carried out. This money would have acted as a buffer against such charges and could have avoided an inevitable rise in the council tax for Reepham residents.
An alternative proposal for the money was to make much needed improvements to the children’s play area at Stimpson’s Piece. Instead, this money is now frozen until funding is raised for the skatepark and it has been built, which is likely to take a minimum of three years.
I am not against the replacement of the skatepark and if, after proper consultation with the Reepham community, it was proven to be the highest priority, I would have supported it.
However, I feel that, as a large undertaking by the town council/trustee requiring grants to the sum of £150,000 or more, plus £25,000 of council tax payers’ money, insufficient steps have been taken to decide on priorities for any grant application and to assess and mitigate the significant risks, financial or otherwise.
If the project runs overbudget or meets unforeseen problems, as is the case with many construction projects, and further grant funding cannot be found, the town council will need to raise further funds by increasing its share of the council tax paid by residents.
The total income of the town council from the council tax is only around £85,000 a year and this has to cover all of its responsibilities, including street lighting, the public toilets, the cemetery, grass cutting, the salaries of the clerk and finance officer, etc. The Stimpson’s Piece Charity has about £11,200 in its bank account.
The decision has been driven by the desire to apply for a grant from the Hornsea 3 Community Benefit Fund, which is available for communities, including Reepham, that have been adversely affected by the offshore wind farm works.
In my opinion this grant, which is to a maximum of £75,000, should be used for its intended purpose, which is to compensate the community of Reepham as widely as possible and not be restricted to a ridiculously expensive skatepark that will cost at least twice the grant, require further funds to be found from elsewhere and be used by a small number of youngsters.
Further, its construction in concrete on greenfield land would also not meet the Ørsted/Hornsea 3 desire to fund environmental, green initiatives.
I feel this decision was made without a sufficiently wide consultation with the Reepham community. In the context of these priorities I feel there are more pressing priorities, which would impact positively on more people, which have not even been sought or considered.
For example, as the trustee of Stimpson’s Piece the town council could consider other bidding for the grant to make improvements to Stimpson’s Piece that would benefit far more people such as:
-
Improvement to the land drainage: About 40% of Stimpson’s Piece is unusable for much of the year as it is too wet, but a grant for land drainage would make the whole area accessible all year round and improve its use for all, including walkers, runners and footballers.
-
Modernisation of the children’s play area: The play area is used by large numbers of children but is in need of remodelling, additional equipment and improved safety, such as the installation of surfaces that prevent or lessen injuries from falls. As part of this updating, wider and less expensive provision could be made for teenagers, such outdoor gym equipment, outdoor table tennis tables, a zipwire, etc. This could make the children’s play park the best in the area, which is something many parents have asked for and which will not receive the proposed £25,000 if the skatepark goes ahead.
As the town council, consideration should be given to other local priorities that fall within the remit of the grant and would benefit larger numbers of people such as:
-
Improving accessibility for people with disabilities: Reepham has an ageing population (29% are over 65 years) with a significant number of people with disabilities. Having mobility problems myself as the result of damage to my spine, I have become very aware of the town’s lack of provision for the disabled. If you walk around Reepham you will see shops that are not accessible to those with mobility problems, narrow pavements and a lack of dropped curbs at key locations, bars across paths such as Bar Lane, Pudding Pie Alley and the path from Bircham Road to Moorhouse Close that are not accessible to those on a mobility scooter or using a wheelchair. A proposed and much needed pedestrian crossing outside the Co-op, which was removed at a late stage from the planning application, could be installed if money was raised. There are also no parking places reserved for the disabled or hearing loops in some community buildings.
The town council has not taken the essential steps to ensure the skatepark is the highest priority for a grant application and expenditure of its own money.
Although the skatepark lobbyists have been loud and, at times, offensive to councillors, who are unpaid volunteers, leading to at least one resignation, those involved have shown no inclination to join the town council or to take this on as an independent project but have sought to achieve their aim by what I consider to be bullying tactics to get others to do the work.
As a result of this, and an undoubtedly flawed and a biased questionnaire headed “Skatepark”, with the first question being “Do you support the development of a new skatepark?”, completed by only a small, skewed sample of the Reepham population, the decision has been made to replace the skatepark.
I am confident that if I went to the primary school with a questionnaire headed “New Children’s Play Area” with the first question being “Do you support the purchase of new equipment for the children’s playground”, the overwhelming response would be positive.
This decision has apparently been made a priority, with £25,000 of Reepham council tax payers’ money, which it had proposed to spend on improvements to the children’s play area, being promised without any real consideration of other possible ways this money could have been used to benefit the people of Reepham.
Until the skatepark was removed, Stimpson’s Piece was a magnet for antisocial and loutish behaviour, foul-mouthed comments within the earshot of young children and abuse to any parent to asked for this to stop. In my experience it was used by a relatively small group of youngsters, largely boys, often surrounded by groups of older youths.
Since it was removed, antisocial behaviour and vandalism at Stimpson’s Piece have declined almost to zero, usage by families has increased very considerably and drug paraphernalia, a frequent find, has disappeared.
Children using an unsupervised skatepark are at high risk of injuring themselves, doubtless adding to the town council’s liability insurance. In fact, one supporter at the council meeting stressed the need for this to be easily accessible by an ambulance.
In these circumstances, I could not support this decision, which, in my opinion, is irrational and unjustifiable as insufficient steps have been taken to consult the wider community of Reepham and to ensure the council tax payers of Reepham do not end up paying the bill when unforeseen costs arise.
On the basis of this poorly researched, naïve decision and the unacceptable behaviour and offensive comments shown by many of those who attended the meeting last Wednesday evening and, prior to that, on social media, I feel I no longer wish to give my time, which has amounted to about one day in some weeks over the past five years, to Reepham Town Council.
Paul Mitchell, Stony Lane, Reepham
