| |
Are they playing residents for fools?
• RESIDENTS of Leighton Grove and Leighton Crescent in Kentish Town received last week a glossy brochure and questionnaire from a design company.
The brochure announces “Theories Playscapes have been appointed by Camden Council to explore ideas and means of reinstating ‘play’ into the Leighton Crescent Park”.
The targeting of residents living adjacent to the park is apparently the first “phase” of consultation. “Play” in this instance (according to the questionnaire) refers to eight to 13-year-olds. Yet residents have not received any prior communication from the council that a play area was being considered, let alone an attempt to tap into local sentiment.
The second “phase” occurred on Saturday, but only if residents accepted Theories Playscapes invitation to “join us for a few fun hours in the park”. A storyteller was booked to provide the fun. Council officers were notably absent.
The third “phase” involves “distributing the play design by mail and poster for your comment, before concluding the design process”. This final sentence leaves one with the distinct impression that a new playground in Leighton Crescent Gardens is a done deal. The truth is rather different. The “event” on Saturday is evidence that the council neither carried out an audit of existing local play areas nor had any idea of how many eight to 13-year-olds live around the crescent or would actually use a new playground.
Of the seven or eight children who attended the event, only one appeared to be possibly eight years old, the rest were between four and six, and they did appear to have lots of fun in the nature mound with the storyteller.
But I, for one, felt that Theories Playscapes objectives would have been better served if they had chosen less blatant tactics.
This disturbing sequence of events suggests that someone from the council (may we know who please?) has decided that Leighton Crescent is a suitable and justifiable place to spend Play Pathfinder funding, even though this is completely at odds with the expressed needs and desires of residents. The overwhelming sentiment of those present on Saturday – older residents, parents of young children, dog owners – was that this playground is hugely unwanted.
Many residents spoke on Saturday about the disastrous ramifications of similar playgrounds that existed in the gardens in the past. When older children are actively encouraged to congregate in the very heart of a small, quiet residential street, it is not difficult to predict certain outcomes. Yet the council steadfastly refuses to learn from past mistakes.
But the most glaring blunder in these ill-conceived plans is the startling fact that a children’s playground already exists just 50 metres away, in Montpelier Gardens. This under-used, somewhat hidden-away park is at least three times the size of the crescent, and would make a far more appropriate site for any additional play areas.
It makes no sense potentially to ruin a beautiful, but very compact, garden when a more viable alternative is just around the corner.
The culture of complacency that has existed at the Town Hall for far too long must be properly addressed once and for all. Older residents’ concerns and interests are just as valid as those of younger generations.
David Price
Leighton Crescent, NW5
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
