Portmoak comments on playpark closures, 31 Dec 2011
Proposed Closure of Play Areas by Perth and Kinross Council
Comment from Portmoak Community Council
This information [see article on playpark closures] from Perth & Kinross Council was received by the Convention of Perth & Kinross Community Councils and was duly circulated, for comment, among all Perth & Kinross Community Councils, including our own Portmoak CC.
As Chairman of Portmoak Community Council I asked that my fellow Community Councillors should respond, and they have done so as below.
This reply is an amalgam of their views.
The majority view was that the £16,000 to be saved from the closure of play-parks is about a fifth of the true cost of employing one social worker, or perhaps a third of the cost of a community outreach worker.
It is miniscule in terms of the advertising budget for PKC. In short there are other places where £16,000 can be saved without any loss of PKC service to the public.
History shows that once closed, these facilities are usually not re-opened, because their re-instatement costs are enormous, as they have to be refurbished after decay and being vandalised.
Play-parks are a community facility, and as community councillors, the majority felt unable to support their closure.
It was considered that PKC could look closer to home to save this money.
Not only are savings minimal but the losses in the long run will be much greater. The team who attend to the play-parks will still be employed to go to all the others, so rarer visits would suffice.
There is a continuing drive for healthy outdoor activity and free play, and play-parks are the place for that. Most are of good quality, with modern equipment, so closures would be a contradiction of PKC policy on health promotion among the young.
Perhaps some planning gain money, or even cash spent on Councillors trips abroad could support what is of benefit to P & K children.
There are a lot figures to be considered;
· The Report to the Environment Committee meeting of 7th September recommending the closures of play-parks.
· The minute of the Environment Committee of 7th September, which deals with the closure issues.
· The minute of the Environment Committee, of 25th November, dealing with Ground Maintenance.
One Community Councillor felt that having read this information supplied, he would be inclined to go along with the P&KC view for the closures. Although £16000 is a relatively small sum, he believed that the rest of the report identified a larger true cost that would be saved.
Others felt that the sum involved is so trivial as to be hardly worth the trouble, and could surely be saved elsewhere, as previously mentioned, without the need to close 19 facilities which are of direct value to the communities concerned.
If these facilities are closed, they may become a safety risk to children who will no doubt continue to use them - unless of course they are dismantled or sealed up, which would surely cost more than £16000.
Since this figure equates to less than £1000 per play-park per annum in any event, they can't have been getting much maintenance anyway.
Portmoak Community Council therefore believes that on balance this is a false economy that will cost more in the long term.
MALCOLM PARKIN
Chairman – Portmoak Community Council
Comment from Portmoak Community Council
This information [see article on playpark closures] from Perth & Kinross Council was received by the Convention of Perth & Kinross Community Councils and was duly circulated, for comment, among all Perth & Kinross Community Councils, including our own Portmoak CC.
As Chairman of Portmoak Community Council I asked that my fellow Community Councillors should respond, and they have done so as below.
This reply is an amalgam of their views.
The majority view was that the £16,000 to be saved from the closure of play-parks is about a fifth of the true cost of employing one social worker, or perhaps a third of the cost of a community outreach worker.
It is miniscule in terms of the advertising budget for PKC. In short there are other places where £16,000 can be saved without any loss of PKC service to the public.
History shows that once closed, these facilities are usually not re-opened, because their re-instatement costs are enormous, as they have to be refurbished after decay and being vandalised.
Play-parks are a community facility, and as community councillors, the majority felt unable to support their closure.
It was considered that PKC could look closer to home to save this money.
Not only are savings minimal but the losses in the long run will be much greater. The team who attend to the play-parks will still be employed to go to all the others, so rarer visits would suffice.
There is a continuing drive for healthy outdoor activity and free play, and play-parks are the place for that. Most are of good quality, with modern equipment, so closures would be a contradiction of PKC policy on health promotion among the young.
Perhaps some planning gain money, or even cash spent on Councillors trips abroad could support what is of benefit to P & K children.
There are a lot figures to be considered;
· The Report to the Environment Committee meeting of 7th September recommending the closures of play-parks.
· The minute of the Environment Committee of 7th September, which deals with the closure issues.
· The minute of the Environment Committee, of 25th November, dealing with Ground Maintenance.
One Community Councillor felt that having read this information supplied, he would be inclined to go along with the P&KC view for the closures. Although £16000 is a relatively small sum, he believed that the rest of the report identified a larger true cost that would be saved.
Others felt that the sum involved is so trivial as to be hardly worth the trouble, and could surely be saved elsewhere, as previously mentioned, without the need to close 19 facilities which are of direct value to the communities concerned.
If these facilities are closed, they may become a safety risk to children who will no doubt continue to use them - unless of course they are dismantled or sealed up, which would surely cost more than £16000.
Since this figure equates to less than £1000 per play-park per annum in any event, they can't have been getting much maintenance anyway.
Portmoak Community Council therefore believes that on balance this is a false economy that will cost more in the long term.
MALCOLM PARKIN
Chairman – Portmoak Community Council