Agenda item

The lead petitioner, Darren Rodwell, presented the terms of a petition opposing the decision of the Council to use a developer’s contribution through Section 106 planning monies to resurface a pathway that runs through Dagenham and Redbridge Football Club and to instead use the money to upgrade and improve facilities in Pondfield Park for the benefit of the community as whole.  His view was that the monies were ring fenced for that purpose.

Mr Rodwell explained that whilst the petitioners did not have a problem with the upgrade of the pathway, they did object to it being at the expense of necessary works to the park and the surrounding area such as new play equipment, CCTV and a pelican crossing all of which had been agreed previously. 

Mr Rodwell referred to the two parts of the park – the field part and the play area part – and said that the play area is what the majority of local people use.  The Council claim that the works to the path are required to adhere to regulations including making it wheelchair accessible, but Mr Rodwell believed that people using wheelchairs would not be able to use the path because of the steepness of it.  He further stated that the pathways on that side of the park are in such a state that they have been eroded away. 

Mr Rodwell, speaking on behalf of the local Tenants’ and Residents’ Association, was also concerned that if they want play equipment, they still need to find £60,000 from the Big Lottery and other funders to get the money.  He said that the Section 106 monies were to be there for the community and should be used for the community and not for the benefit of football away fans. 

The Head of Leisure and Arts, referring to his report, explained that under the terms of the Section 106 Agreement the monies could only be used for environmental improvements to Pondfield Park.  As the path lies within the park leading to the rear of the Football Club ground, is in a serious state of disrepair and is a risk to health and safety, it is the view of officers that if the works are not done there would be a real risk of an accident, which could lead to claims against the Council as the owners of the park and pathway.

The Head of Leisure and Arts stated that he was more than happy to meet with Mr Rodwell and the petitioners to discuss the grant issues that had been raised by Mr Rodwell this evening.

Councillor Buckley referred to the comment in the report about the foundations of the path being unstable and consequently why and who in the Council was responsible for creating what appears to be a serious health and safety hazard?  He also asked whether there was any lighting along the path.

The Chief Executive responded that the fact that the pathway is now unstable did not mean it was badly constructed in the first place.  It is common place, as in road construction, that over a period of time paths will deteriorate, hence the need to carry out the works as detailed.

The Head of Leisure and Arts explained that the path is not lit.  It is primarily a park path which is used mainly in daylight hours.

Councillor Bailey asked Mr Rodwell whether his motive for bringing forward the petition was to try to undermine what he and other ward councillors are trying to do in this Council. 

The Chair warned Councillor Bailey not to use the debate to play politics.

Councillor Bailey responded that in his view he was not the one playing politics and that if Mr Rodwell had raised this issue with him as a ward councillor he would have gladly looked into it for him.  For the record, he is in favour of spending the Section 106 monies on the play area and providing amenities in the area rather than resurfacing the pathway.

Mr Rodwell stated that first and foremost he is the Chair of the Tenants’ and Residents’ Association for Reede Road and as an organisation they are very capable of representing and speaking up on behalf of their members.  He was pleased to hear that Councillor Bailey supports the local community although it is a shame he is not seen more at the meetings.

Councillor Davis, speaking also as the local ward councillor for many years, questioned Councillor Bailey’s commitment to the local community he is supposed to represent.  Turning to the petition, Councillor Davis supported officers meeting with Mr Rodwell to see what could be done to provide the improvements being sought, as he agreed with the comment that in the main the path is used by supporters of visiting teams.

Councillor Fairbrass responded that on the contrary, the Football Club has been on the site for fifty two years and they have always allowed local residents to use the path through their car park to access the park.  He had visited the site earlier in the day and confirmed that there is a gate and a series of steps leading to the path that is in Council ownership.  It is not just for football fans.  The coaches are there for about 3.5 hours every other Saturday and sometimes for mid-week games.  This path is used by children and parents going to school, many of whom have prams that have to be carried up the steps.  The nature of the location does not lend itself to use by the disabled and it is certainly not wheelchair accessible.  If the Council were not to resurface the path then the only other option would be to close public access to it all together, which would disadvantage the many.

Concluding the debate, Councillor Little as the Cabinet Member for Culture and Sports, sought to clarify a number of issues.  He explained that the path comes under the control of leisure and therefore any decision to close/remove it would have financial implications on the park budgets.  Therefore rather than spending monies to take away a path that is well used he would prefer to see the budgets used to upgrade the path, which clearly provides access to the park for a large number of local residents.  The Council therefore has a duty to do something about it.

He commended Mr Rodwell for raising this as part of his remit in the Tenants’ and Residents’ Association.  As the ward councillor for the adjoining Eastbrook Ward Councillor Little said that it was interesting to note that on the petition there were only seven responses from people living in the nearby county roads (Essex etc).  Of the other roads that bound the area of which there are a total of twenty four houses, only eight persons had signed the petition. 

Having had a lengthy debate:

Agreed the recommendations in the report to the effect that that the improvement works to the pathway in Pondfield Park should be implemented and paid for by using the Section 106 developer contribution secured for environmental improvements.

It was also noted the intention of the Head of Leisure and Arts to write to every person who put their name and address on the petition explaining why this decision had been taken, including the legal requirements and the benefits to the community as a whole.