Response on Skate Park Letter

Further to Cllr Jim Wedgebury's letter in the Kentish Express (5th August 2010), I decided to test his theories and speak to a number of skateboarders at the skate park on Tannery Lane.

Those of you who didn't see the letter, Councillor Wedgebury implies that he has a great knowledge of skateboarding, apparently gained from YouTube, that is far superior to my own experience.

He then goes on to insinuate that skateboarders simply use designated sites to “train and home” their skills before indulging on dangerous and new sites.

Playing on Dangerous Sites



It is a rather strange response to my letter,, and given that I raised the issues of the danger of alternative sites now that the skate park is closed rather than the skate park directly contributing to this behaviour.

The teenagers were quick to inform me today that they have nowhere else to go and they come to skate at the designated site, because they genuinely enjoy skating. They prefer to do this than at other sites, and while a small minority will always choose to be heedless of the dangers of other areas, the majority simply want their skate park back.

Further to my warning in my letter, the manager of Wreckless informed me that she'd had two boys in with broken bones due to finding other locations which are not elected Skating areas.

Illogic al Strategic Planning



Seeing as I also pointed out the illogical strategic planning of Ashford Borough Council by removing the facilities at the beginning of the summer holidays and the importance of community engagement for all ages, I resent the comment that my argument is both populist and undermines the situation. Ashford Borough Council are quick to promote their “Saved A Million”, the need for community funding and maintenance of facilities, it seems strange they would chose such a time to change the Skate Park.

The Ashford Borough Council Website Is quick to announce that they “co-ordinate the Ashford Youth Forum Trust [to] better understand the needs of young people”.

Perhaps instead of wasting resources on a variety of “strategies” and “websites” for the young people, they should start by actually talking to them.

Gathering Users Opinion




Those present at the skate park today, all teenage males, were quick to point out that when the skate park was closed off they had nothing to do and nowhere to go. Short of spending vast amounts of money travelling to one of the nearby towns where the facilities are present, they have felt victimised without any explanation is why their facilities were withdrawn.

The frequent users of the Skate Park have been informed that they will only be without resources for three months and that the structures were unsafe.

Instead, those on skateboards, BMX's, scooters and rollerblades, have been provided with plywood structures that are full of the splinters, and, it appears, will have to wait until Christmas for any more facilities.

Although, according to Councillor Wedgebury's letter, they may not receive these facilities at all, if people don't vote for the money to be spent on this.

Danger to Local businesses

There is also a lateral effect of the closures skate park facilities.

Instead of being the thriving skate park it once was, a lot of residents have already moved to other towns. As Wreckless business owner Jacqueline said to me today, she has been unable to organise the annual skate competition and is already losing business as the skaters go to other towns.


And Finally

In view of the National government's proposals on Big Society, we can only hope that funding can be found to replace the facilities that have now gone.

Genuine community facilities are integral to the sustainability of any town, whether they serve the old, the young or the elected, they still ought to reflect the needs and desires of that community.



PS: As a disabled person, I am unable to partake in Skateboarding, but am keen to support all physical sports in spite of my inability to perform in them.

Open Letter: Protecting the Churchyard

Dear Sirs,

Ashford Borough Council's proposal to invest in bouncers to monitor the churchyard passageways nothing short of ludicrous (Kentish Express July 29, 2010).

As I wrote in the letters page in September 2009, the Conservative administration of Ashford Borough Council failed to support proposals for further street lighting or CCTV and furthermore have failed to respond fully to a petition submitted for better security measures in the churchyard in 2008.

This ongoing saga may make good news fodder, but the suffering of Jeremy Adby and co-residents is beyond a joke. As the Kentish Express states, residents had a meeting in March and only at the end of July to the Council decide to put into new street lights.

Employing bouncers is simply ridiculous when a quarter of our council tax money goes to policing the Borough. When the council can spend vast amounts of money on street lighting, consultants to discuss parking in a shared space and swimming facilities that are not usable for residents, one has to wonder how the budget is managed.

Kind regards,


Kelly-Marie Blundell

Ashford Liberal Democrats
Kennington

Now Notorious rather than Famous: Ashford's Shared Space

The shared space has become a laughing stock with the introduction of parking restrictions on Bank Street (Kentish Express 29 July 2010).

The shared space, where people are meant to be able to walk, drive and cycle is now subject to (a) pedestrian crossings, (b) parking spaces, (c) pedestrian walkway allocation, (d) bus lanes and (e) cycle lanes, The only thing that it appears to be lacking to make it a road is dividing lines at the centre.

Far from being a famous landmark, residents of Ashford now considered a shared space to be a notorious waste of money, time and resources by the borough council.

Perhaps with Sir Terry Farrell's desired implementation of an entire ring-road of “shared space”, we can fully embrace the renaming of public spaces to do exactly what the previous public spaces did in the first place. Alongside, of course, designed superseding functionality.

Older Persons Consultation

Older Persons' care is a bug bear for me.

I tend to think the care provided is significantly lacking for Older People, from Sheltered Accomodation to Care Homes accross the county.

Kent County COuncil is currently consulting on Older Persons Care.

This consultation is open until first of November 2010.

I think the consultation is integral to democratic process and everyone should take the opportunity to think about the needs of older people.

Kent has a significantly ageing demographic, especially around the coastal areas and by 2012 the UK will have more than 50% of people aged 65 or over.

In spite of this, we do not have resident wardens/scheme managers in Sheltered Housing, we have a Primary care Trusts where 60% of the people they treat are Older Persons yet they only commission 25% of Older Persons services and we have a society that generally prefers to ignore older people.

Society is judged by the way in which it treats its older people, and at the moment the level of services allocated to them by public services is nothing short of deplorable.

Everybody has a grandparent or a relative who is likely to need more care in the future. Everyone will become an older person needing more care.

Please exercise your democratic right to comment and probe the main providers of these services, Kent County Council. It's like the lottery, you have to be in it to influence it.

Even if we move to the proposed Big Society Scheme by the Coalition Government, we want to ensure that the bodies that Kent County Council commission to run and maintain the care services for Older People are not driven by the need for profits and margins, is not incentivised or held to account by a bonus culture, but there to provide the care that is needed, wanted and protected to ensure that the human rights of the current residents and the residents to come are protected.