Liss Bowl
Public Meeting 12 September 2008 - click here to see the presentation made at the meeting.
Thank you to everyone who attended the meeting and contributed to the discussions.
LPC will endeavour to answer all questions submitted to them with the time and resources available to
them. As stated at the meeting on 12 September, a summary of responses will appear on the website
as and when information becomes available and we undertook to achieve this before the second public
meeting. Where multiple questions have been received which are very similar one question or comment
will be added and responses added.
At the end of January we were ready to announce the second public meeting. However
NCPFT proposed another possible site in preference to the one which overlapped their land.
The council meeting in February agreed to evalute their suggestion that the Centenary (Memorial)
Garden be considered. The council would have to provide an alternative site for the garden.
The status of this and new responses generally will be on the next tab to make reading of the
comments easier. Next tab.
Questions Raised
1. What are the exact locations of the proposed sites?
A - Sites will be marked with white lines. This is now booked for 16 October.
This has been scheduled to avoid confilcts with the soil surveys. It was completed on 16th October.
2. Concerns raised on speed of traffic in Station Road.
A - This will be referred to HCC for progress on our last comments to them. There are many existing
users from two churches, church hall, nursery, children's play area, football, users of West Liss pavilion
and Scouts hut. The addition of extra users of the bowl will not materially affect the current situaton.
It should be noted that the recent accident in Station Road was a result of drink driving, not speed and
the driver has been prosecuted.
Traffic speed surveys are currently being carried out for Liss and other areas by HCC. Data is already
received for Station Rd and Rake Rd. LPC are awaiting further data for other roads in Liss, in order to
compare results.
3. Concerns over lack of toilets at West Liss
A - The existing casual users of the West Liss facilities, football and play areas do not have toilets
available and we are not aware of any problems that this causes. Most informal recreation areas do
not have toilet facilites.
4. Where would money come from for traffic calming?
A - Hampshire County Council
5. Hedge bordering West Liss hides the site.
A - Site is still visible from people walking along Station Road.
6. Would traffic calming be factored into costing?
A - Any traffic calming expenditure would need to come from Hampshire County Council
7. Why is no information on website?
A - Now done. LPC will use this means to keep residents informed during the public consultation period.
8 Have acoustic reports been carried out at both sites?
A - It is not possible to measure noise from an unbuilt facility, however, acoustic reports will be
obtained for ambient noise and a similar facility.
9. Will information be fed back to residents before the end of the public consultation?
A - LPC will endeavour to publish their findings on their website and paper copies will be available
to view in the office.
10. How many councillors have declared an interest?
A - 4 out of 11 councillors have declared an interest, leaving 7 eligible to vote.
The following have declared an interest: Cllr Halstead (as a member of the tennis club),
Cllr Mullenger & Cllr Baker (as appointed trustees to the Newman Collard Trust) and Cllr Linsley
(as his property overlooks one site). All Councillors are residents of Liss and are appointed from
various locations around the village, two live in Liss Forest. Therefore Councillors will always live
reasonably close to any location under discussion.There are no guidelines as to how close a
Councillor has to live in order to declare an interest.
11. How much research has been carried out on design?
A - Significant discussions have taken place with contractors and users.
12. Have LPC considered the Smiths garage site?
Have LPC considered the car park by the village hall?
A - The Smiths garage site is privately owned and has planning permission for housing.
The Central car park, aka Smiths garage car park, is owned by EHDC. They have recently carried
out a usage survey and found it to be well used and intend to retain it as a car park. Even if the bowl
is located there it would probably be closer to housing than the other two sites. Because it is
not available precise measurements have not been made.
A - The car park by the village hall is owned by the landlord of the Whistle Stop (the brewery).
13. Why is the proposed site near to an existing street light?
A - The Newman Collard site is currently dictated by the location of land which LPC owns. We have
received confirmation from HCC that a timer can be fitted on this street light so that it may be turned
off at night. This will help reduce the existing and any possible future problems of anti-social
behaviour.
14. BMX/Skateboarding is primarily a male sport
A - BMX is a current Olympic sport and skateboarding may be in the 2012 Olympics. It is a sport for
both sexes and a wide range of ages. Many sports have a minority female participation. When made
available to females and encouragement is given popularity increases, as can be seen with the growth
of women's and girl's football.
15. Drainage at West Liss is already an issue, concerns a concrete bowl would cause further
problems.
A - Drainage surveys will be completed before work starts.
Maintenance work is currently being undertaken on the drainage ditch running behind St Mary's Road
properties. This job is the responsibility of HCC, but LPC have undertaken this work on this occasion.
In addition, LPC believe water run-off is from the highway, running through EHDC car park to the back
of properties. LPC has referred this matter to EHDC and HCC to determine whether the current
drainage system is adequate.
16. Noise - 55dB will be exceed by users.
A - Ambient noise surveys will be carried out.
17. Funding concerns. Has developers contributions of £40k been approved?
A - yes
18. Skatebowl will ruin the Newman Collard ground and pond.
Noted.
Quote from letter from Mr C Collard and Mr T Collard "Our family have never interfered in the
administration of these grounds, although we have taken a keen interest in their use. We feel that our
father's intentions of recreational use for the whole village have somehow been lost over the years,
with a very strong emphasis being place solely on club use. Facilities such as a skateboard park,
open for use of all in the village, placed appropriately, would go some way towards addressing this
balance, and would actually fulfil our father's original wishes, for the use of this ground."
19. There should be a forum for questions.
A - On website now.
20. How will users be moved away after daylight?
A - Quotes for fencing are being obtained.
21. Why has the size of the proposed bowl been decreased?
A - To reduce cost and impact.
22. Can LPC provide on website details of exact locations of similar sites?
A - yes, details will be posted here.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Ensbury+Avenue,++poole&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.764224,62.841797&ie=UTF8&ll=50.749056,-1.895442&spn=0.006585,0.015342&t=h&z=16
Angmering
Angmering Skate Park, entrance via Rowan Way or Mayflower Way.
23. How will objections raised be responded to?
A - Initially on website, then at subsequent meeting.
24. Can LPC withdraw their decision to proceed with the project?
A - Only by vote at a full council meeting.
25. Concerns over anti-social behaviour
Anti-social behaviour is possible anywhere in Liss or elsewhere. We have already discussed with the
Police informally about adding it to their "beat".
The Police are keen that the location should be easily visible for them and the public to reduce the
occurrence of anti-social behaviour.
26. At Angmering litter seems to have become a major problem. Bins are a partial answer.
What measures are going to be put in place for provision of bins, how often will they be
emptied? Who will empty them? Will they be emptied at weekends & public holidays when
presumably usage will be highest?
Angmering Councillor Nunn reported that the opening of the Skate Park had been a great success.
There was a problem [not a major problem] with litter but that was being addressed with extra
litterbins and more frequent rubbish collections. He also said that the behaviour of the people using
the Skate Park had been good. The Senior Assistant Clerk reported that two new litter bins were
to be installed this week with more regular collections. The possibility of a litter picker was also
being investigated. Liss Parish Council already employs two part-time litter pickers.
27. Will the facility be suitable for users with disabilities?
The facility will be accessible to all. The level of disability will determine how the bowl will be
used. It is known that disabled people use skate/bmx bowls, including those in wheelchairs.
28. Can fencing be provided to stop night time activity, ie lock gates at 8pm?
This will be investigated and a quotation has been obtained.
29. Footpath at NC frequently flooded, has a drainage survey been conducted?
The proposed site is not near this problem area. A drainage survey will be completed before work
starts. It is envisaged that drainage from a bowl would reduce any run off, becuase it will be
routed underneath the path.
30. Can LPC confirm maintenance costs have been budgeted for? Objector states 10 year
maintenance figure of £97,646
Maintenance costs have been estimated by LPC preferred contractor as approximately 1.25%
of the build cost per annum The 10 year figure quoted in the question seems unrealistic.
Following further comments received, LPC still believe our figures to be correct, clarification is
being obtained from technical experts at RoSPA.
31. How much will the uplift in premiums for LPC public liability insurance be?
The following quote has been received from LPC's insurance company:
On all risks = £1,400 per annum + IPT (insurance premium tax)
The first years premium would come from existing LPC funds. Premiums for future years will
be budgeted for in the same way existing insurance premiums are.
32. Will the bowl be constructed of solid concrete or just a sprayed concrete surface?
100mm of concrete will be applied to floor & upper skating surfaces and 100mm of spray
concrete will be applied to sides and ramps between upper and lower levels.
33. RoSPA recommends that non-supervised bowls are inspected at least once a week.
Have LPC staff have required training?
What procedure has been put in place for notifying faults found?
LPC already has a policy of inspection of play equipment and reporting faults. This will
include the bowl.
34. Alan Saunders Associates (Acoustic specialists from
from a skatebowl in profile is most akin to gunshots (due to noise of boards
landing).
away from park, a bund 2 meters high around the park was required. Given that at
NC the closest houses are 20m away and at WL only 40m away, does LPC agree
bunds are required?
The published information has indicated that noise will not be an issue. This is based on
surveys carried out at other facilities. The Oxford project (proposed) is 4.5 times larger than
that at Liss and includes grind rails, jumps, fun boxes,etc above ground.
LPC will carry out their own noise surveys to demonstrate the practicality of noise and
distance. This will cover ambient noise readings at both sites and at different times of day.
The cost of constructing a bund with the excavated soil would be minimal.
35. Does noise calculation take into account users taking portable audio amplification
devices to the skatebowl?
There is currently no restriction at either proposed site. The current trend is to use personal
devices such as iPods.
36. Do LPC have a copy of BS EN 14974:2006 & is this available for inspections & does
the planned bowl comply?
LPC preferred contractor, Bendcrete, state “all designs incorporate current safety
recommendations and all concrete components are designed and manufactured in accordance
with current British standards. LPC do not have a copy for inspection as compliance has been
entrusted to the contractor. Bendcrete claims to have been the leader in concrete skate park
construction since 1996 and has built many of the
37. Will skaters be forbidden from bringing objects like planks and boxes to form additional
jumps & if these are found will they be quickly removed by LPC staff?
Any similar objects will be removed.
38. Will first aid facilities be provided?
No. It is not normal to provide first aid facilities for informal recreation, either in Liss or elsewhere.
39. According to EHDC, total value of bids for payments from CIF to be considered by cabinet in
Nov exceed CIF funds available so if EHDC says no to Liss, what happens then?
LPC have already registered an interest and EHDC advise we will be first in the queue for
consideration in April.
40. At EHDC forum was told total cost would be £65-70k yet public meeting told £79k,
why the increase?
The project is estimated to cost £62k, however, LPC estimate funding could be sourced up to £79k.
This would cover any unforeseen expenditure, including increase in raw material costs and fencing.
41. Does either site lie within t he Liss conservation area?
No.
42. Harrogate Borough Council recently abandoned its plans for skatebowl having received
29 objections to one proposed site & 21 to another. What level of objections does LPC
need before abandoning project?
The decision will be based on the arguments put forward and our consideration of those points.
43. Angmering skatebowl has already been “tagged” with graffiti (within 2 wks of opening)
– can we expect Liss skatebowl to be similarly “tagged”.
Liss has had graffiti on bus shelters and removes it as soon as possible. It is not expected the bowl
would be immune. See Q84.
44. Will signs clearly state that those using it without protective equipment do so at their own
risk?
Yes. Safety signs will be designed in accordance with RoSPA guidelines which states “appropriate,
protective clothing must be worn at all times”
The signs will also state where the nearest telephone box is situated.
45. Will hours of construction be limited to 8am-6pm Mon to Fri, 8am-1pm Sat, not on Sundays.
Yes
46. What is the justification for building a skatebowl when only a small minority are in favour and
a large majority are against it?
There is no evidence to support this claim. LPC have received a significant number of letters and
comments in favour of a skatebowl.
47. Comments about councillors attire, behaviour, way in which meeting was run, young persons
attire & behaviour during meeting.
Not relevant to the consultation.
48. No toilets at Newman Collard.
A public toilet is situated next to the Groundsman store.
49. Is the Community Safety Officer going to patrol Old School Road to stop skateboarders using
public highway.
One consideration for providing such a facilitiy is to reduce “street skating”. RoSPA state “90% of
deaths due to skating and BMX bikes involved collisions with motor vehicles.
50. Why is planning permission not required when government is now trying to stop grass area
being removed and replaced with solid substances?
EHDC planning state “provided that the works are being carried out on land owned or maintained by
the Parish Council and the works are being done by the Parish Council in connection with any public
service administered by them then the skate bowl would fall within the criteria set out for Local
Authority, including Parish Council, permitted development rights.”
Letter from EHDC Chairman, Cllr M Harvey, dated 19.09.08, confirms position.
A letter has now been received stating that planning permission for "Certificate of Lawful Use"
will be required. (received w/c 20th October).
51. Which surveyor decided on NC site and when?
The parish council agreed to consult on these sites in July 2008.
52. If measurement of distance or noise levels have not been taken, how can LPC promise to
begin build in November?
LPC did not promise to start in November. LPC stated November was the earliest date work
could begin.
53. Bowl would need full time warden.
Informal recreation including skatebowls are not supervised, unless privately owned.
54. Does it warrant £70k of local money when Petersfield are planning "Rolls Royce" bowl?
This is designed primarily for Liss youth, who are generally are too young to drive. Users should not
have to rely on adults to drive them. Public transport to Petersfield is expensive, time consuming
and inconvenient.
55. Do they go to youth club or train with footballers?
There are various sporting groups in Liss, however, there are very few which are free to the user, are
individual or do not require club membership.
56. Why was the council meeting when councillors voted to proceed not advertised more widely?
Details of the council meeting was published in the Petersfield Post 30 July 2008, in the Village Voice
and on posters.
57. What is the bowl? In the real world it is a skatepark. I think you need to represent this in the
correct terminology.
The word skatepark suggests a park with a number of ramps and jumps, such as Alton skatepark.
LPC proposed facility is one concrete bowl and the word bowl was chosen carefully to reflect this.
58. Would LPC ensure prompt action by the law?.
LPC always report criminal activity, major or minor, to the police. We encourage residents to do the
same. LPC cannot affect the response times of police.
59. What exactly is developers contributions?
The Developers Contribution Fund is made up of a levy imposed by EHDC on developers on new
housing. The fund is held by EHDC on behalf of Liss. The funds can only be applied to new open
space facilities and not to repair or replacement of facilities.
60. Will LPC provide details of supporters names on petitions?
LPC would not be happy to disclose any names or information about residents, either supporters or
objectors, especially relating to those under the age of 18.
61. The Newman Collard pond area and wildlife will be ruined forever.
LPC have already voted and agreed to form a working group to help preserve and prolong the life of
the pond. LPC have agreed a person outside LPC to lead the project and investigations are already
underway as to whether funding is available.
Rainwater will be drained into the pond in the same way water is already drained into the pond from
Inwood Road via the current drainage system.
62. The proposed skatebowl sites are too close to residential housing in contravention of national
and international guidelines to prevent noise pollution
RoSPA advise that the recent court ruling on noise pollution, states acceptable noise levels should be
no more than 55dB at the position of housing.
The 55dB ruling now takes a legal precedence that supersedes any previous guidelines on the
distance between a skatebowl or any other type of facility or housing. LPC know that this ruling is
absolutely critical to allow the bowl to be built, and it must be entirely satisfied that the bowl will not
generate these levels before it can proceed.
62. Various reports have been submitted relating to other skateparks in the UK that have been
shut down because of adverse noise levels
All of these examples do not relate to the size or construction of the proposed Liss Bowl. Proposals
to build a metal framed ramp facility in the village have previously been abandoned because of the
noise it could generate.
63. There is currently a locked gate at the entrance from Inwood Road - would this be unlocked
during hours of skatebowl use to allow emergency vehicle access.
The emergency services suggest issuing a key to them or alternatively changing the padlock to a
number combination lock. This sytem already works successfully for parks in Petersfield.
The same would apply to the locked gate at West Liss.
64. Who designed the original questionnaire submitted to residents?
The Village Design Group designed and produced the questionnaire independently from LPC, who
commented on the draft. It was distributed to all households in Liss & Liss Forest with the
Village Voice. The results were analysed by the VDG.
The questionnaire is available from the VDG, LPC will obtain a copy.
65. Have LPC seen and adhered to PAS 35: 2005 "Specification for wheeled Sport Facilities"
This document has been superseded by BS EN 14974: 2006
66. Concerns raised over who LPC have consulted over the suitability of both sites
Local Police have given the following statement "Hampshire Police confirm either proposed site is
potentially suitable and this facility could be added to the current patrol".
Hampshire Playing Fields Association also say either site is suitable.
EHDC Environmental Health have inspected both sites and writes:
"In relation to the information that I currently have, I am unable to confirm the skate park could
be a statutory nuisance. However, if the skate park is built, any local residents are entitled to
make a formal complaint to the East Hampshrie District Council. If the council can substantiate
the complaint a formal notice could be served to restrict the times, or to prevent the use of the
skate park entirely, depending on the extent of the problem.
If the council does not determine a statutory nuisance, residents are able to take their own
action under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act and go directly to the magistrate's
court."
67. Proposed Fencing. Will proposed fencing be high enough to remove potential for
someone walking along path to be be struck by "flying" skateboard
Quotes have been received for fencing up to the height of 2.75m, the same height as a tennis
court fence, but the exact height of a fence is yet to be decided.
This option has now been negated - fence of this size would be unsightly and ineffective.
68. Can double yellow lines to installed in Inwood Road to allow easy access for emergency
vehicle access?
LPC are consulting with Hampshire Highways, however, it is envisaged access will be primarily
from Hillbrow Road.
69. Can LPC provide results of soil surveys?
Soil surveys were carried out at both sites on 9 October by an independant contractor. LPC are
awaiting the report.
70. If Petersfield skatepark does not go ahead, presumably teenagers and others will travel
to use skatebowl, so where will parents park?
It is not anticipated that parents will need to park as they will only drop off their children.
However, there is ample free parking within Liss, including Newman Collard car park, EHDC car
parks in Hill Brow and Mill Road, EHDC car park in Station Road and West Liss Recreation
ground car park.
71. The NPFA Six Acre Standard recommends that facilities primarily for the use of teenagers are
sited no closer than 50 metres to the property boundaries
There are no transcripts available but RoSPA have now changed their guidelines based on these
facts ~ and we are adhering to RoSPA advice. It should be noted that the Six Acre Standard has
a minimum distance criteria of 30m.
72. Has a project risk assessment been completed?
The project risks are being considered for each site during the consideration of questions and
comments received during the consultation.
Risks will also be compared during the assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of
each proposed location. A risk assessment has been carried out.
73. Have heard that LPC propose constructing a new 2-storey pavilion at
Crossover and skatebowl. Is this linked with this project? Will LPC categorically confirm or
deny that this is the case.
The need for a new single storey pavilion at
Statement. Plans were drawn up some time ago but the project is currently on hold.
The possibility of the Crossover Youth Club using the building has never been discussed. However,
there is currently a HCC Youth Club which uses the building once a week.
There is no link between the two projects.
74. What is the source of information that skateboarding is on increase. Southsea skatepark
users have dropped by 26% per annum.
We believe that the 3 primary users of the facility; BMX, skateboarders and roller blades, are
currently popular sports that have been popular for a number of years and will continue to be so for a
number of years.
Local knowledge tells us that skaters in Southsea have found alternative free skating areas at
Gunwharf Quays whereas Southsea is a chargeable facility.
75. Support (up to start of Public Consultation 2008)
Prior to the consultation LPC had received more letters of support than objections to providing a
BMX/skating facility. In excess of 340 separate names of support have been received.
76. Objections (up to start of Public Consultation 2008)
Of the objections received most were relating to a specific proposed site and not to the facility in
principle.
77. Finance
Most of the money available for a skatebowl can only be used for a specific projects relating to new
recreational facilities or open spaces.
Of the £80k total, one fifth is spend which can be reallocated elsewhere.
LPC have calculated that cost of replacing the current play park areas for younger children is in
excess of £110,000. The annual budget for the maintenance of these is currently £3,750.
78. Skateboarding in 2012 Olympics
A front page article in the Times 9 June 2009 “Our best chance for a gold in 2012?” reports: the event
would take place in the cycling velodrome in the Olympic Park where organizers plan to erect
“half pipes”. A timetable has been agreed to include the sport in the 2012 Olypics.
IOC spokesperson Emmanuelle Moreau explained, "The IOC are very keen on having a programme
that appeals to the youth and we said we would welcome such a proposal. The first step is for the
UCI to include skateboarding themselves and then make a formal proposal to the IOC. It is possible
for skateboarding to be at the Games in
It seems a final decision has not yet been made, IOC will make the decision, one report says in 2009.
Following research LPC have been unable to confirm that this situation has changed.
79. Both sites fail to comply with the guidelines laid down in the NPFA
The Six Acre guidelines state a minimum distance of 30m for a NEAP The measurements to the
property boundaries are at these distances.
80. The pond with its surrounding seating is used daily by all ages, from the very young to the
elderly. It is a place for play/feeding the ducks for small children and a tranquil place which
is much enjoyed by all ages, as is evidenced by the age spectrum we see using the public
benches. This will be completely destroyed if the skatebowl is built in the area LPC are
suggesting.
The have been many comments along these lines which will be taken into account during the
cosideration of the sites. Noise levels are commented on elsewhere on this page.
81. The proposed site at Newman Collard will be 1.5 metres from the adjoining public footpath
which is heavily used. Inevitably both skateboarders and bikers will spill over onto the
footpath, using it as a waiting area and quite likely using the footpath as an extension to the
bowl.
It is expected that most users would be within the fenced area while waiting to take part and watching
those already in the bowl, which will be above path level. The entrance to the bowl would not be
directly from the path.
82. LPC have investigated with EHDC putting a timer switch on the nearby streetlight, in an
effort to reduce the existing anti-social behaviour (as LPC have acknowledged) and potential
anti-social behaviour. This would completely defeat the object of lighting a heavily used
public right of way. This footpath is used at all times of the day and night and in winter people
returning from work via the station and bus stops use it as the quickest route from the village
centre to the Inwood Road/Dennis Road areas. Therefore those people will be endangered
by having to walk in the dark to prevent the youth hanging around the skatebowl.
What purpose does that serve?
Fair point. Any possible potential anti-social behaviour caused by any light spill from the street lamp
would have to be monitored. If it became a problem there are a number of actions that could be taken.
The type of light could be changed to a single directional version which will only allow light to be
projected downwards towards the path or a low lighting system installed. This will considered as part
of the evaluation.
83. Have LPC considered that the pond is very likely to be contaminated from drainage from the
bowl? LPC has stated that graffiti is inevitable and it is therefore inevitable that from time to
time the interior will need to be cleaned with chemicals to remove this, particularly anything
offensive. This will contaminate the pond water through the drainage system. LPC should be
mindful of new legislation coming into effect by December 2008 under the EC Environmental
Liability directive, where LPC will be liable as an ‘operator’.
LPC are acutely concerned about the well being of the pond as its councillors take part in working
parties to help maintain it. The possibility of contamination has been considered carefully and been
discussed with potential constructors. If built at NC a drainage trap (in fact 2) will be incorporated into
the specification which allows for a unwanted substances such as chemicals from cleaning products
to be removed before reaching the pond.
84. We have already provided the Parish Council with many photographs of similar skatebowl
sites where graffiti was rife, not only in the bowl itself but on surrounding buildings, gates
and even trees. It is inconceivable that LPC expect residents to look at this from their
homes. It would be quite appalling. As it will also be for the frequent users of the public
footpath. [Relates to Newman Collard]
There are many skate facilities that are not blighted by graffiti. In some cases graffiti is encouraged as
an artform and is therefore not cleaned unless offensive. LPC will not take the latter view. The bowl
will be elevated form the path and therefore graffiti inside the bowl would not be easily visible. There
are no surrounding buildings which should become any more of a target that currently exists, and the
we have not found any evidence of graffiti on trees anywhere.
85. We are also concerned that due to its secluded position it will become a focal point for
gatherings of youths looking for trouble and not necessarily wanting to use the facility.
LPC are well aware of the problems Newman Collard has recently been subject to,
ie setting fire to the groundsman’s hut, vandalism of benches, setting fireworks off at anti
social hours etc.
One reason for the selected location is that it is close to a path and therfore visible, something
recommended by the police. This concern is a central issue of objections, and again something
LPC is aware of and will take note of.
86. LPC had previously dismissed Newman Collard due to proximity to housing and because it is
already heavily used. Nothing has changed since then except that more houses have been
built in Inwood Road. The open space opposite the pond has a definite amenity value,
both as an appropriate open space enhancing the pond and also as a “knockabout” area
for ball games, use of the basket ball net etc.
Neither LPC nor the Newman Collard Trust feel this site to be an over development. LPC view it as
sensible use of the limited open space we have in the village. The site is appropriate for a recreation
ground. The proposal for a skate park was discounted because of the proximity to housing, The
larger design bowl in 2006 would not have fitted on to the available LPC land.
87. The skatebowl would be would not be visible from any main routes in the village, as Inwood
Road is not a main thoroughfare. We all know that the police force is very stretched and it is
inconceivable that local residents should be expected to monitor the area.
The Police are happy with the visibility of both sites, and have confirmed that if either were to be built
that they would be included into patrols.
88. To quote from the ROSPA skateboarding factsheet on their website “The average age of
skateboarders is between 13 and 14 and they participate in the sport on average 50.8 days in
the year. 90% of them are male and 60% are under 15.” From friends and acquaintances we
have spoken to it is likely that less half of the young males within the village within these
age groups will want to use the facility. It is a huge amount of money to spend on so few.
Despite what LPC say, we have not seen any girls using a skateboarding facility at the sites
we have visited. Have LPC calculated the cost per user?
It is not possible figure to calculate the figures statistically. There is no existing model that LPC uses
to calculate provision of play equipment generally. The statistics quoted seem only to relate to
skateboarders, BMX riders will also be using the facility. The capital cost is to cover many years
of use.
89. What is planned to happen to the 450 cubic metres of soil which is to be removed to make a
hole large enough for the bowl? If it is to be removed how many lorry movements will be
required? If it is not to be removed where is it planned to put it?
The volume of the removed soil is about 100 cubic metres. Some of the soil will be used in the
construction, the amount depending on the site. The excess will be removed. The number of loads
is not known although it is estimated that a lorry can hold 10 cubic metres.
90. A "no cycling" bye-law exists within Newman Collard. The "no cycling" sign which was
painted on the ground by the gate coming up from the car park is no longer visible, but a
somewhat defaced HCC "no cycling" sign remains at the other end of the path beyond the
pond. In practice a blind eye is turned to children riding bikes, but if BMX bikes become a
problem residents would have the right to expect the parish council to enforce the bye law.
Extract from byelaws (dated 1954).
" 5(i). A person shall not except in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege bring or cause to be
brought on to the ground any barrow, truck, machine or vehicle other than;-
(a) wheeled-bicycle, tricycle or other similar machine,
(b) a wheel-chair, perambulator, or chaise drawn, or propelled by hand and used solely for
conveyance of a child or children or an invalid.
Provided that where the Council set apart a space on the ground for the use of any class of vehicle
this byelaw shall not be deemed to prohibit the driving in or to that space by a direct route from
the entrance to the ground of any vehicle of the class for which it is set apart.
5(ii) A person shall not except in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege ride any bicycle, tricycle
or any other machine on any part of the ground."
It would be up to the Police or LPC to enforce this. We will try to obtain advice on what
"lawful right" means. The contents will be considered during the evaluation process.
The recently installed footpath to the play area clearly defines a pedestrian route to the play
equipment. LPC believe the majority of people entering the play area are using the path, making
it clearer for any cyclist travelling from the current BMX track to a bowl to see where the
pedestrians walk.
91. Need to maintain the hedge [at Newman Collard] to sufficient height and width to ensure
minimal impact on tennis court use.
LPC sees no problem with this. Although the hedge is the responsibility of NCPFT, LPC has
arranged the cutting to NCPFT requirements.
92. Given the noise evidence above (Q33) is this likely to cause distress to ducks and wildfowl.
Heron is a protected species. Has assessment been carried out?
The noise emitted is limited, even skateboard impacts. The noise levels are litlle different to
existing activites, and less than external noise such as planes. It is considered that in a public
park most species are used to human activity.
93. ROSPA says skatebowl should not be built near to trees dangers from fallen leaves.
There are trees at NC & WLR (abbreviated).
Leaf fall is being monitored. It is intended that the proposed fence (of whever height) would
have a mesh to stop blowing leaves.
94. Why, if NC trustees objected to site in NC, is it still one of the sites of choice?
LPC have receved a letter from NCPFT trustees generally in support of a skate bowl at either
NC or WLR.
95. How will council prevent it being used when the football floodlighting is switched on,
at lease 3 times a week + Saturdays?
The light spill will be checked. Ther floodlighting times are controlled by planning conditions.
LPC have received a petition against the skatebowl and are considering this along with all
criteria for and against the facility.
97. Raising support for a skatebowl
LPC have been criticised for trying to drum up support for the project. LPC are aware that
two comments were posted on websites trying to gain support. Councillors are within their
rights to promote Council activities. They are also entitled to have an individual vote as a
resident of Liss. However, the criticisms have been noted and both comments removed.
LPC are not aware of any other active campaigning by Councillors.
98. Councillor Linsley's motion to form a second working group
The motion was raised at the full council meeting on November 17th. The motion was
discussed at length and it was decised not to form a new group. The general feeling
amongst Councillors was that the existing working party would be making recommendations
to council, for a council decision. The council would be able to form a new group if it was
felt necessary at that time.