Wibu to not oppose these plans?

[Celestia]

We live on a new build estate. As part of the development, the builders were supposed to have built a children's play area on a fenced off grassed area in the middle of the estate. It was on the plans and part of what we all signed up for when we moved in.

The estate is now complete but for some reason this hasn't been completed. A resident's association has been formed to take up some other issues regarding the estate, which include the play area.

Through the resident's association, a few households have expressed their concerns over the potential play area saying it would attract 'youths, drinking,drug taking and other anti social behaviour'. The Chair has now sent a voting form out to all households asking whether we want him to take issue with the developers and get the play area built or whether to tell the developers not to bother building it.

On one hand I share the other resident's (potential) concerns but on the other hand I would really like a play area for my 3 children to play. Is it really likely to attract the kind of behaviour stated above?

For what it's worth, we live in a small town with a relatively low crime rate. There are no other play grounds nearby that we could walk to.

[MarthasHarbour]

YANBU, we moved away from a house that had a play area behind, we really miss having a park for DS age 3 to play in, we have to drive to one now.

It depends on the area regarding the 'yoofs' issue. We lived in a naice area and had the occasional teenagers but they usually buggered off by about 7pm, they werent causing any aggro, just meeting up to have a chat. I think those raising these concerns are being a bit prejudicial tbh.

For us it would be nice to have a play area in our vicinity, you meet other mums too.

[CajaDeLaMemoria]

We have a playground. Same kind of set up to you - new build estate, nothing else within walking distance.

It's fenced in and is very clearly for little children, with tiny slides etc. There's been no trouble there at all. We did have a 'community plan' incase there was, but there's just nothing of interest for youths to do there.

[LineRunner]

It doesn't matter what the residents' association do. It's got planning permission, as a condition of the development. Quite right, too.

[LoopaDaLoopa]

Bit technical, but upon planning agreement, the developer will have paid section 106 money, which will be used for local services, they will have paid towards community infrastructure, and they will have made an agreement to fund suitable local facilities.

Regardless of whether or not your RA want the playground to go ahead, the developer has agreed to fund it, and permission has been granted. If they don't build it, they are in breach of the terms of their planning consent. It is very important that developers stick to these terms, as, if not, local facilities can become very stretched.

What if they have promised a health centre or a school and new residents had decided they didn't want one? Tough, as the lack of one on that land puts strain on the existing community. You can bet your bottom dollar there will have been fierce opposition to your development being built int he first place, and objectors will have used exhaustion of existing facility as a bargaining chip.

[spottyparrot]

There is a tiny play area near my house and it contains one of those things on big springs with a seat on top that rock and a bench. Nothing else. Even that is enough for the local teens to go and use as a drinking area. There s another one slightly further away with 2x slide, 2xswings, tunnel and climbing free and roundabout. That has broken glass from beer bottles in it. It's fenced in and obv both are no dogs and I saw a local man go in there, close the gate and read the paper whilst his dog roamed in there.

I avoid both and put a swing and slide in the garden, was fortunate to be able to squeeze them in.

Not sure what I would do in your position but the objectors do hve a point.

[badguider]

if there are 'yoofs' of the type you describe on the estate they will find somewhere to congregate regardless.... if there's a park then yes, it might be there, but actually not if it's well designed, well-lit and in good view of lots of houses - which it should be if people want to let their children play there too.

[Tethering]

Assuming the potential play area is grassed or concreted (and not still a building site) then young people will congregate there anyway so you're probably as well opting for the play area and at least your dcs can enjoy it too

[Lottashakingoinon]

Is your town Pawhnee by any chance

[zwischenzug]

Old farts objecting to a play area in case in attracts youths. Someone should object to old nimby farts and demand they are put down.

[LadyWidmerpool]

An empty patch of land is surely no less likely to attract (gasp) youths. I would be demanding the facilities I had been promised, personally.

[Lottashakingoinon]

Zug WHERE does the OP say that it is old farts objecting to it?

Slightly in defence of my [implied] point it never ceases to amaze me how the really demanding NIMBY spoilt brats on Location Location etc are pretty much all 30 somethings!

[Lottashakingoinon]

And btw OP you should vote the way you want to vote...democracy falls down where people feel they have to vote in accordance with other people's preferences!

[Lottashakingoinon]

Just occurs to me Zug I may have been overlooking an ironic twinkle in my rush to take offence. Many apologies if that's the case [bublush]

[Chopchopbusybusy]

We have a similar arrangement. The local yoofs wouldn't want to hang around in it as it is very exposed and they would be seen by too many households.
I agree with the others that the developers are obliged to complete the building work.
Zwischenzug, the OP doesn't mention the age of the objectors. You've made a big of an assumption that they must be old.

[LineRunner]

The point that Loopa and I made above is that this play area will have planning permission anyway, and as a condition of the development, so the residents' vote is irrelevant.

Unless they are suggesting that Section 106 money ('planning gain' money for community facilities) is spent outside of the area? Because that would be a poor argument and precedent, and mooted far too late in the day.

[Anifrangapani]

Loop if the s106 is paid that would discharge the developers requirement to put the play area in. It would be the responsability of the party to whom the s106 monies had been paid However if it was a planning obligation there wouldn't need to be a s106.

A s106 doesn't need to be financial which means that it up to the other signatories to enforce its conditions. Usually the council and the land owner.
If it is a planning condition and the local residents oppose it the the planning department can recind or not enforce the obligation.

[Celestia]

Lotta you're right, at least partly anyway. Having seen the emails go back and forth, it does seem to be 30 somethings. They are families and stated they have young children who would benefit from the playground.

Loopa that's interesting, thanks for that.

[LineRunner]

We had this near us, Anifrangapani. The developer converted an old warehouse and at the end of the news rows of flats and houses they agreed to put a play areas for younger chldren. The families moved in, and tried to get the play area stopped because of someone - yes, one person - whipping up a froth about teenagers.

But there was nowhere else in the neighbourhood for the S106 to be spent. It would have been lost to our neighbourhood and spent somewhere else.

Anyway in our case I think the council did the right thing and maintained the planning conditions. It's actually a nice little play area, well-used and appreciated.

[Anifrangapani]

My point is that a s106 is not a planning obligation - it is a legal doccument drawn up between the developer, land owner and council under the housing act. Money does not have to change hands and when it does the developer no longer has to put the subject of the clause in. Ih this case the playground. It becomes the obligation of the person to whom the money was paid. Presumably the council. They can and do spend s106 money outside the development area.
The non financial s106 may be that housing may only be sold to a person who has a local connections or social housing is let at target rent not affordable rent.
However there is no evidence from what the op said that this is a s106. It could be a planning obligation. In which case it is up to the developer to install the playground.

[LineRunner]

It does sound more like a straighforward planning obligation.

[Celestia]

I'm not aware about an s106 anifrangapani. Do you know how I could find out?

[LineRunner]

Celestia To find out if it is straightforward planning obligation, check on your council website. There should be a record of the planning application and the conditional planning permission granted, via 'planning portal' or similar. Under conditions, it should say if the paly area must be provided.

If that's too fiddly, you could ring the planning office on Tuesday.

As AniFran says, it may have nothing to do with S106.

[LoopaDaLoopa]

I think my post was a little confused. I mean that most large scale developments would include a combination of section 106 payments and other specific planning conditions. I was working under the assumption that this park is a planning obligation, especially if it is on site.

[LineRunner]

I should have stuck with my original post

[Anifrangapani]

Ask your council's strategic housing department. If you have no luck pm me.