Review of Council’s
Response on Three
Bridges Multi - Use
Games Area (MUGA)
Petition
C
LDS/28
Overview and Scrutiny Commission
7 February 2011
By: Steve Lappage
Contact Officer: Steve Lappage, Democratic Services
Manager 01293 438549
Key points:
1. The purpose of this report is to enable the Commission to review the steps that the
Council has taken in response to a petition on the proposed MUGA (multi-use
games area) on Jubilee Field, three Bridges.
2. The petition opposed proposals to the building of a MUGA on the area of land
known as Jubilee Field (West) in Three Bridges and a request that, instead, it be
built on the east area of Jubilee Field (Church End).
3. The petition was considered at Full Council on 15 December 2010 when it was
agreed that the decision with regard to the location of the MUGA on the area of
land known as Jubilee Field in Three Bridges be made by the Portfolio Holder for
Leisure and Cultural Services under powers delegated to him.
4. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services subsequently used his
delegated powers to approve the siting of the MUGA on Jubilee Field, Three
Bridges adjacent to Three Bridges Football Club Ground (i.e. as opposed by the
petition).
C/1
Section 1 – Introduction/Background
1.1
The Council’s Petitions Scheme was approved by Full Council on 21 July 2010.
1.2
The Council had received, on 1 November 2010, a petition signed by 1062 people
which stated that:
“The undersigned persons are fervently opposed to the building of any structure on
the area of land known as Jubilee Field (West) in Three Bridges. This Petition
requests that the proposal by Crawley Borough Council to build a MUGA on the
above mentioned area be cancelled and the structure be reallocated and built on
the east area of the Jubilee Field (Church End). This will not impact on any of the
current major stake holders, residents and users of the Jubilee Field.

Jubilee Field is the only clear open park land available to the community of
Three Bridges

To build a clearly defined structure such as a MUGA would dramatically restrict
the use of the field to current high users like Three Bridges Football Club,
where 250 youth players from the age of 6 – 18 years train each week.
Crawley Boxing Club have 50 youngsters train each week. Added to this,
public use of this area need also to be considered (walking dogs, joggers, lunch
time).

Relocating the MUGA to the east end of Jubilee Field (Church End) would be
an acceptable option

If an alternative location be found, relocating the MUGA to an area where it
would add to children’s facilities and not impede on children’s current activities
must be the aim of Crawley Borough Council”
(i.e. The petition supported the MUGA being located in Jubliee Field but requested
it to be located further down the field so children and young people could continue
training adjacent to their club.)
1.3
The Petition, having been validated, was considered at the next Full Council on 15
December 2010 when it was agreed that the decision with regard to the location of
the MUGA on the area of land known as Jubilee Field in Three Bridges be made by
the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services under powers delegated to
him.
1.4
The Petitions Organiser, Mr Alan Bell (Chair of Three Bridges Football Club),
subsequently exercised his right to request the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny
Commission to review the steps that the Council has taken in response to the
petition. The reasons given by the Petitions Organiser as to why the Council’s
response was not considered to be adequate are set out in Appendix 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission is requested to:
1) To review the steps that the Council has taken in response to the petition.
2) To confirm whether or not it considers the Council’s response to the
MUGA Petition was adequate;
3) To confirm any recommendations it wishes to make.
C/2
Section 2 – The MUGA
2.1
As part of the Council’s Capital Programme to replace and upgrade outdoor
Children’s Play Equipment, provision of £60,000 has been made to replace play
facilities in Three Bridges. This funding was supplemented by Section 106 funding
to support improving open space and children’s play and external funding from the
National Lottery to create a full scheme budget of £201,000.
2.2
During 2008/09, extensive research with children in the Three Bridges area was
undertaken through local schools to establish a preferred site and scheme for the
provision of new outdoor children’s play facilities in the neighbourhood. A preferred
location of Jubilee Field was agreed with the key principles of the scheme being
children’s play facilities for younger children and a multi use games area (MUGA)
to cater for older children/youth.
2.3
The results of the consultation arrangements which led to the development of the
proposals for the location of the MUGA were also used to brief the Portfolio Holder
for Leisure and Cultural Services when he took his decision under delegated
powers (paragraph 3.3.4 (d) refers).
Section 3 – Decisions taken on the MUGA
3.1
Portfolio Holder’s Initial Proposed Decision
3.1.1
Councillor Lenny Walker, as the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services,
had intended to take the decision on the location of the Three Bridges MUGA
under delegated power G48 (General matters (i.e. of functions concurrently with
the Cabinet) delegated to Cabinet Members and officers) set out on page 194 of
the Council’s Constitution:
3.1.2
Although the Portfolio Holder had the authority to make the decision, following
receipt of the petition he decided to defer his decision pending the outcome of the
discussions at Full Council on 15 December.
3.2
Discussions at Full Council on 15 December 2010
3.2.1
In accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme, the Council considered the
petition on the MUGA at its meeting on 15 December 2010 as outlined in
paragraphs 3.2.2 – 3.2.6 below.
3.2.2
The Briefing Note produced for Members, by the Head of Legal and Democratic
Services as the Council’s designated Petitions Officer, prior to the Council meeting
on 15 December 2010 is attached as Appendix 2.
3.2.3
The Council also received the comments of Mr Alan Bell (the Petition Organiser)
and debated the way in which the Council could most appropriately respond to the
concerns and issues raised. A plan of the Jubilee field site as provided by Mr Bell
(which showed 3 options identified for the MUGA’s location, including the Petition’s
“Church End” option and the 2 options proposed by the Council) and a plan
provided by Council Officers (which showed the 2 Council options), had been
tabled to assist the meeting’s consideration. A copy of Mr Bell’s speech is attached
as Appendix 3.
C/3
3.2.4
It was moved by Councillor Lanzer, and seconded:
“That the decision with regard to the location of the MUGA on the area of land
known as Jubilee Field, Three Bridges, be made by the Portfolio Holder for Leisure
and Cultural Services under the powers delegated to him.”
3.2.5
The following amendment was then moved by Councillor Irvine and seconded:“That the Petition be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Commission for further
consideration on the issues raised.”
3.2.6
However, the amendment, upon being put to the Council, was declared to be lost
and upon the original motion being put to the meeting it was agreed:
“That the decision with regard to the location of the MUGA on the area of land
known as Jubilee Field, Three Bridges, be made by the Portfolio Holder for Leisure
and Cultural Services under the powers delegated to him.”
3.3
Portfolio Holder’s decision under delegated powers
3.3.1
On 20 December 2010, the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services took
the decision, under delegated power G48, to site the MUGA on Jubilee Field,
Three Bridges adjacent to Three Bridges Football Club Ground (i.e. option A in the
petition).
3.3.2
It was reported in Members Information Bulletin IB/548 issued on 11 January 2011
that:
a) in accordance with function G48 of the Constitution, Councillor L A Walker,
Cabinet Member for Leisure and Cultural Services, had approved the location
of the Three Bridges Multi Use Games Area (MUGA);
b) a copy of the decision and briefing papers was available on request from Kate
Wilson, Community Services Manager (Health, Wellbeing and Partnerships) on
01293 43 8547.
3.3.3
As the decision of the Cabinet Member was not called-in by 17th January, the
decision has since been able to be implemented.
3.3.4
The corresponding record of action taken by the Cabinet Member under delegated
powers included the following information:
a)
Alternative options considered and rejected
Options assessment and public consultation process undertaken to assess
the merits and areas of concern for each of the proposed locations.
Of the three options presented, the most suitable location is that adjacent to
Three Bridges Football Club Ground (Option A).
b)
Record of decision taken
To site the MUGA on Jubilee Field, Three Bridges adjacent to Three
Bridges Football Club Ground (option A).
c)
Statement of reasons for making the decision
Taking into consideration the views of the community that responded to the
formal public consultation process, the petitioner and Officers, option A is
C/4
considered to be the most suitable location for the MUGA for the following
reasons:
1) The closer proximity to the newly refurbished play area enables easier
supervision for parents and carers with children wishing to use both the
playground and MUGA simultaneously. Options B & C do not allow for
such easy supervision in this context.
2) The close proximity to the car park and pathways ensure full access to
disabled users, those with pushchairs and their families. Options B & C
are not easily accessible to disabled users and those with pushchairs.
As the facility needs to comply with DDA (i.e. Disability Discrimination
Act requirements), disabled/wheelchair users may be at more risk from
traffic entering/exiting Three Bridges FC by having to travel along
Jubilee Walk.
3) The close location to Three Bridges Football Club and playground would
concentrate the development within one area of Jubilee Field,
minimising any negative visual impact whilst maximising the flexibility of
the remaining open space for other users. Options B & C would have
greater visual impact and option C would limit the flexibility of the
remaining open space for other users.
4) Jubilee Field has a history of anti-social behaviour, specifically relating
to adult drinking and drug taking. Evidence suggests that this is largely,
though not exclusively, focused near to the church (Option B) and would
likely be exacerbated with the development of Option C.
d)
Briefing papers received by the Cabinet Member prior to taking the
decision
The following briefing papers were also appended to the record of action
and are available on request from either Kate Wilson (Community Services
Manager) or from Democratic Services (appendices 2 and 6 include much
of the information contained in these briefing papers):
i)
Three Bridges Outdoor Play Area (Community Services Manager;
December 2010)
ii) Three Bridges Play Area Consultation (Support Services, November
2009)
iii) Three Bridges Play Area Consultation – Phase 2 (Support Services,
July 2010)
3.4
Programme for the completion of the project
3.4.1
The preparatory work is continuing and the schedule for the completion of the
project, subject to confirmation by Property Services and planning approval, is set
out below:
ACTION
Tenders sent out
Deadline for receipt of tenders
Evaluation of Tenders and
Appoint (1 week programmed)
Submit Planning Application
Planning approval obtained by
Installation completed
Open
TIMESCALE
21 or 24 January 2011
11 February
18 February
After evaluation of tenders
18 April (8 weeks allowed for)
June
June
C/5
3.4.2
Following initial pre-application discussions with Council Planning Officers, Option
A broadly remains the preferred location as it is well sited in relation to the potential
impact on nearby residents, with the distance from the houses to the north and
intervening land help to prevent noise disturbance and alleviating issues of light
spillage. The final location of the MUGA will be subject to planning permission but
it is now expected it to be in close proximity (i.e. 3 metre tolerance either side) to
the area identified in Appendix 4 – which is a small distance away from the
position previously proposed.
Section 4 – The Review Process
4.1
Under the Council’s Petitions Scheme, if the Petition Organiser feels that the
Council has not dealt with their petition properly, they have the right to request that
the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Commission review the steps that the Council
has taken in response to their petition.
4.2
The Petition Organiser’s explanation of the reasons why the Council’s response is
not considered to be adequate is set out in Appendix 1. In accordance with the
Council’s Petitions Scheme, the Petition Organiser, Alan Bell, has also been invited
to attend this meeting and address the Commission for up to 3 minutes on why he
considers that the Authority’s decision on the petition is inadequate.
4.3
Statements from the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services and the
Head of Community Services responding to the comments contained in this report,
particularly in Appendix 1, are included as Appendices 5 and 6 respectively.
4.4
With reference to Appendix 1, the different thresholds for petitions and the routes
they can consequently take are clearly set out in the Council’s Petitions Scheme
which is available on the Council’s website. It is not known who gave this incorrect
advice and, therefore, whether or not the thresholds need to be more widely
publicised.
4.5
The review process introduced under Section 17 of the Local Democracy,
Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 is essentially an appeal
provision. If a Petition organiser is not satisfied with the way the authority has dealt
with a petition Section 17 gives the power to the Petitions Officer to ask the
Commission to review the Council's response to the petition.
4.6
Petitions Schemes provide another mechanism for anyone living, working or
studying in an area to raise issues and have their voice heard. However, there will
always be a risk that the petitioners’ expectations may be unrealistically raised and
they may not necessarily get the decision they want.
4.7
The Council has fulfilled its statutory duty by accepting the petition and debating it
at a Council meeting. However, it could not give effect to the request in the petition
because that was a Cabinet decision and one which has been delegated to the
Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services - the Council was not the
decision maker. Nevertheless, the Council could have decided to make any
recommendations to inform that decision or to refer the decision to the Cabinet for
a collective decision but it did not and, following the debate, agreed to refer the
decision on the location to the Portfolio Holder.
C/6
4.8
The Commission must also be mindful:
a) of how matters have moved forward since the Council meeting on 15
December 2011 whereupon the Portfolio Holder has exercised their delegation
(paragraphs 3.3 – 3.4 refer);
b) that any review should not hinder or delay the legitimate day to day business of
the Council; and, consequently
c) that the work associated with the project need not be held in abeyance, a
decision has been made and that decision can be implemented in accordance
with the scheme time table.
4.9
The Commission’s role will essentially be to decide whether or not the steps taken
by the Council in response to the petition were adequate (an adequate response is
likely to be proportionate to the issues set out in the petition) - i.e. to consider
whether or not:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
4.10
the petition was dealt with appropriately at Full Council;
the Petitions Scheme was correctly followed;
the decision taken as a consequence of the Council’s decision to refer it to
the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services correctly followed the
appropriate Council procedures and was both reasonable and
proportionate;
to make any recommendations as a result as a result of its findings.
Should the Commission determine that the Council has not dealt with the petition
adequately, it may use any of its powers to deal with the matter. These powers
include deciding, for example, to:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
ix)
instigate an investigation or scrutiny review
make recommendations to the Council’s Cabinet or the Portfolio Holder for
Leisure and Cultural Services
arrange for the matter to be reconsidered at a meeting of the Full Council;
request further reports or research;
require attendance by other officers and Members and Officers
hold a public meeting
carry out a consultation
hold a meeting with petitioners
make any other recommendations as appropriate.
Section 5 – The Review: Issues for possible consideration
5.1
Some matters Members of the Commission may wish to consider including those
listed in paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4 below – however, these are not exclusive.
5.2
The following have been invited to attend the meeting:
i)
ii)
Councillor Lenny Walker (Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services)
Nigel Sheehan (Head of Community Services).
C/7
5.3
5.4
5.5
Council decision to refer the matter to the Portfolio Holder
i)
To note the actions the Council could have taken on a petition usually
includes the following:
(a) Giving effect to the request in the Petition (However, the Council could
not have agreed to the location of the MUGA as this was a Cabinet
decision and one which had been delegated to the Portfolio Holder for
Leisure and Cultural Services)
(b) make a recommendation to inform that decision (i.e. to Cabinet or the
Portfolio Holder; e.g. to undertake it in consultation with Ward Members
and/or specified officers; to take into account specific points)
(c) refer the decision to the Cabinet for a collective decision
(d) Refer the Petition to the Overview and Scrutiny Commission
(e) Consider the Petition at a meeting of the Authority
(f) Holding an inquiry
(g) Holding a public meeting
(h) Commissioning research
(i) Giving a verbal response to the Petition Organiser setting out the
Authority’s view about the request in the Petition
ii)
Was adequate information provided to Members of the Council?
iii)
Was it a full and proper/proportionate debate?
iv)
Was it a fair/reasonable and proportionate decision?
v)
Were the reasons for any decisions adequately explained to the Petition
Organiser?
vi)
Are there any improvements which need to be made e.g. to the Council’s
decision-making processes, Petitions Scheme and communications?
Decision of the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services
i)
If required, invite senior officer to explain further:
a) any advice given to the Portfolio Holder to enable them to make a
decision (i.e. in addition to that provided in the report and appendices);
b) any subsequent progress on the project and any scheduling issues that
may have impacted on the timing of the decisions.
ii)
Did the Portfolio Holder give due consideration to the results of all of the
consultations and the concerns and issues expressed in the Petition?
iii)
What, if any, improvements could be made to how the Council
communicates the reasons for making decisions to interested
stakeholders?
Petitions Organiser
The Commission may wish to consider whether it has any further questions it
wishes to ask the Petitions Organiser.
C/8
5.6
Findings and Recommendations
5.6.1
The Commission is requested to confirm:
5.6.2
i)
Whether or not the Council’s response to the MUGA Petition was adequate;
ii)
Any recommendations it wishes to make.
Once the appeal has been considered the petition organiser will be informed of the
result within 10 working days. The results of the Review will also be published on
the Council’s website.
Section 6 – Appendices and Background papers
Appendices
Appendix 1:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
Appendix 4:
Appendix 5:
Appendix 6:
Reasons given by the MUGA Petition Organiser, Mr. Alan Bell of Three
Bridges Football Club, explaining why he has requested the review.
Briefing Note provided by the Council’s Petitions Officer to Members prior
to the Council meeting on 15 December 2010
Presentation/speech by Alan Bell at the Council meeting on 15
December 2010 subsequently sent to all Members
Plan of Jubilee Field showing the preferred location following preapplication discussions with Planning Officers (January 2011)
Statement from the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services.
Statement from the Head of Community Services.
Background Papers
1)
The Council’s Petition Scheme
2)
The Petition on the MUGA
3)
The record of action taken by the Portfolio Holder under delegated powers and the
following associated briefing papers:
i)
Three Bridges Outdoor Play Area (Community Services Manager;
December 2010)
ii)
Three Bridges Play Area Consultation (Support Services, November 2009)
iii)
Three Bridges Play Area Consultation – Phase 2 (Support Services, July
2010)
ENDS
C/9
Appendix 1
Reasons given to the Council’s Petitions Officer by the Petitions Organiser as to
why the Council’s response was not considered to be adequate
We feel that the council have not dealt with our petition properly and we request that the
councils Overview and Scrutiny Commission review the steps taken by the council in their
response to our petition.
The reasons for requesting a review are:
1. We were informed that a 500 signature petition would be decided by the Portfolio
Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services (PHLCS). This option was dismissed as
the PHLCS has been the driving force for option A and insured it was proposed as
CBC first choice within the third consultation documents that were sent out to the
major Stakeholders at Jubilee Field. Option A was rejected by the petition and the
major Stakeholders. The PHLCS made it very clear when speaking at a public
Three Bridges Forum meeting on 20th September 2010 that he fully supported
option A and found it necessary to call for a public vote to support the proposal.
2. The petition group decided to opt for a 1000 signature petition which we were
informed was a “Petition for Debate” and therefore a decision made in group, rather
than by an individual.
3. As petition organiser I was asked by CBC to present the main detail of the petition
at the 15th December 2010 council meeting. There were no questions which was
disconcerting as many of the councillors in attendance would have known little
about the issue and we expected some form of discussion.
4. Ward Councillors Brenda and Bob Burgess then briefly spoke with Bob Burgess
supporting the petitions chosen option C but to the edge of Jubilee Field and
therefore not in the centre.
5. As stated there was no debate which was very disappointing as this was the
reason we decided to opt for the 1000 signature petition.
6. What followed made a mockery of the petition process. The Council Leader then
recommended that the decision for locating the MUGA be passed to the PHLCS. A
vote was then called for, this resulted in the Labour Councillors supporting a
scrutiny commission review while the Conservative Councillors voted against. The
Conservatives had the higher vote count and therefore the recommendation for the
PHLCS to make the location decision was carried.
I repeat that the PHLCS has been the driving force in locating the MUGA in option
A adjacent to the football club. This is the very same location that the petition was
objecting to. Surely there is a total conflict of interests here? It is therefore no
surprise to now be informed that option A has been approved.
7. What was the point in a third consultation where the major Stakeholders
(Conservative Club, Boxing Club, Three Bridges Free Church and Three Bridges
Football Club) were asked for input? All rejected option A and proposed Option C
as did the emergency services.
8. What was the point of the 1000 signature petition when a democratic debate was
expected but a quick show of hands reverted the decision back to the PHLCS?
C/10
9. Numerous requests have been made by letter and at the 15th December Council
meeting to meet PHLCS in an effort to discuss the matter. All requests have been
totally ignored.
The general view of many is that the decision regarding the location of the MUGA was
made many months ago. The third consultation process and the petition merely delayed
the inevitable which does not say much for the procedure that allows this to happen.
The reasons for those wanting the MUGA repositioned to allow children’s training to
continue are numerous and have been presented to CBC in writing many times.
Why have CBC decided that in a huge field the only place the MUGA could go is in the
one place that would cause the most disruption to existing users? Then to proceed giving
absolutely no reasons to support that decision is far removed from the ideals of a modern
democracy let alone the big society. Shouldn’t CBC be stimulating voluntary organisations
that offer the community a valued service, instead of strangling the enthusiasm and
motivation of those volunteering to run such organisations.
I recommend that CBC and Three Bridges Football Club meet to positively discuss our
concerns and our joint plans for the future.
Alan Bell
Chairman Three Bridges FC
Petition Organiser
(Plan attached)
C/11
Appendix 2
Briefing Note provided by the Council’s Petitions Officer to Members prior to the
Council meeting on 15 December 2010
Petition Jubilee Field Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) Three Bridges
Council Meeting 15 December 2010
A Petition has been received from residents pursuant to the Council’s Statutory Petition
Scheme. This is the second petition received under the scheme which was approved in
July. The Petition Organiser is Mr Alan Bell, Chairman Three Bridges Football Club,
Jubilee Field, Three Bridges, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1LQ.
The Petition was received by the Council on 1st November and validated. The Petition
reads:
“The undersigned persons are fervently opposed to the building of any structure on the
area of land known as Jubilee Field (West) in Three Bridges. This Petition requests that
the proposal by Crawley Borough Council to build a MUGA on the above mentioned area
be cancelled and the structure be reallocated and built on the east area of the Jubilee
Field (Church End). This will not impact on any of the current major stake holders,
residents and users of the Jubilee Field.

Jubilee Field is the only clear open park land available to the community of Three
Bridges

To build a clearly defined structure such as a MUGA would dramatically restrict the
use of the field to current high users like Three Bridges Football Club, where 250
youth players from the age of 6 – 18 years train each week. Crawley Boxing Club
have 50 youngsters train each week. Added to this, public use of this area need
also to be considered (walking dogs, joggers, lunch time).

Relocating the MUGA to the east end of Jubilee Field (Church End) would be an
acceptable option

If an alternative location be found, relocating the MUGA to an area where it would
add to children’s facilities and not impede on children’s current activities must be
the aim of Crawley Borough Council”
The number of signatories to the Petition is 1,066.
The number of signatures with a Crawley address 936
The number of signatories with an address outside of Crawley 130.
To be a valid petition requiring debate:
1. It must be signed by 1,000 persons who live, work or study in the Local Authority’s
area
2. The Petition must relate to a relevant matter (i.e. a function of the Local Authority)
A signature counts if the Petition gives a signatory’s name and address which may be an
address where the signatory lives, works or studies. From the whole Petition of 1,066
signatories there are only 80 signatories from Three Bridges the remaining 856 are from
persons living in other areas in Crawley. The remaining 130 signatories could work or
study in the area. (Some have given a work address).
C/12
This Petition will be debated by Council on the 15 December.
Set out below is some information which I hope will assist to inform the debate on this
matter.
The Petition supports the MUGA being located in Jubilee Field but requests for it to be
located further down the field so children can continue training adjacent to their club.
Three Bridges Outdoor Play Area
Background Information
As part of the Council’s Capital Programme to replace and upgrade outdoor Children’s
Play Equipment, provision of £60,000 has been made to replace play facilities in Three
Bridges. This funding was supplemented by Section 106 funding to support improving
open space and children’s play and external funding from the National Lottery to create a
full scheme budget of £201,000.
During 2008/09, extensive research with children in the Three Bridges area was
undertaken through local schools to establish a preferred site and scheme for the provision
of new outdoor children’s play facilities in the neighbourhood. A preferred location of
Jubilee Fields was agreed with the key principles of the scheme being children’s play
facilities for younger children and a multi use games area (MUGA) to cater for older
children/youth.
Consultation
In the spring and summer of 2010, consultation with local residents and stakeholders was
undertaken to ascertain the preferred location for the children’s play area and MUGA.
Following the local resident/stakeholder consultation, it was agreed to replace and enlarge
the existing play area at Jubilee Fields. This scheme was completed in October 2010 and
despite the cold weather, has proved popular since the completion. A schematic drawing
of the new play area is shown below.
As part of the resident/stakeholder consultation the preferred location for the MUGA was
considered. This was specifically addressed as part of the Three Bridges Fun Day
Saturday 10 July 2010 where attendees were asked the following questions:
1.
Would you like to see a MUGA provided on Jubilee Fields? Yes/No
C/13
2.
Would you or a member of your household use it? Yes/No
3.
Where on Jubilee Fields do you feel it is best placed? Near Church End or
Near TBFC End
The responses were as follows:1.
Would you like to see a MUGA provided on Jubilee Fields?
Yes: 33
No: 0
2.
Would you or a member of your household use it?
Yes: 29
No: 4
3.
Where on Jubilee Fields do you feel it is best placed?
Near Church End:
10
Near TBFC End:
21
The Head Teacher from Three Bridges School confirmed that there was
overwhelming support from the school and children for the MUGA however did not express
a preferred location.
Following the indicated preference for the MUGA to be sited nearer to the Three Bridges
FC end of Jubilee Field, final consultation of stakeholders immediately adjacent to Jubilee
Field was undertaken. As part of this, two options for the siting of the MUGA were
indicated.
Option A – Area in front of Three Bridges Football Club and
Option B – Area adjacent to the Boxing Club.
Below is a summary of the stakeholders contacted and responses received.
Stakeholder
Three Bridges Football Club
Crawley Conservative Club
Crawley Boxing Club
2 Jubilee Fields (Residential property)
Talisman House
Three Bridges Free Church
Comment
Signed Petition handed to CBC. Support
the Location of a MUGA in Jubilee Field
on the east area of Jubilee Field (Church
End) They have referred to this as Option
C object to Options A and B.
Opposed to Options A and B support
location of MUGA in Jublilee Field in line
with the road called Jublilee Walk
Option B – Adjacent to Boxing Club
Area adjacent to New Play Area
Support no development – but if it goes
ahead would prefer Option A
No Response
Discussion
The petition received by the Borough Council recommends a further option, Option C
which is located further from Three Bridges FC and nearer to the Three Bridges Free
Church. An evaluation of the Options, including Option C is considered below.
Option A: The feedback from the Fun Day consultation was for the MUGA to be sited
nearer to Three Bridges FC and this option would accord to a greater degree with this.
Option A would also enable the MUGA to be sited closer to the new play area which would
enable easier supervision for parents who may have children playing in both the play area
C/14
and the MUGA at the same time. Located closer to the Three Bridges FC would also
concentrate the development within an area already. The negative aspect of Option A is
that there could be an impact on Three Bridges FC training although these areas are not
formally booked by the football club for this purpose.
Option B: Option B is located further from the play area and would make joint supervision
by parents slightly harder. Option B is also located further from the car park and main
entrance to Jubilee Field and therefore is longer walk to/from the drop off point. Option B
is sited nearer to the centre of Jubilee Field and therefore could have a greater visual
impact than Option A.
There has been some history of anti-social behaviour including drink and drug taking
towards the church end of Jubilee Field. Option B is lightly nearer to where activities have
historically been recorded and could be a concern to parents. More positively, Option B is
likely to have less impact on the current training arrangements of Three Bridges FC.
Although Option C was not proposed as part of the consultation, for completeness,
consideration of this option is given here. Option C is located the furthest from Three
Bridges FC which was the preference indicated at the Three Bridges open Day. Option C
is the location proposed in the petition Option C would mean it is harder for parents to
oversee children in the play area and MUGA at the same time and Option C would also
have the greatest visual impact as it is effectively located in the middle of Jubilee Field.
The concerns regarding Anti-Social Behaviour are likely to be exacerbated were Option C
chosen as the preferred location.
Although there are strengths and weaknesses to all of the proposed options, on balance
the Officers’ views for the siting of the MUGA would be Option A. It is further
recommended that discussions are held with Three Bridges FC to enable the MUGA to be
sited alongside grass pitches which will enable Tree Bridges FC to continue to train in this
area. (This being on the basis that the training areas are formally booked).
The action the Council can take on a petition includes the following:
(j) Giving effect to the request in the Petition
(k) Considering the Petition at a meeting of the Authority
(l) Holding an inquiry
(m) Holding a public meeting
(n) Commissioning research
(o) Giving a verbal response to the Petition Organiser setting out the Authority’s view
about the request in the Petition
(p) Refer the Petition to the Overview and Scrutiny Commission
The Council cannot agree to the location of the MUGA as this is a Cabinet decision and
one which has been delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services.
The Council can decide whether they wish to make a recommendation to inform that
decision the Council could also decide to refer the decision to the Cabinet for a collective
decision.
The MUGA is development which requires planning permission therefore this will be
subject to a planning application being submitted to the Council in the ordinary way.
C/15
Members of the Development Control Committee need to exercise caution if they decide to
speak on this matter at Council so as to not preclude themselves from speaking at the
Development Control Meeting when the application is being considered for determination.
This is to ensure that matters of predetermination are not brought into play.
C/16
Appendix 3
Crawley Borough Council Meeting,
Town Hall, 15 December 2010, 7.30pm
Agenda Item 5, MUGA Jubilee Field
Presentation to Cabinet Members, Councillors and Officers, by Petition Organiser,
Alan Bell
Introduction
Good evening, my name is Alan Bell and I am Chairman of TBFC
Petition
a) I am representing the groups who supported the petition namely the members of
the four major stakeholders at Jubilee Field, which include Crawley Boxing Club,
The Conservative Club, Three Bridges Free Church, Three Bridges FC and many
residents from Three Bridges and the Crawley area.
The Objection. Please see map (N.B. attached to Appendix 1 to report LDS/28)
b) Jubilee Field is approximately 220m x 90m and is an open field. The MUGA is
24m x 15m, which illustrates there are many location opportunities. The west end
of the field is put to good community use by the three major stakeholders located
there i.e. Boxing Club and Three Bridges FC for training and the Conservative Club
for family events throughout the year. To build a structure in the same said area
would destroy these club activities, we therefore object to the CBC’s chosen
location options A & B and propose a new option C which is only approximately 50
metres from CBC’s option B. Recent consultation letter replies to CBC from the
stakeholders confirm their objections.
c) New Option C is the most accessible and visible as seen from Jubilee Walk and
Three Bridges Road. This location was favoured by the police and ambulance
service for these reasons. The constant stream of visitors to all three clubs and
local businesses would mean the MUGA is constantly under surveillance for
misuse by anyone including the drunks and vagrants that frequent this area.
Support the MUGA
We support the MUGA being built on Jubilee Field giving additional facilities for the youth
of our town. That is exactly the same objective held by the Football Club and the Boxing
Club. Please do not destroy the fun and ambition currently being experienced by the youth
of these clubs. Building the MUGA approximately 50 yards further down the field will
mean the current people using Jubilee Field and the new people using the MUGA can
utilise the Field in harmony and without disruption to local residents. This must be the
most important aim of this meeting.
C/17
We are ready to meet and discuss this project with officers and councillors in an effort to
arrive at a mutual agreement that meets our combined objectives.
We should be working together on matters that affect the services we jointly offer the
community. Working in opposition is costly, time consuming, demotivating and generates
negative feelings in the community.
Three Bridges FC
TBFC is 110 years old and for the last 50 years our home for playing and training has
always been at Jubilee Field. As our youth section has grown from 2 teams in 1995 to 16
teams in 2010 so has our training needs. We currently have 250 children playing at the
club. Our ground has 1 pitch and we have a total of 19 teams (3Adult teams and 16
Children’s teams from 6-18 years). Our children train on Jubilee Field. We manage a
situation that has evolved through the growth and success of the club which has given
opportunities to thousands of Crawley children over the years. We hand carry training
equipment out to Jubilee Field, train and leave the area clean and tidy. The children have
the benefit of using the clubs changing rooms, showers and medical facilities; they are
always in a safe environment.
As you are aware the MUGA is a metal structure with fenced sides and a hard court for
playing basketball and football, there is obviously noise generated from these activities
and typically teenagers can play up to 10.00pm under floodlights. This is not at all
acceptable when in close proximity to residential homes; the MUGA located in Jubilee
Field does not give these major problems.
Summary
a) We propose that new Option C is accepted as the location for the MUGA, which
will have little or no disruption to the current use of Jubilee Field.
b) Jubilee Field will be the location for the MUGA. Any change to this will result in
further delays with possibly further consultations and objections
c) This project has been active for over 18 months and in a true effort to resolve the
issue of location we have co-operated and compromised from our original stance
which objected to the MUGA in Jubilee Field. In an effort to progress the project
we now support the Jubilee Field location. To date CBC have shown no
compromise regarding our concerns.
d) We are offering to work with officers and councillors to jointly show further
compromise and come to an agreed final location for the MUGA on Jubilee Field.
We do not believe these discussions will take very long before an agreement is
reached. The official start process for this project could be eminent.
Thank you for listening to these points and I hope that I can soon give over 1,000 petition
supporters some positive news.
C/18
Appendix 5
Three Bridges MUGA and the Petition:
Statement from Councillor Lenny Walker, Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural
Services, including response to comments contained in Appendix 1
1.1
Introduction and Initial Summary
1.1
Although my understanding is that the report to OSC is and any subsequent
discussion is to be about CBC’s process and response to the petition and not the
decision made on the location of the MUGA, I am satisfied that the decision taken
is in line with Councils policy to provide suitable facilities for children and young
people. I am also satisfied that I have complied with the petition policy as advised
by democratic services:
1.2
Reasons for Jubilee Walk playing fields chosen as site for MUGA:
 Inadequate play provisions at Three Bridges.
 Jubilee fields identified prior to my tenure
 I met with Ward councillors and walked the area church End, TBFC end and
existing play area of Jubilee Fields
 Objections from Ward Cllrs and residents to church end due to the derelict
building, seclusion, police would put young children at undue risk
 Assertions made that officers had not carried out satisfactory consultation - so
decision delayed.
 Three consultations and research undertaken (outlined below).
2.
Consultations and research
2.1
November 2009
Further consultations November 2009 resulting in upgraded play area but 20% less
than could have had due to objections and concerns of residents immediately
across the road in Three Bridges Road.
2.2
Phase 2
Further consultation (see statistics and outcomes of consultations included/referred
to elsewhere in the report to the Commission)
2.3
Sat 10 July
 Further consultation at Three Bridges fun day – in line with other schemes
across the town.
 Specific MUGA questionnaire favoured MUGA at TBFC end for reasons stated.
2.4
I also attended Three Bridges Forum to give update as concerned at delay of the
scheme. Although, like the petition it was not part of the resident’s consultation, the
overwhelming majority were supportive.
3.5
Further consultations – Ward Cllrs and TBFC stated that TBFC had not been
consulted with formally nor were other stakeholders.
3.6
Meeting subsequently arranged with Chairman of TBFC at his request along with
Leader, property services, Ward Cllrs, Community Services Manager, Head of
Legal Services. Officers informed me that after consultation with Three Bridges
Ward Members, the arranged meeting cancelled by TBFC Chairman at short notice
and cannot make later date as away on for approximately three weeks. CBC
C/19
Requested another representative from TBFC to attend informed this was not
possible as no one else on the committee was up to speed.
4.
Summary and Conclusions
4.1
I, other Members and the officers have expended an awful lot of time and energy
before during and after the petition, before making my decision after the petition
was heard in Full Council in December 2010.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
m)
n)
o)
p)
q)
The experts, officers have taken into account the results of the overwhelming
majority of the resident’s views from the consultations, the safety of the
children that will be unsupervised.
The consultation process undertaken was more extensive than previous
schemes across the Borough
The process followed was the same as that followed for numerous other
schemes
TBFC or any other club that books the field for matches or training, as per
CBC’s policy, will have the same square meterage albeit only 20-30 metres
further down the field.
The parents and young children will not have to walk along the road (Jubilee
Walk), this reducing the risk from increased traffic to and from TBFC,
Conservative Club and Boxing Club.
Easy connectivity from the existing play area
The field will not be effective split into three parts less usable and I am
informed, more difficult to maintain.
Closer to existing parking, there is no alternative parking
Lack of parking further down Jubilee Walk
The ease of accessibility and safety of the children of the children is
paramount
Accessible to youngsters of all physical abilities including disabled/wheelchair
bound
Unreasonable under our DDA policy, to ask less able bodied users to wheel
themselves along Jubilee Walk with danger of increased traffic.
In line with CBC policy, on prior booking, the remaining grassed pitches
should only be used once per week for organised training or matches.
The fields are not floodlit so presumably training and matches for youngsters
can only take place during hours of daylight , i.e. after school/work and at
weekends in winter months.
MUGA will be available to the residents all year round subject to planning
conditions.
I spoke to Crawley Boxing Club and to Rev. C Jones of Three Bridges
Church. Rev Jones, although he signed the petition, is now supportive of the
decision taken, having been provided with in-depth information as to why the
location was chosen. He also confirms that the details of research were not
provided to him when he signed the petition
Although the petition was not part of the consultation, I also considered the
proportionality and balance of it. Of the 1066 signatories, only 45 are Three
Bridges residents and on the electoral register. There were only eight
residents living in Three Bridges Road and on the electoral register.
C/20
4.2
The residents have driven the need for play facilities. I have taken advice from the
experts, namely the officers and used the outcome of the numerous consultations.
At the meeting of the Three Bridges Forum, to which I was invited, I gave a factual
update of the outcome of the consultation and based on these findings, the
preferred location. There were about 80 people in attendance at the forum and with
a show of hands the majority were in support, I believe only three were against.
Although supportive, the attendees’ views did not form part of the consultation, as it
was not part of the formal process.
4.3
With reference to paragraph 9 in Appendix 1, again, I re-iterate, at least one
meeting was arranged with numerous Members and officers, at the petitioner’s
request, and cancelled at short notice by the petitioner (paragraph 3.6 above
refers). I am also aware of other meetings and conversations had between
representatives of Three Bridges FC and officers including the Head of Property.
4.4
I believe, in my capacity as Cabinet Member for Leisure and Cultural Services,
after taking advice from Legal and Democratic Services and other relevant officers,
I have discharged my duties appropriately under the petition scheme.
Councillor Lenny Walker
Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services
C/21
Appendix 6
Statement from Nigel Sheehan (Head of Community Services) including response to
comments contained in appendix 1
Three Bridges Outdoor Play Area
Background Information
As part of the Council’s Capital Programme to replace and upgrade outdoor Children’s
Play Equipment, provision of £60,000 has been made to replace play facilities in Three
Bridges. This funding was supplemented by Section 106 funding to support improving
open space and children’s play and external funding from the National Lottery to create a
full scheme budget of £201,000.
During 2008/09, extensive research with children in the Three Bridges area was
undertaken through local schools to establish a preferred site and scheme for the provision
of new outdoor children’s play facilities in the neighbourhood. A preferred location of
Jubilee Fields was agreed with the key principles of the scheme being children’s play
facilities for younger children and a multi use games area (MUGA) to cater for older
children / youth.
Consultation
In the spring and summer of 2010, consultation with local residents and stakeholders was
undertaken to ascertain the preferred location for the children’s play area and MUGA.
Following this local resident / stakeholder consultation, it was agreed to replace and
enlarge the existing play area at Jubilee Fields. This scheme was completed in October
2010 and despite the cold weather, has proved popular since the completion. A schematic
drawing of the new play area is shown below.
As part of the resident / stakeholder consultation, the preferred location for the MUGA was
also considered. This was specifically addressed as part of the Three Bridges Fun Day on
Saturday 10 July where attendees were asked the following questions:
1.
2.
Would you like to see a MUGA provided on Jubilee Fields? Yes/No
Would you or a member of your household use it? Yes/No
C/22
3.
Where on Jubilee Fields do you feel it is best placed? Near Church End or Near
TBFC End
The responses to these questions are set out below.
1.
Would you like to see a MUGA provided on Jubilee Fields?
Yes: 33
No: 0
2.
Would you or a member of your household use it?
Yes: 29
No: 4
3.
Where on Jubilee Fields do you feel it is best placed?
Near Church End:
10
Near Three Bridges FC End: 21
The Head Teacher from Three Bridges School confirmed that there was overwhelming
support from the school and children for the MUGA however did not express a preferred
location.
Following the indicated preference for the MUGA to be sited nearer to the Three Bridges
FC end of Jubilee Fields, final consultation stakeholders immediately adjacent to Jubilee
Fields was undertaken. As part of this, two options for the siting of the MUGA were
indicated
Option A – Area in front of Three Bridges Football Club and
Option B – Area adjacent to the Boxing Club.
Below is a summary of the stakeholders contacted and responses received.
Stakeholder
Three Bridges Football Club
Conservative Club
Crawley Boxing Club*
2 Jubilee Fields (Residential property)
Talisman House
Three Bridges Free Church*
Comment
Signed Petition handed to CBC
No Response
Option B – Adjacent to Boxing Club
Area adjacent to New Play Area
Support no development – but if it goes
ahead would prefer Option A
Option B
* The Leisure and Culture Portfolio Holder has subsequently indicated that following
subsequent consultation, these stakeholders have confirmed a preference for Option A,
the area in front of Three Bridges Football Club.
Recommendation
The petition received by the Borough Council recommends a further option, Option C
which is located further from Three Bridges FC and nearer to the Three Bridges free
church. An evaluation of the options, including option C is considered below.
Option A: The feedback from the Fun Day consultation was for the MUGA to be sited
nearer to Three Bridges FC and this option would accord to a greater degree with this.
Option A would also enable the MUGA to be sited closer to the new play area which would
enable easier supervision for parents who may have children playing in both the play area
and the MUGA at the same time. Located closer to Three Bridges FC would also
concentrate the development within an area already. The negative aspect of Option A is
that there could be an impact on Three Bridges FC training although these areas are not
formally booked by the football club for this purpose.
C/23
Option B: Option B is located further from the play area and would make joint supervision
by parents slightly harder. Option B is also located further from the car park and main
entrance to Jubilee Fields and therefore is longer walk to / from the drop off point. Option
B is sited nearer to the centre of Jubilee Fields and therefore could have a greater visual
impact than option A.
There has been some history of anti social behaviour including drink and drug taking
towards the church end of Jubilee Fields. Option B is slightly nearer to where these
activities have historically been recorded and could be a concern to parents. More
positively, Option B is likely to have less impact on the current training arrangements of
Three Bridges FC.
Although Option C was not proposed as part of the consultation, for completeness,
consideration of this option is given here. Option C is located the furthest from Three
Bridges FC which was the preference indicated at the Three Bridges Open Day. Option C
would mean it is harder for parents to oversee children in the play area and MUGA at the
same time and Option C would also have the greatest visual impact as it is effectively
located in the middle of Jubilee Fields. The concerns regarding Anti Social Behaviour are
likely to be exacerbated were option C chosen as the preferred location.
Although there are strengths and weaknesses to all of the proposed options, on balance
the recommendation for the siting of the MUGA would be option A. It is further
recommended that discussions are held with Three Bridges FC to enable the MUGA to be
sited alongside grass pitches which will enable Three Bridges FC to continue to train in
this area. (This being on the basis that the training areas are formally booked).
Nigel Sheehan
Head of Community Services
C/24