“When Councillor Emlyn Dole stepped in to help in the fight against the unaffordable pitch fees, he stated that these fees would put an end to participation in sport across the county. He claimed that these proposals were ill conceived and ill thought out. He was of the opinion that it was a rushed through policy developed in the midst of the twilight zone. In light of Councillor David Jenkins’ comment to the press that we simply cannot afford to maintain these areas, would he not agree that the closure of the parks in which these sports pitches are situated should demand the same response?”
Minutes:
Mr Wayne Erasmus, Chairman of Hendy Community an Park Committee, asked the following question:-
“When Councillor Emlyn Dole stepped in to help in the fight against the unaffordable pitch fees, he stated that these fees would put an end to participation in sport across the county. He claimed that these proposals were ill conceived and ill thought out. He was of the opinion that it was a rushed through policy developed in the midst of the twilight zone. In light of Councillor David Jenkins’ comments to the press that we simply cannot afford to maintain these areas, would he not agree that the closure of the parks in which these sports pitches are situated should demand the same response?”
Response by Councillor Emlyn Dole, Leader of the Council:-
“No, I do not agree.”
Mr Erasmus asked the following supplementary question:-
“Will you form an executive body of all the parties and involve all the organisations to keep the parks open?”
Response by Councillor Emlyn Dole, Leader of the Council:-
“Can I remind Mr Erasmus of his question. He asked me do I agree and I do not agree so I have answered the question. As to his second question, which does not really connect to the first, as far as I understand he is the Chairman of Hendy Community and Park Committee, my question in response to him is to ask if it is a properly constituted organisation because the negotiations around asset transfer are with properly constituted organisations that may or may not wish to take up the offer of asset transfer. Can I just say that when we took over leadership we inherited policies, one was to do with fees for sports pitches and one was asset transfer. On the sports pitches, I did not disagree with the policy, what I said was that it was being rushed through. I also said in the Notice of Motion could we have a year in which we could hold a meaningful discussion around that. During that year I sat as an observer in those negotiations and worked very closely with Mr Kevin Francis, whom I have a very deep respect and admiration for as well, for the work that he’s done during that year to move that discussion forward, along with our officers, and to progress that discussion in the way that he has. That is to be commended. That respect and admiration is there and will continue for his commitment to that cause. In response to that policy, I asked for a meaningful discussion and a year’s grace to facilitate that meaningful discussion. I did not oppose it. The policy around asset transfer was a different policy. I did not oppose that policy either. The administration was saying that, in light of the austerity programme coming down from London through Cardiff and the efficiencies we are being asked to make year on year, we have to look at transferring assets and putting them in the hands of the community. In a sense it is the true spirit of devolution, it is moving community assets closer to the people. It is asking interested parties to look at those assets realistically and to ask themselves are you willing to take those on because of the budget constraints year on year on this Council. Llannon Community Council made that decision two years ago. So the reason I said no to your original question is because in Llannon we have been responding to this policy for two years, since it was set by the previous administration, who said that we had to look at asset transfer as a community. You either do that, they told us, or you lose your parks. So the discussion in a properly constituted body at that time, in Llannon Community Council, and we have had that discussion with my colleague, Councillor Kim Thomas, is are we going to take these assets over and run them for the people of our community or are we going to let them disappear? Our response to that over the past two years was to look at that in the context of the precept that we set in order to be in a position to be able to take over those assets in a realistic way and to improve the third world type of set up that there is in Tumble Park and Crosshands Park at the moment. Our intention, as a Community Council, is to take over that asset and improve it and give our community the asset they deserve. We’ve addressed that in the precept that we’ve set. We are addressing it in the context of taking over that asset and running it and improving it for the people who live in the Llannon ward. You ask me do I respond in the same way to community asset transfer as I do to sports pitch fees - no I don’t. In sports pitch fees terms I asked for a meaningful discussion and we have moved that forward. In the context of asset transfer, what we did and what many Community Councils have done across the county and across the Authority is to look realistically at this and ask if we are going to take these on and ensure their future for the people that we represent and most of them have signed up to that and we are waiting for the others to follow. I would ask you to be wary of people who might use assets which belong to the people and belong to the community in a political sense because there are people out there who will make political mischief around assets that belong to the people. Also beware of some elements of the local media who make things up and that has happened in the context of asset transfer. I have been misquoted time after time in the context of Parc Howard and asset transfer and that is unfortunate because it moves the debate and the meaningful conversation from where it needs to be to somewhere else and creates something that is not there. When I was accosted on the steps earlier I was presented with a venomous scenario and this is not a venomous scenario, this is for the people of Carmarthenshire and this is to ensure that the assets that they own stay in their ownership in a way that works for them as local communities.”