Town Council ignores own rules and rushes ahead with new fence

by Adam Brookes on 17 August, 2016

John Eve FieldI’m disappointed that the Town Council has this evening decided to rush ahead with work to fence-off the John Eve field. This is a response to a recent case where travellers moved onto the field with caravans and motorhomes without permission.

It is good that on this recent occasion the situation was resolved quickly and thanks go to the Town Council’s staff and to the Chair of the Amenities and Open Spaces Committee, Cllr Broughton, for his quick work to help to deal with this.

Whilst I can see there may now unfortunately be a need for physical measures to prevent travellers occupying the field, and there are other potential benefits, this has been rushed through without careful consideration.

Even if there is strong public support for this course of action, and that isn’t clear from the residents I have spoken to, it is still vitally important that we get good value anytime we spend taxpayers money.

The Town Council’s own rules require us to obtain three quotations where a project may cost more than £3,000 except in emergencies. This new fence looks set to cost over £20,000.

It has been suggested that this of such high urgency that these rules can be ignored yet we have no clear information as to when the one supplier we are using will actually be able to complete the work. It was said that it would be a month until even the first section of fence could be erected. Clearly until all of the fence is in place it is of no value in stopping vehicles accessing the field.

If this is urgent then we should then have quickly sought quotes from companies to do this work on the condition that it is swiftly completed, reflecting that urgency.

Whilst this visit by travellers may increase the risk of other travellers seeking to occupy the field, it has been said that there hasn’t been any other case in over 35 years. I think the risk remains low and so this shouldn’t be considered an emergency situation requiring us to skip good practices for buying goods and services. Given these travellers seemed to have been forced to leave in less than 24 hours, I can’t imagine our field is being talked about as a good place to stay.

This follows another recent case where the Town Council has rushed into spending money. Just recently the Council purchased a new vehicle yet every time it was discussed the costs had increased suggesting we didn’t yet have a clear idea of what the entire costs of the purchase would be. The Council then had effectively little choice but to spend further money above that previously agreed on items that would be necessary for the new vehicle.

£20,000 is around 10% of our annual budget so is not a small amount of money for the Council. Any money we spend on this is less money to spend on other likely more beneficial projects.

I opted to neither vote for or against the proposal for a new fence, feeling it wasn’t appropriate to proceed without a clearer plan but I could perhaps support a better considered proposal. I then voted against the proposal to rush ahead with getting the fence built without following our rules about obtaining three quotes that would have helped the Council to show that we are getting value for money.

It was also concerning to hear that someone was witnessed removing the lock from the gate to the field opposite William Hildyard school on Godsey Lane shortly before the travellers moved onto the site. It does suggest that it would be very difficult even with a new fence to prevent someone determined from accessing the field.

There was also little time to discuss the potential knock-on effects. It is said that part of the fence will be removable to allow vehicles related to events being held on the field access but then the section will be replaced during the event. This will force those involved in the running of events to park vehicles on the surrounding roads so they can be used over the days in which an event may run. This will increase the disruption to local residents who experience problems with parking on John Eve Way for example.

The Council opted to not carry out any consultation with local residents to ask for their views on this plan. I would however be interested in any thoughts that residents may have as there may be other factors which the Council should take into account as it moves forward with this project.

Approximate route of the fence to be erected on John Eve Field

Approximate route of the fence to be erected on John Eve Field

Update 1 (1853, 18 August):  Just to clarify that the fence that is planned is going to be metal railings similar to that alongside Godsey Lane.

   5 Comments

5 Responses

  1. Richard burnell says:

    A fence is a stupid waste of time and money. Removeable security posts would be a better and less costly way of securing the field against unwanted visitors. Maybe a secure gate with a combination that is changed every week would be an idea but a whole fence? Who are these people? I am away working this week so could not attend the meeting to have my say unfortunately.

  2. Jason Whaley says:

    A fence would take away from the open feel of the playing field.
    A combination of appropriately spaced thick wooden posts and drop down security posts would make more sense and probably reduce the costs.

  3. C Hall says:

    Thank you for inviting comments about the proposed fence. It’s hasty procurement does not appear to balance with the potential risks against which the council is allocating such a large resource, for something that is such a rare occurrence. I wonder what other measures have been considered to prevent vehicular access, for example, posts, rocks, large timber lengths, a bund and ditch, or planting new trees or shrubs, and also what the maintenance implications are.
    I also wonder whether such a large additional feature will require a planning application, as a fence will undoubtedly alter the view of the park from all sides.
    Further to this, I wonder whether the proposed fence may mask other security issues concerning behaviour inside the park, at present the open views must be a deterrent to anti social activities.
    It truly seems a knee jerk reaction to a relatively minor and rare incident.
    On a slight aside from this, some years ago a proposal to create a travellers site on the outskirts of Market Deeping caused a public outcry of proportions I have never seen in this community.

  4. Peter Ward says:

    One point not so far mentioned…
    I have personally been to 5 incidents as a First Responder (and my colleagues have attended several others) on the bike track, play area, swings and for the fair (that’s several incidents – not one in 35 years) and backed up by an Ambulances requiring speedy, and direct access at all hours.
    How will they gain emergency access once a fence (or railings) is erected please?

  5. Julie Banks says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made above. Alternatives should be considered and access made available at all times for emergency services. If a fence is to be put up, three quotes ought to be obtained for such a large item of expenditure.

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>