Well it certainly sounds like a grand proposal, as the infant and junior schools do not have any sports and activity amenities. To have the section of the Riverside Park that has been fenced off for school use incorporated into the school with a perimeter boundary wall would make it indeed so much safer and secure for the children.

However I fail to see the reasoning behind the senior school becoming involved, by stating they would value from being able to use the facility. Being Mr. Cynical I worry that the long-term plan or hidden agenda is for the council to be able to say. Bitterne Park Senior School now has alternative sports grounds shared with the Infant and junior school, therefore no longer need the existing rather extensive sports grounds the school has running between Coxford Road and Dimond Road. Once again we will see school sports grounds being sold off to private developers.

So let us have some concrete guarantees, that should a section of Riverside Park be made available to the schools situated on Manor Farm Road, for the use of the school as an enclosed sports and activity area. On the understanding that should the school be relocated, the land is converted back to parkland and not ever to be sold on for development.

If the City Council put it in the constitution that Riverside Park Lands will never be sold to developers, I for one will support the wish to expand the Infant and Junior schools, as a wonderful improvement of facilities for the schools.

Hi could someone just clarify for me... would this mean that toddlers/public would no longer have access to use these park facilities? Or if they are accessible, would it only be out of term time?

I appreciate the need the school has for extra recreation area. However it would be sad to see this vast area no longer available for general public use/toddlers in particular. If this is the case, could someone tell me the nearest play area: Woodmill lane??

I also found the above comment very interesting. It is helpful to understand why the senior school may back this bid. This could do with more investigation

Thank you

I am not a parent at either school but would like to say that this is a fantastic chance for the children to get outside in the fresh air. At the moment they only have the playgrounds which are quite crowded when the children are outside. It's so important for kids to be getting exercise and running about freely. I hope the schools will also use the grass for free play at breaktimes and lunchtimes, as well as structured lessons.

To the person who commented above, I think you may have misunderstood which area is earmarked for school use - it's actually only a fraction of Riverside Park and doesn't include the public playgrounds. People will still be free to walk dogs and play with their children in the whole park, just not this area immediately behind the schools. Good luck with the proposals!

How anyone can think this is a good idea is confusing me. How is this to benefit anyone bar the few children that go to these schools? What about the kids from across Southampton that currently use this area for playing football etc. This is public land which should remain that. You can almost guarantee that this school will get the land and in 15 years time it will be sold to a developer to put flats on it.

Why can't they fence off the area, put some decent football pitches on that all of the local area could use rather than just 700 small children from Bitterne Park Infant and Junior School. I went to a school with little outside land and we were happy to play to tarmac. Bitterne Park Secondary School have extensive grounds for sports etc so I don't understand why they have to take such a large amount of land away from everyone else.

This isn't a small amount of land, this is a significant amount of Riverside Park. If everyone can bid for a piece of public land just because they want it, I might put my application in now. I want to know how much the schools are planning to pay for it and how the council are planning to spend it. I don't see why people have to pay to hire it when it is public land. Are these schools going to keep this money?

The land at Riverside park was deeded to the people of Southampton, it doesn't 'belong' to the council for them to sell it off... A few years ago they tried to fence off the golf course and all the fencing had to be removed.
The schools already have this area fenced off for their use and I have no objection to this. If there is a problem with people not cleaning up after their dogs then why have I never seen the council wardens down their issuing tickets!
Surely a few signs asking for people to respect the use of the field by children and avoid it when they are there is all that's needed.
I'm sure there is a hidden agenda and that in a few years time the school's would be claiming they are broke... and 'oh dear, we'll have to sell the land for school funds' - it's the thin end of the wedge for one of our most unspoiled parks.

It's an excellent idea and I am emailing my support as we speak.

It's only right that children of these age should have access to an outside environemnt that is safe and enclosed where they don't have the potential to be interrupted or harrassed by people wandering past and their dogs!

I am concerned that if this land comes under the ownership of the school that it will one day be sold off for housing.
I fully support an area of land that is fenced off for the use off the school and the local community away from dogs and other intruders.
However this is public land and should not come under private ownership.

I agree with the comments above against this proposal. As an ex School Governor who sat through numerous meeting about various Southampton School sites being sold off, I have serious concerns that, in time, this 'change of use' will allow the land to be sold for housing. This land is public and the school has no more right to acquire it than anyone.

I absolutely agree that children need access to clean and safe spaces (the letter to residents makes great reference to dog mess and security) but I fail to see how this expensive and acquisitive proposal would be more effective than, say, employing a few people to monitor the area before and during the time it is used.

I find it a puzzle as to why the area needs to have the public foot path diverted. From the layout of the site at present it would be possible to fence the pitch area off with a gate way onto the pitches with out the need for this extra expense. The fence will have to be of an anti climb nature and be high enough to the stop evening activities of the local disaffected youth who seem to take great delight in wrecking every move by the council to improve the facilities provided.

I write to note
my opposition to the proposal to give an area of riverside park to the
school for the following reasons.

1) The school once it owns the area of park will be able to dispose of it for profit at a later date. I have seen this happen many times with land given to the NHS. Like the NHS, schools will have increased
autonomy and will be under pressure to provide savings, and can (and will) do this via a property disposal programme. Builders are still using playing fields for as 'land banks', speculating on the future values no matter how unlikely permission to develop may seem.
2) The school itself would be in a better position to build on it at a later date if they own it- to the detriment of the park and its environment. (Bitterne park senior have already built on their playing field)
3) The pathway will be closed which will interfere with peoples use and enjoyment of the park
4) The measures to secure the area will prevent members of the public from accessing an area of their park, the area is substantial and causes a narrowing near the river. An increase in foot fall to this area caused by the closure of the other path and the fact that this will become even more of a pinch point will lead to the park in this area becoming a quagmire as pedestrians step off the path to pass others

However, the area is of use to the school. I would have no objections to improvements to the security of the presently fenced area, and the
school does not need to own the areas of park in order to achieve this.

The sensible way forward to me seems to be to permit extra security
measures but the ownership of the park and the enclosed curtailage and
access should remain as it is now. After all it does actually belongs to us.

ys99x

The schools will of course have an opinion, but this affects more than just them, and it should be a public consultation. I hope that other peoples' letters and arguments above have been sent to the council: this web site is a great place for discussion but has no official weight in any consultation or planning process - you effectively have kept quiet.

Almost immediately the first public meeting had taken place and before the deadline for concerns to be raised, the school announced Cllr Baillee had agreeed to move the proposal forward! I have emailed Cllr Baillee and i am awaiting his response. As the previous author suggested, you must make your feelings known, either by email or letter before 21st December.

copy of email to: Councillor Baillie.
The schools proposal to include part of the park as 'schools playing field' is a very serious matter, and as such I attended the public meeting where you stood up and said that you would take into consideration local views on the proposal before deciding whether to move the proposal forward.

Indeed, Andrew Hind in his letter dated 14th November stated that:-
"Before the Council carries out a formal statutory consultation on these matters or takes a final decision on whether or not to proceed with the proposals as requested by the school we would wish to seek your views (both in support and in relation to any concerns or objections you may have to the proposals). ....... we ask you to send any comments (either in support or objection) to these proposals to us by 21st December 2007."

Please then can you explain to me and others, why your decision to proceed with the proposals for the inclusion of part of the park in advance of the deadline for solicited views, was announced by the schools last week?

I am certain your local constituents will be very interested to read you reply, and to learn just how important their views really are?

Ray Cooper

Dear Mr. Cooper,

Thank you for your e-mail.

As I said last Wednesday, my garden used to back on to the park. I am a local councillor. I completely understand what the park means to all sorts of people.

I had no intention of progressing this proposal (to the statutory consultation) without a feeling that the local Bitterne Park people were reasonably happy to progress the idea. So far, around 85% of correspondence has been in favour. I believe that to be enough of a figure to at least try the next stage. Their views are important and I have listened to them – that is why I have recommended going to the next stage.

Regards,

Peter Baillie



Councillor Peter Baillie

I still think to have announced progression of the proposal before the closing date for support/concerns is wrong, was his decision already made? Local voices need to be heard, not just from those who attended the meeting. I urge people to voice their views either way to the local authority, email to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it before 21st Dec.

There are many different more cost effective ways of achieving the schools desire to provide a safe, excrement free playing field without transfering ownership to the education department and without shutting/deviating the public right of way and access.

Ray Cooper

I e-mailed my support for this project to the Council shortly after the proposal was made public. Since speaking to local residents who have lived here longer I have wondered whether I made the right decision.

I was not aware that planning applications have previously been made on that part of the park which backs onto River View Road. This land, which is comparatively little used, would be worth a lot of money could planning permission be obtained.

In addition (I note that this has not been previously mentioned), Bitterne Park Secondary School has proposed the building of all-weather pitches on its grounds, which are to be available for community use outside of school hours. Presumably these will be available until 10pm and will be floodlit. In addition a clubhouse is to be built incorporating changing rooms and a bar area.

When the Riverside Park proposal mentioned use by "Bitterne Park School" I thought this was a mistake. However it seems that secondary school children will be walking down Dimond Road in order to use the facilities on the park, whilst the sports facilities on their own site will be rented out.

Something is beginning to smell very fishy.

Kate Martinson

Ray Cooper has a view on this matter - as do many others. At present, about 80-85% are in favour. That does not mean anything will happen, but it should mean that at least things can be discussed. The next stage is for the Cabinet to look at this and decide whether or not it merits going forward to a formal public consultation. The Cabinet will probably not look at this until February.

Dear Karen

Riverside Park Recreation Ground Objection
I feel that the Public consultation was committee led and not a proper consultation process where items for discussion from those concerned could be included in the next agenda.

I would like to object to the proposal going ahead with the City Council or the School gaining control of the ownership of the land.

I would like to see the local community playing an active part in this proposal at its initial planning stage.

The local community should not be railroaded into a council led consultation, but a community led consultation.

I would appeal for a properly led consultation process where all the issues are fully discussed, before going on to the next stage.


Ann MacGillivray

Thought I might try a bit of this land acquisition:-

Letter addressed to Council - I am a resident of Southampton and live at the above address. I am a family man, married and have four children ranging from 14 through to 6. You can imagine that as the children grow and their requirements change space is at a premium. We are fortunate living where we do and backing onto the park is a real plus. However, the children have outgrown the garden, and it is difficult in today’s environment to find areas for safe play, free from rubbish and excrement.

Government targets for reducing obesity and encouraging exercise in children is never far from the headlines. As a responsible parent, I wish to support the initiatives but, find that with the limitation of my garden I am unable to offer my children an area where they can play under supervision within a safe and clean environment.

There is however, an opportunity for me to provide my children with such an area. On my property we have double gates out into the park, and there is an area of some 25 ft before the public footpath in the park. My intention is to increase the length of my garden by installing secure fencing, the width of my garden approx 25ft to a depth of some 25ft. This will terminate just short of the public footpath. This will enable me to secure the additional space and incorporate it as part of my garden. I will of course maintain the additional space and keep it clean and safe. By incorporating this land into my property boundaries, it will mean that I am able to provide the necessary space for my children and will allow me to reduce my required supervision of the children whilst exercising.

Obviously it will mean that the council have to hand title of the land over to me. In this way I can contribute to Government targets and I am sure my children will enjoy the additional recreation facilities. I do not believe transfer of this land is a huge loss to park users, and I don’t foresee it being a problem as it is such a small amount of the available space in the park.

I trust you are in agreement and will support this move and have no objection to me acting upon this in the New Year.

The Council responded and didn't seem as keen- Thank you for your letter dated 5th December 2007. I can offer you the following advice with regards to your request.

The land in question is protected open space, held for leisure purposes and as such the Council is not in agreement with your planned acquisition of this open space and can not support any move that would convert this land into a private garden. Any attempt to fence off any of Riverside Park would be met with enforcement action.

With regards to Government targets for reducing child obesity, public parks and green spaces provide excellent areas for all children to play and exercise for free. The Council has a duty to do all that is reasonable to safeguard the interests of all citizens and not private individuals. Converting any part of Riverside Park to private garden would reduce its ability to provide other children (and adults) with the benefits of playing and exercising in this open space and therefore it would not be reasonable to allow it to happen.

You and your family are, of course, always welcome to use the facilities at Riverside Park, or any of our other parks or green spaces at any time.

Yours sincerely


Nick Yeats
Parks and Green Space Development Officer

I went to the meeting at the school and I am now convinced that this proposal is inappropriate.

The extensive use of children at the meeting unfortunately made it impossible to challenge the position put by the Heads without undermining their authority in the schools. I believe the schools have in this instance not helped the wider education of the children by having them participate in exaggerating the hazards of a rather safe outdoor space. No thought seems to have been given to the negative associations that have been fuelled in the children or the effects these will have on their future play and exercise in public open spaces. The proposal appears to be based on one incident with a lone woman a year ago, and occasional dog mess on shoes. Overall, more would be achieved for the children’s safety by introducing a 20mph limit on Manor Farm Road.

It was difficult to understand exactly what the schools were proposing for the area; teachers made comments about “improved public access” and “an environmental garden” which appeared to be contradicted by Council staff. I believe the effect would be to allow only paid-for access by organised groups at evenings and weekends and possibly no access at all during school holidays. These access charges would have to cover the hours of an on-site caretaker. There seem to be no plans for casual access by families at any time.

The proposed change of use is completely disproportionate to the risk. The Council should instead make the following simple improvements to the site which should meet the realistic needs of the school:
1. Prohibit access to the field by dogs, with prominently displayed signs.
2. Replace all gates to the field with self-closing ones which will exclude dogs; there is, for example, no reason to leave the vehicle access gates at the SW corner permanently open.
3. Repair the surrounding fence NW corner.
We can then all safely share this space.

Finally, I should mention one fear which Councillor Baillie laid to rest, at least for the current administration. If the area becomes school playing field it will under current rules be impossible to “sell it off” while the schools are still on the site. The long term risk is that the schools, currently in old buildings, might relocate–-say to a “Learning Campus” at Bitterne Park Secondary–-and the entire site be redeveloped.

At last the people of Bitterne Park have seen the light, councillors who promise one thing veryily mean something completly different in reality. Truth is when councillor Baillie is pushing up the daisies the developers will still be around and therefore can not make any promise of anything other than day will follow night. As to the statement that under current rules it would be impossible to sell off what uttter twaddle has he never heard of the compulsory purchase loop hole. A new fence and something sadly lacking in this cities inhabitants 'respect for property'is all that is needed. yours sceptically.

I think people are losing the plot - this area constitutes 5% of the entire park! At a leisurely pace it takes 6 and a half minutes longer to walk round by the river, and 4 minutes longer to walk round in front of the schools. I don't think this is excessive for anyone!

How can anyone deny the children of our schools the use of this area. Some people are very lucky to have properties that back straight on to the park so they are easily able to use it. What about people who don't have gardens and are not, for whatever reason, able to take their children to the park? Then the only exercise they get is in school. At the moment they cannot spontaneously use the playing fields because the area has to be "prepared" first by clearing dog excrement and broken glass. Maybe those opposing this proposal will be the happy volunteers who will do this job on behalf of the school?

Why do people think a few signs and a new fence will stop dog walkers and juvenile delinquents using it? It only takes someone to leave a gate open - and it is surprising the amount of people who don't think to close them!

What about a caveat in the documentation on transfer of ownership to say the school can never sell off the land and no-one can ever build on it? Surely this is possible. There are ways and means.

I do not agree with the proposal, even though I have two small children who will eventually go to Bitterne Park. The park should be maintained clean from any kind of refuse, dog excrements, etc. I use the park frequently and have never seen anybody from the council or pertinent authority controlling the dog owners to make sure that they pick up after their dog. I have seen many times plastic plates, cups, etc on top of the table adjacent to playground because people don't clean after themselves either. As for the actual area that the school wants to claim, it doesn't matter how wonderful projects are planned for it. EVENTUALLY somebody will see all the money that can be made from building there and sooner or later it will be developed. Unfortunately you can not always believe what is being promised-said. I was very amuse with the comment by Ray Cooper Dec 21st, it seems that the council has a double standard....

After reading all the comments i find it very hard to understand why there is so much negativity towards this proposal. The children really do need more space to play in safely , and it is actually such a small part of a realy huge area which we are lucky to have on our doorsteps.
If the field does get passed over for school use i feel there is quite sufficient land left for everybody to use and enjoy.
As long as there is a clause in the contract which would not allow the land to be built on at any stage i cannot see a problem, the rerouting of the footpath is not going to add a huge amount of time on to anyones journey.
As for the council having double standards for not allowing Ray Cooper to move his fence,i find ridiculous. His proposal would benefit HIS family not the hundreds of children using the playing fields.

Tomorrow is the last date to comment on the next stage of the process for the appropriation of land at Riverside Park for use by Bitterne Park Schools. See: http://www.southampton.gov.uk/...ember 2008
Here is part of what I wrote:
I wrote at an earlier stage to express my concern that a substantial group of children at the December meeting appeared to have been coached to emphasise the perceived risk of using a shared space in the Park. At that time, I suggested that the real hazard—dog mess—could be addressed by improving the existing fence and by posting clear No Dogs signs at the accesses. I still believe this, but would like to emphasise an additional problem with appropriation. The use of the children to emphasise the hazard of public access will have contributed to raising their fear of public open spaces; it will have damaged their willingness to continue to play in public open spaces. This problem would only get worse after appropriation as generations of children learn to play only at set hours in a controlled space. In the long run, they will be less fit due to an increased reluctance to play outside school. Damage to children by overprotection has become a high-profile issue recently; do the schools now recognise the real risks of overprotection? Can they accept that the inconvenience of shared use is a reasonable price to pay for a more wholesome attitude to outside play?

The email link on the Southampton Council's Web site leads to a dormant mail box as Mr Harris left the council some time ago. The link sould lead to Peter Ballie the council was told of this some two months ago but have not updated the web page. call me a cynic!

I have asked to speak at the Cabinet meeting on Monday 29th September 5.00pm Council Chamber Item AO1, The items on this agenda appear to be just one of many that removes power from the governors and people over their children's future education. And more importantly in a say over the land that the school controls.
Plain English huh! In the supposed consultation notes (I can hardly call them minutes) of the Junior School Meeting I am quoted as being in support of the proposal.
What I actually said was that: I have always supported the school and the staff, not the proposal to adopt the land. I also said at this meeting that I was deeply concerned at the proposed legislation to change the ownership of this land.

What an amazing miss-quote!

I agree that children should be able to play on the Riverside Park land behind the Bitterne Park infant and Junior schools (managed by Leisure services not owned by the City Council) safeley, this should include everyone from across the city.

I did also complain that I did not consider the meeting a consultation more of a we are informing you of what we are going to do!

Not only has governors power to say anything about land leased from schools been removed, without them knowing.
Perhaps now the Cabinet Members for Childrens services are going to bore us to death in the hope that we will give up hope of ever having a say, for investment in more good teachers, reducing class sizes for our middle and working class children.
Or even, dare I say it, our children to ever have a say in what they want or even may need to learn!

Or are our children just a commodity to serve a political purpose or will they and our community be allowed to achieve a common purpose together with peoples land for the common good of all the children in our city?
The "Building Schools for the Future" proposed programme should be investing in the individual education of each of our children.
I am calling for the meeting to be called in for further consideration and a full and proper consultation.
I would appreciate the support of all who feel strongly enough to attend, it is the first item on the agenda.

A good number of us, including Arthur Jeffery of Southampton Commons & Parks Preservation Society, came to the Cabinet meeting and spoke against the appropriation. Cabinet agreed, however, to proceed to the statutory consultation; we will all have another opportunity to put forward our views over a twenty-one day period.

Here is what I said:

Thank you for allowing me to speak. I made my comments in writing to Richard Hards, but he asked me to come here and repeat them.

I think that the key issue is whether the proposal can meet the local plan’s test for development in a public open space: is it really of sufficient benefit to the development of sport to justify the loss of playing field land.

I understand from the report that the Secondary School has now dropped out of the proposal. I also see that non-school use is to be restricted to fee-paying “organised community groups”. Both changes represent a substantial reduction in the usability of the facilities.

My main concern is that the way the children were coached at the December meeting to believe that this safe public open space represents a health and safety hazard, will have contributed to raising the children’s fear of public parks. It will have damaged their willingness to continue to play in public open spaces.

In the long run, they will be less fit due to an increased reluctance to use park facilities outside of school hours.

I think the real hazard—dog mess—could be addressed by improving the existing fence and by posting clear “No Dogs” signs at the accesses. The proposed closure is disproportionate.

The council have issued an appropriation notice in the echo 13/1/09 giving 21 days for written objections

I have attached a copy of my email to Mr Mark R Heath
If you would like to see the forward plan or committee decisions yourself visit www.southampton.gov.uk and paste CS03049(for forward plan)CAB055 - 09/2008 (for cabinet decision)into the search box on the top right hand side of the web page20th January 2009
Mr Mark R Heath
Solicitor to the Council
Southampton City Council
Civic Centre
Southampton
SO14 7LT

023 8083 2371
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Appropriation of Public Open Space by the City Council MJF/lcb/Riverside Park


I am concerned that the appropriation of this land does not appear to have been advertised to all users of Riverside Park.
As this is a public open space and used by people and Tourists City Wide then why was a full public consultation not carried out as requested at the City Council Cabinet meeting CAB055 - 09/2008. The record of the executive decision relating to the forward plan Forward Plan CS03049 of 29/09/2008 makes no reference to these requests.
It seems that the requests of those members of the public in attendance have not even been recorded.

After reading the guidelines for the forward plan and recommended community consultation this does not appear to have been carried out as suggested under government recommended guidelines.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/148211.pdf

Yes a notice has appeared in the Southern Daily Echo ref MJF/lcb/Riverside Park

Dated Tuesday January 13th 2009.

These responses it appears need to be made in writing
I have requested from the Solicitor to the Council’s office 023 8083 2371 Mark R Heath.
Via Martin Fisher to enquire as to why there is no mention or means of objecting or commenting on-line to such a major land appropriation of this public open space.
I am concerned that this is being rushed through before the proposed deadline for comments on the forward plan February 4th 2009.

I would like an extension of the deadline for these proposals to be considered by all local residents, visitors and users of Riverside Park.

Yours sincerely

Ann MacGillivray

If you would like to be kept informed about current correspondence regarding the Appropriation of Public Land at Riverside Park, Bitterne Park by the City Council
Held on trust by the City Council for the people of Southampton please contact;

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Please leave your post code,

And your correspondence!

Your email address and personal details will be kept confidential and not circulated to other users
You will recieve updates as soon as is possible.

Thank you for reminding us all, Ann. I've just typed out my comments and will stick them in the post.

Does anyone feel like attending an organised meeting about the following?

Dear Ms MacGillvray
RIVERSIDE PARK
I would like to thank you for the representations you have made to Southampton City Council in
relation to the proposed appropriation of an area of land at Riverside Park.
Due to an error on the part of the agent of the publisher it has come to our attention that the
second statutory notice did not appear in the newspaper dated 20th January 2009.
As a result the consultation period will start again in order to ensure that all parties have had the
opportunity to make full representations to the Council.
The notice will be advertised in the Daily Echo on Friday 30th January 2009, it will then be followed
by another notice on Friday 6th February 2009. The consultation period will then run until midnight
on Friday 27th February 2009 during which time you may wish to submit further comments to the
Council for consideration.
Please be assured that any objections, representations or comments which have already been
submitted will be carried forward into the new representation period and stand as valid
representations to be fully considered by the Council in the same manner as any future
representations received by the revised deadline. All objections, representations and comments
received by midnight on 27th February 2009 will be taken into account for the report currently
scheduled to go before Cabinet on 16th March 2009.
If you wish to add further representations to those you have already submitted, please ensure that
you submit any objections or representations in writing by the deadline of midnight Friday 27th
February 2009.The address for correspondence is Solicitor to the Council, Legal & Democratic
Services, Civic Centre, Southampton, SO14 7LT.
Yours sincerely

I have obtained a soft copy of the notice for a friend with a visual impairment his computer reads text to speech.
This was obtained from the city council.
I hope that other people with visual impairment may now access this information via the website.

APPROPRIATION OF LAND
PART OF RIVERSIDE PARK ADJACENT TO BITTERNE PARK INFANT & BITTERNE
PARK JUNIOR SCHOOLS
Section 122 (2A) and (2B) of the Local Government Act
1972 as amended by the Local Government,
Planning and Land Act 1980

Notice is hereby given that Southampton City Council pursuant to power under Section
122 (2A) & (2B) Local Government Act 1972 as amended intend to appropriate the land
specified below from Public Health Act 1875 to Sections 507A and 507B Education Act
1996

DESCRIPTION OF LAND
Part of the land known as Riverside Park comprising approximately 18500 M² adjacent
to Bitterne Park Infant & Bitterne Park Junior Schools, Southampton.
REASON FOR APPROPRIATION
The land is currently held under the Public Health Act 1875 on trust for the enjoyment by
the public as public open space/recreation ground in accordance with Section 164 of the
Act. It is proposed to appropriate the land to holding powers under Sections 507A and
507B Education Act 1996. The land shall by virtue of the appropriation be freed from the
aforementioned trust. The land is to be used for educational and recreational purposes
for use by Bittterne Park Infant and Junior Schools with retained community uses outside
of school hours upon application.
OBJECTIONS
A plan showing the land is also available for inspection in the offices of Gateway in the
Civic Centre Southampton during the following times:-

Monday, Tuesday, Friday 0830-1730

Wednesday 0930-1730

Thursday 0830-1900
Any objections to the appropriation should be made in writing to the Solicitor to the
Council at the address below by 27th February 2009. Objections should state the
reference number MJF/lcb/Riverside Park and the grounds of objection.
Dated this 30th day of January 2009
MARK R HEATH
Solicitor to the Council
Southampton City Council
Civic Centre
Southampton
SO14 7LTREF:
MJF/lcb/Riverside Park
S122 Notice Appropriation of part of land at Riverside Park

Well! Surprise! Surprise!

The Cabinet decided to appropriate the Area of Riverside Park behind the School.

I am concerned that in the future that this land will not be returned to the people if the school is moved.

I would suggest that people do read item A02 on the Agenda and print it off so that when it does happen they will have hard copy proof of what was said.

When reading Item A02 Appendix 3 please check to see if your name is on the list in favour or against the proposal if it is wrong then complain! Other names are wrongly listed.

Incidentally a large area of Lordshill recreation land is also being appropriated by the City Council (Where the kite festival is held) Deadline for objections is Friday 20th March ref TO/EN12/37/0004 to Mark R Heath
Solicitor to the Council, Southampton City Council, Civic Centre, Southampton. 023 8083 2371 This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

It is such a shame when the public do not see the bigger picture when land is taken over.

How many realise that we no longer have any say over a large part of Mayflower Park.

One day everyone will be surrounded by concrete.
Enough said!

I have just managed to look at the list of objectors and supporters and SURPRISE SURPRISE my name appears as a supporter, I do not think that I could have made my obections to this proposal any clearer to Mark Heath. If my name has been added to the wrong list how many others have been. Also I wonder if anyone can tell me what happened to the public meeting we were promised as the last meeting was descibed as only a sounding out process and if it was going to be taken any futher there would be a proper public meeting.
I am wondering if what the council members are trying to do is even legal? because for starters the massaging of figures is most definatly not!

Has anyone noticed that a number of the supporters appear to be listed two or three times - either that or that are a lot of people with the same name! Did these "extra" supporters make a difference to the council decision?

I have emailed councillor Simon letts who is the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny panel re name duplicates, missing names, petition names not on list, objectors listed as supporters etc.
No proper public consultation.
He has the power to call in the decision for review.
The call in period is 17 March to 24 March this could suspend implementation of the previous decision.
I would suggest that all those who feel strongly about this misrepresentation should also let him know how they feel.
Nicely of course!
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
023 8023 4689

I've had another look at the list. As far as we know, Denis and I (offspring aside) are the only people with our surname in Southampton. But a supporter of the proposal has our name - are there new relatives we've yet to meet? OR is this us?

I have had a chat with Simon Letts who informs me that if enough people do contact him with a valid and legal reason for him to call the members of the Cabinet in to review the decision then he will do so.

He asked my reason for wanting the decision to be reviewed. The Council have fulfilled their legal obligation to inform people by publishing the appropriate notice.

My feelings;
Why do we not have an established right to keep our own land?
Why do we need to defend against the takeover of our free space?
The interpretation of the word "consultation" means to me that peoples views will be sought and considered.

I would like the children of these schools to be able to learn in and enjoy this open space safely with the support of the community.

Building high fences around it will restrict these childrens views of their distant but attainable horizons.

I would like the opinions of those in the community that have chosen to express them to be considered more fully.

A way forward could ultimately be found that would enable a mutually agreeable solution to the issue without the public losing their right to this land and free open space for all.

I attended the cabinet meeting on 16th March and was very annoyed to find that I was listed as a supporter and additionally when listed as the City of Southampton Society shown as in opposition. I brought this error to the attention of the leader of the council and received an apology and assurance that my name would be deleted from the list of supporters. Now reading comments from others it is fairly clear that the statistics cannot be taken as being accurate and I feel that SCC needs to re-access the decision process.

Thank you for your e-mail I have spent most of this morning investigating the facts of this matter and formulate a response to your request to call the decision in. I have decided not to do this I base this decision on the reasons below.



a) The Cabinet member Bitterne Park Cllr Peter Baillie has indicated that he has no intention of changing his mind.

b) Legal officers are confident that the consultation processes are what the law requires.

c) I am informed that many people in the area support the proposals including all the local councillors.

d) An opportunity will exist for residents to raise further objections at the planning and rights of way committee when the matter goes there.



I am however very unhappy at the level and quality of the consultation (the legal bare minimum) and the fact that other pieces of Green Space are to be transferred into non city controlled Education use (Lords Hill Academy). It strikes me as entirely appropriate that Overview and Scrutiny Management carry out a review of what happened at Riverside Park and make recommendations on future policy.



I am therefore adding to our agenda on April 16th a post decision review of the land transfer decision. The item will be taken after 6pm as Cllr Baillie has indicated his availability to be questioned on the matter after that time.

Ann,

If that was the answer to a question I had made, I would be asking Simon Letts why the fact that "The Cabinet member Bitterne Park Cllr Peter Baillie has indicated that he has no intention of changing his mind" has any bearing at all on your request to have the decision called in! If the points you raised did have merit, then the decision *should* be called in and the Councillor should be *forced* to look at that decision again. Are our councillors really serving the people? Do we live in a democratic society?

(And I say that as someone who supports the playing field project.)

These are just my thoughts

I believe that the appropriation of recreational land is a national government directive.
This (I believe) is to be pushed through at a local level.
I do not think Peter Baillie has any choice but to push things through as he is told to do.

What disturbs me is that The Councillors for Bitterne Park had a declared interest in the (disposal) privatisation of the Senior School land.

Yet they have decided to continue with the appropriation of public open space.

So who is in control here?

The elected representatives of the people who have no choice but to push it through?

Or is it the people who have an interest in the private control of the land?

It seems to me that it is certainly not the people or the public democratic process.
==========================================
Read Wednesday’s cover story in the Southern Daily Echo;
See what has happened to the Schools rebuilding programme and what the cancellation of these projects has cost the individual schools in financial
contributions.
The books need to be balanced somehow (I believe that)this land is now a corporate assett.
There is a much bigger picture here.
=======================================
However our Riverside Park must not fall into private hands.

I don't wish to be too cynical but I have just witnessed the pupils of the junior school using the fields with access from the existing gate in the wall, I seem to remember a video depicting the only access being a long dangerous walk around the streets, I also cannot see a perimeter fence yet does this mean that all the other dangers have gone as well?

Now in my opinion who could accuse you of being cynical Paul?

The children were heard saying recently how they had got the land for the school.
Strange!
I thought that they already had free use of the land.

What are they going to say in a few years when they have left school and realise that it has been lost forever to everyone.

Will they then lose faith in those that did not give them the full facts?

That there are plans for the schools to be privatised, the rights of parents, governors and the community in any say over school land has already been removed.

Did you know about this?

That the schools have been using the money that we pay into system to privatise within their own budgets.

Where is the budget for the money that we pay for more teacher to pupil ratio and a full curriculum that includes all the necessary skills for those children who may not be academic but practical

This has all been done within the private finance initiative.
Who may have a deficit to go ahead with.
Guess who is going to pay for this deficit.
All this to save money!
Are you annoyed now?


Yet another nail in the coffin of a dying democracy.

Re the following comment


Response from Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel
written by AnnMacGillivray, March 25, 2009

Thank you for your e-mail I have spent most of this morning investigating the facts of this matter and formulate a response to your request to call the decision in. I have decided not to do this I base this decision on the reasons below.



a) The Cabinet member Bitterne Park Cllr Peter Baillie has indicated that he has no intention of changing his mind.

b) Legal officers are confident that the consultation processes are what the law requires.

c) I am informed that many people in the area support the proposals including all the local councillors.

d) An opportunity will exist for residents to raise further objections at the planning and rights of way committee when the matter goes there.



I am however very unhappy at the level and quality of the consultation (the legal bare minimum) and the fact that other pieces of Green Space are to be transferred into non city controlled Education use (Lords Hill Academy). It strikes me as entirely appropriate that Overview and Scrutiny Management carry out a review of what happened at Riverside Park and make recommendations on future policy.



I am therefore adding to our agenda on April 16th a post decision review of the land transfer decision. The item will be taken after 6pm as Cllr Baillie has indicated his availability to be questioned on the matter after that time.

Overview and scrutiny panel

http://www.southampton.gov.uk/thecouncil/thecouncil/meetings-agendas-reports/meetingpapers/sqlmeetingpapersagenda.asp?scheduledmeetingid=3399&PortfolioID=13&Title=Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee&Date=16/04/2009&Postponed=0&Cancelled=0&PD=True

Item 7 appendix 6

7
Forward Plan

Report of the Head of Corporate Policy and Performance detailing items for discussion on the Forward Plan for the period April 2009 to July 2009, attached. The following portfolio areas are represented:

7. Covering Report 7. App 1 7. App 2 7. App 3 7. App 4 7. App 5 7. App 6 - Covering report 7. App 6 -Appro Dec -APP 1(16.03) 7. App 6-Cab Rpt (A-16 Mar) 7. App 6-Cab Rpt (A-16 Mar)-App1 7. App 6-Cab Rpt (A-16 Mar)-App 2 7. App 6-Cab Rpt (A-16 Mar)-App 3 7. App 6-Cab Rpt (B-29 Sept) - Dec 7. App 6-Cab Rpt (B-29 Sept) - RPT 7. App 6-Cab Rpt (B-29 Sept) - App1 7. App 7 7. App 8 7. App 9

I understand from the Clerk that this Item will probably be heard after 6.00 p.m.
If people wish to speak they should ask permission on entering the Council Chamber Civic Centre or telephone The Clerk to the Committee

Democratic Support Officer
Ed Grimshaw
Tel. 023 8083 2390
Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

http://tiny.cc/NWass

The Overview and Scrutiny Panel Recommendations

NB The overview and scrutiny panel monitors the democratic processes of the decision making within the City Council.

Two recommendations to the review of the Appropriation of Public Open Space at Riverside Park were made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee;


Proposed by Councillor Mizen

1, That although the legal process of the transfer of the land had in effect happened that assuming this transfer a halfway house between the Community and the School should follow. The land should therefore be for the benefit of both school and community.

Recommendation carried forward 4 for 2 against

Proposed by Councillor Thomas, Councillor Drake

2, That a full review of the consultation process should be carried out and applied to any future public consultations.

Recommendation carried forward 5 for.

There was some concern about the fact that names were incorrectly recorded, not included, recorded inaccurately and misrepresented.
It was proposed that Councillor Peter Baillie communicate to all those people whose names have been inappropriately or (not) recorded via all the means at his disposal

Having been to the meetings, and having read all the documentation.
The land would be given to the schools, for their use.
This is to protect the children (yes in this day and age they do need that). Times have changed since we were all at school, and being outside on a mixed surface is now part of the national curriculum.
The land can not be built on - with the exception of replacing the changing room hut with a building of the same size. That is not up for negotiation now, or in the future. The legal team have looked at it, and planning permission can not be granted, ever.
It can not be used for any kind of parking.
The percentage of the land in question is only a few percent of the whole park, it is not being removed as green space.
Mr Cooper trying to secure the land for himself is obviously a crass action and should not have a lot of attention. It is not double standards by the council at all. It is showing perfectly that they do protect the land from anyone taking control of it. Still a good use of Council time spent replying.
The secondary school would only make use of it as out of hours pitches. Not at any other time.

In reply to AlfieJ I note that you say you have been to the meetings and read ALL the documentation: I would suggest that you may like to read it again as you have clearly missed some very important points.
Your first point, that the whole reason for this development is for the safety of the children, is wrong - the children have always made use of the land without needing it to be a fenced in part of the school and continue to do so to the present day. Either the dangers have been exaggerated or the schools are risking the health and safety of the children by continuing to allow them to use the park in school time. I would suggest the former is the case.
The democratic process has been over ridden and information that should have been presented to the council members to allow them to make a proper decision was not collated correctly or allegations of the dangers investigated.
The land in question is being transferred to the Department of Education and out of Public use, the fact that this is a small section of the Park percentage wise is irrelevant. Mr Coopers point was that this park is an open space for the enjoyment of everyone and should not be fenced in to be kept for the exclusive use of one organisation or rented out to a select few that can afford to pay for the privilege.
School premises are not protected forever - if you notice for one example the land that used to be Hampton Park Secondary School is now a car park.

Children have always made use of the land you are quite right. That use is very staff intensive. No child should have to have a school PE lesson ruined by someone walking their dog through that part of the field.
It is a sad fact that children are more of a target by all types of people these days, and they deserve to be protected from that.
If you have a problem with the council's process do feel free to take that up with them. This can't be the forum to debate their involvement. Unfortunately they are busy people dealing with rogue requests like Mr Coopers!
I think that the ownership of the land is being transfered to the school, not the government.
If you read the legal wording it can not be built on. There is a covenant protecting it. There was no such covenant protecting the land at Hampton School (as was).
I am not sure that there are any details of payment needing to be made for a bonafide group to use the football pitches is there?
Schools these days have an increased duty (yes it is very different to when we went to school) to provide a safe and clean environment in which to learn.
That can not take place when members of the public continue to occupy the space during PE lessons and continue to refuse to clean up after their dogs (perhaps you should campaign against those people instead?).
In summary I don't feel the need to re-read the paperwork, as I have read it and questioned it where necessary.
I am delighted that the children are going to be able to learn in safety and clean-ness for many years to come.

Have just read the Echo report 28 April. I hope that the above statements that the ground cannot be built on will still hold good in the coming years. Perhaps the loop hole may be the use of portable not permanent buildings, soory I just dont trust em.

I suggest that you write to:

Ed Grimshaw
Democratic Support Officer
Democratic Services
Southampton City Council
Civic Centre, Southampton
SO14 7LY
Tel. 023 8083 2390
Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

With your complaint he will pass it on to Peter Baillie who has been asked to write to anyone who has been misrepresented or not listed.
This was recommended by the overview and scrutiny panel.

The school needs an area where the staff can safely allow the children to go, with as little supervision as is needed.

If the area is open to the public while the school is using it I think more staff are required, therefore more cost.

In order to stop dog fouling there would have to be people there continually patrolling at some considerable cost, so I hope that all those who advocate that as a solution are prepared to volunteer on a regular basis to do this, as I am sure this is not a luxury the Coucnil can realsitically afford.

Also, sadly, if someone is really prepared to allow his dog to foul the field he is not likely to give his real name and address to a volunteer dog warden who will have no legal powers to compel production of the information without a police presence.

These are some of the practicalities here.

I would like to reply to the last comment and point out that there is a considerable cost involved in what the school wish to do and to no real benefit. They have not and will not explore any other solutions to their requirements and neither do our councillors wish to think outside the box.
A much cheaper option would be to re-fence the area with decent gates and SIGNS as a whole and exclude dogs from the pitches as has been done with the play area at the far edge of the school but still enabling the Southampton residents access to an area free from dog fouling whenever it is not in use by the school. Whether the area is open to the public or not has no bearing on how many staff are required to properly supervise children in their care.
As far as dog fouling is concerned the vast majority of owners are responsible and once again everyone suffers because of the few but it does not take constant patrolling by the police or dog wardens to stop these people (every citizen has the power and duty to report these breaches wherever they happen), it may also help if the dog bins that the council removed for whatever reason were replaced.
However I thought that this was a done deal although nothing has happened yet and the school continue to use this area which they say is unsafe and covered in dogmess on a regular basis (as they have done for years)