The Chair asked Mr. Rob Groves, the Chief Executive of Hardie Park to come to the table and read his statement: I would like to challenge the decision to forge ahead with the project to employ Parks Engagement Officers at the cost of £300k, (which are S.106 funds) over the next three years. It is my opinion, which is shared by other active citizens, that have been engaged with taking ownership of their local parks and open spaces, that this project is inconsistent with the partnership between the Council and Friends of Hardie Park, which should be one of cooperation with and support of local grassroots led initiatives that model Hardie Park as a mechanism of transforming parks, with little or no public funds. My current experience is that the partnership does not have the full support of Council officers with communications, including emails sometimes taking weeks or months to be replied to, or in some instances are ignored altogether. I feel deeply disappointed and hurt at the way the Council have not engaged residents in this decision and delivery of this project, at the cost of desperately needed funds earmarked for direct investment into communities bearing the brunt of developments.

The Recreation and Leisure Manager then introduced the report and stated that the Parks Improvement Programme had been envisaged in 2017, as around half of adults in Thurrock were not undertaking physical activity levels in line with the Chief Medical Officer’s guidelines, and this was the highest level in Essex. He elaborated that a review had been undertaken in 2016/17 that had reviewed the use of park equipment and found that attendance in parks was low due to anti-social behaviour. He outlined that s.106 funding had been secured for three Park Engagement Officers whose job was to encourage activity, and help prevent anti-social behaviour in parks. The Recreation and Leisure Manager described how there were 72 parks across Thurrock, and more open spaces. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Hardie Park Model and how this worked as it was community led. He stated that there were 4-5 other parks across the borough that could use the Hardie Park Model, but a flexible approach was needed, as not all parks were suitable.

The Recreation and Leisure Manager stated that the three Park Engagement Officers had begun work in April 2019 and were all NBG Level 2 qualified, and had so far engaged over 600 people. He mentioned that there were now 15 sessions per week during term-time, which lasted 8-10 weeks with holiday activities organised during school holiday periods. He summarised and stated that the Park Engagement Officers were also there to direct people to funding for their parks, and to help signpost where volunteers could become qualified.

The Chief Executive of Hardie Park queried whether s.106 funding could be used for staff salaries, and how the Park Engagement Officers would generate income. He stated that Hardie Park was ‘grass-roots’ led, but in the past had also suffered from problems with anti-social behaviour, but had now been voted the Best Park in Essex. He felt that parks needed a community presence and residents needed to take ownership. The Chair agreed and felt that the process for s.106 funding needed to be transparent and should have Member oversight. The Assistant Director – Planning, Transport and Public Protection clarified the process of collection of s.106 funding. He advised Members that the allocation of s.106 monies towards the Active Parks Programme was sound, as the project appeared on the Council’s Infrastructure Requirements List and the nature of the project fit the scope of the obligations used. The Assistant Director – Planning, Transport and Public Protection advised Members that Thurrock has previously pooled s.106 contributions, but in 2015 the Government had introduced pooling restrictions upon Local Authorities, and in response to this the Council had started the Infrastructure Requirement List. He explained that the Infrastructure Requirement List was a live document and communities could nominate projects, with expenditure being monitored by the s.106 Panel. He stated that the s.106 Panel was not a public meeting and was officer-led, with recommendations made being sent to the Director of Place for approval. He mentioned that a report had gone to the Planning, Transport and Regeneration (PTR) Committee in March 2019, which had scrutinised and agreed the process. He then advised Members that at the time of the PTR report in March, £23.5million had been received by the council from s.106 funding with 93% of this having been committed for infrastructure projects.

The Chair asked if the link to the infrastructure requirements list could be sent to committee Members for them to view, and stated that the fact community groups could add to the list needed to be better publicised. He felt that it was an unusual use of s.106 funds, and asked if there were any other recent examples of s.106 funds being used for salaries rather than infrastructure. The Assistant Director – Planning, Transport and Public Protection stated that, whilst not common, it met all of the legal criteria for allocation of sl.106 funds, and would find other examples to send to the committee after the meeting.

The Chair questioned how the active parks strategy was sustainable. The Recreation and Leisure Manager replied that over a three year timeline, the Park Engagement Officers would develop and upskill a pool of volunteers who would then be able to run specific sessions. He stated that in year 2 of the project, the team would also look into external funding bids, which would be monitored by Active Thurrock.

Councillor Lawrence began the debate and stated that she felt this was a good project, but asked if local forums could become part of the consultation, as they could help with the recruitment of volunteers. She also asked if Ward Councillors could be made aware when S106 funding was being allocated to a project in their ward. Councillor Fletcher queried how much co-operation was ongoing between the community and the Park Engagement Officers, and requested that the Park Engagement Officers attended the next community forum meeting to clarify their work. The Recreation and Leisure Manager responded that the Park Engagement Officers were currently linking with community hubs, helping to set up ‘hub fun days’ and engaging them directly with the active parks programme. The Director of Environment and Highways clarified that the s.106 funding which had been used for the active parks strategy had been earmarked for health, and focussed on getting residents active and utilising space. She thanked community groups for their hard work in parks and supported their initiatives, and felt that the new Park Engagement Officers would help to support parks and engage residents. She reiterated that the council would try to find external funding, and would help and support the community to establish park engagement activities. Councillor Mayes asked how many other boroughs were running similar programmes, and whether more park engagement activities were being introduced for Tilbury. The Recreation and Leisure Manager stated that Tower Hamlets Council currently had 9 staff members within their sports and leisure team, helping run similar sessions and helping residents use park equipment, as well as Barking and Dagenham, Camden and Westminster City Council who also had similar programmes. He added that those examples funded their programmes through their public health teams and were not self-sustaining. He mentioned that the council were currently bidding for Tilbury CLLD to help get residents active, and improve both physical and mental health. He mentioned that the council were also currently trying to seek funding for 15-20 volunteers in South Ockendon.

Councillor Rigby asked if there was a plan to provide open air gym equipment in all parks across the borough. The Recreation and Leisure Manager stated that the team were reviewing outdoor leisure stock as there was lots of demand for this equipment, but it had to be properly maintained and managed. The Chief Executive of Hardie Park stated that he wanted more community engagement in parks, as Hardie Park started with zero volunteers and now had 75, as they were community-led. He felt that parks needed regeneration and capital funding to provide equipment. The Chair then summarised debates and asked for an update report to be presented to committee in October on how the scheme had faired over the summer months.

RESOLVED: That:

1. The Committee noted the progress of the Active Parks Programme.

2. The Committee requested an additional update report for the next meeting, detailing how the scheme had progressed over summer.