2025 Minutes

Formal meeting re. children’s play area Date: 24/07/2025   Time: 18:36
Location: Skillington Village Hall Meeting called by: Adrian Clark – Chairman of Parish Council Type of meeting: Formal consultation meeting regarding children’s play area Facilitator: Adrian Clark Note taker: Emily Clark Timekeeper: Paul Elston & Mike Jackson Attendees: Kate and Stuart Millington
Graham Page
Martin (surname not added)
Terry Seagar
Frank Hedley
Richard Wrigley
Pete Selby
Scott Ruck
Mellissa Clark
Sarah Clark
Graeme Parnell
9 children from the village were also in attendance. Due to GDPR, their names and ages will not be disclosed in these minutes. Minutes
Opening of meeting: Explained that the meeting served as a formal consultation with the village in the commission of a childrens play area in Skillington. Presenter: Adrian Clark Discussion:
Adrian Clark – opened with the scope of the meeting (consultation with villagers as to if a children’s play area in the village would be something that the village would want as a potential funding opportunity has become available). 
Explained that following the informal meeting held at the village hall green on 17th June 2025, the Regulations and requirements regarding Health and Safety have been acknowledged. It was also reiterated that a location for the commission of a play area had not been confirmed, the areas considered in the informal meeting are where the villagers would prefer. Further guidance is needed from external bodies as to if these locations are possible.
Adrian extended his thanks to the attendees for taking the time to attend and discuss following the informal meeting, and explained that an expression of interest for funding had been submitted, and Skillington had now been invited to make a full application for the grant. Opened up to the room as to if there had been any change in opinion or any new views since the informal meeting. Please note that the following viewpoints have been anonomised to protect individual identities, but provide an overview of the general concencus. 
Viewpoint 1: No change in viewpoint – ideal location would be the green by the Methodist Church as it is a flat area, relatively safe and secure due to overlooking residents.
Viewpoint 2: Top green in the village – safest space, overlooking residents.
Viewpoint 3: As per other views – central location to the village, not too far for any child or parent to walk to.
Viewpoint 4: As per other views – logical area, safe space and central to village.
Viewpoint 5: As per other views – also noted that this area has been under consideration for a potential speed restriction under the Parish Council to add to safety.
Viewpoint 6: As per other views.
Viewpoint 7: Villager advised that they have had previous involvement with play areas and comes from a farming background, and willing to assist and advise as an experienced land agent.
Viewpoint 8: Acknowledges that there is strong support for the children having somewhere to play. Has no views on location, but that the area must be safe guarded and there are lots of areas to think about – the individual has concerns that due process is not being followed. Unhappy that the informal meeting was announced and communicated via WhatsApp, but does not oppose the concept of a play area in the village. It was suggested that an area had already been decided. Questions regarding funding were raised and how this would be approached – would villagers be contributing and if so, they should be aware of this before any applications are submitted. Individual expressed that whilst they had questions, they are supportive of a play area.
Paul then stated that the points are fair, communication could have been better however asked the villagers to consider how tight timelines have been with the application for funding.
Viewpoint 9: Advised that a children’s play area had been seriously considered 2 years ago and no suitable site was found, predominantly due to the safety element regarding speed limits. Questions were raised as to who would be responsible for insurances and the maintenance of the area. Stated that villagers should have visbility on the details of the grant for transparency. If the paddock is being considered, must be aware that the covenant prohobits this, which can be found on the Land Registry, however the Parish Clerk should be able to provide this. Should also use learnings from other Parish Councils, the example given being Barrowby, who experienced issues following an incident and now conduct weekly recorded checks of equioment.
Viewpoint 10: Stated that they feel there should be a play area in the village – the village green was stated to be a natural place as this is where children currently play anyway. A question was asked as to how many pieces of equipment is being considered, and if the children have had/will have any say on what pieces are selected. Also raised the question as to if the land by the paddock could be gifted, as this could be fenced off and a safe area.
Viewpoint 11: Stated that the Parish Council has always been in favour of a play area, the ket challenge has always been location. Previous attempts has seen a 50/50 split between parents for either the centre of the village, or the village green. Understands why the village green is felt to be a suitable space, however they feel that it is not the ideal location – the land is sloped, there is not much space and parking would be an issue. The land is also a conservation area and it is important to protect our green spaces. Questions were raised as to maintenance costs and if the Parish Council would be responsible for these. Suggested that it would be more beneficial to first find a suitable location and then understand why there could be challenges.
Viewpoint 12: Feels that it is a good idea, but needs to be carefully thought out. Must consider insurance costs and future proofing needs as part of the project. Also raised the ongoing challenges with HGV’s and diverted traffic through the village, as could render the play area unsafe.
Viewpont 12: acknowledged that there is a need for the play area so children can play safely. Stated they are concerned that decisions as to location have been made already. Asked who will be responsible for maintanance and any repairs 10 years down the line. Also stated that tenacity is needed going forward, but there may be reasons why the play area discussion hasn’t progressed when previously investigated.
Adrian Clark and Paul Elston: Thanked attendees for their views – will try and answer some of the points raised.
Size: looking at no more than 3 pieces of equipment, the play area will be relatively small.
Equipment: the childrens views as to what equipment would be placed would be considered, as the area must have a purpose.
Equipment life span: have spoken with 4 different contractors, all have guaranteed that with normal use, the equipment has a 25 year life span. Any wear and tear not consistent with normal use will need to be repaired by the Parish Council.
Health and Safety: considerations have already been given to the health and safety element; slow closing gates and bouncy flooring would be needed.
Location: the general feeling from the informal meeting and this meeting suggests that the top sqaure is felt to be the favourable place. Acknowleged that this is a conservation area and since this was raised in the informal meeting, have contacted SKDC and have asked if the area could be used for this purpose. Was advised that it is possible, as long as certain requirements are met.
Land: stated that we could request land from farmers, there us no harm in asking. Advised that we do not have the answers right now, but will try and get an answer for any future meeting.
Cost: advised that we have applied for a grant.
Further questions asked:
Q: Does the grant cover the cost for fencing? Any fencing should be at least 3 foot tall. 
A: No, the grant will fund the cost of the equipment and flooring. 
Q: Would hate to see the project fail due to lack of funding. Need to factor insurance into costs. Would fundraising be needed for ongoing costs and who will pay for extra charges?
A: The Parish Council would probably be responsible for absorbing additional costs for insurance and maintenance. Unsure at the moment and will confirm in due course. Stated that this project will take some time and we don’t have all answers right now.
Q: Stated that the key reason for failure is liability. Who would be checking that everything meets regulations?
A: Unsure at the moment as the project will take some time and we don’t have all answers right now. 

Q: There is a general feeling in the village that everything has already been decided. Certain things have not been considered, such as:
* What the children actually want
* That proper consultation is needed rather than steam rolling ahead
* Drink drivers have not been thought about as part of legalities and insurances
* How children would be safe with cars and traffic in area
* Must also have disabled access
* Antisocial behaviour
* Village wide practicalities
Has the land owner been approached again as to the land at the village hall?
A: Thanked for views. Stated that the timescale for application of funding has been very tight, hence the traction on meetings, and we are in a situation where we either commit with the application or walk away from the opportunity. On the points raised, explained that we have been provided with guidance with the invitation to make a full application, and a checklist is also included. The land would also be fully surveyed before anything happens.
Q: With the challenges raised, a question was asked as to who is responsible for the insurances and maintanence of the swing on the village green.
A: It is unclear, seems to have been put there independently. The Parish Council did not place it there and do not pay for maintenance or insurances.
Q: Will the grant application process require full village consultation? The village should see what this would look like.
A: Unsure, but engaging with the village to seek views.
Q: The village must know the proposed location before the next meeting. How will they be updated?
A: Stated that we will keep looking for a location and will be updated through the notice board, or a flier drop through letterboxes for transparency.

Thanked for attendance and meeting closed at 19:41.