Monday, 14 March 2011

one park or two?

Hackney Council have published an updated version of the Millfields' masterplan on its website.

Key change from the last version (never published as far as we know) seems to be swapping the location for the meadow (25) with the location for the natural play area (7). Interesting how few projects feature in north Millfields. We understand some of the s106 funding initially secured as part of the Latham's Yard development for improvements to north Millfields is now likely to head south to fund a natural play area there.


  1. I take my son to the playground on N.Millfields (we live on Newick Road) and understood that the new playground would be located adjacent to it - that seemed logical. It is easily accessible for North and South residents, whereas this new masterplan location seems much less practical and attractive. What's this about funding and who is deciding how this pot should be distributed!!? Karl

  2. Extract from MUG Committee minutes 28 Feb below:
    "LBH is proposing to spend £100k from s106 funds on play on Millfields. The committee took the view that:
    1. The first priority is provision near the north playground for older children
    (8-13) who currently ‘colonise’ the playground and discourage use by younger
    2. The second priority is under 7s play on the south.
    3. It is not a priority to spend money on refurbishing the existing playground which is adequate and heavily used. Delegated working group to be convened by CK and asked BI to consult the WkgGp on detail of proposals."

    The s106 funding from Latham's Yard for play areas in north millfields was £150k (not £100k)- it is not clear where the other £50k has gone.
    There was also £50k from the Paradise Park devt that was meant to be used for play areas in s millfields. again it's not clear where this has gone.

  3. Have just looked at new map plan. Seems one of the least appropriate spots to build a playground, certainly in the context of scarce resources when it should be a priority to ensure that available funding is wisely spent.

  4. In addition to the s106 funding, there's also funding available from the National Grid (NG) sub-station, which the Park's Department recently said was £120k.

    A Freedom of Information request was submitted to Hackney at the end of January to try to confirm the amount (and terms). This is now late - three weeks over the statutory time limit of 20 working days to respond. Curious given the park's committee released the £120k to the MUG committee in February. Why the extreme delay? (other than knowing we'll publish here).

    The previous MUG Committee had been happy to keep the amount of NG underwraps as they hoped it would be used to fund the pavillion for south Millfields. We hear NG aren't keen to be associated with building a pavillon - having already built a road across the park and needing to find an alternative route, funding more concrete on it for a pavillon doesn't sound like good PR. Looks as if NG would be happier to support biodiversity initiatives which does sound like a better move.


Twitter Bird Gadget