Letter: Public open space at Milford unfit by very definition

Sir – Referring to your article in A&T (24th Feb) concerning the grassed area set aside as an open space at the back of the Swifts in Milford for recreational use, as stated in the original planning application, which was approved.

I am amazed that Pennyfarthing is resisting demands to keep to their promise to provide a safe area for such use and even more amazed at NFDC for supporting their refusal to carry out remedial work by opting for the opinion of yet another soil expert first.

The current expert was employed to deliver an opinion on the quality of the existing land as a recreational space. In fact, he used language that was compatible within the definition of public open space anyway and Pennyfarthing seems to prefer calling it this as they say it demands a lower standard of finish.

Legal definition of ‘public open space’ – Pennyfarthing’s preferred wording. Cutting to the chase it states, that it is land laid out as a garden or is used for the purposes of recreation, or lies waste or unoccupied.

Legal definition of recreational space – a portion of land of total open space which is improved and landscaped and is intended to be used for recreational activities including (but not limited to), parks, picnic areas, playgrounds, sports fields, etc.

It goes on with a more expansive definition but these are not applicable in this case, not for the moment at least. As I understand the situation, the land in question is not currently fit/safe for use as defined in the original planning application. Both definitions specifically encompass recreational activities. If Pennyfarthing had bothered to remove all their building waste in the first place, this situation would not have occurred.

John Walsh

Address supplied