I felt like ‘confused dot com’ when I read the report on Steyning residents’ reaction to the parish council’s withdrawal of their skate park plan for the Memorial Playing Field (Herald, September 4).
What exactly was Trevor Cree trying to say? He is known as a long-time opponent of the council’s plan, yet he says that a ‘state-of-the-art’ skate park should be the very first item on the Steyning Neighbourhood Plan. I feel an explanation is required.
Can I assume he is referring to the FoMPF’s leisure centre plan, or has he changed his mind and is now supporting the council’s plan for the MPF? If it is the former, then once more he is trotting out the same old tired argument of a skate park at Steyning Grammar School.
It is pointless to raise it again and suggest it goes on the town’s Neighbourhood Plan. If my assumption is wrong, clarification is needed.
Supporters of the MPF site will never become involved in the moral, unseemly and pointless position of bullying Steyning Grammar School into submission. All stakeholders have rejected the leisure centre site but a charitable trust has pledged support for the MPF site.
Mr Cree appears to be yet another supporter of the weed-covered tarmac strip (previously a skate park facility) rather than supporting a state-of-the-art skate park to replace it on the MPF.
If I have totally misunderstood him and he has performed a U-turn, he might like to join us in reversing the village green status of the Rublees strip of land, registered only in the name of FoMPF. This would then be the first step in resolving this long-standing saga and help to deliver a skate park for our children.
Come on Mr Cree, some explanations are needed for your current stance.
Kings Stone Avenue
• Want to share your views? Send your letters by email: firstname.lastname@example.org or post to Cannon House, Chatsworth Road, Worthing, BN11 1NA.