Building a park in the middle of the Breda Triangle was always going to cause trouble

As critics of the location said from the minute the Gas Works site was chosen, trouble is just around the corner. I well recall the support my fellow columnist the late Gordon Young received from that district’s residents when first he christened the area ‘The Breda Triangle’.

He was absolutely right. The area was, and by the sound of remains, awash with booze and the drugs which often accompany it. The saddest thing of all is that when Gordon wrote of the ‘triangle’ his criticism probably centred on those young men and women who inhabit bedsit land. Without wanting to stray too far from the subject, my own view is that to an extent they were the victims of the appallingly discriminatory housing legislation coupled with Rachman-like landlords – in short, there was nowhere for them to spend their evenings other than in a pub.

Now, sadly, it would appear that those causing the trouble are much younger but booze is still the dominant factor. Indeed, one of the online comments (on thisisjersey.com) on this story suggested that 12 to 15-year-olds were there – in a drunken state – just after 10 pm on a Thursday night.

As someone who’s not averse to the occasional slug or three of Calvados (and known on occasions to have had perhaps more than three), I can say without fear of contradiction that even I can feel that my head’s as big as Birkenhead the morning after the night before. What I find strange is that it would seem that neither parents nor teachers are able to spot the effects the following morning of a 12-year-old’s evening on the booze.

Neither can it have escaped anyone’s attention that the more vociferous of that lot in the Big House who looked at the increasing number of signatures on the petition and decided that ‘The Millennium Town Park’ project – which had been delayed by committees and ministers because, quite rightly, they thought that there were more important things on which to spend ten million quid – was a real vote winner are very much in ‘duck below the parapet’ mode right now.

As for Alan Maclean, whose out of control ring binder – I hope that if he’s got a dog he keeps it under more control – hitting the voting button in the Big House led to what’s likely to be dubbed ‘Problem Park’, I hope he’s suitably contrite.

Now we’re faced with a confrontation situation between drunken 12 to 15-year-olds and private security officers as well as wardens patrolling the area. Additionally, they’re looking at turning up the dimmer on the street lights – nearby residents will have to get some blackout curtains if they want to get the kids to sleep – and yet more closed circuit surveillance cameras.

It all comes at a price and there are no prizes for guessing who is going to foot the bill for yet another pie in the sky farce which, in common with so many others, was never properly thought through but was simply a populist vote catcher.

Broadlands director Roger Trower was, as I recall, one of magnificent seven (or however many there were) ‘Angry Men’ who a few years ago were going to shake that lot in the Big House until the pips came out. My recollection is that apart from generating a fair amount of self-publicity they did precious little else, but of course I could be wrong.

Having set out where I would generally come from in relation to Mr Trower and his fellow angry men, I will now say that I support him totally in his little local difficulty with the jobsworths in the planning department.

Chatting with a retired Army officer the other day, I was persuaded that – to a large extent at least – the Army has shed its ‘if it moves, salute it and if doesn’t move, paint it’ mentality in dealing with its personnel and the public in favour of a somewhat more flexible approach.

It is clear from Planning’s objections that there are pinstripes up at South Hill who are not only unaware of how the rest of the world has moved on a bit from interpreting the rule book to the letter but also seem to have too much time on their hands. Either that or they set out to deliberately get up the noses of people like Mr Trower in order to divert attention from some of the stupid consents they issue.

One must assume that all the other (often garish and wholly inappropriate) signs in the vicinity of the Royal Square have received planning consent. Having looked around that patch again, the one painted on the side of the Broadlands building is tasteful in the extreme when compared to some of the others.

We now have a (relatively) new Planning Minister who has an advantage over other new ministers in that he’s has a few months already to get his feet under the table and find out where the toilet is and where the tea, sugar and milk are kept.

In my view, there’d be nothing wrong with him deciding, on the nod, so to speak, that he will approve the application if Mr Trower would care to submit one. After all, there are matters much more important for Rob Duhamel to adjudicate upon than this bit of nonsense.

And finally,

So no one wants to be in charge of a scrutiny committee any more. It really makes you wonder how many elected representatives this place really needs. Hopefully, the proposed electoral commission to be chaired by former Boss Sir Philip Bailhache will address this with a bit of vigour. I hope also they don’t treat parishes as holy cows either.