Village of Pemberton (VOP) officials are tapping the brakes on a proposal to relocate the municipality’s Nature Park Playscape structure due to vocal opposition from locals.
The proposed motion arose from a Committee of the Whole meeting on Feb. 7, where elected representatives considered establishing the Playscape in a “pocket park” between the existing Spray Park and the Radius building next to the Pemberton and District Community Centre.
The pocket park was the second of three choices presented at the meeting. Option No. 1 would relocate the playground to the east side of the community centre’s great lawn, while option No. 3 would have it moved to the grassy maze immediately north of the Spray Park.
Mayor Mike Richman and his council have voted to revisit the issue at a future Committee of the Whole session.
Public engagement
Richman was initially under the impression that a majority of Pembertonians approved of the Playscape structure moving to the new pocket park. However, as of the Feb. 28 council meeting, the VOP has received 27 letters from residents who oppose the move on several grounds.
Numerous individuals balk at the idea of removing mature trees from the vicinity of the Spray Park due to the beneficial shade they provide in summer—removals that would be necessary to accommodate the Playscape. Some also feel that the proposed new park space is too cramped and too close to the nearby scrapyard for any new developments.
Many are arguing that the structure should instead be built on the east side of the great lawn, an area they feel is underutilized and has more room for future development. Similar conclusions were drawn by Alex van Zyl, an associate at Tom Barratt Landscape Architects, in her Jan. 25 report to Pemberton and District Recreation Services.
Some other locals have brought forth entirely new alternatives, like building the Playscape in Pioneer Park. As of this writing, only one Pembertonian has submitted correspondence in support of erecting the structure at the originally intended location.
“In my opinion, if we were to just go ahead and push forward [with the original proposal], we’re not listening to our residents,” Richman said on Feb. 28. “This conversation has become quite public. Many people have had the opportunity to weigh in, and from what we’ve seen from folks so far, I don’t think [building the Playscape in the proposed location] is the will of the people.”
Councillor Laura Ramsden agreed, suggesting that the VOP request more public input on the matter.
“At this point, given the fact that we seem to be relying so heavily again on values and what people would like to see from the Playscape, we would be better off not making a decision, and actually going out and seeking public engagement,” she said. “We’ve got limited resources, [but] this seems to be a very, very important decision for the community.”
A broader picture
Coun. Katrina Nightingale believes that the question at hand is far bigger than the location of a single playground.
“For me, it feels like the bigger issue is: what is the value of the entirety of that space [on the great lawn]?” she opined. “One thing that COVID taught us was that people missed gathering—people of all varieties, all genders and all ages. We, as councillors, need to think of everybody in this community.
“The letters [we received] were from the perspective, primarily, of one interest group. I heard it loud and clear, and I’m a mom, and I get it. But for me, if we’re going to go back to the community [for input], the question is not: ‘will the [Playscape] be here or there?’ It has to be a much bigger question—a values question.”
Meanwhile, Coun. Ted Craddock argued that the letters opposing the pocket park initiative do not necessarily represent the views of what he called “the silent majority.” He said that he has talked to many within his neighbourhood, the Glen—which is home to several families—and that most there do not have an issue with the Playscape’s proposed location.
According to Craddock, several residents of the Glen have actually voiced safety concerns if the playground were to be built on the great lawn’s east side. In that case, it would be located some distance away from the Spray Park, making it difficult for parents to watch all their kids in case one wanted to visit the Playscape and another to play in the water. Craddock expressed his belief that consolidating all the children’s leisure areas into one place would be the safer option.
Richman pushed back on Craddock’s argument.
“I find it interesting, the notion that we get a bunch of letters but that’s not representative of the community, yet a conversation on the streets that the rest of us aren’t privy to is representative of the community,” said the mayor. “When we [as councillors] bump into folks who tell us things that are on their minds, it’s important that we encourage them to write to us, so that all of council has the same information.
“Considering that there’s a lot of values being considered here, I’m very much in support of Coun. Ramsden’s suggestion that we see a little bit more input from the community.”
Council has directed VOP staff to conduct further community engagement on the relocation of the Playscape. Further details will be available in the coming weeks.
