CDA councilor Lieke Muller was surprised to hear about the article ‘Anger for the removed children’s pool’ and ‘How it becomes more and more fun’ on Omroep West.
An excerpt: A swimming pool in the Leidschendam district of Prinsenhof will provide cooling for children in this hot weather. The residents of the child-rich neighborhood had collected money for it themselves. But the water fun has been canceled because an enforcer from the municipality demanded the pool and the trampoline next to it removed. “That’s how the fun ends more and more.” There are many apartments in the Prinsenhof, which means that creating a swimming pool in the garden is not an option for many. There are large green areas between the apartments. The residents had set up the swimming pool in such a green area.
Lieke Muller therefore dives in depth when it comes to the idea behind this special effort on the part of the municipality. She therefore has the following questions for the college:
1) Is the college familiar with this article?
2) Can the council state how many of these types of personal swimming pools on municipal land have been removed by enforcement this year and in previous years? How many of these were on municipal land in high-rise buildings and how many in low-rise neighborhoods?
3) The reason for removing the swimming pool, and rather a trampoline, is safety. According to a local resident quoted in the article, “‘Suddenly we received a message that the bath and trampoline are not allowed there. It would be dangerous
could be like a drunken person who walks across the lawn and falls into the tub and drowns. Then the municipality would be responsible for it.” On the basis of which APV article has been enforced?
4) Swimming in Vliet is not permitted. There is no longer an outdoor pool. Vlietland is too far away for (small) children. People who do not have their own garden where they can place a swimming pool are also not allowed to do this on a piece of municipal grass next to their own home/balcony.
a. When the tub is not in use, it is covered at the top.
The residents have also indicated that they are willing to buy high construction fences at their own expense, so that the swimming pool can be closed when it is not in use. Why was this option rejected?
b. What possibilities does the college see to make the summer water fun that children who grow up in homes with backyards have, also possible for children in high-rise neighborhoods?
c. According to the Commission, what is needed to guarantee the safety and make this kind of fun possible for high-rise families, for whom the municipal lawns next to/behind their apartment complex serve as a recreational area? What responsibility (and costs) lies with the residents themselves, and what can the municipality facilitate or compensate for?
5) The residents indicate that their application for permission for a swimming pool or trampoline has been rejected because permission cannot be granted. They were told that something like this must be reported and approved as an initiative. They feel out of the box
sent to the wall and all the residents’ initiative to make life more fun, and the heat wave seems to be smothered before it gets off the ground. Does the college agree with the CDA that it is quite strange that the residents of LeidschendamNoord do not have a swimming pool, but they have a purple inflatable crocodile with a split stomach? In what ways can the number of purple crocodiles be reduced and the enjoyment of living and playing fun increased?
6) In the article, the residents, parents of families with small children, state that their
the joy of living in Prinsenhof is significantly affected: “Almost everyone I know is young
children want to leave the Prinsenhof. Our children regularly come and drink grass
bags of cocaine in the playgrounds where they play. I tell my children that they are no more
are allowed to enter the parks because there are regularly knives in the bushes there. It is not good
for the mutual morality, if a children’s pool and a trampoline were made so strictly
is becoming”. But moving in this market is difficult and not possible for everyone.
On the website of the recently created program Sterk Voor Noord you can read:
“With the Strong for North programme, the development of all residents of Leidschendam-North is central. From having a job to being happy. And from a debt-free life to a comfortable and safe home. But to be able to tackle these topics well
we also need help from the residents themselves”.
How should we reconcile the ban on a swimming pool/trampoline with this SvN objective? After all, the idea is that the residents live comfortably and safely in their neighbourhood, and that the help from the residents themselves is appreciated instead of cut short.
7) Is the municipal council prepared to, possibly in connection with Sterk voor Noord, now together with the residents look at what can be done this summer, but also what can be done in the coming summers/heat waves to increase comfort and water fun ‘in the backyard?’ in the high-rise neighborhoods in
To make/keep Leidschendam-North possible?
8) A few months ago, a Christmas tree placed by residents in Von Geusaustraat had to be removed because there was no permit for it. After intervention from the mayor, he was able to stand up in time. Is the college prepared during
to use the summer heat in the same way to preserve swimming pools in high-rise neighborhoods?
9) If enforcement steps in to the danger of a drunk before he ends up in a 1m high swimming pool, the municipal council can also indicate when the sidewalks in Prinsenhof, especially around WHZ Prinsenhof, the shopping area and Åkanden.
tackled that the tripping hazard (for both drunk and sober fellow humans) over loose and crooked tiles is removed?