Sports Hub!

[maccawozzagod]

So, my take on the meeting.

I went primarily because I thought it would be a small group of busybodies trying to whip up a scaremongering campaign to another small group. It wasn't. As Kitchener said there were at least 150 people present. It was fairly impossible to ascertain how many were vehemently against the idea and how many were there just for a nosy. A show of hands for and against was requested at one point - Miles Parkinson and I put our hands up (two in my case) and two others tentatively put theirs up - there was at least one other person there who I knew to be in favour but who kept his hand down.

On numerous occasions it was mentioned that ASCT had been invited but refused to come. It was also pointed out by the council guy that Martin Fearon had stated prior to the meeting being organised that he would have his own meeting once full details were there to be given. This IS a sensible move but each time it was mentioned there was House of Commons type guffaw from the crowd. Also on numerous times it was shouted out that "where are these supposed people in favour?" This was in response to Miles stating that he knew there were many people also in favour. The crowd were inciting that because 'nobody' was there in a show of support then surely nobody was actually in support.

He made the point that in order for the council to maintain these sort of areas they have to be being paid for at some point, as cuts were savage in all areas of borough funding. If an organised event is played on there then they have to pay. This entitles them to have the grass cut and the pitches marked out. Less and less official usage means that it comes towards a point where the area WILL NOT be maintained and will quickly change to wasteland. It HAS happened at Arden Hall Park, Bullough Park has just been condemned as unfit for purpose and King Georges is also out of action for the season. As Neil pointed out it was also stated that the council will save significant costs by not maintaining the land. This will then transpire as more money for other areas or less job cuts.

The main cause of concern is that the people are losing their access rights to a public field and once it is fenced off then that is the end of the dog crapping, or whatever else. At this point it is unknown exactly what the plans are - so they are getting irate about something they may not need to get irate about at this point.

On numerous occasions the point was raised that at some point there would be little to stop Accrington Stanley turning it into their own personal training ground. I answered this by quoting Andy Holt's tweet from the previous night which stated that the clubs next major investment (after the planned power upgrade) would be to build a training facility - and that this was likely to be outside of the borough. This wasn't listened to and they moved swiftly along.

The meeting was reasonably well run by Malcolm Pritchard. I dislike the fella but I can't fault his passion for something. He was obviously in the Against camp but still tried to display some kind of decorum, despite the occasional dig.

Miles Parkinson was more than obviously supportive of the proposal and was at pains to point it out at every opportunity. He spoke well and wholly and didn't fudge any issue that arose. Unfortunately there were a good few at the meeting who really just wanted to point out the follies of the Council and blame them for every ill in the world.

Miles stated that in order for the proposal to be passed it first had to meet the criteria of;
Sport England - they have to approve the idea and that it has merit and is worthy of the grants etc.
Fields in Trust - just as it sounds. Some sort of heritage body that protects fields for public usage
Somebody else who I cant remember because every time Miles got to this point he was being shouted down, but it was something along the lines of a sporting body I think

After those three have been satisfied it can go before the Planning Committee where they will take into consideration the views of all interested parties and the various recommendations made by the three criteria groups.

The biggest cheers of the night, in my opinion, were reserved for comments surrounding location. Somebody mentioned Bullough Park as being the ideal site as it was in an area crying out for investment. ASCT have been to look at the site but it was deemed unrealistic. The facts of the matter on sites is that they have a sum of up to £2m in grants to spend on the entire project. IF it would cost £2m to flatten a site, or install drainage, or run power etc then it would leave nothing for the actual development. In truth Highams is the most ideal site out of anything 'available'. The comments about locations came up a few times and each was met by clapping. The conclusion I draw from this is that it really is a case of NOT IN MY BACK YARD. When this is the attitude (and I can understand it) then people will fight tooth and nail for the cause, but it annoys me when they find reason after reason after reason when really its just down to not wanting it there.

The meeting went on for 2 and a half hours.


My opinion for what its worth is that the idea has full merit but unfortunately the most suitable location is the best example of public land in the borough. It really would be a shame to lose it, but it would also be a shame to lose the prospect of a proper, professional Community Trust being established in an under privileged town.

The group opposing the plan stand half a chance if they can organise themselves into a coherent group rather than a rabble banging on about nothing. I've argued til I'm blue in the face with the Facebook group but yet they consistently raise the same points

• Accrington Stanley Community Trust IS Accrington Stanley Football Club. Not to be trusted and the fields will have been conceded to a private, profiteering group
• Its well used
• noise will be unbearable
• floodlights will cause noise pollution
• no public right of way through the fields
• traffic

All of these points are either counterable (except maybe the trust issue on point 1 however wrong the assumption of same company is) or resolvable.

In the favour of the ASCT is that they have the backing of the council who are keen to see a multi million pound investment in the town, they have the Junior Football League behind them as well as numerous other sporting bodies.


I dont think much else in the way of fact can be reported from last night, it would be more a case of gut feeling and opinion. What I can say though is that when ASCT announce their meeting they could do with a hell of a lot more bodies showing up in support if you are For. IT is true to say though that people never come out in favour of something because really you have to be against something in order for it to stir up enough gumption to get people off their arses.

I hope that Martin has a good plan for his meeting because it WILL be him against a mob.

[maccawozzagod]

Oh one more thing I forgot.


The Against group were pinning a lot of hope on an apparent fact that Highams Fields were donated to the borough by Alderman Higham and that they had some kind of documentation to that effect. They assumed then that the fields could not be then donated on to another party.

Miles Parkinson had the deeds to the land dating back to 1929 I think. The deeds stated that the land was purchased by the borough for the sum of £877. The fact that it was purchased means that legally they can pass it on however they see fit.

Or words to that effect, I was getting arse cramp by this point

[Exile on Spencer St]

Thanks for such a thorough summary, Macca.
As a non-combatant, it seems to me that one key to help unlock this could be the earlier suggestion that HBC are in discussions with LCC to 'acquire' the land west of the playing fields in order to turn that into public open space.
If that happened it may answer those who claim it's the loss of access to 'public' land that is the issue.
Alternatively, it could be helpful if LCC could support the proposal and make its (i.e. 'your) surplus land available, so the Trust doesn't need to use all of Higham's.

[maccawozzagod]

The adjacent land is owned by the nursery apparently, and therfore indirectly (i think) by LCC.

LCC do maintain it and retrospectively bill the school.

According to the residents it is VERY rarely used if at all but hasnt been opened for 30 years or so.

Miles said that as they were closed for the summer nothing further would happen here until September.

It really would solve a few problems if it could be opened up.

Another potential avenue would be for alleyways to be provided between the various zones, so that walkers could still do so

[KiTChener]

Great posts, Macca, a very fair, unbiased report of the meeting.

As one of the NIMBYs, after listening to what was being said by our illustrious 'Council Leader', I have decided to 'move on', as advised by some other poster on here, who appears to live nowhere near Hyndburn! Moving on, not because of his advice, but because I am still of the opinion that I raised at the beginning of the meeting, that this issue has been 'cut & dried' for some time, (nothing that was said last night has made me re-think this opinion) & it is now counter-productive to oppose the proposal. As I have said previously, I am not against ASCT, but, I'm afraid that I just can't help being a NIMBY!

If Cuadrilla was applying to commence fracking on Highams', despite seeing the benefits of fracking for the country as a whole, I would still be a NIMBY!

Finally, I wish Malcolm & his newly formed committee all the best in which I feel is now a fruitless campaign.

[maccawozzagod]

Was great to meet you and have a chat last night.

I too think the proposal is already agreed, and I hate that idea. Though it will be great to see Malcolm's face if and when its finalised. If he starts talking about chaining himself to trees I'll provide the locks ...

[Dav1d]

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

Was great to meet you and have a chat last night.

I too think the proposal is already agreed, and I hate that idea. Though it will be great to see Malcolm's face if and when its finalised. If he starts talking about chaining himself to trees I'll provide the locks ...

And I will throw away the keys

Great post by macca, as someone who didn't attend. It's great to get an insight into what went on! I agree with macca that it's mainly a NIMBY and I can understand that, who would want the building works, extra traffic, noise, floodlights, etc day in day out? Our chairman has been voicing his opinion on this tonight on twitter interesting to read his side of it! I also agree with him too about Accrington needing investment. The town is in dire straights of investment, the council don't help themselves with the high rent charges but that's another topic for another section.

[KiTChener]

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

Was great to meet you and have a chat last night.

I too think the proposal is already agreed, and I hate that idea. Though it will be great to see Malcolm's face if and when its finalised. If he starts talking about chaining himself to trees I'll provide the locks ...

And you, Macca, although on different sides, it was good to have a sensible exchange of opinions, rather than some of the guff on here from people who have no concept of the feelings of local residents, and can only abuse the person who may express beliefs they do not agree with.

AS far as Malcolm is concerned, can I please hold the keys?

OOPS!
Dav1d can obviously type quicker than I can!!

[KiTChener]

Originally Posted by Shurm

This is the kind of meeting the Trust should have organised before putting flyers through people's letter boxes basically saying what was going to happen by the time the full proposal is prepared it will be passed we all know that.

Yes, and it was confirmed last night who were the people putting these flyers through our letterboxes!!

Clue: initials PC & MP (not Malcolm!)

[Chewbacca]

If it isn't used for sport, and we all know the decline of 11 aside footy at grass roots especially at adult level, then it will inevitably be used for housing.

Maybe an incinerator would provide much needed jobs there? It has other potential uses which won't be as community friendly.

There is pressure on Council's to dispose of land for new housing, and a nice greenfield site is always attractive.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by cashman

So why didn't they attend the original residents meeting?if they were that concerned surely they would have! or have the sheep waited for shepherd "Pritchard" and the slimeballs to wind them up?

A lot of the people at that meeting who are actually looking into the plans and if it is allowed by Fields in Trust etc are not involved with Malcolm but are involved with this facebook group https://www.facebook.com/savehighamsplayingfields/


They are not a group of gobby residents but working through the proposal in a sensible and polite manner unlike a few at the meeting on Wednesday night who were more interested in being clapped for having a pop at the Council and talking nonsense.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

the original residents meeting was nothing of the sort. It was confirmed last night by Miles Parkinson (leader of the council) that ASCT had approached Laneside Residents Association who then backed the idea. The inference was that it was one guy.

Does Laneside Residents Association even exist anymore? Where and when do they meet? I was under the impression they have disbanded and it looks like the spoke with the old chairman of the group. In reality, that group no longer functions. They used to attend one of my group meetings and stopped coming because they basically lost their members.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by NORTHERNSOUL

Well in that case maybe before gobbing off they should perhaps take the time and effort to study the preliminary information thats been provided which i.m pretty sure addresses all the issues youve mentioned including showing a plan which clearly shows that the whole playing fields area will NOT be fenced off.

I will be surprised if the field isn't fenced off. It doesn't make sense not to fence it or they can't protect their investment. Would you as the football league invest £2 million on an uprotected site?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

If it isn't used for sport, and we all know the decline of 11 aside footy at grass roots especially at adult level, then it will inevitably be used for housing.

Maybe an incinerator would provide much needed jobs there? It has other potential uses which won't be as community friendly.

There is pressure on Council's to dispose of land for new housing, and a nice greenfield site is always attractive.

It can't be used for housing, that would be against the conditions in the councils deed for the land. That was explained at the wednesday night meeting.

Some think it was gifted to the people as it sounds good but it isn't true, the truth is in the deeds.

Rough deed details are the land was bought by the then Accrington now Hyndburn Council for just under £900 and it has to be for public recreation use.

It's the public bit that's up for legal discussion.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

The main cause of concern is that the people are losing their access rights to a public field and once it is fenced off then that is the end of the dog crapping, or whatever else. At this point it is unknown exactly what the plans are - so they are getting irate about something they may not need to get irate about at this point.

I believe dogs should be banned from all playing pitches so for me the dog thing isn't an issue.

I think the biggest sensible argument is that the local residents are losing free access to their field. I'm interested to see how the Trust handle that problem when the plans are available.

As for them getting irate, people usually do when they don't know the facts. They assume the worst and are easily persuaded everything will be bad.
The Trust must know how they plan to deal with the locals access to land issue. It must have been discussed a long time ago and the fact it hasn't been explained makes me feel there won't be any free access.