Accrington Web - View Single Post

maccawozzagod · 17-08-2017, 19:12

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.

17-08-2017, 19:12	#121
maccawozzagod God Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Red and White Fortnight Posts: 9,111 Liked: 1555 times Rep Power: 12674	Re: Sports Hub! 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. __________________ email [email protected] for all window cleaning quotes