Thetownend.com

Fears over sports supercentre dream
By Kevin Burchall
Comment | Read Comments (1)
 
PROPOSALS to turn Swindon Cricket Club into a sports supercentre to replace the Oasis and Link Centre have been given the thumbs-down by people living nearby.

The supercentre was put forward by Swindon Town supporters' group Trust STFC as part of plans to keep the football club in the borough.

The framework proposes a redeveloped 20,000-capacity football stadium with affordable flats and a luxury hotel.

The scheme would also see the athletics track revitalised and new tennis courts and all-weather sports pitches being built.

The broad proposals revealed by the Advertiser last week were arrived at after talking to Swindon Council, local councillors, South Swindon MP Anne Snelgrove and other people in the community.

But residents are concerned about the potential loss of green open space.

Advertisement     continued...
Kevin Leakey, secretary of the Broad Street Area Community Council, said: "It is pretty good that the trust have engaged with the community council and they have taken on board the concerns of the residents.

"But from our point of view it would not be acceptable to lose any green open space around the stadium.

"We were very much against the football club's plans last year as they just wanted to build housing and we would have lost a lot of the green space.

"We have already lost the GW Sports Ground and we can't afford to lose any more space and that includes the cricket pitch. If the club stayed within the existing stadium footprint I cannot see there would be too many arguments."

But Mr Leakey believes one major issue has not been addressed over the trust's vision for the County Ground area.

He said: "We have got concerns if it goes any further about how the whole scheme would impact on traffic and that is a major thing that needs to be looked at."

Plans unveiled earlier this year by the club saw much of the green spaces around the County Ground covered in houses. The trust's plans have fewer homes and are based more on having a leisure centre - which would replace the Oasis - on the site as a money-spinner.

Les Horn, chairman of the community council, said that, while he admired the trust's involvement, he doubted whether any plans would come to fruition.

He said: "The trust has gone in a different direction completely from the club's plans of last year and that is why I don't see the club going along with these current proposals.

"The club is only after money and to get that they need to build more houses."

So far the trust's plans have received positive feedback from fans and residents of the town.

Our phone and online poll revealed that the plans have met with significant support as 71 per cent of Adver readers are in favour of the development.


nicked from the adver site

I can understand residents' views, I'm sure a lot of us would be a bit sceptical if we lived nearby. But it does seem that Kevin Leakey is talking about losing the cricket pitch as if it is green open space, which is a completely different kettle of fish.

Indeed. Whilst it is a green open space it is essentially a private one. You cant walk your dog on it, or have kids playing jumpers for goalposts football on it

Oh and what is being built on the former GW sports ground?  


thats right, houses

private land though.not council owned

Below is what I posted on the Trusts forum. The definition of open space is complicated,  it can be private land, water even carparks and to quote from planning regulations PPG17 Sport and Recreation open space can be "looked at as a: visual amenity: even without public access, people enjoy having open space near to them to provide an outlook, variety in the urban scene, or as a positive element in the landscape".

 

When i talked to Kevin Burchall, he Wanted to put across all the different views about Trusts plans (ideas) for County Ground as obviously the community was very much against the football club plans last year.

I did say that the plans not set in stone but form a basis for discussion, Good that the Trust have taken on board the concerns of residents.

Main problem has been in the past that it will not be acceptable to lose any of the green spaces, i.e. the cricket field, athletics track or area between stadium and athletics track, to BUILDINGS. Something we are all aware was the basis of the clubs plans.

Obviously these are the residents concerns the Trust have taken on board, thanks Paul.

There is a lot of concern how the roads will cope with any expansion of amenities at the CG, but did point out this would be a problem for the future.

Also asked how felt about housing in the stadium?
-if within the footprint of the stadium cannot see it being too much of a problem.

Do local people actually benefit from the cricket club being there, as not open to all residents?
- Local people do play at the cricket club. Does not matter if not all residents use this area, it is still classed as open/green space in Councils open space audit 2004. (open space definition-interesting area. We have to agree to disagree on this!)

The GWR sports ground has gone, this is a huge area to be lost and is included in councils open space audit. With 3000 new homes planned for the Central ward just going to put extra pressure on areas already here so we cannot afford to lose any more space. - Not a direct attack on Trust plans, talking about if buildings were ever planned for the cricket area.

Also wanted to know if the club had had any contact with the community council.
- Bob Holt and Sandy Gray came to one of our meetings in March 2005 to outline their plans for the County Ground and how wonderful it would be for the residents. Did not go down too well as again people had no wish to see any loss of space to housing.

I guess the Adver picked up on the open space angle as we talked a fair bit about it, but this was more about the fears people have had in the past. The Trust plans take this all in to account.

I cannot speak for everybody in the community but I think the plans are going in the right direction, and if/when concrete plans are put forward then more serious discussions will have to take place.

Thanks to Paul etc for keeping us fully informed as to the position of plans and taking into consideration the views of the community. I know a lot of hard work and hours have gone into the plans.

Kevin Leakey

Ive been slated by the braod street community group for the last three years because of some of the schemes I run in the area, the thing is they cant use the cricket pitch at present so this would benefit the local commmunity not hinder it.

They love to moan

The old Nimbys strike again. :roll:

I have been on the comm. councils committee for the last 6 years, so
Just out of interest Bushey Boy what schemes of yours have we slated?

We don't all love to moan, some of us are positive and want to move the area forward.  It's not easy.

You do not like Houses in Multi Occupation.  Even when its helping people who are from the local community

We've worked closely with Kevin and co on the proposals - we found their concerns very reasonable re open/green space which is why we specifically stated no loss of green space in the proposals. Think Kevin's post makes it pretty clear that the residents are not opposed to the proposals but very much behind them - just the Adver getting wrong end of the stick.

Yeah just given it another read and you're right Paul. Another piece of fantastic journalism  :-))(

fair points Paul, take back what I said, damn adver and I should of read it slower, apologies (blimey thats a first)

so basically the adver have painted a picture of "no ground!!!!111" when really the reality is "we're willing to discuss compromise and are not against redevelopment"?

nice one.

Correct,  probably my fault for talking about the open spaces as areas we would never like to see developed I was not suggesting the Trusts plans are going down that road, which they obviously are not.

cheers. would you care to keep us informed as to your stance on the redevelopment as discussions develop? it'd be great to get both sides thoughts on the matter without the adver confusing it all.

I know this is off subject, but yes we are opposed to hmos. A quick history lesson!
  Throughout the late nineties the Broadgreen area went into decline houses were cheap and were often bought up to be turned into hmos .  Very often they were poorly maintained, the area was also being turned into a general rubbish tip and the Council also failed to do their bit.

The balance between families and single people living here changed and it became a vicious circle as the more rundown the area became the less families wanted to live here and more himos appeared etc.

In 2000 prostitution exploded across the whole area and at that point we had to fight back and we have been ever since.

 While I understand single people need places to live, the hmo population tends to be transient and not care about the area in which they live.

We do care and are trying desperately and succeeding in bringing the area up, we believe the area is at saturation point as far as hmos are concerned so unfortunately will continue to oppose new ones, sorry mate it's not personal.

So do you live in the Broadgreen area?

I totally agree with what your saying, its nothing personal but some of the comments made in the central outlook have angered me in the past.  Maybe its the jounalism however some facts were ignored with direct reports.  As this is a football forum I dont really want to go off field too much and enter into a political discussion.

In answer, I do not live in Broadgreen however do have flats, houses (families are in these) and HMO's in the area.

Yes, no problems. Keeping communications open is the best way for all involved parties,  shame the club have different ideas on that score!

You sound like you are surprised! :roll:

:P In recent years nothing surprises me with the jokers that run the club.

Steady nuddy, the club will release an official statement criticising the local residents if you continue to post such inflammatory posts!!

 :wink:

Hmm, I thought the plans specifically detailed no loss of green space anyway....

i bet the local residents dont even use the open space anyway  :-))(

they do to let there dogs shit all over it



Bet they are only moaning due to the noise increase. Might put them of there shot when playing bowls. Hopefully get it sorted out. As it seems no one wants the county ground moved or re-developed. It will benefit everyone not just the club money, jobs and something for all to use..

yeah. i thought the whole point of the plans were too keep a space for all the dogs to shit on. i don't know what they are moaning about tbh. its not as if they can walk onto the cricket or bowls pitches is it?

Bowls Rink

rink then  :D

Again off subject but does Broadgreen  area consist of Manchester Rd,Salisbury st and thatort of area?I lived in that area for 4 years about 5 years ago and moved away because the area was getting worse and from what I see of it now its certainly not getting any better id say its more run down now than it was then.

whent past there today on the way home and it looks like a bomb site  always has though. Never change looks like a penhill scagheads front garden.

yes, I have lived there as well.  I quite liked it, but I think is more to do with closeness to the pubs in Town and the ground.

The residents are not moaning, they were simply mentioning there concerns, which are catered for on the whole within the proposals (the cricket pitch does not have to be developed on for example) and the other spaces have not just been protected but targetted for improvements.

Arnt these the same people that write into the adver saying that swindon is an eyesore. It needs redeveloping from the center outwards. They say they need new buildings, better amenities, bigger leisure centers and better shops. Then when a company puts in a development plan that will help all of swindon They go up in arms and say no it will ruin our green space, too much noise, more traffic, wont see the benefits for locals etc. WHAT FUCKIN HYPOCRITES. Swindon is slowly being killed by these people in one hand they want development but in another hand they dont want it on there doorstep but someone elses then moan there is fuck all this side of swindon.

Fella's the residents ARE NOT moaning, it seems the Adver got the wrong end of the stick.

Was on about it generally. Not just the county ground (they moaned about a roof over stratton bank saying it will block there view/sunlight) Had enough of it wonder what they would say if town did up and move to nam. And sainsburys buys the covent from goddards estates  :mrgreen:

That wasn't the reason it didn't happen, although a perfectly reasonable planning objection from a local resident.

The club didn't  have the money to pay for it.

No change there then.

that was the most recent "attempt". i believe the earlier attempts were put paid to by local residents.

Hence the consultation with the Shrivvy Road residents about the Trust's CG redevelopment proposals and the suggestion of sloping the roof at the corner to minimise loss of light.

I don't think an application for the SB was ever submitted Sonic.  There were very vocal protests by one or two (I had the pleasure of dicsussing it with the main one and he was loopy) but we never got around to actually trying.

Built on by Steve Slattery and co i beleive.