Scrap plan for Branksome Rec stadium, advises officer (From Bournemouth Echo)

What a pity that the previous administration didn't listen to public opinion rather than Peter Mills and throw out the plans for the ill-fated Dolphin Quays development.

The 'saga' continues. Only three of the retail units on the First Floor have been let (as restaurants) in the last 7 years, with the majority of the Ground Floor units still to be let.

Poole Town Football club belong at Poole Stadium which is in the heart of Poole Town.
They have had football, greyhounds and speedway in the past so what's the problem?

Brian Leverett was one of the instigaters in getting the Football Club out of the stadium, now he should reverse his former action.

All Seeing Eye wrote:
Poole Town Football club belong at Poole Stadium which is in the heart of Poole Town. They have had football, greyhounds and speedway in the past so what's the problem? Brian Leverett was one of the instigaters in getting the Football Club out of the stadium, now he should reverse his former action.

I believe most fans would love to go back to what was ORIGINALLY our stadium and to a stand built by the fans for the football club.

Unfortunately the playing surface is not the required size according to FA rules, as the speedway and greyhound tracks were upgraded.

Would settle for a compromise - Build a new stadium at Branksome for the Dogs and Speedway and we will have our stadium back.

having played football for years at branksome it is one of the worst places there is to play. the changing rooms are a disgrace, dog mess everywhere, sign of drug use everywhere, i dont see the issue with poole town going there. people say alot more traffis, but you can have 6 teams turning up there at the moment bringing lots of cars with them. night games are few and far between. they wont be playing everyweek at night! and if they improve the facilities for others what is the problem?

Good, hopefully its been earmarked for compulsory purchase to form part of the A338 extension road.
Lets see the nimby's moan then !!

Mr Genge
Whilst I have sympathy with your role, and the decisions you make in your recommendations, but just like the BRAG you are sadly mis-informed, and for someone in your position that is totally un-acceptable, in your report you speak of 25% loss of open space but in fact it is only 17%, the local police support this application due to the proven fact PTFC at their current location have eradicated vandalism and un-sociable behaviour, yet you say it is liable to increase at Branksome, how do you arrive at this decision? is this how local politics work? be brave Mr Genge and don't bow to political pressure, do what is right for PBC and PTFC,

This report proves that the protestors are not NIMBYS but object to the scheme on valid planning grounds. It picks up all the reasons that we are against the scheme-and then some. Richard Genge is to be congratulated on having the courage to stand up to vested interests who wanted to bulldoze this through.

All Seeing Eye wrote:
Poole Town Football club belong at Poole Stadium which is in the heart of Poole Town. They have had football, greyhounds and speedway in the past so what's the problem? Brian Leverett was one of the instigaters in getting the Football Club out of the stadium, now he should reverse his former action.

The problem with Poole Stadium is that Poole Town Football Club, a private company, would have to pay a commercial rent if they wished to take up residence there again. As it is, Leverett has offered them the opportunity to 'steal' publicly owned open space in Branksome.
If Cllr Leverett is so keen to give away precious public open space, why does he not offer land in his own Poole Town Ward to Poole Town FC? He might like to give away public land at Sterte Esplanade which is literally only a stone's throw from PTFC's former home at Poole Stadium and from major public transport links at Poole Station.
If Cllr Leverett was crass enough to consider giving away public open space at Baiter for the Sollar Pyramid, me Sphinx he might consider giving similar open space to the football club at Sterte!

tricky1007 wrote:
having played football for years at branksome it is one of the worst places there is to play. the changing rooms are a disgrace, dog mess everywhere, sign of drug use everywhere, i dont see the issue with poole town going there. people say alot more traffis, but you can have 6 teams turning up there at the moment bringing lots of cars with them. night games are few and far between. they wont be playing everyweek at night! and if they improve the facilities for others what is the problem?

Well said Tricky. I hope you will be attending the meeting next week?
If you can, please do so.

Well said Tricky

The report categorically suggests that the plans are in complete contravention of Poole's Open Space policies.

The report finally does what the residents have been asking for all along.. take into account the issues, investigate them independently, see what effect the plans will have on the immediate local area and make a recommendation.

The report takes into account positives points (like the reduction in vandalism on the current site etc) but it also highlights valid residents concerns that the stadium will create other opportunities for vandalism.. traffic and car parking will be a problem.

Poole has set out policies surrounding open space and to go against these now would set a bad precedent.

And to all those who are trying to cite current dog mess as a reason to build the ground... There is no excuse for this and owners should be prosecuted.. your football ground won't change that.. it will just mean you get carp on your training pitches!

Oh.. and well done Mr Genge for providing a truly balanced and independent report!

Well said Tricky - but as we probably all know, the selfish few will probably win out. I have recieved my letter regarding the meeting, but will not be able to attend. I have relations living near, so I know the state of it and how it needs repair.

Well, when they are dead and gone, I hope they go feeling smug that they have spoiled the chance of a decent facility for generations of others in the future. At least their boggy, turd strewn vandalised piece of heaven will be there for them.

Common sense has prevailed at last. Thank you Mr Genge for sticking to planning issues and for sorting out all the contradictions of this proposal! It did seem that no one was listening . At last someone who doesn't make a farce of the 2004 council report which stated that Branksome rec is in an area which has well under the recommended 3.2 hectares of open space per thousandand of population and so is the most densely populated . For if this is true how can Branksome possibly be the most suitable place to wall off very precious public open space! The 2004 report and the planning appication's ariel shots of Branksome rec ,surrounded by thousands of homes, compared to those of Turlin moor and Canford magna should have been enough to stop this proposal in its tracks right from the start! Even at one point it seemed to be forgotten that the reason that the ptfc wanted to move to the rec was to go up the league. For it seemed that the present spectator figures were the the only ones being taken into acount. It is the future growth of a rising club and it subsequently gradually taking over more and more open space that is the real concern when considering the % of open space to be lost. Anyway there should be NO loss of open space in such a developed area.
It is good to note too that mr Genge does not consider the refurbishong of the pavillionto be of community benefit. The mere fact that on the plans they have renamed it the "clubhouse" should be a marker for its future use. A community room should be shared. The clubhouse will be dominated by the ptfc.They will have first pic of the dates and times it is used and if the community are lucky they may get a slot! if it were really for the community a local should be able to book the veneue for a year's time on a saturday afternoon, but ofcourse they wont, as ptfc will have first pick of this time. Therefore this will not be a communtiy benefit however it is dressed up to look like it is.

I believe the ptfc will not be able to share the rec very well. How will they share the car park on match days. will they have sole use of it or will they share it with other rec users?where will the other football teams go who already practice on a saturday? so many unanswered practicalities which really have no solution if ptfc insist on making their home on branksome rec.
I have never been anti football-just anti -walling off ofpublic open space!we all the share the rec with the teams who play there,and at the end of the day the space is there for everyone to use. It would be lovely if the community could do up the pavillion for all sporting fraternities to share and benefit from. New sparkling showers would be great, Mrs Lavender, but for everyone to use and not at the cost of very, very precious open space.
Thank you again mr Genge for your frank report and I hope that the committee will consider all your planning recommendations very carefully.

Pzazz you still churn up the same tripe despite being given answers:

You have been told that spectator figures are likely to fall by going up a league and the reasons why.

You have been told that there is no intention or need to take more than the 17% proposed.

You were told that the public toilets, changing rooms and showers would be open to all....even during a game.

You were told that the Clubhouse and Mugas would be open to EXCLUSIVE community use during weekdays.

You were told that the residents of Tatnam considered us good neighbours, on what grounds can you CLAIM that we will not be?

You were told that we do not plan to practice on the Rec and existing users will not be affected by our plans.

I presume you will now be digging deep to renovate the current facilities yourself, or is it a case of "Not I said the Rat"?

Well said Tricky and Dorsetyellow. It is time such people like pzazz are put in their place over this issue, and stop acting as if Branksome Rec is some sort of holy land. Where they get their figures from is beyond me. I live in an area of which there is a project to erect a Velodrom Cycle Track. This will take up the last piece of open space to the public, so where does this figure of 3.2 hectares come into it. The lies about PTFC taking up 25% of the Rec is a phalacy, when everyone knows the true figure is 17%, ie, no more than the ground area including the present stand in the corner of the Rec.
.
The annoying part about all this, is that these negative Nimbys give the impression that they support their town, yet wish to see a long standing bastion of Poole, the PTFC to be without a ground, rightly situated in the conurbation of Poole. These people have no care for their town at all, but just for themselves.
.
The Rec is an abomination at present with its hidden crimes of drink, drugs and vandolism. Putting part of the Rec to good use, with the plans that PTFC have offered can only improve the Rec.
.
Lets have the support of the people of Poole in the 2nd December, and show that you care for PTFC and the Branksome Rec.

Well done Mr Genge. A factual well considered report which I hope will be adopted by the Planning Committee.

Three points :-
1. Most of the nimby's commenting on here don't even use the 'important' public open space, except maybe as a dog toilet.
2. They just don't wan't any development on their doorstep because they are too old and decrepid to see the benefits.
3. If the report seems to back up every objection point they have previously raised, then I can only asume, and this is my opinion only, that Mr Genge received the obligitory brown envelope stuffed with twenties

Another daft letter from ChrisWWW with it's name-calling.
And where's this abominable Rec?
I've lived there for many years, and I don't recognise it.

Does he really think residents have gone to all the trouble of having meetings, leafletting, organising fund-raising etc, when they don't care about the area where they live?

When you own property in an area, you obviously care what happens around it, and it's not just the existing plan that worries locals, but the future plans too.
We certainly don't believe we can trust councillors to act in our best interests.

ChrisWWW- own up-you only care about PTFC !

Cantona4cherries- do you really think it's that simple? You need to grow up a bit!

Good news. I have a lot of problems with this planned development that would benefit who exactly?

I cannot understand how the building of a small football stadium will stop the area being used for drugs and crime as many of the "pro stadium" posters have suggested. Where is the evidence to support that? Where is the evidence to say that this area is any worse than any other?

In addition, this is the only bit of green space in this very urban area it is a benefit to local residents. Anyone who has tried Alder Road at busy times will understand how congested the surrounding roads can be.

What is wrong with Poole Town FC having a stadium in Poole Town or doing a Wimbledon and moving to another town altogether? What about a ground share with Bournemouth FC or Wimborne Town FC?

BottomE wrote:
Good news. I have a lot of problems with this planned development that would benefit who exactly? I cannot understand how the building of a small football stadium will stop the area being used for drugs and crime as many of the "pro stadium" posters have suggested. Where is the evidence to support that? Where is the evidence to say that this area is any worse than any other? In addition, this is the only bit of green space in this very urban area it is a benefit to local residents. Anyone who has tried Alder Road at busy times will understand how congested the surrounding roads can be. What is wrong with Poole Town FC having a stadium in Poole Town or doing a Wimbledon and moving to another town altogether? What about a ground share with Bournemouth FC or Wimborne Town FC?

Last time I checked Branksome was in Poole, or are you a Republic now?
Perhaps it is you who should move to another town, stupid comment!
Wessex Prem rules state that ground shares within the same league are not possible. Bournemouth FC ground is also not suitable for step 4 (promotion).

Branksome Rec is crying out for updating. Dog pooh litters the place and thats because the dog walkers either pretend to pick it up or if its after dark just dont bother at all.
Ignore all the moaning minnies , build the stadium , and it will all die down as they realise it didnt turn out that bad in the end.Lighten up people it wont affect your property prices one jot.

charley farley west parley wrote:
Branksome Rec is crying out for updating. Dog pooh litters the place and thats because the dog walkers either pretend to pick it up or if its after dark just dont bother at all.
Ignore all the moaning minnies , build the stadium , and it will all die down as they realise it didnt turn out that bad in the end.Lighten up people it wont affect your property prices one jot.

charley,most of the moaners do NOT use the rec,they have been told and tell themselves so many outright lies,that their property values will go down etc,etc,i have probably used the rec more times than most,if not all of them.p
zazz has only lived here 20 years,and does not live oppisite the rec,like he /she first alleged,so who can believe anything they say, something stinks here,the objections seem to have an ulterior motive ?.perhaps connected with genge.

My house backs on the Tatnam, iam not a Football fan by any stretch of the imagination - here are my comments:
On the busiest nights, when attendances are high, the noise level is far from intrusive - with the telly on usually i barely notice the match is in progress
Light pollution - two of the giant spot lights point directly into my hall way - however the effect this has on the light level in the hall is effectively zero - infact the pollution is far greater in the front of the house from street lights. These spot lights are of such a standard the light produced is extremely focused, and does not stray.
Suggestions of 'hooliganism' make me chuckle as most the crowd seem to be either old crusties or younger families - I can say i have never seen or heard anything to the contrary.
Do i enjoy seeing people being active and enjoying themselves - absolutely. Do i see people out every morning after a match cleaning up and tidying up keeping the area in the best of shape - indeed. Do i see a whole variety of people, from young children, teenagers girls and boys and families - yup!

Will i be pleased to see the back of PTFC should they move away - No Way - Im not a football fan, but can i see the benefits of having the club in 'my back yard' **** right.

Please dont bring your preconceptions of football to the table - this is part of our community, lets embrace it.

I wish PTFC all the best, but im going to miss you when your gone!

dorsetyellow wrote:
Pzazz you still churn up the same tripe despite being given answers: You have been told that spectator figures are likely to fall by going up a league and the reasons why. You have been told that there is no intention or need to take more than the 17% proposed. You were told that the public toilets, changing rooms and showers would be open to all....even during a game. You were told that the Clubhouse and Mugas would be open to EXCLUSIVE community use during weekdays. You were told that the residents of Tatnam considered us good neighbours, on what grounds can you CLAIM that we will not be? You were told that we do not plan to practice on the Rec and existing users will not be affected by our plans. I presume you will now be digging deep to renovate the current facilities yourself, or is it a case of "Not I said the Rat"?

The plans are riddled with non-fact..

- Spectator figures are *likely* to fall.. how can you quantify that?
- No intention to take more than 17%.. 17% represents one pitch across the rec, i think we all know that wall / stand / car park and surrounding unusable area etc takes up more than 17%. What are the conditions regarding football ground for the next two leagues up the ladder?? Will this turn into more than 17%.. likely.
- Public toilets, changing rooms and showers open to all during a game.. really? Thiefs and vandals included?
- The council could provide Mugas and a community centre anyway.
- Of course you will practice there.. what is the point in providing the upkeep of the facilities if you are not going to use them?

The strongest FACT to come out of this whole process is that the plans contravene Poole's open space policy and should never have been allowed to get this far. You could have had a half-built ground at Canford arena by now!!!

Mr Man, what a great post, but sadly may be too little and too late.

The NIMBYs may have their victory and we may be neighbours for a bit longer yet.

Perhaps you should join us some time, you obviously know how much we enjoy it.

Also maybe if you are visiting this thread again.please answer one more question:

When you first heard that PTFC might move to Tatnam, were you against the idea? Did you have those same misguided concerns?

ruprecht wrote:

dorsetyellow wrote: Pzazz you still churn up the same tripe despite being given answers: You have been told that spectator figures are likely to fall by going up a league and the reasons why. You have been told that there is no intention or need to take more than the 17% proposed. You were told that the public toilets, changing rooms and showers would be open to all....even during a game. You were told that the Clubhouse and Mugas would be open to EXCLUSIVE community use during weekdays. You were told that the residents of Tatnam considered us good neighbours, on what grounds can you CLAIM that we will not be? You were told that we do not plan to practice on the Rec and existing users will not be affected by our plans. I presume you will now be digging deep to renovate the current facilities yourself, or is it a case of "Not I said the Rat"?

The plans are riddled with non-fact.. - Spectator figures are *likely* to fall.. how can you quantify that? - No intention to take more than 17%.. 17% represents one pitch across the rec, i think we all know that wall / stand / car park and surrounding unusable area etc takes up more than 17%. What are the conditions regarding football ground for the next two leagues up the ladder?? Will this turn into more than 17%.. likely. - Public toilets, changing rooms and showers open to all during a game.. really? Thiefs and vandals included? - The council could provide Mugas and a community centre anyway. - Of course you will practice there.. what is the point in providing the upkeep of the facilities if you are not going to use them? The strongest FACT to come out of this whole process is that the plans contravene Poole's open space policy and should never have been allowed to get this far. You could have had a half-built ground at Canford arena by now!!!

Crowds are likely to fall because we will not have local teams anymore. No Wimborne, no Hamworthy, no Bournemouth and no Christchurch. FACT.

Car Park does not change from current outline. 17% is the walled area and stand is inside. Why would the outside area be unusable? 17% is all that is needed. FACT.

As you go up a level the provision is more covered standing and seating area regardless of crowds. This can be accommodated within the wall. FACT.

Public facilities would have a separate entrance and would be open to the PUBLIC even during a game. FACT.

The council is not providing a community centre or MUGAs (which would require loss of open space anyway - contradiction) there, nor are you, PTFC were. FACT.

We have a facilty to practice on thanks. FACT.

I look forward to seeing the improved facilities that you will provide for YOUR thiefs and vandals.

dorsetyellow wrote:
Mr Man, what a great post, but sadly may be too little and too late.

The NIMBYs may have their victory and we may be neighbours for a bit longer yet.

Perhaps you should join us some time, you obviously know how much we enjoy it.

Also maybe if you are visiting this thread again.please answer one more question:

When you first heard that PTFC might move to Tatnam, were you against the idea? Did you have those same misguided concerns?

The Tatnum ground has not been put on public open space. it is on a school playing field! Aso, when you use it for matches you have exclusive usage of their car park don't you? Therefore it is expected you will want exclusive usageof the branksome car park, when other rec users may want to use it at the same time? Why dont you wall off Tatnum? If you are not expecting to grow in spectator numbers you could stay there!

dorsetyellow wrote:
Mr Man, what a great post, but sadly may be too little and too late.

The NIMBYs may have their victory and we may be neighbours for a bit longer yet.

Perhaps you should join us some time, you obviously know how much we enjoy it.

Also maybe if you are visiting this thread again.please answer one more question:

When you first heard that PTFC might move to Tatnam, were you against the idea? Did you have those same misguided concerns?

Maybe i will pop over the wall one day - if the rain ever stops! In response to your question, we moved into the house after you moved to Tatnam. We were concerned about many of the issue i see being rasied here. However before buying the house we came to Tatnam to watch a crowded local hamworthy fixture. Something i fear many of the objectors wont have done. Having seen and heard for our selves the reality of a local match - we were more than happy to move in.

pzazz wrote:

dorsetyellow wrote: Mr Man, what a great post, but sadly may be too little and too late. The NIMBYs may have their victory and we may be neighbours for a bit longer yet. Perhaps you should join us some time, you obviously know how much we enjoy it. Also maybe if you are visiting this thread again.please answer one more question: When you first heard that PTFC might move to Tatnam, were you against the idea? Did you have those same misguided concerns?

The Tatnum ground has not been put on public open space. it is on a school playing field! Aso, when you use it for matches you have exclusive usage of their car park don't you? Therefore it is expected you will want exclusive usageof the branksome car park, when other rec users may want to use it at the same time? Why dont you wall off Tatnum? If you are not expecting to grow in spectator numbers you could stay there!

pzazz - You don't listen, or dont want to!
No the car park is not exclusive use. How do you think that would be managed? Anyone can use it. More lies.

The point I have made to you already (and you chose not to listen last time) - the move is not about bigger crowds, it is about promotion.

Walling off Tatnam is not an option because FA rules require the wall to be within 15m (I think) of the touchline, which would put it through the middle of the school cricket pitch.

I also stated to you previously, if we could gain promotion at Tatnam, we would stay. We actually like it there...........but have ambition.

Are you listening?

mr_man wrote:

dorsetyellow wrote: Mr Man, what a great post, but sadly may be too little and too late. The NIMBYs may have their victory and we may be neighbours for a bit longer yet. Perhaps you should join us some time, you obviously know how much we enjoy it. Also maybe if you are visiting this thread again.please answer one more question: When you first heard that PTFC might move to Tatnam, were you against the idea? Did you have those same misguided concerns?

Maybe i will pop over the wall one day - if the rain ever stops! In response to your question, we moved into the house after you moved to Tatnam. We were concerned about many of the issue i see being rasied here. However before buying the house we came to Tatnam to watch a crowded local hamworthy fixture. Something i fear many of the objectors wont have done. Having seen and heard for our selves the reality of a local match - we were more than happy to move in.

Thanks for your honest response. We had those against the move posting on our forum. When they were invited to attend a game FREE OF CHARGE and as a guest of PTFC, to see for themselves, they never posted again.

Without wishing to reveal your identity, are you the Pavilion end of the ground?

So the not in my back yard Daily Mail readers have appeared again. Beware of the football fan, he will pillage your garden, run off with your daughter, and worst of all, park in front of your gates.
Branksome Rec is a windswept barren space.Like Kings Park, it is underused and held back due to a few residents concerned about house prices, and spoiling the view. What view?? A couple of trees and some football pitches.
Some of us around here on Canford Heath have a view of Tower Park. It's horrible. But it serves a purpose for a lot of the community. Therefore, we put up with it. We are under the flight path to Hurn, it's a pain, but it serves the community.
Sometimes in life we have to put up with things that benefit a majority. Or we have to s o d off and live in the country for real peace and quiet. That's life in a town.
So i suggest all those who live by the Rec stop using Tower park as I object to the view, and stop flying from Hurn as I object to the planes. It's easy this selfish objecting isn't it??

dorsetyellow wrote:

ruprecht wrote:

dorsetyellow wrote: Pzazz you still churn up the same tripe despite being given answers: You have been told that spectator figures are likely to fall by going up a league and the reasons why. You have been told that there is no intention or need to take more than the 17% proposed. You were told that the public toilets, changing rooms and showers would be open to all....even during a game. You were told that the Clubhouse and Mugas would be open to EXCLUSIVE community use during weekdays. You were told that the residents of Tatnam considered us good neighbours, on what grounds can you CLAIM that we will not be? You were told that we do not plan to practice on the Rec and existing users will not be affected by our plans. I presume you will now be digging deep to renovate the current facilities yourself, or is it a case of "Not I said the Rat"?

The plans are riddled with non-fact.. - Spectator figures are *likely* to fall.. how can you quantify that? - No intention to take more than 17%.. 17% represents one pitch across the rec, i think we all know that wall / stand / car park and surrounding unusable area etc takes up more than 17%. What are the conditions regarding football ground for the next two leagues up the ladder?? Will this turn into more than 17%.. likely. - Public toilets, changing rooms and showers open to all during a game.. really? Thiefs and vandals included? - The council could provide Mugas and a community centre anyway. - Of course you will practice there.. what is the point in providing the upkeep of the facilities if you are not going to use them? The strongest FACT to come out of this whole process is that the plans contravene Poole's open space policy and should never have been allowed to get this far. You could have had a half-built ground at Canford arena by now!!!

Crowds are likely to fall because we will not have local teams anymore. No Wimborne, no Hamworthy, no Bournemouth and no Christchurch. FACT. Car Park does not change from current outline. 17% is the walled area and stand is inside. Why would the outside area be unusable? 17% is all that is needed. FACT. As you go up a level the provision is more covered standing and seating area regardless of crowds. This can be accommodated within the wall. FACT. Public facilities would have a separate entrance and would be open to the PUBLIC even during a game. FACT. The council is not providing a community centre or MUGAs (which would require loss of open space anyway - contradiction) there, nor are you, PTFC were. FACT. We have a facilty to practice on thanks. FACT. I look forward to seeing the improved facilities that you will provide for YOUR thiefs and vandals.

"your thiefs and vandals".. that's a brainless comment.. they have absolutely nothing to do with me!

- I'm sorry but I just can't see that in the long-term, the crowds will decrease if the club go up the leagues.. it just doesn't make sense.

- The car park HAS to change.. current plans provide no room for coach parking.

- More standing / seating = more cars = more car parking and traffic = more loss of space. Would a further stand be needed at some stage?

A community centre could be part of a renovated pavilion on the current site. Muga's (for the public if necessary) could be tacked onto the Youth Centre although I am sure that these would be better sited at a leisure centre or school.

So are you telling me that players won't want to go and train at the nice new facilities and enjoy a beer in their own bar??

I agree that renovation of changing rooms and pavilion is necessary for the current users of the Rec... along with CCTV and better policing of inconsiderate dog owners. This does not need to be at the expense of valuable open space.

"The Pavilion end"
Yup i guess you could call it that!

Why can't councilor Leverett and his councilor associates enforce the terms of the lease on the current lease holders of Poole Stadium. As I understand it the grandstand should have been renovated? as a condition of the lease? this has NOT happened why? If this had happened surly it could be have been moved back to accommodate the football pitch when doing the renovating. I find it totally unbelievable that a brand new speedway team (Bournemouth for gods sake!) are allowed to start up and move into the stadium with out any problems, but when a long time established team like (PTFC) require help they are left totally isolated. I suggest as Canford Arena land is partly owned by both Poole and Bournemouth councils both speedway teams be housed there and the football team can share with the dogs. And I bet the footie team would sort out the grandstand after all they built it to start with.

jingo wrote:
Another daft letter from ChrisWWW with it's name-calling.
And where's this abominable Rec?
I've lived there for many years, and I don't recognise it.

Does he really think residents have gone to all the trouble of having meetings, leafletting, organising fund-raising etc, when they don't care about the area where they live?

When you own property in an area, you obviously care what happens around it, and it's not just the existing plan that worries locals, but the future plans too.
We certainly don't believe we can trust councillors to act in our best interests.

ChrisWWW- own up-you only care about PTFC !

Cantona4cherries- do you really think it's that simple? You need to grow up a bit!

Jingo, what a load of poppicock. Firstly I do not only care for the PTFC, but I do care also for a better place for all to use. A place that is clean, and user friendly.
.
If as you say you have campaigned, sent out leaflets, why then is the Rec as it is now, an abominable (very bad, very poor or inferior) which is what the Rec is at the moment. What PTFC are offering, is not only the new ground for them, taking up a small area of the Rec, but also offering maintenance help with the Rec.
.
The big problem with you Nimbys is this. You are not happy if it does not suit your needs, but are the first to cry out, when nothing is being done about something. Here you are with the opportunity of having something decent on the Rec, but fail to see that. You turn it down, and then scream to the Council that they are not doing nothing about it.
.
The BRAG Group are exactly the same family as the FOKP Group. Only want what is good for themselves. Is it not gluttony that you will not give up 17% of what is at present a 100% tip.

Ruprecht - Thiefs and vandals - Your expression not mine, just turned it around on you.........brainles
s!

Just got in from work. lots of inteligent posters on here lately all probarlly retired masters well worth reading.

Does that now mean the council has found some funds to improve the facilities itself ?

I heard they stopped the planned renovation of whitecliff pavilion when the money dried up...

Poole Town FC should be allowed to spend the monies needed to improve the facilities - it is badly needed...

wrote:

jingo wrote:
Another daft letter from ChrisWWW with it's name-calling.
And where's this abominable Rec?
I've lived there for many years, and I don't recognise it.

Does he really think residents have gone to all the trouble of having meetings, leafletting, organising fund-raising etc, when they don't care about the area where they live?

When you own property in an area, you obviously care what happens around it, and it's not just the existing plan that worries locals, but the future plans too.
We certainly don't believe we can trust councillors to act in our best interests.

ChrisWWW- own up-you only care about PTFC !

Cantona4cherries- do you really think it's that simple? You need to grow up a bit!

Jingo, what a load of poppicock. Firstly I do not only care for the PTFC, but I do care also for a better place for all to use. A place that is clean, and user friendly.
.
If as you say you have campaigned, sent out leaflets, why then is the Rec as it is now, an abominable (very bad, very poor or inferior) which is what the Rec is at the moment. What PTFC are offering, is not only the new ground for them, taking up a small area of the Rec, but also offering maintenance help with the Rec.
.
The big problem with you Nimbys is this. You are not happy if it does not suit your needs, but are the first to cry out, when nothing is being done about something. Here you are with the opportunity of having something decent on the Rec, but fail to see that. You turn it down, and then scream to the Council that they are not doing nothing about it.
.
The BRAG Group are exactly the same family as the FOKP Group. Only want what is good for themselves. Is it not gluttony that you will not give up 17% of what is at present a 100% tip.

The rec is not a dog faeces infested dump. 99.99% of dog owners pick up their dog mess, so I am very sorry if you come across one now and again. By tarring all dog owners with the same brush you might as well tar all groups of people in the same way. I dont believe ptfc football supporters are hooligans and alcoholics. i think its great to watch the footballers enjoy themselves on the rec at weekends, but this doesnt mean the rec is the right palce to wall off public open space. You keep on about this 17%, Chris www. This does not include the pavillion which will be lost as a shared community building when it becomes a clubhouse.this 17% does not include the car park and the green crete areas which will be used for extra cars. The walled off area is much larger than a pitch size as there has to be space between the pitch and the wall . (They couldnt wall off Tatnum as the wall would take up more space than the original pitch)Also there is to be some sort of barrier around the outside of the wall I think. All this will cut the sweep of open space(damaging tees in the process) , and not leave very much in that corner, which used to be a safe area where one could feel not only safe from the traffic, but also from being attacked.With walls come unsafe areas , where assaults could take place.( Before you dismiss this as scaremongering would like to say that I have experienced such an assault, but i dont think I should have to go into that here just to justify my reasons to you, ChrisWW)
Open space is not just about being in the space physically doing something. Many disabled people sit on the bench at the back of that corner realxing looking out across an area of space, which is relaxing in itself. The reason people like the sea, is to look out as far as the eye can see. It is this feeling of being able to take stock of life away from the claustrophobic areas which have been overdeveloped. This corner of the rec is a sanctury, and this is what Lady wimborne hoped to preserve for all to benefit from all those years ago.
At present it has multi purposes-it can be used for sport , flying kites, allowing small children to run free away from the traffic, a haven for nervous dogs, and for those who just want to sit safely and contemplate life, without feeling enclosed by walls and buildings.
.I wish the ptfc well and hope that they find a suitable home to grow in which has the room to expand and the road infrastructure to cope with visiting supporters. I really am not anti-football, whatever you may think.

I really am not anti-football, whatever you may think.....
I for one dont think you are anti anything you are a wonderful to have around i love reading your posts.

Valuable open space? Bit of a joke really - theres never anyone on it!!

oh with that 17% taken, i'm not sure whether everyone will fit in...(making room for the turds, of course..)

pzazz wrote:

wrote:

jingo wrote: Another daft letter from ChrisWWW with it's name-calling. And where's this abominable Rec? I've lived there for many years, and I don't recognise it. Does he really think residents have gone to all the trouble of having meetings, leafletting, organising fund-raising etc, when they don't care about the area where they live? When you own property in an area, you obviously care what happens around it, and it's not just the existing plan that worries locals, but the future plans too. We certainly don't believe we can trust councillors to act in our best interests. ChrisWWW- own up-you only care about PTFC ! Cantona4cherries- do you really think it's that simple? You need to grow up a bit!

Jingo, what a load of poppicock. Firstly I do not only care for the PTFC, but I do care also for a better place for all to use. A place that is clean, and user friendly. . If as you say you have campaigned, sent out leaflets, why then is the Rec as it is now, an abominable (very bad, very poor or inferior) which is what the Rec is at the moment. What PTFC are offering, is not only the new ground for them, taking up a small area of the Rec, but also offering maintenance help with the Rec. . The big problem with you Nimbys is this. You are not happy if it does not suit your needs, but are the first to cry out, when nothing is being done about something. Here you are with the opportunity of having something decent on the Rec, but fail to see that. You turn it down, and then scream to the Council that they are not doing nothing about it. . The BRAG Group are exactly the same family as the FOKP Group. Only want what is good for themselves. Is it not gluttony that you will not give up 17% of what is at present a 100% tip.

The rec is not a dog faeces infested dump. 99.99% of dog owners pick up their dog mess, so I am very sorry if you come across one now and again. By tarring all dog owners with the same brush you might as well tar all groups of people in the same way. I dont believe ptfc football supporters are hooligans and alcoholics. i think its great to watch the footballers enjoy themselves on the rec at weekends, but this doesnt mean the rec is the right palce to wall off public open space. You keep on about this 17%, Chris www. This does not include the pavillion which will be lost as a shared community building when it becomes a clubhouse.this 17% does not include the car park and the green crete areas which will be used for extra cars. The walled off area is much larger than a pitch size as there has to be space between the pitch and the wall . (They couldnt wall off Tatnum as the wall would take up more space than the original pitch)Also there is to be some sort of barrier around the outside of the wall I think. All this will cut the sweep of open space(damaging tees in the process) , and not leave very much in that corner, which used to be a safe area where one could feel not only safe from the traffic, but also from being attacked.With walls come unsafe areas , where assaults could take place.( Before you dismiss this as scaremongering would like to say that I have experienced such an assault, but i dont think I should have to go into that here just to justify my reasons to you, ChrisWW) Open space is not just about being in the space physically doing something. Many disabled people sit on the bench at the back of that corner realxing looking out across an area of space, which is relaxing in itself. The reason people like the sea, is to look out as far as the eye can see. It is this feeling of being able to take stock of life away from the claustrophobic areas which have been overdeveloped. This corner of the rec is a sanctury, and this is what Lady wimborne hoped to preserve for all to benefit from all those years ago. At present it has multi purposes-it can be used for sport , flying kites, allowing small children to run free away from the traffic, a haven for nervous dogs, and for those who just want to sit safely and contemplate life, without feeling enclosed by walls and buildings. .I wish the ptfc well and hope that they find a suitable home to grow in which has the room to expand and the road infrastructure to cope with visiting supporters. I really am not anti-football, whatever you may think.

pzazz, your comment about 99.99% of dog owners picking up their dog`s mess on the Rec is a lie!! I have run youth football teams for 15 years and have had the misfortune of having to use Branksome Rec many many times. Almost without fail, every time one of my youth teams were playing at the Rec, I would personally have to shovel dog mess off of the pitch to protect the boys health and sanitation. So, if 99.99% of dog owners clear up their dog`s mess, you either have about 70,000 dog walkers in Branksome or one dog with a serious bowel problem!!

Also are you the same pzazz who posts occasionally on the AFC Bournemouth fans site? If so you are the worst kind of NIMBY, one who champions your own cause but had no respect for the FOKP cause. You can`t have it both ways my friend

ianm4 wrote:
Also are you the same pzazz who posts occasionally on the AFC Bournemouth fans site? If so you are the worst kind of NIMBY, one who champions your own cause but had no respect for the FOKP cause. You can`t have it both ways my friend

No, I have never posted on the AFC fans site. I walk my dog on the rec and pick up his mess and observe others doing so too. i am sorry you have found it otherwise. I havnt had the misfortune to stand in any mess. I apologise on behalf of the irresponsible owners who have not bothered.

Pzazz - Unusual handle. Is it possible there is another blighting another football club, just by coincidence?
Who will apologise for the irresponsible locals who allowed the Rec and Pavilion to get into their current state, without caring enough to raise an action group? Did BRAG exist before PTFC announced their plans? Will you and others undertake to improve the facilities after you have had your victory? Will you still go ahead and raise and plough your £27,000 you planned to muster for your appeal into improving the Rec. Do you think all those that signed the original petition will be willing to part with £10 each after your victory on Wednesday?

I am guessing it was probably your kind who complained about the Christmas Tree in Poole thinking it would be for the better and look at what we have now.

Is it Playfields or Recreation you live in?

dorsetyellow wrote:
Pzazz - Unusual handle. Is it possible there is another blighting another football club, just by coincidence?
Who will apologise for the irresponsible locals who allowed the Rec and Pavilion to get into their current state, without caring enough to raise an action group? Did BRAG exist before PTFC announced their plans? Will you and others undertake to improve the facilities after you have had your victory? Will you still go ahead and raise and plough your £27,000 you planned to muster for your appeal into improving the Rec. Do you think all those that signed the original petition will be willing to part with £10 each after your victory on Wednesday?

I am guessing it was probably your kind who complained about the Christmas Tree in Poole thinking it would be for the better and look at what we have now.

Is it Playfields or Recreation you live in?

As I said before I havce never posted on the bournemouth afc site.There is a zzzz-without the "p" who makes comments on this site- maybe you have mistaken that for me.
As I said before, this is not all about anti ptfc, it is about preserving what little space we have left, and hopefully finding ptfc a more suitable site.

Pzazz - I accept that you have not posted on that site, but you appear to have visited it to know of the other poster. I also accept your statement that you are not anti PTFC, but what about answering just a couple of my questions?:

- Did BRAG exist before PTFC plans were public?

- Will BRAG and the anti-residents still raise £27K and invest it in improving the facilities when you win on Wednesday?

dorsetyellow wrote:
Pzazz - I accept that you have not posted on that site, but you appear to have visited it to know of the other poster. I also accept your statement that you are not anti PTFC, but what about answering just a couple of my questions?:

- Did BRAG exist before PTFC plans were public?

- Will BRAG and the anti-residents still raise £27K and invest it in improving the facilities when you win on Wednesday?

Hi doset yellow, I only know of the other poster due to Iam4 asking me on this site about afc (see above at my last post-iam4's quote.) I have never looked at afc myself. I hope that clears that up.
i really hope that the pavillion can be done up/. I saw the footballers playing in the cold and rain today, ,and hope that the council will also help with funds to make sure they have some warm shower rooms to retreat to after they have been playing in that weather. A few years ago a local lib dem councillor actually went to the council with a plan to do something about the pavillion but his ideas were turned down , unfortunately , and now we are left with this situation. i also really hope you can find a suitable home for ptfc.

Pzazz why dont you answer dorset yellows questions ?.

So, according to certain PTFC fans, the people living near Branksome Rec are scum who leave dog mess and needles everywhere? One has to wonder why these fans are so insistent on their team having its home in such a 'terrible' area.

I would appear that BRAG consider all PTFC fans as drunken mindless inconsiderate hooligans.

PS - Pzazz, those 2 questions are still unanswered.

David Vaughan a former chairman of Friends of Branksome Rec has a letter in tonights mon 30th ECHO where he wonders where the 2.700 petitioners live,DONT WE ALL,just like the kellies kitchen petition in xchurch,a complete farce.He also has never seen so many using the rec,will pzazz call him a liar.

62131115661144495 wrote:
So, according to certain PTFC fans, the people living near Branksome Rec are scum who leave dog mess and needles everywhere? One has to wonder why these fans are so insistent on their team having its home in such a 'terrible' area.

Another lie nobody has made any such allegation,WHY do you objectors CONSTANTLY LIE.

PTFC supporters - you keep using the same arguments over and over and accuse objectors as being liars etc. Where is the community benefit of PTFC at Branksome? - it only really benefits the PTFC football teams 'cos no other local teams can use the ground! The MUGAs - the young people around here want good quality free facilities - they can't always afford to pay - the one at the leisure centre at Rossmore College less than a mile away is underused - so why add more? The Pavillion belongs to the Council and as the council rent the pitches etc many thought they would keep the facilities in good repair. My children went to a preschool upstairs in the pavillion and the space is too small to create this wonderful community shared space mentioned in the plans - certainly not big enough to have a sliding partition of any kind! and let me assure you that the pavillion was awful then in the 80's! the construction is solid and all PTFC are doing is a facelift but it will give them control of the facilities. The PTFC will reduce the community facility pitches from 5 to 3 - not much benefit there!
Fact - all Poole's green space is predominantly grassed areas with some shrubs/trees - so is Branksome, other green spaces have fixed play parks - so has Branksome, ALL of these areas have dog walkers - so has Branksome, some of these green spaces have sports there - Branksome has open pitches for 5 community football teams and 1 cricket team (used to be 2), some parks have public toilets - so has Branksome (quite a lot of public toilets are in need of upgrading like Branksome's), go to most of our green spaces during the week and they aren't always teeming with people - people use them when they aren't at work etc. The area surrounding the Rec has the least amount of open space for residents in the whole of the borough (evidence courtesy of Leisure Services) and we dont want to lose the little bit we've got - it looks a lot because its all in one place - but its valuable because its loved and many people appreciate the green open space for its intrinsic value not just its market value to others!

You ask - where is the community benefit?
Are the council likely to refurbish the pavilion, build Multi-Used-Games-Are
as and improve the drainage of the entire Rec over a five year period? No and nor are the local residents nor BRAG nor the FoBRG.....but PTFC will.
...
Your children went to a pre-school in the Pavilion, but they could not in todays state, HOWEVER they could after the revamp by PTFC. The facility will be available during the week for COMMUNITY use such as they were.
...
There is only one cricket team using the Rec today, because of the state of the facilities and that one has said they will leave if this plan does not go forward.
...
Final point - I went past the Rec 4 times on Sunday and not one match was being played. Why? It was waterlogged. Tatnam was in a similar condition when we moved in. It is now the pride of the Wessex Prem. The plans I have seen still show 4 pitches not the 3 you state (scare tactic?). With 4 pitches more avialable than the frequently flooded current 5, they will overall be no less available. As it is, they are currently under utilised on Saturdays, according to the current bookings. No local club will be displaced. In fact, they will have an improved and more avilable playing surface and improved, modern, clean and well maintained changing facilities.
...
Still no community benefit?

dorsetyellow wrote:
You ask - where is the community benefit?
Are the council likely to refurbish the pavilion, build Multi-Used-Games-Are

as and improve the drainage of the entire Rec over a five year period? No and nor are the local residents nor BRAG nor the FoBRG.....but PTFC will.
...
Your children went to a pre-school in the Pavilion, but they could not in todays state, HOWEVER they could after the revamp by PTFC. The facility will be available during the week for COMMUNITY use such as they were.
...
There is only one cricket team using the Rec today, because of the state of the facilities and that one has said they will leave if this plan does not go forward.
...
Final point - I went past the Rec 4 times on Sunday and not one match was being played. Why? It was waterlogged. Tatnam was in a similar condition when we moved in. It is now the pride of the Wessex Prem. The plans I have seen still show 4 pitches not the 3 you state (scare tactic?). With 4 pitches more avialable than the frequently flooded current 5, they will overall be no less available. As it is, they are currently under utilised on Saturdays, according to the current bookings. No local club will be displaced. In fact, they will have an improved and more avilable playing surface and improved, modern, clean and well maintained changing facilities.
...
Still no community benefit?

The weather on sunday was extreme,was it noT. There was torrential rain all day long. I dont think anyone was playing anywhere on that day do you?The rec was however played on the day before.-.1.e saturday. it was fully utilised both morning and afternoon. which wasnt bad considering it has been the wettest November on record.

yes the pavillion needs refurbishing by its council, but it doesnt need to be renamed the "clubhouse" and so be taken over by a football team, who will dominate it. You know you will have first pick of the dates and times to use it. so therefore it cannot be called a "community "room. if it were acommunity room everyone woukld have a fair chance of using it when they wish, and not when the ptfc say they can use it. As for some money towards its refurbishment.Ithink the council plan on spending a hefty amount on ashley cross green's fountain. Perhaps someone could persuade them that the pavillion is more of a priority than a fountain.

So if we call it the Pavilion, can we have it?
Community use in the week days, not PTFC use. Available for hire in the evenings at standard council rates. Weekends would be bookable and as a commercial enterprise, why would your bookings not be taken? Would you want to use it now in its current condition?

What about those 2 questions you are ignoring above Pzazz? Will you answer them?