POOLE Town FC's £1 million plans to redevelop Branksome Recreation Ground have sparked heated debate since they were announced last month.
The club wants to refurbish the crumbling pavilion, build a new ground for their home games and construct multi-use games areas, as well as upgrade the current pitches.
Many Branksome residents have vociferously opposed the proposals and have drawn up petitions against them.
advertisement
Dolphins vice-chairman Chris Reeves has spoken to the Echo to discuss the most controversial aspects of the scheme.
PARKING AND TRAFFIC
Mr Reeves said nearby Branksome Heath Middle School and Heatherlands First School were being approached over use of their car parks and were "keen" to talk with the club.
He added there were indications Bourne Valley industrial park could also be utilised for parking, as well as a strip of the recreation ground directly adjacent to Recreation Road.
He added: "Reaching an agreement over parking will be paramount. If it genuinely does not work, the development just will not happen."
LOSS OF OPEN SPACE
Mr Reeves said only the western end of the rec would be used for the club's new ground, with the majority left open for general use.
He said: "The integrity and future of the rec would be guaranteed and there will be substantial community gains from the facilities."
Mr Reeves said enclosing the ground would involve the construction of a two-metre- high perimeter wall and stressed the ground would be on nothing like the scale of a Football League stadium.
He said: "A stadium is far too grand a word for what we are planning - the correct term would be ground.
"Our run-of-the-mill crowds are only 130-140."
FUNDING
Mr Reeves said he expected the majority of the £1m funding for the scheme to come from grants from the Football Foundation (FF) and the Football Stadia Improvement Fund (FSIF).
He said: "We had a meeting with the FF, FSIF and the Football Association and their initial response has been extremely favourable."
Mr Reeves said any council funding would come solely from the planning obligation fund - mandatory contributions made by developers specifically set aside for developments such as this.
He said: "There would be no cost to the council tax payer at all."
The club would also contribute substantially to the scheme, said Mr Reeves.
ALCOHOL
The refurbishment of the pavilion would see a bar installed for hospitality purposes, but the rec was designated an alcohol-free zone by the council in 2004.
Mr Reeves said the bar would only be used for hosting opposition players and officials before and after matches, with no drinks allowed outside at all.
He said: "We have not had one complaint with regard to our ground at Tatnam Farm.
"Our people are far too vigilant and too appreciative of the facilities to allow anything untoward to happen."
He added any decision to grant a licence would ultimately lie with the council.
NOISE
Mr Reeves said singing and chanting was not a feature of non-league football.
He added: "Football matches go on at the rec now without anything to soak up the noise. We will have an enclosed ground that will keep everything inside."
FLOODLIGHTS
Mr Reeves said modern technology meant light pollution from floodlights was unlikely to worry residents.
He said: "Light spillage these days is virtually zero and I would say it would be almost impossible for light to shine into someone's property."
INFORMATION
Some residents had been unhappy at only finding out about the club's proposals second-hand. Mr Reeves said 1,000 leaflets had been dropped in the area around the rec and a formal meeting, hosted by the council, would soon be announced to allow residents' voices to be heard.
It is of interest that Mr. Reeves is now attempting to play down the impact of these proposals on the surrounding area. His comment that "our run of the mill crowd is only 130 - 140" is clearly related to just first team events. He fails to comment on the many other teams - i.e. youth and Ladies team fixtures. In reality the imapct will be felt on more occasions than just Saturday fixtures. Also, his indication of crowd size is based on current experience. The club makes no secret of the cfact that it sees this as an opportunity to expand by gaining promotion to higher leagues, which to coin a phrase, will be a whole new ball game regarding disruption, noise, parking etc etc!
It is of interest that Mr. Reeves is now attempting to play down the impact of these proposals on the surrounding area. His comment that "our run of the mill crowd is only 130 - 140" is clearly related to just first team events. He fails to comment on the many other teams - i.e. youth and Ladies team fixtures. In reality the imapct will be felt on more occasions than just Saturday fixtures. Also, his indication of crowd size is based on current experience. The club makes no secret of the cfact that it sees this as an opportunity to expand by gaining promotion to higher leagues, which to coin a phrase, will be a whole new ball game regarding disruption, noise, parking etc etc!
I couldn't agree with you more Terry. PTFC plans with this development to expand it's current fan base. There are far too many if's and but's with this scheme - once you take away a piece of valuable green, open land from the people and surrounded it behind a wall and hard-standing...you will NEVER get it back. So, if the parking does turn out to 'genuinely not work' (because of course everyone will park as close as possible), when is this decision made? Once the place is built and the damage done?
Keep this Open Space Accessible to all - surely the ONLY option to improvement cannot be Enclosure?
I couldn't agree with you more Terry. PTFC plans with this development to expand it's current fan base. There are far too many if's and but's with this scheme - once you take away a piece of valuable green, open land from the people and surrounded it behind a wall and hard-standing...you will NEVER get it back. So, if the parking does turn out to 'genuinely not work' (because of course everyone will park as close as possible), when is this decision made? Once the place is built and the damage done?
Keep this Open Space Accessible to all - surely the ONLY option to improvement cannot be Enclosure?
Posted by: Honest Joe, Bournemouth on 4:06pm Wed 7 May 08
Silly to state the obvious but why don't Poole Town Football Club go back to Poole Stadium and then reopen the Football supporters club again.
I suppose that's too easy.
Silly to state the obvious but why don't Poole Town Football Club go back to Poole Stadium and then reopen the Football supporters club again.
I suppose that's too easy.
[quote][bold]Honest Joe[/bold] wrote:
Silly to state the obvious but why don't Poole Town Football Club go back to Poole Stadium and then reopen the Football supporters club again. I suppose that's too easy.[/quote] [bold]Wasn't it Poole Council with the Speedway Club that kicked Poole Town Football Club out of the stadium?[/bold]
Honest Joe wrote:
Silly to state the obvious but why don't Poole Town Football Club go back to Poole Stadium and then reopen the Football supporters club again. I suppose that's too easy.
Wasn't it Poole Council with the Speedway Club that kicked Poole Town Football Club out of the stadium?
Posted by: Bigfoot, Branksome on 1:56pm Fri 23 May 08
Pity we don't have centralised opposition. The Daily Echo talk to Chris Reeves and the Borough, but few others.
We expect Mr. Reeves to be biased yet consider the Borough's attitude. Cllr Peter Adams, seems also to support PTFC rather than be impartial which seems odd. The Borough should remain impartial until after open discussions, surely.
So, Borough, why would the club seem to benefit from a central location? The judgement should be on the benefit of all parties not just the club's and the fact that Canford Magna is "half a mile from anywhere" must surely be a benefit to Branksome residents! Why are the Borough apparently one-sided? Locally, we suspect that there is more to this than being shown thus far.
Pity we don't have centralised opposition. The Daily Echo talk to Chris Reeves and the Borough, but few others.
We expect Mr. Reeves to be biased yet consider the Borough's attitude. Cllr Peter Adams, seems also to support PTFC rather than be impartial which seems odd. The Borough should remain impartial until after open discussions, surely.
So, Borough, why would the club seem to benefit from a central location? The judgement should be on the benefit of all parties not just the club's and the fact that Canford Magna is "half a mile from anywhere" must surely be a benefit to Branksome residents! Why are the Borough apparently one-sided? Locally, we suspect that there is more to this than being shown thus far.
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
