Second last council meeting before the election, feelings running high, commitment, anger, well no actually. labour as usual had a full turnout the SNP had eight present, treating the voters as usual with contempt, five missing and those present not giving a damn, they want to run the council and the country as well.
The fierce cllr. McGuiness, ( ex army ) convenor for growling and snarling, chose today to launch an attack on Renfrewshire Council for not doing enough for sports in the area, not an unusual attack I hear you say, except, well, the council magazine carries a story about ' investing in leisure ' and offers the following information, between three projects the following is being done :-
Lagoon Centre, a £4m sports hall has been started, 6 court games hall, new dance aerobics hall, new changing and expanded fitness area.
Penilee Project, a £2.6m upgrade to pavilion and playing fields with a further £200,000 to come, providing new pavilion, new changing facilities, 1 x synthetic pitch 2 x grass pitches.
Seedhill Project, a £2.2m project providing 1 x new synthetic pitch and 4 x upgraded grass pitches.
Total spend on sports facilities £8.8m. This according to cllr. Mc Guiness and the SNP is a bad news story, you probably won't be surprised to hear that he's retiring in May. And they want to run the council and the country !
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
95 comments:
Hi, terry....see you've been taking lessons
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
Nice one...
Perhaps you would care to peruse my reponse and comment:
http://terrywatch.blogspot.com/2007/03/labours-real-record-on-sport-in.html
Tell us Terry where the money is coming from for these marvellous sports facilities?
You and the Labour junta are selling school playing fields and playgrounds to provide enough money to build. The SNP are strongly against this.
Tell us how you can be classed as anything but a 'milk snatcher' from kids when you are selling their facilities to build monuments to Labours vanity?
You claim you are a socialist?
I doubt very much that you've seen the inside of a sports hall for a while eh Terry?
You could certainly do with some time on a stairmaster...
RFS - I've read it and it's the same garbage that our opponents have been churning out for ages.
One comment perhaps, you suggest that the Labour administration are planning to build houses on dangerous contaminated land. How are we going to get away with that one ?
Terry, that is the point I am trying to make.
You are on planning so do you know if the land is contaminated or not? Was it once a quarry or some kind of open hole that was filled in with industrial waste?
The rest is not garbage.
Was the St James pitches held in trust for the common good of paisley? Did the council build a health club on the football pitches? Is the Lagoon being built with PFI?
You yourself walked away from £5m of investment in Penilee. And before you reply with your usual "no I did not you crackpot" nonsense go back to my blog, read the posts over the last couple of months and think about who you are talking too. Don't make a fool of yourself.
RFS _ It's you who is missing the point, you are suggesting that Renfrewshire Council are going to allow houses to be built on contaminated land, can anyone take you seriously when you come away with nonsense like this, it's just plane dishonest.
I have no knowledge of St. James pitches being held in trust for the common good, what health club ?
Anyway if you keep up with things you will see that the rail link will significantly improve sports facilities at St James's and elsewhere.
Penilee has a long and complicated history and it's nowhere near as simple as you would have people believe, suffice to say that I am happy with the council's proposals.
The Lagoon I understand is being built using Prudential Borrowing Framework, couldn't you have found that out ? You lazy sod.
No Terry, what is dishonest is presenting the money to be spent in Seedhill has certain when it relies on selling the land to developers when council surveys indicate bedrock too deep and the potential for disturbing contaminated land.
Contaminated land (or brownfield) is built on all the time, the point being made is that the Council have not made any provision in their figures for dealing with any cleanup required.
The point I am making is that you will have a hard time selling the land to a developer to release the capital you are claiming is already in place. Have you sold the land yet?
What health club?
Interesting Terry. You said that you have read my post and it is the usual garbage. You said this at 12:44.
Problem is that I had originally posted the phrase "health centre" and I edited it less than an hour ago to say "health club" (which I am sure you will agree has a totally different meeting). You could not have read my original post when you posted your first comment on it. Good debating skill there, ignore the other position.
Anyway Terry, you are on Planning don't be so lazy and find out for yourself where the club is, in fact I think I have already told you. But that would indicate that you have not read my original post, no?
Strange that everyone bar the Labour Party agree that building an elevated rail track over public playing pitches with their resultant support columns will mean reduced facilities. Also strange that an elected representative will not have heard of the Paisley Improvement Act of 1877 or that section 49 (para 209) of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Act 2007 specifically addresses this and the "held in trust" element.
Of course coming back to contaminated land there will also be the unpleasantness of moving the mass grave of cholera victims buried in the area.
Penilee has had a long and complex history and at times I have lost days of my life listening to its story. Suffice to say that simple or not the council squandered a £5m investment opportunity, your committee voted it down and your daughter campaigned against it.
'You lazy sod'
Sod? As in an abbreviation of sodomite. Interesting choice of word.
kay stopworth - I'm happy to bow to your superior knowledge of sodomy.
Define Terry Kelly Arguements: Your Wrong and no matter the subject the reply shall be:Terry Kelly - No your wrong.
Where's my other comment or do you think I'm daft enough not to save it? It can be dealt with here or elsewhere -your choice. Though I think it only fair to allow you and Rayleen a chance to explain your expenses before I start broadcasting it.
By the way I see you only blog during working hours. Any chance of you letting us know how much council tax payers are paying for your blogging on our time? I can't see many other employers being so lenient. Mind you it's only the people you're robbing so I doubt you'll be losing much sleep over it.
RFS - I really don't know what you're on about down to the rail link. You can access the proposals for the pitches if you can be bothered, I'm happy to let the public make up their own minds about this.
Penilee is a success story for the Labour Council - state of the art pitches and changing facilities as well as a soccer school run by professionals - fantastic !
Yes, but a similar proposal was on the table for the same facilities with the same community benefits, one that originally had a lot more support of the local residents. You had a hand in turning this down.
As a result the Council lost out in £5m of private money to spend on the facilities. I am perfectly happy to let the public make up their minds over this also. It is simple maths.
Shotgun said...
Tell us Terry where the money is coming from for these marvellous sports facilities?
You and the Labour junta are selling school playing fields and playgrounds to provide enough money to build. The SNP are strongly against this.
Tell us how you can be classed as anything but a 'milk snatcher' from kids when you are selling their facilities to build monuments to Labours vanity?
You claim you are a socialist?
Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:53:00 PM
Let's repeat this one seeing as you seem to have either missed it or are running away from it. You're answering posts from two days after this was one.
RFS - This is nonsense, you're splitting hairs, read the council magazine - it's another good news story for the Labour Council.
I have read the magazine and it is not telling the whole truth. You yourself took part in turning down £5m of free money to help renovate the pavilion and provide the same facilities that you now have to have the council pay for.
Do you deny this?
anon - If you are going to start broadcasting something does that mean you will be crawling out from under your stone you coward.
I've learned a lot of blogging tricks and you don't know what you're talking about.
re. your assertion that the Lagoon extention is being built using Prudential Borrowing Framework, you forgot to mention that a sizeable chunk of funding came from the sale of the land which the old neighbourhood centre was situated on , money which was ringfenced to build a new community centre for the East End.And of course as we now know that decision was reversed by Messrs Williams aided by his understudy Counciller Rayleen Kelly.
Could you explain ( for the uninitiated amongst us)how the subject of the sale of a significant area the Seedhill Playing Fields is being used as a political footbal.
Pilger - Hogg's underhand tactics were defeated and we now have a tremendous extension to sports facilities and a place for the community to enjoy, that's a good deal for the East End.
Seedhill playing fields will be greatly improved, if you look at the proposals you will find that that, is the case, some people are using it for their own ends, just as Hogg did with the community centre. They are opportunists who couldn't care less about residents or sports facilities. It's another success for the Labour Council.
RFS - You seem to the only one in step here.
The people of Renfrewshire will enjoy state of the art facilities and expert coaching into the future, thanks to the Labour Council.
Shotgun - If you want to know about finance for these projects, contact the appropriate officers at the council, I'm not helping you, do your own work.
Labour are providing new schools with improved facilities and new state of the art sports facilities in the community. The SNP are only interested in their own ends not what's best for our communities, we ( Labour ) will continue to deliver for the people. I don't understand your last paragraph.
"The people of Renfrewshire will enjoy state of the art facilities and expert coaching into the future, thanks to the Labour Council. "
But do you deny that the cost of this need not have been met by the tax payer and that £5m of private money was available to provide the exact same facilities?
Cllr Terry Kelly said...
Shotgun - If you want to know about finance for these projects, contact the appropriate officers at the council, I'm not helping you, do your own work.
We know where the money is coming from, and besides that, are you or are you not a PUBLIC SERVANT? If that is the case why is everything done for the glorification of Labour? Why is it such a secret where the money is coming from that you feel the need not to make it public?
I have explained that you, personally, are selling SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS and PLAYGROUNDS to finance what you describe as a Labour success story, and that is dishonest. The people of the area don't want it as evidenced by various pressure groups to stop the sale and redevelopment.
Labour are providing new schools with improved facilities and new state of the art sports facilities in the community.
LABOUR are providing NOTHING the people of Renfrewshire provide it for themselves with theor taxes and land, which you are taking from them and sellign to developers...the land was Labours was it and then Labour is giving the money to the council for the people is it?
LABOUR GIVE NOTHING!
The SNP are only interested in their own ends not what's best for our communities, we ( Labour ) will continue to deliver for the people
Every second word out of your mouth is all about how Lbour do this and do that and are so wonderful...it is obvious where the true self serving ends are, and you have been found out.
Renfrewshire Council are not in the business of selling off sports facilities, we are proud of what is happening at Penilee as are St. Mirren, also the Lagoon, Seedhill and the racecourse, in a few years time we will have sports provision which will be the envy of all.
Sometime ago there was an attempt by a private rugby club to sell their valuable ground and buy the Penilee site but the council held out and stood by our policy of sports provision for all of our residents, selling Penilee would have been a betrayal.
Have you any idea who the rugby club might have been ?
Cllr Terry Kelly said...
Renfrewshire Council are not in the business of selling off sports facilities, we are proud of what is happening at Penilee as are St. Mirren, also the Lagoon, Seedhill and the racecourse, in a few years time we will have sports provision which will be the envy of all.
Sometime ago there was an attempt by a private rugby club to sell their valuable ground and buy the Penilee site but the council held out and stood by our policy of sports provision for all of our residents, selling Penilee would have been a betrayal.
Have you any idea who the rugby club might have been ?
You, mr milk snatcher, wouldn't need to sell any playing fields or playgrounds, or even borrow any money, if you weren't spending 19 odd million quid on plush new offices for the Laboru junta would you?
Did you vote to scrap that project and spend the money in the community instead? No chance eh mr socialist?
Another triumph for the community brought to you by Renfrewshire Labour Junta...sell the playing fields aganst the wishes of the local people to provide them a few millions worth of dodgy improvements...while spending much more on new offices for the council.
You claim to be a socialist?
Terry, this is a lie. I am calling you a liar.
The Rugby Club plan, as set out by the Council when they first approached the club over 15 years ago with this plan, was to invest the money in Penilee and in return become 99 year tenants of the council, despite how hard it is for Linwood RFC to play home games. The council would always retain ownership of the facilities. The plan underwent several revisions to include facilities for Kelburn and female rugby and football as well as strengthen child protection.
Each time the plan to sell the ground that is privately held by the rugby club failed. You daughter organised the resistance that included the line from one resident "I will not have a place to walk my dog". Children play a contact sport on that surface for christ sake. It is the same grounds on which the council refused permission to erect a fence to keep people off of the private land.
The rugby club offered to give up its only asset and spend the resultant money on a council facility.
This was a plan that originated at the Council, the club was happy to stay and invest in its own property but was happy to give up a drain on resources at the council suggestion. For you to suggest otherwise is to lie through your teeth and to hope that you get away with it. Apologise.
If you wish to discuss this further the club committee meets in the clubhouse the first Monday evening of every month, I can put you in contact with the club secretary to arrange a visit for you.
"Sometime ago there was an attempt by a private rugby club to sell their valuable ground and buy the Penilee site but the council held out and stood by our policy of sports provision for all of our residents, selling Penilee would have been a betrayal."
A 'private' rugby club?
What does that mean? closed membership?
or
Was it a rugby club with junior and senior sides welcoming new members openly?
Was it a rugby club run by volunteers and parents keen to give the kids of Paisley an opportunity to play competitive sport?
Was it a rugby club that has a highly successful and vibrant junior section?
Was it a rugby club which happily shares it facilities with other sporting clubs, whilst maintaining the facilities with minimal support from the council?
Just how would a rugby club occupying an underutilised sports field have been a betrayal?
Other than a 'private' rugby club, do the council make provision for a 'non-private' rugby club?
RFS - I will return to this, mean while, should you be declaring a vested interest in this and, if you should, does not doing so make you dishonest, that's much nicer than liar isn't it now.
anonymous - do you by any chance have an anonymous, vested interest in all this ?
Anyone who is unhappy with the proposals for Penilee IMO is in a very strange position, don't you agree ?
Shotgun - The new upgraded Racecourse - The new upgraded Penilee - The new upgraded Seedhill playing fields - The Lagoon extension.
No wonder you're foaming at the mouth - Labour delivering, fantastic !
"anonymous - do you by any chance have an anonymous, vested interest in all this ? "
Yes, I do have a vested interest.
Here it is:
"I like rugby and am concerned by your term 'private' rugby club"
What do you mean by that?
Would you like to address any of the points raised?
Would you like to explain why the council turned down supposedly £5m
private investment in favour of spending £2m of our money?
I don't think anyone would argue that developing penilee, and particularly helping St Mirren, is a not a good idea.
The thing that confuses me is why the council would pass up the chance of a £5m investment in favour of investing £3m themselves.
It should also be pointed out that the local schools have been using the rugby clubs facilities for the last 10 years with little in return
The plans are a matter of public record, the fact that I have a "vested interest" does not make me dishonest. I did not declare my interest because I wanted to see how you treat those that are under-informed. And I am afraid to say you lived down to my expectations. I have you on record as lying to the people you represent and that is what I wanted.
I remember being part of VERY LONG discussions about giving up our asset to be a tennant of the council, it was a major sticking point internally so for you to claim we wanted to buy the ground is a lie.
It would appear that lying is a stock-in-trade for you and you seemed to think that just saying something makes it the truth.
I look forward to an article outlining why the publicly funded option for identical provision is a better deal for the people of renfrewshire than the one outlined by the rugby club.
Whether people asking these questions have a vested interest or not you have a duty as a holder of public office to address these issues. You duck and weave and are coming off a lot worse in this because of it.
Can you confirm or deny that the upgrades to Pennilee are to be at least part funded by the peoposed sell of of part or all of Seedhill Park?
You know what?
I posted a question about the playing fields at Seedhill being sold off. I'm new to posting coments on Blogger so I don't know why my coment hasn't shown yet.
But but our esteemed councillors coments about RFS and Anonymous being "dishonest" in not proclaiming vested interest, I'll come clean.
My name is Andy Fairley, I'm a member of the Rugby Club in question and I'm openly calling you a liar Terry. And I'm probably going to annoy my clubmates in doing so.
The (then) council approached us MANY years ago with a view to us taking over the running of Pennilee on the proviso that the facilities were made available to schools in the area who did not have suitable sports facilities.
Since then, through the various changes in the political make-up of the council, various obstacles have been put in our way. The most obvious being the denying of planning permission for building on our existing ground, which as RFS has rightly pointed out is private property, which - again as RFS pointed out - the same council denied us permission to erect a fence to prevent animals fouling our playing fields on the grounds that they are public areas. The same "private" property Cllr Terry objects to us selling.
The sale of this property would have brought enough cash to fully upgrade Pennilee, including increasing the facilities to include proper facilities for youth and female rugby AS WELL as football and an all weather pitch. These facilties would have been made availavle to local schools, etc during the day, every day if need be.
I have no desire to denigrate the proposed new occupents of the facility at Pennilee, they have an obvios need for it, but realisticaly just how much "public" access can the local community, and Paisley as a whole, expect to an area which is in daily use by a professional sporting organisation who are usaing it as a training facility?
Okay Cllr Terry Kelly. I've come clean about my interest. Your turn. Call me a liar. Better still I'll meet you in the Town Hall you can call me a liar to my face in front of witnesses.
While we're at it, you can bring along all the relevant council records from over the years regarding this sorry situation.
Cllr Terry Kelly said...
Shotgun - The new upgraded Racecourse - The new upgraded Penilee - The new upgraded Seedhill playing fields - The Lagoon extension.
No wonder you're foaming at the mouth - Labour delivering, fantastic !
You claim to be a public servant; you claim to be a socialist; you claim to work for everyones benefit.
How do you sleep at night and have you no self respect?
Never mind, you will be out on your ear come May and Rayleen will too after her piddly and questionable ten vote majority.
A victory for common sense in Paiseley!
Tell you what, Terry. Since you're obsessed with names, here's mine. My name is Jim Lewis, and I've coached at Paisley RFC for 14 years, something I'm very proud of. You can take RFS' and Anon's comments as agreeing exactly with mine, so it'll save you having to plough through more invective. Suffice it to say that you are a liar. There is no elitism in Paisley RFC. We are an open club with many successful players having come through our doors from all walks of life. You and your ilk, with your inverted snobbery, have tried your best to destroy our sport in this area, but I'm here to tell you you are doomed to failure. Now, having had your lies proven, can we expect that you do the decent thing and resign? I thought so.
Anon - I like rugby as well - I didn't mean anything by ' private rugby club ' I thought that was the right term, what do you think I meant ? Penilee will be upgraded and the rugby club carries on as before and no facilities are lost. What have I missed ?
Shotgun - I sleep like a baby, safe in the knowledge that someone like you is against me.
Terry,
Lets put this in context. The council came to the club and said "sell the ground, move to penilee and we will give you 99 years". The club thought about this and agreed.
During the intervening time the club has racked up debts relating to various proposals the council has asked for. Each one carried the reassurance that this was the last thing and it was a dead cert.
In the mean time the club facilities went into decline because we were always told "next year you will be in the new ground" and it did not make commercial sense to upkeep the facilities.
15 years later the club is asset rich but has debt it would not otherwise have.
There was a real chance 2 or so years ago, as results were on the way up, that the club would go under because of this.
All the while the facilities have went downhill in an area recognised as one of the most deprived in Europe. Depriving children of the area of the chance to learn a new sport and make friends.
However I have to praise Douglas Alexander for his work on their behalf to secure the railway line behind the pitches. This cut the vandalism at a stroke.
Also the fact that facilities were not being lost under the rugby plan. Remember that the pavilion at the moment is derelict and unused. Even if it had been sold for houses facilities would not have been lost. The rugby club had offered to introduce facilities, they offered to do it at no cost to the council (or more importantly the tax payer) and they would have done it 10 years ago, indeed had the last plan not been voted down by your committee the facilities would have been in place by now, probably opening at the beginning of the 2006 season.
That is what you have missed.
Anon - I like rugby as well - I didn't mean anything by ' private rugby club ' I thought that was the right term, what do you think I meant ? Penilee will be upgraded and the rugby club carries on as before and no facilities are lost. What have I missed ?
I think you have missed the fact that it would be someone else putting the money in to penilee leaving the council to spend the money elsewhere.
Also the facilities of the rugby club in question are in a terrible state. The clubhouse is falling apart, the carpark is almost impassable to cars and the pitches are more suitable for swimming than playing rugby most of the year.
The club simply does not have the finances to fix these problems and could go under in the next few years if a solution cannot be found, leaving hundreds of kids without a club.
Cllr Terry Kelly said...
Shotgun - I sleep like a baby, safe in the knowledge that someone like you is against me.
I bet Mugabe sleeps like a baby too, and is just as dishonest.
Anon - With respect, if the council could have let someone spend the money on Penilee and save millions to spend elsewhere they would have done so.
Clearly it's not that simple, despite attempts by some rugby club people to tell us that it is. You may or may not like Renfrewshire Council but to argue that we would deliberately throw away millions of pounds as 'rightforscotland' and the others suggest is simply untenable.
My own position is that I would like to see sufficient provision for all including rugby, but I'm not going to con people into thinking that that's easy to achieve, I would support any initiative to help this or any other rugby club, with the proviso that I believed the proposals to be workable and affordable.
anon - March 15th. 3.28 pm I share your confusion about the council passing up £5m in favour of the £3m investment. I've asked questions about this and I can't find anyone from the council who recognises this version of events.
Can I suggest that you contact 'rightforscotland' and ask him.
I have no desire at all to see any club, rugby or otherwise go under but I do accept that the council made what they consider to be the right decision. Others clearly differ which of course they are entitled to do.
RFS March 15 th. 3.50 I've checked and I can't find any reference to a £5m investment. I think you said that the rugby club wanted a 99 year lease, again I can't find this but for the sake of clarity I would be very reluctant to agree to this, I suppose you could argue that it's not as bad as 'buying' the place is it ?
mutt March 15 th. 9.38 pm If you read the community and family care board report Feb. 1 st. 2005 you will find details of the proposals and funding initiatives.
Publish Reject
Jim - I've never written anonymously in my life that's all and I don't trust those who do.
If by calling me a liar you are referring to me saying that the club wanted to buy Penilee, I have already explained to RFS that that was a mistake I should have said lease for 99 yrs. Does that make it look like a better deal ?
By describing me as an inverted snob who has tried to destroy your sport in this area you are a liar, doesn't sound very nice does it ? Why do you mention elitism ? Freudian slip ?
I'm satisfied that the council has made the right decision and although you might not believe it I want to see all sports facilities improved yours included.
RFS - March 16 th.I have tried to find any documents which concur with what you say to no avail. I can't find any reference to a £5m spend and no reference to what the club ground would have sold for, in addition I can't find anyone, officer or elected member, who recognises your version of events.
We are left with your quite ludicrous assertion that this council turned down £5m of free money and preferred to spend 2 - 3 million of tax payers money instead, is it inconceivable to you that I along with others might, just might think that there is a bit more to it than that ?
Thursday, March 15 10:10:00 PM
Mutt - Andy - I only ever delete comments if the language is unprintable.
If you are calling me a liar because I said you wanted to buy the club I have already explained to RFS that I should not have said 'buy' that was a mistake, I should have said lease for 99 yrs. nothing like buying is it ?
For the sake of clarity IMO one sports club having a 99 yr. Lease is not much better than buying it, but I accept I should not have said that.
I don't know what happened years ago I only have the word of you and some of your colleagues, one of whom 'rightforscotland' I do not trust.
You say obstacles were put in your way including, planning refusal and permission refused to erect a fence, if you are accusing the council of prejudice against you or dishonesty in some way you should say so.
"Cllr. Terry objects to us selling" well Andy this isn't just a lie its a stupid lie, it's not pleasant when someone talks about you like that is it ? Cllr. Terry has no locus with your private land but, I would advise you to do some checking up instead of speaking from a position of ignorance and you will find that owning the land does not mean you can do whatever you like with it.
" The sale of this property " I can't find any reference to this, maybe you could show me anything referring to a £5m spend and how much you would get for the land etc.
" Community access " I don't want to denigrate your opinion but, I am happy that the council's professional officers have done a proper and competent assessment.
I think the clutch of people calling me a liar all at the same time smacks of collusion and has the unmistakable stench of 'rightforscotland' all over it, have any of you ever considered whether he has an additional agenda ?
You can access any council records under FOI if you wish but I haven't been able to confirm RFS's version of events. I'm not being flippant when I say this but I don't wish you or your club any harm, I support all sports clubs in our area, including rugby clubs, Renfrewshire Council IMO do a good job at this and we will shortly be the envy of all with our facilities.
I must say I applaud your revisionism.
"Sometime ago there was an attempt by a private rugby club to sell their valuable ground and buy the Penilee site but the council held out and stood by our policy of sports provision for all of our residents, selling Penilee would have been a betrayal." Your words Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:18:00 PM.
Which interpretation of your words would not lead one to the conclusion that you (and by extension, the Council) are opposed to PRFC selling their(our) ground?
Before I go any further I do wish to make two points clear.
1) I know who RFS is and I know what his politics are. It is fair to say that the chap in question takes a wee bit of stick from me for being (as I once described him) so far to the right Maggie herself would have doubts about him. I have no political affiliation whatsoever, I am merely a member of a rugby club who feels let down and betrayed by our elected officials.
2) I am not entirely sure where RFS and others get the £5mil figure from. However I can tell you that the offer on the table for our land was £x or market value at time of completion whichever was higher. The starting figure x was enough to cover the £2.6mil stated by the council.
Anyway, are you saying there are absolutley NO records whatsoever pertaining to the (I will grant at this point "alleged") proposals we are discussing? Because if you are, then we have a serious problem in that PRFC, the building firm lined up to buy our land, SportScotland, the architects who drew up draft plans for the refurb of the Pennilee pavillion, various employees of the local press and all the various legal representatives involved are suffering a very strange mass hallucination. Either that or perhaps there is something wrong with the record keeping prcodures within the council?
I accept St Mirren taking over the Pavillion is a done deal. Having publicly announced the deal it would be hard to back out without attracting a great deal more bad press and howls of outrage. Unlike, allegedly, backing out from a deal with a small time amateur sporting organisation. However I really would like you to point me in the direction of the signed and accepted proposals/agreement/whatever which outlines exactly what community provision SMFC are bound into beyond the much touted Football Academy which ultimately serves the purposes of SMFC and not the local comunity. I would also like someone from the council to explain to us why our "alleged" proposal fell apart. Some honesty would be nice. As pointed out to you, we are in a position where we now struggle year to year trying to patch up a facility which is falling apart with no imediate means of financing the necessary work. Ironically if we could sell our land we would have enough cash to build a brand new clubhouse with state of the art facilities.
I will point out one more time; I have no political axe to grind, I have no Party Line follow, I am, if you will, a Political Aetheist. Therefore any collusion you allege, or any agenda you may suspect of others, I have no part in. I was incensed when I read the news about Pennilee in the Paisley Daily Express, someone pointed me in this direction and I want some honest answers from our elected officials. If you like point me in the direction of any council colleagues of other political affiliation and I will gladly raise the issue with them also.
Andy - 'Which interpretation' for the sake of clarity I can advise you that I am opposed to PRFC selling their ground and, the council's policy is also opposed to the sale. This would be the case if it was hockey, football, athletics etc. It's not personal, it's council policy, which I support, I'm surprised that RFS hasn't explained this to you.
Point 1 / I urge you to read his web site and the sites of those he links to, check out the site he helped to create about me called ' Terrywatch' you will clearly understand what drives him and why I don't share your slightly amused tolerance of him. I'm sorry you feel let down but I'm confident that if you find yourself in possession of the facts you will understand that council officers and elected members did not let anyone down.
Point 2 / I still have enquiries out about these figures. 'The records' ? I have checked with the officer in charge of developments at Penilee and been told that she has no record of any of this, she has only been dealing with the current situation and I am trawling others from the past at this time.
St Mirren are not 'taking over the pavilion' I'm sure you know that, and I'm equally sure you know that the council didn't back out of any deal, that sounds like RFS's subjective view, who is using pejorative language now ?
" Signed proposals/agreement re SMFC. I haven't seen that detail and am therefore, unlike you, unable to say that " it serves SMFC and not the local community "
Your ' alleged proposal ' does RFS not know this ? " Some honesty would be nice " I concur Andy, absolutely.
I'm genuinely sorry that your club is struggling and I hope that help can be found elsewhere I would point out that there are other agencies which might be able to help, Renfrewshire Council could advise on that, I would be happy to put you in touch with the right people, there are no guarantees but it might be worth looking into.
If you say you were not involved in collusion then I will accept your word and I offer my apologies. You can contact other parties, Tory, SNP, and Lib. Dems. At the council if you wish to discuss this with them. I will continue with this and I will contact you when I can add anything further.
Thanks for your comments.
Your admission that "the council" does indeed object to PRFC selling our land is taking this discussion a step in the right direction.
I will reiterate that I do not share RFS's views on ANY topic beyond Paisley Rugby Club and if you feel slighted by him I can only offer my condolences. I have been on the receiving end of his "wit" on occassion myself! I don't have much/any contact with the chap and I'm only referencing what he posts here on your blog.
The fact that you say you are digging further to unearth the records prior to the immediate situation is commendable as it will allow all interested parties to continue from an informed position.
As to my comment about St Mirren "taking over" the pavillion, this may be semantics, but are they not taking on tenancy (for want of a better term) of the pavillion aresponsibility for the running/operation of the pavillion and associated grounds?
Any advice/support the council can provide PRFC in recovering from the situation we now find ourselves in would, I am sure, be gratefully welcomed.
I look forward to your further comments when you have uncovered more information.
Councillor Terry wrote:
"Cllr. Terry objects to us selling" well Andy this isn't just a lie its a stupid lie
Then he wrote:
for the sake of clarity I can advise you that I am opposed to PRFC selling their ground and, the council's policy is also opposed to the sale. This would be the case if it was hockey, football, athletics etc. It's not personal, it's council policy, which I support, I'm surprised that RFS hasn't explained this to you.
Can you clarify?
anon - Which one are you ? I think you will see if you choose to that I went on to say that I have no locus in the matter. I was merely retaliating at being called a liar.
If you look closer you'll find that I said that I support the council's policy, which I do, and that means opposing your plans.
You're describing this as if I have a personal grievance against PRFC, as I've said this would apply to anyone who wanted to sell off sports grounds for housing.
I hope that PRFC thrive, but not at the expense of losing sporting provision in Paisley.
You're a beauty, Terry, I'll give you that. Where to begin?
Publish Reject
Jim - I've never written anonymously in my life that's all and I don't trust those who do.
So, using one's name makes one honest? You and I both know that some people don't like to publish personal details for their own reasons. Who the Hell are you to judge them? I'm not afraid of you and your cronies but some may be.
If by calling me a liar you are referring to me saying that the club wanted to buy Penilee, I have already explained to RFS that that was a mistake I should have said lease for 99 yrs. Does that make it look like a better deal ?
No Terry, it's so much more than that. Your careful choice of language stated a private (whatever that implies) club trying to march in and steal a much loved and protected jewel in the Renfrewshire Crown. A jewel so loved and protected, that one of the best examples of Art Deco around has been simply abandoned for many years, and the school which had used it left without playing fields. That's the lie, you weasel, not some inadvertent slip of the brain. Instead, of course, you've opened the door to 'our local football club'. Wait, this 'club' wouldn't be a commercial enterprise, would it? No, surely not, for that would hardly sit well with such a dyed-in-the-wool socialist as you now, would it?
By describing me as an inverted snob who has tried to destroy your sport in this area you are a liar, doesn't sound very nice does it ? Why do you mention elitism ? Freudian slip ?
Again, your carefully chosen words
"I'm satisfied that the council has made the right decision and although you might not believe it I want to see all sports facilities improved yours included."
Terry, pleae. are you suggesting that your cronies didn't know the state of the local rugby club? They didn't know how much financial damage they were doing eacg time they placed another obstacle in our way? Once again, I find it difficult to come up with anything more succinct than, "You're a liar". Hasn't it seeped through the haze of arogance yet that you get a fair number of comments for a samll backwater councillor, and none of them complimentary? Terry, we all know,a nd you'll never convince us otherwise, that you don't give a toss about rugby or a failing rugby club. Please don't insult our intelligence with some platitudes.
My own suggestion would be thus: take one of two actions, either do the job you're elected to do, that is to quit lying to the people who put you where you are and get on with erpresenting them more than your own ego, or simply resign.
Councillor Kelly said
You're describing this as if I have a personal grievance against PRFC, as I've said this would apply to anyone who wanted to sell off sports grounds for housing.
I hope that PRFC thrive, but not at the expense of losing sporting provision in Paisley.
I'm asking:
Are the council planning on selling off parts of Seedhill sports fields to private housing developers in order to finance the refurbishment of Penilee?
Councillor Kelly:
If you look closer you'll find that I said that I support the council's policy, which I do, and that means opposing your plans.
I say:
They're not my plans. I am not a member of Paisley or any other rugby club. I have an interest in rugby in general and take exception to the inverted snobbery which exists in the West of Scotland towards the game.
Quite simply, you denied opposing the plans to sell the ground.
You then claimed that it wasn't just a lie, but a stupid lie, when it was suggested that you opposed the plans to sell the ground.
You are now telling us that you opposed the plans to sell the ground all along, as that is council policy, which you unreservedly support.
Follow your own thread chief!
A couple of links might serve to paint some kind of picture of the man Terry is. They're taken from the website of the Standard Commission for Scotland. He was a busy boy a while back, eh Terry?
http://www.standardscommissionscotland.org.uk/decisions/la_r_34.html
http://www.standardscommissionscotland.org.uk/decisions/la_r_46.html
Some old boy socialist tactics here, eh? Not alitsist, eh? Workshy incompetents, eh? Village idiots, eh? Tut, tut.
(gomez)- Jim ? It takes one to know one doesn't it, and you're a beauty too aren't you ?
Let's put this part to bed early shall we ? anonymity, I can go along reluctantly with some people not giving their names.
If however I was prepared to call someone a liar and a weasel, I would not do it anonymously, I'll let others decide on someone who does.
The rest of your post is a mix of barely literate ill founded prejudices, I'll give PRFC the benefit of the doubt and assume / hope, that you're not typical.
I do get a lot of hostile comments and knowing where they come from means I've never been prouder of anything in my life.
anon - Another one, what is it with you people, what are you hiding ? is this collusion ?
If you read the minute of the Community and Family Care Board of Feb 1 st. 07 you will see the breakdown of figures for Seedhill and Penilee which is a joint project.
You might want to reflect ( but I doubt it ) that if any council project is judged to be detrimental to existing sports provision then Sports Scotland will not support it and consequently it will not go ahead. Does that help ? the truth I mean ?
anon - Plans etc. nothing new here, time wasting, do rugby folk do that ? who wrote your earlier post ?
Standards Commission - Yes I did that, and, without hiding behind anonymity.
It's Jim Mac Gomez isn't it ? you've just gave the game away you're a gnat aren't you ? are you too ashamed or, too cowardly to admit it / go on !
"Standards Commission - Yes I did that, and, without hiding behind anonymity."
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't appearing befpre the Standards Commission anonymously kind of, well, impossible?
It's Jim Mac Gomez isn't it ? you've just gave the game away you're a gnat aren't you ? are you too ashamed or, too cowardly to admit it / go on !
Cllr Kelly, what exactly does the phrase 'barely literate' mean to you? You really haven't grasped the concept of "Put the shovel down and back away from the hole", have you?
First of all, although I know many of the people of the PRFC I have only lived in Renfrewshire for 4 years.
My comments cannot be refuted. I am sure Mr (what is a Socialist, I have been in government too long)Kelly will be happy to inform his friends that there is an election May 3rd, 2007 (a Thursday).
Those of you who received the council tax bill for the upcoming year know how to register. If you didn't save the info please go to www.voteforScotland.com and there is a number there to call to register. There is even a choice for proxy vote if you are out of the country that day, or if you will be in the hospital. The first critical date is April 18th to register by.
Although I won't sink to calling names as this elected official does, I for one,am surprised the glorious Labour Party has not used this popular site to remind people that this is an election year. As he will undoubtedly say, the Council magazine dealt with this issue.
Also, you can now register at age 16. However you cannot vote until 18. Perhaps this registration process will teach those over 30 that you intend to vote, as most of the others pay taxes and keep people like Rayleen and Terry with power to affect your future.
The mess the world is in abroad was ALSO brought on by the Labour Party, and so far no one is accountable. I saw the march in Glasgow "not in my name" and I am old enough to have seen the slaughter in Tiannanmen Square. DO not let people take your rights away "with impunity".
I dedicate this post to Thomas Blair, who has since passed, who loved Rugby and football and changed the lives of thousands of boys, some of whom are coaching and reffing now.
Consider if this council speaks for you Renfrewshire citizens, all of them are elected as YOUR voice in government.Do you know you can vote this council out, and any British or EU person has the right to vote if you live in Scotland, and are registered and 18?
Don't blame Terry if he is re-elected, he has certainly openly shown his politics. Freedon isn't free, it is about 2.5 million I estimate. What reply will this get?
If you read the minute of the Community and Family Care Board of Feb 1 st. 07 you will see the breakdown of figures for Seedhill and Penilee which is a joint project.
A joint project between a private housing developer and the council?
You might want to reflect ( but I doubt it ) that if any council project is judged to be detrimental to existing sports provision then Sports Scotland will not support it and consequently it will not go ahead. Does that help ? the truth I mean ?
Don't judge me by the standards of your other 'fans'. I'm simply trying to find out what happened here. But you're going round in circles.
Here's how I see it:
Rugby club had a proposal involving selling their land to a private housing developer and taking on the redevelopment of Penilee.
Council, on grounds of 'principle', opposed the plans, thereby scuppering them.
(Did Sport Scotland support the rugby club proposal? This is important, so don't let RFS answer for you.)
Council now have a plan to redevelop Penilee, which involves selling off part of Seedhill playing fields for private housing development.
You are using Sport Scotland support for these plans as some sort of justification. Did they support the rugby club plans? (This is why it's an important point!)
Rugby club are, quite rightly IMO, miffed that their proposal was turned down by the Council (Not Sport Scotland!) who are now proceeding with an similar plan of their own, but selling municipal grounds rather than private grounds to fund it - it's a mixed message from the council.
The result is that tax payers money rather than rugby club funds, derived from the sale of their land, is going into the redevelopment of Penilee. Thereby angering me and the many other tax payers of Renfrewshire, who despair at the antics of the Council.
jjdfb
PS There's a handle for you to use, but I suspect that you prefer names to anon in order that you can personalise arguments.
PPS If you really don't like anon, remove the facility from your pages.
Did a wee bit of research and here's something of interest.
Care to enlighten me on what went wrong with these plans? I can't get access to the officers report online.
http://planning.renfrewshire.gov.uk/acolnetDCpages/acolnetcgi.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=14145
jjdfb
PS Don't let paranoia get the better of you, I'm just after the truth, there's no need to get defensive about it.
anon - Plans etc. nothing new here, time wasting, do rugby folk do that ? who wrote your earlier post ?
As a floating voter in Renfrewshire, I can assure you it certainly hasn't been a waste of my time, you've opposed plans, denied opposing them, called the suggestion that you opposed them a stupid lie, then admitted that you opposed them all along as it's council policy.
You're living right up to the satirical comment that you've attracted around the web. The threads which have developed on this blog would put Private Eye to shame.
The biggest danger you pose is to the SNP, and not for your cutting wit, but for the fact that if the country was left for ourselves to run, it's people like you who would end up on planning commitee's... oh! wait a minute!
Andy - The most recent information I have is that the council planning committee refused PRFC permission to sell off their sports ground because their proposals did not comply with the council policy, I'm sure RFS would have known this.
"St Mirren taking over" You can access a document on the council web called 'Community and Family Care" - March 13 th. 2007. This gives some early indications of what we hope to achieve and indicates that St. M. would maintain the grass area, but more details will have to be sorted out.
With ref. to assistance for PRFC it would not be me involved as I'm not the councillor for the area.
I have however dealt with similar requests before and I brought the interested parties together with the council officer, Mr. Alex Hewitson who deals with these matters. He would be able to advise of any potential avenues of funding. I would be happy to advise you if required but you should bear in mind that May 3rd. Might see changes in councillors.
Councillor Terry wrote:
Andy - The most recent information I have is that the council planning committee refused PRFC permission to sell off their sports ground because their proposals did not comply with the council policy, I'm sure RFS would have known this.
Which policy? and on what grounds?
The one that, if applied equally, would prevent the council from selling off sections of Seedhill playing fields for private housing development perhaps?
Again, thank you for your response. We definitely appear to be getting somewhere.
You say the council reject the proposal concerning PRFC because it did not comply with the Council's Policy. I am a bit confused, as it was the Council (albeit potentially with different elected members) who approached PRFC with the initial idea of selling up and moving to Pennilee as means of ensuring the rennovation and use of the property with minimum cost to the people of Renfrewshire whilst ensuring maximum possible access. Surely the council officials involved would have been able to (should have?) advise PRFC on what Council Policy was at the time?
I realise, from your earlier comments, that you are not in possession of these facts yourself (I assume you had no involvement at that time?) that is why I would like to take a look at the relevant documentation so I can identify the appropriate council officials with whom to discuss the matter further.
Can you point us/me in the direction of the documents which outline the relevant policy and the minutes of the meeting(s) at which this non-compliance was determined?
gomez - I have said that I will print everything which is sent to me and I still stand by that so.
Could you please, please write something interesting.
brenda - I don't start out to call people names but I do sometimes retaliate.
The Labour Party is not responsible for the mess the world's in, capitalism did that.
Notwithstanding the strange style ( no insult intended ) The rest is uncontentious.
Anon - "joint project" ? Read it and see.
I'll number the rest of your comments for ease of reference. "Here's how I see it"
1/ Correct 2/ If you mean the plans failed to get through planning because of council policy, correct. 3/ Don't know, check this for yourself. 4/ Correct. 5/ See answer 3. - 6/ Wrong
7/ You are entitled to draw your own conclusions, I believe this a better deal. 8/ Wrong.
9/ No.
If any project involving sports facilities is judged to cause a reduction in provision we don't allow it. Penilee will have better facilities with no reduction in provision if this project goes through.
anon - "wee bit of research" you might have uncovered a conspiracy to do down the PRFC here.
I suggest you contact Crawford Russell of R.C. Planning Dept. and he will no doubt deal with it.
anon - "floating voter" again, nothing new here.
I want to keep printing everything I'm sent if possible so, if you are going to write again.
Please, please try to say something interesting.
anon - "which policy" I refer you to post ( March 23 rd. 4.40 pm )
Andy Fairley - I'm not aware of what went on at the time of the original approach, I can only speak for more recent events and, I can say that the recent approach to sell PRFC's ground does not meet with council policy.
If the policy was in place the first time, then yes, I would agree that PRFC should have been told.
I can paraphrase the policy as follows :- Renfrewshire Council will not grant permission for the sale of sports grounds where that sale would result in a loss of sports provision.
I would direct you to Crawford Russell at the planning dept here at the council who would be able to help.
I can paraphrase the policy as follows :- Renfrewshire Council will not grant permission for the sale of sports grounds where that sale would result in a loss of sports provision.
I appreciate that you are paraphrasing, however if this is the case I am curious as to what the council regards as loss of sports provision?
Granted the two pitches at Anchor would be "lost", however the unused facilities at Pennilee would have been renovated/renewed. The proposal included Upgrading of existing playing surfaces and formation of floodlit all-weather hockey, football and training pitch.. This provides a net gain over the two "privately owned" pitches at the Anchor. In addition to this, at the suggestion of the council a further two pitches in the Paisley area would have been restored to full usefullness.
Given that the council plans for Pennilee does indeed require the sale of part of Seedhill Park (I've read the reports and minutes) I am curious as to how our proposal could be deemed as resulting in the loss of sports provision?
Again, I appreciate you were not directly involved at that time but any insights into this seeming anomaly would be appreciated.
"The unused facilities at Penilee would come into use" Strictly speaking this would be true but would only be relevant if the council intended to leave them fallow, which they did not, and never have.
I know that people will argue that nothing has been done with Penilee for so long that it is 'de facto' no longer part of the equation but I would not concur.
Andy Fairley - The proposal for Seedhill will bring about an improvement in facilities with no loss of provision. Sports Scotland have in fact passed the Seedhill proposals as acceptable, if sports Scotland did not support this or any other project it is most unlikely that it would go ahead.
Terry, if I may call you Terry. You haven't answered my question, (and you were doing so well).
Let us ignore the issue of the sale of Seedhill and also the fact that both PRFC and SMFC proposals would/will restore an unused facility to full use. Instead, I will I will ask again:
1)I appreciate that you are paraphrasing, however if this is the case I am curious as to what the council regards as loss of sports provision?
2)I am curious as to how our proposal could be deemed as resulting in the loss of sports provision?
Once again, I appreciate you had no direct involvement at the time, however as a serving elected official you must be able to shed some light or informed opinion on these questions.
Andy - 1) In this case the loss of pitches at the rugby club would be regarded as a loss of provision - am I missing something here ?
2) I thought I had responded to that ?
Perhaps there might be mileage in presenting your argument if you don't agree with the council's policy or the way it's implemented.
Is it just me (leading question I know) or are you still evading the question slightly?
There is nothing wrong in principal with a policy which strives to ensure sporting and other community facilities are protected. It's the application of such policies which may be in question.
In point 2 you say I thought I had responded to that ? which you indeed had, as your answer to point 1. You have yet to respond to my first question: I am curious as to what the council regards as loss of sports provision?
Further to this, does the policy make a distinction between publicly held sporting facilities and "privately" held sporting facilities?, i.e, if David Lloyd were to sell their ground for housing would the council step in to prevent this loss of sporting facility?
On one hand you/the council call the Anchor Rec private property, and on the other you/the council refuse us permission to fence off our private property because it is a public area.
It is clearly either one or the other. If it is private property, surely we are within our rights to use or dispose of it as we see fit? If it is indeed a public area, then surely you/the council are duty bound to help ensure the safety, security and upkeep of this space and the facilities thereon?
Andy - I'm sorry if you think I'm evading the question I've tried to answer as best I could.
As to loss of provision I explained that the rugby club was an example.
The only other thing I can think of is to direct you to, www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/ilwwcm/publishing.nsf/Content/pt-cl-Renfrewshire-Local-Plan - click on the 'Environmental Framework' box, go to Section 11 ' Open Space & Recreation' with particular ref. To policy L1
I assume David Lloyd would be looked on the same as the others.
Despite the rugby club being your own private property, you are not in fact allowed to do as you please with it, that's why we have these planning laws.
As for public areas, the council does have responsibilities which they do carry out.
I hope this is of assistance and I have to say again that RFS should know all this.
Councillor, I'd like to thank both you and Andy for bring the discussion up to an adult level and avoiding the mud slinging. I think I have a better handle on the story now and can certainly see why some of the rugby boys might feel a bit miffed. I can see the council's point of view too though.
The important point is how the council perform the loss of sports provision arithmetic and the upgrading of Penilee to offset the loss of the Anchor pitches didn't work for them.
I can't quite see how the sale of the sections of Seedhill don't count as some sort of loss of provision, but as far as I'm concerned the council are working to improve sports facilities and it's a good news story in that respect.
If the council have adopted a less stringent approach to their own development than the ones which they applied to the Rugby club's plans, well it's a shame for the club, but otherwise that's a positive improvement too.
Hope to see the Buddies deliver some better results on the park as a result of this too!
jjdfb
Why do you keep referring to RFS? I have told you several times already that I do not have any regular (or even irregular) contact with the man.
The point my last post was trying to make is that the council must make it clear whether the ground owned by PRFC is "private" property and as such bound by the constraints on any other privatley owned areas, or it is a public area. If we are indeed on "private" property then yes we can use/dispose of our property as we see fit subject to the appropriate legislation: which means that any request say for a boundary fence cannot be refused on the grounds that it is a public area. If the ground we occupy is indeed a public area, then as you have agreed, the council does have a responsibility to help ensure the safety, security and upkeep of the grounds and facilities thereon.
So, which is it? If you agree that we are on private property can we then assume we will have your backing at any future Planning Board if apply to erect a boundary fence? If you believe we ground we occupy is a public area will then raise the issue with the appropriate officials and officers of the local authority as a matter of concern and urgency since the council has not fulfilled at anytime to date the obligations you agree they have in relation to public spaces?
anon - 'adult level discussion' thank you for those comments I hope people will have a better understanding of this.
I believe that the way forward for PRFC is to start looking at alternatives.
I know they are angry and that that anger has caused bitterness which in turn has lead to things being said that perhaps were better unsaid, after all we should be trying to co-operate for the benefit of Renfrewshire Sports including PRFC.
Andy - I thought that you got into this through RFS, I won't mention him again.
My understanding is that being private property does mean, as you say, that you are subject to appropriate legislation, I'm not sure why the fence issue was turned down but I know from experience that the council has to give reasons for refusal, I've already agreed that the council have a health and safety duty with regard to ground that it is responsible for.
I'm sorry but you may not assume that you will have my backing for anything, that would get me into serious trouble, as a member of the planning board I am obliged to look at each application and decide on it's individual merits.
If there is an issue about the council not, in your opinion fulfilling it's obligations with regard to public spaces I would urge you to take this up with your local councillor.
Convention dictates that councillors do not get involved in each others wards or I would take it on for you, I would be interested though to follow the progress of such a complaint
My understanding is that being private property does mean, as you say, that you are subject to appropriate legislation, I'm not sure why the fence issue was turned down
Can we take this to mean that you (and by extension the council) view the ground PRFC occupies as "private" property?
Assuming it does, allow me to rephrase my question regarding planning permission.
As we are on private property, if we submit a planning application to erect a fence and an objection to the application is raised on the grounds that it is a public area what stance would you take to that objection?
As to the councils responsibility to maintain public areas, this is only an issue if the ground occupied by PRFC is classified as a public area. If not, there is no issue.
Terry, you can. PRFC's local councillor is one Kelly R, although it was not she who attended the time I invited her along to watch a match.
The reason for the fence being turned down before was that local residents complained that they would not have anywhere to walk their dogs. The council duly noted that this would deprive them of their place to allow animals to defecate and decided that our restriction of their movement was unacceptable. Children play a contact sport on that land, I have had stand up fights with locals who have allowed their dogs onto the pitch an hour before a game (when the flags and post protectors were up). Apparently she thought that it was public land and she had as much right as anyone else to be on it. She was wrong.
Andy - My understanding is that PRFC's ground is private property.
A planning application to erect a fence under these circumstances would as I understand it come before the planning committee and be decided on there.
All aspects of the application would be examined with planning officers present to give expert advice, I would expect that the status of the ground ( private or public ) might be a point for discussion.
Ok, I think I will leave things at that. While I cannot say I am entirely satisfied with all your answers I do recognise that you have answered them as you are best able to.
One more point in departing.
A previous commentor asked what SportScotlands view on PRFC's proposal was? While I cannot provide online documentary evidence, I can confirm that SportScotland were totally behind all aspects of the proposal.
Make of that what you will.
Thanks again Terry and good luck with the mob. Watch out for the pitchforks!!
RFS - The news that PRFC's councillor is Kelly R, must be a shock to both her and Cllr. Lawson. Kelly R. assures me she has never been invited to a rugby match, ever.
The rest of your comment is unintentionaly hilarious, having you as their champion I fear is making PRFC something of a laughing stock.
Andy - Thank you for your comments and best wishes to you and the rugby club.
Post a Comment