D-Day looms for future of Bath's Recreation Ground
The long-running saga over the future of Bath’s Recreation Ground is entering its final chapter.
Councillors will next week give their backing to proposals to be published by the Charity Commission which would give Bath Rugby a bigger slice of The Rec.
In return, the club’s Lambridge sports ground would be transferred into the hands of the Recreation Ground Trust, which oversees the Rec.
The rugby club has been striving for years to find a way to construct a bigger stadium at The Rec, and the land deal which is at the heart of the commission’s new “scheme” should end the stalemate once and for all.
Limited Deal. All day wedding photography only £545.00
View details
All day wedding photography only £545.00
From Bridal preparations to first dance.
250+ Hi Res images on disc with full printing rights.
Professional photography at affordable prices.
Terms:
Free no obligation consultations.
Offer subject to availability.
Book before 31st May 2013.
Email:carmelo@bellafoto.co.uk
Available in Bath, Bristol and surrounding areas.
Contact: 01225 439257
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
The trust - which would in future expand its membership beyond councillors to include independent trustees - will produce a leaflet outlining the implications of the scheme.
There will then be a month in which representations about the proposals can be made to the commission, which has been trying to find a solution to The Rec since a High Court case a decade ago.
That case ruled that there was a clash between the land’s charitable status and its use by a commercial organisation in the shape of the rugby club, and the commission says a way to square this circle and allow the club to expand is for more land to made available for public use.
The commission scheme establishes a framework which would allow the club to be granted a new lease.
Bath Rugby, which is looking to create an arena with a capacity of between 17,000 and 18,000, would then submit a planning application.
Any new stadium would have stands on three sides, as at present, with a temporary east stand put up for the playing season only.
The trust meets at 6.30pm next Thursday at the Guildhall to discuss the latest situation.
Comments
by rogerh3
Thursday, November 22 2012, 8:46PM
“None of those.”
by Mike_the_Taxi
Thursday, November 22 2012, 7:51PM
“Which of the three does that leave you in then, Roger?”
by rogerh3
Thursday, November 22 2012, 6:33PM
“I suspect there are actually two minorities with the majority either indifferent or unaware.”
by BathMcNab
Thursday, November 22 2012, 5:12PM
“How on earth you can infer bullying from my comments utterly astonishes me. You have completely made that up!
Isn't your comment "strengths do not lie in numbers" actually the threatening remark?
I find it odd that in Bath the vocal minority, the well-connected opponents, successfully prevent most changes. Here is democracy at work - everyone able to comment on this proposal; an open process; so far, the majority support, and we move forward. The opaque opponents, the Fiends of The Rec, who hold closed meetings, who will not state their number, suddenly look enfeebled in face of the will of the people.
And yet Major, you suggest, you imply, you infer - that you or others hold the power to overturn the majority view on this proposal. How dare you.
You'll recognise me on the 29th - just look for the avatar photo. Oh, and I'll be the one not reddened with rage at the proposal.”
by MajorFlack
Thursday, November 22 2012, 4:34PM
“If the Councillors who have seen it, pre-publication, are those of The Recreation ground Trust, that's understandable.
But the reportage does not say this in: "Councillors will next week give their backing to proposals to be published by the Charity Commission."
If this refers only to members of the Trust then they obviously do not need to "give their backing next week" as they have already done so by helping to steer the proposals of the Charity Commission and there is no story here.
If not, then which Councillors will "give their backing next week" and why?”
by MajorFlack
Thursday, November 22 2012, 3:41PM
“You might think you're important opposition but you are the minority.
A bully's response? A 'we're bigger and stronger than you' worthy of any Neanderthal prop forward.
85% of respondents to the consultation supported the proposal.
I'm definitely not important. The oppositions are. And in contrast to your implications their strengths do not lie in their numbers.
How will I recognise you on the 29th so I might introduce myself?”
by BathMcNab
Thursday, November 22 2012, 3:02PM
“"Sounds like they've already seen these proposals"
They have, and they have commented on the draft. You can read it here:
http://tinyurl.com/cj87fkc
"important opposition to the scheme has been ignored"
You might think you're important opposition but you are the minority. 85% of respondents to the consultation supported the proposal. Say all you like about the consultation process; unless you can mobilise significant opposition, or you have credible reasons against the Charity Commission Scheme, this discrepancy in the Trust's charitable objects will be resolved very soon.
See you at the public meeting on the 29th!”
by Mike_the_Taxi
Thursday, November 22 2012, 11:47AM
“I was commenting on your suggestion that the councillors had already seen the proposals; they, as trustees, would have had to.
The consultation process, which will take place in December, will be asking the general public (your 'beneficiaries') their opinions on the proposals, which are aimed at making the Trust a viable entity.”
by MajorFlack
Thursday, November 22 2012, 8:14AM
“So you think it's already a done deal do you Mike? Following a patently biased "consultation" process, mainly conducted in secret, that's failed to include the Trusts beneficiaries in any meaningful way, I don't think so.”
by Mike_the_Taxi
Wednesday, November 21 2012, 7:59PM
“You don't think the councillors who are the current trustees would have seen their proposals to the Charity Commission before submitting them, then, Major?”