Let's have a vote on Rec being used by rugby club
I am growing tired of the amount of self-righteousness in some quarters with regards to the Rec debate and I would like to suggest a possible solution that I feel is as fair as possible.
The Recreation Ground has always been intended primarily for the use of sport and rugby in particular has been played on the ground since 1884 (considerably longer than anyone who complains about its use for that purpose now has been alive).
To this day that does not prevent it being used for other purposes and I defy anyone to think of an event taking place, or group whose needs could not be met by the huge area behind the East Terrace.
As a rugby fan I will readily admit to my bias.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, May 26 2013
However, what I would like to see is a thorough survey of the population affected, the best parameters probably being everyone of voting-age in B&NES. Perhaps something of this nature has already been suggested but as far as I am aware nothing as thorough has been implemented.
A simple question to the effect of "Is it right for Bath Rugby to continue to use the Recreation ground?" would surely be acceptable for all parties concerned. In order to overcome issues of practicalities and expense, perhaps all parties concerned would be willing to put their differences aside in order co-ordinate volunteers etc. that could carry out such a project? If it were possible, the only reason I can see that anyone on either side of the debate could object is fear of finding that the majority do not support them.
I am of course of the opinion the majority would support the rugby club. However, if said survey revealed otherwise, I for one would be happy to say that the club should make alternative arrangements.
We entrust the election of the leaders of our country to less democratic methods, so surely this would be good enough for our public spaces?
Chris Cleland Holloway Bath
8 Comments
by bath1946
Saturday, March 16 2013, 1:17AM
“In 2007 the Commissioners gave a protective order over the rec. and required a definite proposal by 2011 instead of the annual applications for more land. The reason for more land was the capacity requirement for clubs within the premiership. The Commissioners required a consultation with residents prior to the submission of the proposal by the Trustees.”
by bath1946
Saturday, March 16 2013, 1:16AM
“In 2007 the Commissioners gave a protective order over the rec. and required a definite proposal by 2011 instead of the annual applications for more land. The reason for more land was the capacity requirement for clubs within the premiership. The Commissioners required a consultation with residents prior to the submission of the proposal by the Trustees.”
by trikidiki
Saturday, March 16 2013, 12:02AM
“Order of the Charity Commission for England and Wales.....20 July 2007.
4. In July 2002 the High Court (Bath and North East Somerset Council v HM Attorney General [2002] EWCA 1623 (Ch)) determined that the Rec was held on charitable trusts and BANES was charged with maintaining the Rec "as a recreational facility available for the benefit of the public at large"
Despite which, the NIMBYs still try to disenfranchise "the public at large"”
by rogerh3
Friday, March 15 2013, 5:58PM
“I believe your statement :
"The land swap attempts to get around this by excluding the area for a proposed stadium from the jurisdiction of the charity"
is both incorrect and misleading.""
I don't believe it is. That's why is called a 'swap'. The Objects of the Charity explicitly exclude professional sports. The existing rugby site is in breach of those Objects but can remain because the club has a legal tenancy with 57 years remaining.
Under the land swap the Lambridge ground will – for the duration of the agreement – be governed by the Objects of the Charity while the existing and additional land to be provided for a new stadium at the Rec will not.
.”
by trikidiki
Friday, March 15 2013, 5:36PM
“rogerh3: I believe your statement :
"The land swap attempts to get around this by excluding the area for a proposed stadium from the jurisdiction of the charity"
is both incorrect and misleading.
The land swap is to increase the benfits to the people of Bath so they outweigh the detriments of Bath Rugby asking for a slightly bigger area. The legal fact is Bath Rugby already have a legal right to use the current footprint by way of the lease which has 57 years to run.
The whole of the Rec including the complete footprint of the Rugby Club and the Leisure Centre will still be under the jurisdiction of the charity commission and will still be held in trust for the people of Bath, to who it will be returned at the end of the lease.”
by rogerh3
Friday, March 15 2013, 5:09PM
“You can't change the legal situation with a referendum, whatever the result. The legal fact is that as a professional club Bath Rugby is not an acceptable user of the Rec. within the objects of the charity.The land swap attempts to get around this by excluding the area for a proposed stadium from the jurisdiction of the charity.”
by trikidiki
Friday, March 15 2013, 12:50PM
“Are these the same passengers on the bus that weren't canvassed by the Bath Bus Users Group on their views of the Rec development? Yet FoBRA who claim to represent the Bath Bus Users Group as well as two University Students Unions put forward their members opinions without any consultation.”
by bath1946
Friday, March 15 2013, 11:40AM
“Did you know Chris that you were consulted in 2011? I thought not, and neither do most of the passengers i talk to on the buses i use almost everyday. Most believe that rugby are railroading through, with the co-operation of the Trustee Councillors, their divine right to develop the rec. as they wish since they have been there for 120 years.
However this is not about rugby at the rec, - they have 57 years remaining of a lease signed in 1995; the problem they face is that the capacity required by the premiership necessitates increased land for the spectators, which, because it is held in trust, means annual approval from the Charity Commissioners since no one sport is permitted to predominate. It is instead about a proposal to exchange our land for that at Lambridge and subsequently build an 18,000 seat stadium with retail units.
But at the moment there are a series of legal obstacles to be surmounted therefore could i suggest that you watch this space which already has thrown up two surprising developments and then make it clear to your councillor that you want a say in what happens to the prime open space in Bath.”