Public meeting to discuss fears over Bath Rugby new arena plans for Rec

“At the end of the day The Rec is big enough to house all sports, look at the ariel photo the rugby ground takes up only part of the whole so why are the so called FOTR so selfish to require all of the land. BRFC have been using The Rec since the 1800's long before any of the FOTR was around and if they truelly hate the Rugby ground being there then why did they move close to the ground in the first place. A hat-full of negative individuals spoiling the enjoyment of tens of thousands of people. Find somethine else to do in your empty lives and let the majority enjoy a bit of sport!! Bath Rugby has bent over backwards to accomodate the few but they will not budge an inch!!”

“So where is the East open side which is enshrined in the Heads of Terms? The new arena will not be allowed to go higher than the current LC or the tree line. The angle of your illustration is incorrect as well.

There will be substantial standing terraces it will not be an all seater. Rugby fans tend to prefer to stand! If you want to give examples of a 25000 arena there are better example for instance this one for a competition http://tinyurl.com/cdv9vhm

Next scaremongering post, please!”

“liquidmonkey, you wonder why the rugby club hasn't published any expert 3-d renderings...because they don't look that different to the one I provide. I didn't draw the model, it is generic architectural model of an 18,000 seater football stadium. Maybe rugby fans have smaller seats, I don't know. Feel free to do a better drawing. Here is a 25,000 seater as was the original plan:

https://twitter.com/landatthebottom/status/221867903740420096/photo/1”

“I don't see how the covenants affect just the 100 people surrounding the Rec. The development affects all residents – the Rec was left for all people to enjoy sport and outdoor leisure, expressly to increase the attractions of the city.

When will these NIMBYs get it in their heads that the majority want a fantastic new arena in the centre of town; we do not want our land in the centre to be used by a few posh people in Pulteney Street as their own private garden.....why should a tiny handful of selfish NIMBYs get the best hand in this deal????

I wish those NIMBYs would shut up or get out!”

“The current position is :

1. A Reviewer appointed by the Charity Commissioner is determining, based upon oral evidence from those who made representations in December and subsequent comments, whether the proposal for the Rec. is acceptable to the Commissioners. He will almost certainly be taking into account the other pending legal outcomes.

2. There is an application by Mr. Sparrow for Town Green status for the Rec.

3. The application by Rugby to declare the 1922 covenants unenforceable.

Although not started,there is the possibility that the Commissioners may not have the legal capacity to adjudge upon the land swap, and the 1995 lease may be brought into question. To date details of the stadium have not yet been published.”

“@ troubleatmill, ha ha that is the worst bit of 3d visualisation I have ever seen. In another context it would be very funny, however, as it seems you are trying to make some sort of serious point I will attempt to address the glaring errors. Firstly, the stadium appears to be hovering somewhere over the leisure centre - I don't think that was in the proposal. This image shown is a football stadium with a much greater capacity than is actually being proposed. There is no plan for the stadium to be enclosed as this image suggests. While I understand that you skills in creating 3D visuals may be very limited you should at least attempt to reflect the real size and scale or else it becomes at best misleading and at worst propaganda.”

“In Bath there is much said about the city being Georgian, and retaining it's appropriate buildings and sympathetic attitude to those buildings.

It almost seems a forgone conclusion, that this subject on the additions to the rugby club, is done and dusted.

If looked at in a realistic approach, it this the only option for a rugby club?”

“The conveyance in 1956 was in favour of The Mayor Alderman and Citizens of the City of Bath. Nothing about surrounding areas and of course, because the judgement in 2002 declared it as a charitable trust, the public are entitled to use the facilities.

The importance is that in 2011 there was a "consultation" which attracted 4,515 votes which because no email nor home addresses were required and there was no control over the issuing of the mailed votes even the Trustees admitted the possibility of multiple votes or votes from around the country.

However, this is a diversion from the efforts made by Ms. Rigby to allay the confusion created by a rugby club interested in good neighbour relations. The 1922 covenants apply only to the several hundred residents within the area bounded by the river, Bathwick Street, Sydney Gardens, the Leisure Centre, and Parade Gardens http://tinyurl.com/c2mapkc page 12.

Despite the requirement in the booklet to obtain legal opinion and respond within 28 days of the 11th March 2013, there is no such need. The procedure is that Rugby applies to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) and following publication of notices by the Tribunal only then need you file any objections which will be followed by an oral hearing.

Do not be misled by a fishing expedition.”

“I like this bit, that the law no longer applies. I think that says it all.

In 1922 was the situation the same as it is today?

I have nothing against the Rugby Club, but ...........”

“The Rec was purchased (not given) for the people of Bath and surrounding areas according to the 2002 HC and he went on to conclude "that the dominant intention of the trusts, to which all the express provisions should be regarded as ancillary, was to provide a recreational facility for the public". So the public at large are the beneficiaries and should have their say.”