Council Dismisses Churchill Fields Complaint
The rugby pitch in the middle of the existing track at Churchill Fields.
Oldham Council’s top legal official has rejected a complaint about the way the authority has handled the Churchill Fields consultation process.
Independent parish councillor Ken Hulme wrote to the council saying he believed it had failed in its legal “duty to involve” all local groups on the matter.
His formal complaint, made last month, followed the revelation that the Saddleworth Runners club had not been invited to meetings between councillors and other local sporting groups.
Members of the club were furious when it emerged that councillors were proposing to get rid of the existing running track at the fields.
Instead, they hope to use cash from football and rugby league bodies to match council investment, and create four new full-size football and rugby pitches at the site. A grass running track would be marked out in the summer.
Cllr Hulme wrote: “My complaint is that a wide range of users including Saddleworth Runners, local community groups, Saddleworth Parish Council as well as individual council taxpayers have not been given the opportunity to be involved in the decision to make an application to the Football Foundation for a grant to improve the drainage in Churchill Fields. This grant would involve permanently removing an important facility, the athletics track, and could have serious implications for community events held on Churchill Fields.”
Cllr Ken Hulme
He went on: “Rather than carry out the council’s ‘Duty to Involve’ the whole of the community in this decision, Oldham Council has failed to consult with Saddleworth Runners, Saddleworth Parish Council, other users and community groups about these plans before they were submitted to the Football Foundation. Oldham Council only now is proposing to hold a very poorly publicised public meeting which appears to be no more than a token gesture to meet the council’s legal responsibilities under the ‘Duty to Inform’ legislation.”
Cllr Hulme concluded: “I am asking Oldham Council to now meet its legal responsibility under the ‘Duty to Involve’ , halt any further work on Churchill Fields which may involve removing the running track and as a matter of urgency establish an open and transparent consultation on the future of Churchill Fields involving all user groups, community groups and interested parties in line with the councils legal obligations under the ‘Duty to Involve’ legislation.”
But in a formal reponse to Cllr Hulme’s letter, borough solicitor Paul Entwistle has cleared the council of doing anything wrong.
On the point about the past failure to consult Saddleworth Runners, Mr Entwistle wrote: “The council consulted all known existing users of the site but Saddleworth Runners did not appear amongst such users as their usage of the site is not through any formal booking arrangements. I am satisfied that statutory and constitutional requirements to consult and inform had been met but since the interest of Saddleworth Runners in this matter has been drawn to the attention of the council, the club is being provided with information about the matter and is invited to make representations.”
The Saddleworth Runners on the track at Churchill Fields.
Mr Entwistle also underlined what the council has been told by UK Athletics, the governing body of track and field: “UK Athletics have a guideline of one track for 250,000 people within a 20 minute drive in an urban catchment area or 45 minute drive in a rural catchment area. On this basis they have stated that the athletics facilities at Springhill in Rochdale, Eastlands in North Manchester, Radclyffe in Oldham, and Richmond in Ashton-Under-Lyne provide a more than adequate number of tracks for the area.”
The solicitor also made clear that the removal of the existing running track and the new pitch layout was an essential part of securing cash from the Football Foundation and Rugby Football League. According to Mr Entwistle, the winter layout of four full-size pitches, one smaller pitch and a training area, with an alternative summer configuration of ten mini-pitches, is needed to meet “pound for pitch” value for money criteria applied by the funding bodies.
Mr Entwistle also conceded that the council had focused on football and rugby league in the process so far: “The only two sports associations which indicated they might put money into the drainage improvements were the Football Foundation and Rugby Football League. Therefore, there has been an emphasis on these sports in the proposals to secure the funding required, and initial discussions have taken place with the Saddleworth Football Forum and Saddleworth Rangers to shape this.”
Councillors involved in the process have stressed that they will take on board feedback received at last week’s public meeting, and in consultation forms filled out by people who were there.
You can read more articles about Churchill Fields by clicking here.
Author: Jude Gidney - Editor
If you would like to share an interesting story, achievement, photo or something you just want to happily shout about please send it in an email to hello@saddleworthlife.com We'd ❤ to hear from you!!
5 Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Oh Ken you are on Saddleworth Parish Council that had a Saddleworth wide survey and Churchill was probably the priority to get sorted, plus there are 7 Parish councillors forming part of the area committee.
Plus the “poorly publised” meeting had a full civic hall with standing at the back, so hundreds came!
Get real, this will benefit thousands and the funds are time limited, but you just have to do the negative.
Those UK Athletics guidelines are hard to come by. As far as I can tell (after multiple internet searches), the only reference to those figures appears in this brochure: www.uka.org.uk/EasySiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=19205&type=full&servicetype=Attachment
It refers specifically to criteria for new tracks; and not the downgrading or removal of existing facilities.
I would be interested to know how the council came by the information. Have they been specifically informed by UK Athletics that the Churchill Playing Fields track is not essential, or have they perhaps misinterpreted the documentation?
So the consultation is not in fact a consultation. , just us being told what decision has already been made. We need to remind these councillors who they represent. The argument about the tracks is irrelevant. It’s our track, not the athletics associations. Who cares what they say? That is persuasive manipulative rubbish. It’s our track and we decide. It was obvious at the public meeting that we want to keep the track.
EI wonder why ‘long term resident’ is reluctant to be more honest about his identity. At least Councillor Hulme has the integrity to stand by his comments, which incidentally he makes independantly and on behalf of the people of Saddleworth who elected him to represent them. Unfortunately it seems that our other ‘party-affiliated’ councillors have forgotten who they work for…..the people of Saddleworth! Its funny but I seem to recall the same phrase of “get real” being used in a patronising manner at the public meeting by one of our councillors. I wonder if ‘long term resident’ could possibly be one and the same? Hmmmmmmmm You
Apologies for the unfinished comment,still getting used to the blackberry!To continue, I would just like to inform ‘long term resident’ from someone who is ‘born and bred’ that no-one is more real than the people of Saddleworth and we are also very capable of putting a cross in a different box at the next election! That is the true reality!