Letter: Churchill Playing Fields
Below is a letter to the editor sent in by Roger Devy of the Churchill Playing Fields Action Group. It was written as a response to the “feedback from consultation” recently distributed by Oldham Council, and I’ve reproduced it in full.
If you want to respond to the points made in the letter, you can either leave a comment below this post, or send an e-mail by clicking on the Contact option at the top of this page. If you would like an e-mail published on this website then please mark it as a letter to the editor, and I’ll be happy to do so.
For more letters and articles about Churchill Fields, click here.
Churchill Fields
“Following the open meeting at Uppermill Civic Hall on 1 March 2011 regarding the proposed improvements at Churchill Playing Fields, a “Feedback from Consultation” document was eventually sent out to all attendees on 20 April. This is my response to the feedback document.
“Although I represent the views of the Churchill Playing Fields Action Group (CPFAG) in seeking to retain the existing cinder running track, my view is not merely confined to representing that of a single body or just the one sport. I speak as someone who takes a keen interest in all local sports and has been involved in organising a range of sports at Churchill over the past 30 years, and as a frequent spectator of local amateur football.
“It was pleasing to note on the feedback document that the proposed drainage improvements at Churchill received overwhelming support from the open meeting attendees. However, what was not reported was the overwhelming support for the retention of the existing running track when a vote was taken on the issue at the open meeting. This surely implies a less than accurate appreciation by the writers of the feedback document to the correct views expressed at the open meeting.
“The document also states that every week at least 4,000 people involved in football and rugby would benefit from improved drainage at Churchill Playing Fields. As a regular attendee at Churchill as both a casual user and football spectator, I would need far more evidence to believe the claim that the weekly number of football and rugby related players, coaches and spectators reached anywhere near this figure.
“There was one piece of new interesting information in the letter from Darren Jones (Assistant Executive Director, Economy, Places & Skills) attached to the document. This was the fact that the proposals to reconfigure the pitches at Churchill would enable the council to respond to the possible loss of an existing first team football field used by one of Saddleworth’s prominent football clubs.
“This detail showing bias to just one of our local clubs was certainly not mentioned during the open meeting on 1 March 2011. It is stated that retaining the existing running track would prevent an increase in the grassed areas available for other sports. This is not the case.
“It is also stated that adopting the proposals including the removal of the running track would increase the availability of adult size pitches from the existing three to four. There is an adequate alternative, which could be adopted whilst retaining the existing track. To compliment the two existing football pitches at the Uppermill end of Churchill, a large adult football pitch (to comply with Football Foundation recommendations) could be marked in the grassed area in the centre of the existing running track, and an adult rugby field could be sited to the Carr Lane side of the running track.
“Junior pitches as already identified correctly by the District Partnership could be marked on each of the full size adult pitches. This could also be the case for the marked playing areas for other sports or community activities. Further to the above it is noted that the National Conference League (Rugby League) are to move in the near future to a March to November playing season. This would mean additional grassed area availability at Churchill for other sports outside the rugby season.
“The bottom line being the provision of additional grassed areas for football, rugby and other sports would also provide additional revenue from the hire of these sporting facilities. There is a quite a lot of details in the feedback document with regard to the existing cinder track being “old technology” and outlining the costs involved in replacing the track with current running track material such as a soft polymer basic surface, and the additional maintenance costs involved in the upkeep of a new track. It is also stated that other running tracks are available at locations outside the Saddleworth areas.
“Nobody should be blinded by this smokescreen and ridiculous notion. Not one person who is in favour of retaining the existing cinder track has ever been under the impression that a new track with a modern surface would be on the agenda. The existing track when adequately drained will be fit for purpose to suit the needs of a wide range of community activities.
“This also applies to the call for current track users to go outside the district. The Churchill running track is a great Saddleworth amenity and should remain exactly as that. The existing running track should be retained for the Saddleworth community, be it enthusiastic athletes, casual users, organised events or the annual shows that use the track and arena.
“The proposals to improve the drainage at Churchill Playing Fields and the hard work of all those involved in the proposals should be applauded. The decision to remove the existing cinder track should not. As outlined above, additional use of the grassed areas for football, rugby and other sports can easily be achieved without the loss of the existing track, whilst maintaining Churchill as a multi-purpose facility for the Saddleworth community.”
Roger Devy
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!!
21 Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
As a daily user of Churchill Playing Fields, and in particular the running track, perimeter pathway and woodland tracks, I completely agree with Roger Devy’s analysis. Whilst we all thoroughly welcome the improved drainage plans the loss of the existing running track would be a tragedy for the area.
The figure of 4,000 people a week benefitting from the alterations is a complete joke. Last night was a busy night, with a football match and rugby training, but there was no more than 100 people there in total, including spectators.
The running track certainly doesn’t need to be replaced or upgraded, just properly drained and maintained throughout the year. It’s also a valuable resource at all those times of the year when vehicles need access to the area; the Saddleworth Show, Saddleworth Olympics; dog shows, Yanks event, etc. You can imagine the damage they would do to newly laid pitches, etc. particularly at wetter times (like the Summer!) – would these changes mean that such events would be excluded from Churchill playing fields in the future? If so, where would the council suggest they move to?
There have been numerous half-hearted attempts to “improve” Churchill over the years – who remembers the superb circuit training apparatus, the kiddies’ adventure play area, the woodland paths (now requiring wellies to navigate, even in the driest weather) and, most recently the skate park? All have been poorly maintained and allowed to fall into such disrepair that they have had to be removed, apart for the concrete area of the skate park of course, which seems to be holding up reasonably well at present, but the surrounding wooden fencing, flood lights and bins have all gone the way other “initiatives” over the years.
The council would do well to remember that people playing team sports are by no means the primary users of Chruchill; that would be walkers (with and without dogs), joggers, skate park users, young children playing or learning to cycle, picnic-ers, etc. – i.e. the people who are around from early morning to late at night – these people need a voice and for someone in the council to champion their needs.
One last moan – parking – if there are to be four pitches in use at a time exactly where are all those people supposed to park? Carr Lane and the surrounding roads are invariably full these days due to the new parking restrictions in Uppermill, even more so when matches and events are taking place on Churchill. The extra pressure on parking needs to be considered seriously.
It would be nice to get an opinion on this letter from oldham council or some of our newly elected local people. It feels like the consultation process was just a formality. The track was always going to go and there was never a plan to respond to it properly.
I hoped that the strength of feeling at the public meeting would be taken into consideration but it’s as though the plans and contracts for the track removal had already been organised!
Hundreds of sports playing fields across the country will be protected and improved thanks to a £10 million National Lottery fund launched today by Sport England and the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, Hugh Robertson MP.
Sport England has today launched the £10 million Protecting Playing Fields as part of the Places People Play mass participation legacy. To help potential applicants for this National Lottery funding, we are holding a series of workshops over the next fortnight.
This new fund will see hundreds of sports playing fields across the country protected and improved, with the workshops explaining how applicants can bid to protect, improve or create a new playing field in their local area.
see www.sportengland.org/about_us/our_news/ppf_launch_news_story.aspx
A disgraceful way for a local authority to behave – a lot of this disreputable action by Councillors and it seems officers needs to be thoroughly scrutinized and made public. Just not acceptable.
Ken, How about saying something positive, like after 40 years of struggling with the facilities at Churchill, this group of councillors, council officials and sports clubs have actually achieved something for the ‘Sporting Youth’ of Saddleworth for generations to come. Yes, I dare say the process could have been done better, they always can.
But you know what Ken, I see your name in the local papers and on here a lot, plenty of complaining about this and that, but very little regarding new ideas, new ventures, plans for the future etc and definitely nothing about Churchill, that is of course until someone else comes up with a plan.
I could take you a lot more seriously if you got your hands dirty and came up with something tangible, particularly regarding Churchill and not all this hot air.
I think I’ve asked the question before, ‘Have you been involved in running a Sports Team that has tried or has to use the facilities at Churchill? it has to be no, or you would be a lot more understanding and tolerant in your views.
Phew, that feels better…..
Alan
Alan
I still don’t see any justification for riding roughshod over non Football/Rugby groups.
If the boot was on the other foot and these groups had been treated in this way there would be some very justified complaints – wouldn’t there!
And why have you got to stoop to personal attacks ? It diminishes you and you arguments.
Sorry Ken, wasn’t intended as a personal attack and sorry if it looks that way, but I’m still waiting for some positive comments about the proposals from you, young people going to be able to play sport on the pitches for years to come. Or if not, some positive, real suggestions or proposals as to how you would solve the problem in a similar time scale to the existing proposals. That’s my only gripe, complain yes, but recognise the immense benefits to our sporting community. I think we all recognise that the process could have been carried out more successfully, but lets think about the sporting legacy these proposals will leave. I still get the feeling that you don’t know how many young people and adults play football and rugby on the pitches and how difficult it is to keep these organisations going and that’s without wondering if you’ll have any pitches available at weekend. I know Saddleworth Runners have grievance about how they’ve been treated and I don’t disagree with many of them, the only thing I’d say (probably again) is that yes this track is used, but not very much. Personally I’m not particularly bothered if the track stays or goes, but if the funding depends on it, then I’m sorry it has to go, unless you can come up with a similar proposal within the existing time frame?
Again, apologies if things got a bit personal, as you’ve probably gathered I’m passionate about sport and young people being able to participate, I guess I see your comments as just ‘Very Negative’ and not constructive, when in reality the benefits to the community will be immense. Go on Ken, swallow your pride and admit these proposals will be great for Saddleworth.
Alan I think the tide of public opinion is running against you.
Of course I want Churchill fields improved – that’s why I argued that instead of spending £800,000 on doing up the Civic Hall the Parish Council should have invested the money in Churchill Fields.
I have also complained that of the £2.5 Million plus Oldham Council received in money from developers in ‘planning gain’ between 2000 & 2008 none of it was spent in Saddleworth or on Churchill Fields in particular – it all went into Oldham to be spent on the wretched Housing Renewal project in Derker.
I don’t see any reason to destroy the running track on Churchill Fields and I remain unconvinced that this is necessary. It certainly isn’t good for Saddleworth !
Hi Alan. I’m afraid Ken is right. The tide of public opinion is running strongly against this scheme.This was blatantly obvious at the public meeting, in the local press, and indeed on this site! Does it not strike you as uncanny that Barbara Beeley also lost her parish council seat due to the lack of public confidence in the way that this has been handled?Interestingly she lost her seat to the Independent Rob Knotts, who completed a comprehensive and damning report on the failingsof this project!When will the people behind this scheme develop some integrity and start at the beginning by consulting the public and users of Churchill first BEFORE bidding for money which will change our ability to access to the playing fields forever?
Andy! Well said! Having worked with young people in the area for 13 years I was present at the birth of the initial idea for the skate park. It was all the idea and hard work of a group of young people from across Saddleworth who worked tirelessly to put their idea togetherand then looked for sources of funding!Unfortunately, the skaters who use it in the eveningsnow have to do so in the dark as the council refuse to pay for new bulbs or grills for the floodlights! They also have to bring a broom to sweep up the broken glass which commonlylitters the skate park! You must forgive my cynicismwhen I hear someone telling me they are doing this for the benefit of young people in Saddleworth! Nothing gets done in Saddleworth unless it financially rewards Oldham, as Churchill-gate so obviously does!I ask again…….if this is for the benefit of young people in the area, why weren’t they consulted?
We should demand that the drainagegets done without disturbing the track which, as Andy says, is useful for many different activities!
You know what ken I think I’m losing the will to live.
I just want the Playing Fields upgraded. You are obviously a marvellous politician, in that you never answer a question, I bow to your superior skills! Just tell me and the other readers how you would improve the Playing Fields in the current time scales and how you would fund it. if that includes keeping the running track, all the better.
We all want the playing fields upgraded. The issue is whether, when the pitches are reinstated after the drainage work, the track is sacrificed so that the football and or rugby teams can have
(a) 4 adult pitches plus a mini-pitch
or
(b) 4 adult pitches and a running track.
CPFAG are looking into ways of raising the extra money required to reinstate the track after the drainage work is complete. To replace a like for like track would not cost anything like the astronomical amounts quoted in the council proposals.
Alan
Whats the problem ?
Jill Davies and CPFAG (see above) are pursuing a sensible course of action that could see Churchill Fields drained and a running track retained and they have my support.
I repeat – what’s the problem ?
Hi Ken,
My main problem is that you don’t seem to be able to answer a straight question, other than that I’m quite happy! Oh and you still seem a bit negative.
All I can say it’s a good to see that Jill has come up with a positive proposal from the Saddleworth Runners, if the money’s there then go for it. I’m not sure about this and I’ve only heard 2nd or 3rd hand but is the football money dependant on the training pitch?
Alan
Stop playing the politician with trick questions and personal abuse – the issue is getting Churchill Fields fixed and getting the best deal we can – which includes retaining a running track.
We should be working together – runners and footballers and all users of Churchill Fields to achieve this.
The elections over – whatever you may think of me the electors have spoken and I’ve been returned to serve them for 4 more years !
Ken
Ken, very remiss of me, congratulations on your recent election and being appointed Vice Chairman. If I lived in Delph, I’d probably have voted for you as well!
I’m not sure why you think I’m making this a political think I’m not, I just wanted to understand what you have done to improve Churchill, other than the non productive, negative comments you’ve made to date. Helen Bishop, Jill Davies and Roger Devy have all put forward ‘positive’ proposals. I may not agree with all them as I’m sure they don’t with all I’ve had to say, but you get the feeling there’s a way forward.
Anyway, this is my last post on this subject, as our new Vice Chairman, I’ll leave it to you to have the last word!
Nice try Alan Bolton, ultimately though a series of body swerves that your rugby team would be proud of. No alternative, just questions about your “problem” you disagreeable numpty.
As Dr Johnson commented “The pride of wit has kept ages busy in the discussion of useless questions”
Now by our local pride of wit you personally are exhorted to “Stop playing the politician with trick questions and personal abuse”. Well I couldn’t have described a politician better myself.
Apparently “The electors have spoken…” and of 2688 votes cast, 1,820 (c. 68%) voted for somebody else.
Yep,that’s democracy, the will of the majority.
So just let the man do his job and keep your damn fool ambitions for CPF to yourself.
Give it a rest Barry.
We’ve (I include the Independent candidates ) have had to endure weeks of snide remarks and personal abuse in the recent Parish & Oldham elections from one quarter in particular.
It just gets boring after a while – especially after the by-election.
I worry you’ve been mixing in the wrong company and picking up bad habits from some of our local politicans.
I just want to say that I respect Alan for having the decency to come on here, under his own name and not hiding behind a pseudonym as some key players have done, and argue his case. Slightly more honest of him than other supporters of this scheme who have chosen not to join in this debate for fear of being publiclyasked questions which would show them to be as underhand and undemocratic as they are. You may find that he is the only one preparedto do so because he genuinely has wanted improvements to be made for a long time. As Jill Davies says, that is what we all want! The sheer weight of responses against this idea reflect the general feeling of the community towards it. With reference to Alans questionabout whether the money from the FA would still be available without the trainingpitch, well Alan, we’ve been waiting for an answer to that since that joke of a public meeting!The lack of a responseto this suggestsstrong evidencethat it is all or nothing for the FA. They want total domination of ‘our’ playing fields.
Just to clarify,it is my honest belief that the intention for churchill is for it to become the permanent home of Uppermill footballclub, to the exclusion of the rest of the public…….unless you want to pay!
Relevant? Thank you very much for your positive contribution. It is being checked out! Thanks 🙂
I believe the FA money is from a Sport England Fund. At a meeting of the councilors where the public were not allowed to speak I managed to talk to someone from Sport England. At the time they said their interest was in multisports and had no objections to having a running track and would be happy if one could be accomodated.
I’m sure its only because interested paries wern’t informed earlier that there were no costings investigated and no plan to relay the track. All users could be catered for with an adjustment to the plans as discussed by Roger Devy.
I believe a number of the councilors like Barbara Beeley who decided our local facility had to be removed have now gone or been removed themselves. Perhaps the new bunch with greater interests in the public of Saddleworth could please everyone.