LETTER: What can we do for better football ground after Pinchbeck councillors’ decision?

In reply to last week’s article in The Voice, may I thank [news editor] Nigel Chapman for informing us of the council’s decision not to give us the necessary permission for the ground alterations as we had not been informed by the parish council.

Indeed it was only at 20.46 on Monday (Feb 27) that I received official confirmation and the reasons why. A week after the meeting!

 

The proposed alterations have been discussed for the last few months now and were actually point number four on the agenda for parish council meeting on October 20, 2016.

This was discussed by the three councillors that had turned up for the meeting (out of the eight that sit on the East ward) and we were contacted by one of these afterwards saying he was fully behind the project and we could have a secret meeting with him if required.

 

There was another meeting planned in January but the agenda was too packed and they had to discuss their forthcoming budget. We had to put in for planning permission due to the timescales of the project and the deadlines that we had to achieve and was the same for the funding from the Football Foundation.

 

With regard to the land that had been offered and “wasn’t deemed suitable” this gives the impression the club has turned this down, where in fact we have spent over £3,000 doing feasibility studies for the Football Association for the land at Langhole Drove, only to be turned down by Highways due to access issues!

The land at Northgate wasn’t enough large enough to accommodate both the adults and juniors so wasn’t a viable project from the start.

 

We live in a rural environment so if somebody could please advise where there is land suitable in Pinchbeck which will meet both planning and highways requirements then please feel free to let me know.

Although we pay rent for the field we appreciate that it is a public open space but with the fencing plan half the field would still have been open to the public, including the play area which was installed at a cost of, I believe, approximately £40,000 and was positioned right in the middle of our training area next to the clubroom and close to the football pitch.

 

A lot of time is spent on a Saturday morning having to clear the rubbish and litter up from the field, let alone all the things that we have done to try and prevent vandalism to the buildings and dugouts. Was this not the reason that the cricket club chose to leave the village and go and play in Spalding?

 

What facilities does the village actually have? We played football at a small village called Ketton on Saturday (Feb 25) where they had football, cricket, bowls and tennis all together in one hub which had recently built changing rooms and is currently having a new social club being built. This is a village with a population of 2,000 people, compared to over 5,000 in Pinchbeck.

 

This is being supported by the local community and had a donation of £14,000 from Rutland County Council and £10,000 from the local parish council. That is what I call support!

 

What happens to the money from the power station fund? What will happen to the Larkfleet community fund?

 

How many of the parish councillors have actually been down on a Saturday afternoon to watch a game? How many actually would know which team were Pinchbeck and which were the opposition? However if they did come down then they would have to walk or drive down the entrance which is riddled with potholes and is not fit for purpose!

 

Having received the official confirmation from the council there are a couple of questions I will be asking of them:

Yes, we are disappointed as we are struggling to see where we can move forward both on the current location or finding suitable land to relocate.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Barbara Camps for her help in this and the difficult job that she has to do as the parish clerk.