Rec Debate Anti-Letters

By Glen Leat
September 10 2005

Anti-Bath Rugby At The Rec Letters

When controversial issues arise such as the Lambridge park and ride, the spa project, Bath Rugby's occupancy of the Rec and its training facilities at Bathampton, Churchill House, the Wellsway traffic alterations and the Queen Square ice rink, objections are raised by both sides. The rugby fraternity though should respect the opposing view except perhaps by the supporters who reside outside the city boundaries and who are not so much affected by these proposals.

Already the Christmas ice rink has its critics, mainly for its inappropriate venue and its noise pollution levels all similar to the rugby and Rec situation.

As often boasted, the club is very high profile. Bearing this in mind and the valued contribution they make, our city fathers would have readily helped Bath Rugby to re-locate, at the same time safeguarding and protecting their assets. But as to why they have sanctioned their training facilities at Bathampton before acquiring their own ground, leaves one wondering.

Mike Tremlett's article on June 10, made the point that the citizens of Aberdeen were a little more tolerant of a similar situation than we are. Their rugby is not of Zurich premiership standard, the game would, I should imagine, be secondary to its soccer, and does not have large attendances to cope with. And it is a much larger city.

In my defence of Mr Dowle's accusation ofJune 15, yes, to suggest its use as a car park is quite ridiculous, very similar to the ridiculous proposals as to a rugby arena complete with the much-voiced, but yet to be clarified, sympathetic planning.

To dwell on the planning for a moment, I'm sure a great deal of thought was given by the same learned architects as to our spa project. Words such as sympathetic planning are cheap compared to its reality.

I note too, that many who also dismiss this very controversial issue with this description always suggest this horseshoe stand as a priority for rugby and to keep us poor mortals satisfied, we have the possibilities of a restaurant, a venue for concerts, a sports centre etc.

On consideration, perhaps the car park ideas wasn't so ridiculous after all giving continuous income for the council, easing the city's congestion problems as opposed to the club's occupancy of 20 Saturday afternoons a year For a game of rugby.

Mr Parley's claims on the same day that Bath Rugby is so internationally famed for its exploits - well and to think he once accused me of self delusion. Remove your rose coloured glasses sir. However you value their exploits, they are not worth the Rec.

DG DREW

Belmore Gardens, Bath

Thanks to Mr Parley (Letters, June 25)for his splendid photograph of the Rec, though it gives more credence to the claim that no responsible body could claim its use as a rugby stadium. I did, however, observe that Mr Parley carefully avoided the words "covenant" and "citizens" in his letter. The photograph clearly shows the damage caused by traffic. To answer those who ask what the Rec would be used for if not for rugby, my reply is 'nothing'.

It's just as charming with no one there as with a 10,500 crowd. Is Royal Victoria Park when filled with crowds such an attraction?

Giving the matter some thought, I have arrived at the conclusion that the rugby must remain at all costs on the Rec. Supporters are proud of their surroundings too. Unaccustomed to this environment, the visitors cannot fail to be impressed. Some followers have stated they are deserving of a "centre stage" presence, so how about a Royal Crescent address for the club shop and house and the annual team photograph taken in the Circus?

DR DREW

Belmore Gardens
Southdown
Bath

Continuing the debate over the Rec, I would suggest that the titles given to us should be changed. We are anti-rugby-on-the-Rec people as opposed to the rugby-continuing-on-the-Rec defenders which is exactly what the roles are.

We should not be branded campaigners when defending the covenant which stated that the ground will not favour any one sport but should remain as an open space.

I am in agreement with Mr Inman (Letters, June 25) who says some of the headings, although favouring our ilk, are at times, misleading. Ones like "Most people want rugby on the Rec" seem loaded, are possibly untrue and not able to be substantiated until such time as a vote is agreed.

I would also suggest that if such a vote is forthcoming, it will be strictly for Bathonians only and those still living in the city. It should eliminate all those working here, plus students. Sorry, but this vote needs to reveal the truth.

I can recall the late forties and the Bath rugby club as an amateur side playing mostly local sides at Clifton and Weston-super-Mare etc and fielding mainly local players such as Drs Todd and Lumsden. This was so very different to the business, professionalism and commercial razzamatazz of today.

I can imagine some readers being confused with the "rugger" of yesteryear with its presentation of today. Fellow reader Mr Coombes of Chippenham (yet another voice from outside the city) seems to imply that an outsider (Bath Rugby plc) should take preference over us Bathonians (whingers) who are defending our legal rights against these rugby invaders. To those who adopt such ignorant and bullying tactics, I suggest they don't read the letters section.

DG DREW

Belmore Gardens, Bath
The most recent of your correspondents, like Mr Wiley and R Harries-Harris (Letters, July 7), deserve some notice. To all those concerned, it should be noted that we, the anti-brigade, are, surprisingly, not opposed to rugby.

Would you, the supporters, be as interested in Bath rugby if it was relocated to, say, Bathampton or Claverton?

Take the club along to a new location with our best wishes for success and, hopefully, within the city and enjoy what is pleasurable to you.

But please consider the residents near to the Rec whom, I suspect, paid a great deal for living in an area unspoilt and not modernised for commercial pursuits.

R Harries-Harris is able, I assume, to have a recreational facility provided in Chipping Norton but doesn't mind, along with others, encroaching on or restricting ours.

The Rec remains today as it was intended which was to be used as an open space. If the club adds to our city life, could it not continue elsewhere as I have already suggested?

And as for the accusation that we have no positive contribution to make, we have plenty as I hope, this letter may help to indicate.

As suggested by Mr Wiley, who unselfishly proposes a forum, that would be welcome. But his proposed vote does not seem to consider those who are affected at present by Bath Rugby.

Mentioning unjust and undemocratic laws, this may have applied when the club first took occupation of the Rec.

DG DREW

Belmore Gardens
Southdown
Bath
Messers Leat and Senior (Letters, July 5) are, I suspect, both Bath Rugby supporters interested in keeping rugby on the Recreation Ground. Mr Leat, who is a Bathonian but chooses to live in Midsomer Norton/Radstock, claims that he pays the same amount of tax living in a rural community as do city dwellers.

Surely, as democracy dictates, it operates in the opposite direction too?

As for "name calling", as in this instance, reverting to this means of debating, does little for your cause. Yes, should a vote be forthcoming, I am confident it would favour our ilk.

No, Mr Senior, I am not advocating autocracy, but for obvious reasons and appreciating at the same time that it may be perhaps a domestic matter, it should not be too difficult to understand as was my previous suggestion.

As has been claimed many times, the club's occupation of the Rec since 1895 I would dismiss as just a small and worthless claim as a pro-rugby contribution.

DG DREW

Belmore Gardens
Southdown
Bath
Until such time as news of the Charity Commission's findings are forthcoming with regard to Bath Rugby Plc and the Rec and contrary to opposition opinions, here are some more points that readers might like to consider. Recently, members of the pro rugby lobby group contributed some correspondence, accompanied by their own photographs, of the newly-reinstated area.

But might they not submit photographs prior to it being returfed, highlighting the obvious damage caused, as Mr Walkington's unbiased evidence did on July 15?

With regard to Bath Rugby and the praise bestowed upon it, I would imagine that any work done would be part of the agreement of the lease and not that Bath Rugby was undertaking the task in a public spirited way.

During the time of our respective differences this same group has contributed all sorts of opinions from Box, Bradford on Avon, Bristol, Bournemouth, Keynsham, Chipping Norton, Frome, Midsomer Norton/Radstock, Chippenham, Shepton Mallet and Broughton Gifford.

May I ask whether or not Bath is becoming a rugby centre for neighbouring enthusiasts? Although it is possibly just local support, it is probably not 10,500 Bathonians following the team as is often claimed.

The idea of sympathetically planned architecture has little credibility. While trying to justify their defence on rugby matters, these people have advised me and my family to move on, suggested the possibility of contributing towards a publicly funded municipal garden and suggested wearing Bath rugby shirts around the city.

Finally, I would suggest that Churchill House be demolished, but not expecting those living in Ubley, near Weston-super-Mare to be interested in this matter.

If it is obstructing progress of the new development, then yes demolish it.

The situation is hardly similar to the Rec. The intentions there are to eventually increase the profitability of a professional rugby club, in the centre of a World Heritage City, on charitable land which has already been bequeathed to its citizens.

Now that is an enormous undertaking, not to be directed to we anti lobbyists, but to the Charity Commission, or the law courts.

D DREW

Belmore Gardens, Bath
Despite some requests to change the subject on the Bath Rugby plc and Rec issue, the publicity dedicated to it by the Chronicle, July 22, maybe this matter is to run a little longer? The heading to the article "Sporting dream for the heart of Bath", is exactly what it is, but my suggestion is a much simpler and more objective one, requiring very little cost and planning.

It is to rename the club from its present title to B &NES Rugby plc.

The idea was that, noting the various locations in which supporters were residing, the new club could also have its new home within the appropriate county at these sites.

It could accommodate its intentions to expand, and its training structure, hence relieving Bathampton of any turmoil for this game of rugby.

Fortunately, Bath doesn't need promoting.

Should my idea predictably fail, and it is left to us citizens to rehouse the club, then could it not be from our surrounding hills?

I'm sure that our visiting shoppers would continue to find their way to the city centre as our tourists do, thus preserving our Rec for the annals of history, and for the purpose it was intended as its name implies.

D DREW

Belmore Gardens
Bath
Mr Adrian Smith's letter (Letters, July 27) inquired about Mr Gibson's earlier comments on the Bath Rec. I would imagine that his reference to the ten years was the time since Bath Rugby plc turned professional. Mr Smith, like many of the club's supporters, again echoes the personal contributions to our city's economy. While thanking him, we have long ago conceded to this claim, but have belatedly wished to have also canvassed the 30,000 people at Twickenham as to their local whereabouts hence revealing whether their support is within the city as is claimed.

I agree that an aerial view of the Rec substantiates the view that the club now occupies about one third of the ground, but can Mr Smith guarantee it remaining so, even if planning permission was allowed?

But again the implication is that the Rec's purpose is to be selfishly occupied for a predictable 14 afternoons a year rather than for all its citizens. Can Mr Smith justify Royal Victoria Park being used in the same way?

By not accommodating it at certain times of the year, would Mr Smith wish to lay claim to part of it as a rugby stadium?

The heading above a recent letter was 'Bath Rugby in good hands has never been in doubt'. Had the first two words been replaced by the words 'the Rec', it would have been made more encouraging reading.

Just having read of the league's proposed new ruling on crowd attendance by 2008, perhaps our friendly debates are at an end anyway. This, of course, depends on the next planning application later this month, and a ruling either by local councillors or by the Charity Commission.

DAN DREW

Belmore Gardens
Southdown
Bath
Having vowed to remain silent until after the next council meeting, a few points have driven me to defend myself and to make a few other comments, so I would appreciate your indulgence for a little longer. As previously mentioned, after disclosing their opinions on the proposed redevelopment of the citizens' Rec and wishing to remain anonymous on this subject, these people may have added further intrigue and doubt to this debate.

However, the contents of this letter were dubious, referring to the Bath city-wide character appraisal and the draft supplementary planning document.

Page 18 clearly states the wish of bringing the countryside to the city.

So the dreams mentioned, could never be realised and, depending on the possible favourable terms enjoyed at present by Bath Rugby plc, their wishing to stay has forewarned us as to its other options and its time scale.

In reply to Mr Wiley's letter (Letters, August 8), I must apologise for my unintentional ignorance.

But, as you appreciate, both our views on the subject of support, are based on conjecture, thus, the views of others command no more respect than my own.

But my views are more substantiated with evidence provided by the "out-of-town" supporters writing from their various addresses and by the volume of traffic departing the city when home games have ceased.

As for his suggestion of venturing to the Rec during the winter, I would remind Mr Wiley that my preference is for games where the ball runs true.

Seriously though, my opposition is not opposed to rugby within the city, but only as a city centre activity.

It will eventually outgrow our small city and the space afforded to it.

Mr Richard has a vision of the rear view of a horseshoe stand enhancing the Riverside walk, but with the removal of the stands and fencing at present evident the view would be superb.

DG DREW

Belmore Gardens
Southdown
Bath
This late opportunity gives me the chance of answering Stuart Anderton of Shepton Mallet, when replying to me earlier this month. He was in fact incorrect. He suggested I would ask the citizens of Bath to decide on whether or not a vacant or not much used section of Vicky Park be occupied by the rugby club. I was using the example as a similar situation to that at present on the citizens' Rec?

As Stuart was keeping an out of season eye on the Rec, incidentally, we too are constantly doing the same, he must have noted the unaccustomed peace and quiet as opposed to match days noise on the Rec, but suggests to it being a launching pad for those nice quiet hot air balloons.

Stuart's reaction to them though may have made him a nimby at Marlborough Buildings.

Replying to Mr Wiley, I would suggest that the question of space and facilities would benefit the club and not for other sports as suggested.

I am not accusing its supporters of causing traffic problems around the city or aspiring extra space, except perhaps on match days when the club takes occupation of two tennis courts in the south east corner for additional parking thus cancelling play on these days.

Agreed that Southdown is not within the city centre, but is within the city, unlike the supporters outside our boundaries, this number being indicated by the volume of traffic departing the city when matches have ceased.

Trying to comprehend to Mr Ziegler's opinions, I did however, recognise it to being a "repeat performance" as often mentioned and adequately answered points, admitting my disappointment to the Bath public's reaction to the citizens' Rec, only substantiates my life-long opinion that the city is not a sporting one. Therefore we find the same few names appearing in the Chronicle claiming to keeping green space within the city centre, yet advocating redevelopment, leaves me to wonder as to which direction he takes eventually?

Your recalling the war damaged stand, which was presumably carried out by the owner, or owners, at the time, when the club was of amateur status and no covenant was in existence?

Obviously, TV presentations always screen the most flattering of situations, but to obstruct and partially impair the present vista would be grossly incompetent.

All supporters are delighted with their unaccustomed rugby location, these out-of-town arenas are soulless agreed, this being the attraction to many that the club remains on the Rec.

As regards to the club, I would state that the only affiliation the staff, players and many supporters have towards our city, is by the badge it wears, and the so-called "culture" taught by rugby to the youth of today, must apply in our case to when being away from the Pulteney Street area.

D G DREW

Belmore Gardens
Southdown
Bath
My views on the re-location of Bath Rugby Club are as they always have been. The recreation ground is in a complete state and having the rugby club there does nothing to help.

In my opinion, the rugby club would be best suited out of town. It would benefit the club and our fantastic city to see them out of town completely.

JAMES TRENTHAM

The Circus, Bath
Not necessarily. That is my reply to Stan Frith's letter and the Chronicle heading accompanying it on August 23 which said: "Majority view on Rec must prevail". Living in a democracy and expecting such a vote, I don't think on this occasion, it will be forthcoming as a way of ending this dispute. The inevitable legal process will determine the eventual outcome, and that will not be settled by public meetings or protests. All they may accomplish is to create a "tell them what they wish to hear" occasion and the club's recent threat of performing the "unthinkable" of withdrawing from our city, will not gain preference over matters of law either.

Worthy Gilson's Friends of the Rec should identify themselves. This endless witchhunt about who they are is irrelevant. Their title again indicates that Mr Gilson is not alone. We now await some enlightened comments, instead of the same tiresome "Bath has played rugby on the Rec for 100 years and the club's presence is indirectly adding to the local economy" etc. Let's give them a final "kick into touch".

DG DREW

Belmore Gardens, Bath
Yes, we all know that rugby has been played on the Rec since Victoria was a girl. But in my memory (and yours?) it was played by local chaps with day jobs (solicitors, dentists, decorators, shop assistants etc) who collected the bread from the local bakers on their way home from work (I know, I have seen them). All right, rugby players do not earn as much as footballers, but they are professionals and most have no connection with Bath other than the rugby that they play here. I am afraid that such a large club with its shops and restaurants will want to spread more and more and engulf the centre of a small city like Bath.

I cannot understand why their millionaire owner does not want to acquire his own land, where he can spread as he likes. That would include room for the seconds club and ancillaries. It appals me to think of the lovely scenery around Bathampton disappearing under Tarmac for more car parks, restaurants etc.

PM CROFT

Warwick Road
Lower Weston
Bath
At the displeasure of the rugby fans and with the courtesy of The Bath Chronicle I will continue to comment upon the current misuse of the Recreation Ground. Any house owner whose property is subject to a covenant is not allowed by law to change the use or configuration of that property if it contravenes the restrictions imposed. The rugby club does not own the Rec nor does the council and the existing covenant is intended to protect it from its current misuse.

It is indeed very convenient for Mr Calleja when he informs us that Premier Rugby's governing body stipulates that rugby clubs must have seating capacity for 12,500 by 2007/08 and 15,000 by 2010/11, but is it not also a pre-requisite of the governing body that these same clubs own the grounds on which they play upon?

If the rugby club wants a privately funded stadium it should, in the first place, use this money to purchase a ground to build it upon.

It is evident that the rugby club wants to make this a nationwide issue judging by the flood of letters being received by the Chronicle from people all over the country. All wanting bigger and better rugby facilities within the heart of our World Heritage city.

I wonder how many of them would like to have such an eyesore put up in an open space centre of their neighbourhoods. Yes, let's have nationwide coverage, let's open up the whole can of worms concerning the blatant disregard of the covenant and the attempts of this multimillion pound club to take possession of a public sports ground, let's make it clear to everyone the detrimental and environmental effects this would have on our city centre.

It may attract the attention of the Attorney General or lead to the appointment of an independent ombudsman to settle this deplorable issue once and for all.

PHIL INMAN
Hill Avenue
Bath
We have recently been subjected to an over- abundance of letters which have obviously been an organised attempt by supporters of Bath Rugby plc to build a new stadium on the Rec. While in sympathy with the needs of the club, I do feel that a stadium for 15,000 spectators, with other facilities to go with it, would be against the spirit of the covenant of the Rec which intends that no one sport should dominate at the expense of others.

The photograph printed above, taken on September 3, was at a day-long lacrosse tournament. It illustrates to me how the majority of Bath residents feel, ie that the Rec should be available for such events which give wonderful enjoyment to hundreds of amateur sports people.

This raises the question as to whether the covenant permits a public limited company to run a business on it, let alone dominate it. Several questions come to mind, such as: if the rugby club is allowed to build a 15,000 seater stadium, where will they play while it is being built? Do they have in mind that the whole of the Rec should be taken over during the period of building? If so, what about the annual Bath Cricket Festival?

Recent articles in the Chronicle suggest that the stadium will be integrated with a new leisure centre and have shown an aerial photograph of the Rec with a site of a new stadium superimposed.

This site covered the existing leisure centre and the pavilion. Will a new pavilion be included in the rugby club's plans? If the leisure centre is to be demolished then how long will the citizens of Bath be without a leisure centre and pavilion? Are there plans to take up any of the present playing area of the Rec to provide parking for a new stadium? All this suggests that a happy compromise should be reached where the rugby club is allowed to rebuild on its existing area and allow the rest of the Rec to be used for the enjoyment of all to engage in amateur sport.

Bath Rugby supporters say that the ground has the most beautiful situation in the country. If so, let's keep it that way. A modern 15,000-seater stadium would not help in that respect.

Rebuild on the existing site in a U shape. Demolish the west stand which must be one of the eye sores of Bath in an otherwise very attractive riverside setting and replace with a building in keeping with a beautiful environment.

G MELLING
Gerrard Buildings
Bath
I KNOW I am not the only one who is concerned at the mass lobby of letters, mostly from people living outside Bath, which are currently appearing in The Bath Chronicle about, respectively, open top buses and the Rec.

We are not so naive as to believe that these two concert parties are not co-ordinated by vested interests. But at least those same interests should have had the nous to realise that puddings become unpalatable when they are over-egged. And letters written by non citizens of Bath should count for nothing - Mr Calleja, please note. However, I am surprised that the newspaper has not itself acted with a little more acumen and perhaps created a special section for these letters under say, a heading such as pressure groups. Finally, in the case of the bus letters, the Chamber of Commerce must have taken note of some references to the writers' economical days out-packed meal; tour of Bath by bus and then back home. Perhaps the writers should have omitted that detail.

PATRICK COBBE
Perrymead, Bath

Bookmark or share this story with: