Cheshire East Council is proposing to dispose of the land at Wilmslow Leisure Centre, including the public open space.
As the freehold owner of the premises, the Council is proposing to grant a lease for the site for up to 125 years to Everybody Sport and Recreation, the charitable trust which was set up by the Council to take over the running of leisure services across the Borough.
Cheshire East Council is also proposing to dispose of the land at 12 other leisure centres and swimming pools across the borough.
The Council's leisure facilities were managed in-house but in order to save money the running of the leisure centres has transferred to the trust, which is expected to save the Council at least £700,000 a year through VAT and NNDR (business rates).
Cheshire East had been spending over £9 million a year on leisure services and employing 400 full time staff, who will be transferred to the trust.
Any representations or objections with respect to the proposal must be made in writing to Suki Binjal, Interim Head of Legal Services and Monitoring Officer, Cheshire East Borough Council, Westfields, Middlewich Road, Sandbach, Cheshire CW11 1HZ, quoting reference TL.10509 and should be received no later than 5pm on 13th February 2014. Please state the grounds upon which any representation or objection is made.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
I too smell a rat.
Financial and organisational failure could result in liquidation of the trust. Savings may evaporate and the trust could require increased subsidy by the Council.
Better a long term vision for the integration of leisure services with other public services in place of short term budget savings.
I was part of the Wilmslow Vision process two years ago when most participants talked about the importance to the town of the open space around the Leisure Centre. People coming out of the station can walk through trees and open space as they head into town; children coming in and out of the Leisure Centre can enjoy running across the grass without fear of cars, and in the summer there is the pleasure of the Cricket Pitch and the open space for childrens' activities.
I have not yet met anyone in Wilmslow who would prefer that the space by the Leisure Centre becomes another car park, another supermarket or another housing estate. I believe that there was a plan to "move" the Leisure centre and the cricket pitch to the other side of the bypass, but then the green space would no longer be in the town and we would be deprived of a "green lung" that enhances our collective quality of life.
Last year, students from Manchester University working with Transition Wilmslow produced a Green Infrastructure plan for Wilmslow and Handforth (http://bit.ly/1fOYGpS).
Green Infrastructure (GI) is a key part of the CEC Policy Principles document, stating that GI has an "important role to play in mitigating the effects of extreme weather events" (CEC 2013: 57) and that it makes an "important contribution" (CEC, 2013, 57) to the quality of the environment and peoples' mental and physical wellbeing. The Wilmslow Vision gave importance to "high quality, accessible, green and recreational spaces both within and outside the Town Centre" (CEC, 2012b:6) and the Rectory Fields is surely part of this?
There have also been discussions about revitalising the town centre and making it a place where businesses thrive, and there is space for leisure and commerce in a lively and interesting environment. Losing the "green jewel" of the Rectory Fields would make Wilmslow a less attractive place to be, which will mitigate against the efforts of many local people to improve the town.
So.... if "disposal" of the Rectory Fields means selling it off to the highest bidder what does that mean? What does WTC think about this? What do other people think?
Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps CEC can reassure me that "disposal" means something more benign than just "selling off to the highest bidder"?
One of the reasons I love living in Wilmslow is the trees and green space I can walk through on my way home from the station or on my way to or from the Leisure centre. Trees and green space make a town feel better cared for and more interesting, and benefit our collective mental and physical wellbeing in a way we will only realise once we have lost them.
"Development which could result in the loss of public open space, parks or playing fields will only be permitted provided that :-
alternative provision of equivalent community benefit is made in the locality
or, the area in question no longer provides a valued opportunity for sport, recreation or leisure;
or there is an excess of provision taking into account the long term recreation and amenity value of such provision;
or, sport, recreation and leisure facilities can be retained and enhanced through the redevelopment of a small part of the site.
Policy SG19 also provided that "the amenity of open spaces within settlements will be assessed when proposals are received for their development. Where such open space make a value to the character, appearance and historic pattern of the settlement, development will not be permitted.
So we need to object people before it is too late.
Perhaps if we had a bit more detail about the exact boundaries of land being talked about (are we just talking about the cricket pitch? or does it extend to the road and to the current car park boundary? does it include the public rights of way?) it might help in deciding whether to object or not? What would be the consequences if a majority of respondents did
object?
Would it be possible to have more information from CEC? I doubt I am the only one who reacts negatively to words like "disposal" of assets as valued as the Rectory Fields!