Bitterne Park School will not get new football facilities (From Daily Echo)

Chairman of school governors Anglea Whettingsteel said she was “very disappointed” at the Uturn.

“Unfortunately in all of this it will be the 1,500 students of Bitterne Park School who will lose out by not having what would have been excellent sporting facilities.”


What on earth do you mean, there's a playing field with an indoor sports hall on one side of the school and a hard-court area the other!

Local residents are right to be concerned about the sighting of this kind of facility in a residential area, just take a look at the parking around Goals in Millbrook which is quite sensibly on a main road far away from a residential zone.

mr.southampton wrote:
Chairman of school governors Anglea Whettingsteel said she was “very disappointed” at the Uturn.

“Unfortunately in all of this it will be the 1,500 students of Bitterne Park School who will lose out by not having what would have been excellent sporting facilities.”


What on earth do you mean, there's a playing field with an indoor sports hall on one side of the school and a hard-court area the other!

Local residents are right to be concerned about the sighting of this kind of facility in a residential area, just take a look at the parking around Goals in Millbrook which is quite sensibly on a main road far away from a residential zone.

I live in one of the roads adjacent to BP School and am fed up at the scaremongering tactics of the Nimbys who were against this.

One knocked on my door trying to suggest that the kids would be getting drunk in school time. Shows you how desperate they were to turn others against the plan.

Big loss to the area, IMO.

Nothing to do with petitions or anything else. The land for development falls in to the Public Safety Zone for the airport, a place where you should avoid having large numbers of people congregating due to the impact of a plane crash.

The question of why they started down this road in the first place, when the PSZ is known already, is another issue.

I no longer live close to the school but if I did I would be glad this was rejected. Development should be on a non-commercial basis without an on-site bar and without stealing land from Riverside Park (which I think was a related part of the scheme) to give to the school.


the local bitternepark dot info has some informed discussion about this.

mr. southampton, whilst i can understand your comments, this is the exact reason that england will continue to fall behind other nations in sport.

you argue that bitterne park already have excellent sporting facilities,thats simply not the case compared to what the schools in the usa and australia have the facilities here are awful. all bitterne park has is a grass field, yes you can put a pitch on it or paint a running track but it doesnt make it a great facility.

and its funny how the same councillors that voted for fluoridation despite a massive public outcry now care what the public think.

and the argument about the impact of a plane crash is just a joke, if a plane come down in bitterne park it would cause a catastrophic loss of life regardless of whether or not the lease for this was granted or not. bitterne park is after all a heavily populated resedential area.

kingthom wrote:
and the argument about the impact of a plane crash is just a joke, if a plane come down in bitterne park it would cause a catastrophic loss of life regardless of whether or not the lease for this was granted or not. bitterne park is after all a heavily populated resedential area.

If an area is of increased risk, you don't get more people in. Doesn't mean the planes are falling out of the sky, but you recognise the risk and take planning decisions based on that.

We can only speculate as to how many Bitterne Parkers are sitting around at home with their running short or football kit on, saying to themselves "if only there were a commercially run outdoor pitch with a bar attached, then I would be a world class athlete bringing home gold medals for my beloved country".

Oh well, I guess we'll never know.

no wonder we have trouble with youngsters playing in the roads, they must have been really disappointed

no wonder we have trouble with youngsters playing in the roads, they must have been really disappointed

no wonder we have trouble with youngsters playing in the roads, they must have been really disappointed

10 Minute Man wrote:

kingthom wrote: and the argument about the impact of a plane crash is just a joke, if a plane come down in bitterne park it would cause a catastrophic loss of life regardless of whether or not the lease for this was granted or not. bitterne park is after all a heavily populated resedential area.

If an area is of increased risk, you don't get more people in. Doesn't mean the planes are falling out of the sky, but you recognise the risk and take planning decisions based on that. We can only speculate as to how many Bitterne Parkers are sitting around at home with their running short or football kit on, saying to themselves "if only there were a commercially run outdoor pitch with a bar attached, then I would be a world class athlete bringing home gold medals for my beloved country". Oh well, I guess we'll never know.

10 minute man the argument is rubbish, right next to the airport which would be the area most at risk, there is a royal mail factory with thousands of workers in it!!! yet a football league that would attract maybe 100 people cant be put in.the bar doesnt concern me, but our kids are not getting the facilities that other countries are getting, people make it in england cos there born with talent not cause we have facilities that help them to grow those talents. tis no coincedence that we have one of the best velodromes in the world in manchester and we clean up at track cycling at the olympics. just as australia clean up at swimming cos they have the best facilities in the world, we give our kids no chance and then wander why they fail.

10 Minute Man wrote:

kingthom wrote: and the argument about the impact of a plane crash is just a joke, if a plane come down in bitterne park it would cause a catastrophic loss of life regardless of whether or not the lease for this was granted or not. bitterne park is after all a heavily populated resedential area.

If an area is of increased risk, you don't get more people in. Doesn't mean the planes are falling out of the sky, but you recognise the risk and take planning decisions based on that. We can only speculate as to how many Bitterne Parkers are sitting around at home with their running short or football kit on, saying to themselves "if only there were a commercially run outdoor pitch with a bar attached, then I would be a world class athlete bringing home gold medals for my beloved country". Oh well, I guess we'll never know.

10 minute man the argument is rubbish, right next to the airport which would be the area most at risk, there is a royal mail factory with thousands of workers in it!!! yet a football league that would attract maybe 100 people cant be put in.the bar doesnt concern me, but our kids are not getting the facilities that other countries are getting, people make it in england cos there born with talent not cause we have facilities that help them to grow those talents. tis no coincedence that we have one of the best velodromes in the world in manchester and we clean up at track cycling at the olympics. just as australia clean up at swimming cos they have the best facilities in the world, we give our kids no chance and then wander why they fail.

To respond to kingthorn the school actually has a giant indoor sports hall as well as the large area of grass. Also the sports England are falling behind on (I assume football, cricket etc) are played on grass rather than astro turf. Environmentally friendly good old fashoined grass. As a parent I would much rather wash a muddy PE kit once a week than put up with hundreds of young men driving in and out of our school every night, possibly after a drink or two - the price the community were expected to pay for the school management's latest publicity stunt.
If we wish to discuss agressive petitioning perhaps we could ask the school why children who refused to sign the petition were singled out in classes, or tricked into signing. And even then only 650 out of a 1500 captive audience did sign. At the cabinet meeting to withdraw the lease there were only 2 school representatives. It was good to see a qoute from Mrs Whettingsteel as she had nothing to say in favour of this project during the meeting. Mrs Trigger wasn't there. Neither were Playfootball, who do seem very evasive.
All in all, a grand decision for the safety and well being of the children of the community. With hindsight of course, the credit crunch would probably have done for the project anyway. Perhaps we should re-evaluate what is important within the education system. Beating the other schools for facilities? Bringing in the highest revenue? The school is already academically very sound.

liza plenty, the petition and anything involved with that i dont have an opinion on as i simply know nothing about it. if kids where singled out in class for not signing it then thats wrong and shouldve been dealt with in school but should have no bearing on whether or not this facility was put into the school.

i have however been in the sports hall, it is not giant! and the kids wont be allowed to play on the grass when its been raining too much and that sort of thing, this all weather surface would mean that they could continue with their pe lesson regardless of the weather. i dont see how in any way at all this would stop the school being academically sound. i already said that the i dont care about the bar and dont see there is a need for one as the hop inn is just around the corner, if they want a drink they can go there. as for people driving in and out of the school, well whats wrong with that!?! also my point wasnt about beating other schools for facilities, its about our youngsters being given the best available facilities to help them grow and develop there talents and giving kids the oppurtunity to get involved in sport. this league would only be run in the evening meaning the school would have access to this facility during the school hours.

a big oppurtunity missed, and we will continue to miss these oppurtunities as simply the government doesnt care about sport one jot and never has.

kingthom wrote:

10 Minute Man wrote:

kingthom wrote: and the argument about the impact of a plane crash is just a joke, if a plane come down in bitterne park it would cause a catastrophic loss of life regardless of whether or not the lease for this was granted or not. bitterne park is after all a heavily populated resedential area.

If an area is of increased risk, you don't get more people in. Doesn't mean the planes are falling out of the sky, but you recognise the risk and take planning decisions based on that. We can only speculate as to how many Bitterne Parkers are sitting around at home with their running short or football kit on, saying to themselves "if only there were a commercially run outdoor pitch with a bar attached, then I would be a world class athlete bringing home gold medals for my beloved country". Oh well, I guess we'll never know.

10 minute man the argument is rubbish, right next to the airport which would be the area most at risk, there is a royal mail factory with thousands of workers in it!!! yet a football league that would attract maybe 100 people cant be put in.the bar doesnt concern me, but our kids are not getting the facilities that other countries are getting, people make it in england cos there born with talent not cause we have facilities that help them to grow those talents. tis no coincedence that we have one of the best velodromes in the world in manchester and we clean up at track cycling at the olympics. just as australia clean up at swimming cos they have the best facilities in the world, we give our kids no chance and then wander why they fail.

Its not my argument, its a fact of the planning system. Get over it.

well clearly its not a fact of the planning system otherwise royal mail wouldnt be allowed to be where it is would it!?!

Sorry kingthorn - I didn't mean to direct my whole email at you previously. Typing in too much of a hurry!

I would say that the Royal Mail sorting office right next to the airport is probably a pretty safe place to be. Most aircraft incidents would (I imagine) happen on take off or landing, and the Royal Mail office is nowhere near the line of the runway.

what a week council.showsome backbone,i voted for your lot and get more depressed every time a major project or plan ,you lot run away, gutless the whole lot of them.
another victory for the nimbys.

"thesaint", the Council didn't really have any choice but to turn it down (in my opinion). The PlayFootball development could only be approved by the Council at the cost of going against explicit government guidance (over the PSZ) and against its own local plan (and shame on them for not realising this at the outset).

The *real* test of the Council will be whether *they* can provide some much-needed astroturf pitches for the school on a scale that everyone will be happy with. Because remember, the school hadn't actually asked the Council to provide any before PlayFootball came on the scene! With pitches provided by the Council, the school of course won't get the £100K up-front payment, £20K donation for gym equipment, and £10K annual rent.

What a bunch of NIMBYS! The 'sports facilities' in many Southampton schools are positively ancient; serious money needs to be spent to bring them up to scratch. The council appear to have turned down a chance to get better facilities largely at someone else's (NOT taxpayers') expense. Daft!
NIMBYS take note. Better sports facilities make schools more attractive to parents and pupils alike. Popular, successful schools have POSITIVE effects on house prices in their area. Local people can even use the facilities, thus giving the school some much-needed income and reducing their need to go cap-in-hand to...local residents.
Shame on you.
The young people you so despise are kept happily and gainfully occupied in a safe, organised environment. Test Park pitches have gone forever, BTC Sports Club had to fight the council to keep their home. 'Your' council has a very poor record here; do you want young people to have nothing to do and nowhere to go??
Shame on you and on the weak councillors whose word cannot be trusted. The argument over flight paths is a smoke screen for their failure; your objection to 'noise' is stupid-will the school have to close because there is too much noise during the school run?
Get a life

This is nuts. To anyone who thinks that the Council decision was wrong I say: go and have a look at the "Goals" site in Millbrook on a busy weekday night. It's a good facility, well-located. I just don't believe that anyone sane who has been there could seriously maintain that anything like that would be suitable in a densely populated residential area. (And this is what was being proposed; something aimed at young men, not local kids...)

Again, if you are serious about this, and think of the people who objected to it as NIMBYs, go and have a look at the Millbrook site on a busy weeknight, and ask yourself whether you think that would be a good thing to have in a residential district. Imagine that within a few yards of your own house. To repeat, there's nothing wrong - in fact everything right! - about having this sort of facility available to the public. It's just not suitable - obviously not suitable - for a densely populated residential area.

The point that's being missed here is that there's no reason to think that it's big commercial development or nothing. The school, parents, local residents should be pressing the Council for appropriate, non-commercial, facilities - facilities aimed at local kids and their families, not at commercially motivated and organised five-a-side leagues.

scottishsaint wrote:
What a bunch of NIMBYS! The 'sports facilities' in many Southampton schools are positively ancient; serious money needs to be spent to bring them up to scratch. The council appear to have turned down a chance to get better facilities largely at someone else's (NOT taxpayers') expense. Daft!
NIMBYS take note. Better sports facilities make schools more attractive to parents and pupils alike. Popular, successful schools have POSITIVE effects on house prices in their area. Local people can even use the facilities, thus giving the school some much-needed income and reducing their need to go cap-in-hand to...local residents.
Shame on you.
The young people you so despise are kept happily and gainfully occupied in a safe, organised environment. Test Park pitches have gone forever, BTC Sports Club had to fight the council to keep their home. 'Your' council has a very poor record here; do you want young people to have nothing to do and nowhere to go??
Shame on you and on the weak councillors whose word cannot be trusted. The argument over flight paths is a smoke screen for their failure; your objection to 'noise' is stupid-will the school have to close because there is too much noise during the school run?
Get a life

i think you summed it up,its the same old negative nonsence spouted by nimbys ,this must be the weakest council we have had so far. so much for getting a go getting city with these wimps in charge.

Nobody objects to the school having better facilities. They object to having a busy commercial football centre open until 10pm every night with the traffic, noise, floodlights, bar facilities etc that it would include. And these objections were not addressed - they were just dismissed.

People who trot out the "nimby" label are doing a disservice to the planning system. It actually requires you to object on some solid grounds, not "I don't want this in my backyard". Then the applicant is supposed to address those objections in some way. This didn't happen - and yet the last council still waved it through.

My security word? Cash-bill. Well, quite.

me-here-now, bitterne park school is even further from the line of the runway then based on your logic.

One of the reasons for declining the decision, which is apparent from the planning application, is that some of the proposed site overlaps with the Public Safety Zone for So'ton Airport. Unless that can be overcome, it was never likely to succeed. It seems, from the comments submitted in support and against the proposal that the developers didn't know about the PSZ, because they submitted a question to the Planning Dept. asking for advice on the PSZ after objections were raised by BAA and So'ton Airport.

It's a shame that it was declined though. I have nieces and a nephew at the school and it would be a great opportunity for the kids.

Having used these sorts of facilities in the past, I have never seen anyone drunk and behaving anti-socially at these sorts of places. People go there for a game of footy and quiet beer afterwards to brag about their footballing prowess, not to get hammered and beat each other senseless afterwards.

I can appreciate the concerns over traffic, but it's not likely to be an extension of the M27, and as I understand it, onsite parking will be provided. I can't really see there being any significant issues with noise and floodlights. I have a MUGA across from where we live, and I can see the lights and if I step outside, I can hear the shouts, but honestly - it's nice to see people using the facilities. Much, much rather that than drinking on a street corner or beating up granny. Having said that, most of the people that use these facilities are work teams, existing sports club teams and overweight 30-40-something’s - hardly granny-bashing, hoody-wearing scumbags.

As for the bar setting a bad example for the children, what a load of rubbish. There is already a bar in the school isn't there?! Why? No idea. But that doesn't seem to have traumatised any children so far, so why should this?

Get over the issues with the PSZ and allow it to be built, I say.

A lot of the people who comment in favour of this site are missing the point, this is partly due to the rather poor reporting of the Echo. No-one has objected to the facilities, rather it was to do with the fact that a private commercial operation wanted to run a facility with a sports bar in a school. Play Football has always been up front and acted proefessionaly and it was aparant that they were not doing this just for good of the school or our future sports stars but to make PROFIT. To make profit they would have to rely on this public bar which is outside the control on the school staff and hire it out, advertise it etc etc.

Dimond wrote:
A lot of the people who comment in favour of this site are missing the point, this is partly due to the rather poor reporting of the Echo. No-one has objected to the facilities, rather it was to do with the fact that a private commercial operation wanted to run a facility with a sports bar in a school. Play Football has always been up front and acted proefessionaly and it was aparant that they were not doing this just for good of the school or our future sports stars but to make PROFIT. To make profit they would have to rely on this public bar which is outside the control on the school staff and hire it out, advertise it etc etc.

I think people understand that this business wants to make money.

The school gets an annual rental income, the local population get new sports facilities and a company creates some new jobs and hopes to make a profit. I still don't see the problem.

I think most of the objectors are confusing the pavilion/bar with a nightclub. The terms of the original permission were that the bar had to close by 10:30 and would not be accessible to the school during the day.

I don't see how you can say that the school will not benefit; the school gets the use during the day and an income from it as well, from land they're not using effectively at the moment. Play Football would only open AFTER the school day has finished.

I believe the primary income source from Play Football is to - forgive me for stating the obvious - providing facilities for people to play football. Ok, so it wants to sell refreshments as well, big deal. It's not a nightclub open to the public.

Would you still be against the idea if the pavilion was unlicensed?