Fesiblity study on Britwell -regeneration

[Guest]

 

As promised from the AGM , a small report on the fesiblity study which is still taking place!

 

Yes we have read all about the statements from Richard Stokes , saying these things and acting on them is another, Yes they have a coaliation

at the moment, and when he comes round to doing the dirty on SLOUGH rate payers might be a another thing, these pelimary contracts have been signed and if they are to call them in , its going to cost BIG MONEY !

 

The group under the fesilblity study report things are still going ahead and with the council still to meet and then judge these ideas will take some months yet....so lets not start throwing mud all over the place , lets keep our heads...but from now until they make a choice lets ensure they know we are not happy !!!!

 

Letters - attending council meetings - banging drums outside the town hall.... let ensure we do it..........we must let them know we are there !

 

As for Janick... what a waste of time ! he wanted power got it then wants to critise the councillors that he was working with ! Do you think the coalition going to work !!!

 

In the cold light of day, someone is trying to shaft us again the people who want our town to have a football team to be proud of...supporting our town and trying to do the best for our Town !

 

Come on who are they trying to kid....Britwell needs regeneration and we need a home ...the 2 go hand in hand with each other and when the full fesiblity study is put forward lets see what all aprties can gain...a win win situation I am sure it will be....

 

NB ******* in the next 2 weeks....on this posting please can we have your ideas of what we would like to see in a new stadium (faclities)

fair and sensible ones please that may be for the benifit of all the residents of Slough and especially the residents of Britwell....

 

 

The most important note , is if the bore samples of the site of the proposed stadium come back negative then there can be no stadium on the Slough estates site on offer and contary to the information being passed around the stadium was never to be built on Kennady park and nor will be the land for the stadium is on an 11 arcre site off Kennady park...and is a land fill site that may not be suitable ever.... !!!!!!! We have to wait and see....

 

Also We are lead to believe the independants want us to return home....Please ask them to explain how ??? we don't own the stadium or land and it is out of Slough in south Bucks....

 

answers to STST on a post card please.....

 

Thanks to Roger for the info about the sale and free hold of Wexham Park...we also had confirmation yesterday about the sale...

 

So you supporters things to think about....

 

Up the Rebels......

 

chris Sliski <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

[Ted]

Quote:

Anonymous said:




The most important note , is if the bore samples of the site of the proposed stadium come back negative then there can be no stadium on the Slough estates site on offer and contary to the information being passed around the stadium was never to be built on Kennady park and nor will be the land for the stadium is on an 11 arcre site off Kennady park...and is a land fill site that may not be suitable ever.... !!!!!!! We have to wait and see....

Chris---Do you have any further information? The argument was put around Britwell, and was largely accepted, that there was no difference between Kennedy Park and the proposed site as they had in effect merged---now it seems that there may be a huge difference.

[Guest]

Hi Ted....The land proposed is a 11 acre site adjacent to Kennedy park, owned by Slough Estates on a former land fill site, Kennedy park's mound will remain in place and will be fully landscape to (hide) the stadium , which will be built in the hollow...some car parking on this space too !

 

The other bits will be built over some of the old waste land and along wentworth avenue (which looks like Beriut ) but of course there are many issue, the most important what do the residents want too !

 

Bucknall Austin the fesiblity company have many many ideas and views already from people living on the Britwell, some yes dead against but some fully behind the Stadium and the re generation

 

SO THE BATTLE BEGINS !!! The new council needs to know we will not go away !!! until they secure a site worthy of supporting the football club in the business side of the projects ....

 

This is a must ! we need financial stablity too and with business venture included will allow us to move forward....

 

cheers chris

 

<img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[GarySTFC]

Going back to the original request of what we, as individuals, would like to see included would be:

 

Bar (obviously)

Artifical Training pitches - for local use

Some basic office space to include a shop area

 

 

Any sporting facilities must be made available to the local residents to help it improve the attractiveness of the proposition.

 

Personally, I don't really want to go to KP. (I stress the personally part...) I don't think the area is right, although it is only one particular part of the Britwell that is not nice these days. Who would want to leave their car unattended for the best part of the day in the car park whilst we travel over to say Dover for a match. I certainly wouldn't.

 

My personal preference would be to go back to WP under our T&C's so we can make the most of the existing site. In all honesty, National Conference football is still plenty of time away and it's a good enough site. If the councillors are true to their word, they would have to work with South Bucks Council to aid us in coming to some agreement about further developing that site.

 

At the end of the day, I'll be following the club wherever it ends up. There are clear benefits to moving to KP with the infrastructure MD will be able to implement which will effectively be able to seal our future with a percentage of income always coming into the club to support other ventures which we wouldn't have at WP.

[Guest]

Thanks Gary...that's what we need so this info can be passed on to the fesiblity group who are proceeding with the task in hand....

 

If the independants want to suggest another site....we need to know now..not 2 years down the road...and all promises and no action....

 

cheers chris <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[GarySTFC]

On behalf of Brigton Rebel:

 

Firstly, i think the ground needs to be as cosy as possible with as much

cover so supporters can generate lots of atmosphere. Look at Tootings new

ground, looks good, but as their supporters complained quite impossible to

get a real atmosphere growing. Then there's Dulwich, amazing clubhouse and

sports facilities but the rest of the ground is pretty awful, and we won't

even talk about Staines.

Maybe the ground could be built in stages - three of four thousand capacity

that can be expanded if/as we go up the leagues. No point in us having a

massive ground with no one in it.

Secondly the clubhouse is essential - two bars would be ideal, one with a

couple of big screens to show lots of footie to get people down to the

ground drinking even when Slough aren't playing, and one bar that can be

hired out for discos, weddings etc. I always thought the Wexham Park

clubhouses was wasted and could have, with proper management, been used

seven nights a week.

There's this process called (i think) Planning for Real, where a model of

the proposal is built, to give people a clearer idea rather than diagrams -

and people can scribble comments, move bits of the model around.

Can't wait for the season to start - when does the fixture list come out?

[Ted]

I agree with what Brighton Rebel has said---in particular not building too big a stadium at the first go. The somewhat flawed survey carried out by the IBR, stressed the building of a 10,000 capacity stadium,no doubt to get the result they wanted---probably raising fears of traffic and parking congestion.

 

One thing the survey did show was that those surveyed wanted a swimming pool. I'm far from sure one is economically viable, and it may have been included to unrealistically raise expectations, but if one could be part of the proposals then it would be quite a plus for local residents to go for the whole packeage.

 

All that said, if the new leader of the council is as anti the proposal as the press suggests, its just a matter of time before its all pulled.

[Burnham Lad]

Whilst I would not disagree to an extent with Brighton Rebel or Ted, there is often a lot to be said for going for what you need at the outset. How often do we see situations where things change in the interim and you find you cannot get planning permission for the future development and would be stuck with an inadequate stadium?

 

Burnham FC nearly got caught by this - they put in a modest planning application for their current ground and got permission. Later, after their new ground proposal had been withdrawn, (for the same problems of people not wanting a stadium near them), they put in amended and more comprehensive plans for the ground design they really wanted on their current site. It only got through on the casting vote of the chairman, 6 to 5, after a major local fight from people who did not even live there when the initial plan was approved, plus Burnham's anti-football Councillor.

 

Martyn Deaner was right (there, I said it!!!)in that the club needs a revenue stream to ensure that football can be supported without needing continous large wodges of cash from somebody like him. Given that the site is contentious, we need to have facilities which are to the local advantage and not likely to attract huge opposition. The ground which always strikes me as interesting in this is Eastbourne Borough, where they have built a new ground with loads of local sports facilities. As well as the main pitch and practice ground they have a sports club with Indoor bowls, gym and other similar activities. People get worried about bad behavious after functions, so whilst having the bars and such facilities are a good idea for revenue, perhaps having other sporting facilities might be good to reduce the contentious nature of a site which otherwise could be just seen as partying.

 

Having said all that, I still think that the Slough Estates site is unlikely, given the opposition which has now moved to what I suspect is an "over my dead body" attitude by the new regime for reasons best known to themselves. I still think that we could do many of the things I have mentioned with some support from the council at Wexham Park and I would still prefer to see us there. Perhaps we (The Trust) could talk direct to South Bucks Council and find out what their objections would be and what they would agree to? The other major hurdle may be the Thornes, and progress would have to be made with them.

 

It seems that this may be a time for exploring all options, given that pursuing a single option may not be viable if we don't wish to be left with nothing. Mr Deaner may not want to carry on if there is no real prospect of getting his vision met, and then we really would need to act quickly.