Why would our Council seemingly support the loss of sports field?
I am greatly concerned after listening to Cllr.King last night when we discussed the possible
lease of part of the sports field / Important open space opposite the former sixth form college
on Barleythorpe Road. 2.44 acres has been supported for residential development for a number
of years but the owners, Tresham College in Northamptonshire, want to develop an additional
I acre and 600 square metres (thatis the wording in the Governors minutes). Thus reducing the
amount of sports field / recreation land even further.
Now that Tresham have vacated the college grounds they have no use for the sports field and
appear simply to want every penny they can get out of Rutland, even when the whole site had
to be transferred to them eleven years ago for £1 (one pound) out of the ownership of Rutland.
Rutland County Council have agreed to sell it’s adjoining 2 acre Parks school site collaboratively
with the college land. The College Governors have publicly stated that RCC have ‘flexed’ planning
to give the proposed purchaser, Bellway Homes a greater value so that there is then a greater
financial income for the College. The flexing is to support Tresham’s plan to add the extra one
acre and 600 sq. metres to a planning application. Rutland County Council have a duty to protect
sports fields and important open space for the benefit of the community it serves.
There has been no public consultation regarding RCC supporting the additional loss of sport /
recreational land, and we have to ask “ why would RCC enable a developer to get a greater value
at the cost of reduced public facilities? What is the benefit to the community in this?
Will the eventual outcome be making the site big enough for a supermarket which would command
a greater financial income for the land owner(s)?
