Let's look at just some of the statements in Mr Smith's letter shall we?

=======
== 1 ==
=======

"I am writing to inform you that the Governing Body of Bitterne Park School has re-confirmed their original decision to support ..."

Rubbish. The Governing Body had *not* made a decision on this development prior to the extra-ordinary Governors meeting of the 22nd September. This has been confirmed by the Clerk of the Governors (the meticulous gentleman who records the minutes) and a number of governors who were spoken to who said they had prior knowledge of the application.

=======
== 2 ==
=======

"... it was confirmed by all parties that all legal and planning requirements has been followed correctly."

There are two separate matters to be addressed here: that of the consultation, and that of the planning application.

Taking the second matter first, the planning application, I have no doubt that it was submitted (by PlayFootball) in the correct manner and everything was in order, and that the Council will confirm this.

But, at the time the disposal/lease of the land was being considered (July 2007), the law required a ten week term-time consultation with the local community, as stated in a report by Dave Kitson (as Head of Strategic Development). The Cabinet Member for Children's Services, who is also a Councillor for Bitterne Park, said “The consultation, carried out by the school on the council's behalf, was hugely flawed and was not fit for purpose.” He continued “The consultation should have started after firm proposals had been agreed by the school and PlayFootball, and then those firm proposals (the same as would then appear as a Planning Application) put out to the school community and local community for consultation and moulding. What happened was that people (and not even the local community) were consulted about a rose-tinted concept.”

=======
== 3 ==
=======

"The original planning application in July had the wrong opening times and these have now been corrected and PlayFootball accept responsibility for this mistake."

How did a 'professional' company such as PlayFootball, 'accidentally' get the opening times wrong in the planning application? I'm sure PlayFootball were expecting the planning application to just sail through (with the 'wrong' longer opening times) as the school had apparently already consulted and there were no objections. Does anyone at the Council really believe that they got this wrong accidentally? The school and the governors are obviously either totally gullible or just don't care.

=======
== 4 ==
=======

"Local traffic calming measures have been agreed with Planning."

Copsewood Road - or part of it at least - is going to be made into a 20mph zone.

=======
== 4 ==
=======

"I do hope that you realise that the concerns of the local community have been at the forefront of our planning over the last 18 months."

Well that's the best bit isn't it? They're so concerned about us they didn't even tell us what was being proposed! I'm surprised they care so much about the "NIMBYs" with "a degree of hypocrisy, double-standards and an elitist view"!

A Letter to Legal and Democratic Services 25th August 2008
Solicitor to the Council
Legal & Democratic
Services Southampton City Council Southampton
4-8 Millbrook Rd East
Southampton
SO15 1YG

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have been informed that the Council proposes to cease publishing planning applications in the Southern Daily Echo. This will inevitably lead to a reduction in public awareness of and involvement in planning issues affecting their communities. To this extent the proposal is one which would reduce local democracy.

I appreciate that it will still be possible to access planning applications via the Council website. However many people, particularly disadvantaged members of the community such as the elderly, do not have ready access to computers, or the ability use the internet; and the proposal will further disadvantage these groups.

For the above reasons I wish to register an objection to the proposal.
=====================================
A response to the letter.
=====================================
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SERVICE
Southampton City Council
Planning & Sustainability Division
Ground Floor
Civic Centre
Southampton
SO14 7LS


Advertising Planning Applications

Thank-you for your letter dated 25th August 2008, addressed to the Solicitor to the Council. This letter has been forwarded to me to respond.

I believe you are writing in connection to a letter which was published in the Southern Daily Echo on Friday 22nd August 2008. Unfortunately there are some inaccuracies in the letter the main point being – the registering of objections to the proposal that planning notices will cease to be published in the local media.

The Government guidance on planning consultation is clear. Local Planning Authorities can publicise planning applications in one of three ways:-
•By site notice in at least one place on or near the land to which the application relates
•By serving the notice on any adjoining owner or occupier
•By local advertisement

Until recently this planning authority would carryout all three methods of consultation. A review was carried out to see if these were still the best methods of consultation after complaints were received from residents.

Planning notices are not published in the Southern Daily Echo as it was felt that residents should not have to pay to be informed about planning applications. This planning authority use the Advertiser to publicise planning applications as this is a free publication and in theory delivered to all residents in Southampton. Unfortunately, it appears that it no longer is delivered to every house and the households which receive this newspaper, a large number are inclined not to read it. A recent survey indicated that only 1 person in 5 buys or has access to provincial newspapers.

This planning authority will continue to consult via the local newspaper on a number of applications but not all. The planning applications which will continue to be advertised are:-
1.Major Developments
2.Applications accompanied by an Environmental Statement
3.Departures from the Development Plan
4.Applications which may affect the setting of a Public Right of Way
5.Applications which may affect the setting of a Listed Building
6.Developments within designated Conservation Areas

In the past 12 months there have been improvements in the way that we consult with residents via the City Council web pages and local residents association are informed of all applications in their area. There have been many reports showing that more people have access to a computer and the internet.

All planning applications that we receive each week can be view online at http://publicaccess.southampto...hform.aspx

It is for these reasons that a report was approved by the Planning and Rights of Way Panel to reduce the consultation by local advertisement. There will be a review held in a few months time to ascertain the impact of this change has had on the planning consultation process. Your letter will be kept on file and your views will be taken into consideration at that time.

If I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Business Performance Manager

This letter is supposed to have been sent out to those who signed the petition. Well no-one in our house has had one. The only person I know who has is also a parent and I do rather suspect that the school is trying to generate a positive response from parents (who largely won't be affected by the downside) to "outgun" the (numerically fewer) residents (who will be affected).

That said, the school's view seems to be that if you stand to lose out from the proposal then you are so obviously biased that your view shouldn't be taken seriously.

Finally, it is true that the school was not represented at the meeting. I had no part in its organisation so I don't know if they were or why they were not invited. However, the meeting (unlike the schools idea of consultation) was not conducted in secret and they were certainly free to invite themselves.

so all of you protesters who are concerned about traffic & safety of children, one question for you all, where were you all when one lady (who i know well)campaigned very hard to get woodmill lane made safer??? NO WHERE!!!!!, ahhh, but you all live copsewood rd/dimond road, so the dangers of woodmill lane are of no concern to you at all!!! your kids dont have to cross it to get to school, as far as i`m concerned one childs life is far more important than a few floodlights

Might I suggest the lady concerned did not publicise her campaign very well? We live in Copsewood Road and navigate Woodmill Lane and Manor Farm Road every day. Had we been aware of a campaign to improve provision for pedestrians we should certainly have been involved. If the PlayFootball development is approved in the teeth of residents' opinions I shall personally be lobbying for traffic calming measures (chicanes and bollards such as the Highfield residents have benefitted from) to be put in place throughout Bitterne Park, as well as a controlled crossing to join the two halves of Riverside Park. I will even volunteer to plant a tree on one of the chicanes!

Kate Martinson

I live in Copsewood Road and I certainly don't recall a campaign concerning pedestrians. That said I am not sure what a controlled crossing at Riverside has to do with the pitch proposal, and anyone who drives round Bitterne Park can confirm that the area is one big chicane already due to the narrow roads and parked cars. Adding more obstructions will do nothing to materially improve safety and turn an unpleasant driving environment into hell on earth.

As a final point my biggest car gripe is the multi-tasking school mums who insist on trying to drive through when I am attempting to do a 3-point turn in the morning....

Here's an idea. Do away with those stupid mini roundabouts at the end of Manor Farm Road and put in one proper sized roundabout with landscaping incorporating the old drinking fountain.

Then redefine the road from the roundabout to Woodmill. At the moment we have a road with a park on one side and another park on the other. With intelligent design and surfacing the road could be redefined as a path across a single park (incorporating speed humps or whatever for people who like that sort of thing). You could even consider closing it at certain times - perhaps Sundays during the summer.

Now THAT would make a difference.

At what point in my original comment did i mention a controlled crossing at riverside??? I wood like to see Woodmill lane made safer for children to cross farther up the hill, so you dont think controlled obstructions will make it safer for the kids to cross?? perhaps you should spare 5 mins one morning or afternoon, watch the poor kids trying to cross & the speed some of the morons drive at in woodmill lane. Those flashing 30mph signs are useless!!!!

Those who objected to the "Pub in the Playground" and associated all weather pitches, were invited to submit their names and addresses to the school to be allowed to attend an information evening.

No doubt this will consist of more hard sell by Playfootball, Deputy Head Master Mr G Smith and The Head Mistress Susan Trigger.

The meeting for more discussion (or perhaps propaganda in favour of playfootball, so call me a pessimist!) is due to take place:

This Thursday 23rd October 2008 between 6.30 and 8.00pm in the Bitterne Park Senior, School Hall.

Maybe a few telephone calls to the school (by those who should have been consulted) to ask to be included in this "information evening" could open up a pathway for the local residents to be consulted.
That is if they do not run out of time due to them "informing us"

And of course that is if the community of Bitterne Park and surrounding areas are allowed to have an opinion or even be consulted and who knows we may even be allowed to speak!

How can they refuse if you supply your name and address and keep to designated areas?
Tel 023 8032 5200 This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
(This information is freely available on the www)

After all, many members of the public will after all be able to enter the School grounds freely and unchallenged in the future if this proposal goes ahead.

Hi, following the discussion about our roads being unsafe and often not very community focused, I just wanted to signal this website and the project they present. They basically ask communities to get involved in re-designing their roads and urban spaces ... may be an opportunity to change things around
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/def...320622046


DIY Streets
"DIY Streets helps residents to re-design their own streets affordably, putting people at their heart, and making them safer and more attractive places to live. DIY Streets a new pilot project launched by the Liveable Neighbourhoods team at Sustrans, takes an innovative approach to the original Dutch design of home zones offering community-led alternatives in a cost effective manner. The project works with local communities to help residents develop low-cost capital solutions to making their streets safer and more attractive, aiming to find simple interventions and materials which can be both effective and durable. "

No Kashmir you did not refer to Woodmill itself - my comments were a response to Martinson's comment. Actually I would agree that the flashing lights are pointless (I'm convinced council depts buy that sort of thing at year end just to use up their budget)and traffic can be too fast on that stretch. Something, be it bollards or a controlled crossing could be useful (just before the bend as you go uphill?). I am not sure, however, what any of that has to do with the football pitch proposal.

Now really Ann, hoe can you be so negative? Well quite easily of course. Even when the school make an attempt at consultation they still get it wrong by excluding the very people it left "out of the loop" at the start.

I doubt that PlayFootball will feel the need to be there - not when they have the headmistress fighting so hard on their behalf.

Oh and is it true the school is trying to start up a petition (in favour) among the pupils?

Re. traffic calming. A 20mph zone is going to be established (soon if PlayFootball get the site, later if not) in Copsewood Road/Castle Road/Dimond Road. Nothing for Woodmill Lane I understand. Also worth mentioning the comments in the Echo regarding the boy who was knocked down and killed in Sholing - if a driver really wants to speed, they will do so irrespective of what measures are put in place to reduce traffic speeds.

PlayFootball - yep, another letter given to the pupils. Take a look at and click on the link for Letter 4.

Other issues aside, I think a mandatory max speed limit of 20mph is a good thing. We should be bringing down the speed limit for cars in Cities, especially near schools.

"I am not sure, however, what any of that has to do with the football pitch proposal."

Traffic has to do with the football pitch proposal because that is how the majority of BP residents will be affected if this development goes ahead.

The company website states that each PlayFootball centre receives over 2,000 inidividual visits per week. That means 285 cars, almost exclusively driven by young men, will be travelling through Woodmill, Dell Road and Copsewood Road every day. Presumably mostly at the weekend when we are used to getting a bit of a rest from the schoolkids and the planes.

I think it is sheer madness to suggest such a site in one of the last quiet residential areas of Southampton and I really resent the way the school has leaned on my children to put pressure on me to change my mind. None of those teachers will be here at 10:30pm or on Sunday afternoons.

BTW, Every single one of the existing centres on the PlayFootball website has a license for functions. How long do you think it will take Southampton City Council Planning Department to approve one, once the bar has been built?

Kate Martinson

Well, what can one say? For a start the attendance level was noticeably on the low side of what one would have expected. As I have said before, I wonder just who got an invite.

What I hadn't realised before I got there, however, was that the school management team have not read the planning application. Yes that's right - two Deputy Heads (including Gordon Smith) and the Clerk of the Governors cheerfully confirmed that they have never read the application because "that is not our job". So Mr Smith, for example, was totally unaware that the site is going to be bounded by a 4m (13 feet) high solid wooden wall. A relatively small point in itself but one which illustrates the school's unquestioning approach to this. So effectively their message to the community is; we haven't read the application and we don't really know what is in it but we want you to give your support.

Kate, your point about traffic is very fair. I must admit that Woodmill Lane (as opposed to Woodmill itself) is not really a road I use and therefore think about very much. My personal concern about traffic is congestion at the school entrance (100 cars an hour on PlayFootball's estimates) and parking. But yes this proposal certainly won't do anything to improve road safety on surrounding roads especially Woodmill Lane.

One point about parking - the school are claiming one advantage of the scheme is that the 30 extra parking spaces will alleviate on street parking congestion during the day. Is Copsewood Road really congested during the day? I have only lived there 8 years so perhaps I'm missing something but I sense a problem being invented to justify the solution. Of course the whole issue could be resolved by one Deputy Head's suggestion that residents could be issued with parking permits....

Finally (for the moment ) I can tell you with certainty that Councillor Peter Bailie is not exactly flavour of the month with the school management team. "All things to all people" would sum up what was said to me.

Well Richard!

Yes there were not that many people there!
Only those who had written an objection were invited to be indoctrinated with playfootball's marketing exhibition.
But among those who were there, feelings were certainly running very high.
I have knowledge of one irate lady who practically roasted one teacher and he had to be bailed out of the situation by quite a few others.
As for the school presenting an unbiased view of the proposal, well that was certainly laughable.
When I asked Mrs Trigger where any mention of the vigorous opposition was.
I was directed to a one liner mention of 70 letters and emails that were received.
Nothing was said about the 700 signature petition until I insisted that she told me where it was mentioned.
There buried within the minutes of the extraordinary meeting was a two line mention of these objections to the school.
These minutes make very interesting reading!
One point I would like to make is the lack of parent governors on the committee.
Does anyone have any idea why this is?
And yes, I too witnessed Mr Baillie trying to blend with various walls.
It seems that we should all object to any form of planning application going through.

That is if it ever gets publicised to the general public. (Now call me cynical!)

I wasn't too disappointed by the turn-out, to be honest.
a) It was invitation-only. Only those who signed the petition were invited. No date or time was included in the letter. The deadline for returning acceptances was last Monday. I don't know my weekday evening availability three-four weeks in advance and only got a last-minute inclusion cos I was rude to the lady on the phone!
b) It was dark, cold and raining. 6:30 is an odd time, especially if you don't get home till 5:30 or 6. Who wants to get in from work and go straight out again?
c) It was clearly going to be more propagandising. Anyone who knows how planning decisions are made would bypass this event and go straight to the Council.
d) Many people who do not want the development are too apathetic to turn up to general elections, nevermind get involved in local decisions. *Many* people are saying that this will go ahead whether I want it or not. Why would they bother to turn up?
e) Where there are children in the household, someone has to stay home with them. The 4 of us signed the petition but the children are not old enough to be left alone after dark and therefore only I was able to attend.

Sorry to be pedantic but I am very annoyed that the teachers have been informing the children today (the day after the event) that it's only a tiny proportion of NIMBYs who are objecting. I think 87 people is a reasonable turn-out in the circumstances.

Kate

Hi Anne - It is good to finally put a face to the name!

I was quite impressed by John Denham's suggestion of setting up some kind of protection for the area. If the special nature of BP as a community can be established then this would need to be recognised by Planning, and might also lead to a coordinated approach from Highways.

Kate

Hi Kate - It is good to hear from you too.

I was also quite impressed with the meeting on friday.
The fact that the planning officer was there to inform us of the potential appointment of a new conservation officer was encouraging.

May there be many more to follow!

The fact that provision for young people to meet was being considered was promising.
A positive move in the right direction!

Maybe now people can start improving within their own environment working with planners to improve the quality and use of our existing buildings and infrastructure.
Along with a genuine respect and working with the natural environment.
Who knows we might even get the facilities at the Triangle improved and consultation with the traders and local community as to how the visual appearance can be promoted and enhanced.

I was also impressed with John Denham for listening to and supporting the various Bitterne Park Community issues that were raised.
The community police support officer and her team leader listened to any issues raised and took these on board.
Most important I felt was that local community were listened to.
This was an ideal meeting and venue to enable this to happen. I would certainly like to see more of this effort by our elected representatives with other communities in Southampton.

So often today community members do not have the opportunity to voice their opinions.
How often do we hear people say that politicians do not listen, well they did on friday.

The special nature of Bitterne Park should indeed be preserved for the future.

I must say that I am getting tired of saying the same old things.
We are losing our democratic rights!
The older people in our community and incidently those with most voting power, do see what is going on, they remember the Second World War and the sacrifices that people had to make to ensure the survival of our nation as a whole.
I am sure that they are heartily sick of seeing the rights that were established then being slowly eroded away.
And the people that created those rights being disrespected today. Why do, many of our veterans live in poverty?

Me personally!
Well, I can remember sitting in Bitterne Park Senior School Hall at the age of thirteen. A member of the government came to give a talk to us all.
The talk was about the imminent threat of the outbreak of a nuclear war. The Atomic Bomb was due to be dropped. There was a cold war between Russia, America and the rest of Europe.
The Government official on the stage told us that before the atom bomb was dropped we would get a four minute warning.
This would be enough time to take shelter from the blast of an atomic explosion.
What we were told to do was take a door off its hinges, lean it against a wall and get enough food and water to survive for four days, until the fallout had settled.
No mention of sanitation was ever made (the government did not discuss these sorts of things with children then)
At the tender age of thirteen I was intelligent enough to know that four minutes was not enough time to find the screwdriver, let alone enough time to take a door off (have you ever tried this feat?)
Have you ever watched the animation? "Where the Wind Blows"

From that moment on I realised that the people that I had been brought up to obey and respect, were not in control, they were not there to take care of the children of the nation.

These were the sixties! People got up and said things against the Government, they saw things as they were, they protested in their masses against the Vietnam war!
Our economy was run on weapons production and our people were cannon fodder.
Today our children accept a lot of what is fed to them through the media.
The media have a captive audience especially with the lack of a variety and alternative recreation space.
Our teachers and Schools are controlled from Europe not our local communities, our local communities are losing the rights to any say in how our schools are run.
Our children are educated to a curriculum that is decided by Central and European Governments.
And according to our Planning Authorities our children are not of any commercial value, I should certainly hope not! We should be investing in them for the future!

(And tongue in cheek) That is an interesting concept (shares in the future profit that a child can make.
There will of course not be so many of the educated ones around, due to a population drop. And the free thinkers! well they will obviously be excluded because they did not toe the line under difficult circumstances. Future dissidents no doubt.

Well! Our School and Park Land is considered by the City Council as a corporate asset for them to dispose of as they wish.
And building Schools for the future is all about those developers who have a commercial interest (on a long term plan) in the land that not only have we paid for, and that the city council manages.
Did they ever consider consulting the community or are our views to be brushed under the carpet?
I feel that our children on being offered various different options (through the assembly meetings that they have been required to attend at school) if they support the disposal of this land for playfootball use to a private company.

This to me all smacks of propoganda.
Please watch "Pink Floyd" "The Wall"

Were these children or their parents at any time consulted as to what they would like included in their curriculum?
Were they consulted or their (fully informed) opions about what they may even need to learn for survival in the future considered?
I say invest in our childrens future!
Tell them the truth!
Do not let them lose faith in their teachers, years down the line, when they realise that they have been hoodwinked out of their open spaces.
Or, the teachers of today will be creating the anarchists of tommorrow.
Me, From a starting point of being a very scared teenager,I eventually became a very determined free thinker!

One of your local councillor's priorities, (and this current administration's) has been trying to prevent areas of Bitterne Park which should be preserved being lost to developers. We have taken on an excellent conservation officer (knows Bitterne Park very well), and who seems confident of being able to protect areas reasonably quickly.

I went along to the evening, looked around and talked to some people. The stalls were not numerous and did not take long to see. "Being wallpaper" is just a nonsense, and "being all things to all people" is not possible as a Cabinet Member - decisions do have to be made.

Another Conservation Officer sounds like good news to me. I know that quite a number of people, including me, are exasperated & dismayed at the rate at which Conservation Areas are being declared. I hope that, if the new officer knows this area well, that things should move along more quickly. It's about time.

I went to this meeting. I must say it made me feel uncomfortable.

I asked one question: "Will there be an independent lighting survey?" I was told "Afterwards" (after the lights etc were put in place). This seems crazy to me.

There was a table with 'letters of support' from various headteachers etc from around the City. I read three. They gave support to general improvements in sports facilities, eg "astroturf would be good". None of those I read gave specific approval to Playfootball proposals.

I felt that there was a distinct blurring between giving the kids general improvements in sports facilities and specific Playfootball proposals.

I would like to point out that the deadline for the application forms for the post of conservation officer were due to be received by Friday 21st November 2008 at the City Council.

So how was a conservation officer appointed before October 31st?
And one who knows Bitterne Park very well?

Are we now to have a grand total of three conservation officers?
And if so where was the advertisement for the other post advertised can anyone let me know?

I would love to know who they all are, their names and contact details so that we can all be involved in supporting the conservation of our historic buildings and even our public open spaces.