Some changes have been made and one of these concerns the position of the Clubhouse which has been rotated 90° to stand at the southern corner of the main pitch and parallel to its south-eastern boundary.  It would seem that this re-positioning has not gained the unreserved approval of the Alton United Youth Football Club as its Secretary, Mr Frank Goddard, has written in his letter of 8th August as published on the EH web site that "the change in location of the changing rooms and clubhouse immediately caused problems."  So possibly, the intention of the re-positioning is to reduce the visual impact of the proposed building and car park in response to the concern on this score expressed at the North Planning Committee last April. While it might reduce the visual impact to some extent, it would not do so entirely, as the building would still be clearly visible to anyone looking along the Digger's Elbow from either end.  However, while the visual impact may be reduced, it seems reasonable to question whether or not the re-positioning has a detrimental effect on Footpath 29b, better known as St. Swithun's Way, the important long-distance walking route. At the North Planning Committee meeting in April, Mrs Margaret Lockett, Chair of the Anstey Park Casual Users Group, feared that this section of Footpath 29b, which is, in fact, a sunken path, "would be a dangerous corridor for walkers" as there would be no way out until the end was reached.  In the new application, the re-positioning of the clubhouse would result in the full length of the back of the clubhouse, together with the refuse and re-cycling store (not to mention the septic tank!), running closer and parallel to, but slightly above the sunken path.  It is difficult to imagine that many countryside enthusiasts and ramblers would find this section of St. Swithun's Way to be as enjoyable as they were expecting!!  In support of this viewpoint, it can be noted that the Planning Officer's report records that the County Rights of Way Officer has raised an objection to the visual impact of the proposed clubhouse and also the covered stand behind the goal, which, in his view, would obscure views across to the Diggers Field to the detriment to the enjoyment of users of the path.

There is also a second footpath adjacent to proposed site. This is Footpath 30 which runs along the south-west boundary at right angles to St. Swithun's Way. The Rights of Way Officer also has a concern here in that the proposed access track would cross Footpath 30 in order to access the site and that drivers on this track would have insufficient sight of walkers using the path, particularly of those walking southwards; a point also raised by EH Councillors at the April meeting.  The Planning Officer's report describes this as a material safety concern, but suggests that it could be addressed through warning signs, both to pedestrians using the footpath and vehicular users of the access track.

The ARGonaut agrees that, if the proposed access road were to be built, it would be imperative for clear and distinctive warning signs to be erected on all four arms of the access road/footpath crossing, but would not many people see such intrusive signage as a further erosion of the characteristic openness of Anstey Park?  Surely, local residents visiting the park for walking (with or without dog), jogging, general relaxation, etc., are seeking to get away from traffic, roads and warning signs and the last thing they want to have to do is to watch out for cars, team buses, refuse carts and delivery lorries!  Please feel free to regard the last sentence as a protestation against the proposed building of a gravel access road across the green and pleasant fields that presently exist in the park!

At the North Planning Committee in April, the resolution passed by the EH Councillors to refuse the building of the football hub included the sentence: "Furthermore, the proposed development will be harmful to the amenities of the users of the park and adjacent public footpath."  Has anything changed? Let us hope that the Councillors will vote for refusal on Thursday evening just as they did back in April!

"The proposal will result in the loss of the characteristic openness of Anstey Park through the introduction of buildings and floodlights to the detriment of the prevailing character of the park and the local gap. Furthermore, the proposed development will be harmful to the amenities of the users of the park and adjacent public footpath. The development is contrary to polices HE01, GS3, T4 and C11 of the East Hampshire Local Plan: Second Review."

There are some differences between the two applications, but these differences do not seem to be very fundamental and it is to be hoped that the EH Councillors will agree with the view that nothing very radical has changed and, as a result, hold to their earlier opinions and vote again for refusal of the football hub application for the same reasons as before.

One of the differences between the original and current applications for the hub concerns the 1.8 metre Security Fencing around the perimeter of the main pitch.  The erection of this fencing was specifically included in the first application, but, at the Planning Committee meeting on 28th April, the Planning Officers explained that the Security Fencing did not need planning permission as it could be erected under 'permitted development rights.'

It was not surprising therefore that in the second application the 1.8m Security Fence was omitted from the proposal for the reason that planning permission was not required.

So did this mean that there was a possibility that the 1.8m Fence might not be erected?  Well, actually no!

On the 8th August, Mr Frank Goddard, the Hon. Secretary of Alton United Youth Football Club wrote to Coors's Agents to express his concern at the absence of the Security Fence from the second application.  In short time, he received re-assurance from the agents that:

"Fencing of the main pitch would be included in the works. It is not shown on the planning application drawings as the item doesn't require planning approval.  The fencing however would require approval from the landowner (Alton Town Council) when a licence for the works is sought following planning approval." 

The Alton Town Council subsequently met on 23rd September to consider whether to grant a licence to build a football hub at Anstey Park and one of the resolutions passed was "To confirm that fencing was still required for the proposed main pitch at the developer's expense."

So fencing is definitely proposed for erection as in the first application?  Well, maybe actually no!

The Agenda for the North Planning Committee Meeting on 18th November is now on the East Hants web site and includes the Planning Officer's report for the football hub application.  Although this report (like the equivalent report for the first application) recommends approval, that approval is only given subject to a considerable number of conditions and Condition No.4 relates to the fencing.  This is what it says:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), no fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be erected, constructed or established on any of the Open Space or Amenity Areas shown on the approved plans.
Reason - To secure the long term retention and permeability of the amenity areas."

So this means that there won't be any security fence?  Well, ....uh.....your guess is as good as that of the next person!!   Anyone confused?

Of course, if the EH North Planning stands by its decision of 28th April and the football hub is decisively rejected for the second time, then not only will there be no 1.8m Security Fence straddling the Digger's Elbow, but there will be no Football Hub with all the many well publicised disadvantages and inconveniences that it would bring to Anstey Park and many local residents.

The all important planning meeting on Thursday 18th November is fast approaching. If you support the Anstey Residents Group's view that Anstey Park should absolutely not be burdened with a football hub, then please make use of the ARG web site to email the EH Councillors who will be making the vital decision on the night and let them know your views.

However, the text of the article in the Alton Herald makes it clear that Coors are still determined to realise the potential profit inherent in the Sports Ground and are now pursuing 'other options' for the site.  Assuming that housing is at the forefront of these options, then it would seem that the situation is in danger of regressing to 'as it was' in 2005 & 2006 when Coors were submitting high density planning applications in respect of the Sports Ground.  It will surely be disappointing to all and sundry if the old arguments and disagreements have to be resurrected and raked over once again.  Many people must be saying 'enough is enough' and few would disagree with them. Would it not be preferable to everyone if this long running saga could be brought to an end? 

If the belief that new thinking and a fresh approach are requisites for a solution to the Sports Ground problem, the ARGonaut has learned that the ARG Committee are currently engaged in promoting an innovative plan which has been named the Covenant Solution.  This plan recognises that the Sports Ground is still the subject of the 1935 covenant which stipulated that the ground should be preserved as a green and open space indefinitely, subject only to the building of ten houses along the frontage of Anstey Road.  For reasons (perhaps unknown), these ten houses were never built and the Covenant Solution is based on the concept that they should now be built as permitted in the covenant with the sale of the land for the houses providing a measure of capital profit for Molson Coors.  Building the houses along Anstey Road would then require the realignment of the football pitches and supporting buildings, but this would have the major benefit of allowing Alton Town Football Club to continue to play and train on the Sports Ground.  In consequence, there would be no need to build the controversial football hub in Anstey Park in order to re-house Alton United Youth Football Club as this club would be able to remain in situ in the existing football enclosure in Anstey Park.

Only the bare bones of the Covenant Solution are explained above and the ARG Committee are actively examining further aspects of the plan. It is the intention to publicise and promote the concept to all interested parties.  More detailed information will be appearing on the ARG website, as well as articles in the local press.  Hopefully, this information will generate a useful crop of lively and constructive postings on the 'Have Your Say' page of the ARG website!

The goal is the amicable solution of a divisive problem that has its roots back in 2005 or even earlier.  It is to be hoped that all the several parties concerned will examine the newly proposed solution with open minds and the utmost thoroughness.

It seems reasonable to wonder if Vale Retail (who seemed to be spearheading the publicity side of the Coors project) ever fully realised the extent of the local opposition to their plans as in the 'Anstey Update' pamphlet for April 2010 remarks were published stating that "the people kicking up the fuss are living on our old playing fields."   Well, yes, some of them may be living on former football pitches that were replaced by other football pitches, but there is no way that all the people opposed to the plans could have been housed on land that had previously been two old playing fields!   The majority of the people 'kicking up the fuss' live in a great many different roads in Alton that were not built on old football grounds! Incidentally, 'kicking up the fuss' may be one way to describe the activities of the opposition to the Coors project, but ARG might like to describe it more appropriately as a democratic and fully justified protest against proposals that, excepting only the Enclosure Upgrade, did not succeed in gaining the approbation of the North Planning Committee!

An extremely clear indicator of the extent of local residents' opposition to the Coors proposals can be seen in the ARG Summary of Receipts and Payments for the six months ended 30th April 2010 which has recently been posted on the ARG web site.  This shows that the fighting fund contributed by ARG supporters amounted to over £2,800 - a magnificent effort.  The Summary also lists the payments made out of the fund to assist the campaign against the supermarket proposal and the relocation of the Bass Sports Ground facilities.  Over £2,000 of the money collected went on professional fees to our planning consultant and our traffic consultant.  The ARG committee takes the view that this money was well and fittingly spent as it enabled the committee to identify a whole range of valid objections that were solidly based on planning law and in line with the necessary planning protocol - matters which present a steep learning curve to anyone coming from a different background.  The professional advice received was channelled on to the website and, by using the website's clever emailing facility, supporters were enabled  to email planning officers and councillors alike.  In comment (536), Hazel wrote: "In a response to an email one councillor said 'It was the huge number of individual emails which really saved the day, in other words the voice of the people themselves.' So at least for them it was worth everyone sending their comments."  Hazel in comment (540) followed this by stressing: "But all those emails were based on planning issues, so must have drawn councillors attention to planning so made it easier for them to focus on those issues."

Looking back to last September when the Anstey Residents Group took its first tentative steps by organising a public meeting, the ARGonaut believes that it would have been a brave person who would have forecast that the Coors supermarket and sports relocation proposals would be as decisively rejected by the North Planning Committee as they were on the 14th April. Without a doubt, all the ARG supporters, contributors and associates are deserving of a pat on the back, or, in the modern vernacular, should that be a 'high five'?

But while some congratulations may be in order, it is important not to overlook the response from Adrian Oliver of Vale Retail as reported in this week's Post Gazette: "We listened to the reasons behind the refusal and are now considering our options."   Clearly ARG must stay on the alert and in a state of readiness!

However, is it possible that the 'pesky' licences were effectively taken care of the moment that the North Planning Committee refused planning permission on the football hub.  The minutes for the 10th February show that the resolution to grant licences was subject to planning permission and as we now know that planning permission for the football hub was refused by the North Planning Committee last Wednesday, there can be no question of ATC issuing licences to anyone  - at least not for the time being.  Of course, planning permission was given for the upgrade to the enclosure and it might be considered that, in theory, the council could still proceed to issue licences for this work, but even this has to be in some doubt as it needs to be remembered that on 10th February the council were not considering two separate planning applications because at that date no applications had been submitted to EHDC.  What ATC was considering was the outline proposals that had been put forward on behalf of Coors as an 'overall package' of proposed sports facilities and, indeed, before dealing with the matter of the licences they had resolved that they were satisfied with the 'overall package.'  Therefore, it can be argued that as the hub did not receive planning permission then neither did the 'overall package' as considered by ATC.

Perhaps the question that needs to be thought about is whether or not Coors will put in a second planning application for the football hub or even lodge an appeal.  Anything seems possible in this long running saga which has its origins back in 2004, but, in the face of such a tide of public opposition and such a crushing vote of rejection from the North Planning Committee, will they not have a long, long think before they again set their sights on the Digger's Elbow?