Full text:
Please find attached electronic copies of my letter and detailed objection sent by post to your offices today.
Hopefully, our position as a group of shareholders is clear in that, notwithstanding any impression that the board may have given in discussions with the council, a voluntary sale of the New Windmill Ground as a gypsy and traveller site will not be approved.
However, should you have any questions, please do feel free to get on touch and I would be happy to help.
Please find enclosed a formal objection in respect of site GT04, land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way, currently the home of Leamington Football Club.
The objection started out as a personal one but, as other shareholders heard of my intention, a number came forward and asked to join in. It seemed sensible for us to submit a composite objection, rather than a number of individual ones making the same points.
As you will see, the objectors own or control 52.5% of the shareholding. Had I actively canvased support, I believe that the percentage would have been even higher and, should disposal for a G&T site be proposed by the board, the motion will be defeated.
Should the council look to proceed against our wishes, then it will be forced into using compulsory purchase powers, something it has told the club that it has no intention of doing.
Given this situation and taking into account the points in the objection, I believe that the New Windmill Ground should not be selected as one of the sites going forward.
BACKGROUND
1. The earliest recorded football club in Leamington Spa was in 1891. The current club can trace its roots back to 1933 when the Lockheed Sports Football Club was established.
2. AP Leamington, as Lockheed became known, played at the Windmill Ground opposite the factory in Tachbrook Road. But, Automotive Products sold the ground for housing in 1983 and football ceased to be played in April 1988.
3. The club, then called Leamington FC, continued in existence and, after an extensive search for a new site, bought six acres of farmland off Harbury Lane to develop a new stadium and commenced playing again in division two of the Midland Football Combination in August 2000.
4. The club has been a success both on and off the field, rising from step 8 of the national non-league pyramid in the year 2000 to step 2 and building, largely through voluntary effort, a stadium to match its new status.
CONSTITUTION
5. When the former ground was put up for sale, a new company was formed in which fans could buy a stake and have their say. This company took over the running of the club when its name was changed from AP Leamington to Leamington FC and now has over 400 individual shareholders.
6. Shareholding varies in size and the board of directors has a policy which limits the amount held by any individual or company. Historically, a small number of shareholders, who also gave many hours of their time to help build the new facilities, built up a holding which, if combined, gives them a strong influence over the club's affairs.
7. The board of directors hold 3.9% of the shares, but this objection has been signed by the four largest shareholders and others who, between them, control some 52.5% of the voting rights.
THE NEW WINDMILL GROUND
8. The search for a new ground came to an end when six acres of farmland were purchased for £30,000 from the local landowner, all the money that the club had at the time. The site was purchased subject to three covenants, as follows:
"The Transferee for itself and its successors in title and so as to effectively bind the land hereby transferred or any part thereof hereby covenants with the Transferor and his successors in title as follows:-
(1) that the land or any part thereof shall not be used other than as a sports ground with ancillary facilities
(2) within twelve months of the date hereof the Transferee shall erect and forever thereafter maintain a good and substantial fence both stock proof and of a design to meet the reasonable approval of the Transferor as well as the Planning Authority around the land hereby transferred as indicated on the plan between the points marked 'A' and 'B' and between 'B' and 'C'
(3) not to erect or suffer to be erected any building of any nature along the northern boundary of the land hereby transferred and not to plant or allow to grow any trees that attain a greater height of 15 feet along such northern boundary."
9. Planning permission was obtained for a change of use from agricultural to sports and slowly, but surely, money was raised from the local community and the ground developed to a standard that allowed the club to apply to re-join the Midland Football Combination in which it played back in 1988.
10. Over the years, many improvements have been carried out and, following the latest promotion to step 2 of the pyramid (Skrill North), the club spent some £150,000 to bring the stadium up to the standard required, which has been financed in part by a grant of £30,000 from Warwick District Council.
11. It is fair to say that, throughout the search, there was much opposition to the club being located in residential areas, but the new site was in the countryside and away from large blocks of housing. It had been thought by fans that, given the experience of 1983, the club's future was secure, playing on its own ground, but little did they know what was in store 20 years later.
DESIGNATION AS A GYPSY AND TRAVELLER SITE
12. The longlist of potential sites drawn up by Warwick District Council included an area of land off Harbury Lane which encompassed the football ground and surrounding farmland. At the time, there were no alarm bells, as this was just one of number of options being looked at and one of the few that included an existing use.
13. But, when the report to the Council's Executive on the shortlisting came into the public domain, the situation changed, as the New Windmill Ground (NWG) was listed as one of five sites that comprised the Council's "preferred option" to deliver on its target of pitches based on the Salford University study. The surrounding farmland had been removed from consideration and the NWG stood alone. The possible loss of the ground that was intended to secure the club's future became a stark reality
14. Throughout the board of directors' discussions with Warwick District Council, no consultation took place with shareholders and fans. The contention in the consultation document that the club is a willing vendor is flawed. Only when the Executive report came into the public domain did the board make a statement, but there was still no move to engage shareholders in the debate.
NATIONAL CONTEXT
15. The current exercise being carried out by the council follows the publication of the Government's "Planning policy for traveller sites" in March 2012. The guidance splits sites into those that are deliverable and those that are developable, defined as follows:
* A deliverable site must be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that development will be delivered on the site within five years.
* A developable site is one in a suitable location for traveller site development with a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.
16. Later in this paper, we set out why, in practical terms, the NWG cannot be regarded as a deliverable site. It is not available now and cannot realistically be delivered within the timescale of 2017. We also believe that it should continue as a football ground into the foreseeable future, thereby excluding it from consideration as a developable site to meet further needs beyond 2017.
BASIS FOR OBJECTION
17. As explained, the council consultation is taking place on the flawed premise that the club is a willing vendor. But, there are other good reasons for believing that the current ground is in the right place for the club and that it should not be selected as a gypsy and traveller site.
18. As set out above, the land is subject to a covenant that it shall not be used other than as a sports ground with ancillary facilities and the club and council should abide by this.
19. Twenty years ago, there was much opposition to siting the club and some 16 locations, including some owned by the council, were looked at. Although there has been some opposition to development plans in the past from residents of Leamington Hall Farm, by and large, the club has been accepted in this location and sits comfortably with other uses. Any proposals to relocate are likely to run into the same problems.
20. Any new site would necessitate finding at least six acres, the current area, and scope to develop facilities to meet the Skrill North grading standard with potential for further development should the club be promoted again. In reality, more car parking, a better training pitch and community facilities would probably require an area of up to twice as much, namely 10-12 acres.
21. Any new ground is expected to come as part of the proposed housing developments to the west of Europa way, signalled in the draft Local Plan. When this could happen is a big question, as the plan process will not be completed until March 2015 and the council's chief executive has said in a letter to the board "at present I cannot confirm an alternative location for the Club."
22. The stadium will have to be separated and screened from the housing, requiring yet further land to be given up. Looking at current development proposals around the district, it is difficult to see how such a sized site could be found but, whatever the solution, it is going to take time and a lot of effort to bring matters to a conclusion.
23. The current stadium has been developed over a period of years, but a new facility would need to be up and running before relocation could take place. Given the council will be looking to use the NWG to help meet its target of 31 pitches (25 by 2017), any new ground won't be operational within this timescale.
24. There is no other facility in the district that would meet the standards, so ground sharing on an interim basis is a non-starter. With no alternative ground, the club would be demoted through the pyramid and all the effort of the last 13 years would have been wasted. There has to be a serious question mark over the club's ability to rise from the ashes a second time.
25. Whilst some of the facilities could be moved to a new location, the clubhouse, Harbury Lane end covered terracing and North Bank open terracing could not. The capital cost will need to be met in some way and the club has little cash to put towards this. In the absence of a robust project plan, there has to be some doubt over how a new stadium can be funded should a developer not be prepared to pay for it all.
26. All the proposed new housing developments of any significance are in the south of the town, exactly where the club is currently situated. Growth in the fanbase is likely, therefore, to be greater at its current location than (say) from a move to the north. If you were looking to site a new ground today, Harbury Lane would be an obvious location to consider.
SUMMARY
27. It is right that the board of directors, as custodians of the club, look to the future, including the location. Dialogue with the district council is clearly part of that process, but this should not be linked to the designation of the New Windmill Ground as a gypsy and traveller site.
28. The two issues are quite separate and whether the ground should be a designated site must be decided on the basis of the evidence and fit with the national policy.
29. The council's consultation document says ""There remains a risk that one or more of these sites will not be able to deliver the pitches proposed. For instance, there may be issues regarding whether existing uses can be suitably relocated to enable the site to be available."
30. We believe this to be the case for the New Windmill Ground and have set out our position in this document. In summary, we wish to object to the selection of the NWG as a gypsy and traveller site on the grounds of:
* The contention that the club is a willing vendor is flawed as there has been no shareholder engagement
* The land is subject to a covenant that it shall not be used other than as a sports ground with ancillary facilities
* The club is an established and accepted use in Harbury Lane
* There is no identified alternative site to relocate to
* The timescale for developing traveller pitches is too short for the site to be considered a practical and viable option
* Any new stadium would have to be operational before the NWG is vacated and there is no scope for an interim ground sharing
* Only some of the existing facilities can be moved and the club does not have a robust project plan to develop and finance a new stadium
* All the major proposed housing developments are within the club's catchment area adding weight to staying in the current location
31. Also, it is our belief that the site does not fall into either category of the national planning guidance and should, therefore, also be excluded on this basis
