Now on a PC, much easier to quote, so I'll address a few earlier points again.
I guess it is true to say that any time you build anything you take space that something uses. All suggestions to move to a greenfield site elsewhere are equally going to have the effect of building on something.
What about beaconside? That is already sports pitches, the disruption to change it to sports pitches would be minimal.
I have seen suggestions to build new changing rooms and additional parking at the current site to have 2 sets of buildings. These would have to go on an area which is currently hedges and adjacent to a well used water culvert. Parking would be still across a road which has already seen at least one child struck by a car.
But less new land is used, thats the key point. The children hit by cars feels like clutching at straws TBH, kids have been run over on car parks and driveways too. Still, could build a foot bridge if too concerned?
Or go out of town by miles as some suggest and generate thousands of additional car journeys, increased potential for accidents and reduced ability to access by cycling or public transport.
As stated earlier, only for those south of the town centre. Beaconside just got a cycle bridge almost right to it meaning anyone East of the town centre is very well catered for. Buses already run to the hospital, its not much further. They also already have parking for those unable to cope otherwise.
Others suggest using other facilities in town - there is no capacity anywhere on additional facilities and national planning does not allow reductions in playing fields so new ones need to be built anyway.
If national planning does not allow a reduction in playing fields can we not keep beaconside? Or is losing that being balanced by the 7 pitches the rugby club are building and the beaconside facilities will end up as housing? Not seen the in town bit mentioned and no idea where they mean TBH, there is some ideal land in a field at the cricket club but you aren't allowed new pitches on there because it will make the area look bad.
I am not suggesting this is not a complex issue but it is not as one dimensional as some seem to suggest. A key priority must be surely to provide accessible quality sporting and community facilities that support participation in Sport for youngsters, in a location that is in a safe and accessible
Have I mentioned Beaconside? Currently quite happily used by loads of people and about to be scrapped, a loss to the whole town. What if there was some way we could have not just rugby pitches but a large multi discipline sports facility for the entire town to use, including the youngsters? The site seems relatively safe and certainly more accessible than the marshes. which will require everyone to enter via doxey road which is about to get much busier with the Western Bypass from Lidl and joining up to Castlefields further up.
I know you say this isn't a one dimensional issue but until I hear a better reason than boosting Lord Staffords profits Beaconside will remain the obvious choice to me. What is really galling is it used to belong to us, the tax payers. How the Uni was allowed to sell it in the first place is beyond me! Although it doesn't surprise me.