Councillor quits over plan to reduce pavilion costs

THE vice-chairman of Kidmore End Parish Council has resigned in a row about the future of the pavilion.

Andrew Harland quit after questioning the council’s proposal to reduce the running costs of the Diamond Jubilee Pavilion in Gallowstree Common at a public meeting.

The building was erected at the recreation ground off The Hamlet in 2011 at a cost of £590,000.

The facilities are owned by the council but primarily used by Kidmore End Cricket Club in return for a contribution towards the cost of maintenance.

The council took out a £200,000 loan to build the pavilion and is paying this back in decreasing annual payments, currently £12,000 a year.

The council says the running costs have increased so that the pavilion is no longer viable and it wants the cricket club to take over responsibility for all running costs and maintenance in return for a 25-year lease.

The cricket club supports the idea but the two parties have still to agree a service level agreement on the terms of the lease and the responsibilities of the club and council.

The proposed deal was discussed at a public meeting last month, which was attended more than 50 people.

Mr Harland, who opposes the idea, resigned after claiming the council failed to answer his concerns at the meeting. Afterwards, he declined to comment.

Ian Beale, whose two sons used to play for the cricket club, said the meeting was “hugely boisterous”. He said: “It’s clearly an issue of great interest in the parish.

“Everyone recognises the impact of a successful cricket club in the parish and no one is saying we should shut it down.

“However, the feeling in the room from those not in the cricket club was that the club is a dominant user of the pavilion, even though it was built and funded as a community asset. There is a huge appetitite for transparency.

“The parish council is spending a high proportion of its income on funding the pavilion, such as the interest on the loan for the building.”

Mr Beale, from Tokers Green, said he was concerned that the cricket club was the dominant user of the pavilion.

He said that when his walking football team at Rotherfield United FC tried to hire out a grass pitch for training he found the conditions to be unreasonable.

“We were expected to cut the grass ourselves, mark out the pitch and bring our own goals even though there are goals there,” said Mr Beale. “They made it so obvious that we were not wanted there.” He described the process as obstructive and said the difficulty in making bookings and using the site had affected the pavilion’s revenue.

Mr Beale said that he wanted the decision-making process to be open and the terms of the proposed lease agreement with the cricket club to be made public.

More than 190 questions and statements from the public have been submitted to the council.

Some voiced their support for the cricket club. One wrote: “The cricket club are an integral part of this community and have been for many years. They provide facilities for both children and adults. They enrich the lives of local children. They provide a safe space for our children to play sport, socialise and play.”

Another said: “The time given by those who operate the cricket club is given entirely voluntarily. I don’t mind saying that as residents of the parish for many years we have donated our time to the cricket club and it was an enriching and an important part of both ours and our children’s lives.”

Others asked for an explanation as to why the council wanted to extend the cricket club’s lease and recommended the other four options be discounted.

Other concerns raised included public access to the ground, the timescale and transparency of the decision-making process and how much the council would continue to pay if the long lease was agreed. One person wrote: “How can the council demonstrate that the cricket club are able to financially support the pavilion for the duration of a 25-year lease?”

Parish clerk Roger Penfold said: “The meeting ended without the outcomes the council hoped would be achieved. No solution has been agreed upon and it’s still work in progress.”

He added that negotiations could prove to be “long and tortuous”.

The cricket club favours the long lease option as this would allow it to bid for funding from sports organisations such as the England and Wales Cricket Board.

But Caroline Aldridge, who chairs the council, told a meeting on Monday that this was not the only reason. She said: “I think that this length of tenure demonstrates the commitment that the cricket club has to their home ground. They have played here since before the Second World War.”

Councillor Aldridge said later that one of the stipulations of the grants to build the pavilion was that it was used by the community.

“It is used by the community but it has been hard to hire out the hall following covid. We have a few very regular and loyal hirers of the hall but it could be used more. I’m all for a football team using the ground.

“There is a huge support in the community for us to come to an agreement with the cricket club. It won't be perfect but we want to make sure as many people as possible are happy.”