Running track: Residents fear 'If you build it, they will come' (From Bucks Free Press)

This is my humble opinion for what it’s worth..

This track has to go somewhere as it doesn’t fit into the plans for the new sports centre.

Hazlemere didn’t want it, Booker didn’t want it (i.e. in the White Elephant Sports Stadium Empire plans).

I think that there are limited places that it would fit into the district and I'm guessing that WDC are looking at Little Marlow as a soft touch. Unless the local population doesn’t really mind having it on their doorstep...on green belt land. I'm not hearing what the local WDC Cllr is saying - I'm not sure who that is though - is it Cllr Roger Emmett?

Resident Anthony Mash said the car park would "double up nicely as a travellers' site".

Let's not build any more car parks anywhere, because, as the learned gentleman has declared, they are just magnets for travellers.

Green belt should always be protected. Once it has gone, you don't get it back.

Tucked away on WDC's website are details about the exhibition that was open to public inspectation for nine hours: http://www.wycombe.g
ov.uk/news/press-rel
ease/07jun12-exhibit
ion-about-running-tr
ack-proposal-in-litt
le-marlow.aspx. Nothing was mentioned about what the consultation process is/was though.
.
Much more information is available via the Handy Cross Hub web page: http://www.wycombe.g
ov.uk/council-servic
es/leisure-and-cultu
re/handy-cross-hub-r
edevelopment.aspx. In fact, it'd be better to rename this page as the "Little Marlow Running track" page as that's basically what most of the links relate to.

The link to the FAQ's is interesting as no mention is made of evidence to support the very special circumstances needed to develop on Green Belt. The only alternative site mentioned was next to Crown Plaza in Malrow - hardly an exhaustive search!
.
Last night's WDC Cabinet Meeting voted in favour of measures that some would argue help to expedite the process. Including additional WDC staff being employed to smooth the transition from the existing operation to a new one. That may be an entirely sensible commercial decision or it may be a way of building momentum against which it'll be increasingly difficult to counteract.

Seeing and WDC has already done its level best to destroy it already, why don't they just demolish the High Street and put it there?

Quote "Roger Randall, who operates Westhorpe Water Sports Centre, said "with his business hat on" he was not opposed to the running track, but said he objected to the 'add ons' such as a car park. "

erm... ok... so where does his business hat expect visitors to park if there was no car park?

Some quite good points raised in this article.
I guess this all comes down to the fact that it should have been built in Handy Cross where the current site sits. No one would have objected.
Instead an M40 Bus Station and a hotel, which no no one will use as it's so close to London.
It really is about time the council and especially the planners really get a grip on what the public/voters really want them to do and not would the corporate sector/non-voters demand.

One question: are Council Planners elected representatives? If yes, then vote with our feet; if no, why are they not elected? Should persons not voted into this important office have the right to blight our countryside?
Answers, please.

bobby698 wrote:
Some quite good points raised in this article.
I guess this all comes down to the fact that it should have been built in Handy Cross where the current site sits. No one would have objected.
Instead an M40 Bus Station and a hotel, which no no one will use as it's so close to London.
It really is about time the council and especially the planners really get a grip on what the public/voters really want them to do and not would the corporate sector/non-voters demand.

One question: are Council Planners elected representatives? If yes, then vote with our feet; if no, why are they not elected? Should persons not voted into this important office have the right to blight our countryside?
Answers, please.

They aren't elected but rather overseen (by your local WDC Cllr)

You are right - they don't listen.

They follow planning policy unless they come across a problem - then they find a way around it (trust me I know!).

If someone senior in WDC wants it to happen, then it would happen.

UNLESS the people of Little Marlow get organised and fight back/make a big noise - otherwise it will go ahead.

It is true that it should have been positioned on the current site but I guess commercially in order to make enough money to pay for a new sports centre - they have to move it somewhere.

Those that make the least amount of noise will get it on their doorstep.

That's how WDC roll!

Darren Hayday wrote:

bobby698 wrote: Some quite good points raised in this article. I guess this all comes down to the fact that it should have been built in Handy Cross where the current site sits. No one would have objected. Instead an M40 Bus Station and a hotel, which no no one will use as it's so close to London. It really is about time the council and especially the planners really get a grip on what the public/voters really want them to do and not would the corporate sector/non-voters demand. One question: are Council Planners elected representatives? If yes, then vote with our feet; if no, why are they not elected? Should persons not voted into this important office have the right to blight our countryside? Answers, please.

They aren't elected but rather overseen (by your local WDC Cllr) You are right - they don't listen. They follow planning policy unless they come across a problem - then they find a way around it (trust me I know!). If someone senior in WDC wants it to happen, then it would happen. UNLESS the people of Little Marlow get organised and fight back/make a big noise - otherwise it will go ahead. It is true that it should have been positioned on the current site but I guess commercially in order to make enough money to pay for a new sports centre - they have to move it somewhere. Those that make the least amount of noise will get it on their doorstep. That's how WDC roll!

The basic tenet that is underpinning the entire project (as acknowledged by Cllr Hussain's letter in BFP recently) is that they need to sell off land to raise revenue to fund a new sports centre.
.
Given that relocating the running track is likely to cost £1.5M+ one can only assume that they're expecting to raise considerably more than that from the land that would be released by removing the track from Handy Cross.
.
One would assume also that they've undertaken a comprehensive review to compare how much it would cost to rrefresh (or even rebuild) the existing facility compared to how much it would cost for a completely new sports centre. Or maybe that doesn't fit with someone's ambition to have a new shiny flagship project?

I see "inspire a generation" is totally lost on the people of Little Marlow! However, I'm sure you will be the first to jump on the back of anyone that makes it from training in that track!

Do scum travel to Little Marlow to sit in cars? Why would they waste their petrol money getting there when there are plenty of car parks in high wycombe?!

Local business will gain from the increased footfall.

I'm just pleased to see WDC looking to provide better sports facilities....may just be me though as I'm fit and healthy!

Tooclever wrote:
I see "inspire a generation" is totally lost on the people of Little Marlow! However, I'm sure you will be the first to jump on the back of anyone that makes it from training in that track! Do scum travel to Little Marlow to sit in cars? Why would they waste their petrol money getting there when there are plenty of car parks in high wycombe?! Local business will gain from the increased footfall. I'm just pleased to see WDC looking to provide better sports facilities....may just be me though as I'm fit and healthy!

"Local business will gain from the increased footfall" ???
.
From what I recall, the only businesses local to the proposed site are a garden centre, two pubs and a farm shop.

To be honest I've never been to Little Marlow as it has never seen to have anything to attract me there, even when I was living in Marlow. This would attract me there.

But you agree with my other points? I have a 16 month old and I want to give her the best possibilities to make it in sport.

Already being a member of the Nuffield health & fitness group, I am able to offer her excellant swimming facilities and welcome more options locally.

Tooclever wrote:
To be honest I've never been to Little Marlow as it has never seen to have anything to attract me there, even when I was living in Marlow. This would attract me there. But you agree with my other points? I have a 16 month old and I want to give her the best possibilities to make it in sport. Already being a member of the Nuffield health & fitness group, I am able to offer her excellant swimming facilities and welcome more options locally.

I agree with the need to provide adequate sporting facilities. I don't agree with the aspiration to create increased facilities if it adversely affects other amenities.
.
I agree that it's important to create aspiration in children to be fit & healthy. It's also important that they recognise the ecology of the World and value the Countryside, Green Belt, etc.
.
There's no reason why both can't be achieved. One solution would be to keep the existing running track. If it's already over capacity then perhaps it could be expanded on its present site? The problem with that approach (which would increase sporting provision AND avoid building on precious Green Belt) is that it would prevent the Council from selling land off at Handy Cross to help fund a shiny new sports centre.

The best place for a sports running track would surely be adjacent to the ..er..sports centre, not in the middle of nowhere.

I recall WDC looked at Buckmaster playing fields in Cressex -- Residents welcomed it but WDC rejected it.

Why now put it where people don't want it ???

Since Handy Cross Runners meet at Fernie Field and use the Judo Centre facilities,showers, toilets etc why not put it there

Tooclever wrote:
To be honest I've never been to Little Marlow as it has never seen to have anything to attract me there, even when I was living in Marlow. This would attract me there. But you agree with my other points? I have a 16 month old and I want to give her the best possibilities to make it in sport. Already being a member of the Nuffield health & fitness group, I am able to offer her excellant swimming facilities and welcome more options locally.

I have a 16 month old and I want to give her the best possibilities to make it in sport

That;s it, bring in the baaaabies. Why do you think that a shiny new running track would help with that? One can run anywhere, one does not need to run between narrow white lines to be any good at it.; In my younger days living in a village,the only reason I won competitatively, was by treading tarmac with a rucsac full of old books on my back, I didn't need to run with others, they were usually behind.

We don't want this in Little Marlow. Once they build this more will come and we will be joined up with Marlow town and our countryside ruined.
Why can't some school playing fields double up for running/community sports outside of school hours?

If there isn't a good place for a running track maybe we will just have to cope without one. The countryside is irreplaceable, once it's gone it's gone.

The fact is this track will and should go somewhere, but its the same old story of residents saying "not in my back yard" justified with irrelevant comments.

Yes its greenbelt land, and yes its precious and beautiful and all the rest of it. But to the residents who are complaining, your houses were built on that land, you enjoy the scenery, why shouldn't anyone else.

Infrastructure, houses, etc will grow with each generation, it has to with a growing population.

There's an elitist sense of "we can enjoy the country side and all its benefits, but no-one else can".

And lets be honest, its a running track, its hardly polluting local water ways with toxic chemicals or going to be keeping you up at night.

And the light pollution argument....... not even worth the breath.

nextgenerationbucks wrote:
The fact is this track will and should go somewhere, but its the same old story of residents saying "not in my back yard" justified with irrelevant comments. Yes its greenbelt land, and yes its precious and beautiful and all the rest of it. But to the residents who are complaining, your houses were built on that land, you enjoy the scenery, why shouldn't anyone else. Infrastructure, houses, etc will grow with each generation, it has to with a growing population. There's an elitist sense of "we can enjoy the country side and all its benefits, but no-one else can". And lets be honest, its a running track, its hardly polluting local water ways with toxic chemicals or going to be keeping you up at night. And the light pollution argument....... not even worth the breath.

Re "The fact is this track will and should go somewhere". Actually no, that's not a fact at all. Why can't it stay where it is?

nextgenerationbucks wrote:
The fact is this track will and should go somewhere, but its the same old story of residents saying "not in my back yard" justified with irrelevant comments. Yes its greenbelt land, and yes its precious and beautiful and all the rest of it. But to the residents who are complaining, your houses were built on that land, you enjoy the scenery, why shouldn't anyone else. Infrastructure, houses, etc will grow with each generation, it has to with a growing population. There's an elitist sense of "we can enjoy the country side and all its benefits, but no-one else can". And lets be honest, its a running track, its hardly polluting local water ways with toxic chemicals or going to be keeping you up at night. And the light pollution argument....... not even worth the breath.

Why are their comments irrelevant? The Government has recently provided locals with more say as to how development affects them, that would indicate their comments and opinions are relevant. Ironically, as we found with the stadium debacle, many developers, surveyors etc who develop in these 'leafy' backyards in greenbelt,, live in the Countryside out of harms way from such development.

The countryside at Little Marlow is freely accessible to the public, who can and do regularly enjoy it. People who live in the vicinity of the proposed track are not all posh, priveleged or anything else. This is not a proposal for housing for people in need, it is a proposal to destroy wildlife so that a small number of people can run about.

Interesting that the alternative site for a track, adjacent to the Crowne Plaza was rejected....and now the Council is funding a budget hotel project in Marlow.

LRG4Marlow wrote:
The countryside at Little Marlow is freely accessible to the public, who can and do regularly enjoy it. People who live in the vicinity of the proposed track are not all posh, priveleged or anything else. This is not a proposal for housing for people in need, it is a proposal to destroy wildlife so that a small number of people can run about.

You say so that a small number of people can run about? There are two athletics clubs that train there and I go to one of them. Train there three times a week so trust me it will be used plenty. I am 16 and have ran internationally because of the training I have been able to receive on the track. There are plenty of articles about me on here. Nicola Sanders was trained on that track for six years so its not just for simple running about. Future Olympic athletes are being reared on the track so do not doubt it and its use because everyone will be too happy to take the credit. Stephanie Clitheroe.

Tooclever wrote:
I see "inspire a generation" is totally lost on the people of Little Marlow! However, I'm sure you will be the first to jump on the back of anyone that makes it from training in that track!

Do scum travel to Little Marlow to sit in cars? Why would they waste their petrol money getting there when there are plenty of car parks in high wycombe?!

Local business will gain from the increased footfall.

I'm just pleased to see WDC looking to provide better sports facilities....may just be me though as I'm fit and healthy!

Inspire a generation.

They will be able to do the long distance walk from desk to coffee machine, the 100m sprint from office to the food hall at lunch time and the Marathon car parking spot hunt.

What we wont be getting is a sports center just a paddling pool, offices and a hotel.

As for the running track and the con job being done on us about foot paths and the clean up of lakes, (i.e. Ex gravel pits including Randall's pit) it would be almost laughable if it wasn't a serious miss use of our money for financial gain.

Question: Do WDC town planners have a conscience? Or do they all suffer from 'little man big ego syndrome'. ie 'my town is bigger than yours' or 'I want to put High Wycombe on the map regardless of any damage I may do to the green belt'

DonRockell wrote:

Tooclever wrote:
I see "inspire a generation" is totally lost on the people of Little Marlow! However, I'm sure you will be the first to jump on the back of anyone that makes it from training in that track!

Do scum travel to Little Marlow to sit in cars? Why would they waste their petrol money getting there when there are plenty of car parks in high wycombe?!

Local business will gain from the increased footfall.

I'm just pleased to see WDC looking to provide better sports facilities....may just be me though as I'm fit and healthy!

Inspire a generation.

They will be able to do the long distance walk from desk to coffee machine, the 100m sprint from office to the food hall at lunch time and the Marathon car parking spot hunt.

What we wont be getting is a sports center just a paddling pool, offices and a hotel.

As for the running track and the con job being done on us about foot paths and the clean up of lakes, (i.e. Ex gravel pits including Randall's pit) it would be almost laughable if it wasn't a serious miss use of our money for financial gain.

£1.5M does seem rather a lot for a running track. Does anyone know if this is a reasonable number or is it being padded out by incorporating regeneration/redevel
opment costs that would be borne otherwise by whoever is currently responsible for the land?

Since all physical activity improves health, a running track should pay for itself via a reduced NHS spend, On this basic £1.5M seems to be a good investment, although I have no idea whether this is "the going rate"

gpn01 wrote:

DonRockell wrote:

Tooclever wrote:
I see "inspire a generation" is totally lost on the people of Little Marlow! However, I'm sure you will be the first to jump on the back of anyone that makes it from training in that track!

Do scum travel to Little Marlow to sit in cars? Why would they waste their petrol money getting there when there are plenty of car parks in high wycombe?!

Local business will gain from the increased footfall.

I'm just pleased to see WDC looking to provide better sports facilities....may just be me though as I'm fit and healthy!

Inspire a generation.

They will be able to do the long distance walk from desk to coffee machine, the 100m sprint from office to the food hall at lunch time and the Marathon car parking spot hunt.

What we wont be getting is a sports center just a paddling pool, offices and a hotel.

As for the running track and the con job being done on us about foot paths and the clean up of lakes, (i.e. Ex gravel pits including Randall's pit) it would be almost laughable if it wasn't a serious miss use of our money for financial gain.

£1.5M does seem rather a lot for a running track. Does anyone know if this is a reasonable number or is it being padded out by incorporating regeneration/redevel

opment costs that would be borne otherwise by whoever is currently responsible for the land?

Unfortunately 1.5M will just about cover the cost of the Car park and my fear is that what we get is a cheap cut down and almost useless white elephant.

The location is poor, the whole sport complex idea is based on the sale of prime land for profit and the ability for some that to be selectively targeted to mislead us in to believing we are getting some thing new. New maybe - Better and improved and cost effective - now that is a very different question

Agniesca wrote:
Since all physical activity improves health, a running track should pay for itself via a reduced NHS spend, On this basic £1.5M seems to be a good investment, although I have no idea whether this is "the going rate"

£1.5m May not enough to build a proper Running track let alone, to cover the cost of the land, changing rooms, showers, new sports equipment, car parking, land reclamation, road modification, access, design, architects fees, clean up and the proposed new footpath and park land areas.

They have enough problems finding money to keep the parks we have in good order- just look at The Rec in Marlow that's now being run by a charity when the council copped out of its responsibilities.

nextgenerationbucks wrote:
The fact is this track will and should go somewhere, but its the same old story of residents saying "not in my back yard" justified with irrelevant comments.

Yes its greenbelt land, and yes its precious and beautiful and all the rest of it. But to the residents who are complaining, your houses were built on that land, you enjoy the scenery, why shouldn't anyone else.

Infrastructure, houses, etc will grow with each generation, it has to with a growing population.

There's an elitist sense of "we can enjoy the country side and all its benefits, but no-one else can".

And lets be honest, its a running track, its hardly polluting local water ways with toxic chemicals or going to be keeping you up at night.

And the light pollution argument....... not even worth the breath.

Sorry to say but Little Marlow and many of the buildings there were there a very long time before the Green belt was even a concept in the political eye.

Since we have changing rooms, showers and staffing available at the judo centre, and unused land, which was formerly used to play cricket on, what'sthe problem