| Warren Farm 14:00 - Sep 30 with 34290 views | hoopstilidie |
Green light. |  |
| |  |
| Warren Farm on 04:13 - Oct 9 with 3561 views | DylanP |
| Warren Farm on 03:19 - Oct 9 by scillo |
From what I can gather, the issue for those opposed is about the erosion of green space. Ealing Council's neglect of the site is no excuse for giving the land away. The choice between dilapidation and a QPR takeover is a false one.
While I have no doubt that QPR are jolly decent folk, they are a private company who legitimately look after their own stakeholders but not the interests of the wider community. The fear is that - as London becomes ever more developed - green space that is vital for everyone's wellbeing is sacrificed to private interests.
The petition is thin on the ground indeed, but many would say that people don't know what they have until it's gone... |
[QUOTE] "The petition is thin on the ground indeed, but many would say that people don't know what they have until it's gone..."
Yeah, and many others might say that people aren't signing the petition because they disagree and think that the economic, social, and cultural benefits of having a sports complex close to their houses far outweighs the loss of the empty space and dilapidated existing facilities.
You see, your opposition to the QPR-led sports facility is based on the belief that sports is not an important part of culture, a belief that the vast majority of people would disagree with. Additionally, your opposition is based on the belief that open space is more valuable to people's wellbeing that sporting and cultural facilities. Again, this is a belief that the vast majority of people would disagree with. Now, you may consider your opinions to be sincere and heartfelt, but they are still just your opinions and neither facts or even very widely-held opinions. |  |
| |
| Warren Farm on 08:24 - Oct 9 with 3450 views | ElHoop |
| Warren Farm on 13:22 - Oct 3 by kingo |
I would suggest that Savewarrenfarm takes a short trip across west London to view the community facilities that Barnet FC have, and this does now include their first team ground. These facilities have been built in conjunction with Harrow Council and are of a benefit to the community and also to youth footballers in general. The proposal at Warren Farm is very similar to the one at Barnet/ Harrow. So your point about QPR just wanting it for the first team and with no benefit to the community is not valid. |
Not sure that The Hive is a good example of community spirit and harmony. It was originally going to be Wealdstone's new ground but the developers went bust and Wealdstone lost their money and couldn't carry on.
In the end Harrow allowed Barnet to take over the project and it's all gone a bit tits up as Barnet have exceeded planning constraints in the height of the stand and floodlights and have been told to knock them down. That would mean that their ground won't be conference compliant. It's a sorry mess but not untypical of Barnet FC.
That aside, I suppose that there are some similarities. I used to live off of Camrose Avenue as a child, well for 25 years of my life in fact, and don't remember playing on those pitches so god knows who owned them. My school was along Camrose Avenue and we used to bus down to Whitchurch Playing fields which used to be down near Canons Park. Don't know if they are still there. I don't know who played on the pitches at The Hive but apparently they were long gone and grown over when Wealdstone took on the project.
Further up the road were the William Ellis grounds, which were obviously rugby pitches when I was a kid. No idea who played there either but looking down from Google heights I see that a lot of the pitches have gone and there's a Hindu primary school there now. What pitches remain seem to be for junior football.
It's a problem. We can't wish for more kids to play sport and at the same time keep concreting over valuable pitches. Solutions like The Hive and Warren Farm are better than nothing but it doesn't feel as if there's a government policy for developing and maintaining proper sports facilities for kids. |  | | |
| Warren Farm on 10:09 - Oct 9 with 3373 views | kingo |
| Warren Farm on 03:19 - Oct 9 by scillo |
From what I can gather, the issue for those opposed is about the erosion of green space. Ealing Council's neglect of the site is no excuse for giving the land away. The choice between dilapidation and a QPR takeover is a false one.
While I have no doubt that QPR are jolly decent folk, they are a private company who legitimately look after their own stakeholders but not the interests of the wider community. The fear is that - as London becomes ever more developed - green space that is vital for everyone's wellbeing is sacrificed to private interests.
The petition is thin on the ground indeed, but many would say that people don't know what they have until it's gone... |
Your opposition is slightly flawed in the fact that QPR would still be providing green open space on the site and not as you suggest eroding it. Green open space is open space that offers a public value, and this most definately includes land which offers opportunities for sport and outdoor recreation. As EL Hoop has advised the facilities for the community that have been provided at Camrose Avenue are much better that was there before and of much more use to the community. Warren Farm would actually be even better as QPR would not be looking to create a first team home ground as Barnet have done and it is only this element that has caused a problem. As I suggested to Savewarrenfarm, perhaps you could take a short trip to Edgeware and take a look before blindly signing up to a petition to prevent vastly improved facilities being provided for young sportsmen in the area. |  |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Warren Farm on 10:46 - Oct 9 with 3338 views | Juzzie |
| Warren Farm on 03:19 - Oct 9 by scillo |
From what I can gather, the issue for those opposed is about the erosion of green space. Ealing Council's neglect of the site is no excuse for giving the land away. The choice between dilapidation and a QPR takeover is a false one.
While I have no doubt that QPR are jolly decent folk, they are a private company who legitimately look after their own stakeholders but not the interests of the wider community. The fear is that - as London becomes ever more developed - green space that is vital for everyone's wellbeing is sacrificed to private interests.
The petition is thin on the ground indeed, but many would say that people don't know what they have until it's gone... |
"While I have no doubt that QPR are jolly decent folk, they are a private company who legitimately look after their own stakeholders but not the interests of the wider community."
Did you not see the link just a third of the page up from your own thread? Here it is again.
http://www.qprcommunitytrust.co.uk/
QPR do a lot of work in the community especially with the Tiger Cubs. |  | | |
| Warren Farm on 11:16 - Oct 9 with 3307 views | QPR_Jim |
| Warren Farm on 03:19 - Oct 9 by scillo |
From what I can gather, the issue for those opposed is about the erosion of green space. Ealing Council's neglect of the site is no excuse for giving the land away. The choice between dilapidation and a QPR takeover is a false one.
While I have no doubt that QPR are jolly decent folk, they are a private company who legitimately look after their own stakeholders but not the interests of the wider community. The fear is that - as London becomes ever more developed - green space that is vital for everyone's wellbeing is sacrificed to private interests.
The petition is thin on the ground indeed, but many would say that people don't know what they have until it's gone... |
"Ealing Council's neglect of the site is no excuse for giving the land away" - It's not giving it away QPR will have to invest money to build community facilities and pay for the maintenance/security of said facilities.
"The choice between dilapidation and a QPR takeover is a false one." Ealing Council are looking for external investment which suggests they can't afford to get the site up to a decent standard. What other options are there? who else would take the site on with all the expense to get it up to scratch and not get to use the whole site?
"they are a private company who legitimately look after their own stakeholders but not the interests of the wider community" The local community is a stakeholder so I don't get your point there at all.
"The petition is thin on the ground indeed, but many would say that people don't know what they have until it's gone..." Ah so your saying that the people who disagree with you are idiots who aren't able to come to a intelligent decision like yourself. |  | | |
| Warren Farm on 23:58 - Oct 14 with 3137 views | savewarrenfarm |
Hello. Returning to reply. Again, will try to respond to questions raised. Haven't had a chance before - busy life and all that (although appears some would question that).
BTW, congratulations on the QPR contribution to England win last week. Hopefully Townsend can shine again. Many credit his time at QPR as being instrumental to his improvement.
On to Warren Farm.
Why now? Because it's happening now. And those that have enjoyed using Warren Farm for activities beyond football now realise that their open space is going to be closed to them. No more detail available now because some of it links to the possible judicial review. Whether that goes ahead is in the hands of Ealing Council (this isn't a QPR issue). There's very strong opposition to what is proposed by those who use the space. Unfortunately, is isn't the vast majority of Ealing residents opinion that is relevant. It would be very easy to come up with a topic and then come up with a loosely linked group of people and find a lack of interest across the two. Talk to people who know about Warren Farm and use it and there is consistent disbelief at what Ealing Council has done and are doing.
The state of the current place is not the issue. It is the failure of Ealing Council to manage and maintain the facility that has led to this situation. Turn the camera round from the picture of the facility and you have a large expanse of green, open access land. A fantastic, open, expanse of green land that on anything but a very wet day will have people playing games that don't need facilities, goal posts, Council interference. And yes, that includes dog walking (which of course no one on this forum has a dog!)
No one is asking anyone on this forum to go against QPR. That would be ridiculous. But just to try, if you can for a moment, and understand that if someone tried to remove the bit of green space that is closest to where you live, you would be pretty hacked off.
QPR Jim - back to discuss and try and get understanding (which is not the same as agreement). Not here to annoy or waste my time (or yours).
Valuations. These are based on figures prepared by Ealing Council. They just chose to pick the lowest figures they could. And they're not being paid that either.
First Draft - giving Ealing the benefit of the doubt. They know full well that they would get ripped to shreds with no mention of community. And as QPR COO has acknowledged, one of the greatest challenges is combining elite / academy use with community access. QPR don't really want community access (which is different to community engagement). It doesn't happen at other Premier League / elite facility and that is the QPR aspiration.
Will locals benefit? Of course some will. Again, trying to be genuine in responding to the question. Most locals won't and the 'benefits' have been dressed up far more than the reality. Again, not undermining QPR or their community activity - both parts of the club probably do a great job. Just acknowledging a basic reality - community activity and elite sport do not really mix.
Barnet FC. Thanks for the tip. Will try to take a look. There is genuine interest to find out how community access would work. There is no response to the repeatedly asked question because it isn't an option. Locals are being shut out - literally fenced out - of Warren Farm. With regards to Barnet and community, I don't think many on this forum would put QPR's aspirations on a par with League Two Barnet FC. If they were, then perhaps the need to fence off 61 acres would not be so great.
Legal review. Will leave it hanging as to where the fundraising is going. You may wish to ask the question why there is this delay.
Scillo - you got -3 for your empathy. Your comments are pretty close to the issue.
DylanP - appreciate your opinion. It's not an opposition to a QPR-led sports facility. It's opposition to Ealing Council plans. The sports facility that maintains community access would be very welcome. And the role of QPR in this is a side issue. Insert the name of any large organisation - it's not relevant to the core issue which is why this is Save Warren Farm (and not anti-large organisation). Not sure what you base your view on regarding green space, but concrete over green space would probably get most in favour of green space. Those who like sport find it difficult to appreciate that most people don't give a monkeys about any sport at all. But appreciate your view. And for information Ealing have opened a new sports centre in a far more accessible location just up the road (probably less than a mile from Warren Farm).
Kingo - thanks for suggestion. Will explore. No one is blindly signing petitions. Warren Farm does have a public value. Just the measure of that value differs between people.
QPR in the Community - yes, they do a lot in the community. That doesn't change the issues around Warren Farm. 61 acres of green open field are going to be fenced off. People who currently use Warren Farm do not want to have to wait for a security guard to give them permission to access what small part of the site remains - if any - and be told to leave when the security guard says. People will stop going... leaving it open for Ealing Council and the tenants to do what they clearly want to do. You can complete that thought process, but it's not looking at just the next ten years.
Giving the land away. Phil Beard has publicly stated they are being gifted the land. Ealing are yet to publicly deny it. Who do you want to believe? QPR's role in this not the issue. Therefore choice between dilapidation and QPR is not a false one. If only the local community were considered a stakeholder.
Got to go. Life to live and all that. Will try and respond to any other questions that may be asked. |  |
| Looking for a good deal for Warren Farm - for locals and users |
| |
| Warren Farm on 02:39 - Oct 15 with 3072 views | Trom |
Isn't the issue simply that it's a resource that is under utilised by the community in its present state. The fact of 300+ signatures indicates that there are not enough people to support its current state.
So either QPR build a training facility with some benefits to the community and some to QPR, or the council invest heavily to build an asset that is utilised. I think there need to be some recognition that there are costs and benefits to both. Reality is that the council is unlikely to invest unless there is an immediate demand or voters are up in arms and that clearly isn't the case. That's not to say current users don't feel strongly about the issue or that their opinions are irrelevant.
What we all have to consider here is that this kind of space is at a premium in a city like London. The question boils down to how can the land be best put to use to serve the community. At present a state of the art sporting facility open to the public beats it's current usage, which is meagre.
Also what needs to be considered is that QPR is a community asset in it's own right. I don't think comparison to big corporations is valid given QPRs past financial situation. This is not like a multinational building a factory or a company that makes huge profits being given free assets. QPR has been loss making and in and out of admin for as long as I remember. To progress as team in the local community and all of the good that it does in the community it needs a local base. I think if a few of the critics saw the face of the down syndrome Tiger Cubs when they get to play at Loftus Road and get applauded by both home and away fans they might rethink the role that football teams have in the local community.
I'd also question the 66m valuation - is this as a sporting facility or if the land was commercially developed?
I think everyone respects there are winners and losers in every deal and that all parties have legitimate views and feelings but the lack of outcry from the general community would indicate that most don't view this as a valuable asset lost in it's current state.
Kudos for the people coming on here to post their views in opposition - it's good to hear both sides of the story but to be honest even though i'm biased the arguments put forward aren't convincing. [Post edited 15 Oct 2013 2:54]
|  | | |
| Warren Farm on 03:53 - Oct 15 with 3047 views | DylanP |
| Warren Farm on 23:58 - Oct 14 by savewarrenfarm |
Hello. Returning to reply. Again, will try to respond to questions raised. Haven't had a chance before - busy life and all that (although appears some would question that).
BTW, congratulations on the QPR contribution to England win last week. Hopefully Townsend can shine again. Many credit his time at QPR as being instrumental to his improvement.
On to Warren Farm.
Why now? Because it's happening now. And those that have enjoyed using Warren Farm for activities beyond football now realise that their open space is going to be closed to them. No more detail available now because some of it links to the possible judicial review. Whether that goes ahead is in the hands of Ealing Council (this isn't a QPR issue). There's very strong opposition to what is proposed by those who use the space. Unfortunately, is isn't the vast majority of Ealing residents opinion that is relevant. It would be very easy to come up with a topic and then come up with a loosely linked group of people and find a lack of interest across the two. Talk to people who know about Warren Farm and use it and there is consistent disbelief at what Ealing Council has done and are doing.
The state of the current place is not the issue. It is the failure of Ealing Council to manage and maintain the facility that has led to this situation. Turn the camera round from the picture of the facility and you have a large expanse of green, open access land. A fantastic, open, expanse of green land that on anything but a very wet day will have people playing games that don't need facilities, goal posts, Council interference. And yes, that includes dog walking (which of course no one on this forum has a dog!)
No one is asking anyone on this forum to go against QPR. That would be ridiculous. But just to try, if you can for a moment, and understand that if someone tried to remove the bit of green space that is closest to where you live, you would be pretty hacked off.
QPR Jim - back to discuss and try and get understanding (which is not the same as agreement). Not here to annoy or waste my time (or yours).
Valuations. These are based on figures prepared by Ealing Council. They just chose to pick the lowest figures they could. And they're not being paid that either.
First Draft - giving Ealing the benefit of the doubt. They know full well that they would get ripped to shreds with no mention of community. And as QPR COO has acknowledged, one of the greatest challenges is combining elite / academy use with community access. QPR don't really want community access (which is different to community engagement). It doesn't happen at other Premier League / elite facility and that is the QPR aspiration.
Will locals benefit? Of course some will. Again, trying to be genuine in responding to the question. Most locals won't and the 'benefits' have been dressed up far more than the reality. Again, not undermining QPR or their community activity - both parts of the club probably do a great job. Just acknowledging a basic reality - community activity and elite sport do not really mix.
Barnet FC. Thanks for the tip. Will try to take a look. There is genuine interest to find out how community access would work. There is no response to the repeatedly asked question because it isn't an option. Locals are being shut out - literally fenced out - of Warren Farm. With regards to Barnet and community, I don't think many on this forum would put QPR's aspirations on a par with League Two Barnet FC. If they were, then perhaps the need to fence off 61 acres would not be so great.
Legal review. Will leave it hanging as to where the fundraising is going. You may wish to ask the question why there is this delay.
Scillo - you got -3 for your empathy. Your comments are pretty close to the issue.
DylanP - appreciate your opinion. It's not an opposition to a QPR-led sports facility. It's opposition to Ealing Council plans. The sports facility that maintains community access would be very welcome. And the role of QPR in this is a side issue. Insert the name of any large organisation - it's not relevant to the core issue which is why this is Save Warren Farm (and not anti-large organisation). Not sure what you base your view on regarding green space, but concrete over green space would probably get most in favour of green space. Those who like sport find it difficult to appreciate that most people don't give a monkeys about any sport at all. But appreciate your view. And for information Ealing have opened a new sports centre in a far more accessible location just up the road (probably less than a mile from Warren Farm).
Kingo - thanks for suggestion. Will explore. No one is blindly signing petitions. Warren Farm does have a public value. Just the measure of that value differs between people.
QPR in the Community - yes, they do a lot in the community. That doesn't change the issues around Warren Farm. 61 acres of green open field are going to be fenced off. People who currently use Warren Farm do not want to have to wait for a security guard to give them permission to access what small part of the site remains - if any - and be told to leave when the security guard says. People will stop going... leaving it open for Ealing Council and the tenants to do what they clearly want to do. You can complete that thought process, but it's not looking at just the next ten years.
Giving the land away. Phil Beard has publicly stated they are being gifted the land. Ealing are yet to publicly deny it. Who do you want to believe? QPR's role in this not the issue. Therefore choice between dilapidation and QPR is not a false one. If only the local community were considered a stakeholder.
Got to go. Life to live and all that. Will try and respond to any other questions that may be asked. |
SWF -- Appreciate the genuine attempt to answer questions and pose opposing positions/opinions.
The fact is that even on a really bad day over 10k people go to a QPR game. 300 people have signed the petition. That implies that there just isn't the groundswell of support for your position. Or really, any meaningful level of support for your position.
You talk about Ealing Council as if it is something apart from the people who use the facility. That is, of course, a misrepresentation. Ealing Council is elected by the people of Ealing. No representative democracy is a perfectly efficient in its representation, but it is still reflects the will of the people somewhat. If Ealing hasn't put resources into maintaining the site, it is probably because resources are short and maintaining the facility simply isn't a high enough priority to warrant use of limited resources. Ealing Council are interested in bringing a private entity in to develop the site because they are forced (by their position) to take the big picture, whereas local residents have the luxury of only taking a very small parochial view; "i like being able to walk my dog/run around/play football in the park and don't really have an interest in the economic/social well-being of the borough as a whole".
Even with this inclination to self-interest, you have not been able to muster any level of support for the position you hold. Why? Because, on the very face of it, it is not credible. Optimizing use of this underutilized resource would have hundreds of social, cultural, and economic benefits to the community. There would still be green space, but on top of that there would be economic activity and well as top grade facilities for the local community. You may be right that you might not prefer them, but most people would. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Warren Farm on 07:09 - Oct 15 with 2994 views | smegma |
The biggest scandal is the neglect shown by Ealing Council to this once thriving sporting facility. But then in austere times I guess things like Warren Farm get put on the back burner with 40k Poles needing social housing, child benefit etc............
Locals complainging they will not access to the site is total rubbish as the club has shown in its plans that a third of the site will be for the community to use. The same community that hardly used it in its present state.The club will also foot the bill for doing the place up, not the council. |  | | |
| Warren Farm on 07:41 - Oct 15 with 2957 views | ElHoop |
It strikes me that there's two separate issues here - the fencing off of the site and allowing limited community access is one issue and what QPR are going to do within the site is a completely different matter. It could be us or anyone who is fencing it off but the restriction is the issue for the campaigners. The council presumably thinks that not enough people have been using the site in recent years to justify the major public expense that renovation would require. It's a bit unfair to blame the current council for years of neglect. If they spend millions on this then presumably they have to chop it off something else that they consider is more important. I'm not sure what the council are supposed to do if they've been through the process and this is their best option, as they see it. | | | |
| Warren Farm on 08:28 - Oct 15 with 2917 views | danehoop |
Might I suggest that "savewarrenfarm" comes on this board for not entirely altruistic motives? He is whatever passes for a lobby group trying to resist something we are all in favour of.
Now if I were a member of a lobby group such as his, where the facts at this point indicate little material support, I'd be doing what I could to gather as much information from whatever source open to me about the proposed development. MB's like this provide effectively free market research and additional information/rumour that I can then recycle/rehearse in creating defensive arguments in favour of retaining the run down, poorly maintained suburban wasteland that currently exists at Warren Farm.
Far be it from me to suggest to fellow LFW'ers what you chose to write. But in this case, perhaps think what the poster who is opposed to something we support wants to gain from these exchanges. Is here for banter? Is he expecting to convince QPR fans to not support the plans for Warren Farm? Is he looking to be convinced that his opposition to the plans is misplaced? None of the those seem likely, so at the risk of sounding paranoid - really be very wary about anything posted on here about Warren Farm. Anybody claiming to have any sort of privileged information in particular should question the advisability or otherwise of posting something up which might be used against the club's plans in future. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Warren Farm on 10:18 - Oct 22 with 2687 views | JonDoeman |
The Warren Farm - Queens Park Rangers 'Giveaway'
Campaigners say Ealing Council will today (22nd October) sign away protected Open Land to Queens Park Rangers football club for a ‘peppercorn rent’.
The football club plan to develop a £30million sports complex at the 60-acre Warren Farm site on Windmill Lane in Southall after being given the go-ahead by Ealing Council.
Nic Ferriday, chairman of the Brent River & Canal Society, said
“This is privatisation of public assets. A large area of green open space is being stolen from the public and given to an unaccountable big business.”
The council’s valuers, Kushman and Wakefield, have valued the land at£1.8 to £2.25 million pounds. But opponents - ‘Save Warren Farm’ group - say this is despite the planning permission which makes the land hugely valuable.
They estimate the land with planning permission in the region of £32.5m.
Ealing council claims there will be community benefits. Existing changing rooms have become become derelict and QPR would build some new ones. QPR would also run at their expense the few remaining (sub-size) football pitches. The council claims there will be around £8 million of community benefits, but campaigners say no details or guarantees have been seen.
Mr Ferriday added: “The council has a responsibility to achieve best value for its residents, both financially and in non-financial terms. The council has manifestly failed to do this on Warren Farm. The council has closed ranks with even the Audit Committee turning a blind eye to the giveaway.”
Despite massive local opposition, the Ealing council is pressing ahead with the deal. The community is planning to take Ealing council to court, by means of Judicial Review.
22nd October 2013
http://www.ealingtoday.co.uk/default.asp?section=info&page=eawarrenfarmoct001.ht [Post edited 22 Oct 2013 10:19]
|  |
| |
| Warren Farm on 10:50 - Oct 22 with 2653 views | doogi55 |
massive objections lol | | | |
| Warren Farm on 11:23 - Oct 22 with 2600 views | hoopstilidie |
In it's present incarnation it is a dilapidated eyesore that very few people have any particular interest in using.
Though the access to the site will be more restricted after it's development, the facilities and appearance will be immeasurably better and will encourage greater usage.
It's like choosing unlimited access to Ann Widdecombe over an occasional dirty weekend with Kelly Brook. | |
| |
| Warren Farm on 11:35 - Oct 22 with 2584 views | kingo |
It is quite telling in their opposition that the Save Warren Farm group deliberately use wrong and misleading information to sensatiuonalise their opposition. The site would only be worth £32.5m if it was developed in to a residential housing estate, and from all of their other info they accuse the Council and QPR of eroding the green space. So they can't have their cake an eat it. It is not going to be a residential housing estate and therefore it is not worth £32.5m. However it IS going to remain as Green Open Space, merely in a better managed way. | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Warren Farm on 11:38 - Oct 22 with 2566 views | daveB |
funny thing is if savewarrenfarm get their way then the only way the council can make that sort of money is by either building housing and losing the green land of building a big tesco type store and losing the green space. I don't think they've thought it through to be honest |  | | |
| Warren Farm on 13:28 - Oct 22 with 2474 views | AgedR |
I want a improved training facility for my club and, if it provides community benefits, then all the better.
There is a wider point, however, it is a disgrace that public playing areas like Warren Farm have been neglected to this extent. It's also short sighted, as a well maintained facility would have been easier to update, allowing real links to be grown between Rangers and the local community.
At the moment it is a carsey, fit only for dogs to shite in.
Sale of the land offers a pretty hollow victory for the council, but, a great opportunity for QPR to develop it's standing and reputation for community projects. |  |
| |
| Warren Farm on 13:38 - Oct 22 with 2456 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Warren Farm on 11:23 - Oct 22 by hoopstilidie |
In it's present incarnation it is a dilapidated eyesore that very few people have any particular interest in using.
Though the access to the site will be more restricted after it's development, the facilities and appearance will be immeasurably better and will encourage greater usage.
It's like choosing unlimited access to Ann Widdecombe over an occasional dirty weekend with Kelly Brook. |
That's an excellent analogy.
Option 2 for me please! |  | | |
| Warren Farm on 13:42 - Oct 22 with 2445 views | rsonist |
I'm not trying to play devil's advocate or anything but do you all accept that if the council funded the site properly (not as unrealistic as some claim) then they could have something of more value to the community than what QPR have offered. That seems to me to be what this boils down to.
OTOH I do think the protesters have (IMO counter-productively) over-depreciated what QPR will bring to the site. It won't be the best possible thing but it'll be pretty good and better than the current nothing. |  | | |
| Warren Farm on 16:58 - Oct 22 with 2363 views | stansleftfoot |
Current signatures 421 at 22nd of October, Ealing London's third biggest Borough with a population of 338 thousand has stirred .001% of it's residents to protect what they considers an important asset. I guess you could divide that by 2 because, in reality, what one person does so does the partner.
Not so much Green as on Amber waiting to go Green. | | | |
| Warren Farm on 19:09 - Oct 22 with 2314 views | DylanP |
| Warren Farm on 13:42 - Oct 22 by rsonist |
I'm not trying to play devil's advocate or anything but do you all accept that if the council funded the site properly (not as unrealistic as some claim) then they could have something of more value to the community than what QPR have offered. That seems to me to be what this boils down to.
OTOH I do think the protesters have (IMO counter-productively) over-depreciated what QPR will bring to the site. It won't be the best possible thing but it'll be pretty good and better than the current nothing. |
The Council is in the business of setting priorities for how to spend limited resources. It's not like the Council has unlimited funds. If they did, then the argument that "the Council should have not let the facility fall into such disrepair" would make sense. However, over the last period of years, the Council has clearly decided that fuding the facility at Warren Farm was not a high enough priority to get funds. What should it cut to provide funds? So, given that is the reality, this is a way to make the best out of the resources they have available. They have the land and dilapidated facilities. By releasing that resource to a local community organization with deep an abiding ties to the community, they can have that land developed into a significant facility, with multiple levels of benefit to the local community and at no cost to the tax payer. From a government position, that is as close to a win-win you will ever get. | |
| |
| Warren Farm on 19:40 - Oct 22 with 2265 views | stansleftfoot |
There is a dynamic and powerful level of dis-interest amongst Hanwell residents, a quick trawl of local Hanwell forums actually points out this small group is denying an open debate about how QPR's investment could be better analysed and debated.
The point here is that the whole site can be redeveloped sensitively and with the Community in mind whilst also addressing QPR's needs.
I maybe wrong and time will tell but this small group are going to delay the inevitable and are keeping the door's closed on getting a positive and constructive debate with the Club...who want and need the community to work with! Daft as brushes! | | | |
| Warren Farm on 20:00 - Oct 22 with 2238 views | kron1664 |
| Warren Farm on 19:40 - Oct 22 by stansleftfoot |
There is a dynamic and powerful level of dis-interest amongst Hanwell residents, a quick trawl of local Hanwell forums actually points out this small group is denying an open debate about how QPR's investment could be better analysed and debated.
The point here is that the whole site can be redeveloped sensitively and with the Community in mind whilst also addressing QPR's needs.
I maybe wrong and time will tell but this small group are going to delay the inevitable and are keeping the door's closed on getting a positive and constructive debate with the Club...who want and need the community to work with! Daft as brushes! |
If the place was being used i could understand objections. Its supposed to be a sports ground FFS. QPR will give them a state of the art facility.
Like previous posters said, if we don't develop the land it will become housing or tescos
What would they want the site to be used for? | | | |
| Warren Farm on 21:43 - Oct 22 with 2164 views | TW_R |
| Warren Farm on 23:58 - Oct 14 by savewarrenfarm |
Hello. Returning to reply. Again, will try to respond to questions raised. Haven't had a chance before - busy life and all that (although appears some would question that).
BTW, congratulations on the QPR contribution to England win last week. Hopefully Townsend can shine again. Many credit his time at QPR as being instrumental to his improvement.
On to Warren Farm.
Why now? Because it's happening now. And those that have enjoyed using Warren Farm for activities beyond football now realise that their open space is going to be closed to them. No more detail available now because some of it links to the possible judicial review. Whether that goes ahead is in the hands of Ealing Council (this isn't a QPR issue). There's very strong opposition to what is proposed by those who use the space. Unfortunately, is isn't the vast majority of Ealing residents opinion that is relevant. It would be very easy to come up with a topic and then come up with a loosely linked group of people and find a lack of interest across the two. Talk to people who know about Warren Farm and use it and there is consistent disbelief at what Ealing Council has done and are doing.
The state of the current place is not the issue. It is the failure of Ealing Council to manage and maintain the facility that has led to this situation. Turn the camera round from the picture of the facility and you have a large expanse of green, open access land. A fantastic, open, expanse of green land that on anything but a very wet day will have people playing games that don't need facilities, goal posts, Council interference. And yes, that includes dog walking (which of course no one on this forum has a dog!)
No one is asking anyone on this forum to go against QPR. That would be ridiculous. But just to try, if you can for a moment, and understand that if someone tried to remove the bit of green space that is closest to where you live, you would be pretty hacked off.
QPR Jim - back to discuss and try and get understanding (which is not the same as agreement). Not here to annoy or waste my time (or yours).
Valuations. These are based on figures prepared by Ealing Council. They just chose to pick the lowest figures they could. And they're not being paid that either.
First Draft - giving Ealing the benefit of the doubt. They know full well that they would get ripped to shreds with no mention of community. And as QPR COO has acknowledged, one of the greatest challenges is combining elite / academy use with community access. QPR don't really want community access (which is different to community engagement). It doesn't happen at other Premier League / elite facility and that is the QPR aspiration.
Will locals benefit? Of course some will. Again, trying to be genuine in responding to the question. Most locals won't and the 'benefits' have been dressed up far more than the reality. Again, not undermining QPR or their community activity - both parts of the club probably do a great job. Just acknowledging a basic reality - community activity and elite sport do not really mix.
Barnet FC. Thanks for the tip. Will try to take a look. There is genuine interest to find out how community access would work. There is no response to the repeatedly asked question because it isn't an option. Locals are being shut out - literally fenced out - of Warren Farm. With regards to Barnet and community, I don't think many on this forum would put QPR's aspirations on a par with League Two Barnet FC. If they were, then perhaps the need to fence off 61 acres would not be so great.
Legal review. Will leave it hanging as to where the fundraising is going. You may wish to ask the question why there is this delay.
Scillo - you got -3 for your empathy. Your comments are pretty close to the issue.
DylanP - appreciate your opinion. It's not an opposition to a QPR-led sports facility. It's opposition to Ealing Council plans. The sports facility that maintains community access would be very welcome. And the role of QPR in this is a side issue. Insert the name of any large organisation - it's not relevant to the core issue which is why this is Save Warren Farm (and not anti-large organisation). Not sure what you base your view on regarding green space, but concrete over green space would probably get most in favour of green space. Those who like sport find it difficult to appreciate that most people don't give a monkeys about any sport at all. But appreciate your view. And for information Ealing have opened a new sports centre in a far more accessible location just up the road (probably less than a mile from Warren Farm).
Kingo - thanks for suggestion. Will explore. No one is blindly signing petitions. Warren Farm does have a public value. Just the measure of that value differs between people.
QPR in the Community - yes, they do a lot in the community. That doesn't change the issues around Warren Farm. 61 acres of green open field are going to be fenced off. People who currently use Warren Farm do not want to have to wait for a security guard to give them permission to access what small part of the site remains - if any - and be told to leave when the security guard says. People will stop going... leaving it open for Ealing Council and the tenants to do what they clearly want to do. You can complete that thought process, but it's not looking at just the next ten years.
Giving the land away. Phil Beard has publicly stated they are being gifted the land. Ealing are yet to publicly deny it. Who do you want to believe? QPR's role in this not the issue. Therefore choice between dilapidation and QPR is not a false one. If only the local community were considered a stakeholder.
Got to go. Life to live and all that. Will try and respond to any other questions that may be asked. |
"The state of the current place is not the issue. It is the failure of Ealing Council to manage and maintain the facility that has led to this situation. Turn the camera round from the picture of the facility and you have a large expanse of green, open access land. A fantastic, open, expanse of green land that on anything but a very wet day will have people playing games that don't need facilities, goal posts, Council interference. And yes, that includes dog walking (which of course no one on this forum has a dog!)"
This is where the whole argument falls apart in my opinion. If you're seriously suggesting this is the only place in the area where these activities can take place then you're obviously not a resident in the area. You've got Osterley Park directly to the south, Elthorne Park to the East, Glade Lane Canalside Park to the North, plus plent of dog-walking opportunity along the canal.
The fact is, Warren Farm is used by very few people because there are plenty of other, more attractive places for people to go to, which are more easily accessible. |  | | |
| Warren Farm on 22:24 - Oct 22 with 2124 views | CiderwithRsie |
I appreciate getting some alternative views on this as it helps inform us.
I'll stick my hand up and admit I'm a QPR fan and not an Ealing resident.
But I don't think its quite true to say that its a false choice between QPR or the existing neglect. Most councils are extremely short of cash and its entirely plausible that the reason the place is neglected is that the council can't afford to maintain it. If so, EBC's options are
- sell/give to QPR on condition that the club maintain the place and provide sports facilities to the community
- sell it for development and use the cash for council services
- allow it to gradually decline into wilderness.
The third option has its benefits if you want to promote wildlife but not if you want to promote outdoor sports and thereby fitness of the population. Inevitably some people are sports nuts and couldn't give a toss about wildlife and others are vice versa but If I was EBC I'd want the open spaces in the borough to do a bit of both. It seems quite legitimate to me for them to concentrate nature reserves and dog-walking etc. in spaces elsewhere and save whatever little money they currently spend on Warren Farm for other sites that will otherwise go the same way. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
