I very much agree with the strong feelings expressed by John Heaps. The community should show respect to such a noble gift. We have an ageing populaton and a time for giving and many are thinking of whom to leave their money and estates to.
What message do you give to those wanting today to leave a legacy to the community, if those legacies of the past are now shown as breakable?
L
Lesley Cole
11 years ago
RG4 7JF (same as my husband Geoff who omitted this info when he signed up.
G
Geoff Cole
11 years ago
Featured
The wishes of Charles Hewett in gifting Mapledurham Playing Fields to the local community must be respected in spirit and letter. It is a disgrace that this site is even included as an option.
M
Marc Gross
11 years ago
Oh the irony, a free school, not at that price!
P
Pamela Gross
11 years ago
Featured
playing fields are extremely important especially in urban areas. They allow people of all ages, to play sports, walk, jog and generally meet for events in the fresh air in a safe and healthy environment. Once built upon they can never be re-instated.
S
Simon Shah
11 years ago
RG4 7AX
A
Amanda Loyd
11 years ago
rg4 7hs
I
Immanuel Jarakana
11 years ago
RG4 7 PF
V
Valerie Elgeti
11 years ago
RG4 7PF
L
Linley Elgeti
11 years ago
RG4 7PF
K
Karisma Jarakana
11 years ago
RG4 7PF
N
Nancy Jarakana
11 years ago
RG4 7PF
A
Adrian Jack
11 years ago
RG4 7LH
E
Elizabeth Quarini
11 years ago
RG4 7LH
J
Jeff Currie
11 years ago
The Reading Chronicle covered the fury and dismay of the Upper Warren Avenue residents when their banner, inviting the answer to the question'Do you want a school here?' question got answered in the affirmative by an interested party with an aerosol spray can to hand; shows that , as ever, the local press will support the well-connected person of the Borough. Lord madjesticksy has been brought in line I gather so it remains for the principled amongst us to defend the playing fields. To consider the site at all and to proceed to build the school onn the site, will be the 'thin end of the wedge' as the covenant is broken open for all-comers to bring their house building to the land , access roads , extra space , extra classrooms, parking space . Once the prwecedent is set , nothing will be off-limits anymore. I add my signatuire to the petition with the appeal'Hands Off The Playing Fields' The clue is in the name, 'Playing Fields'!
P
Penelope Kay
11 years ago
These fields were bequeathed specifically for playing fields and recreational use for local people. Who will ever again bequeath something to RBC if stated wishes are flouted.Proximity to MPF makes the Hiigh Ridge site all the more suitable for a school; a lovely way to walk there each morning, and handy for games too. Architects and engineers are nowadays able to build on sites such as High Ridge ( building on the dry valley of Bugs Bottom so many years ago confirms this.
Hi, I've sent this Email to Robert Wilson tonight; (not that I expect any answers) following the 'Update' sent today.
Hi Robert,
This little parcel of ambiguity is very disappointing!
Some facts which I will energetically disperse over the next few weeks.
1. If you had not agreed to facilitate the narrow interests of the residents of Upper Warren Ave (NIMBY, disguised as safety concerns) then the EFA due process solution would have stood and there would be no issue at all; the turmoil is entirely of your making in my view in challenging the EFA decision ostensibly on behalf of the very few but clearly very influential Upper Warren Ave residents !
2. The Mapledurham Playing Field Trust is based on the site being used “For recreational purposes only” only on this condition do RBC have ‘ownership’ of the site; it’s an option, if chosen, which would offer the potential for legal dispute for years.
I and many others would support any such action energetically.
You have demonstrated no interest in the Recreation Only condition and have never as far as I can ascertain referred to it or acknowledged it; this is significant
3. Labour (who favour the Mapledurham site) have had in my view an agenda for the MPF site for decades, surely you know this much about local politics?
a. First, a Primary School,
b. Then a secondary school,
c. Then Key Workers or affordable / social housing?
d. RBC tried to trade a rebuild of the Pavilion for a sale of MPF land to developers.
Once RBC break the Trust condition “For recreational purposes only” there is no obstacle to them doing whatever they like on the site; this in my view is their real intention, its why they would not fund the repair of the Pavilion in Fred Pugh’s time. Is this news to you?
They clearly intend to deal with the COI issue by appointing some subcommittee (will that committee get appointed by a referendum of Caversham residents!)
4. If, as you say, the Lib Dems favour Bugs Bo
P
Patricia Heaps
11 years ago
rg4 7lbHi Robert, This little parcel of ambiguity is very disappointing! Some facts which I will energetically disperse over the next few weeks. 1. If you had not agreed to facilitate the narrow interests of the residents of Upper Warren Ave (NIMBY, disguised as safety concerns) then the EFA due process solution would have stood and there would be no issue at all; the turmoil is entirely of your making in challenging the EFA decision ostensibly on behalf of the very few but very influential Upper Warren Ave residents ! 2. The Mapledurham Playing Field Trust is based on the site being used “For recreational purposes only” only on this condition do RBC have ‘ownership’ of the site; it’s an option, if chosen, which would offer the potential for legal dispute for years potentially. I and many others would support any such action energetically. You have demonstrated no interest in this fact and have never as far as I can ascertain referred to it or acknowledged it; this is significant 3. Labour (who favour the Mapledurham site) have had an agenda for the MPF site for decades, surely you know this much about local politics? a. First, a Primary School, b. Then a secondary school, c. Then Key Workers or affordable / social housing? d. Tick box on some diversity pro forma! Once RBC break the Trust condition “For recreational purposes only” there is no obstacle to them doing whatever they like on the site; this is their real intention, its why they would not fund the repair of the Pavilion in Fred Pugh’s time. Is this news to you? They clearly intend to deal with the COI issue by appointing some trumped up subcommittee (will that get appointed by referendum!) 4. If the Lib Dems favour Bugs Bottom and Labour favours Mapledurham Playing Fields where do you or even our invisible Conservative Councillor stand?! You had a clear view as to where it should not go, i.e. the EFA chosen option in Upper Warren Avenue! It is significant that the EFA second time round con
RG4 7JZ
I very much agree with the strong feelings expressed by John Heaps. The community should show respect to such a noble gift. We have an ageing populaton and a time for giving and many are thinking of whom to leave their money and estates to. What message do you give to those wanting today to leave a legacy to the community, if those legacies of the past are now shown as breakable?
RG4 7JF (same as my husband Geoff who omitted this info when he signed up.
The wishes of Charles Hewett in gifting Mapledurham Playing Fields to the local community must be respected in spirit and letter. It is a disgrace that this site is even included as an option.
Oh the irony, a free school, not at that price!
playing fields are extremely important especially in urban areas. They allow people of all ages, to play sports, walk, jog and generally meet for events in the fresh air in a safe and healthy environment. Once built upon they can never be re-instated.
RG4 7AX
rg4 7hs
RG4 7 PF
RG4 7PF
RG4 7PF
RG4 7PF
RG4 7PF
RG4 7LH
RG4 7LH
The Reading Chronicle covered the fury and dismay of the Upper Warren Avenue residents when their banner, inviting the answer to the question'Do you want a school here?' question got answered in the affirmative by an interested party with an aerosol spray can to hand; shows that , as ever, the local press will support the well-connected person of the Borough. Lord madjesticksy has been brought in line I gather so it remains for the principled amongst us to defend the playing fields. To consider the site at all and to proceed to build the school onn the site, will be the 'thin end of the wedge' as the covenant is broken open for all-comers to bring their house building to the land , access roads , extra space , extra classrooms, parking space . Once the prwecedent is set , nothing will be off-limits anymore. I add my signatuire to the petition with the appeal'Hands Off The Playing Fields' The clue is in the name, 'Playing Fields'!
These fields were bequeathed specifically for playing fields and recreational use for local people. Who will ever again bequeath something to RBC if stated wishes are flouted.Proximity to MPF makes the Hiigh Ridge site all the more suitable for a school; a lovely way to walk there each morning, and handy for games too. Architects and engineers are nowadays able to build on sites such as High Ridge ( building on the dry valley of Bugs Bottom so many years ago confirms this.
[email protected]
Hi, I've sent this Email to Robert Wilson tonight; (not that I expect any answers) following the 'Update' sent today. Hi Robert, This little parcel of ambiguity is very disappointing! Some facts which I will energetically disperse over the next few weeks. 1. If you had not agreed to facilitate the narrow interests of the residents of Upper Warren Ave (NIMBY, disguised as safety concerns) then the EFA due process solution would have stood and there would be no issue at all; the turmoil is entirely of your making in my view in challenging the EFA decision ostensibly on behalf of the very few but clearly very influential Upper Warren Ave residents ! 2. The Mapledurham Playing Field Trust is based on the site being used “For recreational purposes only” only on this condition do RBC have ‘ownership’ of the site; it’s an option, if chosen, which would offer the potential for legal dispute for years. I and many others would support any such action energetically. You have demonstrated no interest in the Recreation Only condition and have never as far as I can ascertain referred to it or acknowledged it; this is significant 3. Labour (who favour the Mapledurham site) have had in my view an agenda for the MPF site for decades, surely you know this much about local politics? a. First, a Primary School, b. Then a secondary school, c. Then Key Workers or affordable / social housing? d. RBC tried to trade a rebuild of the Pavilion for a sale of MPF land to developers. Once RBC break the Trust condition “For recreational purposes only” there is no obstacle to them doing whatever they like on the site; this in my view is their real intention, its why they would not fund the repair of the Pavilion in Fred Pugh’s time. Is this news to you? They clearly intend to deal with the COI issue by appointing some subcommittee (will that committee get appointed by a referendum of Caversham residents!) 4. If, as you say, the Lib Dems favour Bugs Bo
rg4 7lbHi Robert, This little parcel of ambiguity is very disappointing! Some facts which I will energetically disperse over the next few weeks. 1. If you had not agreed to facilitate the narrow interests of the residents of Upper Warren Ave (NIMBY, disguised as safety concerns) then the EFA due process solution would have stood and there would be no issue at all; the turmoil is entirely of your making in challenging the EFA decision ostensibly on behalf of the very few but very influential Upper Warren Ave residents ! 2. The Mapledurham Playing Field Trust is based on the site being used “For recreational purposes only” only on this condition do RBC have ‘ownership’ of the site; it’s an option, if chosen, which would offer the potential for legal dispute for years potentially. I and many others would support any such action energetically. You have demonstrated no interest in this fact and have never as far as I can ascertain referred to it or acknowledged it; this is significant 3. Labour (who favour the Mapledurham site) have had an agenda for the MPF site for decades, surely you know this much about local politics? a. First, a Primary School, b. Then a secondary school, c. Then Key Workers or affordable / social housing? d. Tick box on some diversity pro forma! Once RBC break the Trust condition “For recreational purposes only” there is no obstacle to them doing whatever they like on the site; this is their real intention, its why they would not fund the repair of the Pavilion in Fred Pugh’s time. Is this news to you? They clearly intend to deal with the COI issue by appointing some trumped up subcommittee (will that get appointed by referendum!) 4. If the Lib Dems favour Bugs Bottom and Labour favours Mapledurham Playing Fields where do you or even our invisible Conservative Councillor stand?! You had a clear view as to where it should not go, i.e. the EFA chosen option in Upper Warren Avenue! It is significant that the EFA second time round con