Members of Northavon Bowls Club say they were “in tears” as the resolution was passed to close the club due the rental dispute with Bradley Stoke Town Council.
As The Bradley Stoke Examiner exclusively revealed on Monday, the club decided to call it a day after negotiations failed to bring an agreement between the two parties.
The town council’s final offer was £8,000 and a 6% annual rise but had previously asked for 8% which the bowlers said they could not afford.
A statement from the club says many members of the club were “extremely upset” and will “miss their friends” and the “companionship and social contact” from the group.
The club has now asked for residents of Bradley Stoke to question the actions of councillors during negotiations which has left a bowling green at Bailey’s Court standing unused.
Read the full statement from Northavon Bowls Club by clicking ‘more’.
Northavon Bowls Club statement
Elderly members of Northavon Bowling Club were in tears at the end of their Extraordinary General meeting at Little Stoke Community Hall on 24th Jan when it was decided unanimously that the Club would have to disband. Bowlers agreed it was impossible for the club to continue for another season without the use of the bowling green at Baileys Court. Some bowlers, who have been members of the club for many years, were extremely upset. They will miss their friends and the companionship and social contact that bowling brings.
Formed in 1992 the bowling club was one of the very first community groups in Bradley Stoke and membership comprised of all ages and all sexes and welcomed everyone to the club whether as players or visitors. They also had a flourishing youth section which was forced to disband.
Officers of Northavon Bowling Club have tried very hard to negotiate a satisfactory agreement with Bradley Stoke Town Council, but to no avail. The Club and the Council have been in dispute for the past two years and the Club has been unable to use their bowling green despite paying the maintenance costs (approx £8,000 per annum). The Club was locked out by the Council in April of last year and since then have tried in vain to negotiate a mutually satisfactory agreement.
The Club hoped that an agreement could be reached before Christmas when the terms provisionally agreed upon informally at a meeting with the Chair of Bradley Stoke, the Chair of Finance and Chair of Planning were presented at the following Finance meeting on Wednesday December 17th but the three councillors did not support the proposal as promised and the proposal was not ratified. In fact another proposal was presented and this was accepted with 2 voting for the proposal, one against and 7 abstentions. This proposal demanded an unacceptable level of rent, personal guarantees of rental costs and extra costs for such things as the use of the toilets and viewing room.
It appears that many of the Bradley Stoke councillors lack the necessary skills required to negotiate or understand democracy, their attitude being “this is what we are offering you, no we will not change it”, which is very autocratic, they are after all elected to serve the local community, of which the bowls club is a part.
The council also has no concept of what a bowling club is. It is not the type of club that just gets together a few times a week to play a game (such as football or cricket). Bowlers play both competitive and friendly matches on a regular basis but there are also the times of day particularly when the sun is shining when members just go to the green for a casual practice roll-up and chat, this is the social side of the game which gives companionship and social contact for members, who, in times of illness and bereavement form a support network to each other.
When we are advised by the government and our GPs to have an active lifestyle and are recommended to take regular exercise, particularly as we get older then bowls is a good way of accomplishing this aim as we advance in years. Under the terms being offered by the Council this could not be achieved as they were offering limited access to the building and green. They required a list of all matches in advance, the building would then be open for our use, other than that we would be required to book a rink at additional cost for a roll-up, if this was not done there would be no access to the building and no toilets would be available (surely a health and safety issue), we would not be able make refreshments (cup of tea etc), if it was raining we would have to pay extra for the room overlooking the green. In all other bowling clubs full access to the club house is freely available to all members to come and go as they please, to have access to changing rooms and toilets and to make a hot or cold drink when required. Likewise all other clubs in the Bristol and South Gloucestershire area whether private or council owned have the support of their local councils who charge them all much less for rent. Why is Bradley Stoke Council so different? The bowling community far and wide, local nationally and internationally would like to know.
Bradley Stoke Town Council leases the Baileys Court site from South Gloucestershire Council, and under the terms of their lease they are required to provide both bowling and cricket facilities until 2050, another 40years. They now have to pay the additional costs of maintaining the bowling green and purchasing bowling equipment so that they can hire out the bowling rinks to the general public. There will be little or no demand for this as most people who bowl already belong to clubs and because of the way we have been treated and our experiences nobody within bowls will be interested in starting up a new club.
Bradley Stoke Town Council is not short of money as they have recently spent in the region of £700,000 on extending the building at Baileys Court to provide youth facilities. Yet they have forced the closure of a much loved community group (not the only one that has had this fate).
There will now be a general lack of use of Baileys Court, although the council appear to think they can rent it at a higher charge as a conference centre, which in the current economic climate seems doubtful. This is in breach of the terms of their lease which restricts use to recreational and leisure activities. Is there a hidden agenda?
The council tax payers of Bradley Stoke should now be questioning the actions of their councillors. BSTC have no business plan for Baileys Court. They spent £700,000 for virtually no financial return or community use and now by their actions, they have increased the net cost to the residents of running Bailey’s Court by at least £12,000 per annum. How are they going to recover these costs? Bradley Stoke residents deserve answers!!
21 responses so far ↓
1 Mark // Jan 26, 2009 at 8:31 pm
If the Council has to spend £7000 on the maitenance of the green and has lost an income from the bowlers of £2150, could the members of NABC please explain to me how this is an increase in costs of £12000. Even if BSTC were unable to rent out the rooms previously rented to the Boles Club at a below community rate, it would only amount to £9,150. Just one example of how the are unable to do the sums. Further to this, they forget it is NOT a club house solely for the benefit of the Bowlers, of which less than 50% contribute towrds BSTC Council Tax, but a facillity for the community, which does include local business, who do pay Council Tax.
2 Andy // Jan 26, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Well said Mark! And to our Council for having the courage to stand-up to them.
3 Jon Williams // Jan 27, 2009 at 9:49 am
Unfortunately, both Mark and Andy appear to have caught the “spreadsheet bug”. This is a bug that makes people on see things in pounds and pence, not community involvement and the social benefits. The bowls club had being going since 1992 and provide something for the older people of the town to enjoy. It kept them active and part of a social network. Now there is nothing in the town for older people to do. Is that how you build a community? I think the Conservative run council should be ashamed of themselves, especially when you consider that Bailey’s Court cannot be used for commercial use (as restricted by their lease with South Gloucestershire Council) and they have to spend over £6,000 a year maintaining a bowling green which no-one is likely to use. Mark has openly admitted that the town council will be at least £9,150 worse off this year, whereas if the council had “subsidised” the club in the way is does other clubs the “loss” to the Council would have been considerably smaller. Is that good financial management?
4 Dave // Jan 27, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Sounds to me like BSTC are doing an excellent job at financial management if they’re not increasing our taxes but spending more on youth as reported on this site.
5 Gerry // Jan 27, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Now that BSTC has finally got rid of “those inconvenient bowlers”, I, and I am sure, a lot of other Bradley Stoke residents would like to know how the council intends to recoup the substantial amount of money, (our money I would add), that is now going to be wasted on maintaining a bowling green that, despite what the councillors think, will not be used, meaning no income.
I do not expect a reply from the council who have proved many times that they feel they are not answerable to anyone!!!
6 Andy // Jan 27, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I am surprised at Jon Williams making a personal attack against residents with contrary views to his own. I’m not against services for older people in the community at all, but lets make sure the expense is proportional to the benefit to local tax payers.
Are we really obliged to maintain the green if no one is using it? Its a lovely space, and would make a great outdoor area for a coffee shop? Or maybe one of the councillors has a mate with a kebab waggon they’d like to park there? Something that would be useful for more than a dozen people, pehaps Jon.
7 Jon // Jan 27, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Andy, don’t feel I attacking you, just pointing out that not everything can be counted in pounds and pence. And Yes, the council DOES have to maintain the green and you and I are paying for it.
There are no facilities for older people so surely £7,000 a year wasn’t too much to ask.
By the way, on a match day you could see up to 90 bowlers and spectators enjoying a game.
8 Chris // Jan 27, 2009 at 9:15 pm
It’s a real shame the bowling club has gone. I know several people that used it despite many of them not being residents of Bradley Stoke. My question is to Bradley Stoke Town Council who have almost built a moat around the place and fortified it against LOCAL people using it and the car park.
When I moved to Bradley Stoke 11 years ago the buildings were used by many residents for parties, get togethers and many other occasions. It’s car park was also used by parents dropping off and collecting their children from Baileys Court School. Since the rebuild/refurbishment this has not been allowed. I raised this with the council who told me that the parents got in the way of the day to day running of the building and it’s use by local businesses. Has anyone from the council actually been to look at the chaos which happens each morning and evening whilst children are going to and from the school or did they too get stuck in the traffic caused by the parents!!
In my opinion it is only a matter if time before a pupil from the school gets injured or worse still killed! are the council willing to live with that decision?
Finally with regard to the Bowls Club, in this day and age of TV, Internet and Play stations and credit crunch, why have the council turned away any income at all? If they argue that it costs money to run the building and now they are saving, is my Council Tax going to be reduced?? I think not somehow!
9 Robert // Jan 28, 2009 at 10:27 am
Mark. Your calculations come to £9150, but as you intend to hire the bowling rinks to the public there will now be the additional cost of purchasing all the equipment necessary, mats, jacks, ditch mats, sets of bowling woods,shoes, etc for hire.
Sets of bowls come in 9 different sizes and cost approx £150 per set, then there are ladies and mens shoes at approx £30 each, how many sizes of these are required perhaps 15, so have you done your sums correctly. By the way it is BOWLS not Bols
10 Keith // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Shame on Bradley Soke Town Council. They have deprived many elderly people of doing something which they enjoyed and was beneficial to their well being. I hope the council is now satisfied that an undemocratic decision (with seven spineless abstainers not using their votes) has left them with a big white elephant.
11 ted // Jan 28, 2009 at 10:20 pm
surely the only people who have been deprived are the eliteist bowls community who seem to think the hard working people of bradley stoke should pay for their exclusive members only club. I think the council have got this spot on everyone else pays to use council premises for sport why shouldn’t the bowlers?
12 pandora // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Bowlers elitist? NO! They actively campaigned for new members from Bradley Stoke for many years and welcomed them and visitors of all ages. The bowlers provided seats, picnic benches, bowls and equipment free of charge for use by anyone.
As with every other sporting organisation the membership of 70+ bowlers did pay to bowl at Baileys Court (and paid far more than the other sporting clubs that use the premises).
BSTC and through them the residents are now having to pay for the ‘non use’ of the green and building.
The bowls club are not the first community group BSTC have ‘forced out’ of Bradley Stoke. Who is next?
Will it be the cricket club (membership <30) or the junior football team?
After all the cricket pitch maintenance and outfield costs are far more substantial than the bowls green upkeep and this is met fully by BSTC. (even allowing for dog walkers).
Look at BSTC record in 2008.
Agendas often published last minute and incomplete. Minutes of meetings published months late and ’signed off’ by councillors not present at the prior meetings. Meetings held ‘in camera’ (secret) with public and press excluded. Meetings not quorate (not enough councillors present) and letters to the council not answered.
It is the editors of the Examiner and Journal who attend these meetings in the interests of the community who deserve plaudits.
13 ted // Feb 1, 2009 at 9:28 am
the cricket club have fewer members, use baileys court less and pay more than the bowls club ever did yet still encountered unpleasant bowlers who had difficulty sharing facilities.
14 jim // Feb 1, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Being a member of North Avon Bowling I thought I would put the cost to bowlers of playing in 2007 our last year
Green keeping including materials £8293.00
Rent to Council £2125.00
membership 88 bowlers who raised the money
The Council wanted an 8% increase each year over the next 5 years.WE as bowlers could no longer afford this increase
Hoping for an agreetment we carried on with the upkeep in 2008 at a cost of £6543.00
although locked out of the green
The last game played on the green was September 2007 when will the next 6 rinker be played
15 John // Feb 4, 2009 at 9:11 am
As an ‘outsider’ taking an interest in Bradley Stoke as a possible place where my next home could be located, I can’t help concluding that both the Bowling Club and the Town Council have let down the community in general.
A resolution is desparately needed: perhaps our MP could take a lead in the mediation.
The figures which abound in the various reports and comments are both confusing and inconsistent. A greater clarity would be helpful. Cost comparisons with other bowling clubs might be interesting.
On the one occasion, a couple of years ago, I witnessed the bowling club in full swing there was no impression the members were impoverished, so I would suggest they should be prepared to pay subsciptions related to the true cost of running the facility, without expecting any large subsidy.
Looking in from the outside it seems the biggest problem is that the people involved have lost their objectivity!
16 MKII // Feb 4, 2009 at 10:46 am
Correct John,
the bowling clubs committees main objective, in serving its members, should have been to ensure the continued existence of their club.
Putting aside who may have been right and who may have been wrong (Bowling Club v BSTC), they should not have taken a course of action that would risk the existence of their club.
They entered into an argument that they were never going to win. Not because they may not have eventually been proven right or got an agreement that suited them, but because it was going to take so long for any conclusion to happen, they’d have no members left to celebrate a victory! Exactly what has happened.
With all the uncertainty and turmoil that this period of arguing and eviction from its home has brought to the club, it was so obvious from day 1 that many members would go elsewhere for every day that the dispute continued.
The club now has so few members left on its books that any resolution is now pointless. The club has folded.
I’m all for people arguing their point, but, no matter what the argument, the prime objective should have been ensuring the club lived to fight another day.
Surely, if the alternative was the death of the club (which its proven to be) it would have been better to at least have remained alive (by getting something signed with the council) and then carrying on the negotiations about the long term implications once the clubs short term future was secured.
Carrying on this dispute sealed the clubs fate, through its leakage of members, as much as the club may feel any council actions may have done.
The club held being stubborn about winning an argument as being more important than surviving. By the time they realised this, it was too late.
17 John // Feb 5, 2009 at 9:32 am
For the good of the community, I hope it’s only a matter of time before a new bowling club is born. Out of the ashes, the phoenix shall rise!
What, I wonder, do the more moderate members of the old club think?
18 Bert Chappell (BERT) // Feb 5, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Well done MKII Feb 4th-you have summed things up very well-whether you were a member or not.I am (was) a member for a number of years-& all I will say that this should not have happened.I still wonder what brought all this about in the 1st place.There has been a clash of personalities-Mr Barge would know all about that apart from the financial situation.The big question is what is the Green to be used for?I believe in the original (& still existing) agreement with S Glos Council there are constrictions in this matter.My fellow players are split up but WILL be playing with other Clubs where we know we will be WELCOME
19 Bert // Feb 6, 2009 at 11:19 am
Let others comment!!
20 'club bowler' // Feb 7, 2009 at 11:18 am
John, your idea of asking an MP to mediate was a good one, and our club actively sought this course of action. Not one, but all three of the lcoal MP’s from every political party sent letters to BSTC and asked them to reconsider, but they were ignored. 2 MP’s asked their local party to intervene, which they did and one MP asked his local party chairman to act as a neutral mediator. BSTC refused this offer although the bowls club agreed. The Chair of South Glos offered to act as a mediator, again the bowls club agreed but BSTC refused. Even when South Glos who own Baileys Court offered to fund independent arbitration, BSTC refused although the bowls club agreed. (and this is documented).
Every other club in the area offers better facilities, with ease of access to clubhouse and toilets, members bar and all at a more reasonable price, which is why Bradley Stoke bowlers have voted with their feet.
21 Michael // Feb 15, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I have read all the comments on your site and I cannot beleive the ignorence of the people in not understanding what has happened between the Bowls club and BSTC over the past 2 years.
There was definatly annamosity between the club and members of the council and what ever happened ,messers Barge, Jones and a few others were going to win even if they were wrong.
I beleive the bowls club is the only sports club in the town that does and never has received a grant even though they ran a youth section (200 youngsters) and held events for the elderly outside the bowls club members and never asked for a penny.
As for the “eletist” part, they are a mixed bunch of people including lorry drivers , process workers but the majority are retired Ex BAC workers.
As explaied earlier we are told to exercise more in old age and yet a local GP could not support the club in council, she could not upset her husband.
A lot of people cannot do their sums
The bowls club payed for the maintanace of the green and paid for the use of the pavilian but after all these years the council want to change the rules. It is now all over, but the council must stand up and be counted because it is going to cost the ratpayers many thousands of pounds for the mistakes BSTC have made.
I once belonged to the club but left because I moved from the area and I can tell anyone interested that they were a top club in the old Avon area and Gloucestershire and the most sociable people you will ever meet with lots of people well over 80 years of age they will now have nothing, think of them as you would your own parents and grandparents and would you like them to be treated like this ?
They have formed a Nomads team to play occationally, not a new club, it is to keep in touch with each other.
Leave a Comment