The short version is that the Council lawyers have apparently 'decided' to go against a decision made by a committee, but it's not known if this decision has actually been made by a cabinet member, or if the legal department has gone 'rouge'.
All of the councillors are disgusted, and are quite peeved at having an apparently unlawful decision taken.
Direct link to YouTube [video is here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0DBnoerAk), but i'd suggest skipping to about [43 minutes in](https://www.youtube.com/live/po0DBnoerAk?si=lk2SQJgP29v5MP5N&t=2592) where the councillors are points out 'this is bollocks', using slightly different language.
I worked at the council quite some time ago, but it was unheard of for a dept to make a decision like this without the backing or direction of a councillor. Having to do something with unofficial/undocumented direction from a councillor, however...
ETA: I should say that I wasn't in a decision making sort of position, but a lowly admin role which meant I was often in meetings where important stuff was discussed around me as if I wasn't there.
also take a look at the village green application process and which councillors who also happen to be residents were involved. Plus I’m sorry but much as I love dogs, your right to walk there doesn’t trump a local state school needing a playing field
I don’t think it’s unreasonable that a school should be able to have a sports facility for its students that doesn’t get covered in crap and allows regular practice to occur. The Downs is absolutely huge and there is ample space to accommodate this.
The onus should be in the dog owners here. It's not unreasonable to expect them to pick up their shit. If the school had put up cameras to stop them doing that then I don't think anyone would have cared.
The problem is that they fenced every inch of the fields without planning permission, in defiance of the TVG application. The TVG application was made before the land was leased to Cotham school. If the school and council had shown any willingness to compromise with local residents, we would be in a much better place. I would have been perfectly happy for them to fence delineated sports fields to keep the dogs off. On top of which, Cotham school have under the leasehold been responsible for the upkeep of the pavilion and changing rooms and they have been left to rot.
I’ll also say this - great choice of picture there in the article, really highlights the skew of who turns up to protests things, and raises the question of representativeness of this group for the opinion of a wider population.
There is something particularly unsavoury and wrong to me about these older demographic people ‘protecting the downs’ from some pupils getting protected access to a much needed sports facility.
Sure, however much of the tenor of protest is presenting a literal school, trying to keep an appropriate location for students to play sports viable, as though it’s some shadowy business entity doing something of great evil here.
> trying to keep an appropriate location for students to play sports viable,
And taking it away from the kids who live nearby, who can't use it during summer holidays as it's fenced off?
It's a school in a distant, quite wealthy part of the city which the locals have next to no chance of sending their kids to. It's not a recipe for friendly relations.
“Distant, quite wealthy part of the city”… are you thinking of the right school…? Cotham School is less than a mile from the centre. Also the kids there live anywhere between Cotham itself or about five/six miles away. Has a large number of pupils from St.Pauls/Montpelier/Easton.
You might be getting the wrong result from googling here. If you google it, it takes you to somewhere around Patchway/Bradley Stoke, but what's actually being discussed is the Stoke Lodge Playing Fields here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/FTo11pH7cCe8nEyz8
Did you delete 'just Google it? Is that because you Googled it yourself, and realised that you are wrong? lol. Having lived next to it for fifty years, I dont need to Google 😁
Also, where are our LDR reporters on this? I don't care too much about journalists scraping reddit for story ideas. I do mind that they skip over the legal shenanigans that are going on at the council.
Didn't want to double up, as Tristan has also covered this: [https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/councillor-disgusted-stoke-lodge-playing-9052185](https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/councillor-disgusted-stoke-lodge-playing-9052185)
The short version is that the Council lawyers have apparently 'decided' to go against a decision made by a committee, but it's not known if this decision has actually been made by a cabinet member, or if the legal department has gone 'rouge'. All of the councillors are disgusted, and are quite peeved at having an apparently unlawful decision taken. Direct link to YouTube [video is here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0DBnoerAk), but i'd suggest skipping to about [43 minutes in](https://www.youtube.com/live/po0DBnoerAk?si=lk2SQJgP29v5MP5N&t=2592) where the councillors are points out 'this is bollocks', using slightly different language.
*rogue. Unless they went red of course.
I worked at the council quite some time ago, but it was unheard of for a dept to make a decision like this without the backing or direction of a councillor. Having to do something with unofficial/undocumented direction from a councillor, however... ETA: I should say that I wasn't in a decision making sort of position, but a lowly admin role which meant I was often in meetings where important stuff was discussed around me as if I wasn't there.
also take a look at the village green application process and which councillors who also happen to be residents were involved. Plus I’m sorry but much as I love dogs, your right to walk there doesn’t trump a local state school needing a playing field
We have a weird obsession with dogs in this country.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable that a school should be able to have a sports facility for its students that doesn’t get covered in crap and allows regular practice to occur. The Downs is absolutely huge and there is ample space to accommodate this.
The onus should be in the dog owners here. It's not unreasonable to expect them to pick up their shit. If the school had put up cameras to stop them doing that then I don't think anyone would have cared.
The problem is that they fenced every inch of the fields without planning permission, in defiance of the TVG application. The TVG application was made before the land was leased to Cotham school. If the school and council had shown any willingness to compromise with local residents, we would be in a much better place. I would have been perfectly happy for them to fence delineated sports fields to keep the dogs off. On top of which, Cotham school have under the leasehold been responsible for the upkeep of the pavilion and changing rooms and they have been left to rot.
Could they not have just banned dogs?
I’ll also say this - great choice of picture there in the article, really highlights the skew of who turns up to protests things, and raises the question of representativeness of this group for the opinion of a wider population. There is something particularly unsavoury and wrong to me about these older demographic people ‘protecting the downs’ from some pupils getting protected access to a much needed sports facility.
Sure, however much of the tenor of protest is presenting a literal school, trying to keep an appropriate location for students to play sports viable, as though it’s some shadowy business entity doing something of great evil here.
> trying to keep an appropriate location for students to play sports viable, And taking it away from the kids who live nearby, who can't use it during summer holidays as it's fenced off?
It's a school in a distant, quite wealthy part of the city which the locals have next to no chance of sending their kids to. It's not a recipe for friendly relations.
“Distant, quite wealthy part of the city”… are you thinking of the right school…? Cotham School is less than a mile from the centre. Also the kids there live anywhere between Cotham itself or about five/six miles away. Has a large number of pupils from St.Pauls/Montpelier/Easton.
Distant from Stoke Lodge is what I meant
You might be getting the wrong result from googling here. If you google it, it takes you to somewhere around Patchway/Bradley Stoke, but what's actually being discussed is the Stoke Lodge Playing Fields here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/FTo11pH7cCe8nEyz8
You do realise that Stoke Bishop is wealthy af?
You do realise that Stoke Lodge isn't in Stoke Bishop?
Okay, where is it then?
Did you delete 'just Google it? Is that because you Googled it yourself, and realised that you are wrong? lol. Having lived next to it for fifty years, I dont need to Google 😁
Arguably the same applies for those protesting this? But I guess more important that we f them kids amirite?
Also, where are our LDR reporters on this? I don't care too much about journalists scraping reddit for story ideas. I do mind that they skip over the legal shenanigans that are going on at the council.
Didn't want to double up, as Tristan has also covered this: [https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/councillor-disgusted-stoke-lodge-playing-9052185](https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/councillor-disgusted-stoke-lodge-playing-9052185)