KNOTTINGLEY PLAYING FIELDS
By TERRY SPENCER B.A. (hons) Ph D.
(2002)
PAGE TWO
In an effort
to secure the park during the hours of closure it was deemed advisable to
fit gates at the Glebe Lane (Hill Top) entrance. In July 1935, Shaw Bros.,
of the Forge Hill Foundry, presented two brass ornaments to the Council to
be utilised to raise funds toward the cost of the gates and it was decided
to write to the Chief Constable of the area’s Police Authority and
obtain his permission to hold a raffle for the objects. (84) The numerous
means of access, both official and unofficial, rendered the use of gates
as a deterrence to vandalism a forlorn hope and throughout the early years
following the establishment of the playing fields (indeed throughout all
the years) there has been a regular chorus of complaint concerning
vandalism. (85) Ease of access was made even easier when in an effort to
regularise the boundaries of the park the long-standing offer of the
Council to purchase a small plot of land situated between the playing
field and the Hall, was accepted. (86) The subsequent abandonment of the
Hall as a place of residence not only negated the clauses regarding right
of access and cartage as specified in the contract of sale but opened to
public use the footpath between Spawd Bone Lane and Marine Villa Road.
To minimise
expenditure the Council, in late 1935, had asked owners of property
adjacent to the playing fields to bear a proportion of the cost of
repairing and laying a hard surface on the Glebe Lane access road between
Hill Top and the playing field entrance. (87) The response of the property
holders is unrecorded , suggesting perhaps, a negative response by the
residents which in view of the nuisance caused by vandalism and trespass
is hardly surprising. The road had its origins in its use as a headland in
the open field system of the medieval manorial vill, the surface of which
was, in the childhood of the writer, occasionally covered with ashes
obtained from the furnaces of the local glassworks and potteries but has
in more recent times been given a hard surface.
The general
economic conditions of the period of the acquisition of the playing fields
imposed financial constraint which warranted a staged developmental
progression. First came the levelling and landscaping and next the
provision of childrens’ play apparatus. The latter was sited in a hollow
caused by the excavation of limestone in a previous age, lying adjacent to
Sleepy Valley, at the north-east quarter of the parkland. The items
included a slide, swings, parallel bars, roundabout (known to local
children as the ‘Lollipop’ because of its red pointed top which led to
them shinning up the inclined supporting bars in order to lick the conical
top), see-saw, sand pit and paddling pool. Construction of the latter was
proposed as part of the building programme launched in 1934. It was
originally envisaged that all construction work on the site be undertaken
by direct labour (88) but it was subsequently decided to obtain estimates
from commercial organisations. At a council meeting in May 1934,
consideration was given to a tender submitted by G.W. Harrod for the
erection of a shelter to be built in accordance with the Council’s plans
and specifications at a cost of £82-17-6. The estimate stipulated that if
green Westmorland slates were to be used for the roof the price would
increase by £18-10-0. Tenders were also received from Messrs. Cockroft
& Briggs of Knottingley for the erection of public conveniences, the
cost being £199, and from Thomas Horn whose estimate for the same project
was £240-5-0. (89) The following month it was resolved that the proposed
works be undertaken by the cheapest possible method (90) and in July the
Playing Fields Committee, influenced by the calculations of the Surveyor,
recommended that direct labour be employed forthwith to build the toilets
at an estimated cost of £175 and the shelter for £75. (91) Construction
of the shelter was deferred however, on grounds of cost and even as late
as December 1937, action was postponed for a further two months in order
to enable the cost to be included in the next round of public expenditure.
(92) The provision of a shelter was a particularly ill-fated aspect of the
development project for it had no sooner been built when, in the Autumn of
1938, it was blown down and never replaced. (93)
Somewhat
surprisingly, perhaps, given the shortage of money and the degree of
vandalism, was the decision at this time to erect a greenhouse in the
playing fields as part of a nursery for the propagation of plants to be
used in the flower beds of the park and throughout the town generally.
(94) In an effort to obviate vandalism it was also proposed to build a
caretakers bungalow and permission was sought from Mr. J.C. Jackson to
grant a dispensation of the legal constraints embodied in the contract of
sale which prohibited such buildings. (95) Although it was subsequently
reported that there was no legal obstacle to the proposed dwelling it was
never erected in the form envisaged. (96)
By the late
1930s the Council’s housing programme to the south and east of the town
had made the playing fields with their westerly location somewhat distant
for use by children living in the newly developed areas. Late in 1937 an
approach was therefore made to Mr R. Garlick who indicated his willingness
to sell to the Council land situated at Low (Fernley) Green for conversion
into a playing field. Garlick asked for £250 for the land and the Council
resolved to obtain a valuation of the site and make an offer in the light
of the survey. (97) The District Valuer’s Report suggested that Garlick’s
price was excessive and assessed the site value as £200. Deadlock ensued
and the Council therefore resolved that no further action be taken
concerning the matter. (98) The initial proposal had however, indicated
the eventual course of events concerning provision of recreational
facilities arising from the rapid expansion of the town in consequence of
the housing boom of the post war decades of the second half of the
twentieth century when it became both desirable and necessary to establish
a series of ‘mini’ playgrounds on estates within the township, a
measure dictated by the reduction in natural playsites and an increase in
the volume and speed of vehicular traffic within and around the town.
The late
1930s was a time of considerable expenditure concerning the playing fields
with substantial repairs to walls, paths and equipment. In 1938 the
children's slide was reported to be in a dangerous condition and a
replacement was considered to be necessary. However, the specialist firm
of Charles Wickstead & Co. Ltd., undertook repair of the chute at a
cost of 10 guineas (99) and also cleaned and repaired the see-saw. (100)
In an effort to obtain supplemental funding a deputation consisting of Cr.
H. Gregg, Cr. T. Brittain and Cr. J. Jackson met with the Secretary of the
Miners Welfare Fund to ascertain the likelihood of a financial subsidy for
the playing fields. (101) The absence of further details suggests that the
Councillors’ pleas fell on deaf ears which in light of the events some
thirty years later lends a retrospective irony to the 1938 approach.
Notwithstanding
their by now somewhat peripheral location, the playing fields retained
their popularity, providing a venue for school sports, carnivals, gala
events, and band concerts in addition to the general recreational
facilities afforded. (102) Social utilisation of the site was greatly
increased during the period of the Second World War (1939-1945) when the
exigencies of the wartime conditions combined with government propaganda
to encourage citizens to take ‘Stay at Home Holidays’ which together
with the observance of ‘War Savings Weeks’ with all the festive
activities such occasions prompted, made the playing fields an invaluable
civic asset. (103) At this period the playing fields also provided an open
and therefore safe venue for dances which were so popular and indeed,
deemed so essential to the maintenance of public and military morale that
the action of the K.U.D.C. Chairman "in giving permission for a dance
to be held in the playing fields on Monday last [be] approved and he be
allowed to give permission for such for the troops at any time." (104)
From the mid
1940s the prospect of funding for the playing fields as part of the
national scheme of post war reconstruction was a welcome development.
(105) A consequent benefit was the laying of a flag pavement at the Spawd
Bone Lane entrance to the park. (106) It was also resolved to replace the
childrens’ play equipment and the Council Surveyor was requested to
prepare plans and obtain estimates for a bowling green and two hard
surface tennis courts. (107) The Clerk was asked to ascertain what grants
were available to meet estimated costs of £416 for the bowling green and
tennis courts. (108) Implementation of this moderately ambitious scheme
appears to have been constrained by the effect of post war austerity for
it was not until the purchase of the nearby property known as ‘The Close’
and the incorporation of its grounds within the playing field complex in
the 1960s that the scheme was successfully revived.
Despite the
postponement of the plan it is interesting to note the considerable
increase in expenditure concerning the playing fields in the immediate
post war period. In 1948-49, the sum of £2,000 was spent and the
following financial year £5,000 was expended. (109) The extent to which
the huge increase was a consequence of rising costs or generated by post
war planning is not indicated but there are indications of rising costs in
respect of improvements to facilities with additional sums of £50 each
being provided to the estimated costs of providing a sand pit and a
putting green. The total expenditure for the financial year 1949-50 was
£3,660 for Knottingley playing fields and a further £4,500 for those at
Ferrybridge. (110)
A noticeable
development within close proximity to the playing fields during the early
1950s was the construction of a pair of semi-detached houses for
occupation by K.U.D.C. employees. A grant towards the cost of the houses
was sought from the Ministry of Education , one of the houses being
provisionally earmarked for occupation by the park-keeper. (111)
The Festival
of Britain in 1951 provided a psychological antidote to the gloom of war
time and its austere aftermath. In addition to the illumination of the
façade of the Town Hall during Festival Week (21st-28th
July 1951), it was decided to make a financial outlay on the playing field
equipment for the town’s children. The Council resolved to obtain a new
slide, see-saw, whirling platform, giant stride and a set of swings from
Messrs. Spencers Ltd.. (112) In addition, the Surveyor and Clerk met
representatives of the Minister of Education who intimated through them
that he was prepared to recommend grants toward the provision of the
tennis courts and a bowling green previously planned but shelved. (113)
The projected revival of the scheme received a further setback, however,
when a letter from the Minister, dated 26th February 1952, was
received by the Council in which it was stated that existing national
economic circumstances precluded approval of the grant applied for by the
K.U.D.C. under the provisions of the Physical Training & Recreation
Act, 1937, for the purpose of playing fields development. (114) The
rejection marked but a further phase in the failure to obtain government
assistance. As early as 1950 application for a grant had been made to the
Minister of Education who in May of that year had replied that he was
unable to provide a grant and could only sanction modest schemes regarding
the refurbishment and development of Knottingley playing fields. A
modified scheme ensued and the matter was taken up on the Council’s
behalf by the then Member of Parliament for the Goole constituency (which
then incorporated Knottingley), Mr. George Jeager. (115) It was Jeager’s
influence which facilitated the meeting between the Council officers and
Ministry representatives the year following, but to no avail.
One of the
elements of the refurbishment scheme was the provision of an ornamental
bandstand. When the subject was first mooted it was placed in abeyance
pending discussions with representatives of Knottingley Silver Prize Band
in order to discuss a retaining fee to be paid to the Band by the Council
to ensure a guaranteed number of performances per season. (116) Meanwhile,
in anticipation of an agreement between the parties, the Surveyor
submitted a sketch plan which was approved by the Playing Field Committee
who instructed the Surveyor to obtain quotations for the erection of the
bandstand. (117) Negotiations with the Knottingley Silver Prize Band
resulted in an agreement whereby the Band would present four summer
concerts for a fee of £8 per performance. (118)
The age-old
and continuing anxiety concerning vandalism within the park had obvious
implications for the provision of playing field facilities (119) and when
the long serving attendant, Mr. Pat O’Driscoll intimated that he wished
to retire in 1952, it was decided to appoint a caretaker-gardener in his
place, a decision which coincided with that to build two houses on the
periphery of the playing fields and by letting one to the new caretaker
ensure a continuous presence and hopefully reduce the opportunity for
vandalism. (120) Initial advertisements in the local press for a
caretaker-gardener drew only one application and it was therefore decided
to re-advertise the post and also place a notice concerning the vacancy at
the front of the Town Hall. (121)
O’Driscoll,
who had already served an extended period beyond his projected retirement
date, agreed to a further period of temporary duty pending the appointment
of a new caretaker. (122)
The
re-advertisement drew five applicants from whom three were short-listed.
One applicant withdrew from the shortlist upon learning of the conditions
of service and of the two remaining candidates Mr. A. Hacker was appointed
to the position. (123)
The paucity
of applicants may have owed something to the low scale of remuneration for
the post which although in accordance with the scale of wages set by the
Joint Industrial Council was hardly overgenerous. Something of the
financial hardship experienced by the appointee is evident in his
subsequent but unsuccessful request to be allowed the vending rights for
the playing fields (124) and also for a rent reduction on the tenancy of
the recently constructed house in Marine Villa Road which he occupied as
part of the job. (125)
The
combination of financial stringency and vandal damage had meanwhile
prompted reconsideration of the construction of the bandstand. However, in
June 1952, it was decided to purchase a bandstand of which Hoyland Nether
Urban District Council wished to dispose. The cost including the removal
and re-erection was estimated at £200 (126) but this proved to be a
miscalculation and in April 1953, the Surveyor reported that the lowest
tender for removal of the bandstand was £234. It was therefore decided to
make arrangements for the work to be undertaken by Council workmen using
Council transport, with re-erection and repainting also being undertaken
by direct labour. (127) The bandstand was eventually re-erected as a
memorial to commemorate the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II and served in
a dual function being used by the local Labour Party as a platform for
political speeches at a political rally in May 1954, its use being
sanctioned by the Council on condition that there was no charge to the
public and that the Party indemnify the Council in the event of any
damage. (128) The principal function of the bandstand was well observed,
however, with the Knottingley Silver Prize Band providing summer concerts
on a regular basis for the remainder of the decade. (129)
It is perhaps
apposite to mention here the use of the playing fields and the bandstand
in connection with the programme of events concerning Coronation Day. The
playing fields were the venue for a United Service on the evening of
Sunday 31st May 1953, attended by all the leaders of the
various religious denominations within the town at which the music was
provided by the Salvation Army Band, courtesy of Captain Ambrose.
On Coronation
Day, Tuesday 2nd June 1953, a carnival procession assembled in
Ferrybridge Square at 3.00pm and after touring the traditional route
through the town, arrived at the playing fields when the judging of the
tableaux and fancy dress took place.
Following a
tea-party for the local schoolchildren, the Knottingley Silver Prize Band
assembled upon the commemorative bandstand and played for dancing and a
community sing-song. The memorable day was rounded off by a bonfire and
firework display.
On the
evening of Saturday 13th June, the playing fields were again
utilised for the Coronation Sports, with the bandstand providing a focal
point for the presentation of the prizes. Once more a festive air marked
the proceedings with the Silver Prize Band in attendance and the siting of
fairground attractions, the first occasion on which the fair had appeared
in the playing fields. The siting of the fair at a location closer to the
newer centres of population within the town, albeit for a one-off special
event, proved to be a success, socially and financially, and was the
precursor to future attempts to make the playing fields a regular
fairground site.
The year 1953
also witnessed the genesis of a long-term strategy involving the extension
of the area of the playing fields to include land at the junction of Hill
Top and Marine Villa Road. The land, which had once originally formed part
of the gardens of Marine Villa was considered by the Council to be an
ideal site for the eventual erection of public baths. There had been a
desire for such a facility for at least the preceding half century but a
combination of economic depression followed by years of war and austerity
had prevented fulfilment of this ideal whilst sharpening public
anticipation. (130) Even in 1953 financial stringency prevented immediate
implementation of the scheme but it was decided to request the Local
Planning Officer to protect the site by designating it for future use on
the area development plan. (131) The move was followed in February of the
following year by a decision to purchase the land (132) but it was not
until 1969 that the new swimming pool was opened. (133)
The prospect
of enlarged playing fields prompted consideration of additional
refurbishment. In June 1953, it was decided to widen the main gate. (134)
It was not until late 1955 however, that tenders were obtained for the
construction of a new entrance. (135) Also at that time D.C. Graham &
Son were contacted to construct a bowling green. (136) A further
innovation about that time was the general use of the playing fields as a
fairground. In February 1954, Mr. J. Ling, proprietor of a travelling fair
broke with the tradition followed from time immemorial of using the Flatts
in Aire Street as the venue for the towns fair by requesting the use of
the playing fields. In return for the concession sought from the 4th
to the 12th June, Ling offered to stage two free firework
displays and a childrens’ fancy dress parade. The offer was duly
accepted (137) and the following season Ling reapplied, offering the
Council £50 rental fee, two firework displays and a benefit night for any
charity nominated by the Council. Again, the offer was accepted. (138) On
subsequent occasions, the application was rejected. (139) However, a trend
had been established and when in 1960, Mr. C. Doubtfire, a rival
fairground proprietor, offered £100 for exclusive use of the playing
fields for a three day period on two occasions during the year the offer
was accepted. (140)
The erection
of a sports pavilion had been mooted as early as 1955 but it was not until
1960 that steps were taken to approach the Ministry of Housing & Local
Government (now the appropriate central body) to borrow £2,075 for the
purpose of building a pavilion and new public conveniences in the playing
fields. (141) Tenders were sought in November 1959 and the following
January the Clerk presented the responses to the Council, viz.-
R.K. Poskitt
(Beal) Ltd. £2,325
Gibson Bros.
(Upton) Ltd. £2,187
Frank Hanson
(Pontefract) £2,095-11-6
R.H. Fallwood,
Sth Elmsall £2,075
the latter
being accepted. (142)
The pavilion
had largely been prompted by the use of the playing fields football pitch
by local amateur teams, the principal user bring the thriving youth team,
Knottingley Albion. The team had undertaken to make a contribution to the
cost of the proposed pavilion or alternatively, pay weekly rent for its
use. Consequently, consideration was given to the provision of showers in
the pavilion for use by the club. (143)
Once again,
however, financial restrictions compelled reconsideration of the original
design as a result of which the K.U.D.C. Chairman and the Surveyor
undertook a mission to inspect second hand buildings of American design
before finally deciding that the traditional English type of pavilion was
preferable. (144)
In mid-1955,
Mr. A. Hacker resigned as the gardener/caretaker of the playing fields
(145) and was temporarily replaced by Mr. E. Wilders of the Council
Highways Department pending the appointment of a ‘propagating gardener’
at a weekly wage of £8-4-0 per basic 44 hour week. (146) From four
applicants the job went to Mr. A. Shepherd who commenced his duties on the
26th September 1955. (147) However, Shepherd suffered a
protracted illness the following year and a Mr. Fallas was engaged for
half a day per week pending the return of Mr. Shepherd. During the time of
Shepherd’s tenure, responsibility for the security of the playing fields
seems to have passed from the duties of the caretaker for by the time of
the completion of the pavilion in mid 1960, supervision of the park was
being undertaken by a Park Ranger, assisted by additional staff from the
Parks Department at school holiday periods. (148)
The early
1960s witnessed the influx of families from mining communities in County
Durham and Scotland drawn to the Knottingley District by the job
opportunities presented by the opening of Kellingley Colliery. To assist
the provision of social welfare facilities on the new and rapidly
expanding Warwick estate to the south west of the town and throughout
Knottingley in general, the National Council of the Mining Industry
sanctioned financial support through the aegis of the Coal Industry Social
Welfare Organisation in conjunction with the K.U.D.C. (149) The
collaboration was to prove to be the most contentious and divisive civic
action ever undertaken in the recorded annals of the town, lasting most of
the following decade and leaving a legacy of bitterness and distrust
amongst a proportion of the senior citizens of the town to this day.
A little
while earlier the Council had received an offer of support for the
development of the playing fields from the local glass manufacturers,
Jackson Bros. Ltd., but in the light of prospective development between
the K.U.D.C. and the C.I.S.W.O. the former deferred any response to
Jackson Bros offer. (150)
By June 1964,
rumours were rife within the town concerning the discussions between the
Council and the Miners Welfare Organisation which it was alleged would
prove to be disadvantageous to the indigenous residents of the town. A
letter in the local press under the nom de plume ‘Ratepayer’ demanded
an official response from the K.U.D.C. Chairman, Cr. W. O’Brien, to
allay fears. (151) The letter was the first published manifestation of
public unease and the prelude to an increasingly bitter conflict between a
substantial element of the Knottingley public and a faction of the local
council, principally members of the Labour Party led by O’Brien, who,
together with others involved in the business, was placed in the invidious
position of being employed by the National Coal Board and active in the
affairs of the Mineworkers’ Union.
At the time
of ‘Ratepayers’ letter, negotiations were being conducted concerning a
proposed Youth Club and Community centre to be erected on the site at Hill
Top, adjacent to Marine Villa Road, earmarked earlier as part of the
Knottingley Playing Fields Development Plan. (152) Presumably the
inconclusive nature of the negotiations precluded a reply thereby
prompting ‘Ratepayer’ to repeat his demand for a report concerning
negotiations. (153)
At a General
Meeting of the Council on the 29th July 1964, Crs. C. Tate and
S. Alderson attempted to force the issue but their attempt to obtain via
the Town Clerk, "..a
full report on the proposed Youth Club and Community Centre as outlined by
the National Coal Board" was lost by 8
votes to 5. (154)
The situation
was further inflamed by a report that Knottingley Albion F.C., long-term
occupants, had been denied use of the playing fields pitch in favour of
Kellingley Colliery F.C. (155) The accusation drew a response from Mr. H.
Armstrong of the Kellingley club who, whilst not denying the charge,
asserted that his club paid annual rent to the K.U.D.C. and were therefore
valid residents. Furthermore, the Miners’ Welfare was not attempting to
take away anything from the Knottingley people and he appealed to the
citizens of the town to "cut out
spite and pull together." (156)
By now
however, opinions were beginning to polarise and divide along party
political lines both within the Council and amongst the public at large. A
letter in the local paper in October 1964, accused ‘anti-socialist’
members of the Council for the refusal to accept £200,000 for public
amenities offered by the Miners Welfare Organisation via the development
scheme, claiming then refusal was motivated by political considerations.
(157)
By the time
the Council Committee met on the 7th October 1964, the battle
lines were clearly drawn. The Clerk outlined the proposed scheme which
included, inter alia,
- retention of all three existing entrances to the playing fields
- retention of the childrens’ play area
- re-siting and re-erecting the existing bandstand
- re-siting and re-erecting the lean-to greenhouse
Cr. C. Tate
expressed the opinion that the general scheme was not too ambitious and
seconded by Cr. Piper, moved, "that
nothing be done which would interfere with the free rights of the public
of Knottingley with regard to the playing fields" and the motion
was carried nem con. (158)
However, Cr.
O’Brien, seconded by Cr. Joyce, moved that the scheme, subject to the
above provisions, be recommended to the full Council for approval. An
amendment by Cr. S. Alderson, seconded by Cr. Mrs M. Nunns, that the
Report be referred back and a public meeting be called was tied. For the
amendment were Crs. Alderson, Box, Knapton, Nunns, Piper, Samwell, tate
and Wilson. For the motion were Crs. Cardwell, Durkin, Furniss, Hamper,
Joyce, O’Brien, Sarvent and Willis. The vote being tied 8-8 the
Chairman, Cr. O’Brien cast his vote in favour of the motion which was
therefore carried. (159)
Thus the
opportunity to test public opinion on the issue was denied and the Council
pressed ahead with the implementation of the scheme regardless of public
opinion.
However well
intentioned the motives of the supporters of the scheme their enthusiasm
for progress as exemplified by their action can only be regarded as a
public relations disaster. True, as democratically elected representatives
of the public, the councillors could claim a mandate to take decisions and
actions on behalf of their constituents in the knowledge that if their
judgement did not meet with public approval, dissatisfaction would
ultimately be expressed in future local elections. Equally, it could be
claimed that the consequence of decisions and actions emanating from the
council chamber for which there was no clear approval, particularly
involving one of the two objects the origins and history of which ensured
that they were especially revered by the Knottingley public (Town Hall and
playing fields) necessitated a public forum, particularly when the
proposed action was ineradicable and incapable of future rectification.
Furthermore, there was a long tradition in Knottingley of public
consultation by the governing elite via the medium of the Town Meeting.
Under the system of civic administration prior to the establishment of the
Urban District Council in 1894, a Select Vestry of prominent ratepayers
was nominated annually at a public meeting and when issues arose requiring
special consideration, a meeting of the townspeople was convened to debate
the relevant issue before a decision was taken. (160) It is more than a
little ironic that within a few years of the playing fields controversy
the people of Knottingley were invited to participate in a formal ballot
on the lesser issue of Sunday opening of the local cinema and yet on the
issue of the playing fields development public consultation was denied –
quo jure? (161)
The
consequence of such arbitrary action led to charges of covert vested
interest and denial of democratic process. One public letter asserted that
the offer of the Miners Welfare Association was subject to ‘hidden’
conditions known to the Labour Party councillors employed in the mining
industry but not to the public at large. A second correspondent deplored
the lack of information available to the public and condemned decisions
taken in camera, asserting that a public meeting would have been a fairer
method of dealing with the various issues involved. (162) Such letters
eventually drew a response from Cr. O’Brien attacking the anonymity of
the principal critics, outlining the perceived material advantages of the
development scheme while asserting the customary rights of access by the
people of Knottingley to the playing fields (163) and challenging the
critics of the scheme to an open public debate (somewhat paradoxically one
may think given the previous denial of such an opportunity before the
decision was taken to implement the scheme).
O’Brien’s
outburst was deplored by a subsequent correspondent who stated that the
Knottingley people merely desired information and assurances and that O’Brien
seemed to regard criticism as a personal attack when what was required was "a less
belligerent attitude and greater co-operation." (164)
Yet one may
perhaps understand the reason for a degree of personal feeling when yet
another anonymous critic in condemning the denial of public information
accused certain (unnamed) members of the K.U.D.C. as being "…eager
to sacrifice the one area of Knottingley that is our heritage." (165)
Meanwhile,
fuel was added to the flames of public conflagration when at a meeting of
the Development Committee on the 29th October 1964, attended by
representatives of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, the
Divisional Officer, Mr. J. McKenning, stated that whilst the development
scheme could be modified to exclude the land used as a children's play
area, this would mean that his organisation would be unable to provide the
apparatus required for its refurbishment. Informed that the equipment was
available and would merely need re-erecting the official could give no
assurance concerning the availability of funds or labour for this task.
Furthermore, McKenning pointed out that existing estimates only provided
for the dismantling of the bandstand and greenhouse and that re-siting and
the cost of the same was a matter for the K.U.D.C. alone, although an
additional request for funding could be considered. (166)
Reporting the
November meeting of the Council, the local press noted that in the course
of a ‘slashing attack’ on his principal critic, (‘Ratepayer’) Cr.
O’Brien stated that although the C.I.S.W.O. was unable to re-site the
equipment for the childrens play area the work would be undertaken on a
voluntary basis by workmen from Kellingley Colliery, thus presenting a
face-saving solution and drawing the sting of the attack by critics of the
Council concerning the issue. More importantly, at the same meeting it was
resolved to apply to the Ministry of Housing & Local Government for
consent to grant a lease on the playing fields to the Trustees of a
Management Committee which was to be the designated ‘face’ of the
sundry parties involved in the development. (167)
At a meeting
of the Development Committee held on the 21st December 1964, a
letter was submitted from the C.I.S.W.O. requesting details of the lease
rental. The matter was referred to the Rating, Finance & General
Purposes Committee who two days later, recommended a rent of £1 per annum
be charged for the lease of the playing fields. (168)
Following a
series of subsequent meetings between officials of the K.U.D.C. and the
C.I.S.W.O., together with representatives of the contractors and Mr. G.L.
Poulson, the Architect, details were released to the press concerning the
proposed development to be commenced shortly thereafter. (169) The first
phase, to be completed within one year, was to be the construction of a
Community Centre and Youth Club. A shared parking area and access road
would serve the public baths to be built by Knottingley Council as a
separate development, the cost of the road and the car park being jointly
funded by the Council and the C.I.S.W.O. (170) The second phase would
provide sports facilities. Poulson’s plans showed a building comprising
a Youth Club, Community Centre with a public hall and a bowling alley
while the adjacent recreation ground created from the playing fields,
included two football pitches, bowling green, cricket field and a pavilion
with changing rooms and showers. It was stated that these facilities would
not be confined to the mine-working element of the town but be available
to the wider public. It was also announced that approval in principal had
been given for construction of the public swimming baths at an estimated
cost of £120,000. (171) A fortnight later the Pontefract and Castleford
Express carried a feature showing an artists impression of the completed
baths complex prepared by the consulting architects, Messrs Turner,
Holland & Bell of Wakefield. (172) A total of ten firms submitted
tenders for the construction of the baths but the project was subjected to
considerable delay and consequently it was not until February 1969 that
the Knottingley Swimming Pool was finally opened to the public. (173)
Meanwhile,
the implementation of the Playing Fields Development Scheme went ahead
under the financial aegis of the C.I.S.W.O. At the commencement a number
of ‘Foundation Trustees’ were appointed, with representatives drawn
from the various bodies which had an interest in the project. At a general
meeting of the K.U.D.C. on the 4th November 1964, it was
proposed that Cr. W. O’Brien and ex-councillor Mr. A. Wood who was the
current chairman of the local Labour Party, be appointed as Trustees. An
amendment that the trustees be appointed on the basis of one
representative from both political groups was defeated by a single vote.
(174)
The
contentious decision provided further ammunition for the critics, with ‘Ratepayer’
asserting that of the twelve strong ‘Foundation Trustees’ which formed
the embryonic Management Committee of the Community Centre and Youth Club,
ten represented the interests of the mining industry. (175) As a result,
what had previously been critical comment vis a vis the nature and
implementation of the Playing Fields Development Scheme now assumed an
overtly party political dimension (176) with accusations that local Labour
politicians were becoming "careerists", seeking
"self-glorification" and implying that Cr. Bill O’Brien was
developing a personality cult. (177) The issue was brought to a head when
an anonymous letter writer claimed that local Labour councillors were in
thrall of O’Brien. Condemning the "iron-fisted hotheads" on
the Council the correspondent stated that "..it is
expected that they should listen to Brother Bill" and claimed
that one local Labour councillor was opposed to National Union of
Mineworkers (sic) control of the Community Centre but was afraid to say so
in open Council. (178) Not unnaturally, O’Brien took exception and
following representations to the local paper, a retraction appeared
containing an apology from the anonymous correspondent (whose cover was
blown by the incident) and the Editor. (179)
The action
drew the sting of public criticism for a while and was further assisted by
the advent of other public issues of a somewhat controversial nature such
as the siting of a proposed new health clinic, the Aire Street Development
Plan, the Five Towns’ Merger proposals of the Boundary Commission and
the cost of carpeting the proposed new council chamber in the recently
acquired property lying next to the playing fields, known as ‘The Close’.
The 1960s were nothing if not contentious and the issues were fought over
with a ferocity not witnessed in Knottingley since the establishment of a
local Board of Education prompted the ‘Vestry Riots’ in 1874. (180)
Despite a
swing against Labour in the Council elections of May 1965, which was
ascribed to public aversion from the playing fields issue, the Labour
Party retained political control of the K.U.D.C. (181) Consequently,
events concerning the Development Scheme continued apace. A Council
meeting in August 1965 decided that due to space being required for other
facilities, the Bandstand would not be re-erected. (182) In December 1965
Crs Cardwell (Chairman) and Hamper were nominated as the annually
appointed members of the Community Centre Management Committee, thus
containing Labour’s monopoly. (183) It was at this time that the lease
was granted to the ‘Foundation Trustees’ who were to form the
Management Committee designated to take responsibility for the rents and
running of the Community Centre and sports facilities when the scheme was
completed.
The lease was
signed and sealed on the 7th December 1965 by Cr. A. Cardwell
(Chairman) and MR. H. Probart (Town Clerk) on behalf of the K.U.D.C. and
Cr. W. O’Brien and Mr. A. Wood, together with Messrs. G.W. Firth, D.
Holt, and D. Eades in their capacity as Foundation Trustees’ on behalf
of the leasers. (184)
Under the
terms of the lease the Council demised the land and buildings comprising
Knottingley playing fields, together with adjacent land forming the site
of the Community Centre, for a term of 60 years at an annual rental of
£1, effective from the 14th April 1965. (185) The general
control of the Development Scheme was vested in a Management Committee
which consisted of the ‘Foundation Trustees’ and other members
appointed by the K.U.D.C., National Union of Mineworkers, National
Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers and the National
Coal Board. (186) The lease reserved to the Council the right to place the
childrens’ playing equipment within a specified area of the 11.36 acres
leased and more importantly, guaranteed the "…free
and uninterrupted [use] of the land ..by the inhabitants of the Urban
District of Knottingley." (187)
Prior to the
signing of the leasehold another incident had occurred to give rise to
public disquiet when a notice board was positioned on the site of the
proposed Community Centre referring to the project as the ‘Kellingley
Miners Welfare Centre’, contrary to the references in the Council
minutes in which it was named as the ‘Knottingley Community Centre’.
(188) This matter and the fact that the public access to the playing
fields was now disallowed, resulted in a renewed spate of criticism,
culminating in the release to the local paper by Cr. O’Brien, of an
extract from the proposed lease document which stated that the C.I.S.W.O. "…intends
that the social welfare centre shall be held for the benefit of the whole
community of the Scheme area and not for the mining community only."
(189)
However, the
assurance seemed less assured when with the completion of the Centre the
injury to public feeling was compounded by a sign affixed to the building
identifying it as the ‘Kellingley Social Centre".
The unease
even applied to the rank and file of the local Labour Party. An ‘Any
Questions?’ session held in Knottingley Town Hall on Monday 1st
October 1965, with leading Labour councillors forming the panel on the
platform and with others within the audience, revealed that many local
Party members were under the impression that the playing fields had been "handed
over ad lib" (sic) and had to be
assured that such was not the case. (190)
However, as
early as December 1965, the Council had expressed concern that it was
being "left
out in the cold" with the
Chairman, Cr. A. Cardwell, stating that the Management Committee had been
taking decisions without the notification or consultation of the Council.
(191) Cr. O’Brien revealed that he had refused to sign the deed of lease
because he was dissatisfied with the name of the undertaking which he
named ‘Knottingley Town Miners Welfare Scheme’ as opposed to the ‘Miners
Welfare Scheme’ throughout the said document. O’Brien stated that the
name had consequently been changed to ‘Knottingley and Kellingley
Community Centre’. In this, O’Brien was not quite correct for the
amended document and subsequent public notices, letter headings, etc.,
bore the tile "Kellingley (Knottingley) Miners Welfare/Community
Centre". (192) The veneer of united indignation was exposed, however,
by the subsequent un-refuted allegations that two members of the Council
serving in the capacity of non-voting Trustees had nevertheless
participated in the deliberations of the Management Committee on matters
on which the Council was not informed. (193)
Even as late
as 1967 despite the formal inclusion of the town name in the title, the
issue was not completely resolved for in January of that year the Clerk
was instructed to write and express the Council’s concern that "… the
word Knottingley appeared to be disappearing from public material, etc., issued by the
Social Club",. (194) Despite assurances to the contrary, in November 1967
it was again resolved that the Secretary of the Social Club be informed of
the failure to notify Council representatives of Management Committee
meetings. (195)
A public
outcry had also occurred in February 1966, when representatives of the
Knottingley and Ferrybridge Carnival Committee approached the Council in
time honoured fashion, to request use of the playing fields as the venue
for the annual Carnival and Gala the following July, and were informed by
the Clerk that application should now be submitted to the Secretary of the
Miners Welfare Scheme. (196) Although the procedure was correct and in
accordance with the terms of the agreement drawn up between the interested
parties, to a public kept largely in ignorance of the facts and fuelled by
rumour, such rumours appeared to assume an authentic nature, particularly
the charge that the Council had given away the playing fields belonging to
the people of Knottingley. (197) The exclusion of the public to enable the
playing fields to be levelled reinforced the impression of lost rights.
When Knottingley Carnival was restored to its regular venue the following
year the issue was again raised as to why the people of Knottingley must
seek permission to use their own field. This drew a response which implied
that the blame and also the reason for the name of the area as ‘Kellingley
Miners Social Club’ lay at the door of Cr. William O’Brien. The
dissentient voices were provided with support from an unexpected quarter
when Cr. A. Cardwell, hitherto a staunch supporter of the development
project, stated in open Council that the lease he had signed had indeed
given away the playing fields and ruefully added; "It is
quite true, we have lost them", only to be
admonished with vehemence by some fellow councillors. (198)
Concern was
expressed yet again that the name of the town had been omitted from the
Social Centre sign, with the Town Clerk being instructed to write and
request the observation of the Management Committee concerning the
subject. (199) As a result, the sign was replaced by one bearing the
correct name but the omission which had occurred on previous occasions
including the initially presented draft of the lease document, did nothing
to ally public suspicion of a ‘take over’.
In June 1967
a draft of the Joint Maintenance Proposals concerning the redevelopment of
the playing fields site was submitted to the Council (200) followed by
delays to enable site inspections, clarifications, etc., to take place
before the eventual sealing of the agreement in January 1968. (201)
Under the
terms of the agreement the Council was to maintain the recreation ground,
excluding buildings, fences and sports equipment and to provide labour and
materials, supervision of the work being under the sole control of the
Council. General arrangements such as the terms and conditions of use of
the playing fields was the responsibility of the Social Centre Management
Committee who were to provide an annual report for the Council. In
consideration of the Council’s maintenance the Centre Trustees
acknowledged the playing field facilities were; "To be
made available to the inhabitants of Knottingley and neighbourhood"
and "all fees payable for use of the playing fields to be applied
only towards the maintenance of the ports buildings and site
equipment." (202)
Unfortunately,
the hope (and the hype) proved more substantial than the realisation.
Despite the earlier reassurances of myriad facilities the scheme would
afford, little other than a grandstand alongside the relaid football pitch
was constructed. (203) Those councillors who had opined that the original
scheme was too ambitious were vindicated by subsequent events though less
from the point of view of what was possible than from that of hope
betrayed. A Council request that the C.I.S.W.O lay a footpath around the
playing fields to replace the previously centrally located one, torn up in
order to facilitate levelling of the site, was deferred before being
discarded. (204) Similarly, with regard to the proposed running track, the
plan was aborted in spite of an initiative from the Management Committee
who in December 1969, invited representatives to meet to consider the
infilling of the childrens’ play area to facilitate the work. In this
context it is of passing interest to note that consideration was given at
that time to extend the area of the playing fields by the inclusion of
Sleepy Valley, lying adjacent to the childrens’ play area. (205) Sleepy
Valley had recently been acquired by Messrs Jackson Bros. Following their
‘take over’ of Bagley & Co., Ltd., the previous owners of the
site. (206) The proposed extension never came to fruition but the Council
agreed to the re-siting of the childrens’ play apparatus as long as it
was undertaken without cost to the township. (207) In June 1970 the
K.U.D.C. Surveyor reported that the equipment had been transferred to a
site nearer ‘The Close’, the work having been undertaken in
conjunction with other improvement work which he pronounced as "an
immense success." (208)
On the 27th
March 1974, the last Ordinary Meeting of the K.U.D.C. took place. (209)
Henceforth the newly established Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
assumed responsibility for the administration of the town and, ipso facto,
the playing fields. The reluctance of those pledged to fulfil the
ambitious development scheme formulated and entrusted to them by the now
defunct K.U.D.C. was substantially thwarted by the Thatcherite economic
policy of the following decade. The constraints imposed on local authority
powers and finances was accompanied by the conflict between the government
and the mineworkers resulting in the emasculation of the N.U.M. and the
loss of its industrial and financial strength and followed shortly
afterwards by the minimisation of the National Coal Board due to the
governments privatisation policy.
Thus for a
quarter of a century Knottingley playing fields has been a characterless
land mass, its existence a silent rebuke, an almost barren monument to
past folly and unfulfilled aspiration.
Those
townspeople who recall the past glory of the site and remember with pride
the struggle to create the playing fields are now few in number and by the
time the site reverts to the sole control of the local authority in the
years 2025 will have entirely departed from the local scene. Will future
generations regard the site with a fraction of the reverence of the
founding fathers? Only the unfolding course of history will vouchsafe an
answer. It is the writers humble hope that this study may help inspire the
restoration of pride in a civic amenity which earlier generations
struggled so hard to provide.
Dr. Terry Spencer
<PAGE ONE
|
