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
|
