‘Personal views’ follow party line

‘A workable way forward for all’ was the headline attached to councillor Burgess’s letter in last weeks County Times although perhaps he should have added …except the pesky golfers !

Whilst presented as his personal opinion, it adheres pretty closely to the party line adopted by his Conservative colleagues

Messrs Chowen and Clarke.

Councillor Burgess’s letter comprises ten key points and I will respond to them in the same order. 1. Housing Numbers Since the planning review commenced the Government has amended the so called ‘mutant algorithm’ and consequently removed the ridiculous requirement for HDC to cram its past century of growth into the next ten years.

However HDC is still proceeding as if the old guidelines are still in place and whilst the new rules are still being formulated it is clear there will be significantly less requirement for local development than originally envisaged.

Consequently there is no need to concrete over valuable green spaces such as Rookwood and at the very least highly contentious developments should be removed from the Local Plan Review until a proper independent review can be undertaken.

2. The Past and Current situation

Rookwood is most certainly not a ‘black hole’ and has consistently provided a net revenue return to the council. The land was originally purchased from the Lucas Estate for £1.6m and this and the cost of building the golf course was more than recouped from the council’s share of the proceeds of the Rookwood Park development.

Rookwood has had virtually no support from HDC by way of promotion and barely gets a mention on its website. Remember the old adage ‘you get out what you put in’ and in HDC’s case that amounts to nothing.

3. I think councillor Burgess may have got this the wrong way round as generally speaking golfers have graduated from more active sports to the game later in life and for example I for one gave up wild swimming many moons ago to play golf.

Rookwood has a thriving seniors section comprising 50 to 80+ year olds whose health and mental well being is significantly enhanced by playing golf. It may be true that some of the younger golfers move on to other activities but frequently return to golf both socially and in later years.

The Statista website is very interesting and actually showed an increase for 2019 over the previous year. The figures for 2020 are very much an estimate as not only were courses closed for at least three months due to the pandemic but the survey only goes up to May 2020. What they also say on the website is that ‘the number of people playing golf holds rather steady’. In the case of Rookwood despite the extended periods of closure actual bookings were up 20 per cent compared to 2019.

4. It really depends on the time of day as to how many non-golfers you see enjoying Rookwood and also what part of the course you frequent. The majority of the dog walkers for example would access the course either very early in the morning or late afternoon.

It might have been more useful if the council had taken the trouble to undertake a proper survey rather than speak with a few ad hoc people. Were he to randomly ask people where the maze is located in Horsham Park I doubt many would know.

5. Rookwood is a public course operated on a pay and play basis and cannot be compared to say Mannings Heath which is private and is for the exclusive use of its members whereas Rookwood does not have members. Personally in 20 years playing golf at Rookwood I have never encountered any animosity towards non golfers either on the course or in the clubhouse and this an unnecessary slur from an elected representative.

The car park adjacent to the clubhouse is signposted for the exclusive use of golfers and those attending wedding receptions and functions or just having lunch at the Warnham Barn although I doubt anyone takes a blind bit of notice.

I believe there is a similar notice at the Warnham Nature Reserve car park in relation to accessing that area. As the Rookwood sign bears the HDC logo I imagine it is they who have made the determination to restrict access.

As regards the petition I suggest councillor Burgess should enlighten himself by Googling ‘Rookwood petition’ when all will be revealed. Not only has it been signed by in excess of 10,000 people but over 700 people have left specific comments.

6. I would suggest councillor Burgess also check out green fees for other courses e.g Mannings Heath which is up to £50 a round more expensive than Rookwood which with a season ticket and playing two to three times a week costs me no more than £5 a round. It would be very nice were it free along with the Capitol , leisure centre and Warnham Nature Reserve etc. Also the Horsham district leisure card can be used at Rookwood for eligible participants. 7. The Future There have indeed been

a number of plans put forward for Rookwood with consultancy fees accruing in the process. Whilst the latest plan covers 30 per cent of the site, albeit with greater density, what is to stop the development of the remainder of the site on an ad hoc basis in future. Maintaining the golf course provides a guarantee that Rookwood remains a green space now and in the future.

8.Whilst councillor Burgess speaks in the past tense the present situation as conveyed in last week’s Budget meeting is that HDC is sitting on reserves of £15 million and expects a loss in the region of £100,000 this financial year and breakeven next year which hardly represents impending bankruptcy.

9.1 A common theme put out by our councillors is that if a pet project e.g Rookwood doesn’t happen the consequences will be that they will have to close other facilities which is akin to emotional blackmail. Of the future capital projects cited according to reports in your paper the Drill Hall and running track are again up for grabs and Highwood is on the back burner.

9.2 The threat of a 40 per cent increase in council tax is project fear on steroids and given the current healthy state of the council’s finances increases of anything approaching this magnitude would inevitably see the demise of the present council and turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

9.3 Reprogramming redundant assets is a sensible idea. However Rookwood is not redundant although maybe unifying HDC with Mid Sussex and Crawley would achieve the same objective as regards ditching redundant assets.

10. This is basically a repetition of all of the above

although as regards 10.3 is it really a good idea to locate a country park right next to a nature reserve given some of the issues surrounding anti social behaviour at its Southwater equivalent.

11. Councillor Burgess is perfectly entitled to express his personal views even though they would appear to largely follow the party line. Equally by placing them in the public domain they are open to scrutiny and verification where the assumptions on which they are based are not always accurate.

DENNIS BAYTON Boxall Walk Horsham

We would like to take the opportunity to respond to some of the statements made by the councillors and chief executive of HDC in their letters to WSCC regarding the redevelopment of Rookwood Golf Course.

We find it surprising that councillor Burgess, with all the resources of HDC at hand, can’t find any evidence of the petition signed by over 10,000 local residents. We suggest that if he googles keeprookwoodgreen.org, this will confirm it does exist and its aim.

Rookwood is a pay and play golf course (run by a private company on behalf of HDC), without a membership option, unlike a private golf club. The sign in the carpark clearly states ‘another leisure service from Horsham District Council’.

When it was built its purpose was to provide golf at an affordable cost which it continues to do, so it does cater for those on reduced incomes. As for councillor Burgess saying he would support it if it was free, we can’t imagine any resident would expect to be able use any HDC leisure facility without paying.

The photo submitted by Councillor Chowden to accompany his letter was, for whatever reason, cropped to remove the HDC logo.

In Paul Clarke’s letter he says that because of restructuring of the operating lease, this has reduced the income to the council, then further on he says that council funds shouldn’t be used to subsidise the course.

How can he claim HDC is subsiding the course when it generates for the council on average £80,000 profit and £30,000 in business rates per annum. Also on page 36 of HDC’s Budget Book 202021, under Capital Budgets there isn’t any mention of Rookwood golf course or of any council money being allocated to it for the previous year or the next three years.

Any green space that is built on will be more profitable, but using that reasoning does that mean Horsham Park or any green recreational space within Horsham is now at risk from HDC’s house building plans.

He says there are an adequate number of golf courses within a 20-30 minute drive, does that mean that as there are theatres in Crawley and Guildford that the Capital can be closed.

When you consider the large number of dwellings that have or will be built in the Broadbridge Heath, Highwood Village and North Horsham developments, why wasn’t adequate provision made for affordable homes and social housing within these schemes?

Should a future unitary authority decide to build on any part of Rookwood, whether it’s a country park or golf course, they can justify it by saying they are only realising HDC’s 2020 plans.

The whole manner in which this proposed development has been handled by the council is most concerning, especially at a time when there is supposedly more openness in local and national government and involvement by local stakeholders.

The fact that none of the councillors who were aware of the proposals mentioned them during campaigning for the 2019 elections and that councillors representing Trafalgar Ward (which includes Rookwood) were kept in the dark.

Of further concern was the refusal to extend the time allowed for objections although we had entered the first lockdown.With councillor Burgess standing down as the Horsham town representative, the failure of the council to appoint a replacement, appears contrary to HDC’s Articles of Constitution.

It wouldn’t be hard to imagine the indignation of our councillors if they were in opposition and their views and objections were handled in such a dismissive way. JANE & CRAIG KILGARRIFF Merryfield Drive

Horsham