Letter: Effingham Must Wake Up On the Issue of Playing Field Funding

Published on: 30 Jan, 2018
Updated on: 30 Jan, 2018

The KGV Hall and playing fields.

From Simon Bisson

Following the Effingham Eye article “Parish Council Responds To Questions On Additional Charity Funding” dated January 10, 2018, where I was heavily quoted, Jeremy Palmer commented on the Effingham Resident’s (EFFRA) website that had provided a link. With Jeremy’s permission here is the comment he made:

“Sounds like an interesting meeting; I regret missing it. One point which was made to me a little while ago, and perhaps is worth mentioning, is that the paradox of the KGV (King George V) Playing Fields is that they were established for the benefit of Effingham residents but are used by people from a much wider area. Would it be true to say that Effingham residents are essentially subsidising this usage by non-Effingham people, … [but] if I use leisure facilities managed by GBC, I’m using something I’ve contributed towards?”

In my opinion, Jeremy is absolutely right but I think the situation is a little more complex than that. Like it or not, the reality is that the majority of Effingham residents do not use KGV hall and fields and are de facto subsidising both the minority who do and non-residents. Some would argue this means they are also subsidising the Effingham and Leatherhead Rugby Football Club (ELRFC), who are not universally popular.

This is why the intent has always been that KGV should be self-funding, meaning that it is paid for by the people who actually use it and not by a blanket charge against the precept. I know this has not been the case in recent years but that isn’t relevant.

I spoke to one resident recently who said: “Why should I pay for KGV? I never use it!” so I believe it would be unwise to take residents agreement for granted. Don’t forget that these are tough financial times for many people who already face ghastly rises in council tax. Will they agree to shoulder a further burden? It would be a brave person who bet on that one.

A counter argument often used in the past is that the KGV is used by the Howard of Effingham School and that benefits the children of the village. In turn, this was used to justify the residents’ subsidy. However, the school has departed and is unlikely to return, so that justification no longer applies.

I am glad to hear that Effingham Parish Council and Effingham Village Recreational Trust (EVRT) will consult with the village. I hope that this means that they will go through all the options and scenarios e.g. what if ELRFC also leave or if the residents do not agree funding through the precept, describing the implications and costing them.

Nothing can be off the table and perhaps this is the time to also think the unthinkable. There is always the, whisper it, “sheep option”.

The village must be woken up and engaged otherwise the exercise will be a waste of time, and getting that to happen may well be the biggest challenge. It is important that residents understand that they could be asked to provide very large sums of money, on an ongoing basis, for something that they don’t actually use.