Support for Greenmeadow Community Farm
The Greenmeadow Community Farm has come under unfair biast critisism by two Torfaen Councillors which has led to various other amenities in Torfaen being put under threat.
Firstly in my opinion a below the belt political stab has been made using the Farm as a lever by two naive and inexperienced council members without thought for the community or the knock on effect to the whole community which I am sure will backfire, since comments in support for the farm and in condemnation of the critisism far outweighs their claims.
Figures have been quoted which are wholly misleading and one sided to the detrement of one of the better public flagship venues within Torfaen and I have actual details of the main amenities which I have listed below:
The report shows the Venue, The User Numbers, The Grant Subsidy and the Subsidy Per User.
Pontypool Museum 6500 Visitors per Annum £104,000 (£16.00 per user)
Blaenavon World Heritage 17000 ” ” ” £141,700 (£ 8.33 per user)
Blaenavon Workmans Hall 4000 ” ” ” £ 33,234 (£ 8.30 per user)
Greenmeadow Farm 44000 ” ” ” £284,000 (£ 6.45 per user)
Fairwater Leisure Centre 140000 ” ” ” £429,576 (£ 3.06 per user)
Cwmbran Stadium 304159 ” ” ” £969,774 (£ 3.18 per user)
Pontypool Active Living 362000 ” ” ” £957,000 (£ 2.64 per user)
Ski Slope 13745 ” ” ” £ 34,000 (£ 2.47 per user)
Congress Theatre 46700 ” ” ” £ 76,700 (£ 1.45 per user)
Firstly to support my suggestion that the farm has been used politically, it can be clearly seen from the figures that it ranks fourth and that there are three other amenities which receives far greater subsidy per visitor with the highest being £16 for the Torfaen Museum.
Why then have these not been highlighted in the first instance since they are draining resources at, in balance, a colossal rate compared to the Farm.
Unsupported arguments have claimed that the figures are incorrect, in that more persons have visited the venues, however this claim fails when actual “visitors via the till” figures are used which is the real test against people who simply visit to ask directions to others venues without purchasing entry.
In most local authorities many amenities require subsidy and because they are leisure facilities, are in the frontline public eye.
However there are many other civic amenities that are provided by the council which go unnoticed, yet still are subsidised.
The Farm provides a working environment encompassing learning and heritage, which is supported by the vast number of school children that benefit from it by visiting a natural feature that they may not normally have the means or reaching. The staff are skilled, passionate about their craft and professional and work well with the facilities they are presented with. The farm provides a regular meeting place for various craft subjects which also double up to provide a craft attraction for visitors.
Therefore any sane thinking person must agree that before this venue is considered for closure, the venues causing a greater drain on taxpayers should go first which would place in question predominantly Pontypool Museum first, followed by the Blaenavon World Heritage Cente and Blaenavon Workmans Hall.
I would not like to see any of the amenities go since they are a vital part of our heritage not to mention the leisure aspect.
The article reported in the Argus was ill founded, damaging, irresponsible and wholly defeatest.
It is clear from the content of some of the comments that have been posted on the Argus blog that they are politically motivated - as they follow a pattern similar to the comments made by the two Councillors who made the original complainant.
It is particularly sad to see that Councillor Haynes feels the need to criticise an amenity within her own area which may appear as a simple means of gaining self publicity which has been suggested in some comments on the blog, additionally the comments from Councillor Wildgust are equally bizarre since it would seem that on one hand he is calling for what is in essence the closure of one facility in someone elses ward yet on the other hand is promoting the provision of a new facility of a Caravan Park in his own area, which would suggest unfairness, partiallity and duality at a time when finance and Holidays on any part of the Atlas are Limited, baring in mind that the main argument in the first place was about money.
The Greenmeadow Community Farm is not in my ward, but I believe that it provides a valuable facility within Torfaen as a whole.
I urge you to strongly support this facility. Additionally if you have any thoughts on the closure of facilities in succession of cost liability, I would be keen to receive you comments.
If you don’t have anything constructive to say, given that this is a serious topic, don’t bother to comment since they will be fltered out, however reasonable arguments will be posted.
Given the state of the country, I am fed with people criticising and waiting to gloat on failure. Some things have a value greater that money and this Farm is one of them.
Regards.
Alastair
February 19th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Cllr Haynes, as a representative of St. Dials, right on the doorstep of the farm, knowing that this farm debate has been continuing for some time and with council minutes freely available and downloadable anyway, my yes/no question to you is: Are you using the farm as a political pawn?
Secondly, is it not a councillor’s responsibility to protect, preserve and enhance such things on your doorstep that many people in your ward actively use? As such, were you in attendance at the farm over the summer actively supporting their programme of events such as nature day, donkey day, piggy pranks and the dog show? Were you available to appear at the community hedgelaying event on the entranceway? If not, why not? This current work according to public records is externally funded anyway. Is it a waste to try and improve the entrance of a tourist attraction to encourage more people to use it to bring in more revenue?
Do mayors enjoy everything they appear at? Probably, not but they go along to support them as it is their civic duty. The farm employs a lot of local people and although the farm may offer more for younger children, many older children continue to use the farm as a valuable source of work experience which they may not be able to get elsewhere. The confidence gained from this is invaluable. What would some of these kids do without it? What about the groups of adults with learning difficulties who are up there on a regular basis, or the drug rehabilitation teams?
When it comes to expenditures where do you draw the line? How much is spent on landscaping and improving our green areas, roundabouts and verges? How much is spent on tidying up graffiti? How much is spent on removing fly-tipping? How much is spent by the council picking up the litter thrown out of cars on our roadsides every single day? How much is spent by the police on Friday and Saturday treating drink-related problems? Does this tell you something about the value of education? Would closing educational facilities like the farm help to address or exacerbate these problems?
Some of the comments on here about the farm have been nasty and blatant ill-informed lies. How do you think this affects the public’s perception of the farm? How do you think this affects the staff who work extremely hard to provide this invaluable service? You say you don’t want to see it close, but look at the title of this piece “Calls for loss-making Greenmeadow Farm to be axed”; that is your doing. Perhaps you should be more careful about how you air your views. Getting right behind the positive work the farm does and finding ways to increase revenue could be a better venture for a very local councillor. Why not put efforts into inflammatory language such as fly-tipping and vandalism haemorrhaging Torfaen’s chances of regeneration instead.