A football club’s plans to lease additional land from the local council has run into opposition from residents.

Guisborough Town Football Club hopes to secure a new 30 year lease deal with Redcar and Cleveland Council which would further extend its use of the King George V playing fields at Howlbeck Lane.

Cabinet members were due to decide upon the lease proposal at a meeting earlier this month, but requested further information meaning the matter was postponed.

Some local residents have raised concerns, most notably about the loss of open space, and also dispute the ownership of the fields.

Guisborough Town FC has about 500 players of various ages, along with its first team. Picture/credit: Teesside Live. Free for use for all LDRS partners.

placeholder image — Guisborough Town FC has about 500 players of various ages, along with its first team. Picture/credit: Teesside Live. Free for use for all LDRS partners.

The council says it owns the freehold interest and as such has an obligation to act as a statutory trustee, while the length of the lease being sought also meant it was required by statute to issue a public notice in respect of the plans, which received 128 objections.

Steve Morgan, whose house backs onto the fields and said he was acting as a spokesperson for a group of residents, said the green space was “well loved” and the plans would have an “immeasurable effect” on the local community preventing use by local league teams and casual use, for example by local children having an impromptu kick about or dog walkers.

He claimed the fields were owned by the people of Guisborough under a charitable trust, having been preserved in perpetuity following a dedication in 1954.

The council has said this is incorrect and a “common misunderstanding”.

A football game at the King George V playing fields in Guisborough.

Mr Morgan also said the council should have acted under its community asset transfer policy, which would have allowed greater public consultation and also closer scrutiny of whether the deal was in the public interest.

The council’s position is understood to be that the policy does not apply in this case.

Mr Morgan, who has delivered a 70 page plus document to the council setting out his opposition, added: “The plans are unpopular and it is fraught with legal complexity.

“Ultimately, all we are asking for is for the council to follow published rules and policies, both local and national, and to comply with the law.”

The King George V playing fields extend to 27 acres and an agreement would result in just over nine acres being leased to four tenants by the council – the football club, which would retain the majority – 7.67 acres -Guisborough Leisure Centre and Guisborough tennis and bowls clubs, leaving the remainder available for the general public.

A report for the council’s cabinet said the football club’s current playing fields lease had less than ten years to run and the proposal under consideration involved a new 30 year lease being granted which would include an additional area of land.

The report said the move was deemed to offer a greater level of security over the site for the club after advice from the Football Association, which in turn could unlock greater funding opportunities.

It said the club, which has occupied its current ground since 1972 and pays only a peppercorn rent to the council, had more than 500 players across all ages and had raised their own funds for pitch maintenance.

The report said: “The matter to now consider is whether or not the proposal of leasing additional land to the club unreasonably impinges on the availability of public open space at King George V Playing Fields and should proceed in light of the objections received.

“Counter-balancing the objections is the potential for the club to offer greater opportunities for participation in sport and enhanced facilities.”

It said, if approved, the new lease would generate an income for the council and ensure that the pitches are maintained in return for payment by users and kept secure, at no cost to the authority.

The new lease is being offered with a rent-free period of six months and will then cost the club £2,500 annually in the first three years, rising to £5,000 in years four and five with rent reviews being undertaken every five years to match the consumer prices index.

A letter submitted to the council in response to the public notice that was published said it was an “ill conceived” and “outrageous” scheme involving the disposal of “valuable” land for public recreation.

It said the football club was a private company run for profit and local league teams would no longer be able to use football pitches on the site once transferred to the club.

If the scheme were to go ahead, it said a commercial rent should be charged and the argument over the cost of upkeep not falling to the council was “poor” as it “only amounts to grass cutting anyway”.

It’s not the first time the club has sparked discontent over its plans.

Back in 2021 it was granted planning permission by the council to install a three foot high fence around two pitches in a bid to prevent damage, which was said to have been caused by motorbikes and after problems with littering and dog fouling.

Some in the local community unhappy with the move took their complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman, which upheld the council’s position, with a judicial review of the ombudsman’s decision also finding in favour of the local authority.

The council and the club have been contacted for comment.