Sheffield Cricket Lovers' Society Year Book 2022

22 open arms.” Four or ve years of coaching saw the club able to form a second team, plus three or four junior sides. So far so good. But inevitably there were increasing demands being made on the cricket square which for so long had only needed to sustain a couple of matches each week, on Saturdays and Wednesdays. Dave admitted: “We created the issue ourselves - almost victims of our own success - but it had to be resolved for us to continue the pathway we had created.” Club records show Norton Woodseats in situ at Graves Park since 1877. Others came and went but over the years the problems of playing in a park increased, and cuts in Council funding didn’t help. Poor drainage resulted in more Woodseats games called o than almost any other in the League. Repairing sight screens regularly and providing a large metal cabin for their storage was costly, then an outlay of £2800 for some sturdy, hinged screens to keep in the cabin added to the expense. Members of the public nding a di erent use for the square once prompted the normally un appable Dave to react a little more pointedly than he would normally have done: “We had dog walking classes on the edge of the square and I politely asked if they would mind moving to one of the other 203 acres in the park... ey moved but I think it had something to do with the fact that I was on the roller at the time!” “Dog fouling, vandalism and break-ins made it apparent that continuing there was becoming untenable. We were talking with Alan Williams of the She eld Parks Department who said one day, ‘We might have somewhere for you’, meaning redeveloping the existing Matthews Lane site in Norton, not far at all from our home in Graves Park. “Alan is a top man and gave me encouragement in the times when I was really down with it all. He always said that we will make this work.” HOWDID IT WORK? “With our increased number of teams and only one square we just had to make it work - there is no magic dust. e strips at the edge of the square were solely for junior level, leaving seven in the middle for the seniors. Even then much depended on conditions because in wet weather a wicket can be almost destroyed. “We arranged games around what we had; seniors on Saturdays, U15s on Sunday mornings and others in the evenings. It meant a lot of preparatory and repair work but we all mucked in, helped by some great volunteers. “We are nothing special but are like swans… there’s an awful lot of paddling underneath.” THE PROCESS BEGINS e project began with applications for grants from Sport England which were successful within around six months. Funding categorised under ‘playing elds protection’ enabled the laying of the square two years ago. It receives proper care and the out eld is cut on a normal, routine basis. en another grant enabled them to think positively about a new pavilion: “Local Lib Dem Councillor, Ian Auckland, amongst others, was very supportive as we negotiated our way through it all and jumped through most of the necessary hoops. Now we have a pot of money, hopefully enough to build a pavilion.” e lengthy but successful process of attending planning meetings at the Town Hall included the sensitive issue of the ground’s neighbours: “ ere were around half a dozen objections from local residents, including questions about space for away team parking, and materials used for the proposed pavilion. “ e planners don’t anticipate any real sticking points, especially as it is e ectively She eld City Council applying to itself to erect a building on its own land. But we haven’t taken anything for granted. “Another issue concerns the ballstrike netting to protect properties and gardens. Currently a specialist company and the ECB, together with the Council, are working with residents to nd the right solution and we intend to be good neighbours. “I have visited residents to identify their understandable concerns, but there is