Isn't it just typical. You have a well-run, well-used facility and what happens.... somebody comes along and spoils it.

Of course, in this case, certain Bromley Councillors have more than spoilt it, they have positively soured it.

Their scrooge-like decision to slash funding to Norman Park athletics track goes before the Policies & Resources Committee at the Civic Centre tonight, which is convening to give its approval to the swingeing cut imposed last month.

News of the council's draconian measures reverberated far beyond BR1 3UH and News Shopper-land when the BBC's highly-viewed London News programme featured the track's plight I understand it more than ruffled the feathers of some councillors, who were not happy with the bulletin's content because they felt "it did not portray the true picture".

Perhaps the borough's starring role on ITV's Crimefighters on two occasions in the previous three weeks did not portray the true picture, either?

Except, of course, for revealing that Bromley's network of 200 CCTV cameras is the biggest in greater London and is manned and operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year!

Unlike Norman Park, which is open a maximum of 34 hours a week in the high season for athletes trouble-free!

So, if you want to be on the cameras it will cost you nothing (nearly all those picked up by police got off scot-free), but if you want to be on the track it's going to cost you a lot, lot more.

Incidentally, how many cameras are in Norman Park and by how much is the council cutting the budget to maintain them and its borough-wide system?

Well, my dear councillors, the electorate who support sport in this borough are not happy with what you are portraying either, and not just athletes (just ask those who want to go swimming in Biggin Hill). Of course, the near-impossible might happen tonight certain councillors could, for a change, vote with their constituents in mind and not their political party.

And it would not take much for Peter Snow's swingometer to tilt in favour of a status quo. At the last meeting, two Tories spoke "for" Norman Park. But when it came to the crunch they, showing true political cowardice, toed the party-line and voted for the cut, which meant the council's motion was carried by one measly vote.

But I am not just pointing my accusing finger at them it's at all councillors who think that "take... cut..." is phraseology they can use better than Michael Winner.

However, there will not be a winner here because athletes will lose money and time to train (see story below) and some councillors will lose their credibility (if they have not already lost it) and their seats in this May's local election.

Then, I suppose, when you only have the odd £50million or so in reserve (some of it collected from the borough's athletes and other sportsmen and women), restoring the track's full grant is as likely as Osama bin Laden being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

I remarked in my first comment piece, on January 23, how the council's "Sports Strategy 2001-2006" brochure proudly boasted its pro-sport objectives. Well, if athletics in Norman Park is anything to go by, it's not worth the expensive paper it's printed on (just ask those who want to go swimming in Biggin Hill).

It's time for councillors to revoke it, because the chop for sport (just ask those who want to go swimming in Biggin Hill) will not end with athletics.

The trouble with Norman Park is that it's a victim of its own success. Management has made a rod for its own back by running it so efficiently that it has never featured on any council agenda until now. No trouble, no unreasonable demands, unlike some other council departments wanting a "bit extra" to tide them over. And I'd have a bet that some councillors did not know that Norman Park even had a track until now!

Then again, some councillors might just stand up tonight and be counted.... and we could all sing Tory, Tory hallelujah!

Then again, you might see Lord Lucan riding Shergar down the High Street.

Kevin Impey, Sports Editor

PS: Finally, a few questions (bet I don't get any answers): Why is there a Sports Development Unit if sport is being cut? How was the £3,796,000 that Sport England gave the borough in July 1999 spent? (or is that lying in reserve as well?). And just how much interest does £50m earn each year? (Those who want to go swimming in Biggin Hill would like to know as well).

Gregory maintains pressure

Derek Gregory, the chairman of Blackheath Harriers', has been keeping up the pressure for full reinstatement of Norman Park's track subsidy.

He said: "I have written to all 60 councillors advising them, among other things, that it would cost just a 21/2pence tax increase on a Band D property to maintain the existing grant.

"Additionally, I've written to the Sports and Shadow Sports Ministers, and it would take just two Tory councillors to vote our way to overturn the decision."

Gregory added: "Whatever happens on Wednesday, we will not give up and we will have a final chance at the full council meeting at the end of the month to try and get it changed."

Meanwhile, Ken Daniel of Norman Park's management committee, who hand-les the day-to-day running of the track, spelled out the implications of any grant cut: "It would mean we will have no choice but to make up the shortfall by increasing admission charges.

"Currently, adults pay £1.95 and youngsters £1.40 a session, but we can't calculate exactly what increases would have to be implemented until the council agrees on what the final cutback figure will be."

Daniels added: "Despite those increases, there is a very real possibility the track will not be open for as many hours as it is now.

"Currently, in the summer, we open from Tuesday to Thursday inclusive from noon until 9pm, plus morning sessions on Saturdays and Sundays. During the winter, we have split weekday sessions. One from 11am to 4pm and another between 6 and 9pm, with the two-hour break helping to keep the cost of floodlighting down.

"We have not discussed what hours might be cut, but a cut looks certain."

Theo Mantoura, chairman of Bromley Athletics Club, launched his own grimly-worded broadside at the council: "The cut will, undoubtedly, cause some youngsters to give up using the track and may force them back onto our streets with the inevitable anti-social consequences of even more drugs and vandalism.

"Councillors should find the money to avert the cut from savings or reduce their own huge pay rises not from Bromley's youth."