-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Sport and Politics
- Thread starter Bernstein
- Start date
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
Setting your stall out to be Blatter's replacement?
If Stafford Hockey Club is forced out of Stafford, maybe they might consider reflecting the fact in their name?
Rikki
Well-Known Forumite
I think certain members of the leisure department have been doing that's for a while.
I've been watching this thread with interest before posting. Hockey Club with plenty of public support have to fight to get permission - because of objections from SBC leisure department.
Rugby Club with lot of opposition from public but support from leisure department is recommended for approval.
Look at who is a Director of Stafford Rugby Club and Head of SBC leisure.
And when planners recommended approval there was no sign of any declaration of interest from that Head of Leisure.
Rugby Club with lot of opposition from public but support from leisure department is recommended for approval.
Look at who is a Director of Stafford Rugby Club and Head of SBC leisure.
And when planners recommended approval there was no sign of any declaration of interest from that Head of Leisure.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
Saving the "unreserved apology" for when it becomes necessary?
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Markpa12003 - can you PM me with a contact number please??
There's something very wrong when you look at both applications & the comments on the council website side by side. Ive never been one for conspiracy theries but something stinks on this. But I imagine one will be passed - one will be refused and before it all comes out in the wash it will be a done deal.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
As an uninvolved observer without much of an axe to grind, it does look like a couple of stitch-ups.
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
What you all really want to ask is why out of the 320K Section 106 given to SBC by Liberty Mercian (in relation to B&Q) there is only 23K of it left which has now been allocated to Stafford Town FC in relation to their imminent planning application for their 3G pitch. As ratified at a recent cabinet meeting where Clrs Heenan and Farrington declared an interest and stood down, which subsequently meant Clr Smith chaired the meeting.......
Nothing to see here....move on
320K....gone ....like Kaiser Sozeg.
In other matters, in Austria its #Bilderberg15 - nothing to see there either
Nothing to see here....move on
320K....gone ....like Kaiser Sozeg.
In other matters, in Austria its #Bilderberg15 - nothing to see there either
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Keep an eye on the portal today/tomorrow for the latest couple of uploaded emails
The leisure department confirming what we've known all along - "Even if beaconside closes, we will not support the hockey club's application"
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
The Outcasts? The wanderers? The Broken Hearted....The Betrayed?
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
Or just Stone Hockey Club - or ex-Stafford HC - or Exiles HC..?
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
There's more...
SBC Leisure have informed the planners that in conjunction with the University that they imminently intend to re-surface the 2G pitch at Beaconside. Allaying our fears in their entirety
Which begs the question, why would anyone replace a few broken tiles with a brand new roof on a house they are just about to sell?
And surely not with taxpayer's money?
Transparency required? Strategy explained?
SBC Leisure have informed the planners that in conjunction with the University that they imminently intend to re-surface the 2G pitch at Beaconside. Allaying our fears in their entirety
Which begs the question, why would anyone replace a few broken tiles with a brand new roof on a house they are just about to sell?
And surely not with taxpayer's money?
Transparency required? Strategy explained?
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
It does look fairly transparent.....
markpa12003
Well-Known Forumite
SCHC, what reasons are the planners giving for not supporting your application? The planning policies support the provision of improved sports facilities, which is exactly what your providing. Have you tried contacting Sport England? Try and speak to Maggie Taylor at Sport England. She's very good.
I've sent you a pm.
I've sent you a pm.
Rikki
Well-Known Forumite
Sport England have been consulted and object on the basis of grass pitches being lost, which is what the council are basing their whole argument for objection on. Although as SCHC have stated multiple times no grass pitches will actually be lost. The rugby pitch was only supposed to be a temporary pitch while St leonards found a new place to train/play. This situation was bought on by the council kicking the club off their former pitch and offing no alternatives to them despite promises they would.
Playing rugby on the top field actually damages the cricket outfield and prevents the club from improving the quality of the second cricket pitch. The club will be working to improve this pitch and this may mean that Rugby will no longer be able to be played there anyway. I may be wrong on this and don't know what decisions have been made if any.
Ironically If the club hadn't offered to help out St Leonards rugby club their would be no legitimate reason for refusal. The area in question on which the new artificial pitch is proposed could even have been used as a grass Hockey pitch for non league games. Something which the rugby makes difficult/impossible.
The existing cricket pitch would not be lost just moved very slightly, the objection to this is is would make it too small for cricket to be played on. Even though it would still be bigger than a lot of other clubs main pitch. But would actually improve in quality as it would no longer be used for anything but cricket.
Playing rugby on the top field actually damages the cricket outfield and prevents the club from improving the quality of the second cricket pitch. The club will be working to improve this pitch and this may mean that Rugby will no longer be able to be played there anyway. I may be wrong on this and don't know what decisions have been made if any.
Ironically If the club hadn't offered to help out St Leonards rugby club their would be no legitimate reason for refusal. The area in question on which the new artificial pitch is proposed could even have been used as a grass Hockey pitch for non league games. Something which the rugby makes difficult/impossible.
The existing cricket pitch would not be lost just moved very slightly, the objection to this is is would make it too small for cricket to be played on. Even though it would still be bigger than a lot of other clubs main pitch. But would actually improve in quality as it would no longer be used for anything but cricket.
Jonah
Spouting nonsense since the day I learned to talk
Football is also suffering from a lack of facilities and funding despite the riches in the top divisions.