-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Rugby Club progress...
- Thread starter Gareth
- Start date
MAL
Disabled account
I am sure "the truth etc etc" are fully aware that the environment agency have no objection to this. I am sure there is no intent to suggest that the site overall will be raised. There will be some parts raised and some lowered - obviously a necessity to end up with flat pitches. We know there are no bats roosting in trees removed as they have been surveyed. You know there are no protected species on the site. I am utterly perplexed by the 60 year comment, this seems to be a figment of somebodies imagination just thrown out as some sort of fact. Please enlighten us on what the 60 years bit means. The land can provide pitches well beyond anybodies foreseeable future.
Perhaps the final comment about a privileged members only sports facility hints at the true objection. The club is used by many people who are not members. It is of course used by members to play rugby and that includes children from a wide range of backgrounds. The club is used by cyclists as a base and has been used by disability groups etc in the past.
MAL
Disabled account
Try a Sunday Morning
MAL
Disabled account
As I know you are interested in the truth probably worth reading this article from BMJ
http://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2010/09/07/crying-wolf-when-media-reports-distort-research-evidence/
MAL
Disabled account
I have tried to respond to a few of the comments raised on here. As I have said previously I do not expect to get agreement but in a democracy its important that people can debate and, as I have said previously, hopefully with facts where possible. I think it is great so many are supportive of trying to ensure we keep and develop decent sporting facilities for a variety of sports for future generations - I am personally very motivated by trying to ensure that sport keeps a strong place in our society and with our children. I accept there are challenges from playstation etc. but when I see how much the kids who play sport enjoy it I keep being enthused to support it.
There are inevitably many opinions and that is why we have National Planning regulations etc, which I keep on learning more about. What is clear is that the majority of arguments are addressed by statutory consultees whose job it is to review planning applications and ensure they are developed appropriately and conform to relevant regulations. I am sure many disagree with them, but should we not at least consider their professional views. Many of the opinions given on this forum, and other social media, report things as fact but the writers know that the professional bodies have reported an opposite view and yet choose to ignore this and repeat their opinion as fact. I am not sure why they do this but I guess that is up to them
There are inevitably many opinions and that is why we have National Planning regulations etc, which I keep on learning more about. What is clear is that the majority of arguments are addressed by statutory consultees whose job it is to review planning applications and ensure they are developed appropriately and conform to relevant regulations. I am sure many disagree with them, but should we not at least consider their professional views. Many of the opinions given on this forum, and other social media, report things as fact but the writers know that the professional bodies have reported an opposite view and yet choose to ignore this and repeat their opinion as fact. I am not sure why they do this but I guess that is up to them
MAL
Disabled account
0 as in 0
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
MAL As a director yourself or even acting as chairman you do not know whom is on the board ,the chairs responsibility is the day to day running of the club ? so why the resignation from SRUFC and now on as a director of Stafford Rugby Ltd , confused.com Mr Adam Hill must have declared this with the council ?
captainpish
Well-Known Forumite
Any answer to that one mal?
captainpish
Well-Known Forumite
Mal?
ATJ
Well-Known Forumite
they last posted two hours ago and are probably in bed. Give the lynch mob a rest, eh?
captainpish
Well-Known Forumite
Well just lean over and give him a nudge then.
ATJ
Well-Known Forumite
come on. We all know lizards are cold blooded and need to sleep at night
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
I'd like to compare and contrast the ^above statement with the following, re. 'statutory' bodies -
In both instances, 'statutory consultees' have not actually visited the sites to which they have given their 'statutory' blessing. There are differences, though...
Sport England have given their response to the Hockey Club proposal without ever visiting, despite being invited to do so. They have based their decision on the conflicting accounts that have landed on their desk.It is a desk-based assessment.
Natural England have given their response to your proposal without ever visiting, and i very much doubt they've been invited to do so. They have based their decision on the conflicting accounts that have landed on their desk. This, too, is a desk-based assessment, but the difference is that this one comes with a proviso, vis. the views of the local wildlife trust should be given "strong regard".
Now you can 'guess' the "hockey club situation" is as 'complex' as you like, but the "rugby club situation", statutorily speaking, should be a lot less so.
It should be dead in the water, and yet it is not. Which i 'guess' makes it something of a more complex kind of whatsit?
Last edited:
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
I even said this twice to get an answer MAL .
I suppose you will not answer but fudge ,fob and waffle a way out , also looking at your paid for survey your own expert identifies categorie Red birds on your site together with Bats Forraging , have you talked them out of the way like you think you have diverted footpath 45 to the other side of Blackberry Lane ? Your club must be proud of a spokesman like you MAL , the only board member who is driving this application ?
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
And to you keep on demonstrating that Natural England and Environment Agency has not objected , both of the above have only removed objections but in the place have some serious conditions MAL ! and you have to demonstrate compliance before during and after construction , so the word removed objection is only a desk based removal the proof will be in the pudding . And remember the huge financial penalties from the EU these can run into €10,000,000 per occasion of breech of a directive !
markpa12003
Well-Known Forumite
I'm sure I'm going to get accused of working for SBC and the Rugby Club, however here goes....
I have not reviewed the comments made by the Statutory Consultees, however if in their representation they are suggesting a number of planning conditions this means that there are no longer objecting subject to the planning conditions being adhered to / discharged etc.
Mal - has the Rugby Club been asked to prove that there are no other sites suitable for Rugby? Given the sensitivities of the proposed site, I believe this work should be carried out. Imo, I believe there are numerous sites that would be more suitable than the proposed site. However, those sites are not owned / being gifted by Lord Lichfield. Nor will you benefit from a financial contribution from TW as a result of them developing land the land that fronts on the Newport Road.
I have not reviewed the comments made by the Statutory Consultees, however if in their representation they are suggesting a number of planning conditions this means that there are no longer objecting subject to the planning conditions being adhered to / discharged etc.
Mal - has the Rugby Club been asked to prove that there are no other sites suitable for Rugby? Given the sensitivities of the proposed site, I believe this work should be carried out. Imo, I believe there are numerous sites that would be more suitable than the proposed site. However, those sites are not owned / being gifted by Lord Lichfield. Nor will you benefit from a financial contribution from TW as a result of them developing land the land that fronts on the Newport Road.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Sorry, looked to me like the top of the proposed club area extended past that at the top.
As mentioned by Withnail, it is a lot more complex than that. Where do these 300 kids play? You only asked for 3 kids pitches at the new site, will you be playing 50 a side? You still seem to be massively (deliberately?) missing the point that nobody is anti the rugby club (at this time), but are anti the site intended for the new premises. This will likely follow to people being anti the club if it goes ahead, but if the club relocated to elsewhere that didn't destroy a quite beautiful area of land enjoyed by many more people than just those that play rugby then that ill will shall likely be redirected to the club itself and all its players.
Its clutching at straws because it is again just a reason not to be where you are, not a reason to move to where you intend. As I mentioned earlier though a small foot bridge could be erected at the current site to mitigate all such issues.
No, I was referring to your extra miles/car journeys reason for not relocating to beaconside. Those north of the town centre would be closer to the new development, all those new homes would be closer to the new development, and therefore I find it hard to imagine extra car journeys being evident unless all players are from the south of the town and you expect to attract no new players from the thousands of new houses to the north.
Is it not bigger than you already have, just not as big as you want? You'd think a reciprocal agreement could be made with Weston Road school, where you share the upkeep of their land in return for its use, but they teach a variety of sports so I guess would not want a purely rugby setup. I'm pretty sure this is not the only site for the rather large infrastructure you want, but it is likely the only one that nobody can get planning permission for houses on.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Is the rugby field on Riverway still owned by the college? Rarely see that used, although TBH I'd rather the hockey club got that if anyone.
If you're still out there, MAL, apart from the tiresome inconvenience of complying with the council's constitution, planning rules, etc, why would anyone want to put rugby pitches on the windiest place in Stafford?
New documents on the website seem to indicate that the application is still a work in progress, anyway.
New documents on the website seem to indicate that the application is still a work in progress, anyway.