Rugby Club progress...

MAL

Disabled account
Exactly.

And last time my company had a directorship change, the alterations went through Companies House and were available on the internet within 30 minutes. Smacks of making changes after getting caught out to me.
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.
Sites have been searched and no alternate sites available. TW has no interest in the current site so not entirely sure what this means. TW are developing Burleyfields. Lord Lichfield has no interest in either site. Obviously planning conditions need to be discharged
 

MAL

Disabled account
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?
Again I cannot comment on the Hockey club position which I am not privvy to. I can say that this development has been scrutinised heavily by SE as they granted support for it. I am not sure what insider knowledge you have to state that NE have never visited the site. NE have certainly visited this site whatever doubts you may have. It is important as I keep saying to avoid false supposition if possible
 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
Sometimes it takes time to get admin up to date, and sometimes errors occur. Suffice to say that there are no members of SBC management on the board of Stafford Rugby Club, nor any committee or other enterprise associated with Stafford Rugby Club. I was very clear yesterday and hopefully have been clear today.

If that's being clear it's a relief you haven't said anything unclear.

Do you really not think it relevant that a senior member of the council was also a director of 'The Rugby Club' (is that SRUFC?) at the time these applications were submitted?
 

MAL

Disabled account
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 !
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 ?
Again I am somewhat perplexed by this. Who has suggested footpath 45 is diverted. Somebody did build a path on the other side of the gully but nothing to do with this development. As regards how the club operates again as you have no knowledge probably best to not comment.
 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
Again I cannot comment on the Hockey club position which I am not privvy to. I can say that this development has been scrutinised heavily by SE as they granted support for it. I am not sure what insider knowledge you have to state that NE have never visited the site. NE have certainly visited this site whatever doubts you may have. It is important as I keep saying to avoid false supposition if possible

Too true. Is SportEngland privy to the reason why the Rugby Club has found it necessary to submit another application?
 

MAL

Disabled account
Are you the new voice of the council, MAL? You're contradicting yourself, so it seems likely. Let's face it, the only reason this application was ever considered is because Lord Sta££ord wants to get richer.
Definitely not a voice of council. Confused as to contradictions
 

MAL

Disabled account
If that's being clear it's a relief you haven't said anything unclear.

Do you really not think it relevant that a senior member of the council was also a director of 'The Rugby Club' (is that SRUFC?) at the time these applications were submitted?
no
 

MAL

Disabled account
If that's being clear it's a relief you haven't said anything unclear.

Do you really not think it relevant that a senior member of the council was also a director of 'The Rugby Club' (is that SRUFC?) at the time these applications were submitted?
Also it is important to remember that the first application on this site was 1998 when it was approved. This is not a short term decision it has been a long time in development.
 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
Again I am somewhat perplexed by this. Who has suggested footpath 45 is diverted. Somebody did build a path on the other side of the gully but nothing to do with this development. As regards how the club operates again as you have no knowledge probably best to not comment.


I think you'll find that this suggestion came from documents submitted by Stafford Rugby Club, as noted by the CC.
 

MAL

Disabled account
View attachment 2695 View attachment 2694 Oh dear despite moving large amounts of soil to create "a level playing field " the outlook of some of your pitches will remain flooded in the wettest season the Rugby season
I am confused again why a picture of Keswick rugby club is relevant but hey ho. I think we all know the devastation of so many in the lakes this year and last and applaud those working so hard to return life to normal. Keswick as a club seems to thrive despite these adversities.
 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
Definitely not a voice of council. Confused as to contradictions

We've noticed. But don't you think that having a senior employee of the council as a fellow director might raise suspicion, and be a conflict of interests.
 

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
Again I am somewhat perplexed by this. Who has suggested footpath 45 is diverted. Somebody did build a path on the other side of the gully but nothing to do with this development.

Perplexed is an understatement MAL you need to look at Club design maps showing the supposed diversion
 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
Also it is important to remember that the first application on this site was 1998 when it was approved. This is not a short term decision it has been a long time in development.

1987, wasn't it, but no documents on planning site.

btw, What do you think of the comments made by Staffs Wildlife Trust?
 

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
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.

Ok perhaps i understand this application more than you MAL and after your radio interview when challenged you said "60 years was a standard industry figure " no it's not , there is a standard industry calculation and the results will be different .
Page 6 of your own flood risk assessment just above 2.2.6


image.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    74.7 KB · Views: 213
Last edited:

Floss

Well-Known Forumite
Sites have been searched and no alternate sites available. TW has no interest in the current site so not entirely sure what this means. TW are developing Burleyfields. Lord Lichfield has no interest in either site. Obviously planning conditions need to be discharged


The rugby club has a site the current one it is on, I don't get the need to move (I've probably missed something as this isn't a thread I've followed religiously) however if it's because the current site has been sold for housing, then it's the owners of the clubs stupid fault for selling and I don't see why doxey marshes should be dug up for something that apparently only has a 60 year lifespan due to flood risks. It's rugby get over it, there are plenty of pitches that are stood empty half the week riverside, cotton fields, beaconside, surely it would made better environmental sense to use one of them. It's just a complete waste of money, money that could be better spent on the local health service or even improving the roads to ease the traffic congestion and not destroying the local wildlife and trees just so a funny shaped ball can be kicked about - ridiculous!
 
Top