Rugby Club progress...

Coeus

Disabled account
Also saying that "some people are prepared to invest a lot of their time and other peoples money to deny the town the opportunity for a great facility" is s straw man argument. I have not seen / read or heard of anybody not wanting the rugby club to have bigger and better facilities. I just find it extremely difficult to believe that ALL other possible sites have been exhausted and that it's only pure coincidence that Lord Stafford happens to own both pieces of land.

I absolutely love rugby to bits, and this proposed development would bring it closer to where I live, so you'd think I would be all for it, and I am. But not at the expense of the only part of central Stafford that offers such a large array of natural wildlife, flora and fauna. The decision of those councillors who backed this sickens me to the core, however, before I pour scorn over Mrs. Baron, I'd like to know her reasons why she decided to abstain. Do we get to know the reasoning for the decisions made?
Looking back seems several questions about alternate site. Non have been proposed. Do you have an idea?
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
I am sure this point was covered in the planning meeting. Light spills reported were all outside the playing area

Surely thats exactly where we don't want light spills? And the issue was the modelling of the light spills was based on lights that the club will likely not use, as they need to double the lux to make them usable. Therefore the entire light spill analysis is flawed, as it is based on incorrect lighting.
 

Coeus

Disabled account
Been busy? Catching up with the development company you forgot you had, maybe?

First you disagree with the expert view on grasslands, SSSI species, ecology of garden extensions, then you admit that Natural England is more qualified than you, yet you still don't acknowledge that NE couldn't comment on local issues and referred to the SWT consultation.
I am trying to follow this but can find nowhere in this application where NE refer to SWT, nor can I see any reference elsewhere to the ecology of garden extensions.
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Wow even Mother Nature joins the conspiracy. That's some power from the club.

Not if the sluice gates on the marsh have changed priority, that proves human intervention. For what ends I couldn't possibly imagine, be interesting to see who ordered it though.
 

Coeus

Disabled account
Surely thats exactly where we don't want light spills? And the issue was the modelling of the light spills was based on lights that the club will likely not use, as they need to double the lux to make them usable. Therefore the entire light spill analysis is flawed, as it is based on incorrect lighting.
This was covered in planning meeting. Light on pitches was something like 207 and 219 lux on the pitches. All plans correct - no issues
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
This was covered in planning meeting. Light on pitches was something like 207 and 219 lux on the pitches. All plans correct - no issues

So the SWT comment about the lights used for the modelling being 50 lux and the lights needed being 100 lux is incorrect, and the floodlights will indeed be 50 lux maximum and will not be changed?
 

Coeus

Disabled account
A lack of alternative does not validate this site. You ever looked at Beaconside?
Surely this is an existing site that is used. SE have policies about reducing playing fields. If Stafford rugby went there where would they build the replacement pitches.
 

Sir BoD

Well-Known Forumite
I'll do some digging, but in the meantime, would you be able list those sites that were considered but were seen as not appropriate, just so I don't duplicate my search. Thanks.
 

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
Wow even Mother Nature joins the conspiracy. That's some power from the club.

Not really when 4 or so members of the planning committee are on the internal drainage board one being the chairman , it's amazing how these drainage boards work , millions are spent all over the country , surprising enough 4 members are not concerned especially with the upheaval of Stafford as a whole and the £2 million they are now showcasing for Victoria Park front page E & S park will look fabulous flooded !
 
Last edited:

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Surely this is an existing site that is used. SE have policies about reducing playing fields. If Stafford rugby went there where would they build the replacement pitches.

It is well known by all that beaconside has 1 year left before decommission, with no plans to replace elsewhere. Not sure why it's deemed unsuitable for Stafford Rugby Club?
 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
Not really when 4 or so members of the planning committee are on the internal drainage board one being the chairman , it's amazing how these drainage boards work , millions are spent all over the country , surprising enough 4 members are not concerned especially with the upheaval of Stafford as a whole and the £2 million they are now showcasing for Victoria Park front page E & S park will look fabulous flooded !

One of them forgot he was on the board until half way through the meeting.
 
Top