Sport and Politics

Rikki

Well-Known Forumite
2015-06-18 11.12.34.jpg
 

Rikki

Well-Known Forumite
Is that land dispute a recent quote from the Leisure Department or is it just lazy journalism? It was very early in the planning stage they claimed that and after it was pointed out that no part of the pitch would be on the disputed piece of land I've not seen it mentioned again.

It's a pity there's not a couple of paragraphs(would probably take a lot more) more at the end putting across the clubs view on the land dispute/pitch loss
 

SCHC

Well-Known Forumite
Anyone who fancies writing to the newsletter in support of our project....feel free
 

ATJ

Well-Known Forumite
I realised this had gone a bit quiet today so had a mooch through the planning documents. There's some remarkable comments on there at the moment. The representative from the hockey club has been reduced to saying 'WOW ACTUAL WOW' at the leisure departments objections.

Also, the most recent addition is a letter from our MP which can't be read...
 

ATJ

Well-Known Forumite
Has everything gone quiet at the Rugby Club's destruction of the Marshes as well?

I checked that one today. Still no decision to be made, and they're still allowing the applicant to add new information, despite the fact the comment period has closed. They, apparently, intend to use sustainable drainage principals in a flood plain.
 

kyoto49

Well-Known Forumite
I checked that one today. Still no decision to be made, and they're still allowing the applicant to add new information, despite the fact the comment period has closed. They, apparently, intend to use sustainable drainage principals in a flood plain.

Good. I hope they spend all their money and the whole area is unusable every winter when it floods! That woudn't prevent the destruction. which is my preference, but it would show them that you can't just ride roughshod over the communities opinion and that nature is more powerful than inconsiderate rugby playing divs. Consider it karma :D
 

Rikki

Well-Known Forumite
Also, the most recent addition is a letter from our MP which can't be read...

That's a bit odd. Everything on there is supposed to be public, but they do have form when it comes to attempted non disclosure.
 

Display Name

A few posts under my belt
Same thing happenin at old school on t'other side of marshes, which has to take account other development proposals affecting SSSI. Planning officers spout lies. Application put through committee before receive expert consultation advice.


Application No: 14/21101/FUL
Development: Demolition of buildings; erect 51 apartments for the provision of
care to those aged 65 and over (Use Class C2)
Location: Former Brooklands School 167 - 169 Eccleshall Road Stafford
Staffordshire
Grid reference: SJ911245
Area of site: 0.86 hectares

We have had no further consultation on the amended plans or further information
provided.
The Habitats Regulations Assessment regarding Cannock Chase SAC appears to be
adequate according to Natural England's comments.
The Officer’s report does not appear to discuss the 3 tests within the Habitat
Regulations 2010 in terms of impacts to bats. We do not feel the scheme has shown an
overriding need to demolish the areas where bats are roosting, or that the alternative of
retaining sections of the current buildings has been considered as a potential satisfactory
alternative. If the LPA does not properly have regard to the Habitats Regulations in
making its decisions then it may be in breach of the regulations.
We have not had any clarification on great crested newt survey information, namely the
habitat suitability index results for the waterbodies, which waterbodies had
presence/absence surveys conducted upon them, and if nearby gardens were inspected
for ponds.
Our request that the layout be amended to move the building back from the boundary
(and remove the terrace from Flood Zone 1), reduce the height to two storeys and
remove the upstairs balconies has not been addressed.
There is no recommended condition securing further details on badger protection, or
methods to protect Toads, a priority species.
We are satisfied that the recommended Condition 7 would cover the details of
landscaping, bird hide, lighting and drainage plus short and long-term management;
however the width of the habitat buffer should be specified as 20m, in line with that
stated in the Ecological Appraisal, to ensure this is secured.
There appears to be no recommended s106 or similar contribution towards green
infrastructure, despite the green areas of the current site being registered as Green
Infrastructure on the Stafford Area Inset Map of The Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-
2031 Adopted 19June2014. The proposals will cause an overall loss of green areas, as
the hard surfaced area of the site will increase by 0.21 hectares (24% of the site). A
contribution to green infrastructure nearby should be sought, in line with aims in the
Green Infrastructure Strategy for Stafford.

SUMMARY
Staffordshire Wildlife Trust upholds our holding objection to the proposals
Staffordshire Wildlife Trust would like to be kept informed of progress with this
application, and receive details of the final permission/ refusal. The Trust would be
pleased to assist in formulating any conditions or biodiversity advice on site. Please
contact me if you have any queries regarding this response.
Regards,
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
SUMMARY
Staffordshire Wildlife Trust upholds our holding objection to the proposals
Staffordshire Wildlife Trust would like to be kept informed of progress with this
application, and receive details of the final permission/ refusal. The Trust would be
pleased to assist in formulating any conditions or biodiversity advice on site.
Regards,
Nice when it suits, what?

Perhaps SWT just don't have any 'conflict of interests' in this one, unlike the one on the other side of the river -
Case Officer (Mark Alford) on 08/04/15 said:
The Wildlife Trust has been consulted as a neighbour given its role in the management of Doxey Marshes SSSI. It should be noted that their response does include an indication of their own aspirations for the application site in addition to the technical advice offered, thereby suggesting a potential conflict of interests...
 

Chick

Well-Known Forumite
The letter from Jeremy Lefroy is readable for me. It says:

"I am writing in strong support of the application by Stafford Hockey and Cricket Club for support to construct an all-weather 2G pitch.

Stafford Hockey Club continues to grow and a 2G pitch is essential to the future of the club given that league matches must take place on such pitches.

I would be happy to speak with you at any time about this application. My telephone number is ....."
 

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
Well done Jeremy Lefroy...

Hopefully, the letter from our (less than honourable) MP will persuade our (extremely suspect planning committee members) to approve the application.
 

SCHC

Well-Known Forumite
I realised this had gone a bit quiet today so had a mooch through the planning documents. There's some remarkable comments on there at the moment. The representative from the hockey club has been reduced to saying 'WOW ACTUAL WOW' at the leisure departments objections.

Also, the most recent addition is a letter from our MP which can't be read...

Next Thursday will be 10 months since the application was submitted......time for another WOW ACTUAL DOUBLE WOW
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATJ
Top