Rugby Club progress...

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
New document. SBC now duping DCLG, apparently. Funny how it took a week to post this on the site.






From: Karen Partridge Sent: 17 March 2016 12:04 To: 'malford@staffordbc.gov.uk'; 'rwood@staffordbc.gov.uk' Subject: Stafford Rugby Club on Land at Blackberry Lane. Ref No: 16/23583/FUL

Mark We spoke this morning and you kindly brought me up to date with the position of this application. And I note you are on AL until 4/4/16 after Friday, hence I’m cc’ing Richard in. I understand you are taking it to Committee on Wed 30 March. As I explained, the Secretary of State has a letter requesting ‘call in’ of this application. I will be sending a holding reply to the writer, advising that we will be taking no action until such times as this application has been to committee. In general, we consider that it is inappropriate in these cases to consider whether intervention at Government level is appropriate until the Council has reached a clear recommendation, taking into account the views expressed by consultees and the local community. In the event that your Council is minded to approve the application, following committee, we will then consider the request along with any other issues raised by the application against the call-in policy set out in the Ministerial Statement of 26 October 2012. We would then need a period of time to assess this request, post committee. You mentioned that there is no S106 on this application, so it is likely that you could be in a position to issue the planning permission quite quickly. We may therefore, depending on the outcome at committee, need to issue an Article 31 (previously 25) Holding Direction, to you on Thursday 31 March, formally preventing your authority from issuing planning permission. Or we could agree an informal arrangement. We agreed I would keep in contact with Richard in your absence and I will call him on the am of 31/3 to establish the outcome of the Committee. I hope this is clear. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any queries in the meantime.

Regards Karen Karen Partridge | Planning Casework Manager - Central Team| National Planning Casework Unit | Department for Communities and Local Government | 0303 444 8030 | karen.partridge@communities.gsi.gov.uk | 5 St Philip's Place, Birmingham B3 2PW | NPCU general enquiries | 0303 444 8050 | npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk | Visit DCLG on GOV.UK www.gov.uk/dclg | Follow us on Twitter: @CommunitiesUK **



Just talking to someone, and decided to check out the call in procedure mentioned:

Planning Applications
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles): The Localism Act has put the power to plan back in the hands of communities, but with this power comes responsibility: a responsibility to meet their needs for development and growth, and to deal quickly and effectively with proposals that will deliver homes, jobs and facilities.

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has the power to “call in” planning applications for his own consideration. There will be occasions where he considers it necessary to call in a planning application for determination, rather than leave the determination to the local planning authority.

The policy is to continue to be very selective about calling in planning applications. We consider it only right that as Parliament has entrusted local planning authorities with the responsibility for day-to-day planning

26 Oct 2012 : Column 72WS

control in their areas, they should, in general, be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.

In the written ministerial statement of 6 September 2012, Official Report, column 29WS, Ministers noted that the recovery criteria already include large residential developments. To align this with the call-in process, we stated we would consider carefully the use of call-in for major new settlements with larger than local impact. Consequently, we have resolved to amend the existing call-in indicators (the “Caborn” principles, 16 June 1999, Official Report, column 138W).

The Secretary of State will, in general, only consider the use of his call-in powers if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which in his opinion:

may conflict with national policies on important matters;

may have significant long-term impact on economic growth and meeting housing needs across a wider area than a single local authority;

could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality;

give rise to substantial cross-boundary or national controversy;

raise significant architectural and urban design issues; or

may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments.

However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.

http://www.publications.parliament....121026/wmstext/121026m0001.htm#12102628000010


So, the cynic in me is looking for anything to do with wildlife etc. and is drawing a blank, other than "could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality". Could this be a way to simply authorise the decision of the planning committee at a higher level to try to stop a local backlash? If called in, then decided it doesn't apply to them, they effectively are rubber stamping the decision at a national level which could make appeals more difficult?
 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
See High Court Decision on Staffordshire planning portal application 14/ 21366, document 2013322.

So in addition to admitting illegality council has lied about it since early Dec last year. And they still try to keep it secret by not putting it on current application.
 
Last edited:

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Isn't that 'old' application,, and this almost identical one is 'new'?

16/23583/FUL I thought was now the relevant case, and we all have to start again?
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Comment submitted date: Sun 06 Mar 2016
I am in support of this new Rugby club due to my son playing for the team.

Bugger, well thats it decided then!
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Another, slightly better one:

Comment submitted date: Fri 26 Feb 2016
As Stafford has lost its University and had its hospital services sadly reduced the town needs a lift. The bold attempt to revitalise the town's shopping facilities is a move in the right direction but a first class facility for the children and youth of the town is much needed. The proposed new rugby club, with scope for sports besides rugby, is an opportunity not to be missed. It will, by all accounts, be a first class amenity for the rugby club, the servicemen and women at the new barracks, the College students and many others in need of a place to develop their sporting abilities. Get it done.

Scope for sports outside rugby? Denied
Men and Women at the new barracks? Why not build it near them!
College students? They already have facilities at Riverway.

I can't see any comments that point to a benefit of building it there, just comments about the benefit of it existing? On the flip side I can see a lot of comments on why building it there is a bad idea, very few of which I can see refuted. You'd have to be a complete cockwomble to think this plan is a good idea, which is why I suspect it will pass without issue.

One thing is for sure, come the next local election Bryan Cross better be ready for a round of loves when he comes knocking asking for support!
 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
Isn't that 'old' application,, and this almost identical one is 'new'?

16/23583/FUL I thought was now the relevant case, and we all have to start again?

Doesn't matter if it's the old app, the info is relevant to the current one so should be available.
 

John Marwood

I ♥ cryptic crosswords
It's all so clearly party political any arguments are just litter waiting to be swept under a carpet of slapped backs slap heads and slap up meals.

The Tory Blue Bloods will have done their sums in the knowledge that the non-Stafford-town councillors can abstain if need be.

It's always been a done deal

400 years and nothing has changed

 
Last edited:

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Particularly amused by Mr John Beckwith, who supports the application because he will now not have to drive there and can instead walk. The walking distance between the entrances to the two sites is only half a mile, and when you take into account the length of Timberfield Road (to have an estimate of the length that blackberry drive will be before you hit the car parks) that distance change is down to less than 0.3 miles. By my very rough calculations the new site will remove 4-5 minutes of walking from Mr Beckwiths journey.
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
It strikes me as rather obvious that the photographs submitted (Jan 25th) show only the land to be developed, and pay particular attention to not show anything else around it other than looking away from the rest of the marshes and onto the railway line. Its almost like they don't want it to be known that the marshes exist, that it is instead just a bit of wasteground bordered by a train track. I would have thought anyone doing a thorough job would have included views to all main compass points, but I do not think Mr Alford is trying to do a thorough job.

Can we submit photographs too?
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Water polo?

latest
 

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
Very little support who is driving this ? We will fight them on the marshes ! The only facilities of which you currently do not have is a large bar and clubhouse the children are not really catered for are they be honest ?

image.jpeg
 
Top