Rugby Club progress...

tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
I'm still not sure what he was framing himself for? What had he done wrong? Just wanting to make money and not caring what people think isn't a crime, otherwise we could lock up the government, its only dodgy if he was influencing the decision by the council (ooh, we can arrest the government!). The decision lies with the planning officer and is down to their corruptability, and who corrupts them. We can see that the objections by SWT have been ignored, despite that being explicitly mentioned by NE, but was MAL involved in that decision?

I am dead against the rugby club, but I can't say I'm surprised that they are placing their own facilities above the concerns of the locals. They are bound to, they want rugby pitches and to hell with the wildlife. But the rugby club are yet to do anything illegal I'm aware of, it is the planning department that need watching.
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
I'm sure the relevant parties will apologise once its all built if there were any misunderstanding about legalities.
Click to expand...

Not fraudulent but in my opinion inadequate to properly justify the proposal. I would have expected Mark Alford to have requested further information. I know from personal experience he usually does.
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
markpa12003 said:
Not fraudulent but in my opinion inadequate to properly justify the proposal. I would have expected Mark Alford to have requested further information. I know from personal experience he usually does.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps this is the avenue to attack, a planner not doing his job properly. Even if you can't implicate anyone coercing him to do so the least we can do is point out the failings of the planning application at every turn.
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
Then perhaps this is the avenue to attack, a planner not doing his job properly. Even if you can't implicate anyone coercing him to do so the least we can do is point out the failings of the planning application at every turn.
Click to expand...

I am going to make a representation on this basis, as well as raise many other points of objection. The council have a validation list for planning applications which states what information should be submitted as part of the planning application. I don't believe that this has been followed.

An application can be refused based on a lack of information.
 
Mikinton

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
1JKz said:
As for MAL, they've updated their avatar and buggered off!
Click to expand...
I suspect that it's a bit early to say he'd 'buggered off' having only been away for 18 hours (since 9:32pm yesterday).

Maybe he's said all he was ever going to say (or not say) and felt he was just going round in circles.
 
Last edited:
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
CPS sez...

The Offences
Section 1 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three ways of committing it set out in Sections 2, 3 and 4.

  • Fraud by false representation (Section 2);
  • Fraud by failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3); and
  • Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4).
In each case:

  • the defendant's conduct must be dishonest;
  • his/her intention must be to make a gain; or cause a loss or the risk of a loss to another.
  • No gain or loss needs actually to have been made.
  • The maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment.
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The defendant:

  • made a false representation
  • dishonestly
  • knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
  • with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.

Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3)
The defendant:

  • failed to disclose information to another person
  • when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information
  • dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.
Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focussed. It is complete as soon as the Defendant fails to disclose information provided he was under a legal duty to do so, and that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is deceived or any property actually gained or lost.
 
1JKz

1JKz

Well-Known Forumite
Mikinton said:
I suspect that it's a bit early to say he'd 'buggered off' having only been away for 18 hours (since 9:32pm yesterday).

Maybe he's said all he was ever going to say (or not say) and felt he was just going round in circles.
Click to expand...
Going round in circles, is that a rugby move?
 
The Hawk

The Hawk

Well-Known Forumite
The truth the whole truth said:
http://www6.staffordbc.gov.uk/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=2007336&PageNo=1&content=obj.pdf

Well the officers report is out for all to see
Click to expand...

A quick scan of this document throws up a few interesting points:

Page 10 refers to alternative sites
There were 3 sites considered at Burley Fields, 2 sites were looked at close to the M6 and then sites at Stafford Common, the RAF site and the Showground. The only site that sat within an acceptable radius from where the club membership is drawn, that was accessible from the town centre and had good pedestrian and transport access was the site that is the subject of this application.
Click to expand...
If these other, nearby, sites were not not within an acceptable radius, then the Club's membership must live very very close to the proposed site indeed. If so, why the need for over 200 parking spaces?

Page 11
Also, the site itself is used by a flock of about 160 Canada Geese but rarely by species of special interest to the SSSI. No SSSI bird species were recorded at all in January 2014 when the adjacent SSSI marshland flooded.
Click to expand...

My records suggest the site is used by species of special interest, and, yes, I have records for January 2014 as well. I can only imagine that any survey undertaken was superficial, otherwise they would know this statement is a pack of lies.

Also on page 11 is reference to the impact of the floodlights on bats, referring to
the use of such lights in the winter when bats are mostly in hibernation.
Click to expand...
Well if you mean December and January well probably yes, but the rugby season referred to elsewhere is from September to April when bats are most definitely active and bats are, dependent on the weather, active as late as November and as early as February,months when the lights would be in use.

Page 15
Mitigation measures for harm to the ecological value of the application site and adverse impact on the adjoining SSSI have been put forward. With the implementation of such mitigation it is not considered likely that there would be an adverse impact on the SSSI.
Click to expand...
This statement beggars belief. Has he not read the Wildlife Trust's and others objections? Perhaps he should read his own report, which mentions the word "disturbance" 24 times. Let me be absolutely clear, if this development goes ahead it will cause significant disturbance to a wide range of wildlife and habitat. That is an absolute, a given, a certainty.

There is also a long list of recommended conditions (pages 23 to 28), some of which I may comment on at a later date. However, the local residents may be reassured (NOT) by recommended condition 14 which states
The clubhouse shall only be used between the hours of 08.00 and 23.59 Sunday to Thursday, and between 08.00 and 01.30 Friday to early Saturday morning and Saturday to early Sunday morning. It shall not be used at any other times.
Click to expand...
"Well that's OK then" (tongue firmly in cheek).

Sadly, given the biased nature of this report, and the fact only 3 Councillors could be bothered to call this in, I fully expect this to be approved. However, as I have previously stated a planning approval does not mean a development is lawful, something that has recently been reaffirmed by the UK's Supreme Court. Indeed one sports club has been left with a legal bill of over £1 million after losing a case, despite having had planning permission.
 
kyoto49

kyoto49

Well-Known Forumite
Took a walk over this area today with the dog. Plenty of damage has already been committed to the hedges across the site. No idea why someone would do this apart from to degrade them to the point that they are deemed unviable and therefore need to be removed, Certainly the hedges were in good, if overgrown, condition last autumn, now they look massacred :(

I keep seeing this land described as low quality, yet it's pure natural pasture that supports hundreds of native species. Just because land isn't deemed environmentally special does not mean it isn't valuable for the species that use is, either plants and trees, or insects and animals. they are all part of the natural world, and therefore valuable. One thing for sure the is that the development they propose will have no environmental merit whatsoever. Sad that people value a game over an environment that benefit's us all. Selfish too.
 
Last edited:
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
See, this is much better! Stop the person bashing and start bashing the system, as its the system that we need to show is in disrepute. The application is bullshit, this is a given, and so far the planning officer appears to be acting way below his station which is another thing that can be used in court. It is hard evidence of failures by people involved in the process that will sink this application, if we can remove a few dodgy planning officers into the deal even better. It has been mentioned that the planning guy involved is usually thorough but on this application is not, that can be used against him. Deviation shows complicity, should be pretty easy to detail other applications where he has been thorough compared to this one where he lacks integrity to prove that he is acting deliberately in the interests of the rugby club rather than the council.

He should be the point of attack, discredit him and it falls to another but one that may be a little worried about their future prospects if they screw up.
 
The truth the whole truth

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
It looks like another fight in court again , JR is going to be as popular as it was in the eighties ? This time JR will not be shot, but used in short for Judicial Review
 
Last edited:
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Anyone got any examples of when Mark Alford has been particularly thorough, to prove deviation from the norm on this application?
 
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
Anyone got any examples of when Mark Alford has been particularly thorough, to prove deviation from the norm on this application?
Click to expand...

Seems a bit illogical to be searching for occasions when someone was thorough, implying that anything else is normal and acceptable. He's paid to do a thorough job, not lie, mislead and apply planning rules selectiveIy. As is the head of planning and the chief exec.

Haven't read it all yet, but any report that starts with:

'A similar application to this one was approved by the Planning Committee under reference 14/21366/FUL on 21 September 2015. It is understood that this application has been submitted in order to seek a further permission which can be implemented and so avoid any delays related to the judicial review of the first permission.'

would seem to qualify as fraudulent (false representation).


A more accurate summary would be that the council made errors of law when processing the previous application. Rather than correct its 'mistake', the council then decided to waste further public funds by contesting a Judicial Review action and attempting to bulldoze through a similar application which again hasn't been properly assessed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top