Rugby Club progress...

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
 

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
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.

Maybe a little help
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
 

John Marwood

I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Hey Guys!
Remember to bring the dead badgers to the meeting

Exterminate!! Exterminate!!

Out of my brain on the 5.15

P Townsend
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
So just to understand Wednesday a little better....

The Planning Committee or those who don't bottle it, will go to Doxey Marshes at 1.30 to glance at a few fields from a mini bus In the absence of the Stafford Borough Council Planning Case Officer who is away?

Then they come back to Riverside ( by boat?) to confirm a decision they have already made and those people who will decide the Marshes are built on are as follows

Conservative for Swynnerton BRIAN PRICE
Conservative for Holmcroft BRYAN CROSS
Conservative for Fulford MICHAEL DODSON
Conservative for Milwich ANDREW HARP
Conservative for Barlaston GARETH JONES
Conservative for Haywood ALAN PERKINS
Conservative for Fulford PETER ROYCROFT
Conservative for Church Eaton RAY SUTHERLAND
Conservative for Rowley CAROLYN TROWBRIDGE
Independent for Forebridge CHRISTINE BARON
v
Labour for Coton BILL KEMP
Labour for Highfields MAUREEN BOWMAN
Labour for Littleworth ROWAN DRAPER

It's going to be a Rugby score is it not?
From the last round...

DRAPER declared a potential conflict, stating that he had once played for the club but no longer did so, that was not seen as material. His was an Aye.

It wasn't drawn upon Party lines - about half of them declared an interest in one way or another, so absolved themselves of any kind of duty. Some were absent without leave of their senses - much in the same way that the Planning Officer has Planned to not Officiate this time round.

This was unanimous last time round on the nod of half of the amount of people named ^above - i don't expect it to be any different this time.

This does not make any of them less complicit.
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
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?
I was quite enthused at the idea of this being 'called in' by the Big Boys.

Now i realise the error of my ways.

The Big Boys aren't being summoned to protect us - or the Marshes - they are being summoned to protect their Little Brother.

Remember the dick at school whose brother in the year above was the 'hardest' kid in the school? Remember not arguing with him because his brother would kick your arse?

It's a good job that we don't live in such a world now that we're all grown up, isn't it?
 

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
Yes Mr Cross how embarrassing for a quashing order on an application you approved by delegated powers , as chairman you must be a proud man !

Approved by delegated powers? I'm not sure you've used the right terminology there. A delegated decision in planning terms is approved by officers.

Do you mean that he had the casting vote? As the chairman he does. A committee decision is made by elected members and goes to a vote.
 

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
I was quite enthused at the idea of this being 'called in' by the Big Boys.

Now i realise the error of my ways.

The Big Boys aren't being summoned to protect us - or the Marshes - they are being summoned to protect their Little Brother.

Remember the dick at school whose brother in the year above was the 'hardest' kid in the school? Remember not arguing with him because his brother would kick your arse?

It's a good job that we don't live in such a world now that we're all grown up, isn't it?

A decision by the SoS is more difficult to appeal, however not unheard of.

This isn't a case of little brother asking big brother for help. This is the case of big brother assessing the decision little brother has made. Little brother has little say in what's called referred to / called in by big brother.
 

John Marwood

I ♥ cryptic crosswords
From the last round...

DRAPER declared a potential conflict, stating that he had once played for the club but no longer did so, that was not seen as material. His was an Aye.

It wasn't drawn upon Party lines - about half of them declared an interest in one way or another, so absolved themselves of any kind of duty. Some were absent without leave of their senses - much in the same way that the Planning Officer has Planned to not Officiate this time round.

This was unanimous last time round on the nod of half of the amount of people named ^above - i don't expect it to be any different this time.

This does not make any of them less complicit.

Malice Aforethought

In a town called Malice
 

John Marwood

I ♥ cryptic crosswords
What Joe Public don't always realise is that the 'set-up' is pre arranged

It's not the meeting of the planning committee that decides the fate it's the meeting for the planning committee. A meeting that has already taken place prior to Wednesday afternoon where favour is found and apparent unity is held

It will not be a long meeting if the committee have anything to do with it because the long meeting already took place
 
Last edited:

John Marwood

I ♥ cryptic crosswords
So...


Donald Rumsfeld once said:


Who knew the Council Planning Case Officer for this application would be/ put/conveniently/have to be/ on leave to coincide with the most controversial decision taken by Stafford Borough Councillors this century?

And

Who decided it was in the interests of democratic process to proceed with said planning committee meeting in the full knowledge of this?

 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
You're all being far too kind. There are no rational or reasonable explanations for the council's actions. Even when they admit to breaking the law, they still try to keep it secret, dragging Stafford into the mire. just as they did with the hospital.
 

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
Surely how low can get to fill the Craddock Rooms with children to sway a decision ? , They cannot vote unless they are trying to pull on heart strings or even some may be grand parents (the decision makers ) you never know
 

Jonah

Spouting nonsense since the day I learned to talk
Surely how low can get to fill the Craddock Rooms with children to sway a decision ? , They cannot vote unless they are trying to pull on heart strings or even some may be grand parents (the decision makers ) you never know
So kids cannot support something which may benefit them?
 

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
The children I don't have a problem with its the Adults that's the problem using the kids , you have seen the email if this was such a fantastic facility for them, most children nowadays are on social media , don't you think the club Facebook page would be inundated with likes shares etc , it's not is it
 

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
Anyway this will be settled one way or another , it has been mentioned before even on the radio that this application will not go through legally. Grounds contested last time are still not satisfied as pppppp has said , The paper file may be a interesting read while it's still available any pre meetings must be documented tape recordings and video will be present , and even eyes farther than this locality are watching . Will they declare foul this time ?????
 
Top