Rugby Club progress...

[alphagamma]

So, to anybody who is an adamant supporter of the scheme -
Water table - you think this won't affect drainage and the risk of floods will be wiped out by "raising the land"?
Traffic - you will promote the club as a community facility as well as a commercial income, hiring the social facilities, as well as the pitches out 7 days a week, meaning not only a Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning, but all week round. This won't cause anything but positive vibes? Especially as the weekend parking will replace the b*****d commuters who "dump and go" all week?
All of the ingress and egress will come to and from a brand new road junction that will be used by residents in the area. Do you think this will be safe?

There's a lot of "I'm so happy it's passed" without any real thought on how it will all work. If it's such a grand plan, speak out and tell us it's all safe and, quite importantly, it will ensure a safe future for the club as well as the community - after all, that is what this is all for - right??

Also, will the carpark be available to all (at a price)?

 

[Withnail]

Happy Friday Withnail!

Reading the white paper? Sorry, you've completely lost me again.

There was this vote on leaving the European Union, yeah, and everything went completely bonkers.

Then there was a vote in the Commons, after a few legal shenanigans, then there was a White Paper.

Don't worry, it was easily missed - it received almost no coverage at all.

Is there really the need for name calling?

Erm, i'm thinking possibly?

 

[kyoto49]

Will the site moderator be changing WoolmanT to MAL?

I actually think they are different people, check out the directors of the rugby club, MAL is his initials!!

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07268398/officers

 

[kyoto49]

How can any club that is only open to a small minority of a towns resident be a community facility? The place will be fenced in and non rugby players will have no right to access it. The current facility is open, little kids can go kick a football around there when matches and training isn't in progress, people can sit on the fields in the summer to chat, read books under a tree etc etc. The new place will be locked to all but rugby players. Community my arse......

 

[Jonah]

There is always the option to join the Rugby Club.

 

[kyoto49]

There is always the option to join the Rugby Club.

Why would I do that? I hate the egg chasing. And judging by my experience of those on here they aren't the type of people I chose to mix with. I like those who protect our environment, not destroy it irreversible for their own selfish wants, , those who's priorities are for the greater good............you get the gist

 

[Jonah]

It was a joke....

 

[proactive]

It was a joke....

Sense of humour bypass...

 

[kyoto49]

It was a joke....

I didn't laugh

 

[Jonah]

Sense of humour bypass...

I know, that's why I said it.

 

[John Marwood]

Why hasn't anyone at least try to kill Trump yet?

That. I do not find funny

 

[Gramaisc]

It was a joke....

That's a fair assessment of the whole process.

 

[Resident]

^Yours in Rugby...

*twat*

Sad indeed - given the passim allusions to the potential for being brought to order post-spadework for falling foul of EU Directives, one can only assume it is double soup TuWednesday for the Marsh Maulers.

Yours in Stafford,

Hollow Man

I thought the EU Directives route had been tried. Do you know anything we don't?

 

[alphagamma]

Local Plan:

" Any development that could lead to the degradation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) status of the waterbody should not be permitted."

Translation: Fundamentslicked R US, Lord Sta££ord.

 

[Withnail]

I thought the EU Directives route had been tried. Do you know anything we don't?

On the former you may well be right - on the latter, well probably, but not of anything pertinent to this case...

I was merely referring to what has previously been propounded by (thinks) @The Hawk , ie penalties could be inflicted retroactively if the scheme was found to fall foul of some EU legislation that had not been considered in the original application. If this is a 'route' that has already been tried then no, i have nothing new to add.

Still sucks. Though that's nothing new neither.

 

[Resident]

On the former you may well be right - on the latter, well probably, but not of anything pertinent to this case...

I was merely referring to what has previously been propounded by (thinks) @The Hawk , ie penalties could be inflicted retroactively if the scheme was found to fall foul of some EU legislation that had not been considered in the original application. If this is a 'route' that has already been tried then no, i have nothing new to add.

Still sucks. Though that's nothing new neither.

I think objectors have tried it, but someone else could lodge another objection - who knows they might find the right way of getting the EU folk to look at this. Try anything now the court route has come to a brick wall.

 

[alphagamma]

They'd need to assess the overall effect of all the schemes in the same area, not just the rugby club.

 

[The Hawk]

On the former you may well be right - on the latter, well probably, but not of anything pertinent to this case...

I was merely referring to what has previously been propounded by (thinks) @The Hawk , ie penalties could be inflicted retroactively if the scheme was found to fall foul of some EU legislation that had not been considered in the original application. If this is a 'route' that has already been tried then no, i have nothing new to add.

Still sucks. Though that's nothing new neither.

The granting of planning permission does not, in itself, mean that all the activities of a business have been deemed to be legal, merely that the development can go ahead. There is a case, involving a sports facility in England, that despite having planning permission to operate, lost a nuisance case, that went all the way to the UK Supreme Court, resulting in them incurring costs of £1.7 million.

With Brexit, the issue regarding EU directives / legislation may have been further complicated, but it is likely that most existing directives / legislation will, if not already, be enshrined in UK law.

I think I made the point earlier that action under much of the EU directives / legislation, nuisance law etc. would only stand a realistic chance of success once the rugby club is built and operating. Then it will be much easier to demonstrate its actual impact on the SSSI.

I believe I pointed out in an earlier post that it was highly likely that planning permission would be granted. In brief this was because:

• Lord Stafford wanted to cash in on the existing rugby club site, to be developed for housing;
• Stafford BC are desperate for housing land, to meet their quota, in line with the Local Plan; and
• the Rugby Club jumped at the opportunity to get the new facilities which, in the short term, seemed only to be available at this one site.

I might not like the decision, but I do understand why it was made.

Once permission was granted, unless the decision had been called in by the Government, then the remit of any judicial review was very limited and only really looked at due process and not at all the issues.

So, we are where we are. Almost certainly, the development will go ahead and we will all see its impact. If it impacts on the SSSI, expect action to follow.

 

[tek-monkey]

If it impacts on the SSSI, expect action to follow.

I thought they had magic floodlights that wouldn't disturb the birds, and noise will immediately cease to exist at the club boundaries to ensure nesting is not discouraged?

 

[Resident]

The granting of planning permission does not, in itself, mean that all the activities of a business have been deemed to be legal, merely that the development can go ahead. There is a case, involving a sports facility in England, that despite having planning permission to operate, lost a nuisance case, that went all the way to the UK Supreme Court, resulting in them incurring costs of £1.7 million.

With Brexit, the issue regarding EU directives / legislation may have been further complicated, but it is likely that most existing directives / legislation will, if not already, be enshrined in UK law.

I think I made the point earlier that action under much of the EU directives / legislation, nuisance law etc. would only stand a realistic chance of success once the rugby club is built and operating. Then it will be much easier to demonstrate its actual impact on the SSSI.

I believe I pointed out in an earlier post that it was highly likely that planning permission would be granted. In brief this was because:

• Lord Stafford wanted to cash in on the existing rugby club site, to be developed for housing;
• Stafford BC are desperate for housing land, to meet their quota, in line with the Local Plan; and
• the Rugby Club jumped at the opportunity to get the new facilities which, in the short term, seemed only to be available at this one site.

I might not like the decision, but I do understand why it was made.

Once permission was granted, unless the decision had been called in by the Government, then the remit of any judicial review was very limited and only really looked at due process and not at all the issues.

So, we are where we are. Almost certainly, the development will go ahead and we will all see its impact. If it impacts on the SSSI, expect action to follow.

Thanks, The Hawk, for this very helpful reply. I'm sure your 3 bullet points are correct, but (with the exception of "seemed only to be available at this site") they are not valid planning considerations are they? They may be - probably were - why the decision was made, but if the process were just and fair they would have no bearing. The process should protect us all against the impacts which cannot be undone.

We always wonder why the BBC Midlands Today report vanished from the web site within hours. Clearly someone has influence!

I'm not as well informed about these issues, so I value your comments, whilst I and others live with the impact.