I am sure nothing I say will be greeted as accurate - however let me try.
I see you have already spotted that the majority on here seem to be against the proposals. However, well done for coming on here and setting out your position.
I was stating earlier that the site is NOT on the nature reserve as others had indicated; debates and discussions on the precise nature of boundaries and where and when migratory birds cross them is indeed an interesting discussion. I was simply trying to start the discussion from a basis of actual fact. There are houses bordering the Nature reserve and car parks and play area - all closer than this site. I am sure there is plenty of detail on the use by wading birds etc. near these developments.
As I have already mentioned earlier, wildlife tends not to pay any attention to arbitrary lines drawn up by humans. The proposed development will both take away an area the wildlife currently uses and increase disturbance to the adjoining areas. You are right to point out the houses etc. bordering the reserve; I'll throw in the M6 and railway as well. These have all squeezed the wildlife into an ever decreasing area. However, that is no excuse to destroy part of what remains. I would counter that it makes it more important to protect what is left.
The chat about floodlights is interesting as the light spill shows that there is no light spill from floodlights onto the nature reserve - this has been agreed by Natural England. For those who do not know who NE are I took this from their website "We're the government’s adviser for the natural environment in England, helping to protect England’s nature and landscapes for people to enjoy and for the services they provide." So I ask you to accept the opinion of the national body responsible for these things - this seems reasonable to me.
Light spill is an inevitability from floodlights (unless they are within an indoor (roofed) stadium. Yes, the impact can be mitigated, to a degree, but studies have shown that artificial lights significantly impact on wildlife.
http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_lighting.html as an example.
You mention Natural England. Initially they also objected on multiple grounds. When they withdrew their objection, with conditions, on 2 April 2015 they stated:
Withdrawal of objection The withdrawal of Natural England’s objection to this application does not necessarily mean that all natural environment issues have been adequately addressed, but that we are satisfied that the specific issues that we have raised in previous correspondence relating to this development has been met. Natural England, as stated in previous correspondence, is not in a position to give a view on issues such as local sites, local landscape character or the impacts of the development on species or habitats of biodiversity importance in a local context. We would therefore urge you to have strong regard to the comments of the local wildlife trust in relation to wider biodiversity impacts.
So, their stance was to say that the best body to comment on the impact, from a wildlife point of view, is Staffordshire Wildlife Trust. Staffordshire Wildlife Trust have objected to the proposed development. So, by effectively delegating their detailed response to Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, Natural England have objected, by delegation, to the proposed development.
A review of the plans shows that the development will create a new wetland area at the end of the site. This provides enhanced environment for waders etc. actually increasing the area of wetland for the species that use the area. This is of course outside the Nature Reserve. The proposed site is not wetland. You do not tend to find wetland migratory birds in the middle of dry grassland.
This smacks of someone mugging someone for their wallet, taking all the notes and throwing a few loose coins back at the victim, expecting them to be grateful. And yes you do find wetland migratory birds in the middle of dry grassland:
Just to restate my, and others, position. I fully support the development of improved facilities for the rugby club, just not in this location.