Rugby Club progress...

[The truth the whole truth]

When did that happen?

Apparently rubber stamped yesterday although played down by other 2 parties ?
Who do you think would be aware of the process being followed , why was it not followed ? , and according to the radio SBC only agreed to one when more grounds of JR , but it only takes one doesn't it !

A bit like a burglar who has been convicted for eight burglaries , I will own up to one but the others will be taken into consideration

 

[Ecker]

The announcement that planning permission had been quashed was
also made on BBC1 TV news at 07:38 on Tuesday 22nd March.

 

[PPPPPP]

Even now the council still tries to claim they didn't do anything unlawful. What a useless bunch of liars. They should resign, the later rugby club planning application should be removed immediately, and all the other dodgy approvals should be re-evaluated.

 

[tek-monkey]

From facebook:

"The first permission. 14/21366/FUL is quashed. But the new application is still ongoing"

 

[PPPPPP]

From facebook:

"The first permission. 14/21366/FUL is quashed. But the new application is still ongoing"

How can it, when we know it's known to be full of 'mistakes'?

 

[tek-monkey]

Maybe they are hoping we are stupid enough to believe the first application had all the mistakes and the new revised rape the marshes 2.0 proposal is in fact legit? Still comes down to the planning lot, and they will be under a lot of scrutiny over this one.

 

[John Marwood]

 

[Glam]

Welcome back Mr Marwood. We've missed you babb xxx

 

[PPPPPP]

Maybe they are hoping we are stupid enough to believe the first application had all the mistakes and the new revised rape the marshes 2.0 proposal is in fact legit? Still comes down to the planning lot, and they will be under a lot of scrutiny over this one.

Doesn't take long to discover things in the first app that were simply copied over to the new one, even though they're not correct.

 

[tek-monkey]

http://www.staffordshirenewsletter....afford-Rugby/story-28970096-detail/story.html

 

[Katniss]

Why can't they just knock down the old Rugby Club and build an new one at the same site instead of disrupting the wildlife and the residents?

 

[proactive]

Why can't they just knock down the old Rugby Club and build an new one at the same site instead of disrupting the wildlife and the residents?

Because Lord Stafford won't make enough money by doing that. Poor chap.

 

[The truth the whole truth]

Any suggestions for raising funds ? as it looks like campaigners will be applying for a Judicial Review pt2

 

[proactive]

Ask Lord Stafford for a donation?

 

[joshua]

charity rugby match

 

[Gareth]

The piece claims it was on a technicality as planners didn't state why they didn't need an environment assessment on the original plans.

so 2 questions, is this the only reason stipulated by the high court and is it stated in the new submitted plans. If it is yes to both there is nothing dodgy going on just rubbish administration. So unless the high court are in on dodgy dealings this is likely to get passed without issue as a lawful application

 

[MAL]

The same benefits for the rugby club and sports facilities could still be gained at another less sensitive site, and there is not enough evidence to show that an alternative location would be so detrimental as to not provide those benefits

Looking at the officers report the above statement is spot on by SWT

I have asked before but did you have a location in mind that meets the regulations.

 

[MAL]

Extract from SBC officers report

As at 15 March 2016, 290 representations have been received from 243 addresses: 98 objections and 192 supporting comments.

A lot of people = 192 from a membership of 900 +

How many immediate local residents objected from over 100 houses? How many members of SWT?

 

[MAL]

The piece claims it was on a technicality as planners didn't state why they didn't need an environment assessment on the original plans.

so 2 questions, is this the only reason stipulated by the high court and is it stated in the new submitted plans. If it is yes to both there is nothing dodgy going on just rubbish administration. So unless the high court are in on dodgy dealings this is likely to get passed without issue as a lawful application

I think it is fair to say that it is a bit more complex. But yes SBC asked the court to set aside the approval on the basis of the EIA screning form and the court accepted this.

 

[The truth the whole truth]

Oh song on Radio 2 is so appropriate