MAL
Disabled account
Suggest a recheck.
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Rugby Club progress...
- Thread starter Gareth
- Start date
Suggest a recheck.
MAL
Disabled account
I have no data on this being the windiest part of not. I been up to Beaconside many times and this is windy. Any out of town site will have some degree of exposure to elements.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
Are you moving the rugby posts again MAL ?
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
Last edited:
MAL
Disabled account
No we will not even use the whole white space
As mentioned by Withnail, it is a lot more complex than that. Where do these 300 kids play? You only asked for 3 kids pitches at the new site, will you be playing 50 a side? You still seem to be massively (deliberately?) missing the point that nobody is anti the rugby club (at this time), but are anti the site intended for the new premises. This will likely follow to people being anti the club if it goes ahead, but if the club relocated to elsewhere that didn't destroy a quite beautiful area of land enjoyed by many more people than just those that play rugby then that ill will shall likely be redirected to the club itself and all its players.
Juniors play across full size pitches.The mini pitches are specific for 7-9 year olds. Older juniors use full size pitches. I obviously do not agree we are destroying a site enjoyed by others. Firstly the proposed site is on private property and therefore not used by others. Secondly I do not believe that the development will have a great impact on the Nature Reserve. I think that is quite clear.I remain certain that if this is established people will realise that. I appreciate some will have long term issues, I have spoken to others, including amongst the opposition, who have said if this goes ahead they will happily use.
"No, I was referring to your extra miles/car journeys reason for not relocating to beaconside. Those north of the town centre would be closer to the new development, all those new homes would be closer to the new development, and therefore I find it hard to imagine extra car journeys being evident unless all players are from the south of the town and you expect to attract no new players from the thousands of new houses to the north.
Given there are already 2,500+ houses going in as part of the western area development and the houses to the north of Stafford are linked to site by cycle ways I find it hard to see that a site on the opposite side of town from the Western development and without cycle routes will result in less car journeys. Indeed to drive from the end of Marston Lane to the proposed site it is less distance than from the same point to drive to Beaconside sports centre. Therefore the proposed site is ideally located from a car journey and cycling perspective. Even if Beaconside was an option which I have been to great lengths to express, that despite people wanting it to be, it is not it would surely result in more car miles than the proposed site
"Is it not bigger than you already have, just not as big as you want? You'd think a reciprocal agreement could be made with Weston Road school, where you share the upkeep of their land in return for its use, but they teach a variety of sports so I guess would not want a purely rugby setup. I'm pretty sure this is not the only site for the rather large infrastructure you want, but it is likely the only one that nobody can get planning permission for houses on.
Lets not forget St Leonards are looking for a new home as well as they have been kicked off the Hockey club. Current grass pitches are all well used and the additional usage regardless of maintenance causes deterioration very quickly especially over the winter rugby season. It is great to say there must be space but where is this space where we can get the club on one site and avoid the need to cross roads etc. The large infrastructure, as you refer to it, is changing rooms built to modern requirements and suitable for men and women and children with associated social space to accommodate. The existing site is not sustainable as the RFU have indicated. It cannot support mixed usage of any type at the same time, has no adequate facilities for refs and no physio / recovery rooms.
MAL
Disabled account
This is just confusing for a simple person. All levels and flood risk are reported for anybody to read. If RFU and Sport England happy, much as I am touched by your concern, I am confused as to why you are so worried
MAL
Disabled account
Have you been drinking as this makes no sense
MAL
Disabled account
Plans certainly have planting of native species which will grow and provide some wind break. Again as an outdoor sport wind is just a fact of life - ask Danny Cipriani trying to kick at the ground in Salford. I am glad you agree this site is above the marshes as others have been pushing an agenda of the site being on the marshes
MAL
Disabled account
Sometimes it takes time to get admin up to date, and sometimes errors occur. Suffice to say that there are no members of SBC management on the board of Stafford Rugby Club, nor any committee or other enterprise associated with Stafford Rugby Club. I was very clear yesterday and hopefully have been clear today.
MAL
Disabled account
it is a good job you don't jump to conclusions
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
In a rush so can't reply to everything but....
I meant the ground level will be above that of the rest of the marshes, as in the actual floor will be higher. I suspect that is not the current case for a large portion of that land, and that soil will be brought in to make it so? I'm pretty sure I've seen that area flooded before at least in part? I knew the old residents at the bottom of betty hatch lane and they used to lose their whole garden some years to the flooding, and at those times I thought the land planned for the pitches was also under water (or at least in part). So yeah, I consider it part of the marshes. Pretty sure the birds do too!
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
MAL
Disabled account
I am fully aware of who is doing what. I suggest I may have more clear information than you. I will make no further comments on this question
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Exactly.
And last time my company had a directorship change, the alterations went through Companies House and were available on the internet within 30 minutes. Smacks of making changes after getting caught out to me.
The truth the whole truth
Well-Known Forumite
Yes Tekkers the application was validated on 29/01/16 by Stafford BC
MAL
Disabled account
Again this is making assumptions that are simply not correct. Soil will not be brought in, though soil will be moved to make things level and balanced. The Environment agency have looked at this in great detail as it is mandated to, you are not allowed to simply bring in more soil. Read their report - they have no objections. There will be an area that is lower and some that are higher. The lower areas create great environment for the waders etc. The flattened areas will make good pitches as the soil drains well as it is. As I see it it is good for both.