Rugby Club progress...

1JKz

1JKz

Well-Known Forumite
PPPPPP said:
New document. SBC now duping DCLG, apparently. Funny how it took a week to post this on the site.






From: Karen Partridge Sent: 17 March 2016 12:04 To: 'malford@staffordbc.gov.uk'; 'rwood@staffordbc.gov.uk' Subject: Stafford Rugby Club on Land at Blackberry Lane. Ref No: 16/23583/FUL

Mark We spoke this morning and you kindly brought me up to date with the position of this application. And I note you are on AL until 4/4/16 after Friday, hence I’m cc’ing Richard in. I understand you are taking it to Committee on Wed 30 March. As I explained, the Secretary of State has a letter requesting ‘call in’ of this application. I will be sending a holding reply to the writer, advising that we will be taking no action until such times as this application has been to committee. In general, we consider that it is inappropriate in these cases to consider whether intervention at Government level is appropriate until the Council has reached a clear recommendation, taking into account the views expressed by consultees and the local community. In the event that your Council is minded to approve the application, following committee, we will then consider the request along with any other issues raised by the application against the call-in policy set out in the Ministerial Statement of 26 October 2012. We would then need a period of time to assess this request, post committee. You mentioned that there is no S106 on this application, so it is likely that you could be in a position to issue the planning permission quite quickly. We may therefore, depending on the outcome at committee, need to issue an Article 31 (previously 25) Holding Direction, to you on Thursday 31 March, formally preventing your authority from issuing planning permission. Or we could agree an informal arrangement. We agreed I would keep in contact with Richard in your absence and I will call him on the am of 31/3 to establish the outcome of the Committee. I hope this is clear. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any queries in the meantime.

Regards Karen Karen Partridge | Planning Casework Manager - Central Team| National Planning Casework Unit | Department for Communities and Local Government | 0303 444 8030 | karen.partridge@communities.gsi.gov.uk | 5 St Philip's Place, Birmingham B3 2PW | NPCU general enquiries | 0303 444 8050 | npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk | Visit DCLG on GOV.UK www.gov.uk/dclg | Follow us on Twitter: @CommunitiesUK **
Click to expand...
GoogleTranslate won't work with this, can someone here translate the above?
Is Karen riding the fence and being very clever in not saying anything and everything, both for and against, just incase?
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
John Marwood said:
Talking of WAR...

Here is what I am told is the destroyed home of Badgers on the proposed rugby club site at Doxey Marshes






And here is the home of Queen guitarist Brian May -
http://brianmay.com/brian/letters/letters.html

If anyone has a moment to drop him a line I am sure he would respond - maybe remind him he wrote Radio GaGa in Stafford?

Just a thought

Won't happen again

Toodle Pip
Click to expand...
Don't you need permission to move badgers on? I am curious as to the latticework is to stop them returning, or to keep them in til they die?
 
The Hawk

The Hawk

Well-Known Forumite
PPPPPP said:
New document. SBC now duping DCLG, apparently. Funny how it took a week to post this on the site.






From: Karen Partridge Sent: 17 March 2016 12:04 To: 'malford@staffordbc.gov.uk'; 'rwood@staffordbc.gov.uk' Subject: Stafford Rugby Club on Land at Blackberry Lane. Ref No: 16/23583/FUL

Mark We spoke this morning and you kindly brought me up to date with the position of this application. And I note you are on AL until 4/4/16 after Friday, hence I’m cc’ing Richard in. I understand you are taking it to Committee on Wed 30 March. As I explained, the Secretary of State has a letter requesting ‘call in’ of this application. I will be sending a holding reply to the writer, advising that we will be taking no action until such times as this application has been to committee. In general, we consider that it is inappropriate in these cases to consider whether intervention at Government level is appropriate until the Council has reached a clear recommendation, taking into account the views expressed by consultees and the local community. In the event that your Council is minded to approve the application, following committee, we will then consider the request along with any other issues raised by the application against the call-in policy set out in the Ministerial Statement of 26 October 2012. We would then need a period of time to assess this request, post committee. You mentioned that there is no S106 on this application, so it is likely that you could be in a position to issue the planning permission quite quickly. We may therefore, depending on the outcome at committee, need to issue an Article 31 (previously 25) Holding Direction, to you on Thursday 31 March, formally preventing your authority from issuing planning permission. Or we could agree an informal arrangement. We agreed I would keep in contact with Richard in your absence and I will call him on the am of 31/3 to establish the outcome of the Committee. I hope this is clear. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any queries in the meantime.

Regards Karen Karen Partridge | Planning Casework Manager - Central Team| National Planning Casework Unit | Department for Communities and Local Government | 0303 444 8030 | karen.partridge@communities.gsi.gov.uk | 5 St Philip's Place, Birmingham B3 2PW | NPCU general enquiries | 0303 444 8050 | npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk | Visit DCLG on GOV.UK www.gov.uk/dclg | Follow us on Twitter: @CommunitiesUK **
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding that this states that, should planning permission be approved, it may be called in for a public enquiry, I find it interesting that Mark Alford, the Borough Council's case officer, is on annual leave until after the scheduled date for the planning meeting.

So is anyone able / going to amend his report, to correct the errors of fact contained within it? Or will the planning decision be made, based on an incorrect Case Officer's report?
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
The Hawk said:
Notwithstanding that this states that, should planning permission be approved, it may be called in for a public enquiry, I find it interesting that Mark Alford, the Borough Council's case officer, is on annual leave until after the scheduled date for the planning meeting.

So is anyone able / going to amend his report, to correct the errors of fact contained within it? Or will the planning decision be made, based on an incorrect Case Officer's report?
Click to expand...
One does get the feeling that, by hook - or by crook - this is going through....
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
The Hawk said:
Notwithstanding that this states that, should planning permission be approved, it may be called in for a public enquiry, I find it interesting that Mark Alford, the Borough Council's case officer, is on annual leave until after the scheduled date for the planning meeting.

So is anyone able / going to amend his report, to correct the errors of fact contained within it? Or will the planning decision be made, based on an incorrect Case Officer's report?
Click to expand...

I suspect this is to give him plausible deniability? If there are errors of fact though that constitutes an easy appeal, incorrect information admitted for planning. If that information was used as fact in the planning process it can't stand up to scrutiny, council say "oh, sorry, our bad, the planning officer went away on holiday during this important planning decision and we had no idea it was all bullshit".
 
The Hawk

The Hawk

Well-Known Forumite
Gramaisc said:
One does get the feeling that, by hook - or by crook - this is going through....
Click to expand...

I must admit, I always thought that there was a determination, in certain quarters, to drive this through. However, such serious issues have been raised, combined with significant errors by the Borough Council, that it is not as clear cut as it once might have been.

However, as I have mentioned before the granting of planning permission would not be the end, it would not necessarily be even the beginning of the end, it would only be the end of the beginning. There are many other legal routes (covered by UK Law and European Directives) available, even after work has commenced, or indeed finished. Of course, the focus of any such legal action would shift from the Council to the Rugby Club.

This is not over, it has only just begun.
 
The truth the whole truth

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
The Hawk said:
I must admit, I always thought that there was a determination, in certain quarters, to drive this through. However, such serious issues have been raised, combined with significant errors by the Borough Council, that it is not as clear cut as it once might have been.

However, as I have mentioned before the granting of planning permission would not be the end, it would not necessarily be even the beginning of the end, it would only be the end of the beginning. There are many other legal routes (covered by UK Law and European Directives) available, even after work has commenced, or indeed finished. Of course, the focus of any such legal action would shift from the Council to the Rugby Club.

This is not over, it has only just begun.
Click to expand...
I have asked MAL and others do you have a back up plan as the facilities planned for Stafford Rugby Club are excellent it would be such a shame to loose all the grants available
 
The Hawk

The Hawk

Well-Known Forumite
The truth the whole truth said:
I have asked MAL and others do you have a back up plan
Click to expand...
I personally do not have a back up plan. However, quoting from the Case Officer's report:
There were 3 sites considered at Burley Fields, 2 sites were looked at close to the M6 and then sites at Stafford Common, the RAF site and the Showground.
Click to expand...
So at least 8 sites there. I am sure many others could be found as well. It seems that such has been the determination to move to Doxey Marshes (land also owned by Lord Stafford), that all other sites have been deemed unsuitable.

The truth the whole truth said:
the facilities planned for Stafford Rugby Club are excellent it would be such a shame to loose all the grants available
Click to expand...
I agree the planned facilities for Stafford Rugby Club are excellent and, yes, it would be a shame to lose the available grants. This was never about the planned facilities, it has only been about the proposed location and the irreversible damage it would inflict on the SSSI.

If the Rugby Club announced that they were abandoning the pursuit of Doxey Marshes as their new home and asked for help in finding a new site, they would find a lot of goodwill and support in achieving a solution to the benefit of all.
 
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
The Hawk said:
Notwithstanding that this states that, should planning permission be approved, it may be called in for a public enquiry, I find it interesting that Mark Alford, the Borough Council's case officer, is on annual leave until after the scheduled date for the planning meeting.

So is anyone able / going to amend his report, to correct the errors of fact contained within it? Or will the planning decision be made, based on an incorrect Case Officer's report?
Click to expand...

He did the same with the Brooklands school application. Deliberate misrepresentation = fraud. Hope he enjoys the Caribbean.
 
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
The Hawk said:
I personally do not have a back up plan. However, quoting from the Case Officer's report:
So at least 8 sites there. I am sure many others could be found as well. It seems that such has been the determination to move to Doxey Marshes (land also owned by Lord Stafford), that all other sites have been deemed unsuitable.


I agree the planned facilities for Stafford Rugby Club are excellent and, yes, it would be a shame to lose the available grants. This was never about the planned facilities, it has only been about the proposed location and the irreversible damage it would inflict on the SSSI.

If the Rugby Club announced that they were abandoning the pursuit of Doxey Marshes as their new home and asked for help in finding a new site, they would find a lot of goodwill and support in achieving a solution to the benefit of all.
Click to expand...

Those grants that we generously donate can be put to far better use, because the rugby club already has good facilities relative to most sports.
 
The truth the whole truth

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
Any idea the reasoning behind it?
Click to expand...

Sets in the way of proposals , also bats in the way , the club knew that a JR was pending since notice was served 2weeks after permission , so get rid of badgers one week before breeding season and do a bat roosting survey in winter , no bats although evident on surveys done ,

Ignorance by developer !!!!
 
The truth the whole truth

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
image.jpeg


Help

This could cost a big bag of money Environmentally who is behind this proposal , Sta££ord Borough Council? Sta££ord Rugby Club ? Lord Sta££ord
?

Hopefully not the taxpayer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top