Sport and Politics

[ben0239]

I dont understand the need for this additional access road. They dont get that many supporters at Stafford Town FC so surely the existing access is more than adequate.

If they want to enable users to leave the site quicker, why dont they simply put an car park on the boundary adjacent to the gate that borders the remote control track or buy the track and put a new car park there. They could then have a pedestrain access from there to the pitch. This would negate the need for an expensive road, and maintain the current provision of pitches. It would also additional car parking spaces for the hockey players once the council makes the correct decision and grants planning permission.

 

[Bernstein]

Love the 'cash cow' comment - rather reeks of 'who smelt it dealt it' don't it?

Worried about their own 'cash cow' and seeking to protect its buttery teat?

And lo and behold, the council are building, maintaining and managing a new pitch next door. No cash cows to see here.

It would appear the nail was smacked fair and square on the head when it was suggested that money and self interest might be the reason behind the lack of support for the hockey club's pitch.
If a New York police commissioner was being interviewed about the matter, it's likely that words such as "racketeering" and "protectionism" would be used quite liberally.

 

[Bernstein]

I dont understand the need for this additional access road. They dont get that many supporters at Stafford Town FC so surely the existing access is more than adequate.

If they want to enable users to leave the site quicker, why dont they simply put an car park on the boundary adjacent to the gate that borders the remote control track or buy the track and put a new car park there. They could then have a pedestrain access from there to the pitch. This would negate the need for an expensive road, and maintain the current provision of pitches. It would also additional car parking spaces for the hockey players once the council makes the correct decision and grants planning permission.

There will be no car club - toast
There will be no grass pitches - toast (well actually a nursery and greenhouses)
There will be no new hockey pitch
There will though be a facility like Rowley Park on the football ground, and with the massive increase in traffic a new road from Fairway makes sense

It would appear that STFC may well have given up the ghost on men's Saturday football being their priority

 

[PPPPPP]

And lo and behold, the council are building, maintaining and managing a new pitch next door. No cash cows to see here.

It would appear the nail was smacked fair and square on the head when it was suggested that money and self interest might be the reason behind the lack of support for the hockey club's pitch.
If a New York police commissioner was being interviewed about the matter, it's likely that words such as "racketeering" and "protectionism" would be used quite liberally.

You should contact the council immediately.

Adam Hill
Head of Leisure and Culture
Tel: (01785) 619299

https://companycheck.co.uk/director/916625457/MR-ADAM-MARK-HILL

 

[PPPPPP]

See sleaze thread.

 

[Rikki]

For anyone who may be interested I will be organising a residents meeting fairly soon to discuss the Stafford town application. If anyone local is interested let me know and I'll let you know time and date. Will most probably be held at the cricket club.

 

[Chick]

For those that are interested, Sport England's consultation has been added to the portal for the Evans Park 3G application today.

Despite there being the same loss of a grass pitch with the Evans Park application that they are claiming is the case for the SCHC application, Sport England have NO OBJECTIONS to the Evans Park application

Make of that what you will...

 

[james w]

So predicted outcomes are:
Stafford Town FC - approved. (SBC have interest in the land)
Stafford Rugby Club - approved. (SBC director also director of club).
Stafford Hockey Club - refused. (SBC leisure object to it.)
Anyone think otherwise?

Saw that Rugby club application was agreed. Was it unanimous?

Unfortunately that is the first leg of my treble up (see above) Two left to go now are footy club to be given approval and hockey club to be refused.

But I imagine the odds were pretty short for this particular accumulator!

 

[Bernstein]

The good burgers of St Georges Road appear to have woken up and smelt the coffee regarding the "proposed" new Fairway access road (and of course the lamentable lack of information in the planning application as to what form it will take)

 

[Bernstein]

Application 22823 (new road) now withdrawn.
Road now added/within app 22810

All very mysterious

One wonders if all the neighbour consultation responses (which are now adding up on 22823) will be transferred to 22810 on the planning portal? In the interests of the democratic process and all that...

Its amusing to think that if a member of the general public or an independent developer supplied the level of detail on one of their projects similar to this one, it wouldn't even get validated never mind considered by the planners.

 

[Rikki]

Surely this now has to be totally resubmitted and people notified so they can properly comment?

 

[ATJ]

The notification area must have been very limited on this one for me not to get a letter. The new access is nearer to my house than Alstom but I got a notification for that one...

 

[Rikki]

There is actually a list of local addresses on one of the documents with some circled and others not, I don't know why but guess it may be who they decided to send letters to. From my perspective it would seem like those who have previously objected to things weren't circled.

also looks like the decision date has been put back, I assume for further information to be provided and time for comments from public

 

[Rikki]

Just been checking and actually I think the circled numbers are those on st George's rd not backing onto the site. But no one on our section of Lichfield rd or anyone on fairway was notified. Unfortunately the bare minimum of people did however receive notification.

I was probably to eager to assume that there was subterfuge afoot. But it's hard not too with the recent planning history.

 

[ATJ]

The football 3G pitch and new road were approved yesterday.

 

[Bernstein]

You betcha

 

[SCHC]

Its groundhog day

We're off and running in the "Sport England/Local Authority" sponsored "protect our own interests" Stakes. Ran over a long course (possibly 2 years), this race is a hurdle (or is that a hunt?). The hurdles are unusually closely spaced but not cunningly enough hidden, leaving room for experienced jockeys to tackle the course. Underdog is a fine gelding (well we think he's a gelding based on how many times he gets kicked in the knackers) called "State the Obvious", He's only worth an each way bet though come to think of it as he's the only horse saddled with a handicap. His closest competitor is "Cash Cow", an ugly looking but very powerful filly trained by the institutionalised elite who have more money to throw at their own horses than an arab sheik and must ensure their own fine courses and horses are top of the tree. The racing world though has had more than a few concerns about the owner's willingness to nobble the opposition, with rumours of equine mickey finns being administered in the dead of night.

Did you know that's its now the cricket and hockey club's fault that there's not enough football pitches in the town and Rugby match officials plainly don't currently have whistles.

It appears desperate times call for.....bullshit!

And you lot wonder why this country wins nothing with these characters in charge

And their...OFF

 

[Chick]

Looks like the planners have finally made the decision we all hoped they wouldn't but were nonetheless expecting. Planning rejected

 

[SCHC]

It is only recommended for refusal
We have one last shot! It appear to be going to committee....therefore, we can present our case to our elected officials. If the members get their act together and attend en mass, then maybe just maybe we can get the committee to see sense.

And linked in to the Beaconside thread....

It would appear that the sports buildings will be closed in June 2016 with the main pitch staying open for another 12 months. Therefore, the hockey section (and the ladies hockey club) will struggle to continue after the 18 months. The knock on from this will be that the cricket section of SCHC will no longer be viable (despite owning the land and pavilion at Riverway). For anyone au fait with the planning application and the ultimate arguments the council and Sport England have put forward to scupper our application, you will no doubt see the irony in the these bodies ultimately destroying a 150 year old club AND the associate members they appear to be trying to protect.

The public of Stafford also need to ask WHY the sports centre and pitches at beaconside will no continue after 16/17. The answers may just be with the civic centre!

 

[John Marwood]

I admire your optimism