Sport and Politics

[SCHC]

So the final leg of my treble is done. Rugby and footie applications approved. Hockey refused. An accumulator I would have been happy to be wrong about.

I have not read all about the applications but the bits I have seen I think (hope) this is far from over.
Do not see logic of council planners decision regarding hockey club - apart from people at SBC have a stake in football and rugby clubs but none in hockey.

***THIS THIS AND THIS !!!!!!***

 

[SCHC]

Totally agree....its bonkers....

Its bonkers unless of course your interests and agendas are divergent!

AND WE'LL STATE AGAIN - THE RIVERWAY COMPLEX (3 PARCELS OF LAND) CAN ACCOMODATE ALL THE SPORTS WHAT WISH TO PLAY THERE - FOOTBALL, RUGBY, HOCKEY & CRICKET.

One organisation can make it so - they do not wish to do so. The particular indiviuals at SBC who have overseen so called strategy, policy, masterplans and all that other bullshit that means nothing in the real world should be held to account. That is unless they have a St Paul/Damascus moment - which is highly unlikely.

 

[Gramaisc]

A Calvary moment would be more appropriate and more effective.

 

[SCHC]

A Calvary moment would be more appropriate and more effective.

lol

I'm sure they'll all resign before any crucifixions are required. Do the right thing and all that...

 

[Gramaisc]

An "unreserved apology" would extinguish all previous sins - and leave plenty of room for any amount of future ones.

More effective than ten Hail Marys.

 

[SCHC]

"we apologise unreservedly but ... you can still get to f*** you oiks!"

 

[SCHC]

kickin' off on the facebook thingy so word goes...

Anyone resigned yet?

 

[captainpish]

I can tell you exactly where you went wrong.
1. You dont habe a prominent coucillor on your board
2. No brown envelopes were handed out when putting in your application.

Schoolboy error.

 

[Mikinton]

kickin' off on the facebook thingy so word goes...

Which Facebook page? Any chance of a link?

 

[Withnail]

And we repeat again - we are a cricket and hockey club who wish to play cricket and hockey. Are we saying that it is also our responsibility to ensure football and rugby can be serviced too?

That's the thing that pisses me off the most.

It's your land ffs - why on earth is it up to you to fulfill any kind of requirement whatsoever to provide sports provision? If there is a lack of provision in the Borough, it's not like it's your fecking fault - if anything you're doing them a favour by providing something without them having to do anything at all.

It beats the shit out of me why you should even have to ask permission. I could understand it if you were wanting to 'change use' and turn some of your fields of play into something else but you aren't. The whole thing baffles me.

And fecking angers me.

 

[John Marwood]

Underwater Morris Dancing anyone?

 

[Trumpet]

With scuba owls.

 

[Chick]

Chris Baron

Reading between the lines, we would say that she has been approached by someone on St Georges Rd complaining about it, she has subsequently then tried to call it in, the planner has told her it was too late, but (and it appears rightly so) she has then said that as its a new consultation she can. Therefore, its been called in by her, she has read the report and realised that refusal has been recommended, this negating her original reason for calling it in. So then decided (unilaterally??) to send it back to the planners saying it can be a delegated decision?

Interesting! A sneaky peek...oh, ok it suits me and my lobbyists, we won't worry the rest of the committee....

Thoughts on that?

Obviously may be wrong blah blah

You are not wrong. I've been discussing with my councilor all this week who contacted Chris to confirm her reasons, a resident(s) was against it and she "had" to act on behalf of her resident(s)

 

[Rikki]

I'm her resident. She's not acting on my behalf

 

[Chick]

If you want to contact her, details can be found here - http://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/demserv/councillor/id/544C0519-8068-4617-AE5A-BB50521557A9

 

[Rikki]

I have been thinking about it, Will probably write a letter rather than phone. She's not in my opinion acted in a way that represents the best interests of her ward at all. Should she be considering the club and it's membership when she acts or is it just her residents? I only ask as I'm not sure if she has to consider the 50 letters in support against the 2 against as many in support are not her constituents.

I would also like to know the exact number of men, women and children who this decision could effect. I think I know most of the numbers.

I may even invite her to the club to discuss it, but would like to check what others think about that first. Not that I think she would come and even if she did it would just be wasting time.

 

[Chick]

I'll email you, I've got most of those details
My councilor responded pretty quick to email

 

[Jonah]

Where on Facebook is it kicking off?

 

[markpa12003]

The council should have information about the planning committee process on their website. It would be worth a read to see if their has been any wrongdoing. Whether an application goes to committee is based on the discretion of the council, however if the following applies (which it does in this case) it should go to committee:-

Major / controversial applications
Called in by a council member
Received a certain level on objection (some councils take any application to committee if it has received 1 objection, others 10, 20 etc)

An application does not need go to committee if it has been recommended for refusal, however by failing to take the application to committee it has denied the members to make a decision on the application. The committee have a power to reach a different decision.

I've got a nagging feeling that it wasn't taken to committee to de-politicise the process and, therefore, allow the council to defend the decision based on the professional opinion of an officer. I personally think their are no planning reasons to refuse the application and it was refused because of 'backroom' politics. Very dodgy.

By not taking the application to committee it limits the amount of mud and s*it that I think could be thrown at the council. By delegating the decision the council can simply say it wasn't our fault the officer refused the scheme.

This application stinks. It should have been approved.

 

[Chick]

And the officer refused it based on an "experts" consulation i.e. Sport England who have refused due to the loss of a grass pitch

The problem is the Sport England rejection is entirely based on SBC strategy and framework documents that are incorrect in terms of participation figures, have not been created by consulting the relevant clubs involved and don't consider either the location, ownership or use of several of the existing facilities

In planning terms, they have in the main part followed process, with the huge exception that it's been sat on for 15 months in limbo then just pushed through regardless