SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Hypocritical? Far too thick skinned to worry whether they are or they aren't. Follow the money....
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Sport and Politics
- Thread starter Bernstein
- Start date
Hypocritical? Far too thick skinned to worry whether they are or they aren't. Follow the money....
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Rikki, you spend far too much time walking your dog in earshot of cynical souls
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Interestingly, in this instance we fell quite sorry for the planning department
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
So have we...sport for all and all that! Unfortunately, we probably wouldn't be allowed due to, errrr, something like too much traffic or the moon and stars not being aligned.
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Firstly, we should apologise for some of our somewhat facetious remarks this morning related to other posts...
This proposed development and associated planning application is monumentally important for a local club that is 150 years old. We are a club that owns, and is responsible for, 12 acres of sports ground in the middle of the county town. This responsibility is funded by its members on a voluntary basis all year round. It receives absolutely no help from local authority, local government or any of the National Governing Bodies of the sports that it promotes, or is associated/partners with. Nor is it seeking any funding to construct the proposed facility from any of the aforementioned organisations. The application has received not one objection from the general public and has no impact whatsoever on the general public in terms of nuisance, noise or loss of amenity.
The reason the proposed development is being recommended for refusal by the planning officer is because of documentation and lobbying from Sport England, Governing Bodies of Sports who have been consulted and the Leisure Section of Stafford Borough Council.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the lobbying and documentation form the Leisure Section has been conducted "secretly" (not our description) and we have found out about it, if not "by accident" but at the very least fortuitously. The planning department's final decision will be made based upon these documents, and despite our belated replies will still be taken into consideration. To say we are unhappy about this situation would be an understatement!
This post will be far too long if we begin to summarise the situation for those without the time and inclination to read all the documentation, (and probably perplexed as to why a proposed facility to improve sport is being blocked).
However, put simply, we are a Cricket and Hockey club wishing to play cricket and hockey on land we own. The club currently do not have the required facilities to provide these sports for both of its sections (one of our 5 cricket teams have to play at Little Stoke every other Saturday in the summer and our hockey teams have to either play in Stone or Cannock as Beaconside cannot A. Cope with present demand or B. Needs new floodlights and carpet C. Might not be there for much longer.
In conclusion, if our proposals are deemed "inadequate", "not suitable" or "premature" by the powers that be, could we at least ask if they can do their jobs and provide alternative solutions? Even going through the motions, would at the least be a start!
If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask
This proposed development and associated planning application is monumentally important for a local club that is 150 years old. We are a club that owns, and is responsible for, 12 acres of sports ground in the middle of the county town. This responsibility is funded by its members on a voluntary basis all year round. It receives absolutely no help from local authority, local government or any of the National Governing Bodies of the sports that it promotes, or is associated/partners with. Nor is it seeking any funding to construct the proposed facility from any of the aforementioned organisations. The application has received not one objection from the general public and has no impact whatsoever on the general public in terms of nuisance, noise or loss of amenity.
The reason the proposed development is being recommended for refusal by the planning officer is because of documentation and lobbying from Sport England, Governing Bodies of Sports who have been consulted and the Leisure Section of Stafford Borough Council.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the lobbying and documentation form the Leisure Section has been conducted "secretly" (not our description) and we have found out about it, if not "by accident" but at the very least fortuitously. The planning department's final decision will be made based upon these documents, and despite our belated replies will still be taken into consideration. To say we are unhappy about this situation would be an understatement!
This post will be far too long if we begin to summarise the situation for those without the time and inclination to read all the documentation, (and probably perplexed as to why a proposed facility to improve sport is being blocked).
However, put simply, we are a Cricket and Hockey club wishing to play cricket and hockey on land we own. The club currently do not have the required facilities to provide these sports for both of its sections (one of our 5 cricket teams have to play at Little Stoke every other Saturday in the summer and our hockey teams have to either play in Stone or Cannock as Beaconside cannot A. Cope with present demand or B. Needs new floodlights and carpet C. Might not be there for much longer.
In conclusion, if our proposals are deemed "inadequate", "not suitable" or "premature" by the powers that be, could we at least ask if they can do their jobs and provide alternative solutions? Even going through the motions, would at the least be a start!
If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask
markpa12003
Well-Known Forumite
SHCH...this is why I hate local politics (in fact politics) generally. We allow planning applications to be determined by self serving idiots that have no idea of the complexity of the applications that they are determining. We allow their dirty grubby hands to determine applications which for anyone with a 'half a brain' should be approved within a heart beat! I hope you appeal the planning application, if it is refused, and I hope you go for costs against the Council.
markpa12003
Well-Known Forumite
If the application is recommended for refusal by the planners they will need to set out why in the committee report. It will not be possible for them to say that the 'application has been refused because of some secret reason'. The committee members will also need to provide justifiable planning reasons (that should be fun) as to why the application should be refused. These reasons will be minuted in the committee papers.
Last edited:
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Markpa12003....
We obviously await the final decision which should come in the next 2-3 weeks. As it happens, we have no reason at present to question how the planning officer has dealt with the application. If it is indeed a refusal, we can analyse the reasons and decide on what action to take. If you read the documentation in detail, you will see that the final decision is not (yet) what we have a beef about. It is, as you say, the politics, agendas and lack of transparency that is now the real issue. And for that, everyone should be a tad worried......
We obviously await the final decision which should come in the next 2-3 weeks. As it happens, we have no reason at present to question how the planning officer has dealt with the application. If it is indeed a refusal, we can analyse the reasons and decide on what action to take. If you read the documentation in detail, you will see that the final decision is not (yet) what we have a beef about. It is, as you say, the politics, agendas and lack of transparency that is now the real issue. And for that, everyone should be a tad worried......
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
To clarify, the documents in question, were classified "secret" but have now been de-classified as such. As our club has stated in a letter to the planners (publically available on the portal), the documents don't contain much that came as a surprise (albeit we agree with very little of their contents). The point is that they have been considered by the planners, and someone, somewhere decided that they weren't to be seen by ourselves or the public at large. This is the issue, not what was or wasn't contained in them. Which obviously begs the question as what else could possibly be kept under wraps related to this application or any other for that matter.
Maryland
Well-Known Forumite
HMG's current security classification system - which applies to govt departments, govt agencies, contractors to etc etc and, one would hope, even to Stafford Borough Council, provided that the concept of 'government' can be stretched that far - defines information which should be marked SECRET broadly as follows:
'SECRET
Very sensitive information that justifies heightened protective measures to defend against determined and highly capable threat actors. For example, where compromise could seriously damage military capabilities, international relations or the investigation of serious organised crime.'
It is quite hard to imagine what, other than ignorance of the above and of its precursors, would have led some council official in Stafford to have decided that information relating to a planning application for a hockey pitch on privately-owned land in Stafford could fall into that category.
It is just about conceivable that some reference may have been made, somewhere in the documents so classified, to the provision of strategically-sensitive sporting facilities for the inhabitants of the local military base, or possibly to the existence of hitherto unknown top secret nuclear bunkers, mysteriously still in use only in Stafford, underneath a football pitch somewhere, or, carelessly, to the fact that somebody's relative who works at the police station heard once that him who lives near the hockey pitch is a seriously organised criminal and the rozzers want to make sure they can carry on getting overtime for sitting in a car up the road dreaming of appearing on Cop TV. If so, then there may have been grounds for redaction of the documents. But the original security marking would appear to have been not remotely justified.
It is more likely to have resulted from genuine but innocent incompetence, which has now been rectified.
Or, this being Stafford, some local person of infuence with fingers in pies put the frighteners on somebody in the council, and an over-reaction ensued.
But the more worrying possibility is that, as suggested upthread, there is some perceived conflict in this matter between the commercial interests of SBC, or of somebody connected to the latter, and those of the hockey club. And that if that is what informed the initial, apparently ridiculous, security marking, then that action looks very like misconduct in public office.
And as we all know, that sort of thing could never happen in Stafford.
Have you spoken to your MP, or thought about a FOI request to the council asking for background information? These are your rights under law.
I should add that, with the exception of the quote from the published official guide to HMG's security classification system, all of the above is entirely speculative, mostly facetious, and is not intended to suggest any wrongdoing, irregularity, misconduct or inappropriate influence on the part of any category of person whatsoever. All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
'SECRET
Very sensitive information that justifies heightened protective measures to defend against determined and highly capable threat actors. For example, where compromise could seriously damage military capabilities, international relations or the investigation of serious organised crime.'
It is quite hard to imagine what, other than ignorance of the above and of its precursors, would have led some council official in Stafford to have decided that information relating to a planning application for a hockey pitch on privately-owned land in Stafford could fall into that category.
It is just about conceivable that some reference may have been made, somewhere in the documents so classified, to the provision of strategically-sensitive sporting facilities for the inhabitants of the local military base, or possibly to the existence of hitherto unknown top secret nuclear bunkers, mysteriously still in use only in Stafford, underneath a football pitch somewhere, or, carelessly, to the fact that somebody's relative who works at the police station heard once that him who lives near the hockey pitch is a seriously organised criminal and the rozzers want to make sure they can carry on getting overtime for sitting in a car up the road dreaming of appearing on Cop TV. If so, then there may have been grounds for redaction of the documents. But the original security marking would appear to have been not remotely justified.
It is more likely to have resulted from genuine but innocent incompetence, which has now been rectified.
Or, this being Stafford, some local person of infuence with fingers in pies put the frighteners on somebody in the council, and an over-reaction ensued.
But the more worrying possibility is that, as suggested upthread, there is some perceived conflict in this matter between the commercial interests of SBC, or of somebody connected to the latter, and those of the hockey club. And that if that is what informed the initial, apparently ridiculous, security marking, then that action looks very like misconduct in public office.
And as we all know, that sort of thing could never happen in Stafford.
Have you spoken to your MP, or thought about a FOI request to the council asking for background information? These are your rights under law.
I should add that, with the exception of the quote from the published official guide to HMG's security classification system, all of the above is entirely speculative, mostly facetious, and is not intended to suggest any wrongdoing, irregularity, misconduct or inappropriate influence on the part of any category of person whatsoever. All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Last edited:
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Maryland - you can come and be our guest letter writer - lol
We await the final decision from the planning department.
MP's, FOI's, letters to chief execs, Sunday Times, lawyers etc etc - all on the agenda
All pretty sad to be honest, all we want to do is play cricket and hockey
We await the final decision from the planning department.
MP's, FOI's, letters to chief execs, Sunday Times, lawyers etc etc - all on the agenda
All pretty sad to be honest, all we want to do is play cricket and hockey
United57
Well-Known Forumite
I find it difficult how SBC can classify their documents as secret. I believe their highest classification is restricted.
Ask SBC for its document governance and information management security policy.
This should be freely available if they have one. ( could not find it but found these)
http://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/live/Documents/Policy and Plans/FOI-Records-Management-Guidelines.pdf
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fax_data_security_and_control_5
http://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/foi-data-loss-and-security-breaches
http://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/foi-it-security-area
Ask SBC for its document governance and information management security policy.
This should be freely available if they have one. ( could not find it but found these)
http://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/live/Documents/Policy and Plans/FOI-Records-Management-Guidelines.pdf
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fax_data_security_and_control_5
http://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/foi-data-loss-and-security-breaches
http://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/foi-it-security-area
Maryland
Well-Known Forumite
Quite. 'NAAFI Confidential' would cover the majority of local shenanigans.
Incidentally, we no longer have 'RESTRICTED': this and CONFIDENTIAL are now subsumed within the new lowest protective marking, unclassified material aside, of 'OFFICIAL'. Not one of our masters' better ideas, in the opinion of many who bother to think about this sort of thing.
Document 1824191
At least the leisure department have booted secrecy into touch. Mind you, is Jenny pleading the fifth, or is Jenny so pleased with the hatchet job she's been instructed to undertake, with such finesse, that no further words are needed?
Determination date pending...tick tock tick tock
At least the leisure department have booted secrecy into touch. Mind you, is Jenny pleading the fifth, or is Jenny so pleased with the hatchet job she's been instructed to undertake, with such finesse, that no further words are needed?
Determination date pending...tick tock tick tock
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
Can i just clarify something?
I see in the response from Sport England -
- that there are objections from the ECB re cricket provision.
Are they justified?
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
If you are familiar with the layout at Riverway, then we apologise for this description.
The land we own comprises 2 cricket pitches. One is placed in front of the pavilion and is unaffected by the proposals. The second is to the north of our land and covers a similar acreage. It has an artificial pitch in the centre and in winter is utilised as a football pitch to one side of the outfield and a rugby pitch to the other side of the outfield. The proposed Hockey pitch goes at an angle to our eastern boundary in the vicinity of the current Rugby pitch. This therefore means that the cricket "wicket"/"artificial" needs to move approx. 30 yards to the west of its current position (ie nearer Riverway).
We concede that in the perfect world, this new/revised cricket area could be bigger. However, we have what we have! The proposals are fully supported by both our cricket and hockey sections. Although the new cricket pitch is smaller, it would have a better playing surface, a better outfield, have a new small pavilion, be unaffected by winter sports and basically be new! The current pitch is also currently affected by the rugby posts (ie size of available boundary at certain points). The area in question actually has similar boundaries and an overall square meterage BIGGER than Wood Lane CC in Stoke who up until last year were playing premier league cricket (our pitch is for junior and 4th team use). Finally, the proposal includes a grass square that means that the 3rds. 4ths and 5ths can progress in the league structure, which at present they can't.
Staffordshire Cricket wrote a letter of support in 2013 for the proposals. The ECB officer, although having never visited the site AND never discussed the proposals directly with ourselves have decided that they can't support the project.
Listen, the whole thing is a stitch up between the council and the governing bodies. The size of the cricket pitch, St Leonards RUFC, "premature application", Highways objections are all a red herring. Its all about money and revenue related to 3G pitches in the town as well as the council's (current and future) vested interests at Beaconside (lots of money swilling about for Kudos enhancement in the coming years)
One would assume that with our club NEEDING this new facility and us needing to enhance all of our facilities and try to continue to accommodate all the clubs we currently accommodate, The Council and its leisure department, Sport England, England Hockey, ECB, the FA et al would be trying to come up with some plan. Is that not their job? If that isn't happening, then these organisations are not fit for purpose. The Leisure Department keep documents secret and the ECB feel the need to hold our club back from afar without ever having visited the venue (anyone would think they'd been primed?!)
The Sport England document (which includes ECB comments) and the de-classified SBC Leisure document are the two documents that will scupper our proposal. The only thing that should ever scupper this proposal is a lack of funds - which we wouldn't argue with.
Utter utter disgrace....albeit in no way surprising
The whole thing stinks to high heaven
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
Indeed, thanks for the clarification. I just had to check through because i'm flabbergasted that there should be any opposition to this. I don't see how it really is any of their f**king business.
It would be laughable if it wasn't so objectionable.
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
The decision notice is due to be posted next week. The decision itself was made before we even applied!