Sport and Politics

[markpa12003]

Hi Rikki, Sport England are always consulted when the application affects an existing sports facility. However, as the applicant / agent taken it upon themselves to contact Sport England to let them know the actual situation.

It appears to me that there is a lot of confusion which could be resolved if SBC, Sport England and the agent got around the table.

 

[Gramaisc]

Football is also suffering from a lack of facilities and funding despite the riches in the top divisions.

It takes a special level of "financial skill" to turn £17,000,000 into four hundred quid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33050289

 

[Rikki]

Hi Rikki, Sport England are always consulted when the application affects an existing sports facility. However, as the applicant / agent taken it upon themselves to contact Sport England to let them know the actual situation.

It appears to me that there is a lot of confusion which could be resolved if SBC, Sport England and the agent got around the table.

I think (again don't hold me to this) sport England were consulted by SBC and all the information they based their decision on was provided by SBC. I again think SCHC have never been directly contacted by Sport England for any information or ever visited the site. There was a meeting with sport England that SCHC were invited to attend but that was after they had made their recommendation.

There's one line in the last correspondence from sport England that I personally find to be very odd. Which could easily be seen as someone admitting their hands were tied if you were into conspiracy theories.

 

[Rikki]

I think (again don't hold me to this) sport England were consulted by SBC and all the information they based their decision on was provided by SBC. I again think SCHC have never been directly contacted by Sport England for any information or ever visited the site. There was a meeting with sport England that SCHC were invited to attend but that was after they had made their recommendation.

There's one line in the last correspondence from sport England that I personally find to be very odd. Which could easily be seen as someone admitting their hands were tied if you were into conspiracy theories.

I'll find links later when I'm on a pc

 

[proactive]

Football is also suffering from a lack of facilities and funding despite the riches in the top divisions.

No excuse why football should be given priority at the expense of any other sport though. Especially on land that is privately owned where the funding is privately raised.

 

[markpa12003]

Recommendations can be changed. I would suggest a meeting a meeting with Sport England and SBC before the decision is made.

 

[Jonah]

No excuse why football should be given priority at the expense of any other sport though. Especially on land that is privately owned where the funding is privately raised.

I quite agree. I fully support the application for a hockey pitch.

 

[Rikki]

Recommendations can be changed. I would suggest a meeting a meeting with Sport England and SBC before the decision is made.

I Think the problem is the decision has already been made and was as soon as the application landed on certain desks.

This is the quote from Sport England I mentioned earlier

"Whichever way you look at it we would object to this application – either there is an evidence base that is material to the decision which, in this case, does not support the proposal, or there is not an evidence base (or you are not prepared to give it much weight) and there is no proven case for the need for the AGP to override the protection of the grass playing field."

I may be reading to much into that but it's hard not to knowing the history of the application.


On the positive side by my count 55 members of the public including our MP have written in support of the application. I don't imagine any other planning application in Stafford has ever got that much support.

I may post some of the letters of the portal for people to read if I remember and get chance, as there must be over 100 documents now and I don't imagine many people could be bothered to search through them. Annoyingly though some of the more informative ones are not scanned in very well and may not show up well enough to read if I posted them as a picture on here.

 

[kyoto49]

I've been watching this thread with interest before posting. Hockey Club with plenty of public support have to fight to get permission - because of objections from SBC leisure department.
Rugby Club with lot of opposition from public but support from leisure department is recommended for approval.
Look at who is a Director of Stafford Rugby Club and Head of SBC leisure.
And when planners recommended approval there was no sign of any declaration of interest from that Head of Leisure.

This is what the nature and people of Stafford will lose when the rugby club tarmac the land adjacent to Doxey marshes. It's such disgraceful destruction there had to be something dodgy about the whole application, let alone the approval of it

RIP green space of Stafford

 

[proactive]

How about starting an online petition to get people to back you for the hockey pitch?

 

[Rikki]

There's more...

SBC Leisure have informed the planners that in conjunction with the University that they imminently intend to re-surface the 2G pitch at Beaconside. Allaying our fears in their entirety

Which begs the question, why would anyone replace a few broken tiles with a brand new roof on a house they are just about to sell?

And surely not with taxpayer's money?

Transparency required? Strategy explained?

I forgot to say I put in a FOI request in relation to this asking how much it was going to cost and where the money was coming from also when exactly it was going to be done.

 

[Rikki]

How about starting an online petition to get people to back you for the hockey pitch?

I honestly don't think it would make any difference even if you got half of Stafford to sign it.

 

[SCHC]

How about starting an online petition to get people to back you for the hockey pitch?

Its a nice thought, but believe me it won't make any difference. The Newsletter may be doing a big piece on it next week, so we'll see where that takes us. At the end of the day the organisations involved say POLICY POLICY POLICY....It appears not to matter that the policy is there to stop say Tesco building on a grass pitch, not a Hockey club having to change a surface to allow them to keep playing.

 

[SCHC]

Hi Rikki, Sport England are always consulted when the application affects an existing sports facility. However, as the applicant / agent taken it upon themselves to contact Sport England to let them know the actual situation.

It appears to me that there is a lot of confusion which could be resolved if SBC, Sport England and the agent got around the table.

There is no will from SE or SBC to resolve the problem. For instance, STFC's pitch will soon be replaced by a 3G pitch...why would SBC (who are heavily involved in this project) which to see a another artificial pitch, in private hands 30 yards away.

 

[Rikki]

Will be interesting to see exactly what the newsletter decide to print.

 

[SCHC]

Just need to tell it how it is....

 

[Jonah]

There is no will from SE or SBC to resolve the problem. For instance, STFC's pitch will soon be replaced by a 3G pitch...why would SBC (who are heavily involved in this project) which to see a another artificial pitch, in private hands 30 yards away.

Are the surfaces different for a 3G pitch and a hockey pitch?

 

[Rikki]

Yes simply put 3g has a longer pile and looks like what most people would consider artificial grass, it also has lots of little bits of rubber all over it. Almost like soil granules between the grass blades.

A hockey pitch is 2g and is a lot smoother more like a short pile carpet. Usually dressed with sand. Just imagine pouring a bag of fine sand on your carpet and spreading it out until it's fell into the pile.

Even more simply a hockey pitch is smoother.

 

[Jonah]

That's what I thought. Two different surfaces, two different applications. No need for any objections.

 

[Rikki]

Football especially 5 a side, friendly or training sessions can all be played on a hockey pitch without it effecting the game to much if at all. As can lots of other sports at lower levels eg netball tennis. I have played hockey on a 3g pitch and it's not ideal. League games have to be played on the correct surface for the sport.

So the proposed hockey pitch could take customers from a nearby football pitch. SCHC also has a much larger club house with a licenced bar, sky sports etc and multiple changing rooms. Which would probably be modernised if the pitch went ahead.

If both developments went ahead they would be in direct competition with each other. But the playing field would be far from even . STFC would be at a huge disadvantage.

The advantage STFC do have is the personal adjendas of some SBC employees.