Rikki
Well-Known Forumite
Are councillors allowed to do that?
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Sport and Politics
- Thread starter Bernstein
- Start date
Are councillors allowed to do that?
Chick
Well-Known Forumite
Presumably it should be necessary for the decision the un-named Councillor made to be minuted or documented somewhere justifying their decision...?
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
we've asked for his or her name and await a reply......
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Rikki, pick your favourite Noel Coward line that includes the words "Freddie, bent, Camp, everyone" When will you learn!?
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
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
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
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Little Quiz for everyone
In all the paperwork and correspondence, (of which there is a significant amount) relating to this application, one persons name crops up who is the kingpin for knowledge and go to consultation within the local authority according to other organisations and decision makers. But that person never puts their name to or signs any document related to any point of view, council strategy or decision. Their like a ghost, a most powerful ghost.
Guess who
In all the paperwork and correspondence, (of which there is a significant amount) relating to this application, one persons name crops up who is the kingpin for knowledge and go to consultation within the local authority according to other organisations and decision makers. But that person never puts their name to or signs any document related to any point of view, council strategy or decision. Their like a ghost, a most powerful ghost.
Guess who
Rikki
Well-Known Forumite
Nice to see she's looking out for the interests of a small minority of her ward as usual. It's the telling the planners it can be a delegated decision that still seems off to me, I can't believe that if the planning officer decides it has to go to committee due to the nature of the application they can be told otherwise.
Rikki
Well-Known Forumite
I had noticed how he seems to be mentioned a lot and copied into the emails but you never see anything from him directly.
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Newsletter comment on page 8 - fair play to em
Just think if someone there actually got the story by the scruff of the neck and went for it!?!? They'd be up for The Pulitzer
We'd have to buy a guillotine for the all the heads that should subsequently roll....
.....we can only dream
Just think if someone there actually got the story by the scruff of the neck and went for it!?!? They'd be up for The Pulitzer
We'd have to buy a guillotine for the all the heads that should subsequently roll....
.....we can only dream
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.
Rikki
Well-Known Forumite
link to a story on the front page of the Newsletters web site at the moment http://www.staffordshirenewsletter....ord-planners/story-28568711-detail/story.html
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
I had another read of most of the 'current' things on the planning portal last night but had to give up as it was just bringing me down.
As unfair as it all is - and it really is - the fact that you have Sport England, the ECB and the RFU all lined up against you means you are proper screwed. As wrong as their (desk based) assessments are, i can't see you coming back from that - i really feel for you all.
Let's not lose sight of the villains of the piece though. This whole episode just reeks of maladministration from the Borough Council - to those involved in this ignominious stitch-up, i shall say it
* For Shame! *
It is at times like this that i am tempted to believe in an afterlife after all - that one with the fire and the brimstone and the flaming pitchforks and the tortured souls and the like.
As unfair as it all is - and it really is - the fact that you have Sport England, the ECB and the RFU all lined up against you means you are proper screwed. As wrong as their (desk based) assessments are, i can't see you coming back from that - i really feel for you all.
Let's not lose sight of the villains of the piece though. This whole episode just reeks of maladministration from the Borough Council - to those involved in this ignominious stitch-up, i shall say it
* For Shame! *
It is at times like this that i am tempted to believe in an afterlife after all - that one with the fire and the brimstone and the flaming pitchforks and the tortured souls and the like.
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Agreed.. and to clarify (ie. bore everyone again)
The land and pitches are owned by Stafford Cricket & Hockey Club and has been since 1984. We are not a football or rugby club
When the club moved to Riverway in 1984 competitive Hockey was played on grass. Since circa late 80's competitive hockey has to be played on artificial surfaces.
This freed up space and SCHC accommodated football in the winter months
In 2005, St Leonards RUFC were evicted from their pitch by SBC when they obtained Alstom's land. Our club offered the rugby club the use of a pitch, the changing rooms and the bar. This has been a mutually beneficial arrangement. Albeit one that the rugby club admitted was "a temporary fix" back in 2005/6.
Since the late 80's the hockey section of our club has wanted to play their games at home at Riverway and wished to build an artificial pitch. Eventually, the money has been raised (approx7K) to make the designs and plans etc JUST to TRY and obtain a permission to proceed.
As part of the overall plan, the cricket artificial and proposed grass square has to move to the west (ie onto where the football pitch is) Therefore, to answer your first question, the management committee and the cricket committee agreed that for two reasons -
1. Wear and tear on the football area that meant fielding on the cricket ground was unsafe until the end of May
2. A plan to construct the new artificial and/or grass square during winter 2015/16 (ready for cricket season 2016) based on a planning permission that was due no later than last spring (if that all makes sense) Therefore the football could not be guaranteed a pitch for the whole of 15/16
In terms of the loss of grass pitch - we are not building a Tesco - we are changing real grass to artificial grass. In I guess, to think of a close example, aha, the same way STFC have just got permission to change their real grass pitch to a artificial pitch. (without objection from their landlords - Stafford Borough Council)
And of course, the Rugby club have use of a pitch on Riverway owned by Stafford College (and furthermore a promise from SCHC to give them use of our bar and changing facilities in the winter)
With planning being refused and Beaconside closing, Stafford will now lose a cricket club, a hockey club and a rugby club
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?
c0tt0nt0p
Well-Known Forumite
Totally agree....its bonkers....
SCHC
Well-Known Forumite
Firstly, if you read the SBC Leisure response, it is so riddled with untruths and disingenuousness (is that a word?) that it is beyond parady or ridicule.
The ECB have ironically, by not supporting our proposal, given one of its cricket clubs a death sentence. Despite our cricketers wanting the development. Sport England are in cahoots with SBC.
At least in "words" if not "actions" the RFU are trying to protect a member club. Its a shame they've not felt compelled to secure their future for the or the last 10 years. St Leonards and their union have known for over 5 years of our proposals and the impact it may have on their club.
And yes, we all know who the culprits are - primarily the Teflon Don
As for the afterlife.....you'd better be quick, there's an army of pitchforks waiting.