Stafford Victoria Park Kiosk Facing Demolition

[proactive]

You sure the group wasn't called Sector 27?

Maybe he was sectioned at the time and got confused?

 

[Gramaisc]

You sure the group wasn't called Sector 27?

I don't think so, that was Tom Robinson, etc.

Section 25 were a sort of post-punk thing, I believe that the name referred to something that you could get charged with under a public order offence, possibly related to football hooliganism, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_25

 

[proactive]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_25

 

[The truth the whole truth]

What has section 106 got to do with park improvements.

The application has been made to the Lottery Heritage Fund.

If that is the case then where is all the S106 monies going , "a mysterious black hole "
I cannot think of many open spaces it can be used on , one may as well build on it at this rate and the common do away with boot sales circus and fun fares

 

[Trumpet]

fun fares

Is that the ticket price for the bumping cars ?

 

[proactive]

If that is the case then where is all the S106 monies going , "a mysterious black hole "
I cannot think of many open spaces it can be used on , one may as well build on it at this rate and the common do away with boot sales circus and fun fares

What are you prattling on about?

 

[ATJ]

What are you prattling on about?

They're trying to create a scandal based on the fact they stopped reading the definition of a S106 after the first line.
http://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/planning/planning-applications/what-are-section-106-legal-agreements
The S106 will vary depending on the nature of the development and based on the needs of the District. The most common obligations include:-

Public Open Space
Affordable Housing
Education
Highways
Town centre Improvements

 

[proactive]

They're trying to create a scandal based on the fact they stopped reading the definition of a S106 after the first line.
http://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/planning/planning-applications/what-are-section-106-legal-agreements
The S106 will vary depending on the nature of the development and based on the needs of the District. The most common obligations include:-

Public Open Space
Affordable Housing
Education
Highways
Town centre Improvements

But S106 has nothing to do with the park redevelopment. The money comes from National Lottery Heritage. They are two entirely separate entities that I cannot see how any rational person could confuse.

 

[bunique]

Not all the money is coming from lottery though. Is the suggestion that the counxil's contribution is coming from s106 income?

 

[Goldilox]

It is also interesting to note that, given the farming out of the entire 'Leisure & Culture' portfolio currently curated by SBC to an as yet undecided 'charitable trust' ( see staffordforum comments passim), only two parts of the 'portfolio' - in inverted commas this time - are to be retained 'in house'.

One is Victoria Park. The Borough Council appear to be particularly keen to retain control of all aspects of this particular 'asset' 'going forward'. I'm sure that this is entirely unrelated to something so grubby as money.

The only other 'asset' that will remain entirely within SBC control -

buzzfeed/

Will shock you...

/buzzfeed

- will do so almost certainly because it is some sort of 'outlier', unrelated to any of SBC's other 'Leisure & Culture' 'assets', and without any links whatsoever to any former Leaders of any affiliated organisation, like SBC for instance, whatsoever..

I'm struggling to work out what you're hinting at here - I thought the other thing SBC was keeping was Wildwood Park?

 

[Goldilox]

Mr Simcock has also raised concerns about the creation of a new aviary, which will be closer to the road, and anti-social behaviour at the Mottram Shelter, which is earmarked for a revamp.

Why is he 'concerned' about a new aviary? The old one is clearly falling apart & in desperate need of renewal, I'm sure he'd be the first to complain if he turned up one morning to find the pheasants wandering the bowling green. Likewise the Mottram shelter also needs some money thrown at it as a matter of some urgency, or is he implying they should tear it down so the hoodies & pensioners have to find somewhere else to sit?

I was asked my views a couple of times during the consultancy & I thought the cafe was a nice idea. Whether I actually use it or not will probably depend on the standard of their toastie-making & quality of their Americanos.

I've bought an ice lolly from the kiosk at least twice during the 9 years I've lived in Stafford & found it to be perfectly adequate for that purpose. I can understand Mr Simcock wanting to defend his living, but the building itself is pretty ugly & I can also see why the council might want rid of it. Where I'm confused is that the proposed plans for updating the park have been kicking around for some time - why is this suddenly news?

 

[1JKz]

Not impressed about this proposal
http://www.staffordshirenewsletter....ictoria-park/story-29819655-detail/story.html

It's on the front page of the Express & Star Stafford edition today but I can't seem to find it on their website so apologies for the link above to one of the worst sites I have ever used what with popups and mandatory questionnaires appearing just to read an article!

I think the owner is spot on - the new cafe will be sure to charge a lot more than the current one.

There is an online petition here too but there's only a few votes at the moment:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petiti...me-of-ps2-5-million-on-small-local-play-areas

Does the park need such investment, or "development".
Why's it need such a huge investment, why build new stuff?

Say goodbye now, to those days you'd get a brew in a cup or mug, that's not made of soddin' paper or plastic.
That's progress.

 

[alphagamma]

Why is he 'concerned' about a new aviary? The old one is clearly falling apart & in desperate need of renewal, I'm sure he'd be the first to complain if he turned up one morning to find the pheasants wandering the bowling green. Likewise the Mottram shelter also needs some money thrown at it as a matter of some urgency, or is he implying they should tear it down so the hoodies & pensioners have to find somewhere else to sit?

Seems odd that they want to spend money on restoring the Mottram shelter, when at the same time they're letting a so-called developer demolish Brooklands, which was apparently originally built for another member of the Mottram family, and in good condition?

 

[The truth the whole truth]

They're trying to create a scandal based on the fact they stopped reading the definition of a S106 after the first line.
http://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/planning/planning-applications/what-are-section-106-legal-agreements
The S106 will vary depending on the nature of the development and based on the needs of the District. The most common obligations include:-

Public Open Space
Affordable Housing
Education
Highways
Town centre Improvements

Did you have trouble finding the same information on Stafford BC website ? You opted for a far better district council in Colchester who show where the money has come from and where it has been spent , Ask the same at SBC through FOI no reply

 

[ATJ]

The definition of s106 is in government legislation, as are spending restrictions.

 

[John Marwood]

Each parking space in Stafford worth 878 quid

Internet tax

It's the future

 

[John Marwood]

Who's going to run the new Cafe' SBC?

SercoG4DasCapita


Behindyaback

 

[1JKz]

Waste of time.

 

[Gareth]

Seems odd that they want to spend money on restoring the Mottram shelter, when at the same time they're letting a so-called developer demolish Brooklands, which was apparently originally built for another member of the Mottram family, and in good condition?

as pointless a response as ever. What has one got to do other

 

[alphagamma]

as pointless a response as ever. What has one got to do other

The hint's in the name 'Mottram'.