0 as in 1, you mean, or has he resigned or been sacked? Better let Companies House and the council know, in case they inadvertently give out duff info.
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
So what your thinking is realistically the club only want a new clubhouse and an ATP , they will chance their arm to get everything else or end up with nothing and a 999 lease on a patch of land with a 60 year lifespan ? They have 40 years left on the current lease ! So build a new clubhouse and install your ATP on current site without up heaving some six hundred or so thousands of cubic meters to raise the level so it doesn't flood ? Apparently! , disturbing the balance of mother natures and Staffords flood defences , chopping down trees , disturbing habitats for bats , and other protected species and illuminating it , to satisfy the privaliged membership only sports facility ?
I have never yet been past the current site when all 4 of their existing pitches were in use at once, so goodness knows why they need and are being allowed 7 when the hockey club aren't allowed an artificial pitch on their own grounds that would cause nobody any harm.
0 as in 00 as in 1, you mean, or has he resigned or been sacked? Better let Companies House and the council know, in case they inadvertently give out duff info.
they last posted two hours ago and are probably in bed. Give the lynch mob a rest, eh?Mal?
come on. We all know lizards are cold blooded and need to sleep at nightWell just lean over and give him a nudge then.
I'd like to compare and contrast the ^above statement with the following, re. 'statutory' bodies -What is clear is that the majority of arguments are addressed by statutory consultees whose job it is to review planning applications and ensure they are developed appropriately and conform to relevant regulations. I am sure many disagree with them, but should we not at least consider their professional views.
In both instances, 'statutory consultees' have not actually visited the sites to which they have given their 'statutory' blessing. There are differences, though...As regards the hockey club situation I guess this is complex but the main issue seems to be that Sport England objected
View attachment 2627
Let's say this twice incase it gets missed , let's hope Sport England don't realise a part of a cover up , is this also a slight administration error being corrected in a fresh planning application , even the membership don't realise a senior council officer is a director on the board
.
Are you the new voice of the council, MAL? You're contradicting yourself, so it seems likely. Let's face it, the only reason this application was ever considered is because Lord Sta££ord wants to get richer.
No this shows club will be on the white bit
Currently somewhere in the 300 or so kids play on a Sunday morning. You may consider that bullshit - I tend to think of that as a thriving community sports club. The club provides the only junior rugby club in the town. It also makes this as affordable as possible to be inclusive of all. Any trip down on a Sunday morning will show this is a great cross section of kids.The comparison to Stafford Rangers is not relevant as there are loads of other football fields and I think fair to say the council has been very supportive of football. As regards the hockey club situation I guess this is complex but the main issue seems to be that Sport England objected
I am somewhat surprised that child safety is considered clutching at straws. There are plans to run a bypass though the existing club site, there have been accidents in the past. I agree kids get run over in a variety of places but that is clearly no reason for this risk not to be a concern; especially when cars will be travelling significantly faster than on a car park or a drive.
I am somewhat confused by the comment about those south of the Town Centre. If it is suggesting that you can only cycle to the new club site if South of town centre then that is clearly wrong. The cycle path runs from MOD Stafford which when I last looked could not be considered South of the town
I am obviously not able to comment on the plans for Beaconside but it is very clear that you could not use that site for rugby without developing additional facilities elsewhere. The only site that offers space for 4 pitches and mini / junior pitches is the proposed development. I am sure that there will be sports pitches at Beaconside in the future unless other space is developed. I have no idea what the current plans are.I agree Beaconside should continue as a sports facility to serve those who use it now.