51. Light pollution from the floodlights, the car park lights, the street lights down Blackberry Lane, the sodium security lights activated by movement and let’s not forget the 108 cars from only the main car park that will potentially leave the site at night with all of their headlights, not to mention the lights from the clubhouse itself and around the clubhouse, beaming out into what is and should be an intrinsically dark site until at worst 1.30am in the morning. How is this not going to be utterly devastating to the wildlife and numerous protected and other species?
52. Noise pollution – they are not permitting a tannoy system as this would be too intrusive to the wildlife. Can you please explain to anyone, anyone at all, how upwards of 300 people taking into account the 240 seater grandstand, the players, the officials, (my estimate is deliberately conservative) , the constant but intermittent and consequently more obtrusive blowing of a whistle during matches and practice for all the teams attending the site, not just rugby teams – until 10.15pm every night, the car engines starting up and running (196 of them potentially), the coach engines running, not to mention the presumably audible alarm system, will be anything other than highly detrimental to the inherently quiet and peaceful SSSI? And massively disruptive to the estate in such close proximity.
53. Water pollution, no one has satisfactorily answered the question about all of pollutants from the treatment of the pitches, the cars and the ATP building materials themselves. The reason they are avoiding the question is because they will not be able to stop pollution running into the River Sow and the SSSI and they know it!
54. Have the developers been able to finally crack ‘force field’ technology that will stop stray rugby balls from landing in the SSSI? There is no condition on this planet that will stop this, nothing, but once again this is ignored by the applicant and the planning officer.
55. Who will reverse down Blackberry Lane when a car and coach meet? Will it be the vehicle reversing back into the rugby club car park or will it be the vehicle reversing back into Timberfield Road, right by the entrance from what will be the SWAR?
56. Why has the SWAR been wholly ignored by SCC Highways? The works have already started and yet there is absolutely no mention of its impact on the traffic at this location.
57. The applicant’s traffic report is an utter falsehood, and yet the planning officer and SCC Highways allow it to stand without any comment whatsoever, they are colluding in this blatant ‘manipulation’ of the traffic this site will attract.
58. If most participants visiting the site are going to travel by foot, cycle or by public transportation, why is the car park(s) so big? The number has changed a number of times but now stands at 196! Unless it has changed again of course.
59. A developer on a planning committee. Is that prudent?
60. An SBC Councillor, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration who has been attending planning application meetings she had no place being at, in direct contravention of your very own constitution. In fact, in the previous application 14/21366/FUL she attended the second planning meeting and proposed the application for approval. She shouldn’t have even been there on the planning committee, as she wasn’t at the first one! We know this has happened numerous times with other applications, numerous breaches of your very own policies, which are provable.
61. There are now 33 conditions related to this application. We know that SBC will not enforce them, we know this because they have not enforced numerous conditions with regards to other planning applications they have approved and once again, we can prove it.
62. This entire process has been corrupted. It has brought Stafford Borough Council into disrepute.
In summation, this entire application and the preceding one is, has been an utter farce. All the legislation, policies and directives have been ignored by the planning department and senior officers of the Council. I say this, because the planning officer is clearly being directed by powers higher than himself to recommend this application, despite the mountain of legislation that clearly demonstrates it should never have even got this far! I only hope that he is not made a scapegoat for the utter disaster zone that is now clearly emerging as the Planning Department of Stafford Borough Council.
The material planning considerations that are clearly being breached are as follows:
National Planning Policies
Government and Planning inspectorate requirements
Principles of Case Law
Loss of outlook
Highway Issues
Noise or disturbance
Smell and fumes
Nature Conservation – adverse impact
Loss of trees
Financial considerations
How many do you need?
I would like to mention the Biodiversity Officer of Stafford Borough Council, who is to be commended as being the only council officer in this entire process to actually do his job properly. He is, no doubt, under immense pressure and we have the utmost respect for him and his professionalism and for holding steadfastly to his expert opinion. He is the one beacon of light and truth, in this fiasco.
Section 106 monies - we have the FOI information supplied by SBC and yet we are aware of the massive ‘hole’ in the finances of the Section 106 agreements and they are not being recorded fully either. We know that Section 106 monies that have been requested and received are missing from the report entirely. We didn’t have to look far to uncover this information, it was easily found. Most of the Section 106 monies are not being spent on the site that they were requested for, this is in direct contravention of the policy covering Section 106 agreements.
There has been only one EIA requested by the planning department, one in five years! It beggars belief.
Our first JR proves our point, SBC did not want to go to court so submitted to judgment before it went to the High Court and yet here we are again, with a virtually identical application, with, if anything, more issues than the last one.
The Planning Department of SBC is clearly not doing its job, this application and numerous others we have uncovered are rotten to the core. The situation is becoming increasingly alarming, with every new issue we uncover. The objectors clearly know the law better than the planning department. How can this be? You are supposed to apply and uphold all the legislation, policies and your very own TPSB and constitution but you are simply not doing it. Why?
The planning committee members have been misled, the planning committee chairman is misleading the committee members, as have the legal department, and once again we have proof of this. Ignorance of the law, ignoring the law, wilful misinterpretation of the law, unwittingly misinterpreting the law, none of these are a defence, you are still breaking the law. You are paid to know, to apply it. This is a dereliction of duty at best and something very much more sinister at worst.
I have to ponder whom, or what is actually running the planning department of SBC, it clearly isn’t the Head of Planning or even the Chief Executive.
Developers, big business, landowners, external monies, Masonic influence appear to be running the show.
The DCLG have now become involved and hopefully their investigation will expose the truth and answer the questions as to why SBC Planning Department is not serving the needs of Stafford borough and it’s residents lawfully or with due diligence. We would not have won a JR if the legislation in question did not support what we are saying.
We, as members of the public should be able to have confidence and trust in our council and its planning department. This entire process has only served to make me and many, many others seriously doubt the integrity and ability of senior members and officers of the council in relation to planning matters, to view all presented to them objectively without bias or favour. In fact I suggest this whole debacle would be an almost perfect example of how not to do it!
Stafford Borough Council should in all aspects be transparent and beyond reproach, but it is failing miserably in terms of planning on all counts, particularly where developers, landowners, and some of their very own council members are concerned. It appears there is one rule for them and quite another for everyone else.
Staffs Newsletter @StaffsNews
