Rugby Club progress...

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
Of course it is to do with future of the club. Better facilities in a better location will bring reward in their eyes, why else do it? My understanding they will owe their own facilities and land which is something they currently cannot claim.

If the landlord were to kick them off they are homeless. Look at the situation with Stafford Hockey Club.

This for them is home, they submitted their plans all legal and above board. The only question is to do with the application decision and process which YOUR elected officials undertook.

You can have all the JRs you want, save your breathe and money this will legally get passed by the highest bodies in the land, I hate to say. The government are cutting through swathes of countryside and ancient woodland, they won't care about someone building on wasteland, which is what doxey marshes is ( ugly).

More to the point in a couple of years time the electorate will shame themselves to be the hypocrites they tend to show they are when they use the facilities and wonder what all the fuss was for. Just as they did in Leek 5 years ago with the historic roundabout and new Sainsburys. All much ado about nothing, move on with your lives, as much as I would not want this it is no longer worth the time of day.

Are you related in any way ? To the chair I wonder ? You sit on fence then jump over then back again ? Just curious
 
Last edited:

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
True. Even with the stiff opposition she has amongst her fellow councillors, she manages to shine bright as a beacon of stupidity and self-interest.

Wasn't she the one on the Health Scrutiny Committee who had never even read the documents describing what they were supposed to be doing at the time when the hospital was falling apart?
 

MAL

Disabled account
So, @MAL , any comment on the SWT report?
I have been away and then somewhat busy so apologies for slow reply. I have several comments on the SWT report too many to put on this forum.

I am delighted that it confirms the notion (which has been previously dismissed here) that nearly 3Ha (aprox 7 acres or 4 rugby pitches) will be improved for the SSSI and SSSI species. This will have a good beneficial effect on the amount of wetland area. I disagree on the effects on the Grassland which will remain as pitches. This has minimal effect in supporting SSSI species. Changes here will have very little effect on the ecological value of the grassland. Construction etc will be covered by construction method statements etc which will minimise the effects over this time. I do wonder if houses who constructed extensions to gardens etc were mindful of these things given their apparent interest in ecology. As regards timing and dating of reports there is no suggestion that the character of the site and its ecology have changed materially in 12 months, and regular monitoring suggested no major change, so using existing reports seems very reasonable.

Comments regarding EIA etc are for the council. Effects within the SSSI are dealt with by Natural England - they are more qualified than me.
 

MAL

Disabled account
I make no apologies for quoting this excellent response in full. It was submitted on 26 March 2016:

N.B. It is so detailed I will have to spread it over two posts.

Part 1 of 2


Part 2 below
It is interesting to note that in writing this no mention is made of Blackberry Lane and the fact that it was not flooded this week. Also probably worthy of note that the River Sow does not adjoin the site in any way either at the overflow car park or anywhere. Both facts which would be useful
 

proactive

Enjoying a drop of red.
Wasn't she the one on the Health Scrutiny Committee who had never even read the documents describing what they were supposed to be doing at the time when the hospital was falling apart?
I believe that was Ann Edgeller.
 

MAL

Disabled account
I think my points on this thread are now done. I have tried to answer questions though I realise some feel I have not. We will see what the next series of legal challenges does. It seems some people are prepared to invest a lot of their time and other peoples money to deny the town the opportunity for a great facility. They claim to be pro rugby yet try and post every anti rugby story as part of their campaign. Adiós amigos
 

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
image.jpeg
image.jpeg


Footpath 45 stile wellies required After 25mm of rain thanks to other forumites for photos , and the sluice gates have been altered last week to divert water elsewhere on the marshes ? I wonder why
image.jpeg
 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
I have been away and then somewhat busy so apologies for slow reply. I have several comments on the SWT report too many to put on this forum.

I am delighted that it confirms the notion (which has been previously dismissed here) that nearly 3Ha (aprox 7 acres or 4 rugby pitches) will be improved for the SSSI and SSSI species. This will have a good beneficial effect on the amount of wetland area. I disagree on the effects on the Grassland which will remain as pitches. This has minimal effect in supporting SSSI species. Changes here will have very little effect on the ecological value of the grassland. Construction etc will be covered by construction method statements etc which will minimise the effects over this time. I do wonder if houses who constructed extensions to gardens etc were mindful of these things given their apparent interest in ecology. As regards timing and dating of reports there is no suggestion that the character of the site and its ecology have changed materially in 12 months, and regular monitoring suggested no major change, so using existing reports seems very reasonable.

Comments regarding EIA etc are for the council. Effects within the SSSI are dealt with by Natural England - they are more qualified than me.


Been busy? Catching up with the development company you forgot you had, maybe?

First you disagree with the expert view on grasslands, SSSI species, ecology of garden extensions, then you admit that Natural England is more qualified than you, yet you still don't acknowledge that NE couldn't comment on local issues and referred to the SWT consultation.
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
The SWT statement about floodlights was interesting, seems you can't play official matches as they are too dim, but if they were any brighter it would have produced a very different light pollution report.

I'm sure they'll just replace them with brighter ones and to hell with the wildlife, they don't give a shit.
 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
I think my points on this thread are now done. I have tried to answer questions though I realise some feel I have not. We will see what the next series of legal challenges does. It seems some people are prepared to invest a lot of their time and other peoples money to deny the town the opportunity for a great facility. They claim to be pro rugby yet try and post every anti rugby story as part of their campaign. Adiós amigos

We don't know who's paying the company handling the application, but the money being wasted is taxpayer funds diverted to the borough council, plus anything handed out by SportEngland and the MoD.
 

captainpish

Well-Known Forumite
I think my points on this thread are now done. I have tried to answer questions though I realise some feel I have not. We will see what the next series of legal challenges does. It seems some people are prepared to invest a lot of their time and other peoples money to deny the town the opportunity for a great facility. They claim to be pro rugby yet try and post every anti rugby story as part of their campaign. Adiós amigos
But the facility is not for the town as you say, it's for rugby players and that's a very very small demographic of the town. You can't just say it's for the town and make people feel like they are denying everybody in Stafford a facility to change people's opinions. It's for a small minority and that is all.
 

basil

don't mention the blinds
But the facility is not for the town as you say, it's for rugby players and that's a very very small demographic of the town. You can't just say it's for the town and make people feel like they are denying everybody in Stafford a facility to change people's opinions. It's for a small minority and that is all.


Are we now into Minority Bashing ?.........
 

Sir BoD

Well-Known Forumite
But the facility is not for the town as you say, it's for rugby players and that's a very very small demographic of the town. You can't just say it's for the town and make people feel like they are denying everybody in Stafford a facility to change people's opinions. It's for a small minority and that is all.
Also saying that "some people are prepared to invest a lot of their time and other peoples money to deny the town the opportunity for a great facility" is s straw man argument. I have not seen / read or heard of anybody not wanting the rugby club to have bigger and better facilities. I just find it extremely difficult to believe that ALL other possible sites have been exhausted and that it's only pure coincidence that Lord Stafford happens to own both pieces of land.

I absolutely love rugby to bits, and this proposed development would bring it closer to where I live, so you'd think I would be all for it, and I am. But not at the expense of the only part of central Stafford that offers such a large array of natural wildlife, flora and fauna. The decision of those councillors who backed this sickens me to the core, however, before I pour scorn over Mrs. Baron, I'd like to know her reasons why she decided to abstain. Do we get to know the reasoning for the decisions made?
 

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
The SWT statement about floodlights was interesting, seems you can't play official matches as they are too dim, but if they were any brighter it would have produced a very different light pollution report.

I'm sure they'll just replace them with brighter ones and to hell with the wildlife, they don't give a shit.
Maybe, but illuminating official matches won't be all the floodlights are used for. Evening training is an obvious one, and I guess they'll switch them on towards the end of afternoon games in December and January.
 
Top