-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Proposed Change of Use - Stafford Court, Beaconside.
- Thread starter joshua
- Start date
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
What grounds was it rejected on? I find it hard to believe it was fine to cram a load of students in but not asylum seekers.
Mudgie
Well-Known Forumite
The application was recommended for approval by council planning officers ahead of Wednesday’s meeting. Committee members were told there had been no objections raised by statutory consultees, although police recommended the installation of perimeter fencing.
But the committee went against the recommendation and voted to refuse permission for the change of use for reasons including fear of crime and the impact on community cohesion. Seven members voted against the proposal, with two voting in favour and one abstention.
Last edited:
kyoto49
Well-Known Forumite
To be fair students have means, have a purpose to be here, go home for huge swathes of the year, add a huge amount of money to the local economy and there is a reasonable gender balance.
I don't have strong feeling either way on housing asylum seekers, I more take issue with the fact that Serco are profiting from this human misery
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
When I was at staffs uni there was certainly no gender balance! Less than 2% women in the IT degrees and similar in engineering, they'd already shipped most non-male centered courses to Stoke in the mid 90s. They were also usually drunk, lots of drugs etc. too so any 'huge amounts of money' were usually going to the wrong places.To be fair students have means, have a purpose to be here, go home for huge swathes of the year, add a huge amount of money to the local economy and there is a reasonable gender balance.
I don't have strong feeling either way on housing asylum seekers, I more take issue with the fact that Serco are profiting from this human misery
Agree on Serco though.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
A councillor has to consider that his constituents need to vote for him. Actually agreeing to something that large numbers will be unhappy about will not add to his popularity. It may be a better tactic to vote against it, or at least not for it, and then waste public money on an appeal, so that the unelected adjudicator can pass it, without the blame sticking to the councillors.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
This is all about posturing and ass saving on the part of the councillors on the planning committee. By rejecting it at this stage, they can tell their constituents they did their bit too keep the foreign Johnny's away from our Great British town. Knowing full well that their decision will be overruled at a later stage.
But it wasn't their fault so still keep voting for them.
I'm sure I can't be the first person to see that the planning committee, indeed the whole council are a bunch of cnuts.
As for putting up a perimeter fence? Jesus Christ plod really don't have a bloody clue. How do they think people will behave if it looks like they've been sent to a prison? Plod are right on the doorstep anyway if there's any trouble. Oh, but that might mean them actually having to do some work.
But it wasn't their fault so still keep voting for them.
I'm sure I can't be the first person to see that the planning committee, indeed the whole council are a bunch of cnuts.
As for putting up a perimeter fence? Jesus Christ plod really don't have a bloody clue. How do they think people will behave if it looks like they've been sent to a prison? Plod are right on the doorstep anyway if there's any trouble. Oh, but that might mean them actually having to do some work.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
That would be an appropriate campaign slogan.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Unfortunately for poor Theo, the very similar slogan of 'Dangerous, Dim and Distant', has already been registered by Liz Truss for when she becomes 'our' Prime Minister.
gilbert grape
Well-Known Forumite
Meanwhile, over on social media platforms, many of the Stafford public have shown themselves for what they are!
Hardly anything about caring for peoples' welfare and human rights and more about "we don't want them here!" or "we don't want them near our kids!" Almost like they know who will be coming and every single one of them is the same, ie totally different human beings to all of those that live in our town. Despicable views considering how diverse our town already is!
Hardly anything about caring for peoples' welfare and human rights and more about "we don't want them here!" or "we don't want them near our kids!" Almost like they know who will be coming and every single one of them is the same, ie totally different human beings to all of those that live in our town. Despicable views considering how diverse our town already is!
joshua
Well-Known Forumite
Families win battle to stop hundreds of asylum seekers moving into former university accommodation
By Kerry AshdownStaffordPublished: 6 hours agoLast Updated: 3 hours agoFamilies have won their battle to stop hundreds of asylum seekers moving into former university accommodation in Stafford.
Members of the public at the planning meeting
More than 300 objections were put forward in response to the application from Serco, which manages asylum seeker accommodation on behalf of the Home Office.
And there were strong feelings expressed by members of the public as Stafford Borough Council’s planning committee considered the proposals on Wednesday.
Dozens of people packed into a neighbouring room to hear the proceedings, including a number holding up signs saying “Say no to Serco”.
The meeting was briefly paused due to disruption from the public seating area, which included boos, hisses and comments referring to child sex crimes in Telford while a supporter of the application was speaking. A council officer warned that police could be called if there disruption continued.
Up to 481 asylum seekers could have been housed at the former Staffordshire University halls of residence at Weston Road. The proposals earmarked 171 bedrooms for initial accommodation for urgent stays of between three and four weeks’ average, while a further 310 dispersed accommodation bedrooms were intended for single adults for extended periods of months or years.
But residents living near the site feared for the safety of local children as there are three schools nearby. There were also concerns that crime could rise in the area and the facility would put extra strain on local services such as health centres.
Councillor Frances Beatty, who called the application in for consideration, said the concentration of asylum seeker accommodation proposed was “far too dense” for a town of Stafford’s size. She told the committee: “There is no lack of empathy but parents are understandably anxious the way of life of their children will be affected, walking to school or at play.
“There is no indication the local NHS services will have the capacity and specialisms to meet the needs of this population. Our GP surgeries are at full stretch – and there is a national shortage of GPs.”
Members of the public at the planning meeting
Resident Stephen Spinningwin said that the proposal went against human rights. He added: “I don’t think you have the right to treat your residents in this way – go and speak to residents about how worried they are.
“They don’t want to cope with 400 single males who will be able to wander around unhindered. There is a suggestion to build a wall to protect them from local residents and I find that really insulting.”
But Lisa Dysch, who spoke in support of the application, said on-site healthcare would be provided in the initial accommodation section. She added that there would be staff on site 24 hours a day.
“It cannot be denied more facilities like the one we are proposing are required”, she said. “We recognise this is the first time asylum seekers will be accommodated within the borough and understand this has resulted in questions and fears.”
The application was recommended for approval by council planning officers ahead of Wednesday’s meeting. Committee members were told there had been no objections raised by statutory consultees, although police recommended installation of perimeter fencing.
The committee went against the recommendation however and voted to refuse permission for the change of use for reasons including fear of crime and the effect on community cohesion. Seven members voted against the proposal, with two voting in favour and one abstention.
Councillor Carolyn Trowbridge, who proposed the application be refused, said: “I think putting asylum seekers into what is essentially a prison with smaller bedrooms – and definitely less facilities and care than a prison – is disgraceful and Serco should be ashamed for even suggesting this. It would only take one person living in this prison-like complex to kick off to cause huge issues for people already vulnerable.”
Councillor Jill Hood said: “I cannot support this application. I believe it would be inhumane.”
Councillor Marnie Phillips said: “There will be inadequate support services which is only going to be to the detriment of the community. We need to make sure everyone in our community is looked after and I don’t feel this application does that.”
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Makes you proud to live in Stafford.Families win battle to stop hundreds of asylum seekers moving into former university accommodation
By Kerry AshdownStaffordPublished: 6 hours agoLast Updated: 3 hours ago
Families have won their battle to stop hundreds of asylum seekers moving into former university accommodation in Stafford.
Members of the public at the planning meeting
More than 300 objections were put forward in response to the application from Serco, which manages asylum seeker accommodation on behalf of the Home Office.
And there were strong feelings expressed by members of the public as Stafford Borough Council’s planning committee considered the proposals on Wednesday.
Dozens of people packed into a neighbouring room to hear the proceedings, including a number holding up signs saying “Say no to Serco”.
The meeting was briefly paused due to disruption from the public seating area, which included boos, hisses and comments referring to child sex crimes in Telford while a supporter of the application was speaking. A council officer warned that police could be called if there disruption continued.
Up to 481 asylum seekers could have been housed at the former Staffordshire University halls of residence at Weston Road. The proposals earmarked 171 bedrooms for initial accommodation for urgent stays of between three and four weeks’ average, while a further 310 dispersed accommodation bedrooms were intended for single adults for extended periods of months or years.
But residents living near the site feared for the safety of local children as there are three schools nearby. There were also concerns that crime could rise in the area and the facility would put extra strain on local services such as health centres.
Councillor Frances Beatty, who called the application in for consideration, said the concentration of asylum seeker accommodation proposed was “far too dense” for a town of Stafford’s size. She told the committee: “There is no lack of empathy but parents are understandably anxious the way of life of their children will be affected, walking to school or at play.
“There is no indication the local NHS services will have the capacity and specialisms to meet the needs of this population. Our GP surgeries are at full stretch – and there is a national shortage of GPs.”
Members of the public at the planning meeting
Resident Stephen Spinningwin said that the proposal went against human rights. He added: “I don’t think you have the right to treat your residents in this way – go and speak to residents about how worried they are.
“They don’t want to cope with 400 single males who will be able to wander around unhindered. There is a suggestion to build a wall to protect them from local residents and I find that really insulting.”
But Lisa Dysch, who spoke in support of the application, said on-site healthcare would be provided in the initial accommodation section. She added that there would be staff on site 24 hours a day.
“It cannot be denied more facilities like the one we are proposing are required”, she said. “We recognise this is the first time asylum seekers will be accommodated within the borough and understand this has resulted in questions and fears.”
The application was recommended for approval by council planning officers ahead of Wednesday’s meeting. Committee members were told there had been no objections raised by statutory consultees, although police recommended installation of perimeter fencing.
The committee went against the recommendation however and voted to refuse permission for the change of use for reasons including fear of crime and the effect on community cohesion. Seven members voted against the proposal, with two voting in favour and one abstention.
Councillor Carolyn Trowbridge, who proposed the application be refused, said: “I think putting asylum seekers into what is essentially a prison with smaller bedrooms – and definitely less facilities and care than a prison – is disgraceful and Serco should be ashamed for even suggesting this. It would only take one person living in this prison-like complex to kick off to cause huge issues for people already vulnerable.”
Councillor Jill Hood said: “I cannot support this application. I believe it would be inhumane.”
Councillor Marnie Phillips said: “There will be inadequate support services which is only going to be to the detriment of the community. We need to make sure everyone in our community is looked after and I don’t feel this application does that.”
Mudgie
Well-Known Forumite
I can't quite see what the badge is on the black shirt of the grumpy bloke to the right of the first photo.Families win battle to stop hundreds of asylum seekers moving into former university accommodation
By Kerry AshdownStaffordPublished: 6 hours agoLast Updated: 3 hours ago
Families have won their battle to stop hundreds of asylum seekers moving into former university accommodation in Stafford.
Members of the public at the planning meeting
More than 300 objections were put forward in response to the application from Serco, which manages asylum seeker accommodation on behalf of the Home Office.
And there were strong feelings expressed by members of the public as Stafford Borough Council’s planning committee considered the proposals on Wednesday.
Dozens of people packed into a neighbouring room to hear the proceedings, including a number holding up signs saying “Say no to Serco”.
The meeting was briefly paused due to disruption from the public seating area, which included boos, hisses and comments referring to child sex crimes in Telford while a supporter of the application was speaking. A council officer warned that police could be called if there disruption continued.
Up to 481 asylum seekers could have been housed at the former Staffordshire University halls of residence at Weston Road. The proposals earmarked 171 bedrooms for initial accommodation for urgent stays of between three and four weeks’ average, while a further 310 dispersed accommodation bedrooms were intended for single adults for extended periods of months or years.
But residents living near the site feared for the safety of local children as there are three schools nearby. There were also concerns that crime could rise in the area and the facility would put extra strain on local services such as health centres.
Councillor Frances Beatty, who called the application in for consideration, said the concentration of asylum seeker accommodation proposed was “far too dense” for a town of Stafford’s size. She told the committee: “There is no lack of empathy but parents are understandably anxious the way of life of their children will be affected, walking to school or at play.
“There is no indication the local NHS services will have the capacity and specialisms to meet the needs of this population. Our GP surgeries are at full stretch – and there is a national shortage of GPs.”
Members of the public at the planning meeting
Resident Stephen Spinningwin said that the proposal went against human rights. He added: “I don’t think you have the right to treat your residents in this way – go and speak to residents about how worried they are.
“They don’t want to cope with 400 single males who will be able to wander around unhindered. There is a suggestion to build a wall to protect them from local residents and I find that really insulting.”
But Lisa Dysch, who spoke in support of the application, said on-site healthcare would be provided in the initial accommodation section. She added that there would be staff on site 24 hours a day.
“It cannot be denied more facilities like the one we are proposing are required”, she said. “We recognise this is the first time asylum seekers will be accommodated within the borough and understand this has resulted in questions and fears.”
The application was recommended for approval by council planning officers ahead of Wednesday’s meeting. Committee members were told there had been no objections raised by statutory consultees, although police recommended installation of perimeter fencing.
The committee went against the recommendation however and voted to refuse permission for the change of use for reasons including fear of crime and the effect on community cohesion. Seven members voted against the proposal, with two voting in favour and one abstention.
Councillor Carolyn Trowbridge, who proposed the application be refused, said: “I think putting asylum seekers into what is essentially a prison with smaller bedrooms – and definitely less facilities and care than a prison – is disgraceful and Serco should be ashamed for even suggesting this. It would only take one person living in this prison-like complex to kick off to cause huge issues for people already vulnerable.”
Councillor Jill Hood said: “I cannot support this application. I believe it would be inhumane.”
Councillor Marnie Phillips said: “There will be inadequate support services which is only going to be to the detriment of the community. We need to make sure everyone in our community is looked after and I don’t feel this application does that.”
And it looks as if the woman to his right doesn't want to be identified.
Thehooperman
Well-Known Forumite
More importantly where is the question mark on the masked guy's banner?
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
And the e in 'whose'..?
The badge has an 'army look' about it, but I can't make it out either.
Whilst 'No to Serco' is probably a reasonable attitude, in general, this is a fairly despicable display.