Rugby Club progress...

[Mikinton]

No it's not, that's how spin and marketing works. 80% have not responded does not correlate to 80% opposed. Not that it's relevant anyway but I do hate to see maths and stats misused

Have a read of Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre (or maybe not).

 

[Mikinton]

It could also be said 62905 people in Stafford did not object using that logic ; )

* guessing stafford has about 63000 folks.

I almost suggested that. I got as far as calculating the percentage (99.9%).

Going by PPPPPP's statement "So 80% of club members object to the move?", that'd be around 700 objections. As there were only 98 objections anyway, that'd suggest they call came from rugby club members.

 

[ATJ]

Have a read of Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre (or maybe not).

Already read it

 

[PPPPPP]

79% of statisticians take things too seriously, but the other 34% disagree.

 

[PPPPPP]

Let's see the council wriggle out of this one.


Land at Blackberry Lane, Stafford
Rugby Club
16/23583/FUL
Comments from Biodiversity Officer: 22/03/16
Policies that affect this proposed development:
NPPF (Section 11)
Stafford Borough Council Biodiversity Strategy
Stafford Borough Local Plan - Policy N4, N5
Policy N5 of the Plan for Stafford Borough states,
“Developments likely to affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest will not be
permitted unless the reasons for the development clearly outweigh the nature
conservation value of the site itself and the national policy to safeguard the
national network of such sites. Cumulative effects will also be considered.”
In addition to its SSSI status for wildlife, the semi-natural habitat of Doxey
Marshes is the best preserved area of how Stafford’s surrounding landscape
would have appeared historically, as well as a highly valued greenspace for
people. Reasons for the proposed development do not outweigh the nature
conservation value of the site.
In addition to its own value as habitat, the proposed development site acts as
a buffer zone between the town and the SSSI. If it is developed then it pushes
the buffer zone into the SSSI itself and this effectively reduces the functioning
size of the SSSI. This is surely a significant adverse effect and therefore
reason of its own to refuse the proposal.
The Cumulative Assessment undertaken by TEP does not include the
proposed plans for the Burleyfields area. This large scale housing
development will have a significant effect on green space in western Stafford.
Effectively, the last functioning green corridor to the west of town will be the
Doxey Marshes SSSI. It is essential that the cumulative assessment should
include this information.
I regard to the above, Policy N4 of the Plan for Stafford Borough states that,
“The Borough’s natural environment will be protected, enhanced and
improved.. through appropriate management of… Designated Sites;
Biodiversity Action Plan habitats and species populations; Wildlife Corridors
and Ecological Networks.”
Clearly, the proposed development is not in accord with this policy.
Alternative sites should be considered that are not adjacent to a SSSI – which
leaves many other areas in Stafford as more suitable options.

 

[The truth the whole truth]

Seems a little spring cleaning is happening on the borough councils portal again

 

[captainpish]

Ahh it just some hippy bollox, birds, insects, yadda yadda yadda, stick it in the file labelled "bin" please dave.

 

[captainpish]

Seems a little spring cleaning is happening on the borough councils portal again View attachment 2770

Seems a strange time of the day to be doing some system maintenance? Surely that kind of stuff gets done during the normal working hours by the IT department.

 

[The truth the whole truth]

I have asked before but did you have a location in mind that meets the regulations.

I will take the councils bio diversity opinion as he may be the correct person to rely on here "Alternative sites should be considered that are not adjacent to a SSSI – which
leaves many other areas in Stafford as more suitable options."

 

[PPPPPP]

Seems a strange time of the day to be doing some system maintenance? Surely that kind of stuff gets done during the normal working hours by the IT department.

Obviously, an emergency clear-out before the DCLG heavies arrive and move the council into the Rolf Harris wing.

 

[PPPPPP]

Of course, this was also known a year ago... and check out doc 1874082


Please scan as Biodiversity Officer response to 14/21366. Mark
From: William Waller
Sent: 27 March 2015 09:45
To: Mark Alford
Subject: RE: New Rugby Club site

Mark,
The Wildlife Trust’s full and comprehensive comments on the application are summarised below.
• Lack of information on the status of the site in terms of its potential inclusion in the SSSI and
therefore broader impact on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
• The site being inappropriate for development compared to other land available
• Likely impacts to the SSSI's notified features namely Snipe, as well as other birds that use the SSSI
and the site itself.
• Lack of assessment of other developments regarding cumulative impacts
• The proposals being contrary to policies in The Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 and the Green
Infrastructure Strategy for Stafford.
• The need to clarify in more detail the value of the grassland on site particularly for fungi.
• Lack of figures for the loss and gain of each habitat on the site, the value of these habitats and the
net impact to biodiversity.
• Inadequate avoidance of impacts through the design of the layout.
• Inadequate provision of habitat and species compensation.

If we add to that our own observations listed by you below, then this degree of uncertainty and
lack of information must lead to serious questions over the appropriateness of this application in
its current location. It is my opinion that the questions asked above will not and cannot be
answered satisfactorily and therefore we should refuse this application.

Regards
Bill Waller MSc MCIEEM
Biodiversity & Ecology Officer
Stafford Borough Council

 

[The truth the whole truth]

and in 5 minutes time everything bad would have gone and a rosey application now appears

 

[Sir BoD]

Seems a strange time of the day to be doing some system maintenance? Surely that kind of stuff gets done during the normal working hours by the IT department.

Staff use the system in the day so it makes sense to do maintenance work whilst most are not working.

 

[The Hawk]

From the Biodiversity Officer's comments:

Policy N4 of the Plan for Stafford Borough states that, “The Borough’s natural environment will be protected, enhanced and improved.. through appropriate management of… Designated Sites; Biodiversity Action Plan habitats and species populations; Wildlife Corridors and Ecological Networks.”

Clearly, the proposed development is not in accord with this policy.

That says it all "Clearly, the proposed development is not in accord with this policy."

 

[captainpish]

Staff use the system in the day so it makes sense to do maintenance work whilst most are not working.

Makes sense.

 

[Mikinton]

Seems a strange time of the day to be doing some system maintenance? Surely that kind of stuff gets done during the normal working hours by the IT department.

You wouldn't normally take a production system down during normal working hours except in emergency. Evenings or weekends is the norm, though an 18:00 start on a weekday is a tad early. I used to patch mine between 19:30 and 20:30 to fit in with shift patterns and, strangely, pub opening hours.

Internet systems are a bit different as (unlike, say, corporate payroll systems) they're 24/7 systems. For example at 22:00 you might want to check if you have a bin collection the next day. Downtime between midnight and 6:00am would probably be more appropriate.

Anyway, as you were.

 

[Withnail]

Actually, i think Bill Waller deserves an enormous amount of credit for opposing this in the last round - it is entirely possible that it was not easy for him to be so free with his opposition.

Round Two - ding ding

I'm glad my faith in the Biodiversity Officer was not misplaced - good work that man.

If the report from SWT is, as it should be, seen as the last word on the matter, then this from the Council's own Officer should be seen as its full stop.

But... hold my breath i will not.

 

[markpa12003]

I'm glad my faith in the Biodiversity Officer was not misplaced - good work that man.

If the report from SWT is, as it should be, seen as the last word on the matter, then this from the Council's own Officer should be seen as its full stop.

But... hold my breath i will not.

When determining planning applications the planning officers will have to make a judgement as to whether they think the benefits outweigh the negatives. As such, they can still recommend applications for approval even if aspects of the scheme are not in accordance with policy. Having said this, I would have expected the case officer to request amendments / further supporting information to address the comments made by swt.

 

[james w]

I'm glad my faith in the Biodiversity Officer was not misplaced - good work that man.

If the report from SWT is, as it should be, seen as the last word on the matter, then this from the Council's own Officer should be seen as its full stop.

But... hold my breath i will not.

Has he commented on the latest application? That email is from March last year so I presume it was for previous application.
Would you not have to make your objections known on the present application?
I know it seems farcical as the two are almost the same but if he hasn't objected this time around can the previous comments be considered?

 

[PPPPPP]

Has he commented on the latest application? That email is from March last year so I presume it was for previous application.
Would you not have to make your objections known on the present application?
I know it seems farcical as the two are almost the same but if he hasn't objected this time around can the previous comments be considered?

Look back a few messages, JW.