Rugby Club progress...

Withnail

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
Wait a minute, what's that?

allan.jpg


Oh, it's a Lesser Spotted Rugby Club Apologist. Such a dull bird.
 
R

Ron

A few posts under my belt
Well as a very new member to this forum it seems to be that you can't make a couple of points and have a reasoned discussion.

We can all agree that wildlife does not know whether the boundaries exist and we could argue all day on whether the law is right or not. But the law can only be upheld and it would seem in this case that it has so it can't be fought on that point, no matter how much you argue the point. Again, whether that is correct or not is a different argument for a different time.

On the housing point, again more than likely it will be houses, but we don't know that yet, as far as I'm aware anyway and a quick (albeit not thorough) search didn't return anything.

The implication of costing the club £1m in legal fees in conjunction with directives etc. was suing. I will admit the legal process escapes me but that would seem to be the way to me with my limited knowledge.

I am not confusing myself between planning permission and legalities. My point is that several people now with (this is an assumption) far greater knowledge of planning law than anyone of us have said "mistake made, rectified, reapplication fine" including the government department responsible for this.

@proactive actually what I want is an area for my generation and future generations to play sport. Already rowley park 3G took away a field athletics facility, beaconside is going away, we need areas for sport.

@alphagamma two questions to you, having now been back through the thread. The council head of leisure is fair, but if I read correctly he stood down and also has nothing to do with planning applications? Second point, you say welcome back Malron? Can I suggest that it is not beyond the possibility in a town of an estimated 130,000 people that more than one person could support the club?
 
Glam

Glam

Mad Cat Woman
Ron said:
Well as a very new member to this forum it seems to be that you can't make a couple of points and have a reasoned discussion.
Click to expand...
You can, everyone is entitled to argue their side on everything. The Rugby club has got almost everyones backs up, due I believe mainly to where the men with the money want it sited. Those bods don't seem to care that it will be in an area of great importance to wildlife etc.
This is a discussion Forum, a friendly -ish one at times, there is the odd one that pops up occasionally that leans towards the vile side. We all put our views across, some louder than others. Our lovely @Admin must have the patience of a saint, wading thru all the crap that gets posted, and let's be honest, it int very often that he/she/it has pull anyone up about stuff.
 
R

Ron

A few posts under my belt
Glam said:
You can, everyone is entitled to argue their side on everything. The Rugby club has got almost everyones backs up, due I believe mainly to where the men with the money want it sited. Those bods don't seem to care that it will be in an area of great importance to wildlife etc.
This is a discussion Forum, a friendly -ish one at times, there is the odd one that pops up occasionally that leans towards the vile side. We all put our views across, some louder than others. Our lovely @Admin must have the patience of a saint, wading thru all the crap that gets posted, and let's be honest, it int very often that he/she/it has pull anyone up about stuff.
Click to expand...

I know everyone is entitled, it just came across as a bit that's the wrong opinion and you can't have it. It isn't exactly welcoming and encouraging to join in other discussions.

My point on the area is that everyone has followed the law, We can argue all day on whether the law is right or not but boundaries have to put somewhere. There is a difference between following the planning process/planning law and not caring.
 
The Hawk

The Hawk

Well-Known Forumite
Ron said:
I know everyone is entitled, it just came across as a bit that's the wrong opinion and you can't have it. It isn't exactly welcoming and encouraging to join in other discussions.

My point on the area is that everyone has followed the law, We can argue all day on whether the law is right or not but boundaries have to put somewhere. There is a difference between following the planning process/planning law and not caring.
Click to expand...

Firstly, let me, somewhat belatedly, welcome you to the forum. Yes, the discussion may get a bit heated at times, but please do not confuse that with not been able to put across your own views.

However, I still believe you are getting confused between the planning process and the law. The example I referred to related to a sports club that had received planning permission, and they used that fact in their defence but, after it went all the way to the supreme court, they lost the case. Most of the over a million pounds I referred to (and I understand it was not far short of £2 million), refers to the legal costs run up by the sports club in fighting the case.

So I repeat, just because the rugby club has received planning permission does not, in itself, mean that the planned development and activities will be fully compliant with the law / European activities. Indeed, if you followed the actual planning meeting, you will have observed that the meeting did not even discuss much of the detailed arguments put forward and overlooked some of the blatant errors contained within some of the key documents. This should have resulted in the matter being called in by the Secretary of State, but it didn't, which many would put down to political expediency.

So we are where we are and, as I've previously stated, the spotlight will switch, from the Borough Council, to the rugby club, which will come under close scrutiny as it develops, and then uses, the site.
 
proactive

proactive

Enjoying a drop of red.
Ron said:
that's the wrong opinion and you can't have it.
Click to expand...
Well it is the wrong opinion but you are perfectly entitled to put it forward.

I suspect the day everyone on here agrees about everything will be the day the forum closes through lack of interest.

It's still the wrong opinion though ;)

And welcome to the forum :)
 
A

alphagamma

Well-Known Forumite
Ron said:
Well as a very new member to this forum it seems to be that you can't make a couple of points and have a reasoned discussion.

We can all agree that wildlife does not know whether the boundaries exist and we could argue all day on whether the law is right or not. But the law can only be upheld and it would seem in this case that it has so it can't be fought on that point, no matter how much you argue the point. Again, whether that is correct or not is a different argument for a different time.

On the housing point, again more than likely it will be houses, but we don't know that yet, as far as I'm aware anyway and a quick (albeit not thorough) search didn't return anything.

The implication of costing the club £1m in legal fees in conjunction with directives etc. was suing. I will admit the legal process escapes me but that would seem to be the way to me with my limited knowledge.

I am not confusing myself between planning permission and legalities. My point is that several people now with (this is an assumption) far greater knowledge of planning law than anyone of us have said "mistake made, rectified, reapplication fine" including the government department responsible for this.

@proactive actually what I want is an area for my generation and future generations to play sport. Already rowley park 3G took away a field athletics facility, beaconside is going away, we need areas for sport.

@alphagamma two questions to you, having now been back through the thread. The council head of leisure is fair, but if I read correctly he stood down and also has nothing to do with planning applications? Second point, you say welcome back Malron? Can I suggest that it is not beyond the possibility in a town of an estimated 130,000 people that more than one person could support the club?
Click to expand...

So the head of leisure also being a Rug Club director, clearly a against the rules for both, is all right if he steps down a year or two later? If someone robs a bank but eventually gives part of the money back, is that OK, too? You say that he has nothing to do with planning applications? That's even worse, because the person being paid, by us, to promote sport, not just rugby, should be involved when half a million quid of public funding is at stake.
 
kyoto49

kyoto49

Well-Known Forumite
Ron said:
Ummm, I might have missed something on this but given that it wasn't the rugby club that called in the planning application to the Secretary of State or applied for the judicial review then our taxpayers money was actually being wasted (with hindsight) by those that did apply for the JR and SoS review?
Click to expand...

Is taxpayers money being wasted trying to prevent this disgraceful destruction of wonderful natural land enjoyed by everyone and unknown species of non-human life to create an area for the enjoyment of the minority of selfish humans? I'd say thats a f*ckin good use of tax payers money myself.
 
A

alphagamma

Well-Known Forumite
A reliable rumourmonger in Morrisons reckons that destruction of Doxey Marshes will begin next week, 8am sharp. Tie yourself to a tree immediately.
 
c0tt0nt0p

c0tt0nt0p

Well-Known Forumite
alphagamma said:
So the head of leisure also being a Rug Club director, clearly a against the rules for both, is all right if he steps down a year or two later? If someone robs a bank but eventually gives part of the money back, is that OK, too? You say that he has nothing to do with planning applications? That's even worse, because the person being paid, by us, to promote sport, not just rugby, should be involved when half a million quid of public funding is at stake.
Click to expand...
Is it the same Head of Leisure that was eager to refuse access for Stafford cricket and hockey club to build a new hockey pitch on their own land, or am I getting confused with someone/something else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top