Coventry Bees Nl ?

[Quad]

17 minutes ago, Woz01 said:

This is from the Save Cov Speedway statement about the planning application. This could prove key and the group highlighted this section. Ongoing need? Us running would show ongoing need, wouldn't it?

It would but would also show that the 'Bees' have found a suitable place to run! Which is what BE have stated! It's a double edged sword, and I have no clue which is right or wrong, probably exactly what BE want :-(

[Woz01]

41 minutes ago, batters said:

It would but would also show that the 'Bees' have found a suitable place to run! Which is what BE have stated! It's a double edged sword, and I have no clue which is right or wrong, probably exactly what BE want :-(

I like to see them show how its a suitable long term option. A one year deal isn't suitable, owner Mick Horton says it can only be a temporary measure and of course Leicester isn't a replacement for Brandon.  It can't run stox for starters. If both Bees and CoventryStox wasn't running it would be a lot tougher to show the need. 

[*JJ]

9 hours ago, Dave Jones said:

 

Don't bother then, there are plenty of others that will. You won't be missed.

This is nothing to do with Mick Horton he's just" an aside", it's a fight to save the Stadium.

Well, you won't by stabbing Horton in the back - whether he deserves it or not. This seems to me to be major aim of some posters on here, including you.

[*JJ]

Objection sent, despite the attitude of some like D. Jones who, thankfully, is no relation.

[Dave Jones]

28 minutes ago, *JJ said:

Objection sent, despite the attitude of some like D. Jones who, thankfully, is no relation.

You are much too sensitive for this forum.  Thanks for the sending in your objection all the same.

[brianbuck]

Rugby Borough Council's Planning Committee consists of 12 Councillors (6 Conservative, 3 Labour, 2 Lib-Dems and 1 Independent)

An E-Mail to all of these could be useful. They are:

Jill Simpson-Vince (Chairman)  jill.simpson-vince@rugby.gov.uk                

Julie A'Barrow julie.abarrow@rugby.gov.uk

Tina Avis  tina.avis@rugby.gov.uk

Kieren Brown   kieren.brown@rugby.gov.uk

Peter Butlin   peter.butlin@rugby.gov.uk

David Cranham    david.cranham@rugby.gov.uk

David Ellis  david.ellis@rugby.gov.uk

Tony Gillias   anthony.gillias@rugby.gov.uk

Kathryn Lawrence  kathryn.lawrence@rugby.gov.uk

Bill Lewis  bill.lewis@rugby.gov.uk

Neil Sandison   neil.sandison@rugby.gov.uk

Ramesh Srivastava   ramesh.srivastava

 

[arnieg]

20 minutes ago, brianbuck said:

Rugby Borough Council's Planning Committee consists of 12 Councillors (6 Conservative, 3 Labour, 2 Lib-Dems and 1 Independent)

An E-Mail to all of these could be useful. They are:

Jill Simpson-Vince (Chairman)  jill.simpson-vince@rugby.gov.uk                

Julie A'Barrow julie.abarrow@rugby.gov.uk

Tina Avis  tina.avis@rugby.gov.uk

Kieren Brown   kieren.brown@rugby.gov.uk

Peter Butlin   peter.butlin@rugby.gov.uk

David Cranham    david.cranham@rugby.gov.uk

David Ellis  david.ellis@rugby.gov.uk

Tony Gillias   anthony.gillias@rugby.gov.uk

Kathryn Lawrence  kathryn.lawrence@rugby.gov.uk

Bill Lewis  bill.lewis@rugby.gov.uk

Neil Sandison   neil.sandison@rugby.gov.uk

Ramesh Srivastava   ramesh.srivastava

 

I would send objections to the council now, but hold off on e-mails to councillors until there is a date for consideration of the application and an officer's report to comment on (that could easily be a couple of months away - ask the planning officers when it is likely to be scheduled for).

I would imagine that Tony Gillias will not sit on this one!

For now I'd try and engage councillors in the wider issues of Coventry Bees survival (e.g. finding new sites) and keeping the councillors for Brandon itself up to date on developments. (Watch out for changes to the original application prior to determination by the planning committee)

[False dawn]

7 hours ago, Richard Weston said:

Tony Gillias will have to declare an interest in this one, without doubt. Really, he should also leave the room when the matter is discussed.

However, some councils, on some occasions, allow councillors to remain within the room during the discussion, as long as they don't speak.

It would, in my opinion, in such a highly-charged issue be best for Mr Gillias to declare his interest, withdraw from the room and have a cup of tea.

Surely Tony should be viewed as an "expert witness" in this discussion. Most, if not all, of the other councillors will have no knowledge of the speedway tradition at Brandon first hand. He can declare a vested interest and provide input to the discussion on that basis.

[Coventry_Bee]

Well, the Speedway star was a good this week. I must say I always thought Peter Oakes was good but this was brilliant !

Puts a few questions out there and someone has given out far too much information, A good job that the committee seem to be on the ball and the hours of work behind the scenes are starting to come out.

keep up the great work and I wouldn't be surprised if they have another ace or two to play yet.

 

 

[Woz01]

Coventry v Birmingham is off due to Leicester P&P and some of the staff being at Simon Steads testimonial.

[mac101]

1 hour ago, Woz01 said:

Coventry v Birmingham is off due to Leicester P&P and some of the staff being at Simon Steads testimonial.

Que the MH vultures lol 

[brianbuck]

Tony Gillias will have to declare and interest and withdraw from the Planning Committee meeting as also will any other Councillor who has publicly stated that he/she either supports or opposes the application. Having said this though, it would be naive to imagine that the matter will not be discussed in private by the members of the committee. The majority will probably have little or no knowledge of speedway, so that is where Mr Gillias will be invaluable.

I can only quote from my experience from Birmingham City Council's Planning Committee rules, but presumably these rules apply to all Councils.

Come the day of the meeting, the applicant and an objector will be allowed three minutes to address the committee. The applicant has to speak first, so this will be to our advantage (it wasn't in the case of Birmingham because the objector was able to make all sorts of outlandish claims which we couldn't answer because we had already used our three minutes - which does highlight the unfairness of the system) Three minutes means three minutes so if more than one objector wants to speak then the three minutes has to be shared.

[Woz01]

1 hour ago, mac101 said:

Que the MH vultures lol 

To be fair though I'd understand concerns after what happened last winter. However this seems to be something beyond Coventrys control, these things will happen when we are borrowing a stadium from another promotion.

[arnieg]

Most councils allow more public participation than Rugby, but them's the rules we have to work with.

I think the committee members will be more inclined to listen to someone who lives in Brandon or Binley Woods.

[silverrocket]

14 hours ago, Richard Weston said:

Yes, Brian, that is my experience, as I outlined. It may, from a speedway viewpoint seem unfair, but the rules are there to be fair to all sides (spit as much as you like at this point).

If Tony were found to have any influence in the decision, that would be disastrous for speedway.

The other thing people must remember is that a planning committee is a meeting in public; not a public meeting.

As you rightly say, public speaking at such meetings is strictly limited and once the period of public speaking is up, there is no comeback on any subsequent remarks. Even the right to public speaking can be withdrawn.

I think some of you will be shocked to see what I and Brian and written but this is the real world. 

The other problem the speedway community has, is that there is a lack of housing in this country. Whether that is true is Rugby district I do not know.

However, I note the application has a high proportion of social housing which, if this application were in Sussex, the council would bite the developer's hand off.

I don't want to sound negative but history tells us when it is housing v speedway stadium, it is often housing that wins.

Rugbys local plan has been done and the quota of houses needed has been fulfilled.No need for anymore houses.

[brianbuck]

Based on all the evidence seen so far, it seems highly likely that Rugby Council will reject the application, but no one should get the idea that Brandon Estates will then go away with their tails between their legs. They won't, they will come back with repeated applications and will eventually go the Planning Inspector to appeal. The Planning Inspector will be one based 100's of miles away (in Bristol in Cradley Heath's case) who will know nothing of local feeling against the loss of the stadium - so this is where the REAL battle will have to be fought.

I don't believe that this is a lost cause by any means, but we mustn't be lulled into thinking that because we have lodged our individual objections that there is nothing more that we can do.

[naffer]

7 hours ago, silverrocket said:

Rugbys local plan has been done and the quota of houses needed has been fulfilled.No need for anymore houses.

 I am sure you are right there is a new town/village being built at Crick and several  large developments at  Dunchurch and Cawston.

 

[Woz01]

10 hours ago, adonis said:

and of course the upside is , showing how sharing is unviable long term , unable to run the very fist meeting because of a clash with the parent club , you could say it's a good thing 

 

This is actually a very good point.

[Booey boy]

On 09/02/2018 at 7:33 PM, Richard Weston said:

Yes, Brian, that is my experience, as I outlined. It may, from a speedway viewpoint seem unfair, but the rules are there to be fair to all sides (spit as much as you like at this point).

If Tony were found to have any influence in the decision, that would be disastrous for speedway.

The other thing people must remember is that a planning committee is a meeting in public; not a public meeting.

As you rightly say, public speaking at such meetings is strictly limited and once the period of public speaking is up, there is no comeback on any subsequent remarks. Even the right to public speaking can be withdrawn.

I think some of you will be shocked to see what I and Brian and written but this is the real world. 

The other problem the speedway community has, is that there is a lack of housing in this country. Whether that is true is Rugby district I do not know.

However, I note the application has a high proportion of social housing which, if this application were in Sussex, the council would bite the developer's hand off.

I don't want to sound negative but history tells us when it is housing v speedway stadium, it is often housing that wins.

There is a lot of houses being built in the Rugby area a new town is being built on the old BT site 6.000 houses I believe schools and all the inferstructer Houlton I tphink it is called

 

On 22/01/2018 at 9:23 PM, sugarray said:

 

 

[greyhoundp]

I must admit im not overly familiar with the whole Brandon site, would it not be worth talking with the owners, and Council to see if modified plans could be drawn up, where both houses and a smaller basic stadium could be included, something similar to the Swindon proposals, keep the Track, but have a spectator area catering for about 2500.