C'mon you Shrimpers
Manager
probably the most important planning decision since the remodelling of Vic Avenue and Vic Circus inn the late 60s only this is a good plan IMHO.
It's hardly confidential, if Ms Mulroney has told the BBC ?Confidentiality agreement? and it is only a "PROVISIONAL" date/meeting at the moment.
Link to meeting info
Link
I was referring to why Ron Martin did not mention the date of the 25th October in his Zoom meeting on Thursday which was before it went public by Ms Mulroney on Saturday morning.It's hardly confidential, if Ms Mulroney has told the BBC ?
Yes, the full agenda will include all of the reports.Thanks Cockle43. Can you confirm that the officer's report will be published on line when the agenda is made public as usually happens. Just saying this as i think it is likely to be a very very long and thorough read.
That was probably because Councillors received notification very late Thursday afternoon so Ron probably couldn't be sure that it was in the public domain at that point.I was referring to why Ron Martin did not mention the date of the 25th October in his Zoom meeting on Thursday which was before it went public by Ms Mulroney on Saturday morning.
I am in a position to confirm that the two items on the agenda will be Fossetts/Stadium and the redevelopment of Roots Hall. I have cleared that with the Principal Democratic Services Officer.
If DCC approves then there is still the strong possibility of the Secretary of State calling it in, this happened with previous application, 2008?, when SoS called in and then approved.
If DCC rejects application then Club/RM can go to appeal; if he/Club wins then SBC are responsible for all their costs, this can be very expensive so is not something done lightly, or at least shouldn't be...
The reason the meeting is down as provisional is procedural in that the Planning Officers reports to DCC have not yet been signed off for publication, it is unlikely that there will be further delay but one can never be certain in these situations.
Given the amount of time and discussion that has gone on over these reports and submissions I would suggest that they are probably about as squeaky clean as it is possible to be and that the Planning officer's recommendations to DCC will also be very sound.
Incidentally, any Councillor who is a season ticket holder, holds SUFC shares or is a regular attender at games is disbarred from voting on the matter and I'll explain below.
Such matters of bias or pre-determination are taken very seriously and this is the guidance issued to Councillors for their conduct in this matter by the Executive Director for Legal and Democratic Services, aka the Borough Solicitor:-
I need to repeat advice I have given previously about Interests:
I would also mention the subject of Predetermination and Bias:
- Councillors who are SUFC season ticket holders will have a disqualifying non-pecuniary interest in matters directly relating to SUFC. In my view this applies to the applications referred to above since they are directly related to SUFC’s plans for a new stadium at Fossetts Farm and the redevelopment of the existing stadium at Roots Hall. This will necessitate withdrawing from DCC while the applications are considered.
- A councillor who is a very regular attender at SUFC matches will be in the same position as a season ticket holder;
- Of course, a councillor could have an interest in either application for other reasons (e.g. as a shareholder of SUFC, or living in close proximity to Roots Hall or Fossetts Farm) and I will be pleased to give individual advice if required.
Statements of predisposition towards a particular outcome will not disqualify. However, it is better for members of DCC to be on the safe side and not make statements in advance about the acceptability or otherwise of a planning application.'
- Members of DCC need to avoid any appearance of bias or having predetermined views when making a decision on a planning application.
- They must consider all material planning considerations, including representations received, before making a decision.
- A member of DCC who makes a definitive statement in advance of DCC that they will approve or refuse an application indicates they have a closed mind and so should not participate in the decision-making.
This guidance was also issued before the subject coming up in the Full Council meeting back in last December which is why I, and several others, had to leave the Teams call while the matter was discussed. Such things are normal process and if you have attended any meetings you will have seen members declaring their interests before a meeting, or even during it if something is mentioned in which they might have an interest.
Just one further clarification. DCC only determines planning and will approve or reject on clearly defined planning matters only, nothing else. The financials, etc., to date were dealt with at the Council meeting last December because that is a Council function not a planning function, DCC is where the planning bit is decided.
Hope that helps and, as you will appreciate, that is about as far as I can comment, at least for the time being.
oh right. With you !I was referring to why Ron Martin did not mention the date of the 25th October in his Zoom meeting on Thursday which was before it went public by Ms Mulroney on Saturday morning.
I am in a position to confirm that the two items on the agenda will be Fossetts/Stadium and the redevelopment of Roots Hall. I have cleared that with the Principal Democratic Services Officer.
If DCC approves then there is still the strong possibility of the Secretary of State calling it in, this happened with previous application, 2008?, when SoS called in and then approved.
If DCC rejects application then Club/RM can go to appeal; if he/Club wins then SBC are responsible for all their costs, this can be very expensive so is not something done lightly, or at least shouldn't be...
The reason the meeting is down as provisional is procedural in that the Planning Officers reports to DCC have not yet been signed off for publication, it is unlikely that there will be further delay but one can never be certain in these situations.
Given the amount of time and discussion that has gone on over these reports and submissions I would suggest that they are probably about as squeaky clean as it is possible to be and that the Planning officer's recommendations to DCC will also be very sound.
Incidentally, any Councillor who is a season ticket holder, holds SUFC shares or is a regular attender at games is disbarred from voting on the matter and I'll explain below.
Such matters of bias or pre-determination are taken very seriously and this is the guidance issued to Councillors for their conduct in this matter by the Executive Director for Legal and Democratic Services, aka the Borough Solicitor:-
I need to repeat advice I have given previously about Interests:
I would also mention the subject of Predetermination and Bias:
- Councillors who are SUFC season ticket holders will have a disqualifying non-pecuniary interest in matters directly relating to SUFC. In my view this applies to the applications referred to above since they are directly related to SUFC’s plans for a new stadium at Fossetts Farm and the redevelopment of the existing stadium at Roots Hall. This will necessitate withdrawing from DCC while the applications are considered.
- A councillor who is a very regular attender at SUFC matches will be in the same position as a season ticket holder;
- Of course, a councillor could have an interest in either application for other reasons (e.g. as a shareholder of SUFC, or living in close proximity to Roots Hall or Fossetts Farm) and I will be pleased to give individual advice if required.
Statements of predisposition towards a particular outcome will not disqualify. However, it is better for members of DCC to be on the safe side and not make statements in advance about the acceptability or otherwise of a planning application.'
- Members of DCC need to avoid any appearance of bias or having predetermined views when making a decision on a planning application.
- They must consider all material planning considerations, including representations received, before making a decision.
- A member of DCC who makes a definitive statement in advance of DCC that they will approve or refuse an application indicates they have a closed mind and so should not participate in the decision-making.
This guidance was also issued before the subject coming up in the Full Council meeting back in last December which is why I, and several others, had to leave the Teams call while the matter was discussed. Such things are normal process and if you have attended any meetings you will have seen members declaring their interests before a meeting, or even during it if something is mentioned in which they might have an interest.
Just one further clarification. DCC only determines planning and will approve or reject on clearly defined planning matters only, nothing else. The financials, etc., to date were dealt with at the Council meeting last December because that is a Council function not a planning function, DCC is where the planning bit is decided.
Hope that helps and, as you will appreciate, that is about as far as I can comment, at least for the time being.
I’m still waiting for a response to a question about whether the plans have to go to full council, but if they do, I think the councils involvement with both developments, the need to achieve Government housing targets and not least the financial benefits from the applications should help persuade the majority of councillors to vote for it’s approval.When it goes to the full council there are a few councillors who are Blues season card or share holders who won't be able to cast a vote. Hope there will still be a majority in favour of the project despite this. Nothing is certain though.
I think the council want and need the houses/flats as much as RM , so I don't really see a stumbling block there.When it goes to the full council there are a few councillors who are Blues season card or share holders who won't be able to cast a vote. Hope there will still be a majority in favour of the project despite this. Nothing is certain though.
Nick I was going to let this ride but a serious professional football club which I hope we are needs quality facilities. Roots Hall does not provide these. The training ground is limited. Every time I drive past the Amex on the A27 I am jealous and very ****ed off. I remember watching us play Brighton at the Withdean which is a bit like Southchurch park. Dreadful times for Brighton and their fans. Look at them now.Boring ? does anyone really care anymore?
FF is tarnished, it has cost us our league status and we are stuck with a chairman who has to see this as his swan song.
What does where we play have to do with the embarrassing position our club is in?
All I care about is the football and that can be played at Chawkwell or Southchurch park for all I care as long as we all have a team to be proud of....
I think the council want and need the houses/flats as much as RM , so I don't really see a stumbling block there.
With it taking so long, surely every stone has been left unturned to ensure all planning regulations have been met to everybody’s satisfaction. The clubs collaboration with a now more cooperative council who can see greater benefits from both these applications compared to past ones, and the need for a positive outcome, will surely mean the planning officers report should only be presented with a recommendation for approval.So long as the plans meet whatever the development rules are.
I am in a position to confirm that the two items on the agenda will be Fossetts/Stadium and the redevelopment of Roots Hall. I have cleared that with the Principal Democratic Services Officer.
If DCC approves then there is still the strong possibility of the Secretary of State calling it in, this happened with previous application, 2008?, when SoS called in and then approved.
If DCC rejects application then Club/RM can go to appeal; if he/Club wins then SBC are responsible for all their costs, this can be very expensive so is not something done lightly, or at least shouldn't be...
The reason the meeting is down as provisional is procedural in that the Planning Officers reports to DCC have not yet been signed off for publication, it is unlikely that there will be further delay but one can never be certain in these situations.
Given the amount of time and discussion that has gone on over these reports and submissions I would suggest that they are probably about as squeaky clean as it is possible to be and that the Planning officer's recommendations to DCC will also be very sound.
Incidentally, any Councillor who is a season ticket holder, holds SUFC shares or is a regular attender at games is disbarred from voting on the matter and I'll explain below.
Such matters of bias or pre-determination are taken very seriously and this is the guidance issued to Councillors for their conduct in this matter by the Executive Director for Legal and Democratic Services, aka the Borough Solicitor:-
I need to repeat advice I have given previously about Interests:
I would also mention the subject of Predetermination and Bias:
- Councillors who are SUFC season ticket holders will have a disqualifying non-pecuniary interest in matters directly relating to SUFC. In my view this applies to the applications referred to above since they are directly related to SUFC’s plans for a new stadium at Fossetts Farm and the redevelopment of the existing stadium at Roots Hall. This will necessitate withdrawing from DCC while the applications are considered.
- A councillor who is a very regular attender at SUFC matches will be in the same position as a season ticket holder;
- Of course, a councillor could have an interest in either application for other reasons (e.g. as a shareholder of SUFC, or living in close proximity to Roots Hall or Fossetts Farm) and I will be pleased to give individual advice if required.
Statements of predisposition towards a particular outcome will not disqualify. However, it is better for members of DCC to be on the safe side and not make statements in advance about the acceptability or otherwise of a planning application.'
- Members of DCC need to avoid any appearance of bias or having predetermined views when making a decision on a planning application.
- They must consider all material planning considerations, including representations received, before making a decision.
- A member of DCC who makes a definitive statement in advance of DCC that they will approve or refuse an application indicates they have a closed mind and so should not participate in the decision-making.
This guidance was also issued before the subject coming up in the Full Council meeting back in last December which is why I, and several others, had to leave the Teams call while the matter was discussed. Such things are normal process and if you have attended any meetings you will have seen members declaring their interests before a meeting, or even during it if something is mentioned in which they might have an interest.
Just one further clarification. DCC only determines planning and will approve or reject on clearly defined planning matters only, nothing else. The financials, etc., to date were dealt with at the Council meeting last December because that is a Council function not a planning function, DCC is where the planning bit is decided.
Hope that helps and, as you will appreciate, that is about as far as I can comment, at least for the time being.
Agreed, when I worked as a local authority planning officer, if members overturned an officer's professional recommendation the officers who made the recommendation could not then be asked to fight the appeal on behalf of the council - the onus was on the councillors themselves!The critical thing for me is the officers' report. If they recommend approval then usually councillors will agree as it means all the planning regs etc have been met. Agenda usually is a week before.
If anyone well behaved and supportive of the stadium could get to the Civic Centre for the meeting and get into the public gallery then that will hopefully help negate any NIMBYs or diehard ‘Roots Hall Only’ Shrimpers who may be planning to turn up!Is there anything that fans can do to help get positive votes from Councillors?