Woz01 3,589 Posted February 6, 2018 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? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quad 7 Posted February 6, 2018 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 :-( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woz01 3,589 Posted February 6, 2018 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
*JJ 512 Posted February 6, 2018 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
*JJ 512 Posted February 6, 2018 Objection sent, despite the attitude of some like D. Jones who, thankfully, is no relation. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Jones 2,127 Posted February 6, 2018 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brianbuck 928 Posted February 8, 2018 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arnieg 3,648 Posted February 8, 2018 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) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
00000 1,279 Posted February 8, 2018 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
False dawn 2,298 Posted February 8, 2018 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
00000 1,279 Posted February 9, 2018 11 hours ago, False dawn said: 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. Don't think the system allows for that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coventry_Bee 467 Posted February 9, 2018 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. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woz01 3,589 Posted February 9, 2018 Coventry v Birmingham is off due to Leicester P&P and some of the staff being at Simon Steads testimonial. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mac101 1,201 Posted February 9, 2018 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brianbuck 928 Posted February 9, 2018 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites