Bath

If planning is granted, I doubt they'll have much choice. Section 106 of the Planning Act is devised for applicants to have to contribute towards infrastructure elsewhere as a condition of their permission. It could be to build a new roundabout, or water main, or fund a whole new school. It'll be to the discretion of the planning committee and the savvy people acting for Mr Craig to determine how much will be payable.

It's case of words Malco, you say 'explore the possibility' but he used the words 'fight for'.

Quite a difference.

He's talking about fighting for "the best deal for Bath residents".

Not fighting for stiffing the rugby club.

Actually this intervention has raised for me one of the unanswered questions regarding the proposed development, namely what will happen to the stand at the sports centre end. In my opinion, the symmetry of the new arena created but the 3 "new stands", is extremely well designed and I would be surprised if this theme wasn't continued into the final stand in a Phase 2 development in years to come. The existing plans are a bit sketchy as to what that end of the ground will look like in the redevelopment.

This will inevitably involve development of the sports centre, maybe the pavilion and car park etc and who pays for this will certainly become a point of negotiation. It may well be that Bath Rugby and possibly a sponsor for the "new rec" might be involved.

Pure speculation but just a thought

Surely the route for the council receiving further investment to then spend on leisure facilities is to make it part of the planning permission - the old Section 106 arrangement? Since planning hasn't been applied for yet it's a bit early for the council to start negotiating for funds.

Despite Malco's spin I don't think it is a missed opportunity at all, it's just due process of local government which once again is being undermined by someone whose future is in central government.

As ever a Prospective MP speaking for headlines not for the citizens.

As a counter to this I am very pleased there are some deluded souls who still wish to stand for election to serve the nation. Whilst it is easy to mock them, I wouldn't want the job, and looking at the alternatives to an elected government I'll put up with their imperfections.

The big issues surrounding infrastructure around the new arena are going to relate to access and transport. If there is going to be a section 106 attached to planning I think it's very likely that it will relate to these things and not to leisure investment. Leisure investment is an important issue but is something completely separate.

Why stop at Bath Rugby? Why not ask Sainsbury's or Debenhams etc to pay towards city facilities also? After all they are also big companies but dont do anything near as much to give to the community and drum up much needed business for others as much as Bath Rugby do. The whole idea is ridiculous and said to gain column inches only!!

Quote:

malco
The big issues surrounding infrastructure around the new arena are going to relate to access and transport. If there is going to be a section 106 attached to planning I think it's very likely that it will relate to these things and not to leisure investment. Leisure investment is an important issue but is something completely separate.

Agreed. But according to the Chronicle:

He said Bath and North East Somerset Council should ask for funding from the club as part of any planning permission agreement, possibly though a Community Infrastructure Levy arrangement.

Are you saying that's not true, and he didn't say that?

---

Stuart

Former ed.

Ask.

What's wrong with asking?

This doesn't indicate that the rugby club is the only organisation that should be asked.

He is rather unhelpfully adding fuel to the Fiends' assertions that Bath Rugby are going to be knee-deep in profit from the new arena, some of which they ought to cough up for community assets, in the way that supermarkets routinely do these days.

I'd be very surprised if Bath Rugby make as much profit in a year post-redevelopment, as a Tesco would make in a day - but don't let that get in the way of a few votes.

I have some planning progressing at the moment (not in the local area). The conditions on the planning will be access and transport - road alterations and bus stops as well as a 106 for investment into local sporting facilities. So both can be covered and both are part of the local planning process. No need to have early conversations, or agitations from prospective MPs - just let the proper process happen.

I admire your loyalty Malco even though you have not changed my view on what we have read, not easy trying to sit on both sides of this one! Perhaps you should be the candidate.

He would have definitely benefited from a chat with you first Malco to give him some background on the subject rather than alienating a large chunk of electors.

---

Cheers,

Rich

As a floating voter I need to know were this guy stands on the issue of redeveloping the Rec.Does he support it or not we need a straight answer Yes or No.I don't think well get a straight answer but I will give him a clue as to how I will vote if he is seen pandering to Worthy and his mates NO !!!!!!

I'll give you a straight answer. He 100 per cent supports it. The Conservative Group has 100 per cent supported it from the very beginning.

Does he know who is paying for the arena and who will "own" it? I would say that is a pretty big contribution to the sporting scene in Bath Ben Howler has a very active twitter account, he had never tweeted about Bath Rugby until the 24th November, why?
"This is the chap who said his most admired Irish MP was Gerry Adams"
He has obviously been "dumped" in Bath to keep him out of trouble. Last thing we need is some Jonny come lately little kid gobbing off about the club. Does he not realise that Rugby is far more important than politics.

Quote:

malco
Ask.
What's wrong with asking?

This doesn't indicate that the rugby club is the only organisation that should be asked.

If it's part of a section 106 linked to planning it's not "asking" is it? Which other organization is requesting planning?

Sorry Malco, it's admirable that you're trying to defend a fellow Tory, but the guy is clearly suggesting that Bath Rugby should be paying for leisure facilities around the city, and is clearly linking that to the planning process.

That's unacceptable and deeply unhelpful.

---

Stuart

Former ed.

As I understand it S106 agreements and their replacements CIL's (Community Infrastructure Levies) are not a goldmine for councils. They are designed to get a contribution from developers for extra costs incurred due to their developments. So for example if you build 100 houses and that leads to an increased need for school places, the developer can/will be asked to contribute towards school capacity. If a development is likely to lead to traffic congestion then a CIL might be imposed to cover costs of traffic mitigation measures. Building a stadium at the Rec has zero impact on leisure facilities so any attempt to extract a CIL/S106 contribution for that would be misuse of the powers - contribution towards traffic mitigation given the extra numbers there - fine but not for leisure improvements. That would pretty much be down to Bruce to offer as a generous gesture so beyond a casual "Have you though about it Bruce" from the council, there is nothing the council should have done so nothing for "The Gaffer" to comment on!

See this: [www.bathchronicle.co.uk]

Quote:

Bruce Craig
The Rec at the moment turns its back on the city. The buildings, whether we talk of the leisure centre, the permanent stand along the riverside or the antiquated clubhouse, are certainly not in keeping with a world heritage city. On the contrary, they detract from its status as such.
I for one am certainly not proud of the facilities that I have inherited and the people of Bath should expect more.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

Quote:

The Council
It is currently anticipated that the proposals for the resolution of matters relating to the Recreation Ground will require the provision of new leisure facilities.
"Appropriate provision in the capital programme is therefore being made for the proposed investment.

Seems to me that the idea of redeveloping the sports centre has already been considered by both the club and the council without any need for interference from wannabe politicians.

Obviously whether this still fits with the plans is a different question, but there are plenty of reasons why things change...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27/11/2013 14:59 by AnthonyJ.

I think one very important point that all are missing is the negotiation with the Rugby Club was to ensure viability of the Charitable Trust and that the scheme was legally enforceable in Charitable Law. Any dealings with the Coumcil are not included. The trust is now legally separated from the Council under the new scheme.

I do hope that there is all party consensus on the Rugby at the Rec and this IMO ignorant outburst is soon explained or gaffe admitted!

'gaffe admitted'.....let's not hold our collective breath!!