Politicians get involved in Rec plans

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Electoral suicide, a naïve idiot from London who is known as "gaffe prone" He spent a whole 2 weeks in Bath campaigning- should of spent some of that time on understanding the city.
When people tell me that people must be forced to do something I tend stop listening to them.
Post 2015 election he will be moving on.

"Ben, who has already been out canvassing in the city, said he will also be campaigning to protect grammar schools, open more free schools and improve the standards and status of higher and further education"
Grammar schools!!

Nothing to worry about, are there any Tory voters left?

Never been a fan of "blow ins" and this guy is shaping up to harden my views on them. The big problem they face is that they get selected with zero local profile and then feel they have to start making comments to get themselves media time. However they've not been here long enough to understand what they are talking about. He could really do with a very good local "handler" to keep him on message. Appearing to attack Bath Rugby is probably not a statistically good career move where the balance of those supporting and those anti (as opposed to couldn't care less) is rather one sided!

Can anyone shed any light on why he says Bruce should shell out for facilities around Bath which are nothing to do with the rugby club, the Rec or himself?

Because he want votes.

Stuart

Former ed.

But surely he must be trying to justify that argument in some way, he won't be saying that to the media will he!

He's probably been told that the Rec is a Charitable Trust, and thinks that, to compensate, Bath should be paying for facilities to make up for the space. What he obviously doesn't know, if so, is the details of the swap.

Politicans not noted for their intelligents, lowest of the low IMHO

What probably happened is that he went along to one of the display things, someone having a bit of a grump said Bath Rugby should do something about the awful Sports Centre, and before you can say 2+2=5 we've got Bath Rugby contributing to the leisure facilities despite not actually impacting on them which is the general premise of what used to be S106 payments now called Community Infrastructure Levies.

Like a number of consultants, not knowing much about the subject won't stop him trying to sound authoritative about it.

The danger is that with the Lib Dem's popularity bumping along the the floor, and Don 'where's my ermine?' Foster reportedly unlikely to stand again, the seat could be a shoe-in for the Tories. It was for quite a number of years, after all.

So this guy may be a plank and Osborne toadey, but we need him onside.

The Chron gives a little more background and basically he full of bovine extraction. Incidentally he was chair of the "Conservative Future" (aka young Tories), he won on the princely sum of 369 votes out of a membership of 18,000 (votes cast 629). He won the Bath selection with 124 votes on the first ballot. The LD majority is 11,883.
I will never complain about the unions voting systems again!

I find it hard to believe that people who are annoyed at the LibDems for going along too far with Tory plans are going to switch from Tory lite to Tory Gold although its possible. It does also depend on who the LibDems pick to replace Don although they keep saying that he has no plans to retire. My money is on him standing down and a similar career candidate being put up.

How to ingratiate yourself with the majroity of the people of Bath in one fell swoop.

I bet he was caught out canvassing Worthy, who then revealed his comments to the press.

WestonDave, the situation may be that a lot of people who voted LibDem tactically believing Foster to be a decent man will revert to their true allegiances, such is the disgust at his claiming one position then adopting another. That could significantly evaporate his majority. And once the Tories smell blood they'll be sure to up their game. After all, no-one thought Foster could usurp Patten in 92. But such was the dislike of the Tories that he managed it with, if I remember correctly, a three thousand majority.

It could easily happen again. But this time in reverse.

Ben Howlett has been misquoted.

As I understand it, the point he was making was that the Council had missed an opportunity by not having negotiations with the club to contribute to improved leisure facilities around the city earlier in the process.

He has not said that the Council should try to force the club to do anything and he has not specifically cited the leisure centre.

It's a direct quote in the article:

He said: “Bath’s leisure facilities are a vital community asset. Residents I met at the exhibition want to know why the Lib Dem council is not calling on Bath Rugby to invest money into facilities across the city. This could end up being yet another example of a missed opportunity. I will be fighting for the best deal for Bath residents and calling on the council to request additional investment.”

Read more: [www.bathchronicle.co.uk]

Why on earth should Bath Rugby pay for leisure facilities around the city? To link that to planning is extortion, pure and simple.

Stuart

Former ed.

Stuart, take a deep breath and read that quote again.

“Bath’s leisure facilities are a vital community asset."

No argument there.

"Residents I met at the exhibition want to know why the Lib Dem council is not calling on Bath Rugby to invest money into facilities across the city."

Note, no mention of "forced" or "leisure centre", which were terms introduced outside the quote.

"This could end up being yet another example of a missed opportunity." Yes, it could be that if the Council had put this forward to Bath Rugby that they may have found there were fruitful discussions to be had. They didn't so there wasn't.

"I will be fighting for the best deal for Bath residents and calling on the council to request additional investment.”

What else would you expect him to say? Bath needs more investment in leisure facilities and the prospective MP sees this and would like discussions to take place about what might be done about it.

What is offending you about this quote?

The guy will say whatever he thinks will get him the most votes so he can get his nose in the MP's trough.

I guess he believes an attack on Bath rugby will do the trick.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013:11:27:09:55:04 by OutsideBath.

Outside Bath, he isn't attacking Bath Rugby, he is attacking the Council.

Quote:

malco
Outside Bath, he isn't attacking Bath Rugby, he is attacking the Council.

Really? He wants Bath rugby to pay for facilities across the city, hardly a friend of the club is he.

Probably shouldn't comment too much more about him as it'll just take the thread off topic.

That's not what he's saying. He is saying the Council failed to take a robust position in negotiations with the rugby club. Bruce Craig is funding the new arena, which is a major asset for the city and is being built on land he doesn't own and which Bath Rugby will only use on 20-something days a year. He is making a huge philanthropic gesture to the city. Bath needs better leisure facilities. Doesn't it make sense to put two and two together and see if you can make four?

Malco, could you answer Stu's question please? It's the question which comes to mind for most of us I imagine when reading the article:-

'Why on earth should Bath Rugby pay for leisure facilities around the city?'

They shouldn't, unless they want to. Nobody is saying they should be forced to - other than the Chronicle. What harm is there in exploring the possibility though?

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 2013:11:27:14:59:09 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!!