Save Seaburn
- Thread starter Boris Bear
- Start date
Wilfy
Striker
Started glazing some of the units last week.
Osklen
Winger
yeah just read that. It’s quite harsh and wrong if his acquisition that the labour council and offices are incompetent and corrupt (albeit he tried clarify he is not calling them that but is as much as saying so) as he clearly has a different interpretation. I wonder If this can this be proven?
he also mentions that neighbouring authorities are racing ahead in terms of economic development and leisure opportunities for their residents but perhaps this is because they don’t quite meet the same resistant from residents.
I totally sympathise with the sewerage issue however presumably the issue is an NWL problem and not the council. Therefore if NWL don’t object or permit development they must feel comfortable that there is sufficient capacity. Again I don’t know the level of detail perhaps he does but would seem odd that NWL would allow the development in the knowledge that they are acting outside of their permitted rights?
Bob Fleming
Striker
Quite worrying really. Someone with the level of obsession he seems to have with the Labour party is not a sound basis for standing for council.
Aye. He's not saying they're corrupt. But they're corrupt.
The corruption stuff is such f***ing bollocks. They've not managed to prove owt in these angry man groups all over Facebook in Sunderland.
It's pure bitterness as they've lost their case. But seemingly there was legal counsel there to advise on the planning matter and that advice was that the sewage issue is for NWL and not for planning so they could not consider it.
What I don't see posted from Michael and the others is what they are doing to lobby NWL themselves. They seemingly are only actually objecting to housing and planning. Which seems a bit strange when they had already been told over the Miller site that the council cannot do anything about it. I know Bob Latimer had taken things to the EU and they took up the case at Whitburn and I think forced NWL to take some action. Now some of these people hate the EU as much as Labour so that must stick in their craw a little bit. They can't go to the EU now so what are they doing?
BTW Norm a little birdy sent me a pic of your message on Saveseaburn. I left there a while back when it was obviously not for debate but for those objecting only.I'm not talking about Saveseaburn as an angry man group. It's the ones like 'The problem with Sunderland is Labour', 'Sunderland for Transparency' and 'Sunderland council corruption' which are. Full of absolute whoppers claiming corruption in everything they see. They run down and denigrate anything that happens in Sunderland and try to portray everything as terrible. I've seen disgusting bullying of councillors on those sites including people following them around taking photographs and mocking them for their weight etc. Vile really. Scratch a little more and you find the hard right in there too. Anti-Islam and other racist posts. Councillors and prospective councillors should really distance themselves from anything like that if they're not of that mindset IMO.
Last edited:
MattyW
Central Defender
Didn’t you claim that SS was part of the angry man groups?Quite worrying really. Someone with the level of obsession he seems to have with the Labour party is not a sound basis for standing for council.
Aye. He's not saying they're corrupt. But they're corrupt.
The corruption stuff is such f***ing bollocks. They've not managed to prove owt in these angry man groups all over Facebook in Sunderland.
It's pure bitterness as they've lost their case. But seemingly there was legal counsel there to advise on the planning matter and that advice was that the sewage issue is for NWL and not for planning so they could not consider it.
What I don't see posted from Michael and the others is what they are doing to lobby NWL themselves. They seemingly are only actually objecting to housing and planning. Which seems a bit strange when they had already been told over the Miller site that the council cannot do anything about it. I know Bob Latimer had taken things to the EU and they took up the case at Whitburn and I think forced NWL to take some action. Now some of these people hate the EU as much as Labour so that must stick in their craw a little bit. They can't go to the EU now so what are they doing?
I'm not talking about Saveseaburn as an angry man group. It's the ones like 'The problem with Sunderland is Labour', 'Sunderland for Transparency' and 'Sunderland council corruption' which are. Full of absolute whoppers claiming corruption in everything they see. They run down and denigrate anything that happens in Sunderland and try to portray everything as terrible. I've seen disgusting bullying of councillors on those sites including people following them around taking photographs and mocking them for their weight etc. Vile really. Scratch a little more and you find the hard right in there too. Anti-Islam and other racist posts. Councillors and prospective councillors should really distance themselves from anything like that if they're not of that mindset IMO.
Bob Fleming
Striker
You have literally just quoted the post where I mention that marra. - "The corruption stuff is such f***ing bollocks. They've not managed to prove owt in these angry man groups all over Facebook in Sunderland. "
For the avoidance of any doubt for Norm I've clarified that I don't mean SS.
SS wasn't set up to smear labour councillors.
MattyW
Central Defender
True but it is always the Labour part of the planning committee that approves planning applications which SS objects to.
Osklen
Winger
Quite worrying really. Someone with the level of obsession he seems to have with the Labour party is not a sound basis for standing for council.
Aye. He's not saying they're corrupt. But they're corrupt.
The corruption stuff is such f***ing bollocks. They've not managed to prove owt in these angry man groups all over Facebook in Sunderland.
It's pure bitterness as they've lost their case. But seemingly there was legal counsel there to advise on the planning matter and that advice was that the sewage issue is for NWL and not for planning so they could not consider it.
What I don't see posted from Michael and the others is what they are doing to lobby NWL themselves. They seemingly are only actually objecting to housing and planning. Which seems a bit strange when they had already been told over the Miller site that the council cannot do anything about it. I know Bob Latimer had taken things to the EU and they took up the case at Whitburn and I think forced NWL to take some action. Now some of these people hate the EU as much as Labour so that must stick in their craw a little bit. They can't go to the EU now so what are they doing?
I'm not talking about Saveseaburn as an angry man group. It's the ones like 'The problem with Sunderland is Labour', 'Sunderland for Transparency' and 'Sunderland council corruption' which are. Full of absolute whoppers claiming corruption in everything they see. They run down and denigrate anything that happens in Sunderland and try to portray everything as terrible. I've seen disgusting bullying of councillors on those sites including people following them around taking photographs and mocking them for their weight etc. Vile really. Scratch a little more and you find the hard right in there too. Anti-Islam and other racist posts. Councillors and prospective councillors should really distance themselves from anything like that if they're not of that mindset IMO.
Presumably the NWL network takes sewerage from further a field than just Seaburn? Do they lobby all/any development along its path?
as I said before if there is an issue then NWL need to address it, and the residents need to address any recourse to the right organisation(s).
MattyW
Central Defender
They did but NWL and the EA seem very reluctant to respond accordingly. Luckily, that may soon change following the court case which was decided in the residents’ favour
Osklen
Winger
yes been did the other members approve the planning on the basis of political point scoring or was there a material reason why the planning application should have been rejected?
I honestly don’t know the answer but if the legal person at the planning committee was correct in saying that sewerage was not an material consideration should the other cllrs have voted against the scheme? Presumably if the applications had failed and the applicant could have proven that the planning committee acted incorrectly then I assume that could costed the council a significant sum of money In legal fees to defend itself against an appeal?
do you have any info / links on this? Quite interested to see what has gone on even though I wouldn’t know much about discharge rates etc..
Last edited:
Bob Fleming
Striker
Aye. But Labour are responsible for progressing the city and housing is needed (I know we don't agree). Opposition councillors are there to oppose. I really don't have an issue on the colour of a councillors rosette and if another party were to control Sunderland you will find very little will change in that respect. They will have the same challenges the current incumbents have.
Osklen
Winger
what I don’t understand is what is the conservatives or Lib Dem vision for the city? Is this broadcast anyway or is it purely anti-development (granted it needs to be sustainable).
i recall both parties saying they disagreed with relocating the civic centre, suggesting they use existing office space in the city - however I’m not sure where alternative office space currently is? Certainly not of the scale required the council 1,000plus people.
regards Seaburn what is it that they want? A new leisure centre? Ok but is that at the risk of the aquatic centre? They don’t want housing? So what else? are any of them lobbying to bring businesses to the city or is it just to act in opposition regardless if a decision is correct for the city?
Bob Fleming
Striker
Dunno mate. I don't know anything about the network. I don't know whether what they are discharging here is disproportionate to elsewhere in the country. I don't know about the capacity which they say is over.
All I know is that legally they've been told they have to defer to NWL in respect of permission to connect and cannot consider the objections based on that. So claiming corruption is wrong. And just falls in to the ether of bullshit that is made up on a daily basis.
I would like to know more though and it would be interesting to see what responses have been received from either NWL or the EA. And what they propose to do next. Genuinely.
Only thing I've seen the local Tories do is try to claim plaudits for stuff they had nowt to do with.
I never agreed with the original Siglion masterplan - there was too much housing a not enough leisure. A better balance was needed and the Miller site definitely was. I'm still not chuffed with the offer and want to see better leisure - the stack etc is canny but there needs to be more. But private investors are not falling over themselves to come here so I would like to see how another party would plan to do better.
Last edited:
MattyW
Central Defender
I have read the documents (there are many and it is all quite technical, so I do not understand the full detail. If you want to take a look at all the info, I think it is best to get in touch with Mr. Latimer.
Osklen
Winger
I must admit I thought standard family housing was probably wrong across the site and should have been more high rise apartments with leisure use at ground floor.
Leisure use being a range of independent food, beverage and retail, maybe some form of skate/cycle/surfing centre. I just really wanted the place to be a nice place to go for a walk, grab some food and perhaps bought the odd bit with the kids, something similar to Tynemouth really. I personally have never seen the reason or desire to have an indoor leisure space on a sea front as if it’s raining or starts to rain id pack up and go home or elsewhere with the kids. I’m not going to go swimming in the sea to then swim in a leisure pool. I think the housing is needed to get more people to use any such food and beverage year round and not rely upon tourism.
for avoidance of doubt I’m not saying you wanted a leisure centre or anything for that matter.
ive seen some of the press articles on-line about him challenging NWL and think that is the right thing to do, so don’t get me wrong, however I‘m just not sure some of the frustrations about this issue are been directed to the correct people or at least to me it doesn’t appear so - I may be proven wrong. Presumably the environment agency are the overriding organisation responsible for keeping the likes of NWL and SCC in check?
Last edited:
Bob Fleming
Striker
No. A massive fuck off adventure playground is what I'd like to see. I've seen some truly amazing ones elsewhere. And bars/cafe/small shops - stuff like crazy golf or indoor golf. Space for a produce market.
Sunderland needs a leisure centre but it should be in the city centre. There's no need for it at Seaburn especially with Haven point close.
Osklen
Winger
some of those things could still be in the city centre. Any amount of space for an indoor adventure playground or crazy/indoor golf. Also might actually get a few more people into the city centre. The fewer people on the sea front the better in my opinion, as the enjoyment is to walk up and down the beach and the occasional day to sit down there when it’s hot. I can understand an outdoor mini golf but that could be in roker park or down roker beach.
a market isn’t a bad idea but perhaps once a month or fortnight?
Bob Fleming
Striker
Just somewhere you can come for a few hours with the family. Go to the beach, get some food and drink and there's some other entertainment for when it is raining. And a night time destination for dinner and drinks too. I think the housing including some apartments will encourage that. East shore village transformed Seaham harbour.
Osklen
Winger
a really good restaurant wouldn’t go a miss, plus a cafe perhaps similar to Fausto.
