Wottie wrote:Interesting bit of background noise reported in relation to the planning permission and this may explain the lack of any announcements about the planning and works by the club. There is a 6 week judicial review period on planning permissions granted during which consents can be challenged if due process / procedure has not been followed. That period does not expire for the mini-murrayfield consent until 2nd November so probably the intention was to wait for that until some journo picked up on it and ran the initial story earlier this week.
That's a good point and probably does explain the relative radio silence. It'll be interesting to see whether this gets any traction. It would be very unfortunate if it were to delay the creation of the new venue.
I note that the councillor who has been voicing concerns is Mr McLellan, the journalist who edited the Scotsman for some time. He has written some pieces recently that are not exactly 100% in favour of the current SRU regime:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/john-mclellan-sru-is-no-friend-of-grassroots-rugby-1-4775032 https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/john-mclellan-murrayfield-wanderers-to-go-a-wandering-1-4750402 and
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/john-mclellan-murrayfield-decision-is-a-real-game-changer-for-planning-1-4819353 He is not alone in that, of course, and he's entitled to his opinion.
I have some sympathy with where he's coming from, not least as I have had a slight connection with Murrayfield Wanderers myself for a few years, through my boys having enjoyed playing mini rugby there, and feeling that what has happened to precipitate their move to Roseburn Park is somewhere between unfortunate and just not right. I also see that one of his articles mentions how the Council's [in my view, very disappointing] redevelopment proposals for Meadowbank are unlikely to suit Edinburgh City FC and seems to suggest that perhaps they could play at mini-Murrayfield instead.
The reason for having a delegated process is so the planning system is not overburdened with councillors having to spend time on formal processes for uncontroversial applications, which would make it even more lengthy than it already is. On the face of it, it appears that the Council have acted correctly in delegating the authority to decide the application to officials, given that there were fewer formal representations than required to trigger councillor involvement (and of the six, three were neutral and one in favour). That there were so few objections for a planning application that had plenty of coverage in the local press would suggest that it does not raise significant issues of concern to the local community. Compare that with the public outrage over the decision by the Council to grant planning permission for a development in East Princes Street Gardens that has resulted in significant tree elimination in the last week or so. That seems to me to raise some important questions about the Council's processes, whether or not councillors were involved.
Insofar as I can understand what the Council Leader is actually quoted as saying, I also just don't see how erecting temporary stands on the same campus as a 67,000 seater stadium, where the club in question already plays its matches, can be described as 'strategic'.
Nor do I see how granting the application affects Council-owned land, other than positively. If the Wanderers' application to build a pavilion for a number of sporting clubs, including themselves, in Roseburn Park is refused, the SRU money for improving Council pitch provision will be spent elsewhere. If it is not spent in Roseburn Park in the end, it will be solely because the City of Edinburgh Council itself has refused planning permission for the Wanderers' application. That would seem to be something that is within councillors' control, rather than the SRU's.
What I would love to see at mini-Murrayfield is Murrayfield Wanderers being permitted to play there, using the facilities to be put in place. It's not obvious that there would be additional cost to the SRU or significant wear and tear. To my mind, it would be the right thing to do. I wonder whether that's what Councillor McLellan is really getting at. If so, then more power to his elbow.
Proud former sponsor of McKane legend @m4gnet_ and future Glasgow legend Rory Darge and current sponsor of @Muncaster_Ben
#lovinthescrummin