SCC accused of bias in WC bidding

[Linz]

From t'Yorkshire Post

Sheffield Council accused of bias in World Cup venue bid

SHEFFIELD City Council has been accused of being biased in favour of supporting Sheffield Wednesday's bid to become a World Cup venue ahead of their city rivals, Sheffield United.
The Blades have formally applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the way the council granted the Owls planning permission to redevelop their Hillsborough ground and specifically cited alleged bias on the part of the local authority.

The council has hit back and called United's claim "apparently gratuitous and unsubstantiated".

In December, the Football Association chose Hillsborough ahead of United's Bramall Lane ground as one of the potential World Cup venues should England be chosen to host the competition in 2018.

The decision raised eyebrows in some quarters after United had seemingly spent significantly more time and effort developing the club's bid, including lengthy discussions with the council, while Wednesday, undermined by boardroom upheaval, had come forward with proposals at much shorter notice.

Although the FA made the choice, neither club's bid would have been acceptable without valid planning permission.

Both clubs received planning approval last autumn after each had submitted plans to develop their stadium to the required 45,000 capacity in August. But United believe the relatively late emergence of Wednesday's bid calls into question how the council could speedily grant planning permission.

Court papers submitted by United outline three separate areas in which the council allegedly "acted improperly and unreasonably in the exercise of its duties as a public authority."

The Blades argue the council granted planning approval despite Wednesday submitting insufficient supporting information, including a failure to provide either a transport or planning assessment of the impact of redeveloping Hillsborough.

The council is also alleged to have failed to comply with planning procedures by not providing a full enough explanation of why it had granted approval. It is also accused of incorrectly allowing Wednesday to come back at a later date with detailed plans for a new roof on the Kop end even though the club was applying for and received full and detailed planning approval.

United's High Court submission concludes: "For these reasons, the decision to grant the permission was not only flawed and should be quashed but also demonstrates the bias shown by the defendant in favour of the interested party (Sheffield Wednesday) and its proposals." But a defence submitted by the council says United's claim is "devoid of merit".

The council contends the application was dealt with professionally and had met with negligible opposition following wide consultation.

It insists Wednesday's plans were relatively straightforward and did not require either a transport or planning assessment.

The grounds provided for granting approval were similarly considered sufficient and the council said it was "everyday practice" to set a condition on the approval such as that set for detailed design of the new roof.

The council submission states: "The claimant (United) does not suggest that the interested party intends to build an unsafe stand or how it could conceivably be affected by or interested in the detailed design of the means of roof support in a football stand four miles away from its own property."

The council also adds that United are not entitled to seek judicial review as the club lacks "sufficient interest" in Wednesday's application because Bramall Lane is four miles from Hillsborough and United had not objected to approval being granted.

A judge is expected to make an initial decision on whether to grant leave for a full court hearing next month.

 

[MAQ]

Oh dear, Despite my agreeing with the questions that have been raised with this, i feel that in the current climate this wont be received very well by the fanbase as matters with the clubs form seem to be far more relevant

 

[super_pig]

don't want to say ' i told you so' but hey I TOLD YOU SO!

the powers that be are snided with wendy.. betts, blunkett, hattersley, thomson, richards and wilkinson
my exe's father was architect on the last attempt to extend the kop with hotel etc. .he had no interest in football whatsoever (he was a rugby man) but told me that the whole thing was scuppered as the council were wednesday biased. go figure

 

[MAQ]

don't want to say ' i told you so' but hey I TOLD YOU SO!

You didnt tell me anything!

 

[Linz]

You didnt tell me anything!

What's your professional take on this MAQ?

 

[Jon Bon]

..............................................................

 

[Jon Bon]

don't want to say ' i told you so' but hey I TOLD YOU SO!

the powers that be are snided with wendy.. betts, blunkett, hattersley, thomson, richards and wilkinson
my exe's father was architect on the last attempt to extend the kop with hotel etc. .he had no interest in football whatsoever (he was a rugby man) but told me that the whole thing was scuppered as the council were wednesday biased. go figure

What an absolute load of bollocks.

 

[Keef Chedwyn]

I think hosting North Korea vs Togo in eight years is the least of United's worries at the moment.

I think there's a bloke somewhere at the club who just loves going to court.

 

[super_pig]

>What an absolute load of bollocks
heh.. you don't know what you are talking about mate.

 

[Kenilworth]

I think hosting North Korea vs Togo in eight years is the least of United's worries at the moment.

I think there's a bloke somewhere at the club who just loves going to court.

Could be cos it's the only place we look like getting a win away from BDTBL

 

[Bladesman]

Oh dear, Despite my agreeing with the questions that have been raised with this, i feel that in the current climate this wont be received very well by the fanbase as matters with the clubs form seem to be far more relevant

I guess alot of money and certainly more than Wednesday have has been put towards the World Cup bid and I can see why we want a reason for not being accepted.

Although at this moment in time we want to look at whats happening on the field and wait til the season has finished to chase answers on this issue.

 

[MAQ]

What's your professional take on this MAQ?

Firstly From what i know this isnt a Legal Battle ala Tevezgate, its more the clubs right to gain information fromthe powers that be as to why one decision was made over another. Now although information canbe provided on this basis, its unlikely that the entire dossier would be provided. Usually in cases such as this the decision makers use a scoring matrix to establish the individual bids. So its quite right that we enquire as to the scores (which i would expect will have already taken place) and then to further enquire as to the reasoning behind any distinctive score differences.

In addition to this, and also based on the fact that i know the person personally who produced and compiled the documents for the SWFC planning applications, there is some question as to how the council passed this so quickly. I know that work was still underway on the plans etc very close to the deadline for the clubs to submit.

Ours was submitted well in advance of the deadline and as such would mean that we had been working on this for some time.

The biggest issue that i can see is at what time the planning app was made, when it was "Passed" and under what conditions. My understanding of the development at the sty would, by its sheer size and the requirements of the FA and the Bid's board need quite dramatic highways works for pedestrian access etc, especially as we have all driven down penistone road and know how day it can be. all of this takes time to produce. hence the concern over the approval time.

So i would say that its more than a reasonable enquiry to take forward, if nothing more than to establish our shortfall. I do think that this may have just fallen at a bad time.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Mr McCabe

How about an enquiry into whats happening or rather whats not happening on the fucking pitch.

Shove the world cup bid up yer arse and get the team sorted.

 

[Oreyt]

Perhaps we could start running out onto the pitch to the theme from Perry Mason

 

[Vistoma]

Mr McCabe

How about an enquiry into whats happening or rather whats not happening on the fucking pitch.

Shove the world cup bid up yer arse and get the team sorted.

beat me to saying it, we have bigger problems than alleged Wendy bias

 

[FleaPitBlade]

Something definatley stunk somewhere along the lines.

Wednesday's application was submitted weeks after Uniteds and determined weeks before, despite the fact that United's was greater in detail and substance.

What that stink is or where it came from, i wouldnt want to say.

 

[Darren]

My professional take on this is that it is likely to fall at the first hurdle.

Judicial review cases are incredibly hard to succeed with. To succeed you have to show, if you are doing it on the basis of irrationality (as United appear to be) that the public authority in question reached a decision that no reasonable public authority could have reached. Initially a judge looks at the papers and if he concludes that is not even arguable he refuses permission to apply for judicial review. That refusal can be challenged at a hearing but if the refusal is maintained thats the end of the line.

If permission is granted, there is a full hearing where both sides argues their case. The decision does not depend on who a judge thinks should have got the nod. He can quite validly conclude that he would have given the nod to United but that the Council's decision was still within the bounds of reasonability and thus refuse to overturn it. If the decision is overturned it doesn't mean BL gets the WC place. The Council would then have to go away and make the decision again and they could once again choose Hillsborough as long as they chose it on proper grounds.

Nothing in the above article makes me think a High Court judge will even think it arguable the decision was unreasonable. As such, I expect the challenge to fall at the first hurdle. But then I was wrong about Tevez...

 

[mall]

Let's hope that McCabe has got this as right as the Tevez affair.

 

[broomhillblade]

The SCC have form here. Remember the superstadium development that Reg Brearley put forward? This never received planning approval from the Council. (Whether Reg ever had the money to build it is another matter).

A few years later Sheffield bid for the 1991 World Student Games and had to spend millions on building the Don Valley Stadium, and all the rest of the supporting venues. Sheffielders are still paying for the mess. If they'd approved the Bramall Lane development in the first place, they could have had a stadium in place.

 

[derrywan]

Perhaps we could start running out onto the pitch to the theme from Perry Mason

I think we'd have more success if we were to "Take it all the way to the DA, Aston!"

 

[DP8789]

This is pointless, too be honest i feel embaressed by the whole idea of us sueing our own city because we havent got our way. who gives two shits about us being a world cup venue. Its not going to have any positive effect on the team is it? McCabe, Start worrying more about what happens on the pitch, and not what some big wigs have decided to do in 8 FUCKING YEARS TIME! more and more the results and that southern toss piece are making me consider my position as a season ticket holder, ive had one for 10 years now, and barely miss a game. never in my life have i questioned renewing my ticket, but the embarressing excuses from blackwell and the overall ethos of the club lately is making me question the idea more and more.

 

[MAQ]

This is pointless, too be honest i feel embaressed by the whole idea of us sueing our own city because we havent got our way. who gives two shits about us being a world cup venue. Its not going to have any positive effect on the team is it? McCabe, Start worrying more about what happens on the pitch, and not what some big wigs have decided to do in 8 FUCKING YEARS TIME! more and more the results and that southern toss piece are making me consider my position as a season ticket holder, ive had one for 10 years now, and barely miss a game. never in my life have i questioned renewing my ticket, but the embarressing excuses from blackwell and the overall ethos of the club lately is making me question the idea more and more.

Firstly we arent "Sueing" our own city, we are merely requesting that the information regarding selection criterior be made public.

Secondly, in the short term, no it isnt. In the long term, the monies generated by holding world cup matches wont hurt the club at all, they can only be benificial.

Thirdly, this is exactly the response that i expected, which is why i said that this is poor timing.

Lastly, Thats a bit harsh. I think that the majority are quite openly unhappy with the situation but name calling isnt going to improve things nor is it going to get your point over in any stronger way.

 

[Oreyt]

I think we'd have more success if we were to "Take it all the way to the DA, Aston!"

Ah, Quincy.

And upon winning the case, hosting the World Cup Final at the Lane and winning it with an England squad made up entirely of United players, we could all retire for a cocktail and steak at Danny's Place.

Why isn't life as good as Quincy?

 

[Darren]

The SCC have form here. Remember the superstadium development that Reg Brearley put forward? This never received planning approval from the Council. (Whether Reg ever had the money to build it is another matter).

A few years later Sheffield bid for the 1991 World Student Games and had to spend millions on building the Don Valley Stadium, and all the rest of the supporting venues. Sheffielders are still paying for the mess. If they'd approved the Bramall Lane development in the first place, they could have had a stadium in place.

On a point of information, the rejection of Brealey's planning application by the Labour controlled council was upheld on Brealey's appeal to the Tory Environment secretary who would, no doubt, if he reasonably could, have loved to have stuck one on the Tory-baiting socialist Council whilst pleasing lifelong Tory Brealey by upholding the appeal.

The fact that he didn't rather suggest that it was for genuine reasons that the application was turned down.

 

[Silent Blade]

Firstly From what i know this isnt a Legal Battle ala Tevezgate, its more the clubs right to gain information fromthe powers that be as to why one decision was made over another. Now although information canbe provided on this basis, its unlikely that the entire dossier would be provided. Usually in cases such as this the decision makers use a scoring matrix to establish the individual bids. So its quite right that we enquire as to the scores (which i would expect will have already taken place) and then to further enquire as to the reasoning behind any distinctive score differences.

In addition to this, and also based on the fact that i know the person personally who produced and compiled the documents for the SWFC planning applications, there is some question as to how the council passed this so quickly. I know that work was still underway on the plans etc very close to the deadline for the clubs to submit.

Ours was submitted well in advance of the deadline and as such would mean that we had been working on this for some time.

The biggest issue that i can see is at what time the planning app was made, when it was "Passed" and under what conditions. My understanding of the development at the sty would, by its sheer size and the requirements of the FA and the Bid's board need quite dramatic highways works for pedestrian access etc, especially as we have all driven down penistone road and know how day it can be. all of this takes time to produce. hence the concern over the approval time.

So i would say that its more than a reasonable enquiry to take forward, if nothing more than to establish our shortfall. I do think that this may have just fallen at a bad time.

Thanks for this. Everton withdrew their application as they were being honest. We dont know if Wendy who are a much smaller club and have a lot less money than Everton were being honest with their plans

 

[alcoblade]

Secondly, in the short term, no it isnt. In the long term, the monies generated by holding world cup matches wont hurt the club at all, they can only be benificial.

You seem to know your stuff fella, but I question this bit....

To gain the potential for 2 - 3 matches in 8 years time, we have to promise to undertake very significant ground upgrades. I'd bet there's a further £20M of debt headed our way to complete the work.

After we were rejected,, the whole building thing was put on the back burner - so it doesn't fly by itself.

Do you have any thoughts as to how 15% revenue from 3 matches (probably not sold out) could possibly give a payback on the "£20M"?

I'm delighted we were rejected, embarrassed that we're raising this, though I was suspicious at the time at the ease of Wendy's planning process.

UTB

 

[Bramley]

Firstly From what i know this isnt a Legal Battle ala Tevezgate, its more the clubs right to gain information fromthe powers that be as to why one decision was made over another. Now although information canbe provided on this basis, its unlikely that the entire dossier would be provided. Usually in cases such as this the decision makers use a scoring matrix to establish the individual bids. So its quite right that we enquire as to the scores (which i would expect will have already taken place) and then to further enquire as to the reasoning behind any distinctive score differences.

In addition to this, and also based on the fact that i know the person personally who produced and compiled the documents for the SWFC planning applications, there is some question as to how the council passed this so quickly. I know that work was still underway on the plans etc very close to the deadline for the clubs to submit.

Ours was submitted well in advance of the deadline and as such would mean that we had been working on this for some time.

The biggest issue that i can see is at what time the planning app was made, when it was "Passed" and under what conditions. My understanding of the development at the sty would, by its sheer size and the requirements of the FA and the Bid's board need quite dramatic highways works for pedestrian access etc, especially as we have all driven down penistone road and know how day it can be. all of this takes time to produce. hence the concern over the approval time.

So i would say that its more than a reasonable enquiry to take forward, if nothing more than to establish our shortfall. I do think that this may have just fallen at a bad time.

Re: the Planning...Depends if it was Outline or Full permission, then again you'd expect the 12 week statutory period to be adhered to as its technically a Major Application - over a certain additional floorspace. I would assume that a full TP/TA would have been submitted with the proposal but this would be limited by whether the proposal was Outline? The submission of detailed information for Highways could have been conditioned and be dealt with at Reserved Matters but that would be unusual as Highways is a fundamental for any large scale development.

It all depends on whether the proposal was in Outline form or was a Full Application for Planning Permission. Does anyone know?

SCC would have to follow due process like anyone else, as long as they advertised the application correctly there is scope for an early decision - usually if it has economic imperative, if there's been substantial pre-application negotiations or if there's been a PPA.

What was the arrangement for the bid? Was it like a normal tender process?

 

[SwissBlade]

Ah, Quincy.

And upon winning the case, hosting the World Cup Final at the Lane and winning it with an England squad made up entirely of United players, we could all retire for a cocktail and steak at Danny's Place.

Why isn't life as good as Quincy?

I was thinking more Team America:

"Great work team lets all meet back at HQ for debreifing and cocktails"

 

[Jon Bon]

heh.. you don't know what you are talking about mate.

Really, is that so?

Let me just clarify this if I may. So, and do correct me if I'm wrong, are you insinuating that any bias that was allegedly prevalent over 20 years ago is still being practiced within the Council by those that you mentioned?

Sheesh...

 

[Jon Bon]

...............................................................