FANS who are campaigning to save the Camrose football stadium have submitted a complaint to the Government claiming that the planning appeal hearing was “unfair, inaccurate and contradictory”.
As previously reported, former chairman of Basingstoke Town Football Club Raffi Razzak and his company Basron Developments Ltd lodged appeals against a decision by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council’s development control committee to reject plans for the site.
The proposals were to demolish the Camrose and build 85 dwellings and a 70-bedroom care home.
SEE ALSO: Man fined thousands for illegally arranging for waste to be taken from his home
The Camrose was the home of the football club for more than 70 years until it was evicted by Mr Razzak in 2016.
A government planning inspector conducted an inquiry into the council’s decisions, and Mr Razzak was granted outline permission for both applications in May.
The inspector cited multiple reasons for his decision, including “significant economic and social benefits from the provision of much needed housing”.
Since the news, the club has said it won’t be taking the decision to the High Court.
David Graham, who lives in Basingstoke, is just one of the dedicated football fans who has been tirelessly protesting to save the stadium.
He and several others fans have now sought the help of Basingstoke MP Maria Miller, and have submitted a complaint to the Government claiming the Planning Inspectorate hearing was “unfair, inaccurate and contradictory”.
In a letter written to Mr Graham, seen by the Gazette, Ms Miller confirmed she had written to the Attorney General.
It read: “As discussed I have written on your behalf to the Attorney General to request a review of the case and to ask for guidance about how your concerns can be escalated.”
The Gazette contacted the Attorney General’s office which confirmed a complaint had been received, but it had been passed to the Levelling Up Department.
The paper was referred to the Planning Inspectorate and a spokesperson said: “I can confirm that the Planning Inspectorate has been made aware of a letter of complaint relating to this appeal. The matter will be fully investigated by the Complaints team and a formal response issued to the instigator.”
Mr Graham has claimed that the procedure of the inquiry was not followed, which then led to the borough council and protesters cases being “completely undermined and disadvantaged”.
He said: “The reason we have submitted the complaint is because we feel the inquiry that took place was just a total shambles.
“Documentation that was meant to be produced was never produced and seen. We believe the council really should have taken this to the High Court.”
He said the group would now like to see “a proper judgement made”and they have called for the inquiry to be reviewed.
He added: “Ultimately we would like to get another football stadium, whether that means restoring the Camrose or not.
“We had two main stadiums and now we only have one and really we should still have two.”
In his judgement, inspector Dominic Young previously said: “I have considerable sympathy with those supporters who want to see BTCFC return to its historical home at the Camrose ground. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the club’s current predicament, one cannot get away from the fact that it has no control or rights over the ground and perhaps more importantly, no demonstrable prospect of returning there, irrespective of any decision I were to make in relation to these appeals.”
Mr Graham said there are several other reasons for submitting the complaint including the inquiry being changed to virtual at a very late stage, and documents not being found during the hearing. He also says the inspector’s report was based on “a sworn statement from Rafi Razzak” which the group say “was not read out” during the inquiry.
The group also said that Winklebury Football Complex is “obviously not a replacement” for the Camrose and, they say, the difference between the two grounds was “not considered thoroughly”.
READ MORE: Careless driver who crashed into traffic lights told to do unpaid work
Mr Graham has previously said he was “bitterly disappointed” with the football club’s decision as well as the borough council’s decisions not to take any action.
He also shared concerns that “there were a number of very late submissions” made by Basron.
He added: “Four were submitted on the last day and no fewer than 21 were submitted in the last week. This left the council side badly disadvantaged by not having sufficient time to review the submissions.”
As it stands the club are currently playing at the Winklebury Football Complex.
The club’s current chairman Jack Miller has comfirmed he is currently in talks with the borough council to “secure a proper home” for the football club.
He previously said he hopes the club can meet with the council in the next few weeks to come up with a “collaborative plan” for the club’s future.
He said the club’s aspirations have not changed and they still “want a home to call their own”.
On May 24 the football club received confirmation that the Camrose had been declared an asset of community value.
Mr Miller said that this means, although the land has planning on it, the club will be informed if it is listed for sale within the five year listing period, which could “provide an opportunity in the future”.
Mr Razzak was contacted for a comment but he did not respond.
A message from the editor
Thank you for reading this article - we appreciate your support.
Subscribing means you have unrestricted access to the latest news and reader rewards - all with an advertising-light website.
Don't take my word for it – subscribe here to see for yourself.
Looking to advertise an event? Then check out our free events guide.
Want to keep up with the latest news and join in the debate? You can find and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel