|
|
Post by suv on Nov 17, 2008 10:32:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Nov 17, 2008 12:38:18 GMT
Perhaps this was not such a fantastic idea after all then. The Council Officer certainly does not appear as positive as was first suggested!
I am also led to believe that the train halt idea on the old Kays site is not going to happen as it was not deemed viable following consultation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2008 13:00:57 GMT
Why would you say that? This is exactly what you'd expect from a consultative process. A proposal is forwarded for consideration, the council make their comments regarding suitability, changes are made, consultation continues, changes are made. Its the same process that the present Board have been going through up at Nunnery Way for the past 10 years!
I read this paragraph in the Inspectors Report by Clive Richardson
10.26.18 The Football Club then undertook a detailed study of options for development. In order
to provide a new 6,000 capacity ground (with seating for 3,000) in accordance with the
Taylor Report on ground safety, and to put the Club on a sound financial basis, it was
considered essential to develop significant supporting commercial activities as well as
disposing of the existing ground for residential development. Two options were placed
before the City Council for informal comment. The Technical Services Committee
agreed in June 1997 to leave the Local Plan Policy as supported by the Inspector, and to
treat any planning application for facilitating development as a ‘departure’.
One year
later the same Committee considered a further proposal and supported the principle of a
20,000 capacity multi sports/activity arena with built-in ancillary development to create a
6-storey landmark building. Uses under consideration at that time included offices,
restaurant, other sports uses, conference/training facilities, hotel and residential.
Revised proposals were submitted for comment some time afterwards showing a reduced size of
stadium (6,000 capacity). This scheme included offices, garden centre, restaurants, fast
food, car showroom, petrol filling station, hotel, residential and retail development of
approximately 100,000 sq ft. In June 1999 the Technical Services Committee, whilst
continuing to support a move, requested the Club to look again at its options for
development due to the adverse impact of some aspects on the City.
Doesn't that last paragraph sound very familiar to the St. Modwen proposal for enabling development?
|
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Nov 17, 2008 13:50:07 GMT
In summary.... "We are not going to comment until WCFC provide us reports on all of the standard 'planning issues' for a site of this size and scale. Until then we are not saying no.... or yes." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2008 14:02:09 GMT
Exactly - totally as you'd expect. No real news here.
|
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 17, 2008 14:30:04 GMT
This isn't actually a news item at all, is it? Just some more miscellaneous waffle from a paper desperate to appear in touch...... probably commissioned by the Board to try and rubbish the SAG proposal. Guess we'll see a lot more of this in the next fortnight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2008 15:53:34 GMT
Could there be such a thing as a perfect new stadium (or any building) plan that wouldn't elicit some concerns from a council?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Nov 17, 2008 19:54:34 GMT
Well, they thought well of that giant radiator idea didn't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Nov 17, 2008 20:42:09 GMT
There seems to be a down by this council's planning department on football. Is it because they are all rugby fans like the previous head of department, bless him.
|
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Nov 17, 2008 22:35:59 GMT
I think this certainly is a news item. It’s a fundamental issue – if the site can’t be developed as a football stadium, the idea is a non-starter. My first reaction when I heard about the possibility of developing the Cinderella Ground was – what are the relevant planning issues? The report tells me that.
The feature has highlighted the material planning considerations that the Club would have to address, should a new board be elected that identifies the Cinderella Ground as its preferred option. Planning legislation isn’t straightforward, but as Alan Coleman says, ultimately the Council would have to weight up the interests that the Local Plan seeks to protect against the interests to the wider community that would be served by Worcester City moving to the Cinderella Ground and developing ancillary activities on the site.
The officers aren't saying that the site can’t be developed, but highlighting some very significant issues that would have to be addressed and overcome.
What I think is apparent is that there’s a lot of work to be done to develop an idea into a firm proposition that can meet the necessary planning requirements. As Jeremy says, it’s taken the Club ten years to get to where we are today. But regardless of which site we're talking about, getting a planning application submitted and approved can be a lengthy and costly process.
So I think Steve Carley has done a good job here. It’s a factual report based on his investigations into the views of the City Council’s planning officers. And Alan Coleman is a football fan by the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Nov 18, 2008 9:04:01 GMT
I think this certainly is a news item. It’s a fundamental issue – if the site can’t be developed as a football stadium, the idea is a non-starter. My first reaction when I heard about the possibility of developing the Cinderella Ground was – what are the relevant planning issues? The report tells me that. The feature has highlighted the material planning considerations that the Club would have to address, should a new board be elected that identifies the Cinderella Ground as its preferred option. Planning legislation isn’t straightforward, but as Alan Coleman says, ultimately the Council would have to weight up the interests that the Local Plan seeks to protect against the interests to the wider community that would be served by Worcester City moving to the Cinderella Ground and developing ancillary activities on the site. The officers aren't saying that the site can’t be developed, but highlighting some very significant issues that would have to be addressed and overcome. What I think is apparent is that there’s a lot of work to be done to develop an idea into a firm proposition that can meet the necessary planning requirements. As Jeremy says, it’s taken the Club ten years to get to where we are today. But regardless of which site we're talking about, getting a planning application submitted and approved can be a lengthy and costly process. So I think Steve Carley has done a good job here. It’s a factual report based on his investigations into the views of the City Council’s planning officers. And Alan Coleman is a football fan by the way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2008 10:58:47 GMT
and does it make any difference?
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Nov 18, 2008 13:19:05 GMT
Perhaps this was not such a fantastic idea after all then. The Council Officer certainly does not appear as positive as was first suggested! I am also led to believe that the train halt idea on the old Kays site is not going to happen as it was not deemed viable following consultation. If you think that's bad you wait until the NW plans are finally submitted, then you will see what a bad response is. They will be submitted any day soon along with the business plan  or are they waiting until after the AGM now. |
|
|
|
Post by dorothy on Nov 18, 2008 17:17:39 GMT
There seems to be a down by this council's planning department on football. Is it because they are all rugby fans like the previous head of department, bless him. Perhaps that's why the lacal rugby club don't play in Worcester at all. Sixways is in Wychavon. |
|
