|
Post by creaner on Jan 24, 2016 16:30:45 GMT
These people must be the focus of efforts to get our message across. We will have to have properly organised effort to involve every media outlet we can to keep this in the forefront of people's minds. In the meantime feel free to write to your local councillor if you think their view on getting Worcester City FC home at Perdiswell is deserving of your vote! List here
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jan 25, 2016 11:46:23 GMT
Rob - I did this in the build up to the elections last year. These are the responses I received.
Labour Responses:
"Essentially, I am keen for the football club to return to Worcester, to play at Perdiswell as part of a wider sporting hub makes most sense and they need a fully complementary programme of community activity and engagement on that site. There may be difficulties with the detail of the plans but these are for discussion and resolution, They should not be reasons for the club not fulfilling the aspirations of its supporters."
"I can confirm that the City Council Labour group support the return of the football club to the city."
"In short I and the Labour Party want the Club back in Worcester. Perdiswell is the perfect place for the Football Club due to the available parking and infrastructure available. With the New pool also being put on the Site it would be a perfect fit for Worcester and put Perdiswell on the map for Sporting Events."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Green Party Response:
"My colleague, Cllr Matthew Jenkins, and I have spoken with many residents in St. Stephen ward, the majority of whom have said that they oppose the idea of a football stadium being built on Perdiswell Park. Residents’ concerns and the loss of Park and Ride have convinced us that the park is not a suitable location for a football stadium. We want Worcester City FC to be playing in Worcester, but the location has to be right."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Conservative Responses:
"Councillor Geraghty is currently away from the office but he has asked me to thank you for your email on his behalf and confirm that as this is a 'live' planning application, (to be determined by the City Council), it would not be appropriate for him to comment ahead of the application being considered at Planning Committee which is the relevant decision making body. Councillor Geraghty has asked me to thank you for taking the time to write to him, and if you require more information you may wish to make contact with Paul O'Connor the Authority's Development Manager."
"The difficulty you have with asking councillors on their views is it could put them in a prejudicial situation which will bar them from taking part on the planning process. I want to see Worcester City return to their home city but any site proposed will need to meet planning rules and for it to be viable and affordable to the club. Back in 2010 I voted in favour of the Nunnery Way site. That site met the planning conditions but the club couldn't afford to go ahead. There some councillors who are using this to seek electoral support by promising a site that may not be deliverable (they too need to be careful to avoid being classed as prejudiced). Local Members (the ward where the proposed ground is to be based) are campaigning against the Perdiswell proposals because they have concerns on the impact of the development for local residents."
"The Perdiswell proposal is the subject of a live planning application it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that site specifically at this stage."
"Whilst I welcome the proposed Swimming pool and rebuild of the sports centre up at Perdisewell I am unable to make comment about a planning application that has been submitted to the city council."
"Thank you for your email. I have since 2013 voiced my opposition against Worcester City Football Club Supporters Trust proposed Football Stadium together with six other proposed football pitches at Perdiswell. To take way precious green open space enjoyed by the all ages from the young to the old for a football stadium is not in my view acceptable. The impact on my constituents in St Stephen Ward will be serious especially those on Bilford Rd, Beech Ave Beech Ave North, Blanquettes Residential estate, Kingston Ave, Woodland Rd, Drovers Way Residential estate, Farm Close, Field Rd. If approved those roads will become a car park.. The site is dark at night. Adjacent to the Canal conservation corridor. Lost views. Lack of on site parking for cars and coaches. Aditional traffic on an already very busy Bilford Road. I did make a suggestion that they locate to Six Ways . I would like the football club back to Worcester but not at Perdiswell. My view is that they have chosen Perdiswell because Worcester City own the land and they think they can have it for free or a very cheap rent. A recent survey undertaken in St Stephen ward 2014 indicated 80% against the football stadium. Worcester News have featured this subject on many separate occasions in articles and the You Say comments page."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I fear that any Tory response will be on the lines of "Can't comment as the plans are in planning system" etc.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jan 25, 2016 14:45:39 GMT
The Perdiswell bid is still subject to an active planning application, and councillors will vote on the viability of this site and make decisions purely from a planning perspective. They cannot vote against it on the basis of "they don't like it" If it meets the criteria as laid out in the planning regulations, then they must vote in favour of planning consent. On this link is a list of "material planning considerations" that are taken into account, and also list of issues that cannot be taken into consideration. www.richmond.gov.uk/what_is_a_valid_objection_to_a_planning_applicationI find it amusing that in the list of Tory councillor comments is this one "My view is that they have chosen Perdiswell because Worcester City own the land and they think they can have it for free or a very cheap rent." Whoever wrote that is most definitely in a prejudicial situation!
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Jan 25, 2016 15:06:55 GMT
The Perdiswell bid is still subject to an active planning application, and councillors will vote on the viability of this site and make decisions purely from a planning perspective. They cannot vote against it on the basis of "they don't like it" If it meets the criteria as laid out in the planning regulations, then they must vote in favour of planning consent. On this link is a list of "material planning considerations" that are taken into account, and also list of issues that cannot be taken into consideration. www.richmond.gov.uk/what_is_a_valid_objection_to_a_planning_applicationI find it amusing that in the list of Tory councillor comments is this one "My view is that they have chosen Perdiswell because Worcester City own the land and they think they can have it for free or a very cheap rent." Whoever wrote that is most definitely in a prejudicial situation! They probably forgot to add the word council. But yes a very interesting situation
|
|
|
Post by chrisj on Jan 25, 2016 15:15:24 GMT
So basically I've heard that the council have alredy said no to Perdiswell and that they don't want WCFC at Perdiswell , and it isnt going to happen because they don't support it at all. Is this true? So they think they can make more money out of the company running the sports centre and swimming pool and they are going to pay them to take over Perdiswell. So how come they supported the football club and what supporters trust done over the last two years saying they wanted some sports fields with a football ground at Perdiswell. If it is then why didnt they say two years back and save the club a load of money? Is this Tory councillors who are going to be lining their pocket cos they've got election coming up and this is gonna lose votes. I heard there is nowhere else in Worcester so the club can never return again. The council are going to kill our club, they never helped us ever
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jan 25, 2016 16:25:23 GMT
I find it amusing that in the list of Tory councillor comments is this one "My view is that they have chosen Perdiswell because Worcester City own the land and they think they can have it for free or a very cheap rent." Whoever wrote that is most definitely in a prejudicial situation! I think I'm comfortable in naming him as it is similar to comments he made in the horrendously poorly constructed letter he sent in on the Planning Portal - it's your "esteemed" Councillor for St Stephens - Mr Gareth Jones
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Jan 25, 2016 17:46:34 GMT
I find it amusing that in the list of Tory councillor comments is this one "My view is that they have chosen Perdiswell because Worcester City own the land and they think they can have it for free or a very cheap rent." Whoever wrote that is most definitely in a prejudicial situation! I think I'm comfortable in naming him as it is similar to comments he made in the horrendously poorly constructed letter he sent in on the Planning Portal - it's your "esteemed" Councillor for St Stephens - Mr Gareth Jones Councillor Jones was a fan of the club when at SGL,as soon as "a Perdiswell plan" was mentioned ,he decided that he would be totally against any move by the club. Hypocrite comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jan 25, 2016 18:55:47 GMT
It's amazing what can happen when our elected representatives have the will Nunnery Way
|
|
leon
Squad Member
Posts: 253
|
Post by leon on Jan 25, 2016 19:07:42 GMT
Thought a bridge had to be built over the road !!!
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jan 25, 2016 20:17:10 GMT
Nah, a set of traffic lights will protect the pedestrians crossing from all the drivers who treat it as a motorway juuuuuust fine *rolls eyes*.
damn council.
|
|
|
Post by thatloudbloke on Jan 25, 2016 20:39:06 GMT
money talks & how many hand shakes by St Modwin or (Lansdowne Rodway as it was), but is this something that can be used to our advantage, asking why different to when we applied & that is what stopped our plans as we could not afford to pay for Bridges...
|
|
harley
Squad Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by harley on Feb 1, 2016 9:04:27 GMT
I asked Robin Walker about the Perdiswell Project when he was doorstepping during last year's election campaign. He saw no problems to the application going through, his reasoning being that most councillors would vote for Perdiswell simply because they wouldn't want any new ground being built in their own ward. He did also trot out the line that he couldn't get involved in planning applications but once permission granted would be willing to help in lobbying for whatever additional funding may be needed.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Feb 1, 2016 10:40:20 GMT
I asked Robin Walker about the Perdiswell Project when he was doorstepping during last year's election campaign. He saw no problems to the application going through, his reasoning being that most councillors would vote for Perdiswell simply because they wouldn't want any new ground being built in their own ward. He did also trot out the line that he couldn't get involved in planning applications but once permission granted would be willing to help in lobbying for whatever additional funding may be needed. This is an important point. Don't get fobbed off with a reply like "I can't comment as it's a planning issue". The question is "if the planning application was successful would you be behind the principle of WCFC becoming part of the sporting hub at Perdiswell". If the planners are happy, why wouldn't you be?
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Feb 1, 2016 12:58:53 GMT
But the reply I have received from Councillor Mitchell is that he is holding his council as he may be seconded on to the planning committee.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Feb 1, 2016 16:54:37 GMT
Ms Ramsey's predecessor as city council managing director, Duncan Sharkey, was actively pushing for the club to relocate to Perdiswell Park before his departure nine months ago. So what has changed in recent months.Also "We wouldn't have pushed it this far if we hadn't got that support from Duncan Sharkey, he was the one who encouraged us to work with the swimming pool project team." Taken from todays Worcester News on Line.
|
|
|
Post by thatloudbloke on Feb 1, 2016 17:00:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Feb 1, 2016 19:34:25 GMT
In my opinion, if there is a 'change of view' by the council then it can only be because they need to earmark Perdiswell for new Social/Affordable housing as 'directed' by the Conservative Party in their last years election Manifesto (200,000 new homes to be built across the country). Couple this with pressure on councils to sell off their existing housing stock and the sheer size of Perdiswell makes it very attractive indeed. As we know councillors are party political driven and can't necessarily think for themselves when it comes to major issues.
If the nimbys are worried about traffic congestion and the odd bit of noise associated with a football stadium, wait until there are 500 or so houses and new roads developed.
Dodger.
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Feb 1, 2016 22:35:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Feb 2, 2016 9:16:49 GMT
So what does that tell us then? I think we can all guess
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Feb 2, 2016 10:03:32 GMT
So what does that tell us then? I think we can all guess Football Fans - Working Class - Generally Labour supporters Golfers - tend to be Middle Class - Tory supporters Council Chamber - thin majority for the Conservatives in the run up to a local election where they could lose slim majority in several wards and control of the Guildhall... I wonder who they'd rather keep happy... Where on earth does this information come from ? I would have thought that this was unsubstantiated drivel !!
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Feb 2, 2016 10:17:05 GMT
So what does that tell us then? I think we can all guess We knew this was on the table a long time ago, when we were working closely with the Pool Team. Don't forget that in the original plans, The Sports Centre was going to be knocked down and it was just going to be a Pool and no Golf Club Shop was proposed in the Pool Plan, so we thought it would be a good idea to incorporate the Golf Club into a part of the Ground - the only offer of a solution for them. The Pool Team thought it was a great idea. When it changed with the Sports Centre staying there were still no plans for a Golf Shop in the plans. They also thought our multi sports ideas for widespread community involvement were a good idea (as they admitted the Council knows Perdiswell is so underused), so much so that we were invited to be a part of a widespread sports consultation for the whole of Perdiswell by a Company who were involved in a similar scheme in Nottingham - This was up until the change of Council when the drawbridge went up. Who wants to take a bet that all of our ideas will be put forward by the new Pool / Sports Centre provider? Back to the Golf - The Perdiswell Golf Club were not even interested in having a discussion about a potential football ground & the benefits it would bring them (i.e. Shared Car Parking, Club Shop, Bar etc) despite several requests and they were last approached back in August. We know in some of the various meetings we have had with FOP that they think the Football Ground would affect their competitions!! (although I couldn't see any plans for floodlights on the Golf Course). I suppose our Thursday afternoon and games in June and July would have an impact on them, so maybe that's why they don't like the idea. How much public funding supports the Golf Club, how many people actually use it? and how much are the PGA putting into this? There have been a few times when I have thought this was never going to happen especially just before Christmas, but going by the amount of people who have stopped me in the past week, I am back to 100%. Our best ally in all of this is The Protect Perdiswell Group, they have come out with so much rubbish over the past couple of years that I have yet to meet any Worcester person that recognises the area they are talking about - unless of course you are a Tory Councillor and incapable of getting their facts right.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Feb 2, 2016 10:24:58 GMT
..
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Feb 2, 2016 13:25:27 GMT
I have just emailed this to the Worcester News with a hope of having it printed in the paper and put up online:
Sir, Refererence Councillor Gareth Jones comments regarding the proposed football ground on Perdiswell and the recent developments in the City Council regarding this.
I asked these same questions in May 2015 in the lead up to the Local Elections in which Cllr Jones was standing as a candidate on a strongly anti-stadium ticket. He failed to give any response to these questions of which I am aware - which would have been extremely useful for the voters within his ward to decide on if he was deserving of their vote. I find it disingenuous of him that he could not even see fit to respond in any way to the points raised. I expected as much from a Politician who has flatly refused in the past to meet and discuss any issues with the Supporters Trust who have submitted the plans to revitalise Perdiswell for the benefit of all Citizens of this great City - instead of pandering to a select minority of protesters who want to keep a field that is in extremely poor condition and criminally underused. As a result I think that he has abandoned any notion of democracy in his actions thus far. Contrast this with Councillor Neil Laurenson, who despite his concerns has actually bothered to entered into dialogue with the general public and the Trust/Friends of Perdiswell - for which I thank him immensely for his input.
So once again I will ask Councillor Gareth Jones the following four questions - and hope this time for some sort of response instead of the drawbridge being pulled up...
I have seen Freedom of Information Request details from both the City Council and the Police which have confirmed that complaints about parking, noise pollution, light pollution and anti-social behaviour relating to the old stadium in St Georges are either minimal or non-existent. 1. In his objection letter to the Plans for development of the site he pointed out that he had never received a complaint about noise on Perdiswell. Did he ever have similar complaints about the old Football Ground - which lies within the St Stephen Ward of which he was one of the Councillors. 2. The plans are entered into the St Stephen Ward - Councillor Jones points out that they should be moved into Claines Ward. If it was moved out into Claines - then why would it affect his constituents - when it did not affect them when it was in his ward, many of whom live closer to the old football ground. 3. He states also that "Perdiswell is identified for Sports Use - which it currently enjoys". I would like to therefore ask him how many local Worcester & District Football League or Youth Football League Matches have taken place on Perdiswell over the last 2 seasons? A site with a changing room block newly built to great expense from Football Foundation funding now being used as a storeroom. 4. As a local Councillor, what has he proactively done to get this site back up & running and well used, other than to look for scoring votes at election time? I await a response with great anticippointment...
Yours sincerely
Krister Halvorsen
|
|
|
Post by thatloudbloke on Feb 2, 2016 16:04:25 GMT
I have just emailed this to the Worcester News with a hope of having it printed in the paper and put up online: Sir, Refererence Councillor Gareth Jones comments regarding the proposed football ground on Perdiswell and the recent developments in the City Council regarding this. I asked these same questions in May 2015 in the lead up to the Local Elections in which Cllr Jones was standing as a candidate on a strongly anti-stadium ticket. He failed to give any response to these questions of which I am aware - which would have been extremely useful for the voters within his ward to decide on if he was deserving of their vote. I find it disingenuous of him that he could not even see fit to respond in any way to the points raised. I expected as much from a Politician who has flatly refused in the past to meet and discuss any issues with the Supporters Trust who have submitted the plans to revitalise Perdiswell for the benefit of all Citizens of this great City - instead of pandering to a select minority of protesters who want to keep a field that is in extremely poor condition and criminally underused. As a result I think that he has abandoned any notion of democracy in his actions thus far. Contrast this with Councillor Neil Laurenson, who despite his concerns has actually bothered to entered into dialogue with the general public and the Trust/Friends of Perdiswell - for which I thank him immensely for his input. So once again I will ask Councillor Gareth Jones the following four questions - and hope this time for some sort of response instead of the drawbridge being pulled up... I have seen Freedom of Information Request details from both the City Council and the Police which have confirmed that complaints about parking, noise pollution, light pollution and anti-social behaviour relating to the old stadium in St Georges are either minimal or non-existent. 1. In his objection letter to the Plans for development of the site he pointed out that he had never received a complaint about noise on Perdiswell. Did he ever have similar complaints about the old Football Ground - which lies within the St Stephen Ward of which he was one of the Councillors. 2. The plans are entered into the St Stephen Ward - Councillor Jones points out that they should be moved into Claines Ward. If it was moved out into Claines - then why would it affect his constituents - when it did not affect them when it was in his ward, many of whom live closer to the old football ground. 3. He states also that "Perdiswell is identified for Sports Use - which it currently enjoys". I would like to therefore ask him how many local Worcester & District Football League or Youth Football League Matches have taken place on Perdiswell over the last 2 seasons? A site with a changing room block newly built to great expense from Football Foundation funding now being used as a storeroom. 4. As a local Councillor, what has he proactively done to get this site back up & running and well used, other than to look for scoring votes at election time? I await a response with great anticippointment... Yours sincerely Krister Halvorsen this sounds brilliant & hope that WN print this, but i think it will be edited... i would hope they at least contact Councillor Jones for his side, but we know he will duck & dive reply...
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Feb 2, 2016 16:21:14 GMT
I have just emailed this to the Worcester News with a hope of having it printed in the paper and put up online: Sir, Refererence Councillor Gareth Jones comments regarding the proposed football ground on Perdiswell and the recent developments in the City Council regarding this. I asked these same questions in May 2015 in the lead up to the Local Elections in which Cllr Jones was standing as a candidate on a strongly anti-stadium ticket. He failed to give any response to these questions of which I am aware - which would have been extremely useful for the voters within his ward to decide on if he was deserving of their vote. I find it disingenuous of him that he could not even see fit to respond in any way to the points raised. I expected as much from a Politician who has flatly refused in the past to meet and discuss any issues with the Supporters Trust who have submitted the plans to revitalise Perdiswell for the benefit of all Citizens of this great City - instead of pandering to a select minority of protesters who want to keep a field that is in extremely poor condition and criminally underused. As a result I think that he has abandoned any notion of democracy in his actions thus far. Contrast this with Councillor Neil Laurenson, who despite his concerns has actually bothered to entered into dialogue with the general public and the Trust/Friends of Perdiswell - for which I thank him immensely for his input. So once again I will ask Councillor Gareth Jones the following four questions - and hope this time for some sort of response instead of the drawbridge being pulled up... I have seen Freedom of Information Request details from both the City Council and the Police which have confirmed that complaints about parking, noise pollution, light pollution and anti-social behaviour relating to the old stadium in St Georges are either minimal or non-existent. 1. In his objection letter to the Plans for development of the site he pointed out that he had never received a complaint about noise on Perdiswell. Did he ever have similar complaints about the old Football Ground - which lies within the St Stephen Ward of which he was one of the Councillors. 2. The plans are entered into the St Stephen Ward - Councillor Jones points out that they should be moved into Claines Ward. If it was moved out into Claines - then why would it affect his constituents - when it did not affect them when it was in his ward, many of whom live closer to the old football ground. 3. He states also that "Perdiswell is identified for Sports Use - which it currently enjoys". I would like to therefore ask him how many local Worcester & District Football League or Youth Football League Matches have taken place on Perdiswell over the last 2 seasons? A site with a changing room block newly built to great expense from Football Foundation funding now being used as a storeroom. 4. As a local Councillor, what has he proactively done to get this site back up & running and well used, other than to look for scoring votes at election time? I await a response with great anticippointment... Yours sincerely Krister Halvorsen this sounds brilliant & hope that WN print this, but i think it will be edited... i would hope they at least contact Councillor Jones for his side, but we know he will duck & dive reply... To be fair - they haven't edited letters I've sent in before. I hope that answers will be forthcoming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2016 18:22:55 GMT
In my opinion, if there is a 'change of view' by the council then it can only be because they need to earmark Perdiswell for new Social/Affordable housing as 'directed' by the Conservative Party in their last years election Manifesto (200,000 new homes to be built across the country). Couple this with pressure on councils to sell off their existing housing stock and the sheer size of Perdiswell makes it very attractive indeed. As we know councillors are party political driven and can't necessarily think for themselves when it comes to major issues. If the nimbys are worried about traffic congestion and the odd bit of noise associated with a football stadium, wait until there are 500 or so houses and new roads developed. Dodger. This is the best argument we have in persuading the locals to back the stadium. They have to realise they may well have a massive housing estate on their doorstep if the stadium falls through.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Feb 2, 2016 18:45:42 GMT
In my opinion, if there is a 'change of view' by the council then it can only be because they need to earmark Perdiswell for new Social/Affordable housing as 'directed' by the Conservative Party in their last years election Manifesto (200,000 new homes to be built across the country). Couple this with pressure on councils to sell off their existing housing stock and the sheer size of Perdiswell makes it very attractive indeed. As we know councillors are party political driven and can't necessarily think for themselves when it comes to major issues. If the nimbys are worried about traffic congestion and the odd bit of noise associated with a football stadium, wait until there are 500 or so houses and new roads developed. Dodger. This is the best argument we have in persuading the locals to back the stadium. They have to realise they may well have a massive housing estate on their doorstep if the stadium falls through. I am sure that the football club would pay the council £50,000/£60,000 a year the same amount as they do Kidderminster, so to turn down a possible offer like this, it could be there is something else in the pipe line
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Feb 2, 2016 20:14:56 GMT
When you think that we'd have increased attendances, better revenue from food and drink, and have advertisements, I'd almost be annoyed if we weren't willing to pay £50k-£60k a year rent on land. Would obviously require a long term lease for security.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Feb 8, 2016 9:06:44 GMT
I see my letter appears as the main one in the WN today. And looks like it's unedited
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Feb 9, 2016 13:32:55 GMT
It seems that no application for planning permission has yet been submitted but `we` are getting there. If it takes so long to get through this preliminary stage how long will it be before the money to build is raised and the work is completed?
Will the Club be able to survive in exile well into the 2020s which seems likely to be necessary ?
|
|