|
Post by Mark on Feb 26, 2016 21:00:00 GMT
Where is that £33,000,000 lottery winner when you need him or her?
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Feb 26, 2016 21:06:12 GMT
I hope that Marc Bayliss chivvies up his colleagues who are currently scouring the city, to get a move on, as I see that another piece of green land - The NALGO Sports Ground in Battenhall Road - is soon to disappear and have guess what.....................houses !
Despite being earmarked for 20 " homes " in the SWDP, our friendly neighbourhood builders Misters Bros have managed to convince our esteemed Planning Committee that 31 can be squeezed onto the site. Obviously local objections were overruled, as the builders conveniently promised to pay for " ecology enhancements " on City Council owned land outside the application site including bird and bat boxes. All heart these building chaps.
|
|
|
Post by thatloudbloke on Feb 26, 2016 21:49:46 GMT
mister brothers are a miniature St Modwen, & wonder how many golden hand shakes this took...
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Feb 26, 2016 22:00:37 GMT
Are you for real? Bird and Bat boxes? Just last week I was teaching unskilled teenagers how to make both, and they did so brilliantly (it's even going on spring watch at some point).
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Feb 26, 2016 22:59:08 GMT
Steady on, this is just part of the " ecology enhancements ". " Works will include retained grassland, wildlife ponds, a wildflower meadow, drainage swale, and bird and bat boxes ". I'm not sure if that involves enhancing what is already there, or creating something new. For an extra 11 homes on the site, this is surely the least we can all expect ! planning.worcester.gov.uk/OcellaWeb/showDocuments?reference=P15B0288&module=pl
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Feb 26, 2016 23:46:22 GMT
Point still stands, it's minimal effort for them, yet it's a good way to get what they want.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Feb 27, 2016 1:22:08 GMT
Couldn't agree more.
It looks as though fortunately for the developers, the land was a very late surprise addition to the SWDP for 20 homes. Misters Bros own publicity for the development was for 23 homes, and yet 31 now get approved. Despite numerous objections regarding amongst other things the ecological sweetener and its impact, it still goes through. The Planning Committee certainly appear to look upon some applications more favourably and with greater haste than others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 9:04:44 GMT
And another sport and leisure site disappears in the city. Soon kids will have to travel to Kidderminster to find a playground,
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Feb 27, 2016 9:19:49 GMT
Whoops......I was thinking "Bird & Bat boxes?"..................that must be the size of the houses! Dodger.
|
|
steves
Squad Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by steves on Feb 28, 2016 7:56:48 GMT
Well to be fair, house developers have got it made right now. There's a massive housing shortage in this country and we haven't built enough since the 70s, so they're probably not going to have the try very hard to get planning, as the govt wants 400000 more houses a year!
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Feb 28, 2016 9:50:33 GMT
I'm no expert but at the moment there is a Bill currently going through the House of Lords - "Housing and Planning Bill 2015/2016". There's a clause in it (clause 184) which will seemingly commit local authorities to declare details of land which has been surplus for 2 years (6 months if residential). This will no doubt give the Government the opportunity to instruct the local authority to allow new builds (starter homes).
If perdiswell is council owned and is declared surplus then it will definitely be seen as building potential.
If all those nimby's don't want a new starter home (aka council house alternative) development, they should be siding with the football stadium plans.
No doubt this Housing Bill may well be impacting the current planning application?
Dodger.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Feb 28, 2016 10:12:33 GMT
Steves - you are correct.
This is sadly very true at the moment. However it hasn't always been the case. I'm just pointing out that Worcester City Council have always had an unfavourable stance towards the football club in comparison to others. Not letting B & Q to be the enabling partner at Nunnery Way was the start of it. That land, and more importantly building on that strip of land ( both sides of Nunnery Way ) between Whittington and Junction 6, is what it was, and has always been about. The football club was seen as the conduit to get the building started on that corridor of land. Does anyone seriously think that certain individuals who had never shown one iotas worth of interest in WCFC for many years previously, suddenly joined the Board for any other reason than to help this idea along ?
The Planning Inspector said that the Nunnery Way Site could only be used for a " showpiece " football stadium in the centre of the field, with enabling development around it. No stadium = no development on the site. No development in Nunnery Way = no building in that corridor of land.What happens ? The Council, led by City Planner Stuart McNidder was always against B & Q ( why have competition to Worcester's 3 Homebases ? ), and obstacle after obstacle gets put in the Football Club's way, such as " wrong type of enabling development " and latterly " you can't have a pedestrian crossing, you must have a footbridge ". Surely no development then ? Not quite !
The Board continue to run up the overdraft to £ 1.2 m, WCFC sell SGL, , board individuals then disappear, we can't afford to go to Nunnery Way, pay 500 k to get out of the worst deal in history with St Modwen's signed by said Board. St Modwen's then get permission to build what they want on the site, and guess what, they can have a pedestrian crossing ! I see that the next field north of the Cattle market site also now has a sign up for " commercial development ", and let's not forget the big plans for a retail park for the field next to the Hospital on the other side of Nunnery Way. Nor the houses being built on the Whittington roundabout end, in the field between the Kilbury Drive estate that backs onto Nunnery Way.
As has been shown in Worcester over the decades, wait long enough, and you can build it eventually. WCFC was just the first expendable pawn movement in the whole game, and some in Worcester just happen to play the long game very well.
|
|
steves
Squad Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by steves on Feb 28, 2016 11:43:06 GMT
In my humble opinion, the "people" are given far too much influence in the planning process. No one has a right for their house price to be protected from development that they "reckon" will negatively affect it. You buy a house, you take the risk.
Imagine if this kind of planning rigmarole had to be put up with for all the Victorian estates and the massive areas of 1930s and 50s housing. Huge areas of farm land being developed, as I said on the PPP Facebook page, if these objectors ruled the roost then, we'd all be living in holes in the ground.
This economic background asks massive questions that the objectors should seriously consider. Their "open space" already is being developed. A precedent has been set.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Feb 28, 2016 17:04:43 GMT
Steves - you are correct. This is sadly very true at the moment. However it hasn't always been the case. I'm just pointing out that Worcester City Council have always had an unfavourable stance towards the football club in comparison to others. Not letting B & Q to be the enabling partner at Nunnery Way was the start of it. That land, and more importantly building on that strip of land ( both sides of Nunnery Way ) between Whittington and Junction 6, is what it was, and has always been about. The football club was seen as the conduit to get the building started on that corridor of land. Does anyone seriously think that certain individuals who had never shown one iotas worth of interest in WCFC for many years previously, suddenly joined the Board for any other reason than to help this idea along ? The Planning Inspector said that the Nunnery Way Site could only be used for a " showpiece " football stadium in the centre of the field, with enabling development around it. No stadium = no development on the site. No development in Nunnery Way = no building in that corridor of land.What happens ? The Council, led by City Planner Stuart McNidder was always against B & Q ( why have competition to Worcester's 3 Homebases ? ), and obstacle after obstacle gets put in the Football Club's way, such as " wrong type of enabling development " and latterly " you can't have a pedestrian crossing, you must have a footbridge ". Surely no development then ? Not quite ! The Board continue to run up the overdraft to £ 1.2 m, WCFC sell SGL, , board individuals then disappear, we can't afford to go to Nunnery Way, pay 500 k to get out of the worst deal in history with St Modwen's signed by said Board. St Modwen's then get permission to build what they want on the site, and guess what, they can have a pedestrian crossing ! I see that the next field north of the Cattle market site also now has a sign up for " commercial development ", and let's not forget the big plans for a retail park for the field next to the Hospital on the other side of Nunnery Way. Nor the houses being built on the Whittington roundabout end, in the field between the Kilbury Drive estate that backs onto Nunnery Way. As has been shown in Worcester over the decades, wait long enough, and you can build it eventually. WCFC was just the first expendable pawn movement in the whole game, and some in Worcester just happen to play the long game very well. I remember hearing from several parties that one particular solicitor (who may or may not wear a bow tie on a regular basis) represented several land owners on that corridor who would stand to make a lot if the corridor were opened up for development - with him taking a very substantial cut in fees and whatnot. Same solicitor may have or have not gotten involved with WCFC in the Nunnery days for reasons... I shall let you, the dear reader, connect the dots there.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Feb 28, 2016 17:36:47 GMT
In my humble opinion, the "people" are given far too much influence in the planning process. No one has a right for their house price to be protected from development that they "reckon" will negatively affect it. You buy a house, you take the risk. Imagine if this kind of planning rigmarole had to be put up with for all the Victorian estates and the massive areas of 1930s and 50s housing. Huge areas of farm land being developed, as I said on the PPP Facebook page, if these objectors ruled the roost then, we'd all be living in holes in the ground. This economic background asks massive questions that the objectors should seriously consider. Their "open space" already is being developed. A precedent has been set. Perceived loss of property value is not a material planning consideration, neither is loss of a view. These objections won't be considered in any planning application
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 17:40:37 GMT
The solicitor's name was Hallmark. I heard he's been struck off since.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 28, 2016 22:05:48 GMT
Developers are now also looking at the land between the Nunnery Way development and Whittington Village, presently occupied by a few cows. 300 houses being proposed at the moment.
I wonder if our friend Mr Guy is aware?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 12:30:23 GMT
If I recall correctly Mr Guy was a friend of ours. He was the first person to make us aware that NW was a scam to allow extensive development, and would not benefit the club.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Feb 29, 2016 13:00:19 GMT
I wouldn't exactly say that Mr Guy was a friend of ours, as he was an objector to the Nunnery Way project !!!
Not to say that he was just against the football club as such, he was just against the development of the site, as he too realised what it was all about in the long term ie the development of that corridor of land, and the football club moving was seen to be the initial first building block in the process at that time.
Obviously as time has shown, it didn't matter whether anyone objected or whether WCFC moved, it's happened anyway ! He's been shafted as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 16:05:26 GMT
"as he was an objector to the Nunnery Way project !!!" So was I.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Mar 1, 2016 11:04:53 GMT
STATEMENT
Worcester City to leave Aggborough at the end of this season
Under the terms of its existing ground share agreement, Worcester City Football Club has formally advised Kidderminster Harriers Football Club that it will not be taking up its option for an extension to the current arrangement. The Football Club will therefore leave Aggborough at the end of the current season.
Chairman Anthony Hampson said “Worcester City Football Club has thoroughly enjoyed its stay at Aggborough and is extremely grateful to the Directors (and former Directors) at Kidderminster Harriers for the assistance they have given to us as a football club. I would particularly like to pay tribute to the office and backroom staff who have been so helpful to us.
There is no doubt that Aggborough is a first class venue in which to play football and one which we leave reluctantly. However, as a Board we have to look at the long term viability of the Worcester City Football Club. It is clear that with on-going delays surrounding our return to Worcester, remaining at Aggborough is un-affordable to us in the long term. We must therefore pursue other alternatives”.
Worcester City Football Club will keep supporters advised of arrangements to be put in place for next (and future) seasons but at this point will be making no further comment on those arrangements until it has received all the formal approvals.
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Mar 1, 2016 11:14:53 GMT
I'm expecting people will ignore the ''no further comment'' part and be asking where we will play next season. I'm still putting my bet on Baggies.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Mar 1, 2016 11:17:51 GMT
I'm expecting people will ignore the ''no further comment'' part and be asking where we will play next season. I'm still putting my bet on Baggies. No comment
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Mar 1, 2016 11:22:15 GMT
I'm expecting people will ignore the ''no further comment'' part and be asking where we will play next season. I'm still putting my bet on Baggies. No comment They've trained you well!
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Mar 1, 2016 11:27:28 GMT
They've trained you well! Christ no.........Self trained !
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Mar 1, 2016 16:41:01 GMT
I hear several options are being considered including playing at Blyth Spartans, Workington, Truro City, Dover, Guernsey though believe Wyre Piddles ground is favourite. This spoon seems to be stirring nicely!!!
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Mar 1, 2016 16:50:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Mar 1, 2016 16:52:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Mar 1, 2016 16:53:04 GMT
It's bound to be Bromsgrove and if so what about the car parking? I had a real job to park when attending the cup match against Redditch in pre-season.
If it is Bromsgrove prepare for even lower attendances.
|
|
|
Post by thatloudbloke on Mar 1, 2016 16:56:14 GMT
wow thats a large squad, anyone been scouting....
|
|