|
|
Post by zeke on Apr 9, 2016 8:12:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Apr 9, 2016 8:27:22 GMT
It's still worrying that the council are progressing this 'alternative site' campaign as if the Perdiswell project is dead in the water!
If they get even a sniff of "Hmmmm, yes that area is a possibility as an alternate site", things will get fast tracked to meet that alternate site.
I still believe that Perdie is earmarked (under the counter) for housing development.
Dodger.
|
|
|
|
Post by zeke on Apr 9, 2016 8:35:42 GMT
I agree that they're putting most of their energy and time into the alternative "solution". Not good!
|
|
|
|
Post by zeke on Apr 9, 2016 8:50:20 GMT
Actually they seem to be more interested in saying which sites are not suitable!
|
|
|
|
Post by thatloudbloke on Apr 9, 2016 9:05:29 GMT
there is no other site, they the council screwed up the best site for all when they stopped the Nunnery Way project, all this would now be in the past & WCFC could get on with playing at home in Worcester...
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Apr 9, 2016 9:14:33 GMT
The City Council never stopped the Nunnery Way project, in fact they gave planning consent for a ground at Nunnery Way in January 2012.
|
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Apr 9, 2016 9:46:09 GMT
Correct. Whilst I am no fan of Worcester City Council, it was not their fault Nunnery Way didn't take place. The Club's ill thought through and badly timed move to Nunnery Way never added up at any stage, with a then WCFC Board ( desperate to cling onto power ) Business Plan written on the back of a fag packet. It was never affordable the day the deal with Carey's for SGL was signed, let alone any deal with St Modwens for Nunnery Way. It was the folly of desperate men.
As for Claines lane and the Cinderella Ground, both have been rejected as too small, horrendous traffic etc. It's a non story telling us that someone's got a map out looking at any green space.
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Apr 9, 2016 10:12:07 GMT
Much of this work looking at "alternative" sites was done by the Trust when we did the seqential testing for the planning application- check out the various appendices hereLots of pictures showing it won't fit! Also planning policy officer at WCC consultation comment: "No alternative sites to accommodate a ground for Worcester City Football Club have been put forward during the evolution of the SWDP. Only development at Nunnery Way or Perdiswell could be considered to be in accordance with planning policy. While this does not preclude development of a football ground in an alternative location it would be more difficult for such development to achieve positive planning policy". |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Apr 9, 2016 11:37:39 GMT
Worcester News EXCLUSIVE really isn't an exclusive at all! Tom Edwards just had to do a bit of homework and have a glance through the planning application to see that these sites were considered on their merits and failed sequential testing! Geoff Berkeley is doing a sterling job of good journalism for Worcester News, Tom Edwards is scuttling around looking for a story, and is falling at the Foinavon fence every time! Lifting the lid? He's got the wrong pot!!
|
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Apr 12, 2016 10:06:20 GMT
|
|
stamoo
First Teamer
Posts: 349
|
Post by stamoo on Apr 12, 2016 12:10:11 GMT
Let's not be too hard on Tom Edwards or the Worcester Evening News!!! At the very least they are keeping our biggest issue alive and at the forefront of people's consciousness and any extra publicity helps keep pressure on the Council to resolve the matter. I remember a time when we used to criticise the paper for its silence on City off the field issues. Any publicity around the Perdiswell bid has to be good especially at the moment.
|
|
