|
Post by lancashirelad on May 1, 2017 17:35:57 GMT
[/quote]You make it sound like this is our only option of getting back in the City ![/quote]
Thats right, there maybe other options, we may be able to ground share with Droitwich FC - if they get a new stadium ? Which will mean we are that bit closer to home !
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 8, 2017 11:27:16 GMT
PPP toys out of the pram in response to the Highways comments not objecting I see:
"The Highways comment on the application has appeared. It assumes that fans and others who need car parking will be able to use the pool car park. It also says that overall, the area can cope with the demand, based on the figures provided. It does not talk about growth or future-forecast at all. They recommend demanding £30,000 up front to pay for kerb/crossing improvements and the applicants must “ensure bus services on key routes…are maintained and provided as needed to support football matches or other events.” (One crossing point is needed ‘near the canal bridge’. It’s odd that Highways require this when local residents will know they have been saying for ages that it can’t be done.) So it probably boils down to them stumping up a bit more cash but so far they have none and that’s not stopping them."
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 9, 2017 9:02:46 GMT
And where do we begin with this...
"Update: I think I've just discovered the real reason the club and trust had been stalling for so long over reviewing the plans at Perdiswell and delaying that re application for so long, as well as embroiling the council in the arguments. It's because if they manage to delay SMD from starting the development of the stadium at Nunnery way (which planning is already approved and contract signed), until 2017 they force SMD to default on the contract and then the football club get back the £1.26million they put in towards the Nunnery Way development, in land and infrastructure costs. They think they can get there hands on Perdiswell for free claiming "we have no money" and go laughing all the way to the bank."
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 9, 2017 9:44:40 GMT
Hi croc - where did you get this from ? As most of us can only guess at the iffy contents of the SGL sale / Nunnery Way contract signed by Boddy and Lancaster................ It's surely nonsense, as why would WCFC pay 500k +VAT to SMD to get out of the Nunnery Way obligation to pay 1.26 m towards infrastructure costs ? www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/14241442.Worcester_City_had_to_pay___600_000_to_get_out_of_Nunnery_Way_deal/and as Mr Hampson said “We had to take it on the chin, we had to pay the £500,000 plus the VAT, but the capital gains tax we have managed to get reduced to a manageable figure,” he said. “That is business and that is how it goes." That's that explained by the Chairman then !
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on May 9, 2017 10:02:54 GMT
Its one of the many bonkers posts on the Protect Perdiswell Park Facebook page. PPP Facebook So apparently we are all stalling to get into a legal battle with SMD over a contract that was expunged almost two years ago! Go figure conspiracy theorists!!
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 9, 2017 10:35:44 GMT
Its one of the many bonkers posts on the Protect Perdiswell Park Facebook page. PPP Facebook So apparently we are all stalling to get into a legal battle with SMD over a contract that was expunged almost two years ago! Go figure conspiracy theorists!!
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on May 18, 2017 11:40:24 GMT
I note that Perdiswell didn't make it onto the agenda that was published this morning for the next meeting of the planning committee on 25th May. Anyone from the ST able to provide an update please?
|
|
|
Post by creaner on May 18, 2017 13:07:18 GMT
I note that Perdiswell didn't make it onto the agenda that was published this morning for the next meeting of the planning committee on 25th May. Anyone from the ST able to provide an update please? More frustration, although I'm getting used to it now. With the delay in getting to committee one of the ecological reports we commissioned needs updating due to time that has elapsed. It went back to the consultant last week so shouldn't be long. Just a delay and more expense but we wouldn't want to fall at the last hurdle on a technicality.
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on May 18, 2017 14:58:43 GMT
Frustrating but these things happen. Important to get it right. Fingers crossed for positive news of it being heard soon. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jun 2, 2017 7:07:55 GMT
If you get chance - just have a look at the front page of today's Worcester News...
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Jun 2, 2017 7:28:05 GMT
Interesting .... wasn't Gregson supposed to be a friend of the Trust? It looks like he has shafted them.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jun 2, 2017 7:47:11 GMT
Interesting .... wasn't Gregson supposed to be a friend of the Trust? It looks like he has shafted them. I think Gregson knows thanks to the intransigent bunfighting over the St Stephens Ward between the Greens and Tories (Laurenson vs. the obstructionist Jones) who have been using the Stadium and Hub as an excuse to mislead/scaremonger the NIMBY enclave into voting for them that the Community Sport Hub plans are ultimately going to fail in the long term. The Hub plans may pass Planning - but it will in all likelihood not pass the full Council Vote for Land Transfer (another Brain Child of the desperate Jones to keep his a**e in the Guildhall to the detriment of the majority of residents in the City) - a vote which in all likelihood won't be won as the Blue & Green lot will team up to reject it, once again for fear of losing a seat there. Gregson is exploring to see what other use for Perdiswell there could be to bring funding into the City (and as the Stadium/Hub would be dead in the water - then the next best thing would be housing). This is - if you will - be their "Plan B"...
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Jun 2, 2017 11:19:42 GMT
Supposing the potential housing development scares the Nimbys into thinking that perhaps a football stadium would be preferable after all?
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Jun 3, 2017 8:37:05 GMT
Sadly local residents will have little say in the matter. A plan will be presented to the planning committee by developers and decisions will be made behind closed doors. The nimbys will get what they're given. A few will get rich and Worcester will lose another swath of green land without gaining any social benefits.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 3, 2017 8:45:19 GMT
No social benefits? Worcester NEEDS a boating lake! I mean NEEDS a boating lake! Havent you seen the letters in the Worcester News from "Angry from Dines Green" complaining vociferously about the lack of a boating lake in Worcester?
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jun 3, 2017 9:51:55 GMT
Maybe somebody needs to start off a small but vociferous campaign group...
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jun 5, 2017 22:11:52 GMT
PPP have issued forth again - and it's utter sewerage:
"What difference does a week make? The Council leadership has posed an idea about developing the Park and Ride site, allotments and Neel Park area (footie pitch near the blue roof) along Perdiswell area for housing and recreation. How this affects the open parkland is not clear. No maps are available, just descriptions in the Worcester News - 'a sprawling estate' etc. It does not sound all good and previously new sports facilities have been mentioned but there’s no details on this so far.
How is this linked to the failure to get the planning application completed? It’s not. If we had a football stadium built on the playing fields would this stop the new development? Of course not. This has not stopped a few comments here to say it’s all our fault, that we’re ‘tiny-minded cretins’, ‘short sighted morons’ and ‘low life’, saying we were ‘warned’ as if one follows the other. In fact, Mr Gregson said the Council's proposals will have to await a Planning decision on the football stadium. We could be here a while.
So, what difference does a week make? Very little to the lack of merit and purpose to the stadium plan. Very little to the fact that WCFC seem to have given up on it. A few angry pro-stadium supporters are still ready to scaremonger (jetskis?) and hurl abuse (while I'm on holiday!) Yes, there are aspects to these rough proposals which cause concern and we really need clear information from the Council very soon to stop a lot of nonsense being spread around such as has happened on this page. When we know more, the impact on the area will be considered carefully."
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Jun 13, 2017 9:48:35 GMT
On the council website it has the next committee as 22 June. Can the Trust confirm if Perdiswell is going to be heard at this meeting?
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 13, 2017 11:00:57 GMT
No, no they can't. However, the City Council will be confirming what will be heard on the day when they publish the agenda for the hearing, which will be either Thursday or Friday this week.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Jun 13, 2017 21:14:55 GMT
Thanks for the update - let's hope it is on there.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jun 14, 2017 18:16:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestonwcfc on Jun 15, 2017 6:44:14 GMT
Julian excuse my ignorance but does this mean that it is being heard on the 22nd with a recommendation planning permission is given subject to the two clauses ? If so how demanding are the two clauses?
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jun 15, 2017 7:09:12 GMT
Julian excuse my ignorance but does this mean that it is being heard on the 22nd with a recommendation planning permission is given subject to the two clauses ? If so how demanding are the two clauses? The slow worm one is fairly self explanatory. We will have 4 months from the date of Planning Committee to complete the Section 106 agreement which involve legal advice. Not an expert on S106 though!
|
|
|
Post by cloud on Jun 15, 2017 7:51:39 GMT
All seems quite sensible. The only two issues seem to be; 1 Making sure there is a suitable bus service for evening matches. This is probably out of our hands, but I'm sure an additional coach service can be easily made available (like it was for some games at Aggy). 2 Slow worms This is a bit odd as, if I read it right, there are no slow worms on the site. Looking really good - well done to all concerned.
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Jun 15, 2017 8:35:13 GMT
As a menber of the Trust, I`ve admired the tenacity of the leadership team but never understood them working their b****x off to provide a ground for the shysters who control WCFC . Is there another agenda ?
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 15, 2017 8:56:56 GMT
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Jun 15, 2017 19:01:59 GMT
Isn't the slow worm bit standard on most planning applications? They are an endangered species and therefore deserving of protection; it doesn't mean there ARE any slow worms to be found.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Jun 15, 2017 22:34:26 GMT
What is the agenda then?
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Jun 18, 2017 9:07:03 GMT
I don't know if this has been mentioned.......If planning is granted on Thursday will/would the board support Perdiswell 100%?
|
|
|
Post by wcfcnb82 on Jun 18, 2017 11:06:56 GMT
I don't know if this has been mentioned.......If planning is granted on Thursday will/would the board support Perdiswell 100%? I think the answer is no. As they have shown, they do not want perdiswell to happen as they have been going behind the trusts back and discussing other sites. Part of it will be because they know full well it's not their idea and they want everything their way. Part of it is they know and I think deep down everyone knows that when the planning committee pass the plans, the council will reject it anyway. I just feel sorry for everyone involved as four years planning has been for nothing.
|
|