|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 13, 2017 14:50:50 GMT
AN application to build a new football stadium in Worcester will again go before city planners next week.
Last month the Worcester News reported on the dramatic decision by Worcester City's planning committee to refuse the proposed 4,400-capacity stadium in Perdiswell Park.
In a heated debate at the Guildhall, more than 100 in the public gallery applauded comments in favour and against the application.
And when a vote was held the committee was split. Crucially, chairman Christ Mitchell's casting vote was against the scheme and among the reasons given were that it was due to the significant erosion of a green public space.
The application is now back on the agenda for the committee's next meeting, being held on Thursday, July 20.
Significantly, officers are recommending committee members change their mind and approve the application.
In his report planning officer Alan Coleman writes: "It remains the prerogative of the planning committee to make a contrary decision.
"It is important to note that there may be consequences to the actions that members take should they be required to defend a reason for refusal at appeal.
"There must be a sufficiently robust reason for refusal for an expert witness to be prepared to defend the case.
"Members run a risk for the awarding of partial or even full costs of the applicants’ appeal work - that causes officers significant concern."
A reason for refusal on the grounds that the adverse impacts would outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Development Plan and NPPF, is suggested to members.
But the officer adds: "Albeit it remains my opinion that this reason is not sufficiently robust."
The plans for the scheme were first drawn up as far back as April 2014, with the application featuring plans for tiered stands, a supporters bar, a conference room, directors lounge and club shop.
The committee meeting is scheduled to take place from 1.30pm, at The Guildhall.
|
|
rob
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 79
|
Post by rob on Jul 13, 2017 16:00:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jul 13, 2017 16:56:03 GMT
Interesting. Wonder if it will be a full house again on Thursday? |
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Jul 13, 2017 16:58:43 GMT
Lets hope a few more supporters can attend this time, and possibly someone representing the board?
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 13, 2017 16:59:44 GMT
I'm planning (pun intended) on being there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Jul 13, 2017 17:55:37 GMT
I'm planning (pun intended) on being there. Nice one |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Jul 14, 2017 11:16:28 GMT
The way this reads is that the planning officers are definitely leaning in our favour: but will the diehards STILL vote to over-turn their recommendations? Councillors can, in certain circumstances, become PERSONALLY liable for their actions should costs be incurred as the result of their decisions. Will this make them think twice about over-ruling the professionals? Twill be interesting to see!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Jul 14, 2017 17:00:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Jul 14, 2017 17:50:06 GMT
Interesting could this apply to WCFC I wonder? |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 14, 2017 20:50:46 GMT
No, it could not apply to WCFC, because they are not a community organisation or a charity, or a local group. They are a limited company, and the Localism Act does not apply to limited companies. If the Directors had seen fit to recommend voting for the change in the constitution, to allow the unallocated shares to be given to the Trust (as nil-paid shares) then this would have applied, at least to the Supporters Trust, who would have been the major shareholder in the football club. But they decided that Community and Localism is NOT the way forward, which is why they are negotiating with the City Council to purchase a scrap of land somewhere (or be given one)
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 19, 2017 10:16:12 GMT
Any idea what time this is going to be heard tomorrow?
|
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jul 19, 2017 16:56:54 GMT
Scheduled for 3pm approximately.
|
|
|
|
Post by gjones on Jul 20, 2017 15:06:03 GMT
That's that then. Refused. Time to look elsewhere
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 20, 2017 15:21:26 GMT
That's that then. Refused. Time to look elsewhere If this is who you purport to be - very very unprofessional for a person allegedly of your standing... |
|
|
|
Post by gjones on Jul 20, 2017 15:29:10 GMT
Says a man named after a plastic shoe.
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Jul 20, 2017 15:31:00 GMT
Well, was it refused or not ?
|
|
steves
Squad Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by steves on Jul 20, 2017 15:31:47 GMT
If that is him, he should be in the planning meeting....so either it's not him, or he's on his phone, in the room, baiting. Just block the troll.
|
|
steves
Squad Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by steves on Jul 20, 2017 15:34:11 GMT
Yes, it was refused again, despite the planning office saying late in the meeting that it should be approved. So it's off to appeal I guess and the council will foot the bill when it gets approved. Nice work representing your constituents fellas.
|
|
|
|
Post by gjones on Jul 20, 2017 15:36:25 GMT
There will be no appeal. You lost. Deal with it.
|
|
steves
Squad Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by steves on Jul 20, 2017 15:41:27 GMT
Hey "Gareth", who are you really? Are you one of those PPP loons?
|
|
Fred
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 129
|
Post by Fred on Jul 20, 2017 15:44:01 GMT
GJones, there will be an appeal, this isnt over, mark our words we will be back and stronger than ever before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 20, 2017 15:48:05 GMT
Says a man named after a plastic shoe. Have to give you credit - that's the best insult/comeback I've had - hats off... |
|
|
|
Post by wcfcwarwick on Jul 20, 2017 15:57:53 GMT
In the Worcester News, journalist Sam Greenway's live commentary from the planning meeting includes the following,
"Cllr Neil Laurenson has read out a long list of clubs who have football stadiums not in an urban area, or on a public green space. He concludes that the committee should again refuse, and continue to protect Perdiswell Park."
Locating a club in a rural area, as Cllr. Laurenson seems to be suggesting, would mean that very few people could reach the ground by any other means than by car. That would not be sustainable environmentally. Does anyone know if that is the plan that Cllr. Laurenson is proposing?
|
|
|
|
Post by maybe1day on Jul 20, 2017 16:06:13 GMT
This is very disappointing and a shame. I am now looking forward to WHO's comments seems to say it as it is which us good!😁
|
|
|
|
Post by genghis on Jul 20, 2017 18:55:23 GMT
Disappointing news, but was to be expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Jul 20, 2017 18:55:45 GMT
If that really is Gareth Jones posting on here it would simply demonstrate what a petty, small-minded, mean-spirited, individual he is.
And if it really is him posting surely it's unprofessional conduct worthy of reporting to the City Council's Professional Standards Committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo Bitburg on Jul 20, 2017 19:11:44 GMT
We need the big banner back.
|
|
|
|
Post by thatloudbloke on Jul 20, 2017 19:43:31 GMT
We need the big banner back. that can happen but is that the way forward as we have tried the big banner & that had little effect on the useless Tory/Green brigade... |
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Jul 20, 2017 19:57:22 GMT
We need the big banner back. The banner is deep in landfill. RIP banner. I do however have a flag fund kindly paid for by Kiddy (after some persuasion through the courts) burning a hole in my pocket here if you have any suggestions on how to put it to best use. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 20, 2017 20:32:21 GMT
We need the big banner back. The banner is deep in landfill. RIP banner. I do however have a flag fund kindly paid for by Kiddy (after some persuasion through the courts) burning a hole in my pocket here if you have any suggestions on how to put it to best use. It can help pay for the appeal.......until we get the money back from the Council |
|
