|
Post by Bonzo Bitburg on Jul 20, 2017 20:41:07 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... We only had it for one game and I do believe the Tories lost overall control of the council so on that basis - quite effective I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo Bitburg on Jul 20, 2017 20:43:43 GMT
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 Agreed
|
|
|
Post by thatloudbloke on Jul 20, 2017 21:49:26 GMT
It can help pay for the appeal.......until we get the money back from the Council Agreed it was raised for flags, so it should be used to make new or replica flags/banners
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jul 20, 2017 21:51:26 GMT
What would be the value in that?
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 20, 2017 21:54:56 GMT
To be honest, a banner is about as much use as a chocolate leg. We might as well write a a strong letter to The Times! Did anyone really think that there would be a change of heart and mind at the hearing today? What a complete charade its been. The Tory group on the planning committee made their mind up prior to the hearing on the 22nd, and they'd done their homework to find a valid reason to reject, after all, rejection on the basis of noise, traffic, light polution, or based on any objections from consultative bodies was not going to fly. So they went for the SWDP Green Space development policy 38B in particular part 1. relating to the loss of green space in return for community amentity. Chris Mitchell effectively told the audience this early in the hearing on the 22nd. I didnt think that this would fly because surely the whole crux of the Supporters Trusts raison d'etre is Community? And this proposal was for a Community Stadium at the hub of a community amenity at Perdiswell, with the Supporters Trust being the service provider, and Worcester City FC being a user of the community facility (along with many other community users) so surely this suggestion that the stadium did not provide community benefit would be refuted with style yes? This was the moment when the planning application was lost, and you could see the heads drop in the room
Chris Mitchell : "Will the stadium be available as a community amenity?" (actually asked twice to separate the stadium from the 3G pitch) Supporters Trust Spokesman : "NO"
That was the point at which the coffin nails were lined up for the planning committee to drive them home. And not one of those on the Tory side (who have always opposed Perdiswell) was even close to likely to be changing their mind in the month between then and now.
This is still very winnable on appeal, if the football club are prepared to fund an appeal that is - which considering they have been reluctant to fund the planning application seems a bit unlikely. But we will have to demonstrate real community value, and the stadium as a community amenity - and however good the match at Claines Lane was, thats not community, thats just a Worcester City game.
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Jul 21, 2017 9:16:56 GMT
Surely, as spokesman for a Community Benefit Society, the Trust spokesman could have suggested ways the entire entity could become a community amenity. With the answer being in the negative, the game was lost. How long is this farce to continue ? Until all the money runs out or anybody who ever saw a game at SGL is dead ?
|
|
|
Post by cloud on Jul 21, 2017 9:37:09 GMT
Surely, as spokesman for a Community Benefit Society, the Trust spokesman could have suggested ways the entire entity could become a community amenity. With the answer being in the negative, the game was lost. How long is this farce to continue ? Until all the money runs out or anybody who ever saw a game at SGL is dead ? Yes, even if it was just reiterating the children's activities that took place down the Lane; like junior games, Kings v Grammar school etc. I also remember going to the Lane for a local fete years ago, & playing skittles on the hallowed turf. These things could easily be held on the new ground. Can't imagine why they wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday, when the question was asked.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jul 21, 2017 12:53:28 GMT
There was no opportunity yesterday for the applicants or objectors to make any further comments or respond to questions.
The Committee yesterday were provided with a written submission from the applicants that explained the Club's community work and also how the all weather pitch, main stadium pitch and associated facilities can be used by the Worcester community.
Much of this information was in the documents that accompany the application.
The question asked at the June meeting as I recall was about whether the public would have free, unrestricted access, to which an honest reply was given.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 21, 2017 13:28:05 GMT
There was no opportunity yesterday for the applicants or objectors to make any further comments or respond to questions. The Committee yesterday were provided with a written submission from the applicants that explained the Club's community work and also how the all weather pitch, main stadium pitch and associated facilities can be used by the Worcester community. Much of this information was in the documents that accompany the application. The question asked at the June meeting as I recall was about whether the public would have free, unrestricted access, to which an honest reply was given. committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/documents/b11565/Late%20Papers%2020th-Jul-2017%2013.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=9Page 13 onwards in the Late Papers. Looking further on - they've included a load of Objection Letters and Online Comments sent in over the last fortnight (and they are ALL objections - there is not one single submission in support in there) - I didn't realise that you could submit items like that as a member of the public after the Consultation period had finished? And it now is apparent that the long list of football clubs that Laurenson read out - didn't in fact come from his own research - but instead he's regurgitated the list sent in by Dennis Strudwick in his objection. Dennis Strudwick used to be the General Manager of the Vanarama National League and before that - the Secretary of the Doc Martens Southern League...
|
|
|
Post by canalender on Jul 21, 2017 13:33:30 GMT
There was no opportunity yesterday for the applicants or objectors to make any further comments or respond to questions. The Committee yesterday were provided with a written submission from the applicants that explained the Club's community work and also how the all weather pitch, main stadium pitch and associated facilities can be used by the Worcester community. Much of this information was in the documents that accompany the application. The question asked at the June meeting as I recall was about whether the public would have free, unrestricted access, to which an honest reply was given. Be interesting to find out what the question actually was so the answer can be properly accessed. The reason given for refusal on the 22nd was "The proposal would compromise the essential quality and character of the Green Space by reason of the scale and size of the proposed stadium that would detract from views contrary to policy SWDP 38 B (i) of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, and; alternative provision/replacement Green Space of equivalent value to the community has not been secured in a suitable location contrary to policy SWDP 38 B (iii) of the South Worcestershire Development Plan." To me this reads as nonsense and not a valid reason.
|
|
|
Post by canalender on Jul 21, 2017 16:09:37 GMT
There was no opportunity yesterday for the applicants or objectors to make any further comments or respond to questions. The Committee yesterday were provided with a written submission from the applicants that explained the Club's community work and also how the all weather pitch, main stadium pitch and associated facilities can be used by the Worcester community. Much of this information was in the documents that accompany the application. The question asked at the June meeting as I recall was about whether the public would have free, unrestricted access, to which an honest reply was given. committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/documents/b11565/Late%20Papers%2020th-Jul-2017%2013.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=9Page 13 onwards in the Late Papers. Looking further on - they've included a load of Objection Letters and Online Comments sent in over the last fortnight (and they are ALL objections - there is not one single submission in support in there) - I didn't realise that you could submit items like that as a member of the public after the Consultation period had finished? And it now is apparent that the long list of football clubs that Laurenson read out - didn't in fact come from his own research - but instead he's regurgitated the list sent in by Dennis Strudwick in his objection. Dennis Strudwick used to be the General Manager of the Vanarama National League and before that - the Secretary of the Doc Martens Southern League... Dennis Strudwick is mates with Dave Boddy and employed him after he left the City. 3 of the late objections are from him and his wife! The plonker even states his home town is Horsham Most of the objections are emotion rather than reality based and some are duplicated from the original batch. Mark Newell's submission reads well and deals with many of the objections to the point of rendering them invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo Bitburg on Jul 21, 2017 16:17:09 GMT
it was raised for flags, so it should be used to make new or replica flags/banners Oh yes, true. In which case get the big banner back but this time lets have it visible from space.
|
|
|
Post by wr4wolf on Jul 21, 2017 16:55:59 GMT
Setting aside the debacle that was nunnery way all we are tying to do here is effectively move a football ground 500 yards along a canal toe path. Why wasn't this mentioned,perhaps it was? We have taken a brownfield site and replaced it with a number of houses which should be a big tick? What we are then trying to do is move the said football ground to an area where other sporting facilities are already located and where the infrastructure is already in place. This would have provided a true sporting hub for the community.
Let's not give up just yet and keep going. How much do we think an appeal is likely to cost?
Exploring other sites, particularly should they be green field locations will only push up development costs as we will have to pay for access roads, parking, lighting etc so Perdiswell remains our best option.
Keep the faith & keep the momentum going. We can gather a lot of support for this within the wider community and need to keep it at the forefront of people's minds!
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Jul 21, 2017 17:56:30 GMT
Surely, as spokesman for a Community Benefit Society, the Trust spokesman could have suggested ways the entire entity could become a community amenity. With the answer being in the negative, the game was lost. How long is this farce to continue ? Until all the money runs out or anybody who ever saw a game at SGL is dead ? Yes, even if it was just reiterating the children's activities that took place down the Lane; like junior games, Kings v Grammar school etc. I also remember going to the Lane for a local fete years ago, & playing skittles on the hallowed turf. These things could easily be held on the new ground. Can't imagine why they wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday, when the question was asked. The question asked at the first hearing was whether there would be free unrestricted access to the ground, not whether it would be available for locals. The answer given was No, which was the correct answer. Feel free to have a go, but get your facts right first and we'll gladly answer anyone in any of our open meetings, not hide away refusing to speak to anyone.. You mentioned all of the activities that used to go on and still do in some cases - this was answered in the easiest way possible yesterday in the late documents and I know for a fact exactly how many of the planning committee went through all of our documents. This farce has cost the club about £9,000 and they have done no work towards it ( and several million less than the last farce) i can't wait for the announcement of the next farce. The Dream Team will be on fire.
|
|
bj
Squad Member
Posts: 182
|
Post by bj on Jul 22, 2017 20:08:41 GMT
If there is an appeal lodged against this decision and The Council lose, having to pay substantial costs, what are the chances that the Council are then going to be in such a benevolent mood to pass the land over for a nominal amount? Zilch I would imagine. There might also be a backlash from 'the citizens' when they are told how much this appeal has cost them.
|
|
|
Post by cloud on Jul 25, 2017 6:20:52 GMT
The question asked at the first hearing was whether there would be free unrestricted access to the ground, not whether it would be available for locals. The answer given was No, which was the correct answer. Feel free to have a go, but get your facts right first and we'll gladly answer anyone in any of our open meetings, not hide away refusing to speak to anyone.. You mentioned all of the activities that used to go on and still do in some cases - this was answered in the easiest way possible yesterday in the late documents and I know for a fact exactly how many of the planning committee went through all of our documents. This farce has cost the club about £9,000 and they have done no work towards it ( and several million less than the last farce) i can't wait for the announcement of the next farce. The Dream Team will be on fire. I didn't realize. I thought it was what Who posted; Chris Mitchell : "Will the stadium be available as a community amenity?" (actually asked twice to separate the stadium from the 3G pitch) Supporters Trust Spokesman : "NO"
That was the point at which the coffin nails were lined up for the planning committee to drive them home.
Whether there will be free unrestricted access is totally different, & I can obviously understand (security reasons, administration etc) the answer to that being a no.
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Jul 25, 2017 9:39:30 GMT
There isn't free, unrestricted access to the town hall, but that's a community asset.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jul 25, 2017 15:09:39 GMT
There isn't free, unrestricted access to the town hall, but that's a community asset. I was trying to answer the question asked. I talked about it being available for community use but it wouldn't be left open unattended. If that was the nail in the coffin I apologise.
|
|
|
Post by canalender on Jul 25, 2017 15:12:33 GMT
There isn't free, unrestricted access to the town hall, but that's a community asset. I was trying to answer the question asked. I talked about it being available for community use but it wouldn't be left open unattended. If that was the nail in the coffin I apologise. No need to apologise, it is not your fault other people grab the wrong end of the stick.
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Jul 25, 2017 19:14:58 GMT
No need to apologise at all Rob. You're a hero. I keep wondering what the objectors will think when a huge housing estate gets built on Perdiswell. Will that have free, unrestricted access?
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Jul 26, 2017 12:22:46 GMT
Rather than keep banging on the door but nobody is home, it is now time to move on from Perdiswell.
Why go to appeal against the very organisation who will decide whether or not to let you have the land? Clearly the Council don't want it as they had two opportunities to approve it.
Going to appeal is simply a pointless waste of effort, money and time, which are all in short supply.
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jul 26, 2017 13:19:08 GMT
Rather than keep banging on the door but nobody is home, it is now time to move on from Perdiswell. Why go to appeal against the very organisation who will decide whether or not to let you have the land? Clearly the Council don't want it as they had two opportunities to approve it. Going to appeal is simply a pointless waste of effort, money and time, which are all in short supply. So what would you suggest as the avenue to pursue as there is no leadership or direction from the present board of WCFC ?
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Jul 26, 2017 14:31:13 GMT
Rather than keep banging on the door but nobody is home, it is now time to move on from Perdiswell. Why go to appeal against the very organisation who will decide whether or not to let you have the land? Clearly the Council don't want it as they had two opportunities to approve it. Going to appeal is simply a pointless waste of effort, money and time, which are all in short supply. Move on to where ? if an appeal is sucsessful then there is 7 years in which to build,by then the Tories may have lost control of the city council.Your friends on the board have led us to nothing ,except to the depths of footballs lower reaches.How can you support them, when the board have ruined the club that so many have watched for so many years?
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 26, 2017 14:38:27 GMT
Rather than keep banging on the door but nobody is home, it is now time to move on from Perdiswell. Why go to appeal against the very organisation who will decide whether or not to let you have the land? Clearly the Council don't want it as they had two opportunities to approve it. Going to appeal is simply a pointless waste of effort, money and time, which are all in short supply. And what is this based on? As it is not your effort, money or time, and you've not involved yourself in anything to do with Perdiswell, have no knowledge of any of the advice that we have been provided with regarding appeal processes, why would anyone take any notice of what you have to say? At least we have a door to bang on to. The club have no plans whatsoever moving forward, zilch, nothing, nada. They've done nothing since Nunnery Way collapsed (apart from lose SGL, lose £7 million, and lose 3 steps in the league) to find a new ground. There is no Plan B.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 26, 2017 15:16:18 GMT
The only Plan B the Board and their fawning hanger-on downthelane have ever considered:
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Jul 26, 2017 15:33:39 GMT
.....apart from lose SGL, lose £7 million....... And that's the nub of the whole situation. Where has that money gone? And whose bank balance has been inflated by this shabby business? Worcester is now poorer for this farrago - but some individuals aren't.
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Jul 26, 2017 16:43:28 GMT
Rather than keep banging on the door but nobody is home, it is now time to move on from Perdiswell. Why go to appeal against the very organisation who will decide whether or not to let you have the land? Clearly the Council don't want it as they had two opportunities to approve it. Going to appeal is simply a pointless waste of effort, money and time, which are all in short supply. For once I agree with you. There is a short supply of effort, money and time. Anyway that's enough about our Chairman and his Board. You should be more worried about where money has disappeared to.
|
|
|
Post by crosscountrymark on Aug 1, 2017 17:16:45 GMT
Statement issued - Worcester City fc Board are not supporting a appeal over Perdiswell, and say the Trust are on their own if they wish to pursue this . The football club are working with the Worcester FA and Worcester council to land at Parsonage Way near the M5 which has been identified for a future home. I for one will not be going to anymore home games under this current board in charge, only away games for me, when things looked so positive on the pitch for the new season. This statement has sent a clear message to the trust and then they want them to support the board in the Parsonage way project . I cannot wait for the day when the money has run out and these clones have gone, and a AFC Worcester can be formed . RIP Worcester City FC.
|
|
|
Post by voiceoftreason on Aug 1, 2017 17:32:59 GMT
I would love to know how the Board intend to fund the ground at Parsonage Way now they have totally alienated a good number of supporters?
When will we see a planning application?
How much money does the club actually have left?
So many questions and the Board seems to have no intention of calling an AGM so shareholders can ask them!
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Aug 1, 2017 18:11:14 GMT
Earlier this morning we sent a statement out to the press for release tomorrow morning. We 100% stand by this statement and we will be appealing, It said, "Following the decision by the Conservative members of the planning committee to go against the recommendation of the Head of Development Planning and Enforcement and refuse planning permission for the proposed stadium and community facilities at Perdiswell, the Worcester City FC Supporters’ Trust can confirm we will be appealing to the Secretary of State to overturn that decision. Noting the advice given to the committee that the reasons for refusal were not sufficiently robust, we feel it is right to have the application decided by an independent body on purely planning matters".
|
|