|
Post by rushwickdon on Dec 17, 2017 9:40:16 GMT
There it is.....
Asking questions whilst answering none
Just for a change.....
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Dec 17, 2017 9:47:54 GMT
Would any planning application be for the final phase? I’m assumimg one can’t just get permission for phase one then keep going back. I’m particularly interested in the Highways bit as this was always an issue with NW. seeing as walking will not be easy the thought of 5000 spectators filtering onto a, at present 50mph road, would be a challenge
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Dec 17, 2017 10:08:34 GMT
So after the Parsonage Way bashing how is the Pediswell appeal progressing?
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Dec 17, 2017 10:29:04 GMT
So after the Parsonage Way bashing how is the Pediswell appeal progressing? The appeal has been submitted within the timescale previously mentioned. It’s in the hands of the planning inspectorate now. I assume the council will need to hire someone to defend their decision now that it’s in. Hope that helps.
|
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on Dec 17, 2017 10:35:12 GMT
Have just read the NLP article today and all sounds wonderful One thing still baffles me. Over many years of following the city and drinking in the pubs of Worcester(which I miss far more than the football!)I have had torrents of abuse(almost all good natured but not always)from people asking why I "still went down there?" "They don't treat you right down there" "I used to go but they're all a bunch of ....."etc etc. As I have openly admitted I was a bit slow on the uptake about what was happening but,now the penny has dropped,I suppose I am one of those people who question why people still go. The reason behind these ramblings is that people were falling away while we had a wonderful ground in the centre of the city(roughly!!).Getting a new ground in the city,be it some hovel at Parsonage Way,the planned Perdiswell stadium,or Worcesters equivalent of the San Siro in Friar Street,will not encourage people back in the long term(a few might pop along for the opening fixture etc),in my opinion while the existing regime and constitution remains.
|
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on Dec 17, 2017 10:39:01 GMT
By the way the reference to Perdiswell was made purely to highlight an interim standard ground not as a knock to the trust our the proposal!
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Dec 17, 2017 10:54:38 GMT
I noticed that the attendance at the Parsonage Way meeting was 40,this I believe was the same as the trust meeting, so does that make it a level playing field?
|
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on Dec 17, 2017 11:05:34 GMT
What did Down the lane say?"It is a hopeless attendance and you know it" or something similar. That's come back to bite hasn't it!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rushwickdon on Dec 17, 2017 11:26:56 GMT
I noticed that the attendance at the Parsonage Way meeting was 40,this I believe was the same as the trust meeting, so does that make it a level playing field? Apparently it was wrong of me to point out that people work, so obviously there were other reasons.......
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Dec 17, 2017 12:08:03 GMT
What did Down the lane say?"It is a hopeless attendance and you know it" or something similar. That's come back to bite hasn't it!!!!! To quote from the “Hansard” (if you will): “The turn out of 41 plus 2 media must feel very disapponting - the majority of supporters either aren’t Trust Members or couldn’t be bothered. Could have held it in a pub with such a low turnout, and put the venue hire towards the new ground It is a dire turnout and you know it”
|
|
|
Post by zeke on Dec 17, 2017 13:09:18 GMT
Downthelane. I know you don't usually answer questions, but can you please explain how supporters will be able to safely access Parsonage Way? Small carpark will allow maybe 25 percent of attendees.
Seriously, if PW is going to happen, how will myself and my father get there safely?
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Dec 17, 2017 19:00:55 GMT
That is a fair question and one to ask those running the project, which is not me.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Dec 17, 2017 19:50:16 GMT
What did Down the lane say?"It is a hopeless attendance and you know it" or something similar. That's come back to bite hasn't it!!!!! To quote from the “Hansard” (if you will): “The turn out of 41 plus 2 media must feel very disapponting - the majority of supporters either aren’t Trust Members or couldn’t be bothered. Could have held it in a pub with such a low turnout, and put the venue hire towards the new ground It is a dire turnout and you know it” Could have held the Parsonage Way consultation meeting in a phone box. 40 people over 5 hours? that's 8 an hour, one interested person every 8 minutes! You really would have expected a hell of a lot more, as it was for everyone in Worcester and beyond to attend (not just members like the Trust meeting) . Add to that the fact that this was an unveiling of the brand new bright future for WCFC that no-one had seen before! I remember the meeting like this at the Whitehouse Hotel re. Nunnery Way. There must have been 200-300 turned up that day. One can only assume , going by what downthelane said, that the majority of supporters couldn't be bothered!
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Dec 17, 2017 20:27:31 GMT
Whilst I don't doubt that someone may have jumped over the gate at PW to have a look at the view/s, I hope itr isn't all a ruse to muddy the waters regarding the Perdiswell appeal. I just have this vision of the council informing the appeals committee that the appeal by the trust should be overruled as WCFC have now found a more 'suitable' site and so Perdiswell is longer seen as an option by them (WCFC that is).
As an aside though, should the appeal be upheld, would this scupper any planning permission for |PW? - purely on the basis that there would already be planning permission for a ground (Perdiswell) and so there would be no requirement to approve a second venture?
Dodger.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Dec 17, 2017 21:09:41 GMT
The City Council don't have the authority to suggest that the appeal be overruled on that basis. The appeal is based purely and solely on planning matters, nothing more, nothing less. There is no politics, and WCFC could have 7 more suitable sites, but that would not be taken into consideration at appeal regarding the site at Perdiswell. In answer to your second question, a successful appeal, and subsequent granting of planning consent at Perdiswell would have no bearing whatsoever on a planning application at Parsonage Way. Again, WCFC could have multiple planning applications to build multiple grounds across Worcester if they so wished, and the planners were so minded. No different to Bovis Homes having multiple planning applications approved for building of houses in Worcester
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Dec 17, 2017 22:18:15 GMT
Who is representing the Trust as the expert in the appeal?
|
|
|
Post by rushwickdon on Dec 17, 2017 22:34:46 GMT
If only downthelanes contributions reflected the results at WCFC home games...
Questions (more than) 5 Answers 0
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Dec 17, 2017 22:39:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Dec 17, 2017 23:30:06 GMT
Thank you Brooksider.
And Don, I am not responsible for providing answers so give it a rest.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Dec 17, 2017 23:39:08 GMT
Thank you Brooksider. And Don, I am not responsible for providing answers so give it a rest. And neither am I, but its really not difficult, even if the answer is "I don't have an answer" its just a common courtesy
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Dec 18, 2017 7:24:22 GMT
Would any planning application be for the final phase? I’m assumimg one can’t just get permission for phase one then keep going back. I’m particularly interested in the Highways bit as this was always an issue with NW. seeing as walking will not be easy the thought of 5000 spectators filtering onto a, at present 50mph road, would be a challenge I thought it was 50mph but I believe the speed limit on Parsonage Way is in fact 60mph. I took the opportunity to visit the site at the weekend and I would encourage those of you who live locally to do likewise. This will help to understand the challenges that the topography of the site presents. The proximity of the motorway is also very apparent from the constant noise. There are no safe walking or cycling routes to the site, you will need to park some distance away.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Dec 18, 2017 8:00:37 GMT
Thank you Brooksider. And Don, I am not responsible for providing answers so give it a rest. Coward
|
|
|
Post by rushwickdon on Dec 18, 2017 11:11:55 GMT
And Don, I am not responsible for providing answers so give it a rest. Why?
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Dec 18, 2017 11:47:43 GMT
I know the PW site very well, and as jupu states, it would be difficult to find a more inappropriate place in Worcester to try and put a football ground. On all known criteria at present in the public domain, I find the Board's support for this site totally baffling.
What has gone on, that means the Board are so blinkered re PW ?
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Dec 18, 2017 11:58:51 GMT
I really do hope that Anthony Hampson doesn't find himself "otherwise engaged" this week, and will be at the public consultation. The questions are mounting up, and the rest of the Board have all been unable to give any answers
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Dec 18, 2017 13:21:06 GMT
I really do hope that Anthony Hampson doesn't find himself "otherwise engaged" this week, and will be at the public consultation. The questions are mounting up, and the rest of the Board have all been unable to give any answers If he turns up and answers questions then I’ll donate £20 to the Supporters Trust.
|
|
|
Post by The sound and the fury on Dec 18, 2017 18:55:58 GMT
What has gone on, that means the Board are so blinkered re PW ? Certain people are desperate to get the bypass corridor opened up to development as they will make a mint from it...like the obsession with Nunnery Way. Someone has a vested interest in seeing the whole strip between the motorway and the bypass turned into development land. It's always been about greed for a few rather than the club's best interest.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Dec 18, 2017 19:45:54 GMT
So you would like questions and answers, here you are.
Q Why support Parsonage Way over Perdiswell?
A Perdiswell and Parsonage are both in Council ownership. Success requires. Willing landowner. The Council do not support the use of Perdiswell by refusal of planning (never mind the land debate) so that proposal will never happen. The Council themselves suggested Parsonage so that is far more likely to happen.
Q Why are certain posters on here anti-Parsonage Way and finding fault with anything to do with it?
A Because they have been involved with Perdiswell for a long time and see Parsonage Way as a direct threat to their personal efforts to get Perdiswell sorted. Understandable but a blinkered view.
Q Why did the club leave it so late for a Plan B?
A Because those involved with Perdiswell insisted the Board should not be seen to be investigating alternative sites as this could damage the chances of Perdiswell being successful. Parsonage is the Council’s suggested site, so can you really blame the Board for going with the preferred site?
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Dec 18, 2017 20:04:30 GMT
Q Why did the club leave it so late for a Plan B? A Because those involved with Perdiswell insisted the Board should not be seen to be investigating alternative sites as this could damage the chances of Perdiswell being successful. Parsonage is the Council’s suggested site, so can you really blame the Board for going with the preferred site? No.....thats simply a lie. Those involved with Perdiswell INCLUDED The Board right up until Parsonage Way was tabled by the City Council, at which point (just before the planning decision for Perdiswell) the City Council asked for the Supporters Trust to withdraw Perdiswell, even having a pre-written statement to release, including a quote from Dave Wood, even though he'd never been involved, and wasn't even at the meeting! Those involved with Perdiswell were actively involved with the City Council to identify any other potential site, and at no time made any suggestion to anyone that they should not be seen to be investigating alternative sites. In fact, if you just put your brain in gear downthelane, even you'd understand that the Supporters Trust have no such power to be able to make such suggestions to the Board of WCFC, and the Board of WCFC surely would never be so stupid as to listen to such comments, even if they did! The reason the club left it so late for a Plan B is that the club have NEVER had a Plan B, they still don't. If the City Council hadn't been so desperate to find a piece of land (any land that wasn't Perdiswell) and offer it up, the Board of WCFC would still have no plan A, B, C etc etc Don't forget, that last year, the City Council considered, and rejected Parsonage Way themselves, during the Working Groups identification of sites.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Dec 18, 2017 20:26:37 GMT
I was one of those on the joint working group- Trust, board, WCC M.D, Labour and Green councillors. Every alternative was looked at and discussed and at no point did we try to dissuade the club from looking at options. The chairman made it very clear that the shareholders needed reassurance that the club would survive as it was his duty to act on their behalf.
|
|