|
Post by Back the stadium on Apr 6, 2015 21:46:33 GMT
Cheers Rich, will listen in
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Apr 7, 2015 22:14:57 GMT
Sport England don't seem to be happy with the timing of the application (see comments added today on the Council's planning website). Don't we need these guys onside for a grant??
QUOTE Summary: Sport England considers that the applicant should withdraw the application until the findings of the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy are known and to allow the shortfall of information to be addressed. If the applicant is unwilling to withdraw the application then Sport England wish to issue a holding objection to the application on the basis that the application is premature and that we are unable to make a substantive response based on the information available. QUOTE
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 7, 2015 22:18:45 GMT
Sport England don't seem to be happy with the timing of the application (see comments added today on the Council's planning website). Don't we need these guys onside for a grant?? QUOTE Summary: Sport England considers that the applicant should withdraw the application until the findings of the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy are known and to allow the shortfall of information to be addressed. If the applicant is unwilling to withdraw the application then Sport England wish to issue a holding objection to the application on the basis that the application is premature and that we are unable to make a substantive response based on the information available. QUOTE From the objectors Protect Perdiswell Park Today, Sport England's comment on the application was published. It said it considers the site to be good for a football 'hub' in terms of access and that Worcester needs one new 3G artificial pitch at least. It also says the plans look wrong and are missing information, they want to meet the Trust and architect to discuss concerns over the layout, they wonder how the place will be funded (partly by them, we have been told?) and how the grass pitches figure in the plans (these are pictured but not mentioned in the text). There has been a suggestion, made here once or twice, that the need for new football facilities is not proven. They continue: "Sport England recommends that the applicant withdraws the application until the findings of the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy are known and to allow the shortfall of information to be addressed. Some of these issues have previously been raised [by] Sport England during pre-application discussions. If the applicant is unwilling to withdraw the application, then Sport England wish to issue a holding objection to this application on the basis that the application is premature and that we are unable to provide a substantive response based on the information supplied. Worcester City Council’s plans to redevelop the leisure centre should be given greater consideration." Still some way to go then.
|
|
|
Post by Bobby sole on Apr 7, 2015 23:03:22 GMT
Premature, so could put this in in twelve months time and it would be ok? What do SE mean by premature
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Apr 7, 2015 23:24:04 GMT
Doesn't sound good as I imagine they carry a lot of weight when it comes to these types of things, not to mention it sounds like they wouldn't support it financially, should it go ahead as planned... lets hope the trust can show them the light!
|
|
|
Post by ac on Apr 8, 2015 18:24:41 GMT
For a New Stadium At Perdiswell Park - fans app Media News! BBC Hereford and Worcester will be doing an interview with PPP members at about 0815 tomorrow morning This might be worth listening to. Hope they get a member of the trust to do a piece on H&W You can listen back here: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02mx32t From 2:23:55
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Apr 8, 2015 19:04:08 GMT
Sport England are statuary consultees and are asked for their views when land which is considered as primary sports usage, such as Perdiswell, is considered as part of any planning application. This is the normal process and we were aware that SE would seek clarification on certain points. In fact in the pre application communication with SE they advised us to liaise with WCC and the pool development team for example. This was beneficial to us and the pool people. This SE query is the next step and we have formulated a response which will go back to SE via WCC. If SE want any further information then they will get what they need from us. Don't panic, this is part of the process!
|
|
leon
Squad Member
Posts: 253
|
Post by leon on Apr 8, 2015 19:44:14 GMT
This says it all really
The 3g pitch at Sutton Coldfield Town FC hits a significant milestone this weekend when the Evo-Stik Northern Premier League First Division South fixture against Loughborough Dynamo will be the 1000th game played on the 3g.
After installation in 2011, the Royals are now heading for the end of their fourth season on the artificial surface and have enjoyed incredible demand from the local community to use the facility.
General manager Neil Murrall said: “We are really pleased to hit this milestone after just four years since installation and as well as those games, we have all the other use of the pitch for training, soccer schools, small sided games, etc. A natural pitch simply could not cope with that demand and usage. Nor are we normally troubled by bad weather postponements. We have not lost any games to the weather over the last two winters.”
The pitch and stadium plays host to games played by Sutton Coldfield Town (first-team, under-21s, two under-18s and over 35s) Romulus (first-team, youth and over 35s) Aston Villa Ladies (first-team and development squad) and BMet College sides.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 8, 2015 19:51:54 GMT
Sport England are statuary consultees and are asked for their views when land which is considered as primary sports usage, such as Perdiswell, is considered as part of any planning application. This is the normal process and we were aware that SE would seek clarification on certain points. In fact in the pre application communication with SE they advised us to liaise with WCC and the pool development team for example. This was beneficial to us and the pool people. This SE query is the next step and we have formulated a response which will go back to SE via WCC. If SE want any further information then they will get what they need from us. Don't panic, this is part of the process! Good news I can stop taking the pills now
|
|
|
Post by Wcfcnb. on Apr 8, 2015 22:17:38 GMT
So the application won't be withdrawn as advised by SE? They will just have the holding objection on it?
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Apr 8, 2015 23:06:15 GMT
So the application won't be withdrawn as advised by SE? They will just have the holding objection on it? No. The application won't be withdrawn, we will address SE concerns . As stated above we will respond to the SE queries. Note that the FA responses were broadly positive. As I said previously this is on ongoing process and I'd be worried if SE weren't asking difficult questions, this is part of what they do !
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Apr 9, 2015 0:24:31 GMT
Good to hear that it is in hand.
One of the FA Comments that jumped out for me:
"It is an excellent location for a football “hub” both in terms of access and current grass pitches located there".
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 9, 2015 15:39:09 GMT
Sport England are statuary consultees and are asked for their views when land which is considered as primary sports usage, such as Perdiswell, is considered as part of any planning application. This is the normal process and we were aware that SE would seek clarification on certain points. In fact in the pre application communication with SE they advised us to liaise with WCC and the pool development team for example. This was beneficial to us and the pool people. This SE query is the next step and we have formulated a response which will go back to SE via WCC. If SE want any further information then they will get what they need from us. Don't panic, this is part of the process! Good news I can stop taking the pills now I see that Lord Faulkner of Worcester is supporting the application
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Apr 10, 2015 9:59:42 GMT
I think the level of support this application has had from the people of Worcester is fantastic, there will always be objections, but I think the numbers for out weigh the numbers against and the council will not be able to ignore the voice of the City.
Also, although it means very little, the petitions will at some point be mentioned...and well over 1,000 people signed a petition for this ....again this cannot be ignore.
Along with support from Warriors, Uni, Lord F, Highways Agency and a number of schools this application should be a no brainer now for me.
ROLL ON JUNE
|
|
|
Post by City4ever on Apr 11, 2015 8:10:47 GMT
Can someone please explain in simple terms why the club will be better position being a Trust run club than under the current regime? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by cityspur on Apr 11, 2015 8:52:12 GMT
Can someone please explain in simple terms why the club will be better position being a Trust run club than under the current regime? Thanks Rob Crean is the best person to ask but going on what was said at the trust forum we have a better chance of getting funded as a trust run club rather than a PLC
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Apr 11, 2015 8:52:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cityspur on Apr 11, 2015 8:56:20 GMT
Told you he was the best person to ask !! Lol
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Apr 18, 2015 11:33:22 GMT
I'm confused. Are the NIMBYs upset because they say they will be inundated with hordes using their precious park or not enough... Worcester News LetterWorcester having a football club facility in the city for the people of Worcester to enjoy and use in the only logical location "a disgrace"? Really??? NIMBYism at its best.
|
|
|
Post by Oh dear on Apr 19, 2015 9:16:50 GMT
Have you seen the 8 April objection letter on the planning application site from Ward Councillor Gareth Jones? This guy needs to go back to school and learn how to construct proper sentences and spell correctly (what exactly is a 'Fun Fare'?). His letter is just a string of statements without any coherent arguments. I'm so glad he doesn't represent me.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 19, 2015 10:30:32 GMT
Have you seen the 8 April objection letter on the planning application site from Ward Councillor Gareth Jones? This guy needs to go back to school and learn how to construct proper sentences and spell correctly (what exactly is a 'Fun Fare'?). His letter is just a string of statements without any coherent arguments. I'm so glad he doesn't represent me. Yes I have read it, Clr Jones is trying to earn votes in the May elections. He also helped to get the Northwick closed down as an entertainment venue by taking xxx pictures of couples. He just likes the quiet life.He also supported the City(Gold Bond Member) when they were at "The Lane" and as soon as an application to build at Perdiswell was put in he suddenly stopped.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Apr 21, 2015 13:48:05 GMT
But where the stadium is being built is not actually within the area he is a councillor for - the stadium will actually be in the Claines Ward.
|
|
|
Post by City4ever on Apr 22, 2015 6:09:30 GMT
So I see my new thread asking a second time for an explanation on why the Club would be better as a suppoter-run club has been removed by someone. Still trying to find the answer?
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Apr 22, 2015 8:13:45 GMT
So I see my new thread asking a second time for an explanation on why the Club would be better as a suppoter-run club has been removed by someone. Still trying to find the answer? Well, I'm hoping people have read the information on the SD links I posted that's a good start. I'll try and get something specific to us up at the weekend, probably Sunday
|
|
Fred
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 129
|
Post by Fred on Apr 22, 2015 12:04:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 23, 2015 13:04:59 GMT
Consultee Comment 21-04-15 Worcestershire County Council Transport planning unit Consultee Comment 21-04-15 Worcestershire County Council strateic planning and environmental policy manager These comments are not in our favour, it looks like there is still work to be done
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Apr 23, 2015 16:00:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steves111 on Apr 25, 2015 18:30:21 GMT
None of this sounds good and shouldn't these issues have been dealt with prior to the application going in?
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 30, 2015 13:54:33 GMT
From the objectors web page (PPP More problems. The Conservation Area Advisory Committee comments are up online. Aside from being "not convinced" about the parking and pointing out the plans are drawn wrong, they raise more serious but equally downplayed/glossed over issues.
They have "fundamental objections to the location as it was too close to the canal" - it's only going to get closer when they move it out the way of the pool car park and further up the park.
They "fundamentally objected to the increased level of lighting in respect of the dark canal corridor" - important stuff PPP supporters have mentioned.
Lastly, if least importantly, they "objected to the colour scheme, which it considered to be unnecessarily garish"!
They recommend REFUSAL.
"All part of the process"? Or will the stadium fans now start to look long and hard at this misconceived plan? )
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Apr 30, 2015 14:58:39 GMT
From the objectors web page (PPP More problems. The Conservation Area Advisory Committee comments are up online. Aside from being "not convinced" about the parking and pointing out the plans are drawn wrong, they raise more serious but equally downplayed/glossed over issues. They have "fundamental objections to the location as it was too close to the canal" - it's only going to get closer when they move it out the way of the pool car park and further up the park. They "fundamentally objected to the increased level of lighting in respect of the dark canal corridor" - important stuff PPP supporters have mentioned. Lastly, if least importantly, they "objected to the colour scheme, which it considered to be unnecessarily garish"! They recommend REFUSAL. "All part of the process"? Or will the stadium fans now start to look long and hard at this misconceived plan? ) Yes, all part of the process. Why do you think it is misconceived?
|
|