|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 30, 2015 15:58:57 GMT
It is not me that thinks it misconceived, it is a quote from the objectors web page. I hope every thing goes to plan,and I will be Voting Labour as they are the only party that seem to support our Football Club
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 5, 2015 16:05:26 GMT
Taken from the PPP page. Worcester FC Trust "Sustainable Planning Nonsense" The Cyclists Touring Club stated in application P12M0470 (swimming pool application) consultee comment 24/01/13 and endorsed 24/01/13 Highways Comments that the current cycle network around the canal towpaths and footpaths needs "safety improvement" and is far from ideal, plus the relocation of the swimming pool will inevitably result in increased car use. The Football Stadium Design, Access and Transport statements bases its whole application on "sustainable travel and access" via these routes. This stadium therefore would only increase the risk of pedestrian and cyclist safety even more. Why have this national body of experts not been consulted by the Supporters Trust or was this key fact ignored? It would be nice if some of our "councillors elect" considered the experts opinions and facts before backing a flawed and inaccurate emotional application.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 11, 2015 15:25:03 GMT
We had an interesting experience whilst out on the day of the Election itself. Myself and Mr Jeremy Pitt (the artist formerly known as Brooksider) were stood outside the Polling Station next to Drovers Way chatting with the Conservative and Green volunteers.
One bloke comes striding out of the station towards his car and happened to hear us mention the Community Sports Hub plans - who we recognised as one of the main supporters of PPP and one of the more vocal critics of the plans on their Facebook pages.
He then proceeded to shout at us (along the lines of) "I don't want this stadium here - not on my doorstep" whilst trying to make a quick exit.
Mr Pitt then asked him to discuss the matter and to see if we could address his concerns. Which Jeremy did in a most eloquent and crystal clear way - basically dispelling each one of this person's concerns (about the road situation, noise, light, etc.).
When it came to the parking issue - the bloke said "Well I don't want it here - people are gonna park wherever they like". He dismissed the solution of the police cones (as were standard at SGL) out of hand and kept on the line that people would be parking as close as they could get to the stadium - blocking up the roads.
So Mr Pitt asked - "So you're a football fan (turns out the bloke was a West Brom fan) - what do you do when you drive up to games at The Hawthorns"
The answer was - "Well I park as close as I can to the ground".
Jeremy then, quick as a flash asked "So you are admitting that you willingly block other peoples driveways and streets up there when you go to games - but you are telling us that your objection to the plans is that people would be down here doing the same?"
The answer came back as quickly "Yes - I do"
With that - off strolls said gentleman towards his car.
|
|
|
Post by cityspur on May 11, 2015 18:00:29 GMT
We had an interesting experience whilst out on the day of the Election itself. Myself and Mr Jeremy Pitt (the artist formerly known as Brooksider) were stood outside the Polling Station next to Drovers Way chatting with the Conservative and Green volunteers. One bloke comes striding out of the station towards his car and happened to hear us mention the Community Sports Hub plans - who we recognised as one of the main supporters of PPP and one of the more vocal critics of the plans on their Facebook pages. He then proceeded to shout at us (along the lines of) "I don't want this stadium here - not on my doorstep" whilst trying to make a quick exit. Mr Pitt then asked him to discuss the matter and to see if we could address his concerns. Which Jeremy did in a most eloquent and crystal clear way - basically dispelling each one of this person's concerns (about the road situation, noise, light, etc.). When it came to the parking issue - the bloke said "Well I don't want it here - people are gonna park wherever they like". He dismissed the solution of the police cones (as were standard at SGL) out of hand and kept on the line that people would be parking as close as they could get to the stadium - blocking up the roads. So Mr Pitt asked - "So you're a football fan (turns out the bloke was a West Brom fan) - what do you do when you drive up to games at The Hawthorns" The answer was - "Well I park as close as I can to the ground". Jeremy then, quick as a flash asked "So you are admitting that you willingly block other peoples driveways and streets up there when you go to games - but you are telling us that your objection to the plans is that people would be down here doing the same?" The answer came back as quickly "Yes - I do" With that - off strolls said gentleman towards his car. No doubt his car was parked as close as possible to the polling station !!!
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 19, 2015 12:38:44 GMT
I did note that yesterday I did have a letter printed in the Worcester News asking questions of why there are no PPP or other protesters writing letters and making noises in opposition to the Swimming Pool plans - as opposed to the stadium stuff...
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 19, 2015 16:17:03 GMT
I did note that yesterday I did have a letter printed in the Worcester News asking questions of why there are no PPP or other protesters writing letters and making noises in opposition to the Swimming Pool plans - as opposed to the stadium stuff... It is because they WANT the pool, as it will boost their house prices by about 2%.PPP only want to protect Perdiswell from the Football Stadium. Some of the PPP supporters are footy fans, but will not support their local team. Hypocrites comes to mind
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 20, 2015 8:50:23 GMT
BTW - as a result of last night's first full Council meeting - Alan Amos is now head of the Planning Committee (who will be in charge of the vote on the stadium plans)
|
|
|
Post by adycrean on May 20, 2015 15:21:34 GMT
BTW - as a result of last night's first full Council meeting - Alan Amos is now head of the Planning Committee (who will be in charge of the vote on the stadium plans) Is that good news...or not?!
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on May 20, 2015 17:21:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on May 20, 2015 21:13:40 GMT
Councillor Amos is quoted here Alan Amos joins the Tories as saying:
"Tackling anti-social behaviour, keeping the streets clean and tidy and building fantastic new public facilities such as the swimming pool have all been identified as priorities of this administration and are ones that I support".
Let's hope that applies equally to community football stadia!
Is a decision still expected by 8th June as per the "decision by" date showing on the planning pages of the City Council website?
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 21, 2015 0:29:47 GMT
Don't hold out too many hopes. Alan Amos's somewhat interesting political history and track record of changing political parties shows the man up for what he is, and based on this, he is a little man of little credibility. Looking at the Planning Committee Agenda for his first meeting, I see that as well as having the proposed 200 house development at Middle Battenhall Farm ( very contentious ) as item 9, item 10 is about developing the land at Nunnery Way ( Boddy's field of dreams ) once earmarked for the WCFC ground except now without the ground, item 11 is about the new Swimming Pool at Perdiswell, and item 13 about developing the Cinderella Ground in St Johns. committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=3529&Ver=4
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on May 21, 2015 7:51:16 GMT
Don't hold out too many hopes. Alan Amos's somewhat interesting political history and track record of changing political parties shows the man up for what he is, and based on this, he is a little man of little credibility. Looking at the Planning Committee Agenda for his first meeting, I see that as well as having the proposed 200 house development at Middle Battenhall Farm ( very contentious ) as item 9, item 10 is about developing the land at Nunnery Way ( Boddy's field of dreams ) once earmarked for the WCFC ground except now without the ground, item 11 is about the new Swimming Pool at Perdiswell, and item 13 about developing the Cinderella Ground in St Johns. committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=3529&Ver=4............and judging by previous committee minutes, today's meeting could be all over by 3 o'clock! (they'll all want to get off early to beat the traffic). So with a meeting start time of 1.30 there isn't a great deal of 'discussion' time available per topic! The outcome of the leisure centre agenda item might give us a clue as to the overall thinking. Maybe WCFC will come up as an AOB item? Dodger.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 21, 2015 13:43:06 GMT
Don't hold out too many hopes. Alan Amos's somewhat interesting political history and track record of changing political parties shows the man up for what he is, and based on this, he is a little man of little credibility. Looking at the Planning Committee Agenda for his first meeting, I see that as well as having the proposed 200 house development at Middle Battenhall Farm ( very contentious ) as item 9, item 10 is about developing the land at Nunnery Way ( Boddy's field of dreams ) once earmarked for the WCFC ground except now without the ground, item 11 is about the new Swimming Pool at Perdiswell, and item 13 about developing the Cinderella Ground in St Johns. committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=3529&Ver=4............and judging by previous committee minutes, today's meeting could be all over by 3 o'clock! (they'll all want to get off early to beat the traffic). So with a meeting start time of 1.30 there isn't a great deal of 'discussion' time available per topic! The outcome of the leisure centre agenda item might give us a clue as to the overall thinking. Maybe WCFC will come up as an AOB item? Dodger. The meeting is expected to get underway at around 3pm today.
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on May 21, 2015 20:09:44 GMT
The swimming pool has got the go-ahead, then.
Dodger.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 21, 2015 20:10:55 GMT
Not sure what that means for the stadium proposal.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on May 21, 2015 20:12:41 GMT
Why isn't the stadium application at the same meeting when it was submitted a year before the pool application?
|
|
leon
Squad Member
Posts: 253
|
Post by leon on May 21, 2015 20:49:19 GMT
Good news as the whole meeting showed that there have to be genuine planning reasons to refuse an application if the Planning officers suggest approval. Not able to refuse because it would be unpopular i.e Middle Battenhall Farm.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 21, 2015 21:00:21 GMT
Good news as the whole meeting showed that there have to be genuine planning reasons to refuse an application if the Planning officers suggest approval. Not able to refuse because it would be unpopular i.e Middle Battenhall Farm. I think our turn is next month. Looking at the other planning for Battenhall Farm for 200 houses there was a lot of opposision to it but it is still not settled ,and they had a lot more opposision against it than we do for the stadium .So I think we should be optimistic? The reasons suggested by councillors for refusing it are: Flood risk, damage to the green network, loss of landscape with historical value, damage to the city's heritage, and inconsistency with the SWDP. I don't think many of these would apply to the football stadium
|
|
|
Post by wcfcnb82 on May 21, 2015 21:43:17 GMT
Has the issues been addressed as asked for on the planning letters from sport england and WCC? They said the stadium should have included the swimming pool building as its mentioned in the application?
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on May 21, 2015 23:26:01 GMT
Has the issues been addressed as asked for on the planning letters from sport england and WCC? They said the stadium should have included the swimming pool building as its mentioned in the application? I havent seen the plans...but did the swimming pool plans include the stadium ? Also i dont understand why either party should have them in the plans, there are no definites that either proposal would go ahead and plus the stadium plans were discussed way before the swimming pool plans were actually on paper, sure they were being discussed behind closed doors, funny enough the swimming pool was actually supposed to be built in a different place and include a gym etc ...once opened they were then going to knock down the current sports centre...suddenly they are building it and keeping centre open as well
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on May 22, 2015 11:01:06 GMT
I read that the swimming pool being granted did not mean an automatic green light for the football stadium, however there didn't appear to be any negative comment. Is this possibly good news or am I being over optimistic ?
|
|
|
Post by birdfeeder on May 22, 2015 12:56:26 GMT
Don't hold out too many hopes. Alan Amos's somewhat interesting political history and track record of changing political parties shows the man up for what he is, and based on this, he is a little man of little credibility. Looking at the Planning Committee Agenda for his first meeting, I see that as well as having the proposed 200 house development at Middle Battenhall Farm ( very contentious ) as item 9, item 10 is about developing the land at Nunnery Way ( Boddy's field of dreams ) once earmarked for the WCFC ground except now without the ground, item 11 is about the new Swimming Pool at Perdiswell, and item 13 about developing the Cinderella Ground in St Johns. committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=3529&Ver=4............and judging by previous committee minutes, today's meeting could be all over by 3 o'clock! (they'll all want to get off early to beat the traffic). So with a meeting start time of 1.30 there isn't a great deal of 'discussion' time available per topic! The outcome of the leisure centre agenda item might give us a clue as to the overall thinking. Maybe WCFC will come up as an AOB item? Dodger. The planning meeting did not finish till 9:10pm with the decision on the swimming been decided unanimously at 9.02pm. That decision was taken after three Labour councillors decided to go home before the swimming Pool was decided.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 22, 2015 22:02:12 GMT
Who can possibly second guess the independent and impartial thinking of the Planning Committee and with how much verve and vigour they carry out their duties ? Not me for one. Middle Battenhall Farm - the Development Services manager recommends that permission is granted yet the Committee vote that they are " minded to refuse ". Houses are getting built all over Worcester in inappropriate places, badly designed layouts, awful road access, pressure on local infrastructure yet they have all gone through with the customary crocodile tears of the Committee. Why is this application any different, going against the recommendation of the Council's own Manager, who having examined the application could find no planning reason to find it unacceptable ? I have little doubt that Miller Homes will appeal, whilst the Planning Committee hope that the SWDP gets agreed beforehand. A housing development with 40 % Social Housing up leafy Battenhall ? Not quite the same energy expanded by the Committee with the massive developments off Kilbury Drive, Ronkswood Hospital and Ombersley Road ? If I recall correctly, I don't remember the local residents being too chuffed about those either ! Nunnery Way ( St Modwens Field ) - the Development Services manager recommends that permission is granted - go ahead say the Committee despite the land only ever being allocated for a football stadium with limited enabling development, with the Planning Inspector saying " no WCFC, no development " ! For those with long memories a B and Q was considered unacceptable when suggested by WCFC ( despite there being just the 3 Homebases in Worcester ), yet it appears that pubs, restaurants, a car showroom and light industrial units with no stadium are fine when suggested by St Modwen. www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/12967260.400_new_jobs_for_Worcester_on_land_earmarked_for_football_stadium/?ref=mr&lp=3For those of us who also remember Andrew Guy from Whittington, the Committee decided that his views didn't carry as much weight as those of big business. The Lakes Pub in Ambleside Drive - Permission granted to convert it into a convenience store, yet a newsagents and convenience store already exist within 50 yards of it ! A cynic might suggest that in Worcester, it ain't what you know, but who. As for the stadium at Perdiswell, who knows what measured decison they will arrive at ?
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on May 23, 2015 7:36:39 GMT
Agreed - who knows what goes on behind closed doors and any hidden agendum. If the council have 'promised' to bring WCFC back to Worcester, maybe adding a couple of houses to the Perdiswell plans will help? After all, the Conservative Manifesto directs councils to sell a % of their housing stock to tenants (a sort of right to buy) but to replace those sold with new stock on a 1-2-1 basis, so maybe Perdiswell is lined up as a potential housing site too. Anyway, I thought I'd post the Conservative Sports Manifesto just for information that shows some commitment (Government) to football. www.conservatives.com/~/media/files/downloadable%20files/sports-manifesto.ashx?dl=trueDodger.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 29, 2015 14:32:23 GMT
From the objectors (PPP ) web site. Planning Committee: While the agenda is not yet published, the next Planning Committee meeting is at 1.30 on 25th June. Unless the applicants (now the Supporters Trust 'with WCFC') withdraw, it seems sensible to put this date in your diary, as the plan could be decided on then.
We suggest the best they can expect is 'Application Deferred', unless the Planning Officer is going to give a VERY generous benefit of the doubt concerning all the gaps, technical queries and advice. Even if that does happen, the Committee may still throw it out, not wanting to be associated with such an unpopular and ill-thought out plan (see below).
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on May 30, 2015 10:32:04 GMT
From the objectors (PPP ) web site. Planning Committee: While the agenda is not yet published, the next Planning Committee meeting is at 1.30 on 25th June. Unless the applicants (now the Supporters Trust 'with WCFC') withdraw, it seems sensible to put this date in your diary, as the plan could be decided on then. We suggest the best they can expect is 'Application Deferred', unless the Planning Officer is going to give a VERY generous benefit of the doubt concerning all the gaps, technical queries and advice. Even if that does happen, the Committee may still throw it out, not wanting to be associated with such an unpopular and ill-thought out plan (see below). So really what they are saying is, put a date in your diary even though nobody at this stage knows if this will be the date. If its deffered does that merely mean, there are aspects that will need looking at and sorting prior to them giving the green light...if so the final part of sentence cannot be true because they may have no valid grounds to reject the plans.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on May 31, 2015 8:06:58 GMT
Think the June meeting is looking very unlikely.
Assuming the planners want to work with the Supporters Trust rather than refuse then they won't take the application to a meeting until it is ready. Looking at the portal there are some issues still to be addressed, highways, Sport England and design.
The Trust will need to tick those boxes so there are no objections from consultees before the application goes in front of the politicians. Would also expect some form of Business Plan to be submitted which explains how it would bepaid for and how the stadium would operate.
|
|