stamoo
First Teamer
Posts: 349
|
WHEN?
Jun 11, 2015 15:22:38 GMT
Post by stamoo on Jun 11, 2015 15:22:38 GMT
I am guessing the reason this information is not in the public domain is that no-one yet knows the answer but I ask the question anyway just in case:
Does anyone know when the application is likely to be put before the full planning committee for a 'yes' or 'no?
Some of us (ALL of us?) would like to attend and lend support.
If no-one yet knows what's the best guess?
|
|
rob
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 79
|
WHEN?
Jun 12, 2015 0:38:20 GMT
Post by rob on Jun 12, 2015 0:38:20 GMT
|
|
althom
Squad Member
Posts: 185
|
WHEN?
Jun 18, 2015 11:00:23 GMT
Post by althom on Jun 18, 2015 11:00:23 GMT
The application is not on the agenda of the next Planning Committee Meeting of June 25th, so at least another month goes by!!
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jun 18, 2015 15:00:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by downthelane on Jun 18, 2015 15:00:20 GMT
Looking at the application website it appears there are still some issues which will need to be addressed before it gets to a meeting
|
|
rob
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 79
|
WHEN?
Jun 19, 2015 22:05:36 GMT
Post by rob on Jun 19, 2015 22:05:36 GMT
The application is not on the June 25 agenda but for future reference- point 6 on that agenda...
'Up to a total of fifteen minutes can be allowed, each speaker being allocated a maximum of five minutes, for members of the public to present a petition, ask a question or comment on any matter on the Agenda or within the remit of the Committee in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 10'
..to give a further answer to the original poster, assuming this is always on the agenda at each planning meeting
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jun 20, 2015 8:16:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by jupu on Jun 20, 2015 8:16:46 GMT
Anyone can attend to listen to the debate (subject to the limitations of the room in terms of capacity).
Clearly in would not be practicable to let everyone who wants to speak to do so.
Anyone with something to say has already had chance to do so in writing.
Five minutes nay not seem much but it is effectively a chance for each side to emphasise what they consider to be the main points.
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 8, 2015 15:53:15 GMT
Post by michael on Jul 8, 2015 15:53:15 GMT
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 20, 2015 10:59:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by downthelane on Jul 20, 2015 10:59:04 GMT
The silence from the Trust on what's happening with the planning application is almost deafening!
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
WHEN?
Jul 21, 2015 11:09:20 GMT
Post by niels on Jul 21, 2015 11:09:20 GMT
There is silence from the Trust because there is nothing to say that hasn't already been said. The application is in with the council and we are waiting for it to be put onto the agenda of a planning committee meeting.
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 21, 2015 20:23:10 GMT
via mobile
Post by downthelane on Jul 21, 2015 20:23:10 GMT
Oh the highways and Sport England objections are all sorted then, excellent news.
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 21, 2015 21:07:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by wcfcnb82 on Jul 21, 2015 21:07:57 GMT
Good news, is this documented somewhere?
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 23, 2015 9:13:28 GMT
Post by Down The Pan on Jul 23, 2015 9:13:28 GMT
Yes this is all documented in the planning application pack. As Niels says, the planning application is with the council, there have been various discussions on points of reference in the planning application between the applicant representatives and the city council planning dept. This is is the case in all planning applications.
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 23, 2015 10:52:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by downthelane on Jul 23, 2015 10:52:52 GMT
Thanks Brooksider. For those of us not as au fait with the process as you please can you point us to the Sport England and Highways correspondence that say no objection? Many thanks
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 23, 2015 11:18:20 GMT
Post by Down The Pan on Jul 23, 2015 11:18:20 GMT
No I can't, I'm not privy to documentation between two third parties that I have no involvement with (the City Council or Sport England)
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 23, 2015 12:31:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by wcfcnb82 on Jul 23, 2015 12:31:21 GMT
Oh the highways and Sport England objections are all sorted then, excellent news. Where does it say that the objections are sorted?
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 23, 2015 12:34:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by downthelane on Jul 23, 2015 12:34:18 GMT
The objections must be sorted if the Trust are simply waiting for Council to take the application to Committee.
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 23, 2015 13:37:34 GMT
Post by Down The Pan on Jul 23, 2015 13:37:34 GMT
It is for the Councillors to decide whether objections are of merit or not. Sport England aren't deciding on the application.
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 28, 2015 8:52:54 GMT
Post by Woodenose on Jul 28, 2015 8:52:54 GMT
From the Objectors Web Page. New document on the planning website: Conservation Officer Comments. You may not be surprised to find many of our concerns are shared by this report.
In summary, the report suggests the stadium and 3G pitch are both moved away from the canal nearer the golf course, to prevent harm to the 'setting and character' of the canal conservation area and views across the fields to the Malverns. It "cannot be supported in its current form". This messes up the carefully laid plan to have people exit the mid-point of the main stadium wall in to the car park (though it has been suggested that this was not a particularly safe arrangement in itself).
Would the entire plan be re-drawn to suit these views on conserving the character of the park? We shall see. Nothing here means it cannot be approved. More reports are due in soon. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 28, 2015 10:16:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by downthelane on Jul 28, 2015 10:16:29 GMT
Why are we having to rely on the Objector's Website for updates? Surely the ST could be communicating progress better?
So that is 1) Highways, 2) Sport England, and 3) Conservation Officer objections that will need to either be resolved or a response explaining why they aren't being resolved, prior to a decision being made. Still a bit of work to do.
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 28, 2015 15:55:08 GMT
ac likes this
Post by creaner on Jul 28, 2015 15:55:08 GMT
Why are we having to rely on the Objector's Website for updates? Surely the ST could be communicating progress better? So that is 1) Highways, 2) Sport England, and 3) Conservation Officer objections that will need to either be resolved or a response explaining why they aren't being resolved, prior to a decision being made. Still a bit of work to do. Any communication will be between the applicant and the council. This is the way the application will proceed, not via a message board. If anyone feels this is insufficient I'm sorry but I'd hope with all the hard work that's been put into this you could trust- no pun intended- that we are doing all we can.
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 28, 2015 16:48:18 GMT
Post by Woodenose on Jul 28, 2015 16:48:18 GMT
Why are we having to rely on the Objector's Website for updates? Surely the ST could be communicating progress better? So that is 1) Highways, 2) Sport England, and 3) Conservation Officer objections that will need to either be resolved or a response explaining why they aren't being resolved, prior to a decision being made. Still a bit of work to do. Any communication will be between the applicant and the council. This is the way the application will proceed, not via a message board. If anyone feels this is insufficient I'm sorry but I'd hope with all the hard work that's been put into this you could trust- no pun intended- that we are doing all we can. I know you and your team are working very hard to make this application work,but it would be nice to have some updates now and than,even if it is just to say how things are progressing.We all want the same thing, but we don't want updates from the PPP camp
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 28, 2015 23:29:10 GMT
via mobile
Post by citytoon on Jul 28, 2015 23:29:10 GMT
Any communication will be between the applicant and the council. This is the way the application will proceed, not via a message board. If anyone feels this is insufficient I'm sorry but I'd hope with all the hard work that's been put into this you could trust- no pun intended- that we are doing all we can. I know you and your team are working very hard to make this application work,but it would be nice to have some updates now and than,even if it is just to say how things are progressing.We all want the same thing, but we don't want updates from the PPP camp Particularly as it is something that is so critical to City's future.
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 29, 2015 9:32:05 GMT
Post by Down The Pan on Jul 29, 2015 9:32:05 GMT
If this is so critical to City's future, why are so few people actively involved in it? Anyone who is writing on here saying they want to hear what's going on could, if it is so important to them, have taken some time out of their lives to get involved directly with this project. I trust that everyone who is writing comments on here did, at least, write a letter of support for the project to the city council planning department? and attended the Supporters Trust last meeting at New Road. But Creaner says it all, communication is now between the applicant and the city council. That is the latest update, the plans and relevant documentation is with the planners, ongoing communication over matters is taking place between the planners and the applicant. What more can be said? Objections aren't managed on public forums, everyone can go and view the planning portal regardless of whether they support the bid or object to the bid. PPP highlighting public documents on the planning portal is not going to make any difference to the planning process.
|
|
|
WHEN?
Jul 30, 2015 13:50:44 GMT
Post by Woodenose on Jul 30, 2015 13:50:44 GMT
If this is so critical to City's future, why are so few people actively involved in it? Anyone who is writing on here saying they want to hear what's going on could, if it is so important to them, have taken some time out of their lives to get involved directly with this project. I trust that everyone who is writing comments on here did, at least, write a letter of support for the project to the city council planning department? and attended the Supporters Trust last meeting at New Road. But Creaner says it all, communication is now between the applicant and the city council. That is the latest update, the plans and relevant documentation is with the planners, ongoing communication over matters is taking place between the planners and the applicant. What more can be said? Objections aren't managed on public forums, everyone can go and view the planning portal regardless of whether they support the bid or object to the bid. PPP highlighting public documents on the planning portal is not going to make any difference to the planning process. Some/most of us do not understand the planning laws so cannot help in that dept it should be left to the ones that know what there are doing.We are still supporting the city in other way's. Yes we wrote letters of support and some of us managed to attend the meeting at the cricket ground. My point is that the new season is soon to be upon us and some supporters would like to know how far away we are from getting an update on the application.PPP seem to keep their supporters up to date.I will just add this bit from the council Overall the principle of the scheme is supported, nevertheless as indicated above the siting of the stadium and artificial pitch should better respect the immediate setting of the Canal Conservation Area. These both need to be moved further towards the north-west of the site to achieve this. Without these relevant amendments the proposal is thought to harm the setting and character of the Conservation Area and therefore cannot be supported in its current form.
|
|
|
WHEN?
Aug 2, 2015 12:29:34 GMT
Post by Woodenose on Aug 2, 2015 12:29:34 GMT
If this is so critical to City's future, why are so few people actively involved in it? Anyone who is writing on here saying they want to hear what's going on could, if it is so important to them, have taken some time out of their lives to get involved directly with this project. I trust that everyone who is writing comments on here did, at least, write a letter of support for the project to the city council planning department? and attended the Supporters Trust last meeting at New Road. But Creaner says it all, communication is now between the applicant and the city council. That is the latest update, the plans and relevant documentation is with the planners, ongoing communication over matters is taking place between the planners and the applicant. What more can be said? Objections aren't managed on public forums, everyone can go and view the planning portal regardless of whether they support the bid or object to the bid. PPP highlighting public documents on the planning portal is not going to make any difference to the planning process. Some/most of us do not understand the planning laws so cannot help in that dept it should be left to the ones that know what there are doing.We are still supporting the city in other way's. Yes we wrote letters of support and some of us managed to attend the meeting at the cricket ground. My point is that the new season is soon to be upon us and some supporters would like to know how far away we are from getting an update on the application.PPP seem to keep their supporters up to date.I will just add this bit from the council Overall the principle of the scheme is supported, nevertheless as indicated above the siting of the stadium and artificial pitch should better respect the immediate setting of the Canal Conservation Area. These both need to be moved further towards the north-west of the site to achieve this. Without these relevant amendments the proposal is thought to harm the setting and character of the Conservation Area and therefore cannot be supported in its current form. This report was only given to the council on the 16th July,so I suppose the trust need to look at this and see if anything can be amended.Why this is so late in being submitted I don't know.All these things mean the application will take a lot longer than expected and add more frustration to the supporters that want to know WHEN
|
|
|
WHEN?
Sept 16, 2015 22:41:08 GMT
Post by citytoon on Sept 16, 2015 22:41:08 GMT
Nothing on this month's agenda for the planning meeting on the 24th. September Agenda
|
|
|
WHEN?
Oct 13, 2015 11:48:28 GMT
Post by citytoon on Oct 13, 2015 11:48:28 GMT
|
|
|
WHEN?
Oct 15, 2015 17:27:02 GMT
Post by citytoon on Oct 15, 2015 17:27:02 GMT
No mention on the agenda for the planning meeting on 22nd October: October Agenda
|
|
|
WHEN?
Nov 12, 2015 12:53:08 GMT
Post by citytoon on Nov 12, 2015 12:53:08 GMT
|
|
|
WHEN?
Dec 10, 2015 13:06:51 GMT
Post by citytoon on Dec 10, 2015 13:06:51 GMT
|
|