Council request for ‘help’ to ‘justify’ Wasps move into Coventry City academy (4 Viewers)

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
A COVENTRY council planning officer wrote to Wasps’ advisers last month requesting ‘help’ on how councillors on the planning committee could be persuaded of the justification for the rugby club’s controversial plans to build a training ground at the Sky Blues’ ‘lifeblood’ youth academy’s home.

The email came after an outcry among Coventry City Football Club fans and official objections after the Wasps planning application for the Alan Higgs Centre in Allard Way was published on June 1.

The email has now been disclosed to the Coventry Observer along with other material (click on links at foot of story) concerning the application in response to our Freedom of Information request for our ‘Save Our City’ campaign.

The email (pictured) – written by planning officer Kurt Russell to Robert Gilmore of Wasps’ consultants Oxalis Planning on June 6, states: “Hi Rob. I’ve been looking through the application that came in whilst I was on leave and I can’t see any information regarding the loss of the existing football and netball pitches and the relocation of these facilities either within the Allard Way site or elsewhere.

“The loss of the facilities was always going to be a sticking point, and this seems to be being realised by the early objections that we have received.

“Please can you provide some information on this, which will help us to justify the proposal to planning committee when the time comes?”

On March 2, Mr Russell had emailed Wasps’ consultants to advise the planning application includes material which ‘addresses the loss of the existing pitches and makes clear where their replacements are/will be.’

The June 6 email suggests a retrospective attempt to ‘justify’ displacing the football club from its purpose-built centre of excellence facilities in response to public objections.

Despite Mr Russell noting the absence of any such proposals in the planning application, Wasps’ chief executive David Armstrong in early June told the media the football club could use its new ‘kicking barn’ once it was built, assuming planning permission would be granted.

That prompted Coventry City Football Club to call on Wasps to make clear in writing how the proposals would result in the retention of the Sky Blues’ centre of excellence facilities which have granted the club prized ‘Category 2′ status and associated funding from the football authorites.

The Wasps’ training facilities would be build on the football club’s outside academy pitch while there are also proposals for a council-backed 50metre swimming pool where the indoor pitch is located.

Sky Blues sources say the retrospective attempt to justify the proposals in a way which sensibly accommodates the Sky Blues have continued, with what they say are false recent claims in writing that commercial discussions had taken place with the football club. This is flatly denied by the football club.

Also flatly denied by the football club is Higgs centre operator Coventry Sports Foundation’s claim that the Sky Blues had effectively served notice on its long-term commitment to the centre after the lease expires next June, when the football club would have to move out.

Sky Blues managing director Chris Anderson had several times this year written to call for negotiations with a view to the club remaining at the academy, only to be rejected, including in correspondence seen by the Coventry Observer.

The material disclosing to us following our FoI request also appears to provide brief minutes of pre-application meetings between council planning officials and Wasps’ consultants.

The first was on October 2 last year, when notes/minutes state discussion points included whether the facility would be open to local people and the ‘need to emphasise what Wasps do for the local community to assist with social benefits’.

On February 23 in an apparent meeting with the council’s planning manager Tracy Miller, notes/minutes state ‘TM advised: ‘Need to consider the displacement of the football academy’.

The minutes also say several other sites were being looked at in Coventry for Wasps’ training facilities, which have now moved on a ‘temporary’ basis to Broadstreet rugby club in Binley Woods in the borough of Rugby, from a site in west London where London Wasps were from, near Wembley Stadium.

The council has refused to disclose to us the identity of the potential other sites in Coventry, on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

The documents also state a ‘VSC’ (very special circumstances) justification’ would be required to get round government planning restrictions on building in the green belt.

One email on May 31 by council development executive Richard Moon and copied into council PR boss Fran Collingham and council acting chief executive Martin Yardley – who we recently revealed had pushed the ‘Coventry – a City of Rugby’ initiative – states the need to ‘manage the PR’ when Wasps’ planning application is published.

Emails before and since February appear to show detailed communication on traffic arrangements. Documents from November appear to show early plans for a temporary as well as a permanent training facility.

Council emails in late June raise further concerns on ecological and traffic grounds.

The Observer’s ‘Save Our City’ campaign is calling on Coventry City Council and the city’s sporting institutions including CSF to do more to ensure the club retains a viable presence in Coventry, amid the club’s and fans’ concerns it is being squeezed out in favour of rugby and Wasps, following a long running dispute with the club’s owners Sisu.

In addition to their intention to move into the Sky Blues’ academy home, the then London Wasps obtained the Ricoh Arena in 2014 from the council and Higgs charity on a massively extended 250-year deal not offered to the 133-year-old football club for which the stadium was built.

It also follows revelations from a leaked council email in January which proposed blocking any prospect of the club moving to an expanded Butts Park Arena home of Coventry Rugby Football Club, a proposal which aimed to enable both traditional Coventry sporting clubs to access more vital revenues from commercial stadium activities.

Coventry City fans’ organisations – including the Supporters’ Consultative Group and Sky Blue Trust – are protesting against the potential loss of the youth academy to the city.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
sorry after reading the attachments I am failing to see what the point is that he has "evidenced" that makes any real difference

I would have thought it was quite normal for planning officers to request extra information in order to put forward a positive case. Quite normal to question existing usage, ecological and traffic issues before making a decision, which seems to me what has gone on

perhaps I am reading it wrongly?
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
sorry after reading the attachments I am failing to see what the point is that he has "evidenced" that makes any real difference

I would have thought it was quite normal for planning officers to request extra information in order to put forward a positive case. Quite normal to question existing usage, ecological and traffic issues before making a decision, which seems to me what has gone on

perhaps I am reading it wrongly?

In this case, the council seems to be acting for both sides. It's the language as much as anything, it's written as if the council are in alliance with Wasps, not just acting as the local planning authority.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
In this case, the council seems to be acting for both sides. It's the language as much as anything, it's written as if the council are in alliance with Wasps, not just acting as the local planning authority.

Wasting your breath really. Minds made up.
 

jimmyhillsfanclub

Well-Known Member
I can’t see any information regarding the loss of the existing football and netball pitches and the relocation of these facilities

To which Rob Wasp probably replied "meh"

.....meanwhile, over at sisu towers........nothing......radio silence....
 

shelby76

Well-Known Member
Sounds a bit corrupt, shouldnt be having conversations like that, its a conflict of intrest, how cant that c**t at the council justify asking the c**t at wasps that? Plain wrong, people need locking up, im sure rules have been broken. The only communication should have been application denied.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Wasps Holdings have refused consent to its disclosure on the basis that it is commercially confidential.
Can't see any commercial reason for Wasps refusing to say where sites they decided not to pursue are located. It says it would adversely impact Wasps moving forward, not sure how if they're going with AHC.

Interestingly the earlier emails refer to Wasps using land adjacent to AHC, presumably the Severn Trent land that was previously rumoured. Would be interesting to know what happened to that and why they have instead decided to locate where a loss of existing facilities will be required.

Not keen on the bit from the council that talks about 'manage the PR', how is that the councils job? If I want to build an extension will they manage the PR to persuade my neighbours not to object?

The other line that stands out to me is 'please can you provide some information on this which will help us to justify the proposal to the planning committee'. Again is this really the councils responsibility? Us can only really mean either the council or the council and Wasps. In either case why are the council involved in justifying the football club losing its academy?

I guess the key question is do they treat other applications in a similar manner.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
sorry after reading the attachments I am failing to see what the point is that he has "evidenced" that makes any real difference

I would have thought it was quite normal for planning officers to request extra information in order to put forward a positive case. Quite normal to question existing usage, ecological and traffic issues before making a decision, which seems to me what has gone on

perhaps I am reading it wrongly?
Compare the response from the council here to the councils response when the news of a potential ground share at the Butts came out, and that hadn't even got close to the planning stage!
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Agree with Dave. Why do the Council need info to "justify" this? Don't they make a decision on the merits of the application?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Don't they make a decision on the merits of the application?
That's what we've always heard. That planning is dependent on the rules and the council have no influence. At least that's what we get told when there is any suggestion the council could make the process difficult for CCFC.
 

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
That's what we've always heard. That planning is dependent on the rules and the council have no influence. At least that's what we get told when there is any suggestion the council could make the process difficult for CCFC.
Except it can be referred to the Secretary of State so councils planning departments usually do everything to help an application but need to get it right
 

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
sorry after reading the attachments I am failing to see what the point is that he has "evidenced" that makes any real difference

I would have thought it was quite normal for planning officers to request extra information in order to put forward a positive case. Quite normal to question existing usage, ecological and traffic issues before making a decision, which seems to me what has gone on

perhaps I am reading it wrongly?

stick to maths. your council boys have been shown up as evil so just admit it.
 

Bruce the Boot

Well-Known Member
42 yrs watching ! who the fek are you ? all the questions me Mother.
 

Bruce the Boot

Well-Known Member
See you haven't posted on the Academy thread can only assume you and Torch must have missed it. Strange that.[/Q


My opinion on most things involves negativity towards Sisu. Nice to know your checking up on me in your school holidays :chicken:[/QUOTE]
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
sorry after reading the attachments I am failing to see what the point is that he has "evidenced" that makes any real difference

I would have thought it was quite normal for planning officers to request extra information in order to put forward a positive case. Quite normal to question existing usage, ecological and traffic issues before making a decision, which seems to me what has gone on

perhaps I am reading it wrongly?

I have to say and I know people suggest I have an agenda. However I read through waiting to be shocked. Unless I am missing something Wasps must have had chats sought advice before submitting planning application to ensure they get it right.
Chap has received the proposal and contacts them and says where is the talk about the revolution of the stuff you are taking away.
PR person is copied in as a heads to be in the ball on how to manage the potential situation of the academy getting affected which would always be the biggest sticking point for them.
Is there something starkly unusual in all this.
Wasps buying the place the CCFC rent for their academy. To use it as their training centre is always going to be controversial
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
I never thought I would find myself looking back at all those comments about a stadium and purpose built academy/training ground, and actually wishing the owners were able to back up their claims.
Always thought it was an insane negotiation attempt at getting control of ACL. That was always going to end in failure and hoping they would shut up.
Now I find myself thinking I wish it was actually true
 

Monners

Well-Known Member
sorry after reading the attachments I am failing to see what the point is that he has "evidenced" that makes any real difference

I would have thought it was quite normal for planning officers to request extra information in order to put forward a positive case. Quite normal to question existing usage, ecological and traffic issues before making a decision, which seems to me what has gone on

perhaps I am reading it wrongly?
It is common practice yes. Any planning authority has to gather and request info on an ongoing basis in preparation for planning committees
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
It is common practice yes. Any planning authority has to gather and request info on an ongoing basis in preparation for planning committees
Interesting, never knew that.

Always thought the councils role was to be independent and apply the planning regulations with impartiality. Of course I would expect them to give advise where appropriate but giving advice is a long way from talking about managing the PR and how the planning officers can justify proposals to the planning committee.

Surprised the councils remit is to support every application and do everything in their power to get it approved with the public giving it a thumbs up also. Hope the same applies should CCFC ever put an application in.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
It is common practice yes. Any planning authority has to gather and request info on an ongoing basis in preparation for planning committees

Is the language common practice? I look at planning apps and council requests for information. The language and tone is never as fluffy as the language on the email from the planning officer to the Wasps developers. It doesn't prove anything and doesn't suggest any real wrongdoing. It just shows what we already know, the council are absolutely behind what Wasps are doing. It is imperative that Wasps are seen as a success in Coventry. Nothing shall stand in their way.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top