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

[Monners]

The language is a bit fluffy. But it is common practice to to and fro for information. I have no doubt that the council do want it to happen - that isn't really a secret.

 

---

[Monners]

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.

It is the officers role to gather info and offer advice based on planning laws and regs.

 

[armybike]

Classic Reid - taking a stance of authority on a subject he clearly has little/no understanding on.

The role of a Planning Officer is to offer advice, guidance and assistance to applicants/developers - crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

Despite what Reid would like to suggest, aside from his interpretation being questionable, this is standard type of communication.

 

[oldskyblue58]

so the employed planning officers task is to gather all relevant facts good or bad, ask questions and advise the applicant how planning law applies to an application, then to present the final case to the elected council to approve or otherwise his final recommendation

 

[lewys33]

So fed up of Les and his agenda starring Dr Evil style quotations.

Also fed up of Simon Gilbert and his just as equally pathetic digs - "I'm sure he had a good reason (Anderson missing the meeting) otherwise you'd have to question the desire to get a deal done."

"probably busy with the important flagpoles issue #SaveOurFlagpoles"

 

[lewys33]

Classic Reid - taking a stance of authority on a subject he clearly has little/no understanding on.

The role of a Planning Officer is to offer advice, guidance and assistance to applicants/developers - crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

Despite what Reid would like to suggest, aside from his interpretation being questionable, this is standard type of communication.

He is a clever bloke. He knows exactly what he is doing.

 

[armybike]

so the employed planning officers task is to gather all relevant facts good or bad, ask questions and advise the applicant how planning law applies to an application, then to present the final case to the elected council to approve or otherwise his final recommendation

Yep, the Planning Officer's role is to gather all the relevant information.

However, the Planning Committee don't have to follow the Planning Officers recommended.

Also, a Planning Officer wouldn't always offer a recommendation of approval.

It's possible for the Planning Officer to approve and the Planning Committee to reject and vice versa.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

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

[/QUOTE]
I know you're new but my post wasn't directed to you

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

what would you like me to post?

How about something amusing or educational or I know how about something relevant to anything

 

[Moff]

The role of a Planning Officer is to offer advice, guidance and assistance to applicants/developers - crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

Advice and guidance yes, not always assistance, as they can advise someone on an application but if it is in breach of policy, or for example is of a negative design or impact, then they will advise of such but certainly wouldn't assist.

 

[armybike]

Advice and guidance yes, not always assistance, as they can advise someone on an application but if it is in breach of policy, or for example is of a negative design or impact, then they will advise of such but certainly wouldn't assist.

Indeed.

 

[Moff]

Indeed.

As such I am unsure if anything in the application is in breach of policy or so forth, do you have any info on this?

 

[armybike]

As such I am unsure if anything in the application is in breach of policy or so forth, do you have any info on this?

I have no additional information than that within the public domain.

 

[ccfctommy]

What a total bullshit story.

 

[Orca]

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.

I read "us" as being the Planning department. I also read the whole conversation differently to Les.

“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?”

Reading this section fully again, it's clear that the proposal should have included "information regarding the loss of the existing football and netball pitches", but didn't. The planning department asked about the "relocation of these facilities either within the Allard Way site or elsewhere". I read this as, you were told to cover the existing provision in your application and you haven't, so please revise your submission or provide information about where the pitches will be.

Of course what has been left out of 'multi-award winning' Reid's article is the Wasps response.


Wasps are going to pay for the relocation of the main grass pitch and made an offer for the use of the other facilities. Now I don't like what Wasps are doing here and I've written to my Councillor to say so (see my thread called 'Councillors'), but this piece from Reid is so wide of the mark it's like a Leigh Jenkinson cross. He's misread the mail, assumed the intentions of the Planning Officer furthered his agenda and then published without checking that his position might be true.