Formal Planning Objection from CCFC (12 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Orca

Orca

Well-Known Member
Otis said:
Fair play and the right thing to do.

If there is to be a meeting though as suggested, it might be a good idea to turn up.
Click to expand...
They've asked the Planning Department to facilitate it. They've made public record of their intention to remain and their intention to keep the Academy. Maybe this will be a promise they'll keep and maybe they should remove or edit 'The Way Forward' on the club's website while they're at it
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Planning matters include
  • how it fits in with the adopted Development Plan
  • how the proposal fits in terms of design and use with the surroundings
  • the effect on sunlight and daylight on neighbouring properties
  • the loss of privacy to neighbouring properties
  • the effect on parking, traffic and road safety
  • noise and general disturbance to nearby residents' land
  • ownership disputes
Planning matters do not include
  • personal circumstances or character of the person
  • spoiling your view
  • rights to light
  • devaluing your property
  • moral issues
  • covenants affecting properties
  • nuisance caused by building work
 
stevefloyd

stevefloyd

Well-Known Member
Why the fuck are we hated so much??? I know SISU have stirred up a can of worms but fucking hell there must be some serious back handers going on !!!!
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
What happens if the application suspended or planning process is say delayed to 1st July 2017? CCFC on that date have no right to be there after that. Could CSF, Wasps simply sit tight till then?
 
Orca

Orca

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
Planning matters include
Click to expand...
That's not an exhaustive list OSB, but the point they've raised on the granting of the original PP being based on conditions around Green Belt land CCFC is interesting. I'm going to have to and pick through the original application to see what it contained.

Building on green belt already has exceptions in place for sports facilities:
"provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it"
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Orca said:
That's not an exhaustive list OSB, but the point they've raised on the granting of the original PP being based on conditions around Green Belt land CCFC is interesting. I'm going to have to and pick through the original application to see what it contained.
Click to expand...
The original planning decision contains all sorts of statements about none of the remaining land being used to preserve the environment, community use (as it was public land) and that kind of thing. Would take someone with more knowledge of planning than me to pick out what is relevant.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Orca said:
Agreed Dave and finally a proactive step by the Club. As already mentioned above though, it does have the feel of a preamble for legal action.
Click to expand...
Could well be. It does seem to me someone is pulling Wasps strings. Its a very odd decision to move to Higgs when they know it will impact on CCFC.

As much as I dislike Wasps are they really that vindictive? They're already in a location, albeit temporarily, that seems ideal and it has been indicated by the council there that a longer term stay wouldn't be an issue.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Glad they've done this. I guess we're seeing the real reason CA cancelled the meeting now. Oh, the duplicity hey Grendull.
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Orca said:
That's not an exhaustive list OSB, but the point they've raised on the granting of the original PP being based on conditions around Green Belt land CCFC is interesting. I'm going to have to and pick through the original application to see what it contained.

Building on green belt already has exceptions in place for sports facilities:
"provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it"
Click to expand...

The barn is another incursion, its a very tall building.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
It can't have helped that the Club have already agreed to move to another pitch while the construction takes place,I'd have thought.
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
Glad they've done this. I guess we're seeing the real reason CA cancelled the meeting now. Oh, the duplicity hey Grendull.
Click to expand...

Again as he points out in the letter he has made several attempts to get information which has not been forthcoming.

If it was you you'd have toddled along with your pants down and the PR victory claimed.

Shows Anderson is on the ball.
 
Orca

Orca

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
You would think so. Might actually be some merit in this.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but it won't be any taller than the existing building though and that's probably one of the reasons they chose the site in the first place. A kicking barn requires a tall structure and normally adding to an existing development requires any new addition to be no taller than the existing buildings.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
Pretty sure this will have little bearing on the eventual outcome.
Leaving two potential scenarios of either litigation or again the veiled threat to the Clubs viability.
I don't like the frequency with which this term is being applied.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Definitely a pre-cursor to litigation.

I wonder if there is then a way of forcing wasps to reveal the 17 sites they looked at.
 
robbiekeane

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
A well written letter and can't see anyone disagreeing with any of the concerns which are clearly expressed.
 
Orca

Orca

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Definitely a pre-cursor to litigation.

I wonder if there is then a way of forcing wasps to reveal the 17 sites they looked at.
Click to expand...
Maybe a Freedom of Information request to the Planning department? They would have need to have at least have had informal discussions about the proposed sites to gauge viability. Get on it Grendel.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Orca said:
Possibly, but it won't be any taller than the existing building though and that's probably one of the reasons they chose the site in the first place. A kicking barn requires a tall structure and normally adding to an existing development requires any new addition to be no taller than the existing buildings.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines that outdoor pitches will be lost to accommodate the kicking barn and that could be deemed an erosion of the green fields on the site and therefore contravene the original planning approval.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Orca said:
Maybe a Freedom of Information request to the Planning department? They would have need to have at least have had informal discussions about the proposed sites to gauge viability. Get on it Grendel.
Click to expand...

They've already said they hadn't got to that stage and all discussions must remain secret due to commercial confidentiality.
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Orca said:
Possibly, but it won't be any taller than the existing building though and that's probably one of the reasons they chose the site in the first place. A kicking barn requires a tall structure and normally adding to an existing development requires any new addition to be no taller than the existing buildings.
Click to expand...

Its a lot taller.
JS91519764-Medium.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 13 (members: 0, guests: 13)
Top