Latest CCFC letter on planning application - Planning Meeting (4 Viewers)

[oldskyblue58]

http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...jection-letter-alan-higgs-centre-3222442.aspx

much more like it

Downside is CSF just wait for user agreement to end

 

---

[Bruce the Boot]

Well it does show they have at last done some homework. But still clutching at straws in my opinion , I get the feeling its just Lip Service from the club :jimlad:

 

[Brylowes]

Where do we all think we will be playing home games in a couple of years.

 

[Bruce the Boot]

I think we will be looking for a new home soon , Wasps will be pissed at this !

 

[Bruce the Boot]

Where do we all think we will be playing home games in a couple of years.

LOL U just beat me to it !

 

[Nick]

I could pretend to have a clue what it is talking about...

To try and decipher, they are saying Sport England can't approve it as Wasps havent given them the info they want and the council advised for info about the club being there and havent received it either?

Then at the end, they say the Secretery of state will call it in. Is that something SISU will approach about or is that something the secretary of state picks up himself?

ps. at least I can print Tim Fisher's signature and put it on the love letter I wrote to myself from him

 

[oldskyblue58]

think this covers referral to Secretary of State

http://planninghelp.cpre.org.uk/pla...ons/call-ins/notifying-the-secretary-of-state

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/called-in-planning-applications

 

[skybluetony176]

Much better. Concentrates for the most part on the green belt angle and the special consideration for the academy. Am I right in saying that the kicking barn will take over existing green space? If so surely that's a further erosion of green belt and in dispute with the original planning agreement for the AEHC development to happen in the first place? Also does the special consideration for the academy also throw a spanner in the works for the swimming pool?

I feel if the club goes into tomorrows meeting with these points rather than making it personal (I know it is personal but playing the victim will gain us nothing) that is our best chance.

If it gets the nod anyway can we appeal it further? Central government for example? Isn't that where an appeal would go if it was turned down? Is it the same if you want to appeal an approval?

 

[Nick]

Much better. Concentrates for the most part on the green belt angle and the special consideration for the academy. Am I right in saying that the kicking barn will take over existing green space? If so surely that's a further erosion of green belt and in dispute with the original planning agreement for the AEHC development to happen in the first place? Also does the special consideration for the academy also throw a spanner in the works for the swimming pool?

I feel if the club goes into tomorrows meeting with these points rather than making it personal (I know it is personal but playing the victim will gain us nothing) that is our bed chance.

If it gets the nod anyway can we appeal it further? Central government for example? Isn't that where an appeal would go if it was turned down? Is it the same if you want to appeal an approval?

I took the last paragraph as a threat, but havent reads OSBS links yet so might be wrong!

 

[oldskyblue58]

How do CCFC get round the fact that their agreement to be there ends 30-06-2016 after which they have no rights to be there. CSF / CAWAT simply have to refuse to renew and the Academy is gone

 

[Nick]

How do CCFC get round the fact that their agreement to be there ends 30-06-2016 after which they have no rights to be there. CSF / CAWAT simply have to refuse to renew and the Academy is gone

Isn't that the basing of the planning permission only being granted because of them in the first place argument?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Sport England regs regarding playing field planning permission is here

https://www.sportengland.org/facili...ent/planning-applications/playing-field-land/

 

[duffer]

Much better. Concentrates for the most part on the green belt angle and the special consideration for the academy. Am I right in saying that the kicking barn will take over existing green space? If so surely that's a further erosion of green belt and in dispute with the original planning agreement for the AEHC development to happen in the first place? Also does the special consideration for the academy also throw a spanner in the works for the swimming pool?

I feel if the club goes into tomorrows meeting with these points rather than making it personal (I know it is personal but playing the victim will gain us nothing) that is our bed chance.

If it gets the nod anyway can we appeal it further? Central government for example? Isn't that where an appeal would go if it was turned down? Is it the same if you want to appeal an approval?

I don't think you can appeal against approval, SBT, only against failure to grant approval. I believe the only route would be, once again, a Judicial Review. I'd imagine we've got our own seats at the High Court now, and a season ticket for the parking facility.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Good work from the club. The council officers are already looking contradictory, which is typical when officers have to break their own rules to satisfy the whims of elected members.

 

[Nick]

Sport England regs regarding playing field planning permission is here

https://www.sportengland.org/facili...ent/planning-applications/playing-field-land/

So their argument is that Sport England haven't received an info to say "go for it", but it is only advice anyway isn't it rather than overruling?

And the council also advised them to "advise" about CCFC and the impact which they haven't?

 

[Brylowes]

The barristers must be rubbing their grubby hands together.

 

[skybluetony176]

Where do we all think we will be playing home games in a couple of years.

Perhaps if we successfully maintain our academy at the AEHC we could allow wasps ro use some of the facilities in exchange for a favorable rental agreement at the Ricoh with more access to revenue.

 

[Nick]

Perhaps if we successfully maintain our academy at the AEHC we could allow wasps ro use some of the facilities in exchange for a favorable rental agreement at the Ricoh with more access to revenue.

It would still be down to CSF to allow them there though

 

[oldskyblue58]

Isn't that the basing of the planning permission only being granted because of them in the first place argument?

probably but then CSF can point to the community usage and advantages - cant see Sec of State calling for the AHC to be knocked down and returned to green belt after all this time

Still boils down to sorting a new deal for CCFC - possibly with landlords who are even less inclined to be sympathetic - the pragmatist in me says it will boil down to money talks but......

 

[skybluetony176]

I don't think you can appeal against approval, SBT, only against failure to grant approval. I believe the only route would be, once again, a Judicial Review. I'd imagine we've got our own seats at the High Court now, and a season ticket for the parking facility.

Shame. It would be nice to resolve something without going to a judicial review. Not that going to a judicial review has resolved anything yet.

 

[Nick]

probably but then CSF can point to the community usage and advantages - cant see Sec of State calling for the AHC to be knocked down and returned to green belt after all this time

Still boils down to sorting a new deal for CCFC - possibly with landlords who are even less inclined to be sympathetic - the pragmatist in me says it will boil down to money talks but......

No but if CCFC are saying that community usage will be decreased by Wasps is their thinking they would reject it based on that?

 

[oldskyblue58]

I don't think you can appeal against approval, SBT, only against failure to grant approval. I believe the only route would be, once again, a Judicial Review. I'd imagine we've got our own seats at the High Court now, and a season ticket for the parking facility.

exactly my thoughts duffer - JR 3 here we come

http://planninghelp.cpre.org.uk/imp...hallenge-a-planning-decision/court-challenges

 

[fernandopartridge]

Shame. It would be nice to resolve something without going to a judicial review. Not that going to a judicial review has resolved anything yet.

Judicial review could be avoided if Coventry City Council did what it should be doing.

 

[Nick]

On the telegraph article:

Club managing director Chris Anderson insisted on the written proposal before agreeing to meet for talks over the Higgs Centre. He made the demand after the club pulled out of a prearranged meeting to discuss the way forward.

That isn't true, he said about it being in writing from the start!

 

[Captain Dart]

http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...jection-letter-alan-higgs-centre-3222442.aspx

much more like it

Downside is CSF just wait for user agreement to end

It is better, however I'd wager Tim Fisher did not take this into consideration when the club left the Higgs in 2013.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-leave-alan-higgs-4870037

Re-reading this article now is quite interesting. one can see how the strategy to continue without CCFC was triggered at this time, because....
1) CCFC claimed the company Higgs were now dealing with (CCFC Holdings) wasn't the one Higgs were insured for (CCFC Ltd).
2) CCFC refusal to pay maintenance bills for which they were libel.

Intemperate actions had what are turning out to be far reaching consequences..

 

[Grendel]

On the telegraph article:



That isn't true, he said about it being in writing from the start!

Lot of egg on faces all round then.

 

[fernandopartridge]

It is better, however I'd wager Tim Fisher did not take this into consideration when the club left the Higgs in 2013.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-leave-alan-higgs-4870037

Re-reading this article now is quite interesting. one can see how the strategy to continue without CCFC was triggered at this time, because....
1) CCFC claimed the company Higgs were now dealing with (CCFC Holdings) wasn't the one Higgs were insured for (CCFC Ltd).
2) CCFC refusal to pay maintenance bills for which they were libel.

Intemperate actions had what are turning out to be far reaching consequences..

Completely irrelevant isn't it? Far one thing the AHT was in charge at that time, not CSF.

I'd say what was really happening was the beginning of the AHT led strategy to do a deal for Wasps (who they were more than likely in early negotiation with back in 2013):

“We’ve done ten years as an Academy and now it’s going to be a different life for the building,” conceded Peter Knatchbull-Hugessen

 

[Nick]

Completely irrelevant isn't it? Far one thing the AHT was in charge at that time, not CSF.

I'd say what was really happening was the beginning of the AHT led strategy to do a deal for Wasps (who they were more than likely in early negotiation with back in 2013):

Yep, it is no co-incidence they are going there. The same as the whole 50% / 100% thing and how they approved the extension of the league before higgs had even sold up.

 

[oldskyblue58]

CSF have been there from the start managing the site. You would expect the AHC to say they were looking for something else at that time CCFC had moved out and were at least publically saying they would build their own. A swimming pool was mentioned too at that time

Interesting it said the U18 & U21 squads were training and based at Ryton

 

[chiefdave]

How do CCFC get round the fact that their agreement to be there ends 30-06-2016 after which they have no rights to be there. CSF / CAWAT simply have to refuse to renew and the Academy is gone

That's a separate issue really. And if Wasps get refused planning permission do you not think CSF might be keen for the academy to stay?

 

[Nick]

That's a separate issue really. And if Wasps get refused planning permission do you not think CSF might be keen for the academy to stay?

I don't think they will get refused.

If they did, I'd think they would just make minor changes to fall in line.

 

[chiefdave]

Re-reading this article now is quite interesting. one can see how the strategy to continue without CCFC was triggered at this time, because....
1) CCFC claimed the company Higgs were now dealing with (CCFC Holdings) wasn't the one Higgs were insured for (CCFC Ltd).
2) CCFC refusal to pay maintenance bills for which they were libel.

Not sure how its really relevant to Wasps planning application but you've got that slightly wrong:
1) It was Higgs who kicked up about the insurance. The company that was in administration and subsequently liquidated couldn't maintain an agreement for the academy to train at Higgs, how would that work?
2) CCFC were doing the maintenance weren't they but the maintenance equipment was supplied by Higgs. When that needed replacing Higgs wanted the club to pay for replacement equipment, the club said it wasn't in their agreement.

 

[chiefdave]

I don't think they will get refused.

I don't think it will get refused either but I can't see how you can bypass objections just by going we might not let the current tenants stay anyway.

 

[oldskyblue58]

That's a separate issue really. And if Wasps get refused planning permission do you not think CSF might be keen for the academy to stay?

given what's gone on and who is working with who not sure I do. More likely they wait till 30 June and try again. There is nothing that legally compels them to do a deal with CCFC, and Wasps could have unfettered access to the site with the kicking barn coming later

 

[chiefdave]

The same argument could be made then. The club would just come in and say the academy was refused a renewal to allow Wasps to move in and cite the same issues.