All planning applications go through a formal process but do require Planning experts/architects to negotiate and discuss with the local planning officer what is likely to be suitable and could be supported by that officer in terms of being signed off and recommended to the committee.
On commercial schemes, schemes like this, they would not be just blindly submitted without extensive conversations with that planning officer because of infrastructure, employment, use, parking, impact on local area etc etc. For a housing extension, those conversations don't take place but still could if the person wanted them to.
What we need is some proper journalism now on the right questions around the facts set out by all parties in this:
SISU - If you have explored sites with owners, what sites?
SISU - Have you challenged the EFL "must stay within the city boundary" and do some basic journalism, how many other clubs play outside of a city boundary, also SISU, what are the collective sites within the city and if they don't meet the requirements, have you explained this to the EFL and what would be an acceptable radius for out of boundary locations?
Council - What are you doing to assist the club in its ambition for creating a stadium and what value would it add to the city, ie employment, other uses, etc
Wasps - Why would you not consider a shared 50:50 ownership at an appropriate valuation?
We have shit lazy journalism rather than some decent questioning of he leaders of these 3 entities and I am not saying the questions above are good ones, just basic ones that could be asked..
