Woodlands (33 Viewers)

[Liquid Gold]

Looks like somewhere they'd shoot a zombie movie.

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

I’m convinced they are on the wind up listing building sometimes. But not with this one though, it’s one of the worlds most incredible feats of architecture and I’m off down there to glue myself to it now. Front first. Naked. Over my dead body is this building EVER getting knocked down. I’m in tears here.

I quite like modernist architecture but really, there is nothing particularly interesting about that. Like I said before, English Heritage treat Coventry as if it is an experiment rather than a place where people live

 

[chiefdave]

I quite like modernist architecture but really, there is nothing particularly interesting about that. Like I said before, English Heritage treat Coventry as if it is an experiment rather than a place where people live

I'm obviously not an expert but I can't see anything there worth saving. If that's listed then pretty much anything would qualify.

I would understand them listing something like the elephant in town but they'll happily allow that to be knocked down but list crap like this. It looks like any other school in Cov built around that time.

 

[covcity4life]

BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME




to the checkatrade semifinal home leg

 

[win9nut]

For anyone who doesn't know the site, here are examples of a couple of the listed buildings:

Can I smell smoke?

 

[Captain Dart]

I’m convinced they are on the wind up listing building sometimes. But not with this one though, it’s one of the worlds most incredible feats of architecture and I’m off down there to glue myself to it now. Front first. Naked. Over my dead body is this building EVER getting knocked down. I’m in tears here.

Mmmmm.. look at that green painted plywood infill below the window.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'm all for the listing of vernacular architecture. Tastes change, and once it's gone, there's no way back.

 

[Esoterica]

 

[Liquid Gold]

I'm all for the listing of vernacular architecture. Tastes change, and once it's gone, there's no way back.

There's photos. If people miss it that much then build it again.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

There's photos. If people miss it that much then build it again.

Like all those Tudor buildings, eh

 

[Liquid Gold]

Like all those Tudor buildings, eh

Stick some up if you fancy.

 

[Captain Dart]

The Tudors were vandals, this one didn't survive Henry VIII
.

 

[skybluetony176]

This thread is funny

You get claims that the buildings are listed and the experts claim the poster is incorrect. First page of google, second link down and you’re straight on English heritages website where there’s confirmation that the buildings are indeed listed. Same experts claim there’s nothing special about them.

You get claims that the site has been designated for educational use only. Experts again claim that’s rubbish. First page of google again and you find articles dating back 2 1/2 years stating exactly that and in fact the article in question is specifically based on comments from Tim Fisher at an SCG where he claims the site has been identified as a possible replacement for Ryton and joint academy. A suggestion that’s actually received quite well by Muton in the article.

Now. If you were being cynical you would suggest that having returned to plan A, B, C or whatever it’s supposed to be SISU seem to have quite accidentally I’m sure picked a site that A) is council owned and B) not possible to develop for plan A, B, C or whatever it’s supposed to be for numerous reasons so they can quite accidentally I’m sure be a victim.

 

[chiefdave]

Now. If you were being cynical you would suggest that having returned to plan A, B, C or whatever it’s supposed to be SISU seem to have quite accidentally I’m sure picked a site that A) is council owned and B) not possible to develop for plan A, B, C or whatever it’s supposed to be for numerous reasons so they can quite accidentally I’m sure be a victim.

Would be a bit of an idiotic thing to suggest as if that was true when SISU first put the plan forward over a year ago the council could have knocked them back and easily justified that rejection.

Instead they have been stalling for time and in doing so giving SISU lots more evidence to take to the EFL to show the council are blocking their plans to move things forward and justify a move out of the city should it be required.

 

[Captain Dart]

Would be a bit of an idiotic thing to suggest as if that was true when SISU first put the plan forward over a year ago the council could have knocked them back and easily justified that rejection.

Instead they have been stalling for time and in doing so giving SISU lots more evidence to take to the EFL to show the council are blocking their plans to move things forward and justify a move out of the city should it be required.

Nonsense, it it was actually a SISU priority then they would be able to force the issue with a proper application.
Something between 13 weeks and 26 weeks is the statutory limit for a major development.

Determining a planning application

What are the time periods for determining a planning application?
Once a planning application has been validated, the local planning authority should make a decision on the proposal as quickly as possible, and in any event within the statutory time limit unless a longer period is agreed in writing with the applicant.

The statutory time limits are usually 13 weeks for applications for major development and 8 weeks for all other types of development (unless an application is subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment, in which case a 16 week limit applies).

Where a planning application takes longer than the statutory period to decide, and an extended period has not been agreed with the applicant, the government’s policy is that the decision should be made within 26 weeks at most in order to comply with the ‘planning guarantee’.

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

There are literally hundreds of very similar school buildings of that style all over the country, so there is no merit in listing all (or any) of them. But judging by its vintage, it would cost a fortune to remove all the asbestos from it when they knock it down!

 

[chiefdave]

Nonsense, it it was actually a SISU priority then they would be able to force the issue with a proper application.
Something between 13 weeks and 26 weeks is the statutory limit for a major development.

Are you deliberately choosing to ignore anything that's posted that doesn't' fir your argument? They aren't going to put a planning application in, or even begin the pre-planning process, until the council come back with a forward contract.

Step back and think for a second. Why would the council stall things rather than either, responding positively and granting the forward contract, or responding negatively and saying its a non-starter?

 

[Captain Dart]

Are you deliberately choosing to ignore anything that's posted that doesn't' fir your argument? They aren't going to put a planning application in, or even begin the pre-planning process, until the council come back with a forward contract.

Step back and think for a second. Why would the council stall things rather than either, responding positively and granting the forward contract, or responding negatively and saying its a non-starter?

You don't actually need to own land to apply for planning permission for it. This means you can apply for permission before deciding whether or not to buy a piece of land.

 

[chiefdave]

You don't actually need to own land to apply for planning permission for it. This means you can apply for permission before deciding whether or not to buy a piece of land.

WTF, are you actually serious? You are expecting SISU, or anyone else for that matter, to spend millions putting together a full application for planning permission on a piece of land they don't own when the owner of said piece of land hasn't responded to their requests to discuss the lease or sale?

 

[Liquid Gold]

You don't actually need to own land to apply for planning permission for it. This means you can apply for permission before deciding whether or not to buy a piece of land.

It costs money to apply for planning permission. Why bother if you know it would be rejected. Much easier to get pre-approval like London Wasps have.

 

[mark82]

Can I smell smoke?

Pretty sure that's what happened to the Hawthorn Pub next door when they wanted to build houses on it.

 

[chiefdave]

It costs money to apply for planning permission. Why bother if you know it would be rejected. Much easier to get pre-approval like London Wasps have.

Not to mention once you've got the planning permission the value of the land will shoot up. Fix the price now with an agreement to buy upon planning approval being received. The rest of the country works like that. Including when the Ricoh was built and when Wasps want to do anything, but for some reason its acceptable to apply completely different rules to the football club that leave us at a significant disadvantage.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Nonsense, it it was actually a SISU priority then they would be able to force the issue with a proper application.
Something between 13 weeks and 26 weeks is the statutory limit for a major development.

Determining a planning application

Why would they spend the money on the array of different consultants they'd need to commission if they aren't sure:

a. Whether or not the council would even relinquish the land i.e. by selling the freehold in part or a long leasehold
b. Whether or not the council would even consider a subsequent planning application for a football stadium

Get in the real world. Major planning applications are not just submitted, they are the end result of a lot of discussion between the applicant and the council. The council so far doesn't appear to be fully engaging.

 

[SBAndy]

You don't actually need to own land to apply for planning permission for it. This means you can apply for permission before deciding whether or not to buy a piece of land.

And if you are then unable to buy the land from the vendor you’ve wasted thousands upon thousands of pounds consulting architects etc. for nothing.

 

[SkyBlueCharlie9]

Moderately weathly Tory population? Its definitely not a Tory population.

Local election results for Woodlands Ward May 2018 suggest otherwise mate
Woodlands Ward - Conservative hold | Coventry City Council (local) elections results - 3 May 2018 | Coventry City Council

 

[mark82]

Clearly I'm bored today, but just in case people were wondering if the site was big enough I've made this:



On here we have:

• A 32,000 seat stadium
• 2 car parks (specifically car park A & car park B)
• A hotel (Holiday Inn Express if anyone wants to know)
• A shopping village (or part of. Probably about 20-30 shops)
• A complex with a real snow ski slope, multi screen cinema and numerous retail outlets and restaurants.

And still not touched the school buildings or nature reserve (I did use the Meadows site (or whatever it's called now) because if they're having the main school buildings they don't need that too!).

And, yes, it's all to scale.

 

[fernandopartridge]

This thread is funny

You get claims that the buildings are listed and the experts claim the poster is incorrect. First page of google, second link down and you’re straight on English heritages website where there’s confirmation that the buildings are indeed listed. Same experts claim there’s nothing special about them.

You get claims that the site has been designated for educational use only. Experts again claim that’s rubbish. First page of google again and you find articles dating back 2 1/2 years stating exactly that and in fact the article in question is specifically based on comments from Tim Fisher at an SCG where he claims the site has been identified as a possible replacement for Ryton and joint academy. A suggestion that’s actually received quite well by Muton in the article.

Now. If you were being cynical you would suggest that having returned to plan A, B, C or whatever it’s supposed to be SISU seem to have quite accidentally I’m sure picked a site that A) is council owned and B) not possible to develop for plan A, B, C or whatever it’s supposed to be for numerous reasons so they can quite accidentally I’m sure be a victim.

I used the English Heritage search engine which didn't find them as their record doesn't include a postcode. I quickly conceded I was wrong when faced with evidence (as I always do when I am - unlike clowns like you who press various spurious points time and time again). Have you looked at the email from Daniel Gidney yet or is it impossible because it doesn't fit your world view?

As for the site's designation being for educational use, erm yeah, that's what the planning process is about, it isn't just about the construction of the buildings but the use of them. You've not said anything profound Tony.

The "nothing special about them" is a personal opinion, listing buildings isn't science it is subjectivity so I can say there is nothing special about it if I want to.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Who can apply | How to apply | Planning Portal

If you wish, you can appoint an agent to apply for planning permission on your behalf. For example, you may prefer your architect, solicitor or builder to take care of it.
You don't actually need to own land to apply for planning permission for it. This means you can apply for permission before deciding whether or not to buy a piece of land.

The following people must be informed about a planning application relating to land or buildings they have an interest in:

• The owner or all the part-owner/s (if you are not the full owner)
• Any leaseholders with at least seven years' lease remaining
• Any agricultural tenants

 

[Captain Dart]

WTF, are you actually serious? You are expecting SISU, or anyone else for that matter, to spend millions putting together a full application for planning permission on a piece of land they don't own when the owner of said piece of land hasn't responded to their requests to discuss the lease or sale?

Where did you get millions on a planning application from.
Those are expensive architects. I'd be thinking more like £150,000 (finger in the air for 1 to 2 man years of consultancy time).

 

[skybluetony176]

Would be a bit of an idiotic thing to suggest as if that was true when SISU first put the plan forward over a year ago the council could have knocked them back and easily justified that rejection.

Instead they have been stalling for time and in doing so giving SISU lots more evidence to take to the EFL to show the council are blocking their plans to move things forward and justify a move out of the city should it be required.

Well yes. For starters it was 2 1/2 years ago SISU first showed an “interest” in the site with actual a very sensible proposal which going by the article at the time was confirmed as a sensible proposal as it fitted in with what the council had planned and designated the site for. Are we supposed to believe that someohow SISU has forgotten the response of their initial interest? Blocking what plans? Unless SISU can prove otherwise the magnitude of this grand plan is 2 sheets of A4. That’s akin to me saying I have plans to build a five bedroom house because I’ve sent a rizla paper into the local planning offices with I want to build a five bedroom house written on it and then complaining that I haven’t got backing for it. What next? Maybe we’ll trot out that generic artist impression again that wasn’t even originally drawn for us, they just changed the shirt colours to sky blue of the people in the artist impression, then claim that they’re plans again, maybe Fisher can announce an exciting announcement in three weeks. Seriously Dave, were you out of the country locked in a cave last time SISU were building a stadium? You and a few others are coming all over very RFCesq falling over yourselves trying to legitimise SISU on this.

 

[Captain Dart]

Why would they spend the money on the array of different consultants they'd need to commission if they aren't sure:

a. Whether or not the council would even relinquish the land i.e. by selling the freehold in part or a long leasehold
b. Whether or not the council would even consider a subsequent planning application for a football stadium

Get in the real world. Major planning applications are not just submitted, they are the end result of a lot of discussion between the applicant and the council. The council so far doesn't appear to be fully engaging.

If they were serious they could do it to force the issue or simply go public.

 

[skybluetony176]

And if you are then unable to buy the land from the vendor you’ve wasted thousands upon thousands of pounds consulting architects etc. for nothing.

It would still be a better investment for SISU than the millions they’ve spanked on legal fees over the last few years.

 

[fernandopartridge]

If they were serious they could do it to force the issue or simply go public.

To what end though? They can't force the council to sell land even if there is a brilliant plan. The Wasps plan for the training centre at Allard Way didn't come before they'd agreed a deal for the land. Why would CCFC do things any differently?

 

[win9nut]

To what end though? They can't force the council to sell land even if there is a brilliant plan. The Wasps plan for the training centre at Allard Way didn't come before they'd agreed a deal for the land. Why would CCFC do things any differently?

How do you know that? (Sorry to go all Nick on you, but just cos it wasn't publicised doesn't mean it don't exist)
(No offense Nick)

 

[SBAndy]

Clearly I'm bored today, but just in case people were wondering if the site was big enough I've made this:

View attachment 11897

On here we have:

• A 32,000 seat stadium
• 2 car parks (specifically car park A & car park B)
• A hotel (Holiday Inn Express if anyone wants to know)
• A shopping village (or part of. Probably about 20-30 shops)
• A complex with a real snow ski slope, multi screen cinema and numerous retail outlets and restaurants.

And still not touched the school buildings or nature reserve (I did use the Meadows site (or whatever it's called now) because if they're having the main school buildings they don't need that too!).

And, yes, it's all to scale.

What did you use to do that?