That’s simply not true. Planning law is above councils. They can try and block but developers can always go over their heads if planning law hasn’t been followed.
People seem to think that local authorities are some cross between the Chinese communist party and medieval landowners. They aren’t. They exist within a set of rules and regulations that govern what they’re allowed to do. And if you suspect they’ve broken those there is legal recourse.
And as I’ve said, my experience of planning is that when you’ve got a site that close to the boundary both councils will be involved anyway. Exactly which planning department it’s submitted to makes little difference on a project of this scale that close.
They can. They need something to make easy or hard first, though.The thing is, councils can make things easier or very very hard. That is the point people are making.
They can. They need something to make easy or hard first, though.
It’s not a deflection it’s just a statement of fact. You can have multiple stadiums in reasonable sized cities. It’s not even uncommon.That sounds like a deflection. Either way, are these areas the size of Coventry?
I get it it, from the council’s view, the RICOH is readymade for CCFC. It would be a waste with Wasps and Coventry can’t co-exist. Or, in a scenario where Wasps bail from Coventry, and a new CCFC stadium built, there’s this big sports venue that would be a white elephant.
It’s not a deflection it’s just a statement of fact. You can have multiple stadiums in reasonable sized cities. It’s not even uncommon.
It might feel odd to have two stadiums but the only relevant factors are can we get it built. It’s not likely to compete with the Ricoh for the same events so it shouldn’t be an issue for both to exist.
The Ricoh only becomes a white elephant IF wasps leave Cov. That’s not to say having us as renters wasn’t in their business plan and a sympathetic council won’t try stop a new stadium being built. Just that having two stadiums in the city is not a genuine obstacle to getting it built.
Brighton. The local authority objected. You can go for the ah but it's different all you like. it's different by being in brighton (or Lewes) not Coventry.
I said it won’t compete for the same events. I also said they might be an obstruction.They already see it as competition for the Ricoh because it won't have CCFC paying it's bills.
We don't. SISU haven't moved forward in the slightest for CCC to start raising objections.We already have in CCC.
We do need something with Warwick though.
It’s not a deflection it’s just a statement of fact. You can have multiple stadiums in reasonable sized cities. It’s not even uncommon.
It might feel odd to have two stadiums but the only relevant factors are can we get it built. It’s not likely to compete with the Ricoh for the same events so it shouldn’t be an issue for both to exist.
The Ricoh only becomes a white elephant IF wasps leave Cov. That’s not to say having us as renters wasn’t in their business plan and a sympathetic council won’t try stop a new stadium being built. Just that having two stadiums in the city is not a genuine obstacle to getting it built.
That’s simply not true. Planning law is above councils. They can try and block but developers can always go over their heads if planning law hasn’t been followed.
People seem to think that local authorities are some cross between the Chinese communist party and medieval landowners. They aren’t. They exist within a set of rules and regulations that govern what they’re allowed to do. And if you suspect they’ve broken those there is legal recourse.
And as I’ve said, my experience of planning is that when you’ve got a site that close to the boundary both councils will be involved anyway. Exactly which planning department it’s submitted to makes little difference on a project of this scale that close.
Bristol - Ashton Gate, Memorial Ground and County GroundWhat other city that is similarly sized to Coventry in the UK would have 3 sports stadiums?
We don't. SISU haven't moved forward in the slightest for CCC to start raising objections.
The evidence is they seem keen to find holes in Ricoh process, and put a lot of energy into that. When it comes to planning process however, they're rather apathetic...
I must have missed us sorting the site out and applying for planning permission, before taking it to appeal, and then for a judicial review.Yes, we have seen examples of CCC trying to make things difficult.
We have also seen them make things very easy for Wasps.
I must have missed us sorting the site out and applying for planning permission, before taking it to appeal, and then for a judicial review.
We don’t and we don’t have the money to pay for it. Let’s be realistic here.
Nottingham for one.What other city that is similarly sized to Coventry in the UK would have 3 sports stadiums?
Yes, obviously it would be raised capital and of course there is more detail to to. You still have to provide a business case to raise capital and pay said capital back. If we build a stadium that is too big we won’t be able to do that. Hence my comment that it would need to be sustainably financed.It would be raised capital. Far more detail to this sort of thing than just saying 'we' can't afford it.
Why on earth would we need 30k? While in the champ at the Ricoh how many times did we have 30K+? Leeds and Chelsea in the cup are only two I can think of.
The thing is, councils can make things easier or very very hard. That is the point people are making.
Or the decision of the council to fund the last part of the Tesco deal, then turn around and claim it would be state aid if CCC then helped CCFC get back on it's feet by following through on their end of the bargain. Councillors at the time must have had dollar signs in front of their eyes.
Just ranting at history again!
What was the thread about again? Oh yes, the future!
I quite like that. Looks to have potential to age in a homely way, too.
I don’t disagree.
Again, the Brighton example. One local authority agreed with the planned work, the other didn’t.
The link I provided to NW outlined a few things. The main contention is a disagreement over interpretation of policy.
Which clearly demonstrates that some of this is open to interpretation. Without having to resort to tactics the CCP or medieval landowners would use.
Because you still have to raise the initial investment and service that debt. It doesn’t matter what’s cheaper in the long run or what might happen in the future. We might be able to go for 25-30k but there is no point us on here treating it as a minimum demand. If we can raise enough capital to finance 25-30k and service the debt then great. But we have to be realistic. We could end up in league 1 again after next season.The question that keeps springing to mind is why not start with a capacity of 25,500? Same as HR. Feels like another step backwards to me if we don’t at least replace HR. I understand that it will cost more money as an initial investment but given it’s a new build it will be considerably cheaper than expansion at a later date. Just makes more sense to me and makes a positive statement to fans, especially fans of a certain age that are old enough to remember HR.
Not just HS2, there's the A46 relief road going through there and other parts of that land Warwick Uni already have plans for.Or has HS2 tearing through there changed that?
That's what my question near the beginning of the thread was about. I had assumed it could be greenbelt.I'll add that if we had gone out and got some land in the six years leading up to us breaking the lease, we'd have been in a far stronger position to strongarm CCC on the Ricoh rental deal or potential ownership. CCC probably don't want another stadium if they can help it, but equally they don't want a very public and protracted planning review that they'd probably lose. Having land an a stadium planning application ready to go when we entered negotiations would've totally changed the dynamic, and at the end of the day land is never really a bad investment.
On another note, have we noticed that the site being talked about a UoW seems to be in the green belt? That's a far easier planning refusal than 'too many stadia' IMO. Would likely require a change of the Warwick local plan. One to question @mark82 ?
View attachment 16167
Or has HS2 tearing through there changed that?
Yeah I get that. I’ve accepted that my dislike of separate stands makes me a football fan weirdo. It’s fine. I’ll hang with Otis.
I played there in a Florida State Cup final the week of when they signed Joe Cole.
Man.. these grounds are bringing back memories..Children's Mercy Park formally Sporting Park home of Kansas City is another good example of a 4 sided ground with safe standing behind the goal with a 23000 capacity
I hope not. I hope that he is being kept well away from anything to do with a new stadium.Is Timmy still driving the new stadium?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk