duffer
Well-Known Member
Fair comment Monners - and I defer to your better knowledge here. When it comes to politicians national and local (or kleptomaniac collies), a little cynicism goes a long way.
If they can't get land for 10,000 jobs then they won't get it for a stadium. (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter albatross
- Start date
Fair comment Monners - and I defer to your better knowledge here. When it comes to politicians national and local (or kleptomaniac collies), a little cynicism goes a long way.
Fair comment Monners - and I defer to your better knowledge here. When it comes to politicians national and local (or kleptomaniac collies), a little cynicism goes a long way.
Problem with politics and environmental stuff is that the policital cycle turns every 5 years or so, whereras my world involves planning for decades in the future. Having said that, I have met some very forward thinking types (including ministers), but they understandably end up towing the party (vote winning) line - fair enough.
As FP pointed out though, Pickles is a loose cannon (or words to that affect) - much like Prescot could be in a similar role in the past (and don't get me started on that idiot Owen Patterson -bizarrely environment secratary for a while - he almost cost me my job with his "cost cutting")
Agreed monners
I sometimes wonder how this country takes the path It does when Thinktank and Whitehall full of Oxbridge graduates are supposedly planning for fifty years hence
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Brighton's ground was built on greenfield not greenbelt land. That might sound like I'm splitting hairs but in the world of planning it makes the world of difference.
I didn't know that - and it is a very importnat distinction re planning decisions. So not splitting hairs at all
duffer
Well-Known Member
It does indeed make a difference, but it's described as greenbelt in a number of places, including here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4601378.stm
And it's also either within or adjacent to an Area of Outstanding National Beauty depending on how you read it.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
That's wrong if they are describing it as that. Here is a map of greenbelt land across England:
Are there areas of outstanding to quote Pressa of Outstanding natural beauty that are not logged as greenbelt
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Most of them looking at this. This is a map of areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Unlike greenbelt land, these do not exist to prevent development, merely unsympathetic development. The Falmer Stadium had to be built into the ground (so it doesn't appear so tall on the outside) to try and limit the impact on the view.
Greenbelt land is just about stopping individual towns/cities merging.
I used to live in Brighton and know that numerous sites were proposed and rejected before Falmer was even considered. After Falmer was identified as a potential site for a football stadium a referendum was held to allow the the residents of Brighton and Hove the chance to say if they wanted a stadium and, if so, if they agreed with the Falmer site. In the event, 68% of those who voted supported a stadium at Falmer. Do you think we can have a referendum too?
Astute
Well-Known Member
I suppose we could get it done now so when SISU are gone our clubs new owners will have something to aim at. We have no chance of CCC building another ground for our football club.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
If a nice building or one of national importance goes up, does it automatically become listed or is a decision made over time? Why can't areas become greenbelt after people make decisions on it? If a rural location has small trees that eventually become a forest and/or becomes habitat to wildlife are you saying it's wrong to turn that land into greenbelt? Or is this another dig at the council who initially passed this development?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
No I'm not saying it can never change over time but that isn't what is happening here is it?
This plans have been rejected as it will be building on green belt land, Maton isn't saying maybe lets look again in 20 years and the area might have changed and if it has we'll revisit the plans, he's saying lets change the status of the land now so the plans go through. To me if land status can be changed to suit planning applications then it makes a nonsense of the status in the first place.
Of course if this is how people wish planning to operate then would it be unreasonable to expect the same for any new stadium location put forward by SISU?
Calista
Well-Known Member
I have a little bit of knowledge of the Planning system, and you are right to assume that the Green Belt is a very strong policy which (as this latest decision shows) is hard to overthrow.
However, many of the boundaries go back for decades, and circumstances change. The present Government has a growth agenda, which requires everything to be reviewed. There are new Local Plans in preparation which can indeed change those boundaries. It’s not a case of “changing it at will”, but through a long and careful process with democratic control.
As Cllr Maton says, Pickles didn’t seem to absolutely rule out this site - he just said it needs to be part of properly approved plans for the whole area. Coventry is tightly hemmed in by Green Belt, and I would think some of it is bound to change – so maybe there will be a site for the mythical “new stadium” on the edge of the city somewhere.
The fact that these planning matters take years is perfect for SISU. The only way I can make sense of their actions is that they intend to keep CCFC on indefinite life support, whilst hanging around waiting for a legal victory or a failure of Wasps. Barmy on both counts I’d say, and incredibly depressing.