CET (again!) (1 Viewer)

clint van damme · Jun 14, 2016

Article to the CET regarding objections to the Higgs centre planning application.

Only printed some emotional objections, (and although I agree with the sentiment these weren't going to be taken seriously), and none that were submitted in accordance with the councils guidelines for objections, (as posted by OSB). Another CET stitch up!

Astute · Jun 14, 2016

clint van damme said:
Article to the CET regarding objections to the Higgs centre planning application.

Only printed some emotional objections, (and although I agree with the sentiment these weren't going to be taken seriously), and none that were submitted in accordance with the councils guidelines for objections, (as posted by OSB). Another CET stitch up!

Has there been any within the guidelines?

Warwickhunt · Jun 14, 2016

No! not one objection has been raised within the guidlines of Planning Application Rules. We need the MP's to do the Objections through formal process

armybike · Jun 14, 2016

The problem is that if the application falls within planning law/regulations even if a thousand comments or objections were submitted they wouldn't impact on the process.

People are entitled to disagree with the application and point out the impact it will have on the Academy, but personal opinion is not a criteria used to consider an application being refused.

Captain Dart · Jun 14, 2016

armybike said:
The problem is that if the application falls within planning law/regulations even if a thousand comments or objections were submitted they wouldn't impact on the process.

People are entitled to disagree with the application and point out the impact it will have on the Academy, but personal opinion is not a criteria used to consider an application being refused.

Someone listed the criteria when this all came up, I couldn't see any reasons that applied.
FYI here they are again, http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/p/how-to-object.html
There is also a lot of useful tips on this link, maybe someone else can come up with a useful idea by studying it carefully.

• Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. [*but note that this does not include noise or disturbance arising from the actual execution of the works, which will not be taken into account]
• Unacceptably high density / over development of the site, especially if it involves loss of garden land or the open aspect of the neighbourhood (so-called ‘garden grabbing’)
• Visual impact of the development
• Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood
• Design (including bulk and massing, detailing and materials, if these form part of the application)
• The proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity
• The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners
• [If in a Conservation Area, adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area]
• [If near a Listed Building, adverse effect of the development on the setting of the Listed Building.]
• The development would adversely affect highway safety or the convenience of road users [but only if there is technical evidence to back up such a claim].

armybike · Jun 14, 2016

Captain Dart said:
Someone listed the criteria when this all came up, I couldn't see any reasons that applied.

Yes, the what can/can't be considered are -

Reasons that would be considered:

Loss of light or overshadowing
Overlooking/loss of privacy
Visual amenity (but not loss of private view)
Adequacy of parking/loading/turning
Highway safety
Traffic generation
Noise and disturbance resulting from use
Hazardous materials
Smells
Loss of trees
Effect on listed building and conservation area
Layout and density of building
Design, appearance and materials
Landscaping
Road access
Local, strategic, regional and national planning policies
Government circulars, orders and statutory instruments
Disabled persons' access
Compensation and awards of costs against the Council at public enquiries
Proposals in the Development Plan
Previous planning decisions (including appeal decisions)
Nature conservation
Archaeology
Solar panels

Those that won't be considered:

The perceived loss of property value
Private disputes between neighbours
The loss of a view
The impact of construction work or competition between firms
Restrictive covenants
Ownerships disputes over rights of way
Fence lines etc
Personal morals or views about the applicant.

Captain Dart · Jun 14, 2016

Regarding the idea of a large stadium at the Butts I can see about 10 of these reasons that might apply.

It is one thing to spout on about a 20-25K stadium, it is quite another matter to get planning permission for it.

oldfiver · Jun 14, 2016

I think we knew the "objections" would not meet the planning criteria but it was a good start to let the Council know supporters' thoughts

If this is still Council owned land were there any covenants on it that restricted its use?

armybike · Jun 14, 2016

oldfiver said:
I think we knew the "objections" would not meet the planning criteria but it was a good start to let the Council know supporters' thoughts

But the problem is it won't have any impact - it will be read by an officer, uploaded to the portal and then filed.

Even if it were to be before the Planning Committee only the brief details would be listed of what people have said, but each specific objection/comment wouldn't be listed.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to forward their opinions, but just trying to offer an overview of how their comments will be processed.

jimmyhillsfanclub · Jun 14, 2016

Sadly agree that even 10 thousand unqualified objections makes no real impact.....

....Whilst not wishing to get in to the "ideas for a protest" bollocks & petty rows again, but the only way to make people notice anything these days in with DIRECT ACTION that is filmed, posted & goes viral......

....with that in mind, there have been only 2 suggestions I've seen that would tick the boxes.....

1. Massive 200-a-side kick-about outside the council offices....
2. Wilful destruction of certain properties/flags/signage etc. which is, of course, illegal & I do not for one minute recommend, encourage or condone such actions...

italiahorse · Jun 14, 2016

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
Sadly agree that even 10 thousand unqualified objections makes no real impact.....

....Whilst not wishing to get in to the "ideas for a protest" bollocks & petty rows again, but the only way to make people notice anything these days in with DIRECT ACTION that is filmed, posted & goes viral......

....with that in mind, there have been only 2 suggestions I've seen that would tick the boxes.....

1. Massive 200-a-side kick-about outside the council offices....
2. Wilful destruction of certain properties/flags/signage etc. which is, of course, illegal & I do not for one minute recommend, encourage or condone such actions...

Yes the second one would really help our cause !!!
I'm in on the first one though

Astute · Jun 14, 2016

oldfiver said:
I think we knew the "objections" would not meet the planning criteria but it was a good start to let the Council know supporters' thoughts

If this is still Council owned land were there any covenants on it that restricted its use?

This is where my view of what is going on comes from.

Lets start with the Butts. If plans are put in and permission is turned down it will be the fault of CCC. If things wrong with the process or not securing funds occur it will be the fault of SISU.

If CCC pass planning permission and our academy loses its home it will be the fault of CCC for passing the plans. Higgs fault for having Wasps there. SISU’s fault for the way they have done the whole thing.

I understand how Wasps ended up in Coventry. Playing the same old blame game isn't getting us anywhere. All it is doing is helping Wasps take the piss. Is there anything else our football club can lose to them? And the worse thing that ever seems to be said about them is about them being a franchise.

Astute · Jun 14, 2016

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
....with that in mind, there have been only 2 suggestions I've seen that would tick the boxes.....

1. Massive 200-a-side kick-about outside the council offices....
2. Wilful destruction of certain properties/flags/signage etc. which is, of course, illegal & I do not for one minute recommend, encourage or condone such actions...

But what is the use now of aiming at CCC? Yes their decisions have put our future in doubt. But now they have to stay to the laws that will give Wasps what they want. We have to somehow aim whatever at Wasps.

armybike · Jun 14, 2016

Astute said:
If plans are put in and permission is turned down it will be the fault of CCC.

If CCC pass planning permission and our academy loses its home it will be the fault of CCC for passing the plans.

You can't place blame on an organisation that have no other option.

If an application does not fall within planning regs/law it has to be rejected. You can't overrule them, as the highlighted issues would still be present and those impacted upon would have grounds to bring litigation against CCC.

If the application is within planning regs/law and they refused it the applicant would go to the Planning Inspectorate, the application would approved and CCC left to pick up the costs.

Planning Departments don't just reject or approve applications to score points.

torchomatic · Jun 14, 2016

armybike said:
You can't place blame on an organisation that have no other option.

If an application does not fall within planning regs/law it has to be rejected. You can't overrule them, as the highlighted issues would still be present and those impacted upon would have grounds to bring litigation against CCC.

If the application is within planning regs/law and they refused it the applicant would go to the Planning Inspectorate, the application would approved and CCC left to pick up the costs.

Planning Departments don't just reject or approve applications to score points.

So, why did they try and restrict a "professional football club" (I wonder which one?) from sharing BPA? They can do what the fuck they want as has been shown over the last few years.

clint van damme · Jun 14, 2016

Warwickhunt said:
No! not one objection has been raised within the guidlines of Planning Application Rules. We need the MP's to do the Objections through formal process

Astute said:
Has there been any within the guidelines?

Looks like I jumped the gun a bit there, doesn't look like there's one proper objection, oh fuck it!

torchomatic · Jun 14, 2016

http://planning.coventry.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=1279709

Terry Gibson's perm · Jun 14, 2016

Just read the telegraph comments the usual knob heads like Wollaston are on there and he talks his regular brand of shit, gave us a little mention to us as well.

armybike · Jun 14, 2016

torchomatic said:
They can do what the fuck they want as has been shown over the last few years.

So you're saying the Planning Department have worked outside of their powers/remit?

torchomatic · Jun 14, 2016

armybike said:
So you're saying the Planning Department have worked outside of their powers/remit?

Using the BPA example I think they're capable of orchestrating anything against CCFC.

rupert_bear · Jun 14, 2016

Why don't sisu drop the legals, then perhaps all can progress

armybike · Jun 14, 2016

torchomatic said:
Using the BPA example I think they're capable of orchestrating anything against CCFC.

So they should just rubber stamp any application from BPA and reject the Higgs application, based on your opinion? Planning regs/law should just be ignored?

chiefdave · Jun 14, 2016

armybike said:
So they should just rubber stamp any application from BPA and reject the Higgs application, based on your opinion? Planning regs/law should just be ignored?

While they have to adhere to the rules, or face an appeal going above their heads, it would be naive to think they don't have any influence. They can certainly make it easier or harder for someone to work through the process if they so wish.

Nick · Jun 14, 2016

On there as well, it is strange how targetted some of the comments are from "ccfc fans".

I am not sure the "fishing trip" came under planning did it? Wasn't that more the asset dept wasn't it?

As Dave says, of course they can influence things.

Terry Gibson's perm · Jun 14, 2016

rupert_bear said:
Why don't sisu drop the legals, then perhaps all can progress

Not going to happen my view is they are losing but until these finally lose the investors will keep investing in their other things I think it will run for years.

armybike · Jun 14, 2016

chiefdave said:
While they have to adhere to the rules, or face an appeal going above their heads, it would be naive to think they don't have any influence. They can certainly make it easier or harder for someone to work through the process if they so wish.

How?

armybike · Jun 14, 2016

Nick said:
As Dave says, of course they can influence things.

How can they influence things? Would be intetested to find out how you think that would work.

chiefdave · Jun 14, 2016

armybike said:
How can they influence things? Would be intetested to find out how you think that would work.

Are you saying the council accepts the advice of the planning officers on every application? Or that the councils decision is always upheld in the event of an appeal?

Do you really believe some applications aren't scrutinised in much more detail, looking for reasons to reject, than others?

Captain Dart · Jun 14, 2016

chiefdave said:
While they have to adhere to the rules, or face an appeal going above their heads, it would be naive to think they don't have any influence. They can certainly make it easier or harder for someone to work through the process if they so wish.

Great idea if you want to leave yourself open to legal action. I think in this situation they'll make damn sure they follow the rules to the letter.

Astute · Jun 14, 2016

armybike said:
You can't place blame on an organisation that have no other option.

If an application does not fall within planning regs/law it has to be rejected. You can't overrule them, as the highlighted issues would still be present and those impacted upon would have grounds to bring litigation against CCC.

If the application is within planning regs/law and they refused it the applicant would go to the Planning Inspectorate, the application would approved and CCC left to pick up the costs.

Planning Departments don't just reject or approve applications to score points.

You do know that I wasn't blaming everyone I mentioned but using it to point out how Wasps are doing what they want and everyone else is taking the blame?

Try looking a bit further than what you think you need to. You will see more of what is going on then.

Nick · Jun 14, 2016

armybike said:
How can they influence things? Would be intetested to find out how you think that would work.

So you don't like they could have any sway in things at all? The way that things are done?

I am not saying that CCC and would, just that I am pretty sure it would and does go on.

I doubt they would try against SISU as they would end up with the loopholes.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 14, 2016

armybike said:
The problem is that if the application falls within planning law/regulations even if a thousand comments or objections were submitted they wouldn't impact on the process.

People are entitled to disagree with the application and point out the impact it will have on the Academy, but personal opinion is not a criteria used to consider an application being refused.

I give you a grudging like.

if I had any time, I'd be checking out Ernesford Grange for sure!

armybike · Jun 14, 2016

chiefdave said:
Are you saying the council accepts the advice of the planning officers on every application? Or that the councils decision is always upheld in the event of an appeal?

Do you really believe some applications aren't scrutinised in much more detail, looking for reasons to reject, than others?

What is 'the council'? Who does this include/not include in your opinion?

I'm not quite sure how you seem to think that planning officers don't form part of 'the council'.

An application is submitted for an area surrounded by fields and another in the middle of a residential area - you think they'd just be progressed in exactly the same way? Even if potential issues at one don't exist at the other?

Skyblueweeman · Jun 14, 2016

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
....with that in mind, there have been only 2 suggestions I've seen that would tick the boxes.....

1. Massive 200-a-side kick-about outside the council offices....
2. Wilful destruction of certain properties/flags/signage etc. which is, of course, illegal & I do not for one minute recommend, encourage or condone such actions...

So which one are you going for then?

armybike · Jun 14, 2016

Nick said:
So you don't like they could have any sway in things at all? The way that things are done?

I am not saying that CCC and would, just that I am pretty sure it would and does go on.

I doubt they would try against SISU as they would end up with the loopholes.

In this day and age I honestly don't think it goes on, certainly not within Councils and around the actual application process - but this is my personal opinion.

Planning Law is heavily leant towards the applicants and it's actually far easier for an application to all run smoothly.

I think the fact that both SISU and CRFC have acknowledged any application at the Butts would have hurdles to overcome speaks volumes.

CET (again!) (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency