If they can't get land for 10,000 jobs then they won't get it for a stadium. (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Can't see Sir Peter keeping CVT running now, was all about the Gateway.

If not an airport though, would be a great spot for a football ground.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Green belt and 1,000 signatures from a load of nimbys.

Would CCFC be looking at a Green belt site (if you believe they are looking for any site which I don't)?
 
italiahorse

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
RFC said:
Ah the Stadium, won't come under the same duristriction! Fortunately PUSB
Click to expand...

Correct. The Pie in the Sky stadium (formerly the Tim Pot Stadium) will be subject to heavy vetting by Alice and the Mad Hatter at their next tea party.
Tweedledee and Tweedledum will be submitting plans.
 
albatross

albatross

Well-Known Member
RFC said:
Ah the Stadium, won't come under the same duristriction! Fortunately PUSB
Click to expand...

Did you actually read who rejected the plan? Passed by two local councils , coventry and Warwickshire.

If they did develop 10,000 jobs each earning 10K that's 100,000,000 GBP per annum in wages alone into the local economy.

Only took 1,000 objections in election year to block it.
 
bigfatronssba

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
RFC said:
Ah the Stadium, won't come under the same duristriction! Fortunately PUSB
Click to expand...

Could you tell us which country it will be in then?
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
albatross said:
Did you actually read who rejected the plan? Passed by two local councils , coventry and Warwickshire.

If they did develop 10,000 jobs each earning 10K that's 100,000,000 GBP per annum in wages alone into the local economy.

Only took 1,000 objections in election year to block it.
Click to expand...

The 10,000 jobs being created thing was alaways bollocks.

If every development created as many jobs as they say that they are going to do, we'd all have to have about 3 jobs each, and have to ship in more Eastern Europeans, or possibly go to the Greeks bearing gifts of jobs.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
In fairness I think there were some very big questions about the number of jobs that it would create, but there's no doubt about the amount of money it could have made the developers. This is nowhere near as black and white as it's pictured in this one article.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle said:
The 10,000 jobs being created thing was alaways bollocks.

If every development created as many jobs as they say that they are going to do, we'd all have to have about 3 jobs each, and have to ship in more Eastern Europeans, or possibly go to the Greeks bearing gifts of jobs.
Click to expand...

Especially when there are Myriad under Utilised sites already In existance
Several Prologis'sAnsty Park etc
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
In fairness I think there were some very big questions about the number of jobs that it would create, but there's no doubt about the amount of money it could have made the developers. This is nowhere near as black and white as it's pictured in this one article.
Click to expand...

Agreed
I do wonder sometimes
Does this gov't Punish Coventry for being a Socialist stronghold
So many choices such as this sponsored to go further away from an existing skillbase
on sites such as these
JLR engine plant Telford for one
 
albatross

albatross

Well-Known Member
The point being that both Coventry council and Warwickshire council approved the schemes. so it must have tied in with their development plans and policies. Central Govt knackered it.

If there are truly a myriad of other sites then Mr Fisher should find it pretty easy but then .... there is also another stadium
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
albatross said:
The point being that both Coventry council and Warwickshire council approved the schemes. so it must have tied in with their development plans and policies. Central Govt knackered it.

If there are truly a myriad of other sites then Mr Fisher should find it pretty easy but then .... there is also another stadium
Click to expand...

Tory parish councillors knackered it, you wonder if the decision would have been called in if they had 1k signatures and objections from 3 Cov labour councillors
 
M

Monners

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
Tory parish councillors knackered it, you wonder if the decision would have been called in if they had 1k signatures and objections from 3 Cov labour councillors
Click to expand...

Indeed - there is an awful lot of power in the shires.

As someone who works in the environmental sector (environmental planner) I see this nonsense all the time. It's all about votes in election year - this Govt cares fuck all for the environment. If anything they ave dismantled a lot of the structures that support a healthy environment, and Pickles is one of the worst offenders.

(Not sure that my post has much to do with footie)
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
albatross said:
The point being that both Coventry council and Warwickshire council approved the schemes. so it must have tied in with their development plans and policies. Central Govt knackered it.

If there are truly a myriad of other sites then Mr Fisher should find it pretty easy but then .... there is also another stadium
Click to expand...

Stuff that's planned to be built in green belt is often passed up or called into central government for review - the point being that green belt by definition is designed to prevent urban sprawl and protect the greater environment. To me that's quite a good thing, I don't want Coventry to become part of Birmingham, or Kenilworth to become part of Coventry.

It might be part of Birmingham's policy to develop on every field between Tile Hill and Dudley, but that wouldn't make it the right thing to do.

Developers, who stand to make a fortune when green-belt land is re-designated for development are fairly notorious for over-inflating jobs claims, and underestimating impacts on the surrounding areas and traffic flows. Like I say, this isn't as black and white as the article states.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Monners said:
Indeed - there is an awful lot of power in the shires.

As someone who works in the environmental sector (environmental planner) I see this nonsense all the time. It's all about votes in election year - this Govt cares fuck all for the environment. If anything they ave dismantled a lot of the structures that support a healthy environment, and Pickles is one of the worst offenders.

(Not sure that my post has much to do with footie)
Click to expand...

Pickles is an embarrassment, but, to bring it back to football;

What association does the name Pickles have with the World Cup?
 
M

Monners

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
Stuff that's planned to be built in green belt is often passed up or called into central government for review - the point being that green belt by definition is designed to prevent urban sprawl and protect the greater environment. To me that's quite a good thing, I don't want Coventry to become part of Birmingham, or Kenilworth to become part of Coventry.

It might be part of Birmingham's policy to develop on every field between Tile Hill and Dudley, but that wouldn't make it the right thing to do.

Developers, who stand to make a fortune when green-belt land is re-designated for development are fairly notorious for over-inflating jobs claims, and underestimating impacts on the surrounding areas and traffic flows. Like I say, this isn't as black and white as the article states.
Click to expand...

All true as stated - but this Govt has been pushing very strongly to reconsider designated green belt and greenspace land, hence the change in the planning laws and the watering down of environmental guidelines.

It may well be that there is good cause to rebuff these plans, but I remain somewhat cynical as to Pickles' intentions (re my previous post), as it goes against the grain of the last 5 years in regard to planning and Govt policy of driving development, growth and jobs e.g LEPs
 
Last edited:
M

Monners

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
Incorrect, duffer.

Yes it was a dog, wingy...
Click to expand...

Pickles (the dog) came to a rather unfortunate end/ Apparently the owners daughter ran one way past a lampost, with Pickles going the other side - a lead was attached between the two (the good old days of responsible dog ownership).... I'm sure you can guess the outcome.

(I am not always this cheerful by the way :))
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
Monners said:
All true as stated - but this Govt has been pushing very strongly to reconsider designated green belt and greenspace land, hence the change in the planning laws and the watering down of environmental guidelines.

It may well be that there is good cause to rebuff these plans, but I remain somewhat cynical as to Pickles' intentions (re my previous post), as it goes against the grain of the last 5 years in regard to planning and Govt policy of driving development, growth and jobs e.g LEPs
Click to expand...

Agreed with your analysis though we seem to agree wwith differ on protecting the Greenbelt
I think the cynicism could be justified however
 
albatross

albatross

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
Stuff that's planned to be built in green belt is often passed up or called into central government for review - the point being that green belt by definition is designed to prevent urban sprawl and protect the greater environment. To me that's quite a good thing, I don't want Coventry to become part of Birmingham, or Kenilworth to become part of Coventry.

It might be part of Birmingham's policy to develop on every field between Tile Hill and Dudley, but that wouldn't make it the right thing to do.

Developers, who stand to make a fortune when green-belt land is re-designated for development are fairly notorious for over-inflating jobs claims, and underestimating impacts on the surrounding areas and traffic flows. Like I say, this isn't as black and white as the article states.
Click to expand...


I agree with you 100% and I suppose the debate got into the developers etc... If they cannot make money then it won't happen. It just seems to pour even more cold water over the idea of a new stadium, no site big enough in the city boundary, if its outside the city is it likely to be proposed on greenbelt? (i would hope not) but if there are suitable 30 +acre sites that are brown field outside the city boundary then they have not been flagged up.

If a development such as this seems to offer many jobs is refused what hope for a football stadium in similar circumstances and with similar objections? What would be the justification?

I should point out that I do not believe there is a plan for stadium Blue Sky at all so its bit irrelevant really.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
albatross said:
I agree with you 100% and I suppose the debate got into the developers etc... If they cannot make money then it won't happen. It just seems to pour even more cold water over the idea of a new stadium, no site big enough in the city boundary, if its outside the city is it likely to be proposed on greenbelt? (i would hope not) but if there are suitable 30 +acre sites that are brown field outside the city boundary then they have not been flagged up.

If a development such as this seems to offer many jobs is refused what hope for a football stadium in similar circumstances and with similar objections? What would be the justification?

I should point out that I do not believe there is a plan for stadium Blue Sky at all so its bit irrelevant really.
Click to expand...

Would need a large housing content tagged on for Greenbelt I guess
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
albatross said:
I agree with you 100% and I suppose the debate got into the developers etc... If they cannot make money then it won't happen. It just seems to pour even more cold water over the idea of a new stadium, no site big enough in the city boundary, if its outside the city is it likely to be proposed on greenbelt? (i would hope not) but if there are suitable 30 +acre sites that are brown field outside the city boundary then they have not been flagged up.

If a development such as this seems to offer many jobs is refused what hope for a football stadium in similar circumstances and with similar objections? What would be the justification?

I should point out that I do not believe there is a plan for stadium Blue Sky at all so its bit irrelevant really.
Click to expand...

Absolutely fair point, Albatross. In truth Brighton did ultimately manage to build their stadium in green belt, and next to the very protected South Downs to boot. But it took them a very long time, as others here have pointed out. Even if everything else was in Fisher's favour, like having the money for example, a stadium in the green belt surrounding Coventry isn't going to get permission without an awful amount of effort you'd fancy.
 
Last edited:
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
OK, the claim is that Pickles 'found' it. A bit like Appleton 'found' the golden share. That is conveniently, for a tasty reward. Being on this board makes a person cynical, eh. ;)
Click to expand...

Just 're read the story
The owner was briefly suspected of Involvement and the thief was never apprehended although a middleman was
Pickles starred In a film with Eric Sykes and June Whitfield
Sadly he died a year later choked by his lead while chasing a cat
 
M

Monners

Well-Known Member
wingy said:
Just 're read the story
The owner was briefly suspected of Involvement and the thief was never apprehended although a middleman was
Pickles starred In a film with Eric Sykes and June Whitfield
Sadly he died a year later choked by his lead while chasing a cat
Click to expand...

I remember this bit from Blue Peter (see earlier post) - I started laughing (big sis had a go at me which encourged me more). Does that make me a bad person? :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top