It should never have been built in the first place, that land is reserved for "community activities" not residential properties. It was a sports ground even before the technical college was built. The council ignoring its own planning regulations again.Surely the residents of Earlsdon Park Retirement Village take most things lying down? Or at least propped up in bed with a couple of pillows?
Yep. Big mistake building it there, especially as there has been talk of expanding the BPA for quite a number of years.It should never have been built in the first place, that land is reserved for "community activities" not residential properties. It was a sports ground even before the technical college was built. The council ignoring its own planning regulations again.
Yep. Big mistake building it there, especially as there has been talk of expanding the BPA for quite a number of years.
It should never have been built in the first place, that land is reserved for "community activities" not residential properties. It was a sports ground even before the technical college was built. The council ignoring its own planning regulations again.
Yep. Big mistake building it there, especially as there has been talk of expanding the BPA for quite a number of years.
If CRFC objected to the building of Earlsdon Park then they had every opportunity to register their objections at the planning phase.
Since the council owns 25% of Earlsdon Park they are hardly going to take notice of any objections.
Since the council owns 25% of Earlsdon Park they are hardly going to take notice of any objections.
When it comes to planning there is no such thing as a right to light.
What will influence any planning decision most is how many voters it affects. Yes the EPRV represents a large number of people but not as many as support CCFC.
I'm going with a big fat no after reading that statement.
Why can't we have a 'dunno' option?
You cannot build a wall directly in front of somebody's front window.
Any planning application will be based on the law. The amount of fans we have is as relevant as Sky Blue Sams waist size.
52 of the apartments are reserved for council tenants are they not?The council owns no share in the retirement village.
52 of the apartments are reserved for council tenants are they not?
But it's the council who decides who gets them is it not?52 of the apartments are reserved for tenants in receipt of council funded benefits. The council has no ownership of any apartments.
And how are we going to get this elusive and essential 365-day extra income he keeps on about? It's all utter bullshit!Hard to believe people believe any of this nonsense. Over 4 years ago now,Fisher talked of a new stadium, he was always closing in on a land deal,at all these various secretive locations,yet magically they all always fell through,just before he could announce their location. Now suddenly the Butts is on the agenda.
A site that is hemmed in with Earlsdon village on one side,and the railway line at the far end. It has one stand that can seat what 1000/1500 people. To get to those seats you have to walk along the front of the pitch,hardly suitable for football crowds. The only real point of access to the site is from one main road, parking would be a nightmare.
Even if you were to build 4 average sized stands, there would no land left outside,and you would get say 20,000 fans all leaving and heading in one direction,hemmed in from all sides.
In many ways the location would be ideal, central and all that, but it is simply too small.Plus you have to ask,why would CRFC,want to play in a 15-20,000 stadium,when they get gates of just over a 1000. It doesn't even fit into the oft repeated mantra from Fisher that they need to own their own stadium.
But it's the council who decides who gets them is it not?
You should have included an option "Definite Maybe".
Hills they are missing a question? Is Tim definitely bull shitting?Anyone voting for any of the definite options is a clown.
Hills they are missing a question? Is Tim definitely bull sitting?
Up to a point. The council will suggest who should get them, but that person can be refused if they don't meet the criteria set down by the village.
Either way, that is no different to any retirement village throughout the uk, and it makes no difference to the council where an individual is housed within the city.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?