New hotel at Ricoh (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
mark82 said:
Don't think it's a Labour/ left-wing problem as such. All sides of the council have been complicit in this saga.
Click to expand...

the only mention of planning in their local manifesto is making it harder to turn family homes into student accomodation so I doubt anything would change undr a tory council
 
D

Deleted member 2477

Guest
Dont get me wrong i think all councillors and politicians speak with forked tongues and are only interested in themselves however I can only speak on what I have seen and been told and this wasps love in and dodgy deals is all down to the Coventry Labour council. Dont even get me started on Nuneaton Labour council and selling the people of North Warwickshire down the drain to Coventry
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
mark82 said:
Don't think it's a Labour/ left-wing problem as such. All sides of the council have been complicit in this saga.
Click to expand...

I think it’s now more labour. The likes of Ridley is opposing some of the housing developments as is Andy Street
 
mark82

mark82

Super Moderator
marcusp said:
Dont get me wrong i think all councillors and politicians speak with forked tongues and are only interested in themselves however I can only speak on what I have seen and been told and this wasps love in and dodgy deals is all down to the Coventry Labour council. Dont even get me started on Nuneaton Labour council and selling the people of North Warwickshire down the drain to Coventry
Click to expand...
Grendel said:
I think it’s now more labour. The likes of Ridley is opposing some of the housing developments as is Andy Street
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm not Coventry based so I only really go on what I've seen and read on here and in the Telegraph, etc. I know the love in with Wasps seemed to be both sides.

Technically, I guess the planning side is probably non-political anyway (or at least should be).
 
Gynnsthetonic

Gynnsthetonic

Well-Known Member
You would think the Tory's should be opposing these labour plans, ideas and Wasps love ins to gain votes otherwise it's just the same policy's and people won't bother voting for them. If they set up a manifesto to try to help the football club they could get into power and fuck this lefty council out on its arse!
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Gynnsthetonic said:
You would think the Tory's should be opposing these labour plans, ideas and Wasps love ins to gain votes otherwise it's just the same policy's and people won't bother voting for them. If they set up a manifesto to try to help the football club they could get into power and fuck this lefty council out on its arse!
Click to expand...

But they haven't so that tells you everything you need to know.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
Hi guys. Welcome to soviet Russia. It’s not what you know it’s who you know.
Click to expand...

Although I agree with the point overall it's not like Soviet Russia is the only place like that. It's not like we don't have 'jobs for the boys' is it.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Should be rejected based on that fucked up font.

I hope the council provide consistency with previous applications?
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
It is ugly but then again the area isn't blessed with architectural wonders otherwise. Can't see any real reason why it would be rejected on a aesthetic level.
 
T

theferret

Well-Known Member
mark82 said:
Christ, that looks ugly.
Click to expand...

Doesn't it. For a highly visible location in a gateway location (the busiest route into the city), we should be expecting better. The surrounding area does look like a set for Mad Max, so surely we should be using proposals like this to raise the profile of the area and not to just 'fit in'.

I hope this gets the 5 objections it needs to go to the planning committee so the decision isn't delegated. This needs proper scrutiny, for the reasons discussed in this thread as much as the design and use of budget materials.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
theferret said:
I hope this gets the 5 objections it needs to go to the planning committee so the decision isn't delegated.
Click to expand...
Ideally those with knowledge would be able to advise on what grounds it might be rejected but, on a basic level, can't we quote the decision back for the other hotel as objections?
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Must be skint, they haven't spend any money on decent architects, what the hell is that? Looks awful. Is it actually a permanent building or like one of those temporary Travelodge they knocked up for the Olympics made out of shipping containers?
 
T

theferret

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Ideally those with knowledge would be able to advise on what grounds it might be rejected but, on a basic level, can't we quote the decision back for the other hotel as objections?
Click to expand...

I would have thought so. Objections based on the design might not be considered material, but regardless if they were to receive a series of objections on that basis, I believe it will force the decision to committee anyway. Equally, there could be an objection on the loss of parking provision, with the rejected application used as a reference point. Not 100% on that though, far from an expert on these matters. FP is more clued up on planning issues I think.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Will it be the same person who rejected the other ones? That would be interesting.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
A Coventry City Council spokesman has responded to us, stating: “The submission of the planning application for Car Park C has been delayed until the New Year.

“In the meantime the licence under which Wasps use Car Park C will continue on the same terms, and the Council will continue to benefit from a share of the income generated.”

It had previously been reported that the licence would expire last month in the absence of a planning application.
Click to expand...

Why was a Council spokesman discussing when a third party (Wasps) were submitting planning?
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
They've not picked a great spot in the car park, right next to the footbridge. Could easily create a bottleneck there.
 
Mcbean

Mcbean

Well-Known Member
Thats about a third of carpark C - no doubt brownie points for reducing cars coming to the ground to be greener - tossers
 
T

theferret

Well-Known Member
Like the way the CT have run an article showing an image of one of their other proposed hotels in a completely different location. Always on the ball that mob.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
theferret said:
Like the way the CT have run an article showing an image of one of their other proposed hotels in a completely different location. Always on the ball that mob.
Click to expand...
Strange, they have still forgotten about the accounts
 
F

Feb57

Well-Known Member
Just checked the two planning applications and the case officer is the same person for both. It will be interesting what the final outcome is. It appears the refused applicant has appealed the decision. As a matter of interest the council were not against a hotel application on the very same land back in 2005 but this time they have rejected it.
The Wasps application is open for public comment until April 2nd. Comments have to be in writing and can be submitted electronically if you can work out how to do it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top