Planning application for Higgs submitted by Wasps (1 Viewer)

The Reverend Skyblue · Jun 1, 2016

This makes me so angry. This has been going on for months, a sports foundation set up to provide sporting facilities and opportunities for local people work with a rugby club from London to provide facilities for their non Coventry players, you couldn't make this up, and a Coventry council working with said franchise to help provide.

When will the citizens and supporters of our once great club ,who attend and support this franchise , wake up and see what is happening and stop this support and instead fight for the very future of our club.

Stop going to Wasps and start fighting for our club. Everyone should unite and fight this with all they have got.
I'm sure a lesser spotted dung beetle that everyone thought was extinct can suddenly be found up there so the area has to be protected.

Sorry about the language but I fucking hate that franchised rugby club.

Captain Dart · Jun 1, 2016

Submission is by a company wholly owned by Moonstone Holdings. Limited (Malta)., ie Derek Richardson
https://www.endole.co.uk/company/10185228/wtgc-limited

Nick · Jun 1, 2016

Captain Dart said:
Submission is by a company wholly owned by Moonstone Holdings. Limited (Malta)., ie Derek Richardson
https://www.endole.co.uk/company/10185228/wtgc-limited

Interesting director list.

Maybe intheknow can come on and explain a bit more?

skybluetony176 · Jun 1, 2016

theferret said:
First thing you can do is submit an objection:

http://planning.coventry.gov.uk/portal/servlets/PlanningComments?REFNO=FUL/2016/1458

Won't make a difference I guess, but I've done it anyway. Made me feel slightly better, but they may have to blank out the obscenities when they publish it. All submissions in favour or against will be appear in the 'neighbour comments' link on the planning application page which gets updated weekly.

Also, as long as the application receives more than 5 objections ithas to go to the planning commitee for consideration which is open and public.

I'm guessing you need to be a Coventry council tax payer for your complaint to count?

theferret · Jun 1, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
I'm guessing you need to be a Coventry council tax payer for your complaint to count?

No, you only have to give your name and email address when you submit the objection.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jun 1, 2016

Captain Dart said:
You are not very smart are you, Anderson should have had his ear to the ground, its been clear something has been afoot for a while now, why hasn't he found out what's been going on?

Tbf can't be easy when most people outside of the club flat out refuse to talk with you.

skybluetony176 · Jun 1, 2016

theferret said:
No, you only have to give your name and email address when you submit the objection.

Yep, you're right. Name and email are the only mandatory fields so I've submitted an objection anyway

eastwoodsdustman · Jun 1, 2016

My objection has gone in too.

oldfiver · Jun 1, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Have Wasps bought that land? Has the application been made on the basis of buying the land once approval is granted? Has there been a change of ownership? Would this information be available from the land registry office? Pretty sure that anything in the land registry office is available for anyone to look at by law so this should be relatively easy to find out I think.

So what happened to the fact that Lucas said ( inter alia) one of the reasons selling to WASPS was because .... they are going to build a training facility at the Ricoh?

oldfiver · Jun 1, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Have Wasps bought that land? Has the application been made on the basis of buying the land once approval is granted? Has there been a change of ownership? Would this information be available from the land registry office? Pretty sure that anything in the land registry office is available for anyone to look at by law so this should be relatively easy to find out I think.

Thought it was Council land?

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jun 1, 2016

oldfiver said:
Thought it was Council land?

Severn trent

skybluetony176 · Jun 1, 2016

oldfiver said:
So what happened to the fact that Lucas said ( inter alia) one of the reasons selling to WASPS was because .... they are going to build a training facility at the Ricoh?

Do you know I really don't give a fuck what Lucas said. Not only is she out the picture it's what happens next that's important. I suggest you concentrate on that and what we can do. Your energy would be much more proactive than worrying what AL said 2 years ago.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jun 1, 2016

Registered my objection

oldfiver · Jun 1, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Do you know I really don't give a fuck what Lucas said. Not only is she out the picture it's what happens next that's important. I suggest you concentrate on that and what we can do. Your energy would be much more proactive than worrying what AL said 2 years ago.

Well one of the things you can do is lodge an objection on the grounds WASPS were to build a training centre at the Ricoh. Not on a charity site developed for local sports and community associations. So now you see the connection?

Shakeitup · Jun 1, 2016

Nick said:
What I don't get is how it is them taking their eyes off the ball.

It is like saying somebody got punched, but it wasn't the person who punched them it was the other person because they didn't duck.

I think his point is (correct me if I'm wrong), that by CCFC (any previous chairmen, board members, puppets) not focusing on the football side of things they took their eye off the ball.

Securing an academy facility should have been what they put their efforts in to l, as opposed to trying to find a legal loop hole to tackle the council, Wasps or someone else over.

That's what I took it to mean, and that's what I think/feel too.

King Henry VIII own better sports facilities than our football club! That's pretty shameful!

skybluetony176 · Jun 1, 2016

oldfiver said:
Well one of the things you can do is lodge an objection on the grounds WASPS were to build a training centre at the Ricoh. Not on a charity site developed for local sports and community associations. So now you see the connection?

Fair enough.

theferret · Jun 1, 2016

oldfiver said:
Well one of the things you can do is lodge an objection on the grounds WASPS were to build a training centre at the Ricoh. Not on a charity site developed for local sports and community associations. So now you see the connection?

Wasps' promise to redevelop land around the Ricoh (the council really sold that idea) turns out it was an empty one. They have no intention of doing anything of the sort. Still, that empty promise got them a multi-million quid leisure complex on a 250 year lease for peanuts, so what the fuck do they care.

armybike · Jun 1, 2016

For info re what can/can't be used in planning objections (this list is not exhaustive)

Reasons that can be used:

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

Reasons that won't be taken into account:

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.

mark82 · Jun 1, 2016

Captain Dart said:
You are not very smart are you, Anderson should have had his ear to the ground, its been clear something has been afoot for a while now, why hasn't he found out what's been going on?

Are you for real?

Shakeitup · Jun 1, 2016

armybike said:
Personal morals or views about the applicant.

ompus:

Grendel · Jun 1, 2016

armybike said:
For info re what can/can't be used in planning objections (this list is not exhaustive)

Reasons that can be used:

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

Reasons that won't be taken into account:

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.

There is nothing to stop an objection being made.

Nick · Jun 1, 2016

I wonder if PWKH is going to come on now and spin some PR?

His family are all laywers you know

Grendel · Jun 1, 2016

Nick said:
I wonder if PWKH is going to come on now and spin some PR?

His family are all laywers you know

Yes I am aware if that.

Nick · Jun 1, 2016

Grendel said:
Yes I am aware if that.

Oh you are too?

Wasn't just me who kept being reminded every time something on here wasn't liked then?

martcov · Jun 1, 2016

Grendel said:
There is nothing to stop an objection being made.

I expect the reason for the list is to say on what grounds the objection can be refused, which is not saying you cannot lodge an objection, but that it may be refused according to the list.

Grendel · Jun 1, 2016

martcov said:
I expect the reason for the list is to say on what grounds the objection can be refused, which is not saying you cannot lodge an objection, but that it may be refused according to the list.

If objections were made in the several thousand it might get some media attention. I assume you will be objecting?

albatross · Jun 1, 2016

With all this hysteria about us losing our cat 2 academy has anyone considered that in order to run a cat 2 academy have any of you actually considered what is required? Looking at the plans there will be 4 grass full size pitches and one full size artificial pitch (floodlight) and the current indoor facilities as is which includes the current classrooms and facilities?

the Pitch requirements for Cat 2 and 3 are:

a) A sufficient number of grass pitches of the appropriate sizes (as required by the Rules relating to Games Programmes and with goals sized as required by the Rules relating to Games Programmes) to enable the Club to play all its matches in the Games Programmes and fulfil its commitments under these Rules as regards coaching. Rule I.26 shall apply to Academy pitches. Without prejudice to the generality of the Rule, each Club shall ensure that the quality of its pitches used for matches in the Games Programmes is not adversely affected by coaching taking place on them. Clubs may accordingly need to have a greater number of pitches than the bare minimum necessary to fulfil matches in the Games Programme.

b) A designated area for the coaching of goalkeepers.

The Artificial Pitch requirements are:

Cat 1 and 2 require: One floodlit outdoor Artificial Surface pitch (save that if a Club is unable to obtain planning permission for floodlighting then the requirement for floodlighting shall be waived). It is recommended (but not mandatory) that this pitch complies with Rule I.21.

Indoor area for Cat 1 and 2: One indoor pitch measuring a minimum of 60 yards by 40 yards which shall be owned by the Club (or alternatively the Club must have a legally
enforceable agreement with the owner of the facility for its use by the Club, expiring not earlier than the end of the current Season) and which shall be for the exclusive use of the Academy at all times. (Note: an indoor pitch which complies with the size requirements set out in Rule I.21 is recommended).

The rest of the required facilities for cat 2 are classroom based (2 classrooms and a match analysis suite) the rest are common for category 1 to 4.

There are 5 pitches and all the existing facilities that are outside the "WASPS" area.

The only bit CCFC can't get access to at the moment is the legally enforceable agreement beyond 2017.

Its all still there just more spin and hysteria at the moment

chiefdave · Jun 1, 2016

albatross said:
Its all still there just more spin and hysteria at the moment

So where is the statement from CSF saying that the Higgs plans will not impact on the academy?

martcov · Jun 1, 2016

Grendel said:
If objections were made in the several thousand it might get some media attention. I assume you will be objecting?

Interesting thought... I don't know how that works.... Has a link to the form been posted? I am sitting on my balcony in Kiel and want to make an objection to a building in Allard Way. Won't someone ask why I am objecting? I am all for a flood of objections...

theferret · Jun 1, 2016

martcov said:
Interesting thought... I don't know how that works.... Has a link to the form been posted? I am sitting on my balcony in Kiel and want to make an objection to a building in Allard Way. Won't someone ask why I am objecting? I am all for a flood of objections...

http://planning.coventry.gov.uk/portal/servlets/PlanningComments?REFNO=FUL/2016/1458

armybike · Jun 1, 2016

Wasps offer to help Coventry City keep Academy at Alan Higgs Centre

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-offer-help-coventry-city-11416081

Si80 · Jun 1, 2016

albatross said:
With all this hysteria about us losing our cat 2 academy has anyone considered that in order to run a cat 2 academy have any of you actually considered what is required? Looking at the plans there will be 4 grass full size pitches and one full size artificial pitch (floodlight) and the current indoor facilities as is which includes the current classrooms and facilities?

the Pitch requirements for Cat 2 and 3 are:

a) A sufficient number of grass pitches of the appropriate sizes (as required by the Rules relating to Games Programmes and with goals sized as required by the Rules relating to Games Programmes) to enable the Club to play all its matches in the Games Programmes and fulfil its commitments under these Rules as regards coaching. Rule I.26 shall apply to Academy pitches. Without prejudice to the generality of the Rule, each Club shall ensure that the quality of its pitches used for matches in the Games Programmes is not adversely affected by coaching taking place on them. Clubs may accordingly need to have a greater number of pitches than the bare minimum necessary to fulfil matches in the Games Programme.

b) A designated area for the coaching of goalkeepers.

The Artificial Pitch requirements are:

Cat 1 and 2 require: One floodlit outdoor Artificial Surface pitch (save that if a Club is unable to obtain planning permission for floodlighting then the requirement for floodlighting shall be waived). It is recommended (but not mandatory) that this pitch complies with Rule I.21.

Indoor area for Cat 1 and 2: One indoor pitch measuring a minimum of 60 yards by 40 yards which shall be owned by the Club (or alternatively the Club must have a legally
enforceable agreement with the owner of the facility for its use by the Club, expiring not earlier than the end of the current Season) and which shall be for the exclusive use of the Academy at all times. (Note: an indoor pitch which complies with the size requirements set out in Rule I.21 is recommended).

The rest of the required facilities for cat 2 are classroom based (2 classrooms and a match analysis suite) the rest are common for category 1 to 4.

There are 5 pitches and all the existing facilities that are outside the "WASPS" area.

The only bit CCFC can't get access to at the moment is the legally enforceable agreement beyond 2017.

Its all still there just more spin and hysteria at the moment

All comes apart if a pool is built inside though doesn't it?

Nick · Jun 1, 2016

armybike said:
Wasps offer to help Coventry City keep Academy at Alan Higgs Centre

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-submit-plans-7m-training-11415627

where does it say they offer to help?

armybike · Jun 1, 2016

Nick said:
where does it say they offer to help?

Aahh, my bad - posted the wrong link:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-offer-help-coventry-city-11416081

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jun 1, 2016

Paul Breed, chief executive of Coventry Sports Foundation which runs the Alan Higgs Centre, said: “We are delighted to be the leading potential site for Wasps’ new training base and will work with them in any way we can to help make this happen.

Could you dream of him saying this about the football club

Planning application for Higgs submitted by Wasps (1 Viewer)

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

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

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency