skyblueinBaku
Well-Known Member
They had to take up the sides of the Wembley pitch when there was a speedway match.
Keep a lid on it Jack, I laid doubt on it, I never said I wanted it.
I was commenting on the scenario of a stadium being used more to generate income streams which is the whole point is it not? Wembley use to hold speedway, the Millennium does now. Footfall is obviously a factor in any decision making. The Ricoh for example has a few contractors and lease holders who will not be happy at losing the footfall from Coventry City FC and will no doubt become a major factor for ACL.
My other point was simply to say Brandon to all intense and purposes is Coventry and in the scheme of things no more hassle to get to than the Ricoh. Now planning and roads as they stand would be an issue. If you can hold speedway in that spot I don't buy your argument about residents? How long has a stadium been at Brandon? that would figure heavily against residents living in housing built well after the stadium existed on account residents knew a stadium existed before buying a home there.
Just sayin'
Keep a lid on it Jack, I laid doubt on it, I never said I wanted it.
I was commenting on the scenario of a stadium being used more to generate income streams which is the whole point is it not? Wembley use to hold speedway, the Millennium does now. Footfall is obviously a factor in any decision making. The Ricoh for example has a few contractors and lease holders who will not be happy at losing the footfall from Coventry City FC and will no doubt become a major factor for ACL.
My other point was simply to say Brandon to all intense and purposes is Coventry and in the scheme of things no more hassle to get to than the Ricoh. Now planning and roads as they stand would be an issue. If you can hold speedway in that spot I don't buy your argument about residents? How long has a stadium been at Brandon? that would figure heavily against residents living in housing built well after the stadium existed on account residents knew a stadium existed before buying a home there.
Just sayin'
The issue of people moving in before or after the original Brandon stadium was built is irrevelant in planning considerations.
The council would be obliged to take the proposal as it stands, and take into account objections from residents, the Highways Agency, the Police, and indeed anyone else (like neighbouring Councils) into account.
Other than the impact on amenity in terms of nuisance, the entirely inadequate parking, and the unavoidably severe traffic issues I think the Brandon idea would have no problem (apart from the fact that the sums don't add up).Unfortunately for TF councils are quite sharp on those things when it comes to planning...
The issue of people moving in before or after the original Brandon stadium was built is irrevelant in planning considerations.
The council would be obliged to take the proposal as it stands, and take into account objections from residents, the Highways Agency, the Police, and indeed anyone else (like neighbouring Councils) into account.
Other than the impact on amenity in terms of nuisance, the entirely inadequate parking, and the unavoidably severe traffic issues I think the Brandon idea would have no problem (apart from the fact that the sums don't add up).
Unfortunately for TF councils are quite sharp on those things when it comes to planning...
There is no rugby club on Broad Street there is a Broad Street Rugby ClubIt isn't the Bees that they're looking at but the Rugby Club on Broad Street
Disagree with this issue about planning. I personally went to a high court to overturn a similar situation in Dorset a number of years ago and I assure you who was there first does have an implication. Theory is you can't cry wolf when you moved in knowing there was a stadium there. That's one reason your solicitor will do a search for you.
There was a music venue in Brum not too long back that got shut down by the council after complaints from the residents in the flats opposite. Thing is the flats were new, the venue had objected to them being built on the grounds they would get noise complaints, people purchased and moved in knowing they were next to a music venue but that counted for nothing and the venue got shut down.
I think we're looking at baginton... With a major development planned there is land up for grabs that comes with planning permission and transport links already in place..
My worry is that they buy the land to give them time to distress Ricoh - do nowt with it - then either get Ricoh and flog Brandon, or liquidate City if plan A doesn't work - or finally, another cunning plan which I'm still trying towork out(someone smarter than me will soon discover it!)
There is a plot of 26 acres for sale opposite the bees stadium on the other side of the road. Is that big enough for a stadium, car parking etc.?
Is it a greenfield site? If so then theres no chance.
You really believe they don't/won't capitulate & allow to build on a greenfield site?
George, have tried and tried with The Guardian (David Conn et al) they keep saying we're doing something, but nothing. But I do know what Rooney's doing and Chelsea and Liverpool and Arsenal.............
Disagree with this issue about planning. I personally went to a high court to overturn a similar situation in Dorset a number of years ago and I assure you who was there first does have an implication. Theory is you can't cry wolf when you moved in knowing there was a stadium there. That's one reason your solicitor will do a search for you.
Politely, in this case, you're wrong. The football stadium isn't there, and no plans have yet been submitted for one. So anyone who wanted to could raise an objection.
I've been involved in PP battles too, both as an individual and as part of a community action. Just at an outline level you could see there would be enough objections to tie this up for a long time. Loss of amenity, parking, traffic, noise and light nuisance, any one of these would be grounds for rejection. Even if the local council supported the project, which is unlikely, then the locals could tie the process into knots.
As for nuisance laws, chief is spot on. It doesn't matter in law if the nuisance was there first, the only thing that matters is whether it is present and affects its neighbours at the current point in time.
Only on month to go then:thinking about:The buying of land is only to allow them to move the club in the short term and convince the FL to allow then to take over, there is no intention to build a new stadium. They know that the Ricoh will go bankrupt within 3 minths without them and will wait for that to happen!
Again I must disagree. It does matter if something was there first and in this scenario a stadium which gets full of people and generates noise, traffic etc. If it did not matter then we would never get anything operating would we?
What matters here is objections can as you well know, come from anyone. Whether they are taken into account in the final process or how much so, is what changes things.
When I had my nightclub I received objections mostly based on noise. (and parking)
Anyone can object even if fact less.
Councils and magistrates courts will generally lean on the objectors side especially if the police are also an objector.
However that does not make it right. The process is appeal. I did that at an extraordinary £20k cost and won because of the very point I'm making. I was there first and there had been a form of nightclub there for eons. There was no noise problem in reality. We had the specialist from Southampton Uni do a study over weeks and this also put weight into the argument.
Planning is not that difficult in reality. Council's are not there to stop the life blood of the city by going around listening to every single objection as though it was correct and then acting on it. Proof is there and councils can not act on whims or they will be taken to task, like I did.
Again I must disagree. It does matter if something was there first and in this scenario a stadium which gets full of people and generates noise, traffic etc. If it did not matter then we would never get anything operating would we?
What matters here is objections can as you well know, come from anyone. Whether they are taken into account in the final process or how much so, is what changes things.
When I had my nightclub I received objections mostly based on noise. (and parking)
Anyone can object even if fact less.
Councils and magistrates courts will generally lean on the objectors side especially if the police are also an objector.
However that does not make it right. The process is appeal. I did that at an extraordinary £20k cost and won because of the very point I'm making. I was there first and there had been a form of nightclub there for eons. There was no noise problem in reality. We had the specialist from Southampton Uni do a study over weeks and this also put weight into the argument.
Planning is not that difficult in reality. Council's are not there to stop the life blood of the city by going around listening to every single objection as though it was correct and then acting on it. Proof is there and councils can not act on whims or they will be taken to task, like I did.
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?