Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Looks like somewhere they'd shoot a zombie movie.
I’m convinced they are on the wind up listing building sometimes. But not with this one though, it’s one of the worlds most incredible feats of architecture and I’m off down there to glue myself to it now. Front first. Naked. Over my dead body is this building EVER getting knocked down. I’m in tears here.
I'm obviously not an expert but I can't see anything there worth saving. If that's listed then pretty much anything would qualify.I quite like modernist architecture but really, there is nothing particularly interesting about that. Like I said before, English Heritage treat Coventry as if it is an experiment rather than a place where people live
Can I smell smoke?For anyone who doesn't know the site, here are examples of a couple of the listed buildings:
Mmmmm.. look at that green painted plywood infill below the window.I’m convinced they are on the wind up listing building sometimes. But not with this one though, it’s one of the worlds most incredible feats of architecture and I’m off down there to glue myself to it now. Front first. Naked. Over my dead body is this building EVER getting knocked down. I’m in tears here.
There's photos. If people miss it that much then build it again.I'm all for the listing of vernacular architecture. Tastes change, and once it's gone, there's no way back.
Like all those Tudor buildings, ehThere's photos. If people miss it that much then build it again.
Stick some up if you fancy.Like all those Tudor buildings, eh
Would be a bit of an idiotic thing to suggest as if that was true when SISU first put the plan forward over a year ago the council could have knocked them back and easily justified that rejection.Now. If you were being cynical you would suggest that having returned to plan A, B, C or whatever it’s supposed to be SISU seem to have quite accidentally I’m sure picked a site that A) is council owned and B) not possible to develop for plan A, B, C or whatever it’s supposed to be for numerous reasons so they can quite accidentally I’m sure be a victim.
Would be a bit of an idiotic thing to suggest as if that was true when SISU first put the plan forward over a year ago the council could have knocked them back and easily justified that rejection.
Instead they have been stalling for time and in doing so giving SISU lots more evidence to take to the EFL to show the council are blocking their plans to move things forward and justify a move out of the city should it be required.
What are the time periods for determining a planning application?
Once a planning application has been validated, the local planning authority should make a decision on the proposal as quickly as possible, and in any event within the statutory time limit unless a longer period is agreed in writing with the applicant.
The statutory time limits are usually 13 weeks for applications for major development and 8 weeks for all other types of development (unless an application is subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment, in which case a 16 week limit applies).
Where a planning application takes longer than the statutory period to decide, and an extended period has not been agreed with the applicant, the government’s policy is that the decision should be made within 26 weeks at most in order to comply with the ‘planning guarantee’.
Are you deliberately choosing to ignore anything that's posted that doesn't' fir your argument? They aren't going to put a planning application in, or even begin the pre-planning process, until the council come back with a forward contract.Nonsense, it it was actually a SISU priority then they would be able to force the issue with a proper application.
Something between 13 weeks and 26 weeks is the statutory limit for a major development.
You don't actually need to own land to apply for planning permission for it. This means you can apply for permission before deciding whether or not to buy a piece of land.Are you deliberately choosing to ignore anything that's posted that doesn't' fir your argument? They aren't going to put a planning application in, or even begin the pre-planning process, until the council come back with a forward contract.
Step back and think for a second. Why would the council stall things rather than either, responding positively and granting the forward contract, or responding negatively and saying its a non-starter?
WTF, are you actually serious? You are expecting SISU, or anyone else for that matter, to spend millions putting together a full application for planning permission on a piece of land they don't own when the owner of said piece of land hasn't responded to their requests to discuss the lease or sale?You don't actually need to own land to apply for planning permission for it. This means you can apply for permission before deciding whether or not to buy a piece of land.
It costs money to apply for planning permission. Why bother if you know it would be rejected. Much easier to get pre-approval like London Wasps have.You don't actually need to own land to apply for planning permission for it. This means you can apply for permission before deciding whether or not to buy a piece of land.
Can I smell smoke?
Not to mention once you've got the planning permission the value of the land will shoot up. Fix the price now with an agreement to buy upon planning approval being received. The rest of the country works like that. Including when the Ricoh was built and when Wasps want to do anything, but for some reason its acceptable to apply completely different rules to the football club that leave us at a significant disadvantage.It costs money to apply for planning permission. Why bother if you know it would be rejected. Much easier to get pre-approval like London Wasps have.
Nonsense, it it was actually a SISU priority then they would be able to force the issue with a proper application.
Something between 13 weeks and 26 weeks is the statutory limit for a major development.
Determining a planning application
You don't actually need to own land to apply for planning permission for it. This means you can apply for permission before deciding whether or not to buy a piece of land.
Moderately weathly Tory population? Its definitely not a Tory population.
This thread is funny
You get claims that the buildings are listed and the experts claim the poster is incorrect. First page of google, second link down and you’re straight on English heritages website where there’s confirmation that the buildings are indeed listed. Same experts claim there’s nothing special about them.
You get claims that the site has been designated for educational use only. Experts again claim that’s rubbish. First page of google again and you find articles dating back 2 1/2 years stating exactly that and in fact the article in question is specifically based on comments from Tim Fisher at an SCG where he claims the site has been identified as a possible replacement for Ryton and joint academy. A suggestion that’s actually received quite well by Muton in the article.
Now. If you were being cynical you would suggest that having returned to plan A, B, C or whatever it’s supposed to be SISU seem to have quite accidentally I’m sure picked a site that A) is council owned and B) not possible to develop for plan A, B, C or whatever it’s supposed to be for numerous reasons so they can quite accidentally I’m sure be a victim.
Where did you get millions on a planning application from.WTF, are you actually serious? You are expecting SISU, or anyone else for that matter, to spend millions putting together a full application for planning permission on a piece of land they don't own when the owner of said piece of land hasn't responded to their requests to discuss the lease or sale?
Would be a bit of an idiotic thing to suggest as if that was true when SISU first put the plan forward over a year ago the council could have knocked them back and easily justified that rejection.
Instead they have been stalling for time and in doing so giving SISU lots more evidence to take to the EFL to show the council are blocking their plans to move things forward and justify a move out of the city should it be required.
Why would they spend the money on the array of different consultants they'd need to commission if they aren't sure:
a. Whether or not the council would even relinquish the land i.e. by selling the freehold in part or a long leasehold
b. Whether or not the council would even consider a subsequent planning application for a football stadium
Get in the real world. Major planning applications are not just submitted, they are the end result of a lot of discussion between the applicant and the council. The council so far doesn't appear to be fully engaging.
And if you are then unable to buy the land from the vendor you’ve wasted thousands upon thousands of pounds consulting architects etc. for nothing.
If they were serious they could do it to force the issue or simply go public.
How do you know that? (Sorry to go all Nick on you, but just cos it wasn't publicised doesn't mean it don't exist)To what end though? They can't force the council to sell land even if there is a brilliant plan. The Wasps plan for the training centre at Allard Way didn't come before they'd agreed a deal for the land. Why would CCFC do things any differently?
What did you use to do that?Clearly I'm bored today, but just in case people were wondering if the site was big enough I've made this:
View attachment 11897
On here we have:
And still not touched the school buildings or nature reserve (I did use the Meadows site (or whatever it's called now) because if they're having the main school buildings they don't need that too!).
- A 32,000 seat stadium
- 2 car parks (specifically car park A & car park B)
- A hotel (Holiday Inn Express if anyone wants to know)
- A shopping village (or part of. Probably about 20-30 shops)
- A complex with a real snow ski slope, multi screen cinema and numerous retail outlets and restaurants.
And, yes, it's all to scale.
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?