RadioactiveWaste Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Planners have a good deal to answer for in this country..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 About time someone sorted out the old Celanese site. Housing developers won't touch it because its too easy to build on greenfield rather than brownfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevin Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 9 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said: About time someone sorted out the old Celanese site. Housing developers won't touch it because its too easy to build on greenfield rather than brownfield. That site would take some cleaning up.Back in the early seventies I was a BT [then GPO] engineer and got called out to a fault in Celanese. We opened up one of the man holes on site and it was full of a black toxic looking river of sludge it had literally eaten the cables away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 44 minutes ago, King Kevin said: That site would take some cleaning up.Back in the early seventies I was a BT [then GPO] engineer and got called out to a fault in Celanese. We opened up one of the man holes on site and it was full of a black toxic looking river of sludge it had literally eaten the cables away. It was to my understanding that there wasn't all that much left to be done, due to the way it all breaks down - maybe I heard wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombo Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Are we really suggesting that they've rejected the plans because they're Forest fans? Come on, get a grip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 I'm pretty sure to redevelop as residential is a higher bar for land remediation than business use, based on people growing stuff in gardens and kids eating the dirt etc. Im glad Mel is of the up sticks mind. The nimbys may not want the "light" but the council will want the rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 1 minute ago, Tombo said: Are we really suggesting that they've rejected the plans because they're Forest fans? Come on, get a grip. That's a good point. Sawley is so close to the border that some of them could even be Leicester fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 It is very common to appeal against a planning decision if there is cause. I am sure Mel will have a top notch planning Lawyer on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 8 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said: It is very common to appeal against a planning decision if there is cause. I am sure Mel will have a top notch planning Lawyer on this. He won't just give up without a fight, he would have invested a lot of money just getting the plans drawn up and although he is is very wealthy, he won't like wasting money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 23 minutes ago, CornwallRam said: That's a good point. Sawley is so close to the border that some of them could even be Leicester fans No, it's definitely a Florist enclave. I see a hell of a lot of Sunderland apparel being sported Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Don't know how true this is, suppose we'll find out. But article below says that a house development is to be approved next week just behind Lees Brook school. Makes you laugh if its true. http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/midlands/planning-u-turn-for-derby-housing-scheme Proposals to build hundreds of new homes on farmland in a Derby suburb are set for approval next week, just a month after the same scheme was recommended for refusal by council planners. The project is being led by Pride Park-based Radleigh Group. It proposes the construction of up to 275 homes and associated infrastructure on a 24.7-acre plot at Brook Farm, north of Oregon Way, in Chaddesden. While the land is agricultural, it has not been used for farming for a number of years. Outline proposals for the scheme were initially refused in February 2015, but developers were granted the right to appeal by the Planning Inspectorate in April, leading to permission being granted for up to 215 dwellings at the site. No reserved matters application has since been lodged. Revised plans for 275 homes at the site were put before the planning committee on 14 January 2016 with the recommendation for refusal. It attracted more than 200 objections, with concerns voiced about increased traffic on Acorn Way. However, the recommendation was not rubber stamped by councillors and the scheme is set to be approved at a meeting next week (25 February). The recommendation has been made subject to a number of conditions, including that heads of terms on a section 106 obligation are finalised after being agreed in principle by Radleigh Group. Planning officers said a residential development on the land is "acceptable in principle". "Having regard to the adverse impact on the green wedge, the proposal would deliver a significant amount of new housing to contribute towards the city's five-year housing need and the site is considered appropriate for development," they added. The terms include 60 affordable housing units bring provided as part of an extra care scheme, 10 per cent of the properties meeting lifetime homes standards and the layout and maintenance of open space. Provided planners are in agreement at next week's committee meeting, the section 106 will be finalised and approval will be issued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 It will be true. whilst the planning officers might not like development in the green belt, local authorities also have targets to meet for the provision of new housing, and they want the financial sweetener of a section 106 bung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, RamNut said: It will be true. whilst the planning officers might not like development in the green belt, local authorities also have targets to meet for the provision of new housing, and they want the financial sweetener of a section 106 bung. Great, the local kids will get a playground that looks good for 18 months till the council refuse to help with the upkeep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 6 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said: I'm pretty sure to redevelop as residential is a higher bar for land remediation than business use, based on people growing stuff in gardens and kids eating the dirt etc. Im glad Mel is of the up sticks mind. The nimbys may not want the "light" but the council will want the rates. had a family member work in the environment section of Derby Council in the 90's. We got the land for PP cheap because basically its only use could be retail or sports/events venue due to land contamination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 18 hours ago, Carl Sagan said: Councillor Daniel Walton, who represents Sawley ward, had always been against the plans and was among the committee members who voted for refusal. He said one difference between last night and when the go-ahead was given in December was that the councillors were aware of concerns about how the light from the extension would affect residents. Mr Walton said: "I was always against it. I don't think there are any special circumstances for developing within our greenbelt. "I don't want Erewash to be a community that's a suburb of Derby city." If it's just about light overspil for somel, then surely this is easily fixed. Re submit the plans with assurances that any light will not fall on adjacent properties. It's not hard to prevent light pollution these days with a bit of effort. If it's enough to change the opinion of one councillor then it might be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Councillor Daniel Walton, who represents Sawley ward, had always been against the plans and was among the committee members who voted for refusal. He said one difference between last night and when the go-ahead was given in December was that the councillors were aware of concerns about how the light from the extension would affect residents. Mr Walton said: "I was always against it. I don't think there are any special circumstances for developing within our greenbelt. "I don't want Erewash to be a community that's a suburb of Derby city" So that's a valid reason to turn it down a football academy extension, is it? Unfit to be a councillor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 2 hours ago, sage said: Great, the local kids will get a playground that looks good for 18 months till the council refuse to help with the upkeep. More likely to be an inadequate contribution towards the cost of extending local schools tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 45 minutes ago, Highgate said: If it's just about light overspil for somel, then surely this is easily fixed. Re submit the plans with assurances that any light will not fall on adjacent properties. It's not hard to prevent light pollution these days with a bit of effort. If it's enough to change the opinion of one councillor then it might be enough. I'd guess it's not the surrounding properties that's the problem. I drive in for home games past Moor Farm, and from Moor Farm onwards you can clearly see the lights from the I-Pro. Mel's got money, and I'd guess powerful friends too, I'd be suprised if this doesn't go through in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 http://planportal.erewash.gov.uk/PlanningLive/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=48543&PageNo=1&content=obj.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Highgate said: If it's just about light overspil for somel, then surely this is easily fixed. Re submit the plans with assurances that any light will not fall on adjacent properties. It's not hard to prevent light pollution these days with a bit of effort. If it's enough to change the opinion of one councillor then it might be enough. Surround the whole place with a 100 foot high wall and paint some flowers on it. Job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.