sage Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 So PridePark/iPro shouldbe used for all U18 and U21 teams. Interesting. I think if DCFC work at reducing light out of the indoor training facility and making it look more 'traditional' and it will squeak through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 The application submission included a planning consultants statement with regards to planning policy. http://planportal.erewash.gov.uk/PlanningLive/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=46122&PageNo=1&content=obj.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Design statement..... http://planportal.erewash.gov.uk/PlanningLive/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=46118&PageNo=1&content=obj.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 9 minutes ago, RamNut said: The application submission included a planning consultants statement with regards to planning policy. http://planportal.erewash.gov.uk/PlanningLive/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=46122&PageNo=1&content=obj.pdf So he approved it and the nimby Tories said no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 I'd also point out that the nearest building on the Locko Rd side of the development is an incredibly unkempt barn, literally falling to pieces with a rusting old banger as it's centrepiece! I'll take a photo next time I'm up there. As seen on Google St view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevin Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 8 hours ago, Tombo said: Are we really suggesting that they've rejected the plans because they're Forest fans? Come on, get a grip. Why not?I would if it was the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 10 minutes ago, sage said: So he approved it and the nimby Tories said no. I haven't had time to read it all, but it looks as though dcfc planning consultant argued that altho it was inappropriate development of the greenbelt, special circumstances applied. the planning officer seems to have drafted a report recommending conditional approval but that was overturned by the planning committee planning is ultimately a political process and altho the officers report indicates that some of the political arguments are non-material i.e. Irrelevant in planning terms, nevertheless the politicians rejected the application due to the impact on the greenbelt, rejecting the argument that special circumstances applied. interestingly there is some blurb in the planning statement to the effect that the originl development had to follow the footprint of the previous farm buildings.... i haven't read it very closely though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 "The development is not essential for a Championship League team" - patronising bulls hit! That's something else you can blame Mel for scuppering, then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Unless I'm mistaken, 3 of the 5 objections were from councillors, and only 2 from residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Planning committee http://moderngov.erewash.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=106 8 conservatives to 5 labour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombo Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 16 minutes ago, King Kevin said: Why not?I would if it was the other way round. Then you are a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 47 minutes ago, eddie said: Surround the whole place with a 100 foot high wall and paint some flowers on it. Job done. Could we get Bywater to do some art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevin Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 26 minutes ago, Tombo said: Then you are a child. And you have no sense of humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 One other observation.... the applicant is Mr Morris - as opposed to Derby County Football Club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, RamNut said: One other observation.... the applicant is Mr Morris - as opposed to Derby County Football Club. That may be explained by timing, on our summer visit he laid out the plans, but stated the funds for the new development were coming out of his pocket, not the club's, as he wasn't at that time sole owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 I think that some of the terminology in the planning statement is unfortunate and could be inadvertantly unhelpful to put it mildly. it may be strictly correct in planner speak but to state that the appellant(?) ( this should presumably be applicant) accepts "that the scale of the development and its effect on openness means that it is inappropriate development in the green belt" is poor wording imo and is a gift to objectors. the limited impact on openness and the limited effect on the character of the green belt could have been contested more expertly. They seem to have relied totally on the argument that 'special circumstances apply' because previously the secretary of state accepted this argument. I suppose that they also thought that with a recommendation for approval, it was going to be approved, but clearly they were having to respond to the various objections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TelTheRam Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Applicant = person applying. Appellant = person appealing. Hence the bit you quoted refers to reasons given in an appeal against the original decision to allow the development ie. by the objectors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, TelTheRam said: Applicant = person applying. Appellant = person appealing. Hence the bit you quoted refers to reasons given in an appeal against the original decision to allow the development. No. para 5.9 is about the current proposal. and 5.7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Hughes Hair Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 12 hours ago, Tombo said: Are we really suggesting that they've rejected the plans because they're Forest fans? Come on, get a grip. I can safely say you've never had to deal with a local councilllor in a professional capacity. THE number one reason councils are dysfunctional - councillors. Are you a councillor? No? Why? I'll tell you why my friend - you have a life. Devolution and localism, a complete shambles of a political philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Hughes Hair Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 13 hours 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. Oh lord. IF we need to build, we definitley should build on greenfield sites for economic, ecological and social reasons. Or we could just build ghettos for the unworthy or just shoot them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.