Will Hughes Hair Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 12 hours ago, Briggsy said: 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 NOTE: the planners recommended refusal, but who's vote counts ultimately? You should blame the council, and definitely not the locally elected and responsible councillor who ignores expert advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Probably not worth pointing out, but the Lees Brook planning application falls under Derby City Council, while the Moor Farm plans are in the hands of Erewash Borough Council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Hughes Hair Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 7 hours 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. I'd agree if they knew how to spend them. Don't spend and they have to be handed back after five years, anyone fancy a FOI request? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Hughes Hair Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 8 minutes ago, reveldevil said: Probably not worth pointing out, but the Lees Brook planning application falls under Derby City Council, while the Moor Farm plans are in the hands of Erewash Borough Council. What the hell do facts have to with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 The Moor Farm proposals were structured as two planning applications. the first one is all the stuff already posted and this was basically for the extra pitches and the pavilion stand and parking. there was a second application - also refused - for the indoor pitch and other building work. the reason for structuring a development in two applications is usually because one of them is considered to be more straightforward and the other is deemed to be more controversial. The idea is usually not to jeopardise the whole project by lumping everything together such that the controversial bit gets refused and scuppers the whole thing. The stuff already posted should have been the more straightforward application. the other application is for the buildings the design statement ..... http://planportal.erewash.gov.uk/PlanningLive/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=46197&PageNo=1&content=obj.pdf site plan..... http://planportal.erewash.gov.uk/PlanningLive/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=46204&PageNo=1&content=obj.pdf The proposal seems to be to alter the existing shed which contains the existing indoor pitch and to alter the building to create a three storey bit in the middle and pack everything into the original footprint. adjacent to that there is a big tented structure for a new indoor pitch. this is the bit that will have caused the problem . Its pretty huge tbh and directly opposite the houses on Morley Road. It can't have been a surprise that this became controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysbeck Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Ah similar to Southampton's? They practically have a full-size covered pitch (something like 80x110), looks very impressive from the outside, seen it whenever watching their U21s play since its located right next-door to their usual outdoor pitch I think. Would be curious to compare their planning application (if available.. 2012ish?) and see if whatever area of land / circumstances that allowed them to go ahead with building their covered pitch can then be used to search for something similar near our academy (if having to pack up n move out ever comes to that) http://covair.co.uk/southampton-fc-full-football-pitch-double-skin-cabledome/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 16 minutes ago, rhysbeck said: Ah similar to Southampton's? They practically have a full-size covered pitch (something like 80x110), looks very impressive from the outside, seen it whenever watching their U21s play since its located right next-door to their usual outdoor pitch I think. Would be curious to compare their planning application (if available.. 2012ish?) and see if whatever area of land / circumstances that allowed them to go ahead with building their covered pitch can then be used to search for something similar near our academy (if having to pack up n move out ever comes to that) http://covair.co.uk/southampton-fc-full-football-pitch-double-skin-cabledome/ Similar but ours is possibly more like 150m x 80m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicME85 Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 2 hours ago, Will Hughes Hair said: 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. Im a parish councillor and can safely say that 90% of decisions by other councillors are for their own personal agenda rather than the good of the parish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Ram Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Would be interesting if this does get no further joy and Mel is serious in his veiled threat to move the whole thing elsewhere. Cant think of a decent sized venue off the top of my head in such a nice location and to say nothing about the millions it would cost to start all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 44 minutes ago, England Ram said: Would be interesting if this does get no further joy and Mel is serious in his veiled threat to move the whole thing elsewhere. Cant think of a decent sized venue off the top of my head in such a nice location and to say nothing about the millions it would cost to start all over again. The problem with nice locations is that you are always going to run into planning issues. The two perfect sites that I can see would be the Celanese site, but it might cost too much to clean up, or the waste round just over the river from Pride Park, but I think I saw some building activity going on there recently, so maybe that's gone already. Assuming that we'd want to stay inside the city boundary, there is some land between Noel Baker school and Chellaston, and some between Miclover and Mackworth, but I believe that both these sites are earmarked for housing developments. The same may also be true of the land to the south of the city down to the A50, but this is also in South Derbyshire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 There's land available over the river from the iPro isn't there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Boycie said: There's land available over the river from the iPro isn't there? No. Some development called the triangle is going there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Shame the twitchers would stop development behind the velodrome there's some land on Raynesway next to the car auctions I think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 mel could just buy Erewash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Brightons design statement for the design of their training centre.... http://194.165.12.116/NorthgatePublicDocs/01954097.pdf looks carefully considered and professionally put together the indoor pitch building is much smaller - maybe a quarter of the size - of what we proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papahet Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Refused (again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Sagan Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Here's the piece from the DET: http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/council-planners-recommend-derby-county-moor-farm-extension-plan-refused/story-29623865-detail/story.html Claim it's recommeded for rejection rather than actually rejected (but doesn't look good). We're still appealing the original decision but in the meanwhile put forward new plans that dropped the indoor pitch 2 metres into the ground to lower the overall height of the development. Sounds a good compromise. How many Rams fans live in Erewash Borough? Very few people vote in local elections and if fans were bothered to get the development through they could organize and either lobby their represetatives very hard or (as some football clubs such as Charlton did, and maybe Brighton) stand against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouRams Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 10 minutes ago, Papahet said: Refused (again) Daft. I'd sell the land so houses get built on it just to spite the idiots that stood against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazloW Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Its green belt... houses would not get built on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 11 minutes ago, LazloW said: Its green belt... houses would get built on it. Ftfy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.