mao tse tung
Vital Champions League
Circumstances are somewhat unique here, and the club has requested a pause given them and some of the objections they face.
No pause has been requested or granted
Circumstances are somewhat unique here, and the club has requested a pause given them and some of the objections they face.
No pause has been requested or granted
No decision has been made by Rushcliffe Borough Council in my opinion because they simply cannot bring themselves to reject the objections to the scheme that have been made by certain people. The design of the appartments crucial to the funding of the project has been ammended ( at their request) and was submitted to them months ago. This new design would be completely in accordance with their wishes after consultations with them. The concerns of the Environment agency have been addressed and again ammended design work submitted to them. This is all about objections by some local residents and the unreasonable ( in my opinion) demands of the boat club. It is the job of a local authority to consider all objections to any planning application and then come to a fair and unbiassed decision. They have had 9 months to do that and thats long enough.Then why has no decision made? We are long past the statutory requirement, the only options are it's been accepted, rejected or both parties have agreed a temporary pause given the current circumstances and objections.
It hasn't been accepted.
It hasn't been rejected.
Therefore...
I tend to agree. Trent Bridge has been developed massively over the recent years but thats cricket isnt it? Quiet, respectable, middle class if you like. Rushcliffe's logo is a bit of a contradiction in terms though, " Great for Sport" but what about football?It's not likely to happen and I don't think it ever has been.
We always have a Rushcliffe council that is historically unsympathetic to even having a football club in its domains.
We have local residents sitting on property goldmines.
This lot are going to come to the same conclusions that Doughty and most previous owners have; the only solution is a whole new ground somewhere else
Football is still all a bit too working class.I tend to agree. Trent Bridge has been developed massively over the recent years but thats cricket isnt it? Quiet, respectable, middle class if you like. Rushcliffe's logo is a bit of a contradiction in terms though, " Great for Sport" but what about football?
Then why has no decision made? We are long past the statutory requirement, the only options are it's been accepted, rejected or both parties have agreed a temporary pause given the current circumstances and objections.
It hasn't been accepted.
It hasn't been rejected.
Therefore...
Its ongoing
The Club are still working on some aspects.
It could be that Rushcliffe would like the Stand built but are concerned about the local ramifications of giving outright approval.
They will know that the Club have the option of appealing any decision directly to Westminster; the longer this goes on the more likely it will happen.
I would love the club to take this to appeal. The current governments stance on planning restrictions would i think make RDC think possFootball is still all a bit too working class.
I was just posting something similar but you beat me to it. The current government do not like planning restrictions and may just tell RDU to do one. I cant help but think that local councilors are not looking at the bigger picture in this case and need shall we say guidance on the matter. They could then blame someone else for the noise and rough people every other Saturday.Its ongoing
The Club are still working on some aspects.
It could be that Rushcliffe would like the Stand built but are concerned about the local ramifications of giving outright approval.
They will know that the Club have the option of appealing any decision directly to Westminster; the longer this goes on the more likely it will happen.
I would love the club to take this to appeal. The current governments stance on planning restrictions would i think make RDC think poss
I was just posting something similar but you beat me to it. The current government do not like planning restrictions and may just tell RDU to do one. I cant help but think that local councilors are not looking at the bigger picture in this case and need shall we say guidance on the matter. They could then blame someone else for the noise and rough people every other Saturday.
I would imagine that the people running RDC are not stupid; they will be fully aware of the pro's and con's and will be very engaged with the Club.
RDC will be looking for a win win - they will want the Stand built and will want as much local consent as possible.
Once the application has been approved they will be able to turn to their constituents and claim that they managed to get this concession and that concession; concessions which would have not been forthcoming had the application been denied and then approved by Jenrick at a later date
This would be a relatively easy decision for Government to make as most of the plans have been approved conditionally; the main objections now come from the Nimby crowd who Government claim to dislike.
Its ongoing
The Club are still working on some aspects.
It could be that Rushcliffe would like the Stand built but are concerned about the local ramifications of giving outright approval.
They will know that the Club have the option of appealing any decision directly to Westminster; the longer this goes on the more likely it will happen.
The problem is that an appeal to the secretary of state has up untill now anyway, been a long and expensive process. Has EM the will to do it? I dont subscribe to the belief by some that he had/has no intention of delivering an upgraded stadium but after being led up the garden path by planners, local officials etc he may just decide enough is enough and end his relationship with the club and City. You couldnt blame him.
The problem is that an appeal to the secretary of state has up untill now anyway, been a long and expensive process. Has EM the will to do it? I dont subscribe to the belief by some that he had/has no intention of delivering an upgraded stadium but after being led up the garden path by planners, local officials etc he may just decide enough is enough and end his relationship with the club and City. You couldnt blame him.
It legally can't still be ongoing at this point, unless the two parties have reached an agreement...
That is in incorrect assumption.
The planning process is usually limited to 8 weeks, but for large or complex builds, this can be extended to 13 weeks; however, this period can be extended way beyond 13 weeks with written consent from the applicant.
Lol how is that not an agreement between both parties...
Apologies, I though you meant agreement as in accept or deny permission.