City Ground | Page 28 | Vital Football

City Ground

Oh what a suprise, As far as the club and the council are concerned its postponed indefinitely, which, as the months and months and postponement after postponement go by, it seems to be the case and not really worth discussing until covid is a thing of the past and the city ground is full again
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Those of us who said "I'll believe it when I see it" are proved right then.

I think that probably includes all of us- can't remember anyone saying anything different
Click to expand...
I would guess that the process so far will have cost in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. There is a big difference between obtaining planning on a scheme like this and actually building it. If the club were successful in getting planning approval for this scheme the value of the club would be substantially increased without lifting a finger. On reflection i just cannot accept that the people i saw deliberating 5 planning applications last night will be the ones who will decide the fate of this project.
 
jbacsta said:
I would guess that the process so far will have cost in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. There is a big difference between obtaining planning on a scheme like this and actually building it. If the club were successful in getting planning approval for this scheme the value of the club would be substantially increased without lifting a finger. On reflection i just cannot accept that the people i saw deliberating 5 planning applications last night will be the ones who will decide the fate of this project.
Click to expand...

I spoke with a friend who works in construction to ask if he had any idea what was going on; to start with, he has no knowledge of this particular build or of football for that matter, but gave an account of what usually happens during the process.

On the deadlines:
The statutory time limit for planning is 13 weeks, extendable to 16 weeks when the application is subject to an EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment

He is absolutely certain, without having to check, that would be the case in this instance.

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 .

The planning guarantee is the government’s policy that no application should spend more than a year with decision-makers, including any appeal. In practice this means that planning applications should be decided in no more than 26 weeks, allowing a similar period for any appeal. The planning guarantee does not replace the statutory time limits for determining planning applications.

This is the grey area for me as it was not explained in detail: An agreement can be reached by both parties to extend the timeframe to allow for solutions to be found for any outstanding issues.

He gave me instances of Projects he had worked on were the planning had taken over two years due to objections from stakeholders which needed to be dealt with.

Although he knows nothing about this Project he knows a good deal about Benoy and speaks very highly of them; he said they would be the ones dealing with the Council and not the Club, they are well versed at dealing with Councils and in his view there would be nothing to worry about on that front.

He also said that the Council meeting in the week would be nothing to get worried about; that meeting would be held by elected Council members who have no control of what applications are put in front of them.

The real work will be processed by Planning Officers who are paid employees and have expertise in planning applications; these are the people Benoy will be dealing with.

He said that if he had any interest in the application he would not be in the least bit worried; it would be naive to expect something of this size to go through at the first attempt and that such applications rarely go through in the given time frame.

He also said that the application could have been withdrawn or rejected but if that is the case the details would have to be posted in the Public domain; as things stand both applications are live on the portal.

So, until we hear anything different the application is still live.
 
mao tse tung said:
I spoke with a friend who works in construction to ask if he had any idea what was going on; to start with, he has no knowledge of this particular build or of football for that matter, but gave an account of what usually happens during the process.

On the deadlines:
The statutory time limit for planning is 13 weeks, extendable to 16 weeks when the application is subject to an EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment

He is absolutely certain, without having to check, that would be the case in this instance.

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 .

The planning guarantee is the government’s policy that no application should spend more than a year with decision-makers, including any appeal. In practice this means that planning applications should be decided in no more than 26 weeks, allowing a similar period for any appeal. The planning guarantee does not replace the statutory time limits for determining planning applications.

This is the grey area for me as it was not explained in detail: An agreement can be reached by both parties to extend the timeframe to allow for solutions to be found for any outstanding issues.

He gave me instances of Projects he had worked on were the planning had taken over two years due to objections from stakeholders which needed to be dealt with.

Although he knows nothing about this Project he knows a good deal about Benoy and speaks very highly of them; he said they would be the ones dealing with the Council and not the Club, they are well versed at dealing with Councils and in his view there would be nothing to worry about on that front.

He also said that the Council meeting in the week would be nothing to get worried about; that meeting would be held by elected Council members who have no control of what applications are put in front of them.

The real work will be processed by Planning Officers who are paid employees and have expertise in planning applications; these are the people Benoy will be dealing with.

He said that if he had any interest in the application he would not be in the least bit worried; it would be naive to expect something of this size to go through at the first attempt and that such applications rarely go through in the given time frame.

He also said that the application could have been withdrawn or rejected but if that is the case the details would have to be posted in the Public domain; as things stand both applications are live on the portal.

So, until we hear anything different the application is still live.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update.
 
mao tse tung said:
I spoke with a friend who works in construction to ask if he had any idea what was going on; to start with, he has no knowledge of this particular build or of football for that matter, but gave an account of what usually happens during the process.

On the deadlines:
The statutory time limit for planning is 13 weeks, extendable to 16 weeks when the application is subject to an EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment

He is absolutely certain, without having to check, that would be the case in this instance.

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 .

The planning guarantee is the government’s policy that no application should spend more than a year with decision-makers, including any appeal. In practice this means that planning applications should be decided in no more than 26 weeks, allowing a similar period for any appeal. The planning guarantee does not replace the statutory time limits for determining planning applications.

This is the grey area for me as it was not explained in detail: An agreement can be reached by both parties to extend the timeframe to allow for solutions to be found for any outstanding issues.

He gave me instances of Projects he had worked on were the planning had taken over two years due to objections from stakeholders which needed to be dealt with.

Although he knows nothing about this Project he knows a good deal about Benoy and speaks very highly of them; he said they would be the ones dealing with the Council and not the Club, they are well versed at dealing with Councils and in his view there would be nothing to worry about on that front.

He also said that the Council meeting in the week would be nothing to get worried about; that meeting would be held by elected Council members who have no control of what applications are put in front of them.

The real work will be processed by Planning Officers who are paid employees and have expertise in planning applications; these are the people Benoy will be dealing with.

He said that if he had any interest in the application he would not be in the least bit worried; it would be naive to expect something of this size to go through at the first attempt and that such applications rarely go through in the given time frame.

He also said that the application could have been withdrawn or rejected but if that is the case the details would have to be posted in the Public domain; as things stand both applications are live on the portal.

So, until we hear anything different the application is still live.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely spot on with all that Mao you have saved me bothering. Last nights meeting was indeed the 9 elected councillors, a solicitor and a planner ( who i actually felt sorry for). The councillors all had their say on each application and were occasionally given guidance by the planning officer before a vote was taken and the decision duly recorded by the solicitor. What really surprised me were some of the comments made by the councillors who clearly had no knowledge of either construction or the wider ramifications that their decisions were going to have. At one point i am sure i could read the planners mind and he was thinking what have i done to deserve being saddled with this lot. If the future of the City Ground and i believe the club is in the hands of that bunch i despair. Thats why i am now of a mind that it will be some higher authority. I fucking hope so anyway.
 
jbacsta said:
You are absolutely spot on with all that Mao you have saved me bothering. Last nights meeting was indeed the 9 elected councillors, a solicitor and a planner ( who i actually felt sorry for). The councillors all had their say on each application and were occasionally given guidance by the planning officer before a vote was taken and the decision duly recorded by the solicitor. What really surprised me were some of the comments made by the councillors who clearly had no knowledge of either construction or the wider ramifications that their decisions were going to have. At one point i am sure i could read the planners mind and he was thinking what have i done to deserve being saddled with this lot. If the future of the City Ground and i believe the club is in the hands of that bunch i despair. Thats why i am now of a mind that it will be some higher authority. I fucking hope so anyway.
Click to expand...
I watched a bit of the meeting on You Tube and was astounded like you at the lack of knowledge & how amateurish the councillors were. and also like you felt sorry for the official who must have been tearing his hair out at some of their comments. God forbid that lot should be in charge of the approval or otherwise of a project on the scale of the City ground one
 
To put some context on the timings:

The application on the RBC portal is a Hybrid application which consists of a full planning application for the Stand and an Outline application for the apartments.

This was submitted 29th November last Year.

Under the Government planning guarantee we have until the end of May to gain approval, but that has the potential to be extended
 
paz1967 said:
Oh what a suprise, As far as the club and the council are concerned its postponed indefinitely, which, as the months and months and postponement after postponement go by, it seems to be the case and not really worth discussing until covid is a thing of the past and the city ground is full again
Click to expand...
Why dont you sit under a tree with a jug of sangria and get pissed. Come back when you have something worth saying.
 
mao tse tung said:
I spoke with a friend who works in construction to ask if he had any idea what was going on; to start with, he has no knowledge of this particular build or of football for that matter, but gave an account of what usually happens during the process.

On the deadlines:
The statutory time limit for planning is 13 weeks, extendable to 16 weeks when the application is subject to an EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment

He is absolutely certain, without having to check, that would be the case in this instance.

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 .

The planning guarantee is the government’s policy that no application should spend more than a year with decision-makers, including any appeal. In practice this means that planning applications should be decided in no more than 26 weeks, allowing a similar period for any appeal. The planning guarantee does not replace the statutory time limits for determining planning applications.

This is the grey area for me as it was not explained in detail: An agreement can be reached by both parties to extend the timeframe to allow for solutions to be found for any outstanding issues.

He gave me instances of Projects he had worked on were the planning had taken over two years due to objections from stakeholders which needed to be dealt with.

Although he knows nothing about this Project he knows a good deal about Benoy and speaks very highly of them; he said they would be the ones dealing with the Council and not the Club, they are well versed at dealing with Councils and in his view there would be nothing to worry about on that front.

He also said that the Council meeting in the week would be nothing to get worried about; that meeting would be held by elected Council members who have no control of what applications are put in front of them.

The real work will be processed by Planning Officers who are paid employees and have expertise in planning applications; these are the people Benoy will be dealing with.

He said that if he had any interest in the application he would not be in the least bit worried; it would be naive to expect something of this size to go through at the first attempt and that such applications rarely go through in the given time frame.

He also said that the application could have been withdrawn or rejected but if that is the case the details would have to be posted in the Public domain; as things stand both applications are live on the portal.

So, until we hear anything different the application is still live.
Click to expand...

The only thing to add to this is that on big projects like this, if the planning is not agreed with the usual local authority, the appeals process can see the secretary of state come in over the top and approve applications- HS2 being one example among many.

Its a big project and complicated by the fact it is next to a river prone to flooding. Lots of technical Ts to be crossed and Is to be dotted. Whilever there isnt a statement from the club dropping the plans, we must assume it is still live.

Do think they are missing a trick though to start work with less disruption.
 
radfordinlondon said:
The only thing to add to this is that on big projects like this, if the planning is not agreed with the usual local authority, the appeals process can see the secretary of state come in over the top and approve applications- HS2 being one example among many.

Its a big project and complicated by the fact it is next to a river prone to flooding. Lots of technical Ts to be crossed and Is to be dotted. Whilever there isnt a statement from the club dropping the plans, we must assume it is still live.

Do think they are missing a trick though to start work with less disruption.
Click to expand...
Thats not quite how it works.
 
It appears nothing has changed and it is still ongoing:

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/eas...ound-redevelopment-despite-deadline-extension

The salient part is as follows:

"A spokesperson for Rushcliffe Borough Council told TheBusinessDesk.com on Monday afternoon (January 18): “We are unable to comment on any ongoing planning application and any questions regarding future plans will need to be directed to the applicant.

“Our planning team is continuing to process the application received in November 2019. This is a single planning application seeking full permission for the stand and outline planning permission for an apartment block. At this stage, no date has been confirmed for the application to be considered.”

There have been two previous extensions for determination – the first on February 28 and then on August 31.

Benoy and Nottingham Forest have been approached for comment."

I would guess with only outline planning permission being sought for the apartments, the plan will be to sell that aspect on to a developer upon approval, assuming there will be an approval.
 
So, despite the latest agreed extension to the date for determination running out no date for a decision has been made by RBC. They are kicking the can down the road in my opinion. The next step by them has to be to request agreement to a further extension, quite what for is any bodies guess.
 
radfordinlondon said:
Tbf thats how it works in london. No idea about nottm but would assume the same processes are available if required- which it doesnt look like.
Click to expand...
An applicant has the right to appeal to the secretary of state if a local authority takes longer than the statutory time period allowed for determination This is a very expensive and historically long process, this may have been speeded up somewhat by recent legislation but it is a big step for an applicant to take. It does not go down well with local authorities who have to defend themselves in court at enormous cost and obviously the party who lodges the appeal is not flavour of the month with them from then on. Big developers use appeals regularly but i cant see this process being considered by the club.
 
jbacsta said:
An applicant has the right to appeal to the secretary of state if a local authority takes longer than the statutory time period allowed for determination This is a very expensive and historically long process, this may have been speeded up somewhat by recent legislation but it is a big step for an applicant to take. It does not go down well with local authorities who have to defend themselves in court at enormous cost and obviously the party who lodges the appeal is not flavour of the month with them from then on. Big developers use appeals regularly but i cant see this process being considered by the club.
Click to expand...

I am fairly sure that changed last October.

The appeal process which takes you straight to Central Government was both streamlined and reduced in cost.

I read at the time that Local Authorities would be able to use the change to their advantage; they could kick the can down the road on controversial applications, which may prove vote losers, putting the onus, and I suppose blame, with the Minister.

I would guess that if the application is too controversial it will not get passed regardless of which route is taken
 
mao tse tung said:
I am fairly sure that changed last October.

The appeal process which takes you straight to Central Government was both streamlined and reduced in cost.

I read at the time that Local Authorities would be able to use the change to their advantage; they could kick the can down the road on controversial applications, which may prove vote losers, putting the onus, and I suppose blame, with the Minister.

I would guess that if the application is too controversial it will not get passed regardless of which route is taken
Click to expand...
The longer this goes on the more i tend to agree with you. To be honest i think its a bit pathetic on the part of RBC who i think hope Forest will chose to forget the whole thing. We will see i suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.