New flats behind Kop - councillors look likely to be told to approve the plans

[EnglishRed]

Originally Posted by Alan Attack

I’d imagine/hope there’ll be much greater scrutiny if consent is granted.

The actual planning application appears very detailed.

What it means for WAFC? Not much really. You’d hope the university won’t want their flats overlooking a decrepit old stand.

It’s probably an unenforceable planning condition but I wonder if planning obligations could be used to demolish the kop? The difficulty with this issue is the fall back position of unimplemented consents.

I think that would fail the legal tests of a condition.

It'll be interesting to see what WBC do about the highways comments. Their Highways department have basically said that without Junction improvements this development shouldn't go ahead. The developers have come back and said "you can condition that" (developers always say this, and these lot are aware of the poor track record of WBC of enforcing conditions on this site) and anyway they don't think they should have to because they weren't the applicants last time (which is a reasonably fair stance if the council couldn't be bothered to make sure that was done by the last developers) . That is a situation that should be sorted out before it goes to committee.

Also, the location plan on the council website looks to be missing information on it (a blue line denoting other land in the ownership of the applicant) , that's a basic requirement for validation, but quite important information if you are looking to impose conditions outside of the application site.

[Alan Attack]

I saw a Location Plan with blue land effectively surrounding the entire locality including the Racecourse with two small parcels of red; namely, the footprint of the building and the junction with Mold Road.

I wholly agree that requesting money from the applicant by way of planning obligations is unenforceable much like some of the conditions attached to the 2008 consent.

I broadly support the development in the vain hope it’ll instigate the regeneration of the area including a new kop stand. Apart from the highway issues raised by English Red, I can’t see any other planning reasons why the application shouldn’t be approved.

[pagl]

Originally Posted by Alan Attack

I saw a Location Plan with blue land effectively surrounding the entire locality including the Racecourse with two small parcels of red; namely, the footprint of the building and the junction with Mold Road.

I wholly agree that requesting money from the applicant by way of planning obligations is unenforceable much like some of the conditions attached to the 2008 consent.

I broadly support the development in the vain hope it’ll instigate the regeneration of the area including a new kop stand. Apart from the highway issues raised by English Red, I can’t see any other planning reasons why the application shouldn’t be approved.

I think people like ER and QR are far better informed on this and hope the club will use every area of expertise available.

I just dont see WAG and WCBC doing anything to provide any conditions or any for of Gateway area on the Crispin Lane area. They will allow the flats to be built, pander to the Uni, invest nothing and leave the current land area available for a stand which will never be realised.

We will have further flats lining the Unis pockets and a blight on the area.

[EnglishRed]

Originally Posted by Alan Attack

I saw a Location Plan with blue land effectively surrounding the entire locality including the Racecourse with two small parcels of red; namely, the footprint of the building and the junction with Mold Road.

I wholly agree that requesting money from the applicant by way of planning obligations is unenforceable much like some of the conditions attached to the 2008 consent.

I broadly support the development in the vain hope it’ll instigate the regeneration of the area including a new kop stand. Apart from the highway issues raised by English Red, I can’t see any other planning reasons why the application shouldn’t be approved.

I did wonder whether the one on the website was just something WBC put up for identification purposes.

I think you're right, in principle there is no reason to refuse this outline application, if they can overcome the highways issues. In terms of the ground I think the damage was done with the previous permission. The final design of the flats will be crucial.

[Alan Attack]

Lining pockets and blight?

Presumably if the land was still in the ownership of WAFC the development would be acceptable? Let’s not forget the uni are a big employer in the town; certainly more than WAFC employ

[eastsussexred]

Originally Posted by EnglishRed

What's worrying is that the consultation responses repeatedly make reference to all the outstanding matters which the Council have not enforced on the previous schemes. Conditions precedent that weren't complied with (fundamental matters that go to the heart of the consent such as a travel plan and critical Junction improvements) what this means in planning law terms is that the previous, implemented permission, cannot be relied on. So while the Uni to say that 'as there are 198 units from the previous permission that haven't been built the principal of the 197 we are now applying for has already been established' isn't strictly true.

The worry from the Clubs point of view is that this development may constrain the redevelopment of the Kop. It's clear that this isn't something in the unis plans.

That said, this will definitely get permission.

Another stitch up??????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9wmLBYPvvc

[pagl]

Originally Posted by Alan Attack

Lining pockets and blight?

Presumably if the land was still in the ownership of WAFC the development would be acceptable? Let’s not forget the uni are a big employer in the town; certainly more than WAFC employ

No issue with supporting Uni and whilst they are bigger we are talking of the club bringing in other monies etc to supplement Uni and other enployers.

Its all the ‘talk’ that pisses me off and complete lack of action.
If WAG are going to invest then make a promise, likewise WCBC.
State some budget figures and outline a basic plan.

Its all farting in the wind as far as I can see.
Once said it drifts away.

[krux]

Originally Posted by bowler

As much as I love the racecourse it is now obvious we are being squeezed out of our ground, nowhere to expand and improve the ground. So maybe it's time to bite the bullet and move. But on know account to a breeze block Chester type eyesore but a first class stadium that will hold International games and hold 30,000 supporters, be it for Wrexham FC. Wales, or Music venues for concerts. As every year goes by this seems to be growing as the logical outcome you may agree or disagree but it will happen.

If we left the racecourse it would absolutely definitely be a chester style stadium. The only hope would be that it would hold 10k and not 6k.

[Lesjonno]

Originally Posted by krux

If we left the racecourse it would absolutely definitely be a chester style stadium. The only hope would be that it would hold 10k and not 6k.

God help us if we start going down that route. Grimsby have been looking to relocate from the outdated and cramped Blundell park for the last 30 years, going round in circles of planning applications, site investigations, funding, and resident objections, and are still basically where they started.