Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[AllRoverAsia]

11 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

OK thanks.

That doesn't seem to be the case in the plans submitted which seem to contain a specification for the new combined  training centre identical to the existing STC. 

It also runs against the tone of the spiel of the proposal which is along the lines of the new facility being built out of natural materials and less of an eyesore for local residents etc.

And you can't get round the fact we'd  lose a lot of full size outdoor pitches,  As far as I can see 5 out of nine outdoor grass pitches and our only outdoor artificial floodlit pitch.

If I've misinterpreted the plans I'm happy to be corrected.

You have not misinterpreted any plans, there aren't any, just broad brush strokes.

This is all about getting outline planning permission for the STC, which can then be progressed at some point that suits the 'climate'

Waggott ''we'd also need the design of the building in square meters, which will probably be two storeys for classrooms, gyms and everything else''

Unless you can fit an indoor pitch into a single storey building Maggott could actually be right on that one.

Edited March 2, 2021 by AllRoverAsia

[Roverall]

3 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

In my case, I am starting from such a position of non-trust, I don't believe anything...Everytime I read a Waggott quotation, I just think Mandy Rice-Davies....

 

Not sure I needed that mental image!

[Leonard Venkhater]

Just now, Roverall said:

 

Not sure I needed that mental image!

What she said..not her...(well...)

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

In my case, I am starting from such a position of non-trust, I don't believe anything...Everytime I read a Waggott quotation, I just think Mandy Rice-Davies....

"Well he would wouldn't he"

[tomphil]

Natural materials ?   Hmm wonder if Mr Get Real and Flitcraft are pitching for it ?

[RevidgeBlue]

4 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

You have not misinterpreted any plans, there aren't any, just broad brush strokes.

This is all about getting outline planning permission for the STC, which can then be progressed at some point that suits the 'climate'

I know you can make reasonable alterations to an initial proposal but surely you wouldn't be able to sneak an application through on the basis it was a visually pleasing one storey building then after it's passed say "hang on could we make it two?"

Or obtain initial approval for a build based on one set of specifications and then replace them with different specifications entirely.

There's no mention of size of the new facility in the proposal whatsoever other than it will be "larger" than the existing STC, elsewhere it mentions "same scale".

The only concrete thing to go on are the specifications of the proposed facilities in the new combined  facility which appear to be exactly the same as those in the existing STC so unless everything is at least twice the size. on two floors.....

Can't see how the Planning Committee can form any sort of view without knowing the exact dimensions and elevation of the new build really.

[rigger]

54 minutes ago, Roverall said:

 

Not sure I needed that mental image!

Is that the one with the chair

[AllRoverAsia]

18 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I know you can make reasonable alterations to an initial proposal but surely you wouldn't be able to sneak an application through on the basis it was a visually pleasing one storey building then after it's passed say "hang on could we make it two?"

Or obtain initial approval for a build based on one set of specifications and then replace them with different specifications entirely.

There's no mention of size of the new facility in the proposal whatsoever other than it will be "larger" than the existing STC, elsewhere it mentions "same scale".

The only concrete thing to go on are the specifications of the proposed facilities in the new combined  facility which appear to be exactly the same as those in the existing STC so unless everything is at least twice the size. on two floors.....

Can't see how the Planning Committee can form any sort of view without knowing the exact dimensions and elevation of the new build really.

In I think the first public words on this subject Waggott said that all proceeds, whatever they are, from the sale of the STC would go into the redevelopment of the JTC.

Well it's best I just say that if this all goes ahead there must be a financial oversight committee - if only on the owners behalf................

Edited March 2, 2021 by AllRoverAsia

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, AllRoverAsia said:

You have not misinterpreted any plans, there aren't any, just broad brush strokes.

This is all about getting outline planning permission for the STC, which can then be progressed at some point that suits the 'climate'

Waggott ''we'd also need the design of the building in square meters, which will probably be two storeys for classrooms, gyms and everything else''

Unless you can fit an indoor pitch into a single storey building Maggott could actually be right on that one.

Is he only just now addressing the classroom issue ?  Has the building suddenly sprung up another storey on realizing he'd missed something off ?

Snake oil salesman, where was this effort in trying to get fans back in after promotion ?

[Rogerb]

1 hour ago, rigger said:

Is that the one with the chair

That was Christine

[Leonard Venkhater]

17 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

That was Christine

Killer Keeler!

[Stuart]

5 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

1) I have no faith in this lot delivering ‘state of the art’. I just don’t trust the motives of anyone involved.

2) The footprint on the JTC will be much smaller and pitches will be lost. Combining is fine in practice, but not when it means a reduction in facilities.

3) The potential combined site has already had floodlights turned down - ergo loss of Cat 1 academy status 

4) There are no classrooms on the plan - so again loss of Cat 1 status as it’s a prerequisite.

Not strictly true.

[Mattyblue]

I stand corrected, looking at this (section 297, page 88) there is a loophole if the club can prove they’ve had planning permission for floodlights rejected.

Though to me you are breaking the spirit of said rule if you did have a floodlit pitch and then built houses on it

http://thepfsa.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Youth-Development-Rules-2018-19.pdf

[OldEwoodBlue]

Just read Waggott's latest segment in the LT. Utter desperation. Rumbled big time and he knows its not gonna fly. Not now. Not never.

[broadsword]

58 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Killer Keeler!

I read once that during the week, Glenn was kept in a cage and fed raw meat. 

 

Wonder if Christine was the same? 

[Stuart]

32 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

I stand corrected, looking at this (section 297, page 88) there is a loophole if the club can prove they’ve had planning permission for floodlights rejected.

Though to me you are breaking the spirit of said rule if you did have a floodlit pitch and then built houses on it

http://thepfsa.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Youth-Development-Rules-2018-19.pdf

I posted a long post earlier in the thread about this.

[RevidgeBlue]

9 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

In I think the first public words on this subject Waggott said that all proceeds, whatever they are, from the sale of the STC would go into the redevelopment of the JTC.

Well it's best I just say that if this all goes ahead there must be a financial oversight committee - if only on the owners behalf................

Yes, he was inferring either it would be a break even project or that the owners would have to dip their hands in their pockets yet again, which would make the whole thing even more pointless than it already seems.

Also noticeable that he keeps trying to calm people down by saying "No need to worry it probably won't happen for years anyway"

Which does nothing to allay the suspicion that he couldn't care less whether we eventually end up with a state of the art training facility, a much smaller version of what we already have or absolutely nothing.

He'll be long gone and is only in it for whatever financial benefit or commission he can squeeze out of the Housing Development.

[Stuart]

16 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Yes, he was inferring either it would be a break even project or that the owners would have to dip their hands in their pockets yet again, which would make the whole thing even more pointless than it already seems.

Also noticeable that he keeps trying to calm people down by saying "No need to worry it probably won't happen for years anyway"

Which does nothing to allay the suspicion that he couldn't care less whether we eventually end up with a state of the art training facility, a much smaller version of what we already have or absolutely nothing.

He'll be long gone and is only in it for whatever financial benefit or commission he can squeeze out of the Housing Development.

The interesting thing for me is that - at face value - they want to upgrade the academy facilities and training academy and the only way to do that is through selling land and reducing the footprint...

...despite having billionaire owners who could upgrade the facilities with ease - and still retain the land and its future value.

Why now and why by selling off Jack’s land?

[Proudtobeblue&white]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

The interesting thing for me is that - at face value - they want to upgrade the academy facilities and training academy and the only way to do that is through selling land and reducing the footprint...

...despite having billionaire owners who could upgrade the facilities with ease - and still retain the land and its future value.

Why now and why by selling off Jack’s land?

Because they are incompetent.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

The interesting thing for me is that - at face value - they want to upgrade the academy facilities and training academy and the only way to do that is through selling land and reducing the footprint...

...despite having billionaire owners who could upgrade the facilities with ease - and still retain the land and its future value.

Why now and why by selling off Jack’s land?

Yes, I think it's pretty obvious that if the intention were to genuinely improve the training facilities then plans would simply have been unveiled to upgrade the existing facilities to which we'd have all stood up and applauded.

Or, if it was possible to do everything to the same standard on the one site (which I don't believe it is) we'd have been shown detailed plans of a space age new complex which would have made our jaws hit the floor.

None of that.

The telling thing for me is that a lot of thought and planning has gone into the proposed housing development and there's no detail at all about the new training centre or why it will allegedly be better in footballing terms or how it will meet Cat 1 Academy regulations.

Waggott's probably been tasked with trying to cut running costs in the Club generally and possibly is trying to do that by merging the two training centres into one and scrapping the other. If he can benefit from a Developer for obtaining the planning permission that would be a bonus for him as well. 

It's difficult to see how the owners benefit from this unless there's a massive surplus left over from the sale of the land after the new training centre is built. If they have to wait years to see the benefit of any cost savings what use is that?

Edited March 3, 2021 by RevidgeBlue

[darrenrover]

Let's stop fucking about!

The 'plans' are nonsense, could never be approved or work, we all know that!

This is a plea from me, please will someone take up the mantle and do whatever to oppose this bollocks.

Thanks

[JHRover]

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2021/march/rovers-confirm-details-for-brockhall-consultation/

 

Full steam ahead!

I'm just looking forward to seeing what happens if the housing estate is a go-er but the new training centre isn't.

Despite the claim that the whole project hinges upon permission for the new training ground i very much doubt that they will leave it at that.

Odds on leasing King George's playing fields?

[den]

36 minutes ago, JHRover said:

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2021/march/rovers-confirm-details-for-brockhall-consultation/

 

Full steam ahead!

I'm just looking forward to seeing what happens if the housing estate is a go-er but the new training centre isn't.

Despite the claim that the whole project hinges upon permission for the new training ground i very much doubt that they will leave it at that.

Odds on leasing King George's playing fields?

Planning application going in for the houses whatever happens to the Academy or it’s status. These plans have been in the pipeline for quite some time, but Waggott decided to keep the fans in the dark.

I can’t put into words how I feel about the whole scenario. Jack Walkers money paid for everything down at Brockhall and this crew are cashing in on it. 
 

Disgusting.

[Ben Frost]

15 minutes ago, den said:

Planning application going in for the houses whatever happens to the Academy or it’s status. These plans have been in the pipeline for quite some time, but Waggott decided to keep the fans in the dark.

I can’t put into words how I feel about the whole scenario. Jack Walkers money paid for everything down at Brockhall and this crew are cashing in on it. 
 

Disgusting.

"The proposals for both sites are inextricably linked meaning the residential development can only go ahead in conjunction with the building of the new training facility" 

[den]

4 minutes ago, Ben Frost said:

"The proposals for both sites are inextricably linked meaning the residential development can only go ahead in conjunction with the building of the new training facility" 

Yep. 
 

Also this... The week-long public consultation period for the proposals is set to start on March 11, with planning permission anticipated to be submitted later this month.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19134934.public-consultation-details-rovers-brockhall-plans-revealed/

so... does that mean the planning application will go ahead with no certainty of Cat 1 status? Also, what does it mean for Waggotts claim that nothings going to happen for years?