Post by SteveT on Apr 11, 2015 7:19:17 GMT
I believe the answer given to a question raised in the first tranche (12149) auction, that I'd not seen until now, is almost certainly incorrect:
Q Have there been any discussions with the local planning authority regarding this proposal? There is no mention of such in the investor report and I would have thought that, with the site presently being what appears to be a recognised sports ground / playing field, obtaining permission for it's development may well be problematic.
A FC comment:- The planning consultants mentioned in the investor report have an engagement strategy with the relevant Local Authority which has been initiated. The sports playing fields do not [form?] any part of the development scheme as can be seen from the diagram provided in the investor report (page 5). Thanks, FC
That diagram very clearly shows that the 3 blocks of flats are positioned on what is currently playing field (the outfield of the cricket pitch). Whilst it shows how a smaller cricket pitch might still be positioned on the remaining land, the local council planners will be obliged to include Sport England as one of the statutory consultees. Having gone 10 rounds with Sport England over obtaining planning consent for a new school built on a corner of an existing school playing field, I know that Sport England have a standing policy of objecting to ALL applications to build on existing playing field land unless equivalent new provision is created elsewhere. The developer, via the council, will then have to negotiate with Sport England to attempt to convince them either that there is already excess provision of sport facilities in the area for the local demand (which seems unlikely) or that other aspects of the development will improve the overall provision of facilities despite the reduction in playing field area. The two proposed small "Multi-Use Games Areas" (universally called Mugas for short) are clearly intended to support this negotiation but I doubt these will be enough to convince Sport England to back down. Other measures to enhance community access to / use of the remaining facilities will also be demanded, which the new pavilion and changing rooms are clearly intended to address.
Bottom line is that the council planning board will have the final decision (and may well support the need for additional local housing) but most councils are very resistant to granting consent until / unless Sport England withdraw their initial default objection, for fear they get drawn into a prolonged and expensive legal tussle with Sport England. Provided the developer is employing a good planning consultant, which the initial report suggests he probably is, then my guess is that he will win out in the end but it could be a long process.
That doesn't change the fact that the answer given in the auction appears entirely wrong.
Q Have there been any discussions with the local planning authority regarding this proposal? There is no mention of such in the investor report and I would have thought that, with the site presently being what appears to be a recognised sports ground / playing field, obtaining permission for it's development may well be problematic.
A FC comment:- The planning consultants mentioned in the investor report have an engagement strategy with the relevant Local Authority which has been initiated. The sports playing fields do not [form?] any part of the development scheme as can be seen from the diagram provided in the investor report (page 5). Thanks, FC
That diagram very clearly shows that the 3 blocks of flats are positioned on what is currently playing field (the outfield of the cricket pitch). Whilst it shows how a smaller cricket pitch might still be positioned on the remaining land, the local council planners will be obliged to include Sport England as one of the statutory consultees. Having gone 10 rounds with Sport England over obtaining planning consent for a new school built on a corner of an existing school playing field, I know that Sport England have a standing policy of objecting to ALL applications to build on existing playing field land unless equivalent new provision is created elsewhere. The developer, via the council, will then have to negotiate with Sport England to attempt to convince them either that there is already excess provision of sport facilities in the area for the local demand (which seems unlikely) or that other aspects of the development will improve the overall provision of facilities despite the reduction in playing field area. The two proposed small "Multi-Use Games Areas" (universally called Mugas for short) are clearly intended to support this negotiation but I doubt these will be enough to convince Sport England to back down. Other measures to enhance community access to / use of the remaining facilities will also be demanded, which the new pavilion and changing rooms are clearly intended to address.
Bottom line is that the council planning board will have the final decision (and may well support the need for additional local housing) but most councils are very resistant to granting consent until / unless Sport England withdraw their initial default objection, for fear they get drawn into a prolonged and expensive legal tussle with Sport England. Provided the developer is employing a good planning consultant, which the initial report suggests he probably is, then my guess is that he will win out in the end but it could be a long process.
That doesn't change the fact that the answer given in the auction appears entirely wrong.
