(15-01-2021, 10:51 AM)Tricky Wrote: I have just had a look at the planning application again and have noted that the application is an 'Hybrid' planning application, which is usually made up of part 'Full Application' and part 'Outline Planning Application'.

A Full Plan App is an application that sets everything out how the developers expect the finished project to look like, including all materials used, outlay within the structure etc.

An Outline Plan App is just a way of expressing an intention that the developer is considering building that project. It is used to gauge opinion from the Council and would seek recommendations, potential obstructions, guidance even as to what the Council would expect the development to adhere to, i.e. carbon footprints, highways issues, wildlife issues, vista issues (is the building too imposing on the surrounding area, would it stick out like a sore thumb on the horizon etc).

From our perspective, we are really only interested in the rebuilding of the stand and ground improvements, which is the Full Planning Application and has been issued in its final glory. The flats complex has only been issued as the Outline Planning Application. The application was submitted on 29th November 2020 which was only 7 weeks ago. This means that the club have 6 weeks, at least to get planning permission for the stand rebuild, the end of Feb. The stand, with it being much higher than the current stand, may subject it to an Environment Impact Assessment, which would give the club an additional three weeks. This would be the third week of March. 

Under the Governments Planning Guarantee, the club have until the 23rd May to obtain permission.

This is how I understand the situation, given the club did not submit their plans until 29th November, which is the date on the Rushcliffe BC website.

Anyone who can correct me if I am wrong, please do so, but I do not think there is anything to get too concerned about just yet!

(15-01-2021, 02:19 PM)Jasper Scarrott Wrote:

(15-01-2021, 01:48 PM)Reds73 Wrote:

(15-01-2021, 12:20 PM)Jean_claude_killy Wrote: Could it be that the Club and Benoy are being pretty clever here?

Assuming the Stand gets approval as a stand alone project and the apartments get rejected as a stand alone project; are there not ways of fast tracking the appeal process for residential planning applications all the way to Central Government now?

Or is that adding 2 and 2 and coming up with a lot more than four?

Dont think it would get done if the apartments are rejected.

Effectively the sale of the apartments are paying for the redevelopment of the stand

Why not? What makes you think Marinakis won't put his hand in his pocket? Don't think it affects FFP does it?

(15-01-2021, 01:48 PM)Reds73 Wrote:

(15-01-2021, 12:20 PM)Jean_claude_killy Wrote: Could it be that the Club and Benoy are being pretty clever here?

Assuming the Stand gets approval as a stand alone project and the apartments get rejected as a stand alone project; are there not ways of fast tracking the appeal process for residential planning applications all the way to Central Government now?

Or is that adding 2 and 2 and coming up with a lot more than four?

Dont think it would get done if the apartments are rejected.

Effectively the sale of the apartments are paying for the redevelopment of the stand

(15-01-2021, 02:52 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(15-01-2021, 01:48 PM)Reds73 Wrote:

(15-01-2021, 12:20 PM)Jean_claude_killy Wrote: Could it be that the Club and Benoy are being pretty clever here?

Assuming the Stand gets approval as a stand alone project and the apartments get rejected as a stand alone project; are there not ways of fast tracking the appeal process for residential planning applications all the way to Central Government now?

Or is that adding 2 and 2 and coming up with a lot more than four?

Dont think it would get done if the apartments are rejected.

Effectively the sale of the apartments are paying for the redevelopment of the stand

Maybe the planning is hybrid to get on with building of the stand if there is delay re: the apartments.

The delay seems down to objections to the plans for the apartments..?  Ie they will come later and contribute financially as and when.

It would make more sense to split the application.  Get the stand built.  Get that extra several million flowing in.  Get Forest's ground and facilities modernised.  More revenue for better players.  Get into the Premier League.  More revenue.  Etc.

Momentum.

SA.

(15-01-2021, 02:49 PM)Paplane Wrote:

(15-01-2021, 10:51 AM)Tricky Wrote: I have just had a look at the planning application again and have noted that the application is an 'Hybrid' planning application, which is usually made up of part 'Full Application' and part 'Outline Planning Application'.

A Full Plan App is an application that sets everything out how the developers expect the finished project to look like, including all materials used, outlay within the structure etc.

An Outline Plan App is just a way of expressing an intention that the developer is considering building that project. It is used to gauge opinion from the Council and would seek recommendations, potential obstructions, guidance even as to what the Council would expect the development to adhere to, i.e. carbon footprints, highways issues, wildlife issues, vista issues (is the building too imposing on the surrounding area, would it stick out like a sore thumb on the horizon etc).

From our perspective, we are really only interested in the rebuilding of the stand and ground improvements, which is the Full Planning Application and has been issued in its final glory. The flats complex has only been issued as the Outline Planning Application. The application was submitted on 29th November 2020 which was only 7 weeks ago. This means that the club have 6 weeks, at least to get planning permission for the stand rebuild, the end of Feb. The stand, with it being much higher than the current stand, may subject it to an Environment Impact Assessment, which would give the club an additional three weeks. This would be the third week of March. 

Under the Governments Planning Guarantee, the club have until the 23rd May to obtain permission.

This is how I understand the situation, given the club did not submit their plans until 29th November, which is the date on the Rushcliffe BC website.

Anyone who can correct me if I am wrong, please do so, but I do not think there is anything to get too concerned about just yet!

Tricky, the application was submitted on 29 November 2019, not 2020. It's plainly obvious that the council have gone back to the club to ask for further amendments to be made to the flats and the onus is on the club to come back with something further for consideration, which they have yet to do. The club agreed to the last lengthy extension and so it's likely they've paused all work on it for the time being. If the club wished to press matters and try to force their proposals through they would've pushed for a decision, which would be a refusal and they would then appeal it hoping the government inspector would over-rule. None of that's happened. 

My view is that they club thought their name and social importance would be enough to get the generous flats scheme approved on the basis that the community, city etc would benefit from the stand. A quid pro quo arrangement if you like. The council seem to have stood firm and now there's a stand off. I can understand the club not pursuing things when there's no money coming in. And they own the land so can sit on it for as long as they like.

My guess is that Rushcliffe wont want to refuse for pr & good relationship reasons and they dont feel they can approve it as it is. The club are content to sit on it for a while and so the thing will either sit there as it is, undetermined, or another lengthy extension will be agreed to give the club time to sit on it. I reckon new design work will commence when the club look like they have half a shot at being promoted, which might be another year now at the earliest.