You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:01 pm View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:54 pm
Posts: 59
Team Supported: Darlington
Came a cross the planning application submitted back in 2007 for the education village, hotels, leisure facilities etc, while looking on the council website. Seems that the developers, Wardhadaway did not think the club could survive in its present form, quote below taken directly from the summing up in the document:

"In all of the above it has to be acknowledged that whether the development as proposed is permitted to support and act as a lifeline for the club or whether it is not, the site will not remain in its current form. An end development of a differing form, type and scale will materialise. The question is what will that development be as opposed to will it ever get consent?"

It's an interesting read, especially the conclusions of the report! :crazy:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:38 pm
Posts: 12495
Team Supported: Darlington
Whilst the report was correct, it was played upon heavily in order to received planning permission.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 531
Team Supported: Darlington/DCC
was submitted by houghton but he withdrew the apllication

_________________
"Just Who Is The 5 O'clock Hero?"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 531
Team Supported: Darlington/DCC
Darlington Football Club is proposing to add new facilities within the grounds of the existing football stadium. The application is a Hybrid Application, consisting of an Outline Application for some of the elements and a Full Application for the remaining ones.

Outline planning permission is sought for the following:

•100-bed hotel;
•4 restaurants;
•public house;
•farm shop;
•929m² office block;
•educational building with internal leisure facilities;
•new car parking layout;
•internal access provision with increased area and volume balancing pond.
Full planning permission is sought for the following:

•5 training pitches, including 1 with flood lighting, 2 with all-weather multi-surface pitches (to also act as relief car parking);
•10 indoor 6-a-side pitches;
•training building for Darlington FC;
•infrastructure;
•access;
•car parking.
The application reference number is 07/00587/FUL.

_________________
"Just Who Is The 5 O'clock Hero?"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 531
Team Supported: Darlington/DCC
RECOMMENDATION
THAT MEMBERS ARE MINDED TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION IN BOTH
OUTLINE AND DETAIL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
A. THAT THE ASSISTANT CHIEF EXECUTIVE [REGENERATION] BE
AUTHORISED TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING:
1. Commuted sum for off-site habitat creation
2. Commuted sum for off-site improvements to bridleway network
3. Commuted sum for enhancement of public transport facilities (raised kerbs and shelters
at 2 bus stops on Neasham Road and any other adjustments to existing bus drop-off lay-by to
enable it to be used as a bus stop).

_________________
"Just Who Is The 5 O'clock Hero?"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 531
Team Supported: Darlington/DCC
might have saved us from this mess

_________________
"Just Who Is The 5 O'clock Hero?"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:02 pm
Posts: 88
Team Supported: Darlington
Quakers23 wrote:
Came a cross the planning application submitted back in 2007 for the education village, hotels, leisure facilities etc, while looking on the council website. Seems that the developers, Wardhadaway did not think the club could survive in its present form, quote below taken directly from the summing up in the document:

"In all of the above it has to be acknowledged that whether the development as proposed is permitted to support and act as a lifeline for the club or whether it is not, the site will not remain in its current form. An end development of a differing form, type and scale will materialise. The question is what will that development be as opposed to will it ever get consent?"

It's an interesting read, especially the conclusions of the report! :crazy:


Ward Hadaway are not developers but planning lawyers.

You need to look at http://www.darlington.gov.uk/PublicMinu ... em%206.pdf for what happened.

The application was withdrawn and an amended scheme for the everything without the farm shop was approved. Notice the change.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 531
Team Supported: Darlington/DCC
was that not to amend the capacity?

_________________
"Just Who Is The 5 O'clock Hero?"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:02 pm
Posts: 88
Team Supported: Darlington
The document I attached also has the planning history which includes the full history for the office development.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 531
Team Supported: Darlington/DCC
Which the council granted all of the applications that where submitted by DFC the point is?

_________________
"Just Who Is The 5 O'clock Hero?"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Posts: 11463
Team Supported: Darlington
I thought this was all approved but Houghton couldn't find the investment to build?

_________________
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:
Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 531
Team Supported: Darlington/DCC
Spyman wrote:
I thought this was all approved but Houghton couldn't find the investment to build?

yes in a nut shell but it proves that the council have taken on board suggestions for potential development

_________________
"Just Who Is The 5 O'clock Hero?"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:02 pm
Posts: 88
Team Supported: Darlington
That the council has done everything it can to help the football club be viable. The fact owners haven't done anything with it is not the councils fault.

Oh and as the council said today shopping is a no no.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20959
Team Supported: Darlington
eek wrote:
That the council has done everything it can to help the football club be viable. The fact owners haven't done anything with it is not the councils fault.

Oh and as the council said today shopping is a no no.


You are quite clearly from the council.

Is it true that the council takes 75% from the car boot sales etc. Do you realistically think any of the plans submitted by the club in the past can make the club viable, and would the council be entitled to 75% of the "profits"?

_________________
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:02 pm
Posts: 88
Team Supported: Darlington
Quakerz wrote:
eek wrote:
That the council has done everything it can to help the football club be viable. The fact owners haven't done anything with it is not the councils fault.

Oh and as the council said today shopping is a no no.


You are quite clearly from the council.

Is it true that the council takes 75% from the car boot sales etc. Do you realistically think any of the plans submitted by the club in the past can make the club viable, and would the council be entitled to 75% of the "profits"?


That is a GROSS and I mean GROSS libel. I do however know how to run a business and have enough experience of planning to know what you can and can't do and where to look for the current dos and don'ts

To be honest when I found the document I've linked to via a google search I was surprised how generous the council had been. I seriously expected there to be more conditions on the permission that was granted.

Ignoring the council jibe I think the loses are such that nothing can be done to make the club viable. You need other businesses to cover the losses and that office block was only going to make £100,000 or so in rent a year.

As an aside thinking about it last night I can pinpoint the club's problems to one moment in the pouring rain at Wembley. Look where we are and look where Peterborough are. If we had won that playoff everything would be very different.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5740
Team Supported: Darlington
eek wrote:
That is a GROSS and I mean GROSS libel.


That is a GROSS and I mean GROSS over reaction to Quakerz post!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20959
Team Supported: Darlington
Just a fucking bit like.

As for my questions, they weren't really answered, specifically the council taking 75% of car boots etc - this I think was suggested by Raj Singh. I only wanted to know if it was true or not.

I agree with eek that reading through the plans that you have to wonder if the development would make enough money anyway.

_________________
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:02 pm
Posts: 88
Team Supported: Darlington
Given my opinion of the council its not a gross over reaction. Most of their current budget issues they are currently panicking about are due to decisions made 3-5 years ago coming back to haunt them.

If you want my honest opinion of the council I won't provide that outside of a pub with a pint or two attached.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20959
Team Supported: Darlington
So you're not from the council then, but a businessman?

_________________
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:02 pm
Posts: 88
Team Supported: Darlington
Quakerz wrote:
Just a fucking bit like.

As for my questions, they weren't really answered, specifically the council taking 75% of car boots etc - this I think was suggested by Raj Singh. I only wanted to know if it was true or not.

I agree with eek that reading through the plans that you have to wonder if the development would make enough money anyway.


Hardly you stated that I was from the council and then asked me questions regarding car boot fairs that I ain't got a clue (or care) about.

Now I can talk about planning because I know a bit about that and running a business but I can't really help when it comes to how the council / Raj / S&S mismanaged the stadium


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 980
Team Supported: Darlington
Quakerz wrote:
eek wrote:
That the council has done everything it can to help the football club be viable. The fact owners haven't done anything with it is not the councils fault.

Oh and as the council said today shopping is a no no.


You are quite clearly from the council.

Is it true that the council takes 75% from the car boot sales etc. Do you realistically think any of the plans submitted by the club in the past can make the club viable, and would the council be entitled to 75% of the "profits"?


Q - that is completely incorrect. All the council have afik is the covenant on the land. It is not in any of the paper work that i have seen relating to the site.

If you want to check yourself get on the land registry website and down load the title doucments and get a copy of the planning permission from the council.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:02 pm
Posts: 88
Team Supported: Darlington
Quakerz wrote:
So you're not from the council then, but a businessman?


Small businessman. Sadly without enough cash to run a football club and with even less desire to do so.

All I've been doing on here is pointing out the reality that for S&S the land and the stadium are worthless. The only way they have a hope of making any money from that land is to try and keep the club in there.

And yes I don't think the stadium is the best place for the club but as anywhere else would cost millions to build its probably the best hope we've got.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20959
Team Supported: Darlington
MKDarlo wrote:
Quakerz wrote:
eek wrote:
That the council has done everything it can to help the football club be viable. The fact owners haven't done anything with it is not the councils fault.

Oh and as the council said today shopping is a no no.


You are quite clearly from the council.

Is it true that the council takes 75% from the car boot sales etc. Do you realistically think any of the plans submitted by the club in the past can make the club viable, and would the council be entitled to 75% of the "profits"?


Q - that is completely incorrect. All the council have afik is the covenant on the land. It is not in any of the paper work that i have seen relating to the site.

If you want to check yourself get on the land registry website and down load the title doucments and get a copy of the planning permission from the council.


I'm not stating that it is true, I was asking if it is true. I didn't think it was but I'm sure Raj made reference to it regarding car boot sales etc - maybe my memory is going.

_________________
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 980
Team Supported: Darlington
i thought he said that as well which is why I dug out as much stuff as i could find and i couldnt find the clasue he talked about.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:02 pm
Posts: 88
Team Supported: Darlington
Quakerz wrote:

I'm not stating that it is true, I was asking if it is true. I didn't think it was but I'm sure Raj made reference to it regarding car boot sales etc - maybe my memory is going.



Well let me google that for you

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/l ... oot_sales/ says that the club was allowed to start them again

but http://www.darlington-fc.net/page/NewsD ... 33,00.html says that the council was running it which explains why those figures are probably correct.

and http://www.darlington-fc.net/page/NewsD ... 94,00.html says its a revenue earner for both sides.

I can't however find anything which explains how the council ended up running it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Darlopartisan, Google [Bot] and 42 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group