- Status
Animal Farm
Player Valuation: £1.5m
Got to be 1 of your funniest posts ever.
A post that makes you look like a complete ******* ****head.
You said that its approximately 3 miles between Thingwall and Greasby and guess what the average walking speed is?.... 3 miles per hour!
Meaning that it would take an hour to walk through Arrowe Park, and Kirkby is certainly bigger than Arrowe ******* park.
Its the applicants who are stating the 45minute figure, not the opponents, why would they lie?
HalewoodBlue_ver.2.0
Player Valuation: £10m
A post that makes you look like a complete ******* ****head.
You said that its approximately 3 miles between Thingwall and Greasby and guess what the average walking speed is?.... 3 miles per hour!
Meaning that it would take an hour to walk through Arrowe Park, and Kirkby is certainly bigger than Arrowe ******* park.
Its the applicants who are stating the 45minute figure, not the opponents, why would they lie?
It wouldnt take me 45 mins to walk 3 miles so your post is complete rubbish
A post that makes you look like a complete ******* ****head.
You said that its approximately 3 miles between Thingwall and Greasby and guess what the average walking speed is?.... 3 miles per hour!
Meaning that it would take an hour to walk through Arrowe Park, and Kirkby is certainly bigger than Arrowe ******* park.
Its the applicants who are stating the 45minute figure, not the opponents, why would they lie?
Think something is lost in translation surely?
The majority of the car parking can not be 45 minutes from the ground.
Oh, and;
Contributions must not:
a ) Contain any material which is defamatory of any person;
b ) Contain any material which is obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory;
p) Poor, profane or obscene language of any type is not welcome - even in jest.
Animal Farm
Player Valuation: £1.5m
Well you walk significantly faster than the average walking speed then, either that or just some kind of ******* ****head who talks utter bullshit on a regular basis!!!
Hmm? I wonder which one it could be?
HalewoodBlue_ver.2.0
Player Valuation: £10m
Well you walk significantly faster than the average walking speed then, either that or just some kind of ******* ****head who talks utter bullshit on a regular basis!!!
Hmm? I wonder which one it could be?
Or your 'facts' is a complete load of bull. Since your a no voter thats the one i will go for
Animal Farm
Player Valuation: £1.5m
Alrite, soz, ill tone down the language
Animal Farm
Player Valuation: £1.5m
Yeah nice one mate, I feel like a complete idiot now that you have said that
HalewoodBlue_ver.2.0
Player Valuation: £10m
Yeah nice one mate, I feel like a complete idiot now that you have said that
Are you going to be another none goer?
Good man. Disagree all you want, just the language we have to moan about.
Easy enough to improvise. Just call people melons instead.
I voted no, but i would travel to watch Everton on the moon and im scared of flying..........
Animal Farm
Player Valuation: £1.5m
If Kirkby happens (which I doubt) I will go. Im not going to let the location of our ground rob me of something that I have lived and breathed for 24 years.
But the location is an extremely bad one, its far worse than Goodison Park, the argument to move there is extremely poor, there are only two winners if we move there... Bill kenwright and Liverpool FC.
45 minute walks to the ground, que's of 11,000 people, 200 buses lined up to take you back to Aintree, 3000 people waiting in an uncovered Kirkby car park for an hour in order to board a train.
Its ridiculous, lets face it kirkby is about as poor a location as you can possibly get!
HalewoodBlue_ver.2.0
Player Valuation: £10m
Well we never agree on what you say above. I not only think its a good location its the only location available
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
For the lads getting their petition together to appeal the Bellefield decision: here's the full decision of the Inspector from the Department of Communities and Local Government regarding the Bellefield decision: http://www.keioc.net/uploads/files/Bellefield%20Decision.pdf
On the main contested issue of the dispute concerning the city's housing stock the council basically argued that it had a catalogue of existing sites ready for development for housing purposes and that this fulfilled their obligation under the guidelines issued by the recently adopted Regional Spatial Strategy adopted by the Government Office for the North West. The club argued that this provision didn't include enough choice at the top end of the housing market range - hence their application to build luxury houses. Here's what the Inspector judged on what was to be the crucial decision:
On the main contested issue of the dispute concerning the city's housing stock the council basically argued that it had a catalogue of existing sites ready for development for housing purposes and that this fulfilled their obligation under the guidelines issued by the recently adopted Regional Spatial Strategy adopted by the Government Office for the North West. The club argued that this provision didn't include enough choice at the top end of the housing market range - hence their application to build luxury houses. Here's what the Inspector judged on what was to be the crucial decision:
28. .....The Council has made an informed judgement, following discussions with developers where possible, and I am satisfied that the Council’s assessment of achievability is
robust. Whilst I note the current imbalance in housing types, I am not persuaded that the composition of planning permissions already granted is so out of kilter with what is required as to result in a less than reasonable
prospect of those sites in the supply chain being developed.
robust. Whilst I note the current imbalance in housing types, I am not persuaded that the composition of planning permissions already granted is so out of kilter with what is required as to result in a less than reasonable
prospect of those sites in the supply chain being developed.
29. In the context of this appeal neither am I persuaded that the appeal proposal is any more attractive to the market or more likely to be developed than any other of the developments which currently have planning permission and
contribute to the 5 year supply. The Council rightly point out that it is the football club rather than a housing developer pursuing this appeal. I note that the only evidence before the Inquiry as to developer interest is in the form of
an offer (not a concluded agreement) to the football club which is predicated on a different type of development being substituted for the appeal proposal.
contribute to the 5 year supply. The Council rightly point out that it is the football club rather than a housing developer pursuing this appeal. I note that the only evidence before the Inquiry as to developer interest is in the form of
an offer (not a concluded agreement) to the football club which is predicated on a different type of development being substituted for the appeal proposal.
49. Policy Statement H6 allows residential development outside the Housing Market Renewal Initiative (HMRI) where it would provide demonstrable regeneration benefits and would not undermine
the HMRI as a whole. I have concluded that the appeal proposal would not provide the demonstrable regeneration benefits demanded and further, I am not satisfied that it would not undermine the delivery of the HMRI as a whole.
the HMRI as a whole. I have concluded that the appeal proposal would not provide the demonstrable regeneration benefits demanded and further, I am not satisfied that it would not undermine the delivery of the HMRI as a whole.
50. In the context of housing land supply in excess of 5 years, it remains important that new housing development is appropriately directed. The Council’s SPD supplies the finer policy details and is a material consideration of significant
weight (albeit slightly reduced). Taking all the above matters into consideration I conclude that to allow the development of a greenfield site, albeit in a sustainable location, outside the HMRI which cannot demonstrate significant regeneration benefits would be harmful to the policy objectives of
seeking to secure the successful regeneration of the HMRI area.
weight (albeit slightly reduced). Taking all the above matters into consideration I conclude that to allow the development of a greenfield site, albeit in a sustainable location, outside the HMRI which cannot demonstrate significant regeneration benefits would be harmful to the policy objectives of
seeking to secure the successful regeneration of the HMRI area.
And that, gentlemen, was the rub of the matter.
Last edited:
- Status
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
