ponsaelius

But Burnley had only won X games after X, they were never gonna go on a run

Cheers for this. Found the original committee report for the later one here as well. Golf course allowed as a sports and recreation exception, houses allowed under exceptional circumstances in Green Belt as an enabling development to being the Hall back into use. Obviously the enabling development won't be needed in new instance - but this sets a clear precedent for something to be allowed if it can bring the Hall and historic park and gardens back into use.

Interestingly that draw for Leeds has actually pulled their odds right in to just 7/2 now, rather than helping them out.

Yeah I seem to remember getting a bit of jip for even suggesting Burnley might get to 36. There is always a chance that teams down the bottom put runs together near the end of the season. There is every chance Burnley/Everton push each other and raise the threshold right up now. I am very glad we are well out of it with our last 4 games.

Sorry like, I'm bored of debating it now, but this is just wrong. Green Belt land is removed with the adoption of strategic planning policies when council's adopt/prepare new local plans. This is a process which take years upon years (some council's Local Plans are literally decades old) and has to be fully justified - e.g. to meet housing need or for strategic transport infrastructure. You cannot simply pick a plot of land in the middle of the Green Belt and allocate it for a specific use to serve a private company overnight. It is statutorily - but more importantly practicably - impossible. Newcastle and Gateshead's current local plan runs to 2030. I personally wish it was as easy to remove land from the Green Belt as you make it out to be, and that the planning process was as fluid as that, but it really isn't anything of the sort. The only possibility for development on Green Belt land would be getting planning consent justifying it under an appropriate use or under exceptional circumstances.

But it really doesn't happen like that in reality. Removing land from the Green Belt is a huge statutory nightmare - and happens strategically over an extended period of time to meet wider strategic needs. It's a lottery for incumbent landowners - and then a scramble for the housebuilders to get their hands on the sites once they're removed from the Green Belt or allocated in LP for housing. This doesn't rule out pursuing planning consent on Green Belt land. One of the exceptions is for outdoor sports facilities (and as Jackie Broon has pointed out Burnley got consent for an extension to their existing training ground). It does probably limit the intensity and scale of the development though (in terms of the actual buildings themselves). Ultimately it is elected councilors who would decide.

That's interesting to know - was it an expansion of an existing one or brand new?

This is simply not true at all. There is a big difference between what is a 'greenfield' site and what is Green Belt land. Green Belt is land statutorily designated by local authorities to prevent urban sprawl. You basically cannot build anything on it (see the link I posted above which shows the few exceptions). Even building a moderately sized extension to a house in Woolsington is difficult, and a single house extremely difficult unless replacing an existing building. It is a huge part of the UK planning system and significantly (and deliberately) prevents expansions of existing urban areas - essentially drawing an arbitrary line on a map. Land is removed from it on a piecemeal approach (see recent land release sites in Newcastle @ Callerton and Throckley) and this is when the big housebuilders get onto it (when it isn't Green Belt anymore). But these are sites which are removed from the Green Belt for strategic reasons (e.g. to serve housing needs) and is a long term and highly political process which forms part of the council's Local Plan. This will not happen (indeed can't, statutorily) happen to serve a private developer on whim. Again - if you ask me it's a load of nonsense. A sensible country would add a load of metro stops between Kenton Bank Foot and the Airport, extend it out to Ponteland, and turn it into a suburban extension of Newcastle. But instead we protect the countryside sensibilities of landowners, build 4000 houses on Great Park without any public transport infrastructure and run tokenistic (probably) loss running trains to the airport.

For clarity on the above - Leicester's training ground was built on an old golf course and was not designated Green Belt land. Leicester as a city does not have a Green Belt.

It is Green Belt. Greenfield land is just a generic term for undeveloped agricultural/natural land that has not been previously used for development before. Green Belt is land statutorily designated as such by local authorities to prevent urban sprawl with development severely restricted on it. If you ask me personally Green Belt is an archaic load of tosh that prevents us acting like a serious country in terms of expanding our towns and cities sustainably, is exploited for political means by NIMBYs to protect land values, and exacerbates the housing crisis. But it is what it is and it will likely limit options for development around that area.

Most of the land around Woolsington Hall (and indeed Woolsington itself) is Green Belt land. Has limited any extensive construction there in the past IIRC. Very few exceptions in terms of development which is allowed on Green Belt land - see Para 149. Provision of outdoor sport is one of them. I think a PL football training facility might be a stretch of that mind.

We could probably get money for him, considering his age and wages, unlike a lot of the other deadwood. I like the lad but he's limited.

You could hear them on the stream I was watching. We were guessing which one was gonna be sung next. Lovenkrands, Ameobi, Shearer, Colo, Gutierrez etc

Paqueta looked like such a non-event of a footballer when he was at Milan, it still leaves me unsure. No doubt he must have massively improved since then.

Yeah we'd get a fee for Hayden but the rest of those would basically need paying off. They're all in their 30s as well.

His signing in January was absolutely essential in giving the team a coherent shape and structure. And yet at the same time he's also the player we'd benefit most from replacing with somebody of real quality.

But equally we will have lots of occasions where passing it around gets you nowhere. You need different options - he provides something totally different and unpredictable to everybody else in our squad.

Been really good in general during the last few months like. I can't believe the Albert chant has never been rolled out for him. Lack of understanding on pronunciation of German characters at fault.

He's clearly on another level. Cabaye was a good player for us but he was not very mobile and couldn't take players on - which is a big weakness for a modern central midfielder.

He can go in a couple of seasons if he can't adapt and we progress but currently he's still one of our best players, has played more minutes than anybody else, and has more combined g+a than anybody else in the squad. We've got enough of a rebuilding job on without jettisoning our best players.

I'd personally prefer we side a more sturdy central midfielder and get creativity in the form of wide players - ideally with pace. Paqueta is a good footballer but I'm not convinced of signing that kind of #10.

Going forward for a fullback isn't always about being a flying attacker. Sometimes solid distribution, and competence in possession, can be enough especially if you have an attacking player in front. I've been really impressed by how solid a footballer he is. It's shown how short we've been of good fullbacks in recent years.

That's just in the league like. 467 in all comps.

As ever the bloke who spends most of the game with the ball trying stuff (and yes ultimately failing) gets more stick than the players literally doing fuck all. It's tedious as fuck to be honest.

Agree, sell Bruno too. Imo let's get rid of all of our best players.