Groundhog63 Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Stifler said: Staveley was working on possible sites when she was trying with her 1st bid, she was working with the Duke of Northumberland to buy some land off him. Steer clear of that greedy cunt. He'd still be charging the club ground rent 250 years later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 6 minutes ago, Stifler said: Heard that tweeted today but can’t find evidence of this. Didn’t he buy Woolsington Hall long before he bought NUFC, owned Wynard Hall as well. No it was purchased with the plan of us moving there, it never happened and we moved to Benton. The Halls just let the place rot for years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 Is it big enough for what we need Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 Looks like it could be Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 4 minutes ago, Ben said: Looks like it could be That'll be another of my peaceful dog walking locations gone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 1 minute ago, madras said: That'll be another of my peaceful dog walking locations gone. At least you can set up your own YouTube account Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 1 hour ago, madras said: That'll be another of my peaceful dog walking locations gone. Think if was this time in 1994 when the Hall ownership revealed plans for the same site. There's still hope yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 2 hours ago, Whitley mag said: Apparently keeping Adam P at bay is high up on the list of requirements for the new facility. Imagine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 (edited) 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. Edited April 25, 2022 by ponsaelius Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagCA Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 1 minute ago, ponsaelius said: 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 to 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. If you look at the work Leicester did on their new site, it is definitely achievable. There was a good interview with Leicester's head grounds person (12/13min mark - he talks about ecology habitats) I wonder if setting a certain amount aside for community/foundation to use would benefit any plans that may or may not be being made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 11 minutes ago, ponsaelius said: 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 to 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. Is it Green Belt land or Greenfield land. There is a difference according to my daughter who is a senior planning officer, it’s easier to get planning permission on Greenfield land apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 1 minute ago, FloydianMag said: Is it Green Belt land or Greenfield land. There is a difference according to my daughter who is a senior planning officer, it’s easier to get planning permission on Greenfield land apparently. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagCA Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 Just now, ponsaelius said: 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. Some teams have all the luck eh. Thanks for clarifying, didn't realise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 Calling land "Green Belt" ultimately means nothing. Just an extra hoop or two to jump through to get something built. If a Taylor Wimpey or Bellway (or, in this case, a football club) really want to build on it, the land will get built on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 (edited) That Tyneside Life YouTube channel did a video ages ago about possible training ground sites and picked that one out. Could be someone using that info to talk shite, putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, or there being something to it. Edited April 25, 2022 by Kid Icarus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: Calling land "Green Belt" ultimately means nothing. Just an extra hoop or two to jump through to get something built. If a Taylor Wimpey or Bellway (or, in this case, a football club) really want to build on it, the land will get built on. 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. Edited April 25, 2022 by ponsaelius Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagCA Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 I would love to see some plans soon like, anything that gets close to the facilities of Liverpool, Leicester or Spurs would make me hard. Interestingly, all designed by KSS Group I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 46 minutes ago, ponsaelius said: 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. Burnley's training facility was built on Green Belt land (and not PDL) and wasn't called in by the Secretary of State. It'll all be down to whether there is support from Newcastle City Council, who I'm sure will have been sounded out if the club are looking to buy that land. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said: Burnley's training facility was built on Green Belt land (and not PDL) and wasn't called in by the Secretary of State. It'll all be down to whether there is support from Newcastle City Council, who I'm sure will have been sounded out if the club are looking to buy that land. That's interesting to know - was it an expansion of an existing one or brand new? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, ponsaelius said: 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. 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. Right - but that's kind of my point. We have some green belt land that someone wants to build on. But legally you can't build on green belt land. So, somebody at the LA or council waves the statutory wand and as if by magic...it's no longer green belt! Obviously it's more complicated than waving a wand but the point is that green belt land is only green belt land as long as the current lawmakers want it to be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 Murry Park in Stanley had a covenant on it that it could only be used for recreation...... ...housing estate now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: Right - but that's kind of my point. We have some green belt land that someone wants to build on. But legally you can't build on green belt land. So, somebody at the LA or council waves the statutory wand and as if by magic...it's no longer green belt! Obviously it's more complicated than waving a wand but the point is that green belt land is only green belt land as long as the current lawmakers want it to be. 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. Edited April 25, 2022 by ponsaelius Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 Grass nonces Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 City Counsel should be jumping through ladders to get this investment done -- this is the type of stuff that is generational. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now