PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[ponsaelius]

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?

[Keegans Export]

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.

[Ben]

Murry Park in Stanley had a covenant on it that it could only be used for recreation......

 

...housing estate now.

[ponsaelius]

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

[Fantail Breeze]

Grass nonces

[Kanji]

City Counsel should be jumping through ladders to get this investment done -- this is the type of stuff that is generational. 

[madras]

25 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

 

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.

 

 

 

There's still a load of land  between Newbiggin hall and Kingston Park that could be used. Look at all the building work going  on around Kingston Park towards Woolsington and Brunton then around Callerton and opposite Abbey Farm  which had planning permission for years but for some reason wasn't utilised.

 

I like Green belting, I don't want Ponteland to be swallowed up Newcastle if we don't need to but one of the main things it needs is a transport plan.

[Jackie Broon]

12 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

 

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

 

It was in a field next to their existing training ground, it was approved as a very special circumstance.

 

Here's the application if you're interested https://publicaccess.burnley.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ZZZZY3DTMS564

 

 

 

[mattypnufc]

I’d heard an interesting rumour about the current DWP site, and them moving to town (which we know is happening), and the building they’re getting redone is owned by the Reubens…

 

just so happens the DWP site is next to the current training ground…no idea if it’s two and two together and getting 5, but guessing it’s not against possibilities they want to get that land for a new training complex and/or stadium. 
 

Totally nothing in it concrete, but food for thought. 

[NE27]

1 minute ago, mattypnufc said:

I’d heard an interesting rumour about the current DWP site, and them moving to town (which we know is happening), and the building they’re getting redone is owned by the Reubens…

 

just so happens the DWP site is next to the current training ground…no idea if it’s two and two together and getting 5, but guessing it’s not against possibilities they want to get that land for a new training complex and/or stadium. 
 

Totally nothing in it concrete, but food for thought. 

 

I didn't think tyneview was shifting, just main site?

[MagCA]

4 minutes ago, mattypnufc said:

I’d heard an interesting rumour about the current DWP site, and them moving to town (which we know is happening), and the building they’re getting redone is owned by the Reubens…

 

just so happens the DWP site is next to the current training ground…no idea if it’s two and two together and getting 5, but guessing it’s not against possibilities they want to get that land for a new training complex and/or stadium. 
 

Totally nothing in it concrete, but food for thought. 

Not remote enough, too close to Adam P

[OCK]

Should get that lad to do NUFC's FM data. 

[NE27]

4 minutes ago, MagCA said:

Not remote enough, too close to Adam P

 

Owners are going to install them big electric fences like in Jurassic park.

 

Adam P:

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by NE27

[RodneyCisse]

Just now, NE27 said:

 

Owners are going to install them big electric fences like in Jurassic park.

 

Adam P:

I think he’s about that size too.

[Keegans Export]

18 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

 

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. 

 

Statutory nightmare or not, it happens to the tune of thousands of hectares over the past few years. And "wider strategic needs" is almost intentionally vague.

 

Obviously we can get into the argument about the green belt, should it exist, should it be protected more, should it be removed all together etc but developers love building on it because it's easy & tends to be close to existing infrastructure. So it gets declassified (eventually).

 

Put it this way - if we identify a plot of green belt land that we want to build a training complex on, and the political and public will supports it, that land will not remain green belt, that much I can guarantee you.

[ponsaelius]

29 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Statutory nightmare or not, it happens to the tune of thousands of hectares over the past few years. And "wider strategic needs" is almost intentionally vague.

 

Obviously we can get into the argument about the green belt, should it exist, should it be protected more, should it be removed all together etc but developers love building on it because it's easy & tends to be close to existing infrastructure. So it gets declassified (eventually).

 

Put it this way - if we identify a plot of green belt land that we want to build a training complex on, and the political and public will supports it, that land will not remain green belt, that much I can guarantee you.

 

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.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by ponsaelius

[TheGuv]

37 minutes ago, mattypnufc said:

I’d heard an interesting rumour about the current DWP site, and them moving to town (which we know is happening), and the building they’re getting redone is owned by the Reubens…

 

just so happens the DWP site is next to the current training ground…no idea if it’s two and two together and getting 5, but guessing it’s not against possibilities they want to get that land for a new training complex and/or stadium. 
 

Totally nothing in it concrete, but food for thought. 

I hope not. My rugby club is there!

 

Unless we got an amazing offer, it’s unlikely we’d move (also we’re there as a community club so unlikely to get planning permission for our ground, as far as I’m aware).

 

Edit: Just realised you said DWP and not the Ministry in Longbenton. 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by TheGuv

[Magpie]

6 minutes ago, TheGuv said:

I hope not. My rugby club is there!

 

Unless we got an amazing offer, it’s unlikely we’d move (also we’re there as a community club so unlikely to get planning permission for our ground, as far as I’m aware).

 

Edit: Just realised you said DWP and not the Ministry in Longbenton. 

 

 

 

I think that's what he means as it's HMRC which is moving out of Benton Park View and into Pilgrim Quarter.

 

Can't see them flattening BPV for what it's worth

[MagCA]

10 minutes ago, TheGuv said:

I hope not. My rugby club is there!

 

Unless we got an amazing offer, it’s unlikely we’d move (also we’re there as a community club so unlikely to get planning permission for our ground, as far as I’m aware).

 

Edit: Just realised you said DWP and not the Ministry in Longbenton. 

 

 

 

How are Novos doing these day? Had some memorable games against them when I was playing for Gosforth

[manorpark]

2 hours ago, ponsaelius said:

 

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.

 

That land at Woolsington, Green Belt or not, is inside the City Boundary.

 

I am sure that NUFC, and Jamie Reuben in particular, have a great relationship with the City Council these days.

 

I do not think there will be a problem getting Planning Permission in that part of Newcastle at all.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by manorpark

[woody]

Since Elon is taking over Twitter, this has come out about Elon raging against wor Yasir (): Elon Musk privately raged at Saudi officials over his failed plan to take Tesla private - The Verge

[r0cafella]

7 minutes ago, woody said:

Since Elon is taking over Twitter, this has come out about Elon raging against wor Yasir (): Elon Musk privately raged at Saudi officials over his failed plan to take Tesla private - The Verge

Elon musk behaving like a spilt brat episode infinity. 
 

for anyone budding to be a complete And utter bellend musk is a great case study. 

[mattypnufc]

7 hours ago, Magpie said:

I think that's what he means as it's HMRC which is moving out of Benton Park View and into Pilgrim Quarter.

 

Can't see them flattening BPV for what it's worth

Aye that’s the one. 

[macphisto]

6 hours ago, manorpark said:

 

That land at Woolsington, Green Belt or not, is inside the City Boundary.

 

I am sure that NUFC, and Jamie Reuben in particular, have a great relationship with the City Council these days.

 

I do not think there will be a problem getting Planning Permission in that part of Newcastle at all.

 

 

 

 Hall had planning permission for the training ground at Woolsington in the past. It might have lapsed but there was no problems securing it back then.

[FloydianMag]

8 hours ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Grass nonces

Fuck what have i started😅