Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Numerous outlets having a pop at the attenders for sitting their quietly. Support the team very quietly whilst paying the regime to not support them it would seem.

 

Don't forget to give a big hearty boo the end!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The media can’t make their mind up. One second it’s well done to the Geordies for turning up and moving on from silly boycotts, next minute it’s criticising them for being quiet. All while hardly mentioning the appalling context. Absolute wasters, writing for absolute morons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my expert opinion it is genuinely 50/50 despite the development clearly not being in line with policy - and this is because I do not trust the NCC planning department and they have made numerous decision recently against policy.

 

We (NUST) are considering what to do if the scheme is approved and are ready to explore if there are ground for judicial review through the courts if permission is granted contrary to policy.

Precedent been set here?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-50211941?ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=english_regions&ns_campaign=bbc_news_north_east&ns_source=twitter

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my expert opinion it is genuinely 50/50 despite the development clearly not being in line with policy - and this is because I do not trust the NCC planning department and they have made numerous decision recently against policy.

 

We (NUST) are considering what to do if the scheme is approved and are ready to explore if there are ground for judicial review through the courts if permission is granted contrary to policy.

Precedent been set here?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-50211941?ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=english_regions&ns_campaign=bbc_news_north_east&ns_source=twitter

 

No such thing as precedent in planning. Well there is, but it is complicated - each schemed needs to be assessed on its merits and given the policies remain this is very much a reasonable line to take to object. The fact this was approved would carry little to no weight in planning terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was rejected?

'Ruling against the scheme, government planning inspector Sarah Housden said Blenheim House, where the mural is painted, and the neighbouring Robert Sinclair building were "iconic and landmark buildings at a key gateway to the city centre with a high cultural and historic significance".

The council said it had been "keen to protect" the "high cultural and historic significance" of the building when making its planning decision.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was rejected?

 

Sorry - didn't even read the article as busy - I had wrongly presumed it was about Hadrian's Tower. :embarrassed:

 

Good spot -I'll review the Inspectors report and flag to NUST legal advisors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a precedent but it gives hope that the City Council are serious about protecting the views, in line with their policies. So too the Planning Inspectorate (who comes in for a final say if a proposal gets refused and the applicant appeals).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hugely controversial plans to redevelop land around St James’ Park are expected to go ahead.

 

Despite a huge backlash from Newcastle United fans, city planning chiefs now look set to give their backing to a vision for new flats, offices, and a hotel in Strawberry Place.

 

Toon supporters and city MP Chi Onwurah have complained that the £120m project would block views of the iconic stadium and prevent it from being expanded.

 

But, ahead of a Newcastle City Council planning hearing next week, a new report reveals that local authority officers are recommending the scheme for approval.

 

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/strawberry-place-plans-council-approval-17179890

 

:undecided:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was always going to go ahead, I was talking to one of the commercial real estate bods at work the other week, she'd called it and said the council want the buildings to go up so they can generate tax from them.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Howaythetoon

If more so-called fans took up arms you know, when Ashley first relegated the club, to help drive the cunt out, this wouldn’t even be an issue. The local council are fucking brain dead mind, they haven’t a clue how to run the city centre in terms of planning, remodelling, infrastructure, regeneration etc. that actually benefits the actual local area and local people the most in terms of long term interests environmentally, economically, socially and jobs wise . I guarantee whatever goes up, will end up a dead duck, half empty, or converted into student accommodation in time. I also guarantee the structures will look cheap and nasty, just like the stadium behind it nowadays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

How is the public benefiting from flats being built?

 

They're not "affordable housing" and just like Hadrian's Tower, the majority of the buyers won't be from the area, and they'll be bought to add to their portfolios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

How is the public benefiting from flats being built?

 

They're not "affordable housing" and just like Hadrian's Tower, the majority of the buyers won't be from the area.

Hadrians tower is a good development.

It would be wrong to compare the two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how these will benefit the city other than the council raking in extra business rates etc.

 

The buildings in those images don't particularly look eye catching.  Hastily erected Ashley tat towers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how these will benefit the city other than the council raking in extra business rates etc.

 

The buildings in those images don't particularly look eye catching.  Hastily erected Ashley tat towers.

 

Jobs, taxes, etc. 

 

It wouldn’t be so bad if they were low rise buildings rather than shite idenikit high rises, something the club could have done itself without selling the land anyway. It’s the sale of the land that was the big joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...