Save our trees say no to speccy's road.

It may be that the area of green lung taken up by the development that actually does overflow outside the area - in spite of their avowed refusal to use any such land from HHP - owned by Akkeron will be one of the important factors.

(And Greenskin, in the beginning was the Word, so we're told.....)

hairy j wrote:

I'm aware of what trees do but this isn't 50 acres of forrest. It's a few trees. Leverage? The best leverage is to oppose it with a massive reason. The main reason for me to oppose it isn't the trees, the small stand or the lack of non-matchday income - it's that not much of this is sport related. The Life Centre, ice-rink, football stadium and a KFC and a cinema and some shops don't mix well. The sport theme needs to be maintained in that area.

I'm no Planning Officer, but if you came to me with a counter-argument against granting permission that the outlets "don't mix well", I doubt the number of seconds before your argument was dismissed would reach more than about 10.

Basing an objection principally around new roads/increased traffic/environmental issues (trees) would be a far more potent weapon to go in to battle with.

Central park should be confined to sporting activities yes to football and ice skating no to cinema and retail outlets, apart from sporting ones. hotel possibly.

Czarcasm wrote:

hairy j wrote:

I'm aware of what trees do but this isn't 50 acres of forrest. It's a few trees. Leverage? The best leverage is to oppose it with a massive reason. The main reason for me to oppose it isn't the trees, the small stand or the lack of non-matchday income - it's that not much of this is sport related. The Life Centre, ice-rink, football stadium and a KFC and a cinema and some shops don't mix well. The sport theme needs to be maintained in that area.

I'm no Planning Officer, but if you came to me with a counter-argument against granting permission that the outlets "don't mix well", I doubt the number of seconds before your argument was dismissed would reach more than about 10.

Basing an objection principally around new roads/increased traffic/environmental issues (trees) would be a far more potent weapon to go in to battle with.

You don't work where I do and have no idea what the political vision was to begin with do you? Massive smiley wink.

That's your ammo.

hairy j wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

hairy j wrote:

I'm aware of what trees do but this isn't 50 acres of forrest. It's a few trees. Leverage? The best leverage is to oppose it with a massive reason. The main reason for me to oppose it isn't the trees, the small stand or the lack of non-matchday income - it's that not much of this is sport related. The Life Centre, ice-rink, football stadium and a KFC and a cinema and some shops don't mix well. The sport theme needs to be maintained in that area.

I'm no Planning Officer, but if you came to me with a counter-argument against granting permission that the outlets "don't mix well", I doubt the number of seconds before your argument was dismissed would reach more than about 10.

Basing an objection principally around new roads/increased traffic/environmental issues (trees) would be a far more potent weapon to go in to battle with.

You don't work where I do and have no idea what the political vision was to begin with do you? Massive smiley wink.

That's your ammo.

Funnily enough I used to work in the City Engineers Dept. (is it even called that any more?) up at Fort Austin and latterly the Civic many moons ago.