St James Forum vs The Re-development

[Mouth of the Exe]

You really are clueless about this Anton.

First, the Forum is a body representing a wide variety of interests. There is no single "self-interest".

Second, the Forum, & the Neighbourhood Plan, predate the current plans for ground redevelopment.

Third, the current plans for ground redevelopment are at odds with the democratically endorsed commitments of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Fourth, & finally the Neighbourhood Plan seeks precisely a balance between the interests of the local residents, the football club, & students (& their rentier landlords).

It's actually the antithesis of nimbyism.

But you'd have to shuck off your blinkers to appreciate that.

 

[GrecianLez]

Serious question

Who is the chairman or lead or figurehead of the SJF??!!

 

[denzel]

The whole premise of the challenge seems to be that it represents a 3% increase in the number of students in the ward which is against its core principles.

Two things in this - how do they know it will be 3% - surely there will be some students who would otherwise have gone elsewhere in the Ward, so the figure will be less.
And given this, what figure will be unacceptable? 1%? 2%? If it's any increase at all then why haven't other decisions been JRed?

The criticism of the club seems to have stirred up Taggy, with references in the letter to the lack of need for a stand and the car parking area I'll advised and frankly amateurish

 

[denzel]

You really are clueless about this Anton.

First, the Forum is a body representing a wide variety of interests. There is no single "self-interest".

Second, the Forum, & the Neighbourhood Plan, predate the current plans for ground redevelopment.

Third, the current plans for ground redevelopment are at odds with the democratically endorsed commitments of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Fourth, & finally the Neighbourhood Plan seeks precisely a balance between the interests of the local residents, the football club, & students (& their rentier landlords).

It's actually the antithesis of nimbyism.

But you'd have to shuck off your blinkers to appreciate that.

How many students voted for the Plan? If it's not many then how can it claim to speak for all residents?

 

[denzel]

The whole premise of the challenge seems to be that it represents a 3% increase in the number of students in the ward which is against its core principles.

Two things in this - how do they know it will be 3% - surely there will be some students who would otherwise have gone elsewhere in the Ward, so the figure will be less.
And given this, what figure will be unacceptable? 1%? 2%? If it's any increase at all then why haven't other decisions been JRed?

The criticism of the club seems to have stirred up Taggy, with references in the letter to the lack of need for a stand and the car parking area I'll advised and frankly amateurish

Sorry having read the letter again I see its 2% not 3%

 

[Antony Moxey]

You really are clueless about this Anton.

First, the Forum is a body representing a wide variety of interests. There is no single "self-interest".

Second, the Forum, & the Neighbourhood Plan, predate the current plans for ground redevelopment.

Third, the current plans for ground redevelopment are at odds with the democratically endorsed commitments of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Fourth, & finally the Neighbourhood Plan seeks precisely a balance between the interests of the local residents, the football club, & students (& their rentier landlords).

It's actually the antithesis of nimbyism.

But you'd have to shuck off your blinkers to appreciate that.

No blinkers on me, it rather seems it's the other way round. Perhaps you should go back to your thesaurus and see if you can come up with some other big words to describe the situation.

 

[Anonymous]

The forum are a bunch of NIMBYs

 

[Herschel]

It's quite simple, if the Forum genuinely believed they had a case, they would just JR the decision immediately.

To "threaten" it to try to get people around a table to amend a PP is nonsensical.............the PP cannot be amended in the way they are suggesting, it would require a completely new application.

They should either put-up or shut-up.

IMO, they will shut-up as they know how much a JR will cost them and their slim chance of success.

Incidentally, for anyone suggesting that not following the NP is grounds for a JR, that's just not correct; if the PP follows the OAHN in general, and the Committee took on board the LP and NP policies, and also took a decision that still follows the principles of the NPPF then, I'm sorry, but there's no case for JR.

I do wonder if some of the people posting on this thread are aware of the Adopted Core Strategy?
How about paragragh 6.28 which says:

" The University’s aim to provide housing for all full-time students who want it is supported because it will ease pressure on existing family housing. 75% or more of additional student numbers should be accommodated in purpose built student housing. New purpose built student housing should be located on, or close to, the University Campuses, at sustainable locations at or near to major transport routes, or in the City Centre."

To support this, the Council has consistently updated their policy re: HMO's and restricting conversion of the existing stock since the original Feb 2008 SPG.

H

 

[Antony Moxey]

Herschel, sorry for being dim but can you expand on what all the initials stand for in your post. Thanks.

 

[REDMIKE]

Herschel reading your thread i believe in the early days it was mentioned that the council would be happy with the proposed development as this would free up the many houses used as student accommodation back into family housing.Perhaps the people leading the Forum protests are owners of the present student accommodation and they would lose their inflated income.