marklion
Northern Counties East
Posts: 18
|
Post by marklion on May 23, 2023 17:28:18 GMT 1
Just shows farsley have got ambition working on improving facilities being sustainable throughout the week what we rely on portacabin for our sponsors. For the club to carry on we should look to relocate if its out of guiseley catchment area we will never win against the locals any plans we submit will never be approved think we need to get with the times loon at the bigger picture and if we are to move forward tough calls need to be made.
|
|
|
|
Post by plasticman on May 23, 2023 18:25:08 GMT 1
A roller for the pitch would be a good start. |
|
|
|
Post by bigj on May 23, 2023 19:48:52 GMT 1
We might have portakabins but our sponsor, bar and refreshemnt facilities are head and shoulder above the Citadel's creaking infrastructure. As for relocating two fundamental questions need answering: (1) Is there a suitable site and (2) who's providing the funding? Because without those two elements it's a non-brainer.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsann on May 23, 2023 20:48:38 GMT 1
Big.J.remember we put out feelers for land on Thorpe Lane before the High Royd's site was massively developed and got the usual objections.
Leeds and Bradford didn't broke any objections to the two massive storage facilities for the retired and elderly though did they ,course not council tax income.
|
|
|
|
Post by latecomer on May 23, 2023 21:28:06 GMT 1
plasticman Avatar
Posts: 227
3 hours ago
farsleyceltic.com/2023/05/farsley-celtic-announce-next-stage-of-full-site-development-at-the-citadel/
Even our friends from otherside are getting there act together
A roller for the pitch would be a good start
Definatly dont need sprinklers!
|
|
|
|
Post by bigj on May 24, 2023 7:25:52 GMT 1
Big.J.remember we put out feelers for land on Thorpe Lane before the High Royd's site was massively developed and got the usual objections. Leeds and Bradford didn't broke any objections to the two massive storage facilities for the retired and elderly though did they ,course not council tax income. Agreed although if memory serves the first facility was on farmland and the second utilises the old High Royds footprint with some additions does it not? |
|
|
|
Post by broomaldo on May 24, 2023 10:01:59 GMT 1
Out of interest what don't you agree with regards the railway end? We are always going to come back to the problem that the land was originally gifted by the Peate family and is now technically owned by Leeds City Council who issue the lease always in favour of the Cricket Club, who historically always object to any changes or improvements the football club instigate,protecting the income from the social club bar as it covers their outgoings before any other profit is shared. On a personal level I would like the grass pitch to stay but see the sense in trying to raise income separate from the cricket club and have never seen the advantage of having covered railway end and supporters financing it. |
|
matt
League One
Posts: 252 
|
Post by matt on Jun 2, 2023 12:49:26 GMT 1
Thumbs up from Sport England and Football foundation for those that are following. Up to the council now.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigj on Jun 2, 2023 15:29:36 GMT 1
They soon changed their mind didn't they? Makes you wonder why they objected in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nik on Jun 2, 2023 16:44:19 GMT 1
They soon changed their mind didn't they? Makes you wonder why they objected in the first place. Procedural reasons only, from my read. They wanted some details that weren't specified, they never seemed against it in principle. |
|
|
|
Post by Nik on Jun 2, 2023 16:45:22 GMT 1
It would be very helpful if anyone local could put on a supporting note... most of the objections are irrelevant like things about our lease (nothing to do with planning) or us using the ground more (we can use it as much as we like already, we just choose not to trash the grass) but there are a lot of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by colin19 on Jun 2, 2023 23:42:14 GMT 1
Well I can’t see any reason that the pitch shouldn’t be approved.
There is a lot of hyperbole from neighbours about parking (not relevant when the new pitch will be used outside of first team matchdays by the same number of people as the cricket club), and other rather tenuous reasons. I only wish we attracted the number of fans that our neighbours like to imagine whenever we make a modest planning application ….
Curious comments from the cricket club. Apparently the ball strike risk is much higher than has been considered in the report. Must be a worry for users of the A65, but relax I suggest the risk should be fine on a cold November Thursday night. Not their finest moment. Thankfully a larger fence would minimise the risk …
I like cricket. I watch it locally frequently. I know that the Guiseley pitch is largely a safe area 🙄
|
|
|
|
Post by netherfieldlion on Aug 23, 2023 7:51:00 GMT 1
Planning Application has now been approved
|
|
|
|
Post by Nik on Aug 23, 2023 10:06:05 GMT 1
Fantastic!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nik on Aug 23, 2023 10:19:26 GMT 1
Reassuring to read that submissions treating the application as a social media thread to debate the content of previous comments (some individuals submitted multiple comments treating it as some sort of discussion forum) were discarded.
Also of note that the irrelevant comments about our lease weren’t referred to in the report or decision notice, as these are nothing to do with a planning decision.
So, aside from the sadness that our friends across the fence still want us to be their enemies, this is excellent news for the club. Regardless of our personal views on grass vs synthetic as a spectacle, this will open the door for the club to position itself at the heart of the community and take us a step closer to being able to fend for ourselves financially.
|
|
