3g pitch

[netherfieldlion]

Although I was initially disappointed to hear we were losing our grass pitch I was persuaded it was in the best interests of the club. The associated development of the existing 3G pitch also appealed to me in terms of facilities at the ground.

I’d like to see the club now invest in the ground in terms of, safer access to the seating area, catering facilities (something the Supporters Club have already started discussions with the club on) and in conjunction with Raise The Roof a covered terrace.

The alternative is having had such grand plans that the club stagnates.

An important few weeks ahead in terms of what happens next.

[guiseleyguile]

Has Guiseley school had the same restraints - as far as I know the laying of a 3G is going ahead there. Parking not much more than we have got and further away from pitches. I think some of our fishy issues are still to do with the old leasing on the area as a public park. Some people are living in the dark ages I’m afraid. The board has plenty to think about over the summer months but some ground improvements are definitely required.

[Nik]

Apr 13, 2024 10:21:15 GMT 1 guiseleyguile said:

Has Guiseley school had the same restraints - as far as I know the laying of a 3G is going ahead there. Parking not much more than we have got and further away from pitches. I think some of our fishy issues are still to do with the old leasing on the area as a public park. Some people are living in the dark ages I’m afraid. The board has plenty to think about over the summer months but some ground improvements are definitely required.

I had a look at the St Mary’s application yesterday. From application to discharge of all conditions took 2.5 months. They had a detailed plan as to who would be hiring the pitch but you’d expect them to make the business case, it was mainly grant-funded. I didn’t see general procedural stuff about running a building site being blown up into conditions of permission or maddening nit-picking like you can see on ours.

[guiseleyguile]

I presume you mean Guiseley School not St Mary’s as you say Nik ? But we rest our cases !!

[plasticman]

I'd be interested to hear the opinion of m'learned friends as to the legality of the council placing a planning requirement restricting the price a commercial body can charge for its service, particularly when limiting it to what the council charges for its own, though much inferior, service.

For example, could the council demand that a commercial company only charge for a care home what the council charges? Surely it's at least both anti-competitive and restraint of trade for a start?

[Nik]

Apr 13, 2024 11:15:07 GMT 1 guiseleyguile said:

I presume you mean Guiseley School not St Mary’s as you say Nik ? But we rest our cases !!

No I mean St Mary’s - I worked there at the time!

[guiseleyguile]

Apologies Nik !!

[Nik]

Apr 13, 2024 17:08:55 GMT 1 guiseleyguile said:

Apologies Nik !!

It’s alright! I just looked it up because I knew it was a similar project but with public funding and took grass fields away from an actual school (not a private stadium) and lo and behold it was a short and constructive process.

[GAFC 1909]

Apr 13, 2024 15:34:41 GMT 1 plasticman said:

I'd be interested to hear the opinion of m'learned friends as to the legality of the council placing a planning requirement restricting the price a commercial body can charge for its service, particularly when limiting it to what the council charges for its own, though much inferior, service.

For example, could the council demand that a commercial company only charge for a care home what the council charges? Surely it's at least both anti-competitive and restraint of trade for a start?

This is the point I was also trying to make. The decision is a really shaky one from the council, but it seems like our inept board have just given up again. The fact that we are not appealing/arguing this decision is baffling to me given the potential financial benefits the pitch would bring over the years.

[plasticman]

I suspect that the problem comes down to cost. The club are baulking at £200 for a revised planning application. £200 wouldn't go very far engaging one of our m'learned friends.

However, I'd be surprised if amongst our faithful there wasn't someone who could offer an informed opinion on a pro bono basis, if only to offer some wording to draft a letter to Leeds council's planning department, perhaps copying all local concillors, the Mayor etc. outlining the basis for legal action against the council.

It's amazing what the correct terminology, addressed to the appropriate elected officers during election season in particular, can achieve.

[troll]

Apr 13, 2024 17:58:28 GMT 1 Nik said:

Apr 13, 2024 17:08:55 GMT 1 guiseleyguile said:

Apologies Nik !!

It’s alright! I just looked it up because I knew it was a similar project but with public funding and took grass fields away from an actual school (not a private stadium) and lo and behold it was a short and constructive process.

I don't know if it impacted the St Mary's proposal, but their grass pitches had been assessed by the Sports Turf Institute and deemed not fit for purpose.

Would St Mary's have fallen under Leeds Council or Bradford?

[Nik]

Apr 14, 2024 8:59:38 GMT 1 troll said:

Apr 13, 2024 17:58:28 GMT 1 Nik said:

It’s alright! I just looked it up because I knew it was a similar project but with public funding and took grass fields away from an actual school (not a private stadium) and lo and behold it was a short and constructive process.

I don't know if it impacted the St Mary's proposal, but their grass pitches had been assessed by the Sports Turf Institute and deemed not fit for purpose.

Would St Mary's have fallen under Leeds Council or Bradford?

I didn’t know that.

Leeds, all the stuff about it is public on the Leeds planning portal.

Although… I will also say that I was wrong above, I can now see there was an initial application without a lot of the detail that their successful one had (and our current one has) that was refused because it lacked detail about replacing grass playing fields with carpet in green belt land. That doesn’t really apply to us as it isn’t an opening playing field or in the green belt.

It was approved in the end and just as well because it’s self evident that these are brilliant facilities to have available for hire locally as well as benefiting the organisation that owns them. You know, like ours would have.

[bigj]

Apr 12, 2024 19:33:49 GMT 1 Nik said:

The conditions included a banksman to guide lorries in and out and a carefully located wheel washing station before giving permission to proceed! We had permission to develop the whole ground without any such nonsense, this is a tiny project of pulling up some turf and putting down a carpet - really don’t understand it.

It is a valid requirement as the only access at present for a large tipper truck is Ings Crescent according to Roger the groundsman and it will require over a hundred trips to remove the top soil down the appropriate depth for the hardcore. Having said that the other planning conditions that have put a halt to thew project are just nonsensical. As regards Sport England someone needs to tell them the clues in the name and the pricing condition is surely a restriction of trade?

[mark1985]

With the restrictions currently imposed think the board have made a sensible decision. With current interest rates any loan required to finance the construction would be relatively high and could put the club in a precarious position rather than its aim of making it more sustainable.

[colinl]

Surely now is the time to get the h**l out of Leeds Council's jurisdiction to a more accommodating Local Authority.
Leeds will, and has, held us back at every opportunity!