| Warren Farm Approved on 09:14 - Sep 17 with 2712 views | GetMeRangers |
| Warren Farm Approved on 08:38 - Sep 17 by WrightUp5hit___ |
One of the areas precluding any action will be what most developers refer to as the JRP or Judicial Review Period.
Following the approval by Ealing, a challenge can be raised as to the legality of the decision. You need big cojones to do this as more than insignificant costs can (and often are) awarded against you.
Six weeks for that alone, haven't heard anything about work being tendered as yet, nor announcement of "Development Partner" so there is a not inconsiderable period there to take into account.
It's going to take a long time guys, and it's not the clubs fault, just process. |
With JRP, it is more likely as many objections have been put in already. They wont necessarily be successful, as these concerns should have been addressed by the council and the planning committee
Doubt we will hear more before begin of November now |  | |  |
| Warren Farm Approved on 10:07 - Sep 17 with 2652 views | Toast_R |
| Warren Farm Approved on 08:47 - Sep 17 by SomersetHoops |
Although I wanted the club to win this battle, I understand the local community wanting access to some of the open space land at this site. They will gain a community sport venue, if this goes as planned and I expect part of the site will be reserved a public open space.
When people set-up to block plans that have some obvious community benefit its likely they will lose. It would have been better for them if they had negotiated with QPR and the council to ensure the wider community gained the maximum benefit from the development package. I hope the club adopts a "good neighbour" approach and properly does what it has agreed to. |
It would have been better if they were to engage with the club over the proposals but lets face it, the majority of this group really couldn't give a fcuk about the loss of open space when it comes down to it, they're just bored housewives and busy bodies who have nothing better to do then get outraged over the politics rather the the physical changes to the area, all whilst comparing neat and tidy homes during their coffee mornings. [Post edited 17 Sep 2015 10:09]
|  | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 10:16 - Sep 17 with 2634 views | PinnerPaul |
I'm gutted about the waiting batsmen having no shelters myself! |  | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 10:35 - Sep 17 with 2604 views | Deano19766 |
This is the email I have received from the anti Warren Farm development group (about which I reserve my personal position) -
Dear Save Warren Farm supporter,
A quick update on the outcome of last night’s Planning Committee where the second QPR application, promoted by Ealing Council, was reviewed by Planning Committee.
Sadly, but not entirely unexpectedly, the Planning Committee approved this application in spite of all the cogent arguments, focused on planning considerations (ie planning law) presented by our two speakers. Unusually, the Planning Chair allowed us two three minute presentations in objection (enabling the Application also to have two three minute presentations). However, given the 1,400 pages over 67 documents it was nevertheless a challenge to make all of the key points in the time available.
The voting went as follows:
· 10 Labour Councillors plus the Labour Chair voted in favour of the QPR application
· 2 Conservative Councillors voted against the QPR application
· 1 LibDem Councillor did not attend
The next step is for the application to go the Mayor of London for his final sign off. We are re-grouping and taking legal advice before we decide on our next actions, and will get back to you to with suggestions for what you might be able to do to help as soon as we have direction.
For your information, the Planning Department received over 240 letters of objection to the application and only 40 in favour of it.
There are a number of things outstanding that have yet to be resolved. For example, the second Asset of Community Value application submitted by the Save Warren Farm Campaign is yet to be determined by the Council. The first Asset of Community Value application, submitted by Hanwell Community Forum, resulted in the remaining community third of the sports field being listed as an Asset, but not the two thirds of the site that is to be reserved for QPR. This was neither in line with the word of the law, nor in the spirit of the law, but again, probably not a surprising outcome given that the land owner was also the Registering Authority!
Also the two public footpath applications have yet to be determined (again by the Council).
This is not over yet. So, chins up and let’s press on! [Post edited 17 Sep 2015 10:36]
| | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 10:45 - Sep 17 with 2587 views | Dorse |
Cheers Deano - always interesting to see the opposing viewpoint. |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| Warren Farm Approved on 10:57 - Sep 17 with 2563 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
Is this Alan Johnston? |  | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 13:06 - Sep 17 with 2458 views | CamberleyR |
"Hopefully it's full steam ahead now"
 |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Warren Farm Approved on 13:32 - Sep 17 with 2412 views | wrinklyhoop |
| Warren Farm Approved on 00:51 - Sep 17 by Match82 |
"The club is mindful that there are a number of further technical challenges to overcome before work can commence"
Damn those technical challenges. Do you suppose that includes purchasing a spade? |
Yeah suspicious little caveat there! I wonder if 'technical challenges' include stumping up the cash? | | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 13:50 - Sep 17 with 2391 views | Pablo_Hoopsta |
| Warren Farm Approved on 05:47 - Sep 17 by ElHoop |
This woman thinks that we bought them off and now she's sending for Greenpeace!
https://twitter.com/iconiccreative
We'd better start work before this steams into Ealing:
 |
I havent read the tweet, but someone should forward it to Tony and his lawyers, isnt such an accusation slander or some such?
Good news is good news, and this is that. We will see what happens next but it is another step in the right direction.
As for the guy who passed on what he had heard - he didnt ask anyone to believe or get all fed up about it, its just news he had and kindly shared. We arent all right all the time, I was one of the suckers who thought Baggio was joining!  |  | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 14:16 - Sep 17 with 2359 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Warren Farm Approved on 00:55 - Sep 17 by Northernr |
Or getting the fck on with something they promised to do a long time ago? Difficult hurdle that one. |
Extremely difficult without planning permission Clive. |  | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 14:22 - Sep 17 with 2335 views | JonDoeman |
Going by how depressed @SaveWarrenFarm was last night, I think its happening! |  |
| |
| Warren Farm Approved on 14:50 - Sep 17 with 2303 views | Juzzie |
"The next step is for the application to go the Mayor of London for his final sign off"
Well, if the Olympic Stadium/West Ham situation is anything to go by we'll get it signed off no problem. |  | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 16:21 - Sep 17 with 2221 views | GetMeRangers |
| Warren Farm Approved on 13:32 - Sep 17 by wrinklyhoop |
Yeah suspicious little caveat there! I wonder if 'technical challenges' include stumping up the cash? |
I dont think it is a worry over the cash. If you look at the link WestminsteRs kindly posted, you will see some of the technical issues. On top of that is JRP, which lasts six weeks. Often a formality, except where objections have been made during the planning application. It does require the objectors to ask for and fund putting a case together, although their costs are reimbursed if successful. I am sure they will seek legal advice. | | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 16:35 - Sep 17 with 2199 views | danehoop |
| Warren Farm Approved on 16:21 - Sep 17 by GetMeRangers |
I dont think it is a worry over the cash. If you look at the link WestminsteRs kindly posted, you will see some of the technical issues. On top of that is JRP, which lasts six weeks. Often a formality, except where objections have been made during the planning application. It does require the objectors to ask for and fund putting a case together, although their costs are reimbursed if successful. I am sure they will seek legal advice. |
When you actually read the grounds for objection and council response then actually the Save Warren Farm groups objections are pretty weak throughout.
I must confess that were I the council or the club I would take advice over the allegations of corrupt practices which have been made.
Still looks to be quite a few technical issues which need to be bottomed out, but does look to be a much more encouraging position than we had been led to believe a few weeks ago. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Warren Farm Approved on 16:39 - Sep 17 with 2095 views | Northernr |
| Warren Farm Approved on 14:22 - Sep 17 by JonDoeman |
Going by how depressed @SaveWarrenFarm was last night, I think its happening! |
Hmmm, can't begin to think why they're so passionately against this?
|  | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 17:05 - Sep 17 with 2060 views | RangersDave |
240 against and only 40 for!!! really? |  |
| |
| Warren Farm Approved on 17:17 - Sep 17 with 2038 views | Lblock |
| Warren Farm Approved on 17:05 - Sep 17 by RangersDave |
240 against and only 40 for!!! really? |
That's gotta be BS?!
There must've been 50 or 60 from here alone logging onto the portal to say yes
I live locally to this and I'm bang up for it - no matter what club
Clive's link there on the Bentford front speaks volumes
As for the Cons voting against - glad I've stopped supporting them on a local level |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Warren Farm Approved on 17:39 - Sep 17 with 2006 views | queensparker |
Bloody Tories
· 10 Labour Councillors plus the Labour Chair voted in favour of the QPR application
· 2 Conservative Councillors voted against the QPR application
· 1 LibDem Councillor did not attend |  | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 19:22 - Sep 17 with 1942 views | barbicanranger |
| Warren Farm Approved on 16:39 - Sep 17 by Northernr |
Hmmm, can't begin to think why they're so passionately against this?
|
Ha ha, someone should send this to the authorities - surely this is a completely inappropriate thing to comment on from the official save my shyte park twitter account and undermines the credibility of their arguments. |  | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 20:44 - Sep 17 with 1872 views | Deano19766 |
| Warren Farm Approved on 16:39 - Sep 17 by Northernr |
Hmmm, can't begin to think why they're so passionately against this?
|
There really are some very stupid people out there. The people who have put many hours into the campaign will surely be lining up to lynch this person. Doh! | | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 21:47 - Sep 17 with 1814 views | BasingstokeR |
| Warren Farm Approved on 17:17 - Sep 17 by Lblock |
That's gotta be BS?!
There must've been 50 or 60 from here alone logging onto the portal to say yes
I live locally to this and I'm bang up for it - no matter what club
Clive's link there on the Bentford front speaks volumes
As for the Cons voting against - glad I've stopped supporting them on a local level |
That's what I thought when reading this part...
"For your information, the Planning Department received over 240 letters of objection to the application and only 40 in favour of it. "
Is that just physical postal mail. As I would've thought lots of R's fans (more than 40) sent in supportive feedback. |  | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 22:44 - Sep 17 with 1752 views | queensparker |
| Warren Farm Approved on 16:39 - Sep 17 by Northernr |
Hmmm, can't begin to think why they're so passionately against this?
|
What a plum. The power of Twitter to trip up the stupid strikes again | | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 23:49 - Sep 17 with 1688 views | Northernr |
Nah, definitely purely interested in the wildlife this bloke, no ulterior motive at all. | | | |
| Warren Farm Approved on 00:27 - Sep 18 with 1654 views | Northernr |
| Warren Farm Approved on 17:05 - Sep 17 by RangersDave |
240 against and only 40 for!!! really? |
Covered planning committee for newspapers in my first job for five years. That's actually a remarkably good ratio for the 'fors'. Planning meetings I used to attend, in a rural Derbyshire borough, used to start at 7.30 and you'd sometimes still be there until 1am with only a dozen items on the agenda.
When you threaten to change anything, anything at all, near where somebody lives, everybody becomes a raving, swivel eyed loon. It goes beyond NIMBY to BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). Bits of waste ground that nobody has done anything with for years suddenly start being described as "meadows" and people go rummaging through the fcking doomsday book looking for some mention of a public right of way. There's a law somewhere that says if a patch of ground has been used by the public for recreation for a set period of time it can qualify as a "village green". I've seen dozens of people spend months of their lives, and endless hours at planning meetings, desperately trying to convince planners that some brownfield shithole opposite their house is actually a village green because they've walked their fcking dog on it a bit and they don't want a Morrisons building there.
You'd see somebody try and expand their successful business in an old mining town with high unemployment, so they can do more work and take on more people, and all the people without jobs would mass up against it because it might block out some light or make some noise or trample on some fcking newt or other they saw there once while drunk in 1986.
They write letters and pore over every tiny little bit of statute. They gnash and wail and appeal. They engage the local press (me) with every tiny bit of nonsense, blowing it all up out of all proportion to make out like the whole system is corrupt, the council CEO is on the take, the planning board has been bought off. And all it is is delaying. It always happens anyway. I've seen 70 people before go to a planning meeting and use those two minute presentations you get at the start to read from one speech - they just passed it round every time the time was up, so the fcking public speaking went on for 140 minutes for one speech before we even started.
Then they sit and listen and afterwards they object that the whole system was set against them and corrupt, and they walk past the planning officers on the way out after it's been pointed out that their points have no basis in law and say things like "shame on you" to some pore bstrd with a Geography degree on 35k a year in a monotonous planning job.
Fact is people don't like change, and people don't really like other people, so if some other person wants to change something by, say, putting a garage up in the garden at the home they've owned for 40 years, you can bet anything you like somebody somewhere will rustle up 30 letters of objection and a dozen prcks sad enough to go and sit through those meetings through choice.
Approved. It's always approved. And so it should be. We need houses and jobs in this country more than we need a place for you to walk your fcking dog.
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
