FC United - Oral Hearing - judge rejects appeal (p 82)

Tueartsoverhead kick · 9 Aug 2012

FC United-campaigners launch legal challenge (update page 28

Juat a quick update !!!!!

The 106 has been satisfied as far as the council is concerned. On 26th July 2012 we served Mcc our Pre Action Protocol stating that we have grounds to contest the approval of Planning consent. This was followed up with a paper copy Mcc have 14 days from the date on the doc to respond. Mcc have asked for an extension of 7 days which our solicitor has granted. We have furnished Mcc with as much information as we have in order to speed up their reply.After the 21 days Mcc have 1 of 2 choices: 1. quash the planning application and sign legal docs through the courts to back that up.2. Contest our legal challenge.If Mcc go with option 2 then the judicial review swings into action.NO building work can start for 3 months from the date that the 106 was approved. As soon as that 3 months is up we will place an Injunction on the field to prevent any building work.

Keep wishing us luck !!!!!

newtonheathdave · 10 Aug 2012

Re: FC United - fundraising campaigners seek support (page 25)

Mad Eyed Screamer said:
JM Mcr said:

I agree with you on voter apathy but was pointing out how few votes were cast for the "anti development" candidate as a response to your assumption that Labour lost hundreds of votes because of people's disgust about the councils plans. Traditional voter apathy or not, I would've expected more of a protest vote if there was a great deal of local opposition to the development.

I do take your point about building on parkland but the field has been fenced off for some time. End of the day it really should've been 10 acres lane n I can't see what impact that would have had on City's plans (I had heard a rumour that the plan was cancelled because of City's upcoming development but didn't believe it).

It's even more disappointing when you see the state the 10 acre lane complex has fallen into, it's crying out for investment..

Click to expand...

Adding up the previous 2 elections votes,
2011 = 3595
2012 = 3350

So 245 less people voted this year, and the Labour majority was slashed by 433 (from 2,234 to 1,801)
The Lib Dems polled 312 in 2011.
Taking the 433 and assuming all the Lib Dems voted for Bob, that's 745 - so 185 more people voted for Bob, which I think (in these days of poor turn outs) is very good. Remember, Bob was an independent and funded his own leaflets etc. He had a hardy band of volunteers delivering leaflets but they couldn't drop in every door in the ward. There are a lot of positives to be taken from the election result.

I thought Ten Acres Lane was being developed into a judo (or similar martial arts) centre?
I agree too, that TAL wouldn't have been in competition / a threat to the development at Eastlands and tellingly, there were no complaints at all from locals about FCUM being there.
The council (in my opinion) took that lack of opposition for granted and transferred it to neighbouring Moston assuming the same level of support would apply. This is evident in the councils own assessment of the other two sites along with Moston, considered after TAL fell through. Both the Wythenshawe Park (at the athletics stadium) and Hough End (sharing with Broughton Park RUFC) were felt not suitable due to anticipated opposition from locals - which is exactly what happened in Moston but was then ignored!
The Moston and TAL sites are completely different in terms of surrounding residential areas, access for parking, wildlife, and current use.

There was opposition to FC United in Newton Heath. Don't know why you think there was not.

Mad Eyed Screamer · 10 Aug 2012

Re: FC United - fundraising campaigners seek support (page 25)

newtonheathdave said:
Mad Eyed Screamer said:

JM Mcr said:

I agree with you on voter apathy but was pointing out how few votes were cast for the "anti development" candidate as a response to your assumption that Labour lost hundreds of votes because of people's disgust about the councils plans. Traditional voter apathy or not, I would've expected more of a protest vote if there was a great deal of local opposition to the development.

I do take your point about building on parkland but the field has been fenced off for some time. End of the day it really should've been 10 acres lane n I can't see what impact that would have had on City's plans (I had heard a rumour that the plan was cancelled because of City's upcoming development but didn't believe it).

It's even more disappointing when you see the state the 10 acre lane complex has fallen into, it's crying out for investment..

Click to expand...

Adding up the previous 2 elections votes,
2011 = 3595
2012 = 3350

So 245 less people voted this year, and the Labour majority was slashed by 433 (from 2,234 to 1,801)
The Lib Dems polled 312 in 2011.
Taking the 433 and assuming all the Lib Dems voted for Bob, that's 745 - so 185 more people voted for Bob, which I think (in these days of poor turn outs) is very good. Remember, Bob was an independent and funded his own leaflets etc. He had a hardy band of volunteers delivering leaflets but they couldn't drop in every door in the ward. There are a lot of positives to be taken from the election result.

I thought Ten Acres Lane was being developed into a judo (or similar martial arts) centre?
I agree too, that TAL wouldn't have been in competition / a threat to the development at Eastlands and tellingly, there were no complaints at all from locals about FCUM being there.
The council (in my opinion) took that lack of opposition for granted and transferred it to neighbouring Moston assuming the same level of support would apply. This is evident in the councils own assessment of the other two sites along with Moston, considered after TAL fell through. Both the Wythenshawe Park (at the athletics stadium) and Hough End (sharing with Broughton Park RUFC) were felt not suitable due to anticipated opposition from locals - which is exactly what happened in Moston but was then ignored!
The Moston and TAL sites are completely different in terms of surrounding residential areas, access for parking, wildlife, and current use.

Click to expand...

There was opposition to FC United in Newton Heath. Don't know why you think there was not.

But at what level was the opposition? I never read about it in the MEN or The Advertiser, heard it on GMR etc.
Was there a residents association set up or just mumblings of discontent at presentations?

petrusha · 14 Aug 2012

Re: FC United - fundraising campaigners seek support (page 25)

kismet said:
Thanks Petrushia, I never realised you are Dyed Petya, who was one of the most informative posters on here..........Cheers,

Sorry, missed this post until now, kismet, when I was just looking for something else. Thanks for your kind words.

Tueartsoverhead kick · 15 Aug 2012

Re: FC United - campaigners launch legal challenge (page 27)

Heywoodpunk on the FC forum that's not a very nice thing to call me when you don't even know me! But at least I'm providing you with an up date of what's actually happening because it seems not everybody is aware of the situation unless you discuss it in your members only forum which of course we can't see ;)

Mad Eyed Screamer · 15 Aug 2012