Residents Together in the Advertiser

[oafcprozac]

Looks like they're going to try every trick in the book exactly like they did over Sportspark 2000.

 

THE group opposing Latics’ redevelopment plans boycotted Tuesday’s meeting and issued a statement citing fears for their personal safety – and alleging the decision was a "done deal" beforehand.

 

The statement said: "We have been advised by two leading figures, on separate occasions, of the potential for abuse and intimidation over this matter. We understand also that there have been specific threats made to an individual and his family as a result of this application. We are not convinced that the steps needed to avoid any incidents have been taken."

 

It added: "We do not believe our attendance would make any difference to the result. We feel it is a done deal and this meeting is something of a stitch up."

 

Residents Together allege the council planning department has taken "unusual steps" whilst "every pressure possible has been piled on to committee members and the case has been brought back with unseemly haste".

 

The group again rejected the expert traffic projections and vowed to continue their fight.

 

"We do have a number of alternative ways to defend our neighbourhood from such an overbearing development than the planning process, where intimidation and pressure may not be quite so successful. This issue is far from over"

 

PLANNERS cited three reasons when rejecting Oldham Athletic’s original planning application on November 14: the scale and massing of the proposed development, traffic issues and the loss of open space. So what was done to rectify these concerns?

 

 

SCALE: Latics’ amended plans made reductions in the height and impact of the proposed residential blocks nearest to homes in Downham Close. However, as the original proposed number of apartments (693) remained the same, some blocks in the centre of the site increased to eight storeys in height. Club officials say each unit lost would cost around £30,000 and there is no alternative funding sources available.

 

 

TRAFFIC ISSUES: Data in the traffic report was clarified. Traffic consultants JMP independently reviewed it and found it to be both "acceptable and accurate". However, the football club has now also agreed to make a financial contribution towards improved pedestrian crossing facilities needed at the junction of Sheepfoot Lane and Rochdale/Oldham Road.

 

 

LOSS OF OPEN SPACE: The plans still include the demolition of the Clayton Arms sports hall and ‘Little Wembley’ training pitch. But Latics have now agreed to a new so-called section 106 agreement. That would mean the club would provide replacement changing facilities at Clayton Fields, and possibly a new artificial pitch at Cathedral Road.

 

 

Full link:-

http://www.oldhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1...w_state_of_play

 

"The Advertiser understands third parties have no right to appeal, but the group could seek a judicial review providing it has a firm legal basis upon which to challenge the decision.

 

However, Latics’ co-owner Simon Blitz said he hopes that will not happen and confirmed again the club’s intention to continue consulting residents.

 

"We’re not going to stick two fingers up at them," he said. "We want to build something that they will be proud to live next door to."

 

Full link:-

http://www.oldhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1...sh_the_boundary

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

I think they're clutching at straws now. They don't really have much of a case, the development was changed. They're STILL bleating about the traffic [non]issue and trying to use the fact someone may have said something to one of them as a matter which could make it all null and void.

 

It could go to a judicial review but it'll be laughed out. There just isn't enough evidence of any wrong-doing, the club has done everything correctly and the development is absolute huge. People at the council and the club worked immensley hard to have this brought back, there's just no way a small band of residents can do enough to stop it now.

 

I think the legal cost of such an action will dissuade them anyway, given they'll likely lose it.

[oafcprozac]

I think they're clutching at straws now. They don't really have much of a case, the development was changed. They're STILL bleating about the traffic [non]issue and trying to use the fact someone may have said something to one of them as a matter which could make it all null and void.

 

It could go to a judicial review but it'll be laughed out. There just isn't enough evidence of any wrong-doing, the club has done everything correctly and the development is absolute huge. People at the council and the club worked immensley hard to have this brought back, there's just no way a small band of residents can do enough to stop it now.

 

I think the legal cost of such an action will dissuade them anyway, given they'll likely lose it.

 

 

Judicial Review Procedure Link

 

http://www.planningsanity.co.uk/forums/leg...hallenge.htm#jr

[Inspiral_Carpet]

This was one of the things that concerned me when I heard that the Residents weren't turning up because of alleged concerns about their safety and that they would use this as grounds for a Judicial Review.

 

Advice was taken at the time and I can tell you there are no such grounds. The Chief Executive of Oldham Council did not believe that there was a need to hold the meeting behind closed doors (previous meetings having been totally trouble-free) but offered to increase Security to allay any fears. The Residents however had no intention of attending. It was believed that their purpose was in order to prejudice the meeting (ie they assumed the Application would be approved) however it is not justifiable and certainly not "a firm legal basis" on which to launch a Judicial Review.

 

If you read their letter posted to Residents the night before the meeting, it is just a bit of hearsay and innuendo. "Someone said they received threats", "two people have said we should be concerned about our personal safety" etc. is very woolly to say the least. Also, implications that the previous two meetings - and the peaceful protest march were intimidatory is clearly wrong. The third meeting on Tuesday was impeccably observed and the only noise from the audience came with a polite smattering of applause upon the votes being cast.

 

The simple fact is that should there have been threats, then these would have been reported to The Police. As I understand it, no such complaints were ever made.

 

There is still a long way to go. The plans are only outline and further permission will need to be granted. All the concerns that the Council had previously were answered which enabled them to approve the Application second time around. TTA have promised to keep the Residents involved in the discussions.

 

In return, the Residents appear to want to scupper the plans using red tape and any other means that they can find. I am sure they will be relying on various Convenants and hopefully the OAFC Legal Team have already done their homework on this one making sure that none will be breached by the plans. I think that was what was said by Geoff Willerton the other night. Besides, it is Oldham Council who are Trustees of The Clayton Playing Fields and as long as they are happy, then I think we should be ok. Despite not having to, Latics are going to significant expense in replacing the privately owned facilities that are being lost.

 

I hope that the Residents understand the alternatives should this get delayed and TTA eventually pull-out and sell the whole plot to Property Developers. Also, they need to realise if they make life hard for TTA, then I would guess that they are likely to get marginalised in the discussions.

[OldhamSheridan]

Judicial Review Procedure Link

 

http://www.planningsanity.co.uk/forums/leg...hallenge.htm#jr

 

Pivotal part appears to be:

 

Although a word of causion must be made on the potential for exorbiant costs being awarded against the litigant who loses, litigants in person, usually have their minds clouded by what they perceive to be the moral rights of their case.

 

Sums them up really.

[danoafc]

I hope that the Residents understand the alternatives should this get delayed and TTA eventually pull-out and sell the whole plot to Property Developers. Also, they need to realise if they make life hard for TTA, then I would guess that they are likely to get marginalised in the discussions.

 

Perhaps it should be pointed out to the residents that one of the alternatives could be turning the whole of the car park into a permanent 'traveller' settlement.

 

Wonder how they'd like that?

[oafcprozac]

This was one of the things that concerned me when I heard that the Residents weren't turning up because of alleged concerns about their safety and that they would use this as grounds for a Judicial Review.

 

Advice was taken at the time and I can tell you there are no such grounds. The Chief Executive of Oldham Council did not believe that there was a need to hold the meeting behind closed doors (previous meetings having been totally trouble-free) but offered to increase Security to allay any fears. The Residents however had no intention of attending. It was believed that their purpose was in order to prejudice the meeting (ie they assumed the Application would be approved) however it is not justifiable and certainly not "a firm legal basis" on which to launch a Judicial Review.

 

If you read their letter posted to Residents the night before the meeting, it is just a bit of hearsay and innuendo. "Someone said they received threats", "two people have said we should be concerned about our personal safety" etc. is very woolly to say the least. Also, implications that the previous two meetings - and the peaceful protest march were intimidatory is clearly wrong. The third meeting on Tuesday was impeccably observed and the only noise from the audience came with a polite smattering of applause upon the votes being cast.

 

The simple fact is that should there have been threats, then these would have been reported to The Police. As I understand it, no such complaints were ever made.

 

There is still a long way to go. The plans are only outline and further permission will need to be granted. All the concerns that the Council had previously were answered which enabled them to approve the Application second time around. TTA have promised to keep the Residents involved in the discussions.

 

In return, the Residents appear to want to scupper the plans using red tape and any other means that they can find. I am sure they will be relying on various Convenants and hopefully the OAFC Legal Team have already done their homework on this one making sure that none will be breached by the plans. I think that was what was said by Geoff Willerton the other night. Besides, it is Oldham Council who are Trustees of The Clayton Playing Fields and as long as they are happy, then I think we should be ok. Despite not having to, Latics are going to significant expense in replacing the privately owned facilities that are being lost.

 

I hope that the Residents understand the alternatives should this get delayed and TTA eventually pull-out and sell the whole plot to Property Developers. Also, they need to realise if they make life hard for TTA, then I would guess that they are likely to get marginalised in the discussions.

 

Like you I believe that any allegations of intimidation and threats to be completely unfounded. I also take offence at libellous comments relating to 'marching yobs'. Any Judicial review would want to see evidence and police records etc..The problem with the residents around the ground is that they are used to getting their own way over the development of this particular area. Many are retired and not wanting to sound particularly patronising to the local residents but as many are well past retirement age perhaps this has given them renewed vigour and purpose in their daily lives. One thing is for sure this is not over by a long shot and await Heweitt's letter with baited breath. As for TTA selling up and leaving the land to be mass developed anyway, the locals are so blinkered by their own failure to see reason they will probbaly get their just desserts. I respect the way the club wish to work with them, but my patience would have snapped years ago!

[oafcprozac]

Pivotal part appears to be:

 

Although a word of causion must be made on the potential for exorbiant costs being awarded against the litigant who loses, litigants in person, usually have their minds clouded by what they perceive to be the moral rights of their case.

 

Sums them up really.

 

Yeah, that stood out for me too. Haven't got a leg to stand on, I hope!

Edited December 13, 2007 by oafcprozac

[oafc0000]

The residents need to put up and shut up now and work with the club to make the development as pleasing as possible. Very petty....

[jimsleftfoot]

The residents need to put up and shut up now and work with the club to make the development as pleasing as possible. Very petty....

 

And in 5 or 6 years time have a big moan about how there house prices have gone up.

[Diego_Sideburns]

.... retired.... and this has given them renewed vigour and purpose in their daily lives.

 

Did someone mention me?

[Diego_Sideburns]

And in 5 or 6 years time have a big moan about how there house prices have gone up.

 

It would be good if during the consultations by TTA it is suggested to the residents that, in view of their fear of home value depreciation, if the development results in their home value being increased, the increase be donated to charity.

[laticsrblue]

Latics are going to significant expense in replacing the privately owned facilities that are being lost.

 

Hello Mr Carpet

What are the private facilities?

[oafcprozac]

Hello Mr Carpet

What are the private facilities?

Little Wembley and the Clayton Sports Hall, I think

[boboafc]

my advice to those resident's who are not happy that latics are going to build flats etc near their homes is thisfind a new home

[Inspiral_Carpet]

Hello Mr Carpet

What are the private facilities?

 

Prozac is right - Little Wembley and The Clayton Sports Hall.

 

I think it was Councillor Wheeler who used their demise as a reason for rejecting the initial Application since the Council want to be seen to be improving Sports facilities rather than doing away with them. As they are owned by OAFC though, it is none of the Council's business. To their credit, Latics are going to build changing facilities and another pitch for use by the general public.

[daznathe]

march organisers should issue a statement pointing out the march was policed, had no trouble, was deliberatley structured to avoid residents homes to protect the safety of the marchers from attack from the residents and insinuate potential legal action for libelous statements.

[oafcprozac]

march organisers should issue a statement pointing out the march was policed, had no trouble, was deliberatley structured to avoid residents homes to protect the safety of the marchers from attack from the residents and insinuate potential legal action for libelous statements.

 

I agree, the resident's comments are particularly underhand and border on the libellous imo. Could we collectively ask the Chronicle to retract those comments? Or perhaps one of the Trust Directors could get in touch with the editor and let him know in no uncertain terms that such throwaway quotes will not be tolerated by decent hardworking, law abiding citizens who will not sit back and allow their reputations to be tarnished for having the audacity to be a football fan.

[garcon]

The Chronicle published those comments as quoted comments, not fact. So the Chron has no need to retract them. But by all means write in to refute them and sho the residents for the liars they are.

[jorvik_latic]

We understand also that there have been specific threats made to an individual and his family as a result of this application. We are not convinced that the steps needed to avoid any incidents have been taken."

 

I reckon this is Bashforth. Was it ever proven that these threats have been made. Is there any way of checking police records- if it was true then he would have reported it.

[garcon]

Bashforth or Harrison is my guess.

 

My heart bleeds. Particularly for the latter.

[jorvik_latic]

Bashforth or Harrison is my guess.

 

My heart bleeds. Particularly for the latter.

Yep. My point is though that they may be twisting some councillors potential lie to make it sound like the residents have been threatened.

[garcon]

Oh indeed, and I strongly suspect that's the case.

[Senor_Coconut]

On traffic they have no basis to complain, I believe two reports and a detailed review of the findings have proved the figures are right, same goes for the club replacing private facilities with public ones.

[Rick]

Lets remember that when the local residents bought their properties, they maybe expected that the ground would be redeveloped at some point and that we may tarmac the car park.

 

The size and scale of our proposed development - that is needed to secure the financial future of the club - is probably what they are bothered about.

 

Most of the residents will fear the change, but would come out in support of Latics if we were building a new stadium behind someone else's house. Unfortunately, wherever large developments happen there will be local people who will complain. "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time" rings true as does the NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) acronym. How do you think the residents near to the new Kingsway Business Park development felt? M60?

 

So in all, I don't think that we should slag the ressies off but understand how they must feel and empathise with them. It mustn't be nice, but someone has to go through the inconvenience and it just so happens that it is them.