oafc0000 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 They will not be entitled to legal aid I wouldnt be so sure about that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I might have got this a bit wrong, but I thought tonight I heard that slightly modified plans had been submitted that meant the land covered by the covenant had now been put back to being open space. It was just a mistake the architect had made with the drawing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I might have got this a bit wrong, but I thought tonight I heard that slightly modified plans had been submitted that meant the land covered by the covenant had now been put back to being open space. It was just a mistake the architect had made with the drawing. The 'Late Information Sheet' dated 10th December stated that in the light of the claim that the proposed development encroaches onto Clayton Playing Fields, the applicant has investigated their title deeds and confirms that OAFC are in sole ownership of the development site. The title deeds were displayed at the meeting for any members of the Committee to inspect. The 'Late Information Sheet' dated 11th December informed the Planning Committee that a revised plan had been received from the Applicant, which removed a small quadrant of land from the development site. The land is at the south west extent of the site, close to Block D and is within the control of the Clayton Trust. I uderstand this relates to a 2ft wide quadrant of land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forte_Baby Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Lets hope we face no more challenges and people such as Simon Hewit keep there gob shut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 The 'Late Information Sheet' dated 10th December stated that in the light of the claim that the proposed development encroaches onto Clayton Playing Fields, the applicant has investigated their title deeds and confirms that OAFC are in sole ownership of the development site. The title deeds were displayed at the meeting for any members of the Committee to inspect. The 'Late Information Sheet' dated 11th December informed the Planning Committee that a revised plan had been received from the Applicant, which removed a small quadrant of land from the development site. The land is at the south west extent of the site, close to Block D and is within the control of the Clayton Trust. I uderstand this relates to a 2ft wide quadrant of land. Straws and grabbing are the words that come to mind. But knowing Hewitt he will search every avenue to put a spanner in the works. Not heard the last of the residents I fear but at least we can get the ball rolling and jump over each hurdle as it presents itself. I think everyone will be a little nervous until Phase 2 begins as we know Phase 1 is pretty much set in stone now (the new North Stand is a given along with the 100 odd proposed dwellings and associated facilities within the stand). Still can't help but feel very jubilant his morning although a little sad that even though the ground is a dump, it is my dump! But it will be fantastic to start the season in 2 or 3 years time in a great new improved ground hopefully in the Championship with the club at least breaking even and the town having a new gateway off the motorway to be proud of! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Still can't help but feel very jubilant his morning although a little sad that even though the ground is a dump, it is my dump! This is the big thing for me - we're redeveloping on the same site, not moving to a new location. No doubt it will be good business to take money from someone for the naming rights of the new Stadium, but WE know it will always be OUR Boundary Park, just across the road from where I and Mrs Sideburns were born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 You were born on Clayton playing fields Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 You were born on Clayton playing fields Clayton Playing Fields cannot be across any road - there's a covenant to prevent it! ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butter Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Was going to ask this on another thread. What can the residents do now to prevent anything from being built/how its built? No doubt they will try everything and anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Their main hope lies with the covenant left by Ida Clayton, but reading the notes from last night it doesn't seem to be relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Their main hope lies with the covenant left by Ida Clayton, but reading the notes from last night it doesn't seem to be relevant. Unless you're Councillor Pendlebury who says that the club should not be trusted and the Council should check the revised plans to make sure we are telling the truth!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 the "clayton issue" has be rectified(it was about 2 square foot of land!!) its all above board and completely ok'd by the council planners,land deeds etc etc. as for mr pendlebury..he could have waffled for britain in the olympics and romped home with gold-his "concerns" were answered in plain english from the experts,but it just washed over him and continued to waffle-some of it absolutley nonsense(in terms of not making any sense to the english language!!) in the end bashforth told him politely to STFU !!! it was just irrelivant blocks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 the "clayton issue" has be rectified(it was about 2 square foot of land!!) its all above board and completely ok'd by the council planners,land deeds etc etc. as for mr pendlebury..he could have waffled for britain in the olympics and romped home with gold-his "concerns" were answered in plain english from the experts,but it just washed over him and continued to waffle-some of it absolutley nonsense(in terms of not making any sense to the english language!!) in the end bashforth told him politely to STFU !!! it was just irrelivant blocks! He certainly needs a new calculator after getting all his sums wrong about hectares and density! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 He certainly needs a new calculator after getting all his sums wrong about hectares and density! that was the moment he was in full bull:censored:e flow! mindboggling! and he gets PAID to say crap like that!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Its time for the residents to grow up, stop spitting there dummies out and work with the club to produce something which will good for everyone.... the club seem willing to work at it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 And I think most of the residents will be if the club involve them in the right way. There will still be obstacles I'm sure, but hopefully some cooperation, consultation and compromise will work them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc_ok Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 The 'Late Information Sheet' dated 10th December stated that in the light of the claim that the proposed development encroaches onto Clayton Playing Fields, the applicant has investigated their title deeds and confirms that OAFC are in sole ownership of the development site. The title deeds were displayed at the meeting for any members of the Committee to inspect. Haven't we heard talk that the club acquired some land from the Clayton Trust at some point, but with conditions attached? If this is the case then the title deeds would indeed show Latics to be the owners, but this may not mean Latics are free to do what they like with the land. I'm no expert in the legalities - it may be that such a sale of land just couldn't happen legally, but the Residents seem to be muttering darkly about a 'Covenant'. If memory serves correctly this came from a letter that Hewitt (I think?) sent to the Chron and we know that he doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good scare-story. Not sure how true it is but this could be the Residents next line of attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulgard Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Its time for the residents to grow up, stop spitting there dummies out and work with the club to produce something which will good for everyone.... the club seem willing to work at it... think it's a little late for that,judging by the 5 or 6 who were in the side room next to the main chamber last night,must only have a couple of years left between them and they would'nt shut up they talked all the way through the bloody meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.