Bertie_Dugger Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Big win for Athletic OLDHAM Athletic won through at the second attempt in the planning battle over the new stadium and associated developments. All but one — Keith Pendlebury — of the councillors who caused such a furore by rejecting the first planning application, changed their minds last night and voted instead to accept the development proposals. There were sighs of relief all round, except perhaps among some local residents who boycotted last night’s planning meeting while supporters of the scheme, dressed in Oldham Athletic’s blue, packed the council chamber and cheered the final result. They knew that a defeat here could well have been the end of the club, The whole development will be good for the borough, bringing much-needed facilities and new homes to create an attractive gateway for visitors. It should also guarantee the long-term future of Oldham Athletic, putting the club, for the first time in generations, on a sound financial footing while, at the same time, rewarding the owners, three American-based businessmen, for their enterprise and initial investment. The club’s owners have poured thousands of pounds into the club since rescuing it from oblivion and, like all businessmen, need to see some money coming in to offset the vast sums that have gone out. A return on an investment is neither illegal nor immoral. Rumblings So where does that leave us now? The relief from the directors, staff and fans of Oldham Athletic last night was palpable, and understandably so, but the objections of the local residents are not going to go away. Already there are rumblings about covenants on the land and the encroachment of the development on part of Clayton playing field which is designated as a town green. How important these issues are and whether opponents of the scheme will seek to turn it into a legal battle when full planning permission for the development of the flats is sought remains to be seen. But, while respecting lone dissenter Pendlebury’s decision, and his courage and sticking to his guns, there is an issue of the greater good of the borough to be considered here. It benefits the borough not a jot if Oldham Athletic disappears from the landscape as it gives the borough a national profile, and the area around the current stadium is in several places an eyesore and a mess. On balance it is clear that the gains from the development outweigh the losses and the planning committee made the right decision, albeit at the second attempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I'd love to know if the police ever did receive any complaints about threats to anyone on the Residents Group. Can't we dod something under Freedom of Information to find out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 the chron still havn't got their "facts" right. the clayton issue-there is no bloody issue!!! the land is untouched! FFS! oh-i heard no cheers-just a outbusrt of applause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 ...except perhaps among some local residents who boycotted last night’s planning meeting... Yeh! Boycotted... more like knew they would be outnumbered and didn't want to feel like prats!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Yay! I made it on to the front page again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Yay! I made it on to the front page again. you media slut you!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 The residents need to learn that working with the club is a better way forward than fighting us!! This land will be redeveloped....if they work with the club they can have an input...keep working against the club and they could find themselves out in the cold!!! I really do find it hard to understand why the are SO against it!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I'd say that was a reasonable neutral and fair assessment from the Chron (apart from the Clayton error pointed out by JP). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAV Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Yay! I made it on to the front page again. Is BB80 blowing you a kiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 oh-i heard no cheers-just a outbusrt of applause. Yeah I was thinking that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspiral_Carpet Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 oh-i heard no cheers-just a outbusrt of applause. And some pantomime booing when Pendlebury put up his hand! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Yay! I made it on to the front page again. As did Mr and Mrs Anchor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoasis Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Notice its changed from American owners .... to American BASED owners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Notice its changed from American owners .... to American BASED owners That would be my email to the editor to put him right then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Becketts Anchor Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 As did Mr and Mrs Anchor Indeed! Fame at last... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 oh-i heard no cheers-just a outbusrt of applause. Residents reading the rarely wrong Chron will get the impression that there was cheering as though a goal had been scored, whereas there was polite, controlled applause. The general public will also believe that the 'covenant issue' has not been resolved. The Club should nail this once and for all and then get on with consulting the residents on the details of the development. I've emailed Alan Hardy to that effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 All but one — Keith Pendlebury — of the councillors who caused such a furore by rejecting the first planning application, changed their minds last night and voted instead to accept the development proposals. The Chron, as everyone knows, is rarely wrong. But I think I spotted what it's "editor" might consider to be a significant error. Last time, the committee voted, as I recall, 7-4, therefore it is not the case that "all but...one" changed their minds. I'm happy at the result, and that Mr. and Mrs. Anchor are front page news (look out Jordan and Peter), but the Chron needs a shake up. I'm sure that the reporters and staff of the paper would join me in asking the question: what does the "editor" do all day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Residents reading the rarely wrong Chron will get the impression that there was cheering as though a goal had been scored, whereas there was polite, controlled applause. The general public will also believe that the 'covenant issue' has not been resolved. The Club should nail this once and for all and then get on with consulting the residents on the details of the development. I've emailed Alan Hardy to that effect. By "consulting", I hope you mean "telling them what's what". TTA's priorities should be as follows: first, phone the wrecking-ball people when the sun comes up; secondly, go to Millwall (it's not, when all's said and done, all glamour); and, six-hundred-and-forty-fifthly, dry the residents' eyes. They don't deserve to be consulted. I think everyone knows what they would say if consulted but, after last night, no one is compelled to hear or think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 The Chron, as everyone knows, is rarely wrong. But I think I spotted what it's "editor" might consider to be a significant error. Last time, the committee voted, as I recall, 7-4, therefore it is not the case that "all but...one" changed their minds. It means that all but one of the four Councillors, who caused such a furore last time, changed their mind. It is still inaccurate in that it does not tell the full story, because one councillor was voting for the first time - he was there as a substitute for Cllr Dawson. While I'm criticising the rarely wrong Chron, in Tuesday's edition the front page headline was "D Day In Latics Stadium Battle" (missing apostrophe) and then underneath the banner headline was a ManUre badge in full colour - how insensitive can the Editor get??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 It means that all but one of the four Councillors, who caused such a furore last time, changed their mind. It is still inaccurate in that it does not tell the full story, because one councillor was voting for the first time - he was there as a substitute for Cllr Dawson. While I'm criticising the rarely wrong Chron, in Tuesday's edition the front page headline was "D Day In Latics Stadium Battle" (missing apostrophe) and then underneath the banner headline was a ManUre badge in full colour - how insensitive can the Editor get??? "editor" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 By "consulting", I hope you mean "telling them what's what". TTA's priorities should be as follows: first, phone the wrecking-ball people when the sun comes up; secondly, go to Millwall (it's not, when all's said and done, all glamour); and, six-hundred-and-forty-fifthly, dry the residents' eyes. They don't deserve to be consulted. I think everyone knows what they would say if consulted but, after last night, no one is compelled to hear or think about it. I think you've been involved in the confrontational game at the House of Fun for too long! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 I think you've been involved in the confrontational game at the House of Fun for too long! They picked the fight, and they lost. No consultation. High rises filled with the worst people ever and their "families" and a space launcher for "Carlton Way". Where's my placard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 They picked the fight, and they lost. No consultation. High rises filled with the worst people ever and their "families" and a space launcher for "Carlton Way". Where's my placard? There's still the small matter of getting detailed planning permission. All your talk is not doing the Club's image much good as a considerate neighbour of residents who are still able to influence the final development. Watch out for the rarely wrong Chron mentioning message board abuse of residents. TTA have made it clear with a "100% pledge" that "consulting" does not mean telling the residents what's what. The Planning Committee is still compelled to listen and think about what the residents say at the detailed stage. We need to avoid jeopardising the position of TTA by upsetting the residents and/or the councillors. The sooner the Club makes a statement about the covenant issue the better, because at the moment there is a perception that the plans could still be scuppered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 The sooner the Club makes a statement about the covenant issue the better, because at the moment there is a perception that the plans could still be scuppered. We still have a fight on are hands no doubt. But they need to come up with proper reasons now. The amount of apartments, traffice issues and scale of the project can not be seriously brought back up now. The cvenant issue seems to be the biggest issue going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 There's still the small matter of getting detailed planning permission. All your talk is not doing the Club's image much good as a considerate neighbour of residents who are still able to influence the final development. Watch out for the rarely wrong Chron mentioning message board abuse of residents. TTA have made it clear with a "100% pledge" that "consulting" does not mean telling the residents what's what. The Planning Committee is still compelled to listen and think about what the residents say at the detailed stage. We need to avoid jeopardising the position of TTA by upsetting the residents and/or the councillors. The sooner the Club makes a statement about the covenant issue the better, because at the moment there is a perception that the plans could still be scuppered. Point taken. I yield to no one in my admiration of the magnanimous, but I'm not the club (and neither is the message board), so how much harm can a little light gloating do? 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.