Seen a few pictures of fc United of Manchester's new stadium getting built and looks very impressive. If a non league fan owned club in an area overflowing with top class stadia and sports facilities can do it then surely we can do it. Come on lets get it sorted.

I think the difference is the influence of some of the fans' what own it, fans such as Paul Scholes,Ryan Giggs,Nicky Butt and others. If we had the likes of them on our side anything could be possible.

They own Salford City FC, not FC United.

Sorry my mistake

I was looking through the Governments Planning Advisory Service website and came across this paragraph.



It was the words "Site Specific" that caught my eye!

Surely under whatever planning application YCP went for the "Site" is the same and there is an argument therefore that the "mitigation" agreed upon is still applicable!

YCP, WMDC and the SoS Office can't simply ignore it just because the Developer chose to submit a new application for the same site.

It is the same building, the same development on the same site therefore the "mitigation" required is still required in order to make the development "acceptable" irrespective of the new application.

Remember the determination, "SITE SPECIFIC" not Developer specific, not application specific, the mitigation required is "SITE SPECIFIC" !

I think you're taking the meaning too literal. I read it as though the mitigation will vary dependant upon the site.

No the level of mitigation was dependent upon the size and shape of the development, if a totally new development which was less intrusive was proposed then pro rata the size and shape of the mitigation would reduce.

However, this building is exactly the same one proposed in the original application therefore the mitigation required should also be as the original.

The "Site Specific" requirement should have been applied by the WMDCs Planning Department when the 'backdoor' planning application came in from YCD. They missed it and granted planning permission, there should be a review of that decision despite construction having commenced.

The fact that YCP had agreed to the original mitigation should negate any counter argument that they do not now have enough funds to meet their obligation, their numbers stacked up when it suited them during the PI so why would they be so different now, unless of course they were lying to the SoS Officer during the Inquiry and never intended to pay for the mitigation.

YCP would need to be very very careful about their statements because they're likely to be damned one way or the other.

What we need is the political will to revisit this whole shambles and force YCP to meet their obligations or offer a substantial alternative!

Funny how people interpret things. My reading of it was that the mitigation was "site specific" ie had to be applied at that site - in other words a redevelopment of Belle Vue would not be possible under this agreement. I'm not sure that makes sense thinking about it but just proves how things can be interpreted differently.

I'm not a lawyer, or a planner, or a developer so don't know, but that was my initial thought.

Didn't the change in land classifcation after the inquiry due to the LDF have something to do with it all hence the Newcold build?

Anyway i read it to mean that it is just explaining what a section 106 agreement is, i.e. a site specific mitigation document making a planning application that wouldn't normally be passed, passable . After that it is all about what is in the 106 document itself and it seems the one for Newmarket is worded badly enough to give the developer a get out clause.

Me neither and I'll stand being corrected by those more in the know!

What is abundantly clear from the inspectors report is that he understood that a stadium would be built in return for granting PP. That it has not happened, and the NC site was granted outside of the 106 is wholly wrong!

Is there any mileage in the mitigation being site specific and therefore attached to the site rather than the planning application, because if that's the case then any new planning approval for that site should really have the mitigation come with it.

Given that the building is the same one from the PI then the level of mitigation i.e. the surrounding, mitigating community structures should have been exactly the same as detailed in the PI and S106

To clarify - the Newcold site is nothing like the outline plans and would therefore always be a new application. It is our contention that it could, and should, have contributed to the 106.

Newcold has gone. We can do no more with it, but we can have a say in whatever comes next - and we will!

so you can put a spanner in the works for the next project then

Never mind a spanner....we should be tipping the whole darn toolbox in there