Ground development - 12 Dec 2011

[Cookie]

On the agenda (scroll down after clicking link) (Been a few [****!!****]-ups discrepencies on behalf of the council I believe,not known in full detail or shown below)).

 

http://tdc-mg-dmz.th...Id=151&MId=2581

 

Are you gonna be there? I am!

Edited December 3, 2011 by Cookie

[Cookie]

2.9 There were over 170 responses to the consultation, including 2 petitions and a summary of these is set out in Annex 1. Due to the different ways in which people have responded and the different areas that have been covered there is no straightforward conclusion from the consultation. As no formal responses were received from members a further opportunity to respond has been sent out and the results of this should be available by the meeting.

 

 

 

3.0 Options

 

 

 

3.1 Due to the complexity of the situation with regard to leases, and the conflicting responses from the public consultation, officers have not set out specific recommendations in relation to the different lease proposals. However, the range of principle options is set out in the following paragraphs.

 

3.2 Consenting in full to the principle of amending the length of leases and granting new leases as set out in the public consultation document to facilitate the redevelopment MFC. This would be subject to detailed lease terms being agreed but would result in the loss of public open space in two areas of parkland, in addition to development of the hotel and leisure accommodation.

 

3.3 Not consenting to the any of the proposals as set out in the public consultation document. MFC would continue to have the benefit of their existing lease agreements, but would not be able to undertake the redevelopment proposed. It is understood that the financial impact of this would not allow MFC to secure a Grade A stadium which would enable them to progress up the leagues. It would however retain existing open parkland for future generations.

 

3.4 Refusing the request for additional land areas but granting longer leases on the existing interests. This option would require MFC to review their funding options but give comfort with existing interests.

 

3.5 Taking into account the outcome of the consultation, but also considering the wider context of sporting and social provision in Thanet, Members may wish to consider the option of granting parts of the proposals only, retaining existing parkland but granting new agreements on already developed land.

 

4.0 Next Steps

 

4.1 Given the conflicting aspects of the changes proposed by MFC Cabinet may request that the matter is referred to the next available meeting of full Council for further debate and decision.

[margateshot]

That does not look good. How can they refuse the leases when they have given planning permission?

[Cookie]

They are options only Steve. 3.2 would be ideal.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Cookie

[margateshot]

But after all this time the meeting should be to say yes or no, not to put it back to another council meeting for even further discussion. It has already been APPROVED. What park are they losing, a piece of disused golfing grassland

[Cookie]

Agree wholeheartedly. When you read things it sounds like we are taking loads of parkland when in "FACT it is only a pitch-worth. Isn't it?

[dannyriding]

Agree wholeheartedly. When you read things it sounds like we are taking loads of parkland when in "FACT it is only a pitch-worth. Isn't it?

 

taking tooo long IMO

[Cookie]

Again agree. Are we "holding out for a zero" here!

[Tesco Bazza]

This is bull**** I cannot see this getting off the ground everytime you think some thing is going to happen we hit another obstacle.