(09-01-2020, 11:49 AM)Mcforest Wrote: Seems to be be a lot of talk this morning that the Environmental agency has put a letter in about the new stadium and flooding concerns.
It's fairly normal for there to be some discussion with the EA during the planning period. It happens on all schemes, large and small, where flooding is a potential risk factor. And where housing is involved (remember the application is for outline permission for the 2 blocks of flats too), the EA and planners have to look out for the innocent purchases of properties in the future who would purchase a property in good faith from a developer and expect that all governmental agencies to have acted in an appropriate way to ensure the risk of flooding to be reduced. When properties are flooded its the EA and the planners who get it in the neck, not the developers.
What should be of more concern is the objection from the owners of one of the houses on Rosebery Avenue, who have employed a specialist surveyor to write a compelling formal objection on the basis of loss of light to their property. That's a fundamental issue with the scheme in my opinion and asuming that it's going to be almost impossible to build a new stand whilst maintaining appropriate levels of light to some of these affected properties, the Councillors who determine the scheme at the planning board meeting might be in a position where they are going to have to decide if they think the benefits to the community of the new stand outweigh the amenity value of some of these homeowners. It's great for us fans to have a shiny new stand but would you want your house dwarfed by it?
An interesting snippet is that the Roseberry Ave people state in their objection that the club offered to purchase their property but they declined as they considered the offer wasn't high enough.