|
Post by philbemmygas on Sept 8, 2016 6:53:48 GMT
The Emersons site has been mentioned on here a few times. I also heard an alternative site at Avonmouth was being considered (from a fellow fan - no idea if he is ITK!). Thing is, I don't know where the suggestion of other sites is coming from. There is no evidence from the club or anywhere else that this is the case. ISTM that people are 2nd guessing the situation because nothing appears to be happening with UWE. Clearly if all was well with UWE we would be building now. But just because we're not, doesn't mean it's dead. It could just be we're still negotiating the terms of the contract with them. Also remember, the last time the club made a statement saying we're still talking to UWE, many fans slated it for being non-news. Given that, why should they come out and tell us the same again? Just remember prior to the UWE announcement by the prior leadership, nobody had any idea it was in the offing. Perhaps the current board can pull a white rabbit out of a hat/ Lets wait and see, too much idle speculation in this forum at the moment. We need some football to kill most of it off. Come on you BLUES
|
|
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 7:01:47 GMT
via mobile
Post by countygroundhotel on Sept 8, 2016 7:01:47 GMT
The Emersons site has been mentioned on here a few times. I also heard an alternative site at Avonmouth was being considered (from a fellow fan - no idea if he is ITK!). Thing is, I don't know where the suggestion of other sites is coming from. There is no evidence from the club or anywhere else that this is the case. ISTM that people are 2nd guessing the situation because nothing appears to be happening with UWE. Clearly if all was well with UWE we would be building now. But just because we're not, doesn't mean it's dead. It could just be we're still negotiating the terms of the contract with them. Also remember, the last time the club made a statement saying we're still talking to UWE, many fans slated it for being non-news. Given that, why should they come out and tell us the same again? Just remember prior to the UWE announcement by the prior leadership, nobody had any idea it was in the offing. Perhaps the current board can pull a white rabbit out of a hat/ Lets wait and see, too much idle speculation in this forum at the moment. We need some football to kill most of it off. Come on you BLUES Ed Ware was making it known that the Mem development was dead and a new site in Parkway area was happening before any official announcement on UWE was made
|
|
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 7:14:01 GMT
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 8, 2016 7:14:01 GMT
Excuse my ignorance but why would the UWE be in a monthly planning review? After all the planning was granted a long time ago and is still in force and even it it lapsed and we decided to go elsewhere we would not have to inform Glos council, unless we were submitting a new application. I think it means no progress on the AMP 2 planning requirement to start work on the car park has not been agreed or signed
|
|
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 8:01:54 GMT
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 8, 2016 8:01:54 GMT
Excuse my ignorance but why would the UWE be in a monthly planning review? After all the planning was granted a long time ago and is still in force and even it it lapsed and we decided to go elsewhere we would not have to inform Glos council, unless we were submitting a new application. I think it means no progress on the AMP 2 planning requirement to start work on the car park has not been agreed or signed ...and another month or so has passed since the last update from UWE/Rovers w/o it seems any real progress being made?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Sept 8, 2016 9:11:22 GMT
Excuse my ignorance but why would the UWE be in a monthly planning review? After all the planning was granted a long time ago and is still in force and even it it lapsed and we decided to go elsewhere we would not have to inform Glos council, unless we were submitting a new application. I think it means no progress on the AMP 2 planning requirement to start work on the car park has not been agreed or signed I'd thought that it would be a simple matter of requesting an extension to the time period. However, it appears that this is no longer straightforward: www.blplaw.com/expert-legal-insights/articles/use-it-or-lose-it-planning-minister-announces-the-end-of-the-ability-to-extend-the-life-of-a-planning-permission"“Use it or lose it” – Planning Minister announces the end of the ability to extend the life of a planning permission (Nov 2013) Nick Boles, the Planning Minister, announced this week that Government will not renew the measure introduced by the previous Government, and extended by the Coalition Government, under which the time limit for implementation of extant planning permissions can be extended. .. Nick Boles has said that Government’s reason for scrapping the ‘temporary measure introduced by the last Labour Government will increase the incentive for developers to start on site before permission expires.’ He went on to say that ‘this measure to extend planning permission was always intended to be temporary, and while it made sense in the aftermath of Labour’s financial crash when there was no money to build, as the economy improves, the focus must be on accelerating the number of homes being built to meet demand.’ .. Developers with the benefit of an extant planning permission which is in danger of lapsing will now have to think carefully about an implementation strategy. Although it is often not difficult to dig a trench or to do other minimal works to implement the permission for the purposes of keeping it alive, this has to weighed up against the burden of discharging all pre-commencement conditions and the risk of triggering any CIL liability or any section 106 payments. The pressures in ensuring that the funding for the development project is in place at an early stage is likely now to be even more intense."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 10:43:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2016 10:43:08 GMT
Why do people think the car park stipulation in the planning was put there? It will be a low cost way of preserving the planning for x amount of years once started and very little loss to Rovers if an agreement can't be reached with UWE and we walk away. Something Higgs did get right in the negotiations.
|
|
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 10:49:28 GMT
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 8, 2016 10:49:28 GMT
Why do people think the car park stipulation in the planning was put there? It will be a low cost way of preserving the planning for x amount of years once started and very little loss to Rovers if an agreement can't be reached with UWE and we walk away. Something Higgs did get right in the negotiations. But they have not started it yet
|
|
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 10:51:58 GMT
Post by Severncider on Sept 8, 2016 10:51:58 GMT
I think it means no progress on the AMP 2 planning requirement to start work on the car park has not been agreed or signed I'd thought that it would be a simple matter of requesting an extension to the time period. However, it appears that this is no longer straightforward: www.blplaw.com/expert-legal-insights/articles/use-it-or-lose-it-planning-minister-announces-the-end-of-the-ability-to-extend-the-life-of-a-planning-permission"“Use it or lose it” – Planning Minister announces the end of the ability to extend the life of a planning permission (Nov 2013) Nick Boles, the Planning Minister, announced this week that Government will not renew the measure introduced by the previous Government, and extended by the Coalition Government, under which the time limit for implementation of extant planning permissions can be extended. .. Nick Boles has said that Government’s reason for scrapping the ‘temporary measure introduced by the last Labour Government will increase the incentive for developers to start on site before permission expires.’ He went on to say that ‘this measure to extend planning permission was always intended to be temporary, and while it made sense in the aftermath of Labour’s financial crash when there was no money to build, as the economy improves, the focus must be on accelerating the number of homes being built to meet demand.’ .. Developers with the benefit of an extant planning permission which is in danger of lapsing will now have to think carefully about an implementation strategy. Although it is often not difficult to dig a trench or to do other minimal works to implement the permission for the purposes of keeping it alive, this has to weighed up against the burden of discharging all pre-commencement conditions and the risk of triggering any CIL liability or any section 106 payments. The pressures in ensuring that the funding for the development project is in place at an early stage is likely now to be even more intense." I spoke to Nick Higgs last year about renewing the planning application and digging a trench to preserve it.
He said then that this was not possible any more as you now need to fulfil the Planning Application "start up process" and for this to be agreed by the Council for it to have any validation - digging the trench.
I'm sure Henbury can clarify that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 15:17:41 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2016 15:17:41 GMT
Why do people think the car park stipulation in the planningess was put there? It will be a low cost way of preserving the planning for x amount of years once started and very little loss to Rovers if an agreement can't be reached with UWE and we walk away. Something Higgs did get right in the negotiations. But they have not started it yet We all know that Henbury. The stipulation for the was for the car park to start by certain date. Not half a stadium needs to be built by a certain date. Diggers could start 11.59 the night before planning expires to conserve said planning. Talks can then continue and if they come to nothing then not much money is outplayed. Its anyone's guess how the talks are going but we may well hear something fruitful tonight!
|
|
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 16:37:18 GMT
Post by curlywurly on Sept 8, 2016 16:37:18 GMT
But they have not started it yet We all know that Henbury. The stipulation for the was for the car park to start by certain date. Not half a stadium needs to be built by a certain date. Diggers could start 11.59 the night before planning expires to conserve said planning. Talks can then continue and if they come to nothing then not much money is outplayed. Its anyone's guess how the talks are going but we may well hear something fruitful tonight! But I think my point and severncider's point is that digging a ditch might preserve the planning permission, but could only happen if the pre-commencement conditions were met (someone may have reported on this before, but I'm not sure if that is the case) and also triggers the responsibility to fork out for CIL liability / S106 payments. I'll be listening with interest and hope someone is able to put the specific question on time running out on planning permission to Wael
|
|
|
Post by youmadethatup on Sept 8, 2016 16:42:59 GMT
We all know that Henbury. The stipulation for the was for the car park to start by certain date. Not half a stadium needs to be built by a certain date. Diggers could start 11.59 the night before planning expires to conserve said planning. Talks can then continue and if they come to nothing then not much money is outplayed. Its anyone's guess how the talks are going but we may well hear something fruitful tonight! But I think my point and severncider's point is that digging a ditch might preserve the planning permission, but could only happen if the pre-commencement conditions were met (someone may have reported on this before, but I'm not sure if that is the case) and also triggers the responsibility to fork out for CIL liability / S106 payments. I'll be listening with interest and hope someone is able to put the specific question on time running out on planning permission to Wael You can read that as if the club are happy for planning to slip it is because they need to reapply anyway as plans have changed
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 8, 2016 16:52:37 GMT
Plus if it was your land then would you let a prospective developer start building a property, unless you had reached an agreement over the price they were going to pay for it etc?
Having said that if we return to S Glos seeking further pp for a car park are they really going to object if an agreement for the stadium build itself has been reached? Letting pp lapse on the stadium itself could be a different matter!
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Sept 8, 2016 16:58:18 GMT
In all seriousness, I don't see how Wael can put himself in front of a crowd like that without having something meaningful to say about the stadium. Here's hoping... I cannot see that he will say anything substantive, just that talks are progressing and the club will release a statement when they have something to say.
What's the panic? I am sure a stadium will be built. Where it is and when it will be built is a different question.
The panic is - I am 50 years older than when the stadium was first applied for at Mangotsfield!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 17:29:01 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2016 17:29:01 GMT
We all know that Henbury. The stipulation for the was for the car park to start by certain date. Not half a stadium needs to be built by a certain date. Diggers could start 11.59 the night before planning expires to conserve said planning. Talks can then continue and if they come to nothing then not much money is outplayed. Its anyone's guess how the talks are going but we may well hear something fruitful tonight! But I think my point and severncider's point is that digging a ditch might preserve the planning permission, but could only happen if the pre-commencement conditions were met (someone may have reported on this before, but I'm not sure if that is the case) and also triggers the responsibility to fork out for CIL liability / S106 payments. I'll be listening with interest and hope someone is able to put the specific question on time running out on planning permission to Wael That is a point I missed as,until we know what is in the cil and 106,we can only speculate. It may well trigger the resident parking permits for example. It is an odd one as the UWE will need a car park anyway if Rovers walk away but what appears simple and straightforward proberblay isn't.
|
|
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 18:01:08 GMT
Post by Langford Gas on Sept 8, 2016 18:01:08 GMT
I missed having a Gas was there any announcement or any progress ?
|
|
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 18:23:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by glengas on Sept 8, 2016 18:23:05 GMT
The UWE is the only option they are considering They are still trying to get a deal that suits all sides (I would imagine a better deal for Rovers). It seems they are close to closing the deal, but it not agreed yet. I may have heard this wrong, but it appears the new training facilities will be very close to the new stadium.
|
|
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 18:26:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by singupgas on Sept 8, 2016 18:26:19 GMT
Sounds a lot like no news then really.
|
|
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 18:27:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Sept 8, 2016 18:27:42 GMT
Someone on the FB page saying there's diggers on site and they're ours. Claiming she asked Wael herself this evening. Anyone been up there of late?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 8, 2016 18:27:59 GMT
The UWE is the only option they are considering They are still trying to get a deal that suits all sides (I would imagine a better deal for Rovers). It seems they are close to closing the deal, but it not agreed yet. I may have heard this wrong, but it appears the new training facilities will be very close to the new stadium. Playing devil's advocate here but if the UWE is the only option then what happens if both parties can't agree on a deal? We stay at the Mem, or Wael sells up and buys another club, or is it a case of some deal will be brokered but perhaps not the perfect one for Wael/the club.
|
|
|
UWE
Sept 8, 2016 18:28:24 GMT
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 8, 2016 18:28:24 GMT
Someone on the FB page saying there's diggers on site and they're ours. Claiming she asked Wael herself this evening. Anyone been up there of late? She was ballshiting
|
|