|
Post by tommym9 on Nov 2, 2023 16:14:34 GMT
There is a planning application currently underway for Bath Rugby club. Planning Application Reference: 23/03558/EFUL Less than 100 Objections have been received and more than 1,300 Support comments have been posted. Perhaps Gasheads might learn from their experience and utilise their approach in the years ahead. *** I thought this positive support comment was of interest. The comment seems to take an approach that would be valuable to any future expansion plans at The Home Of Bristol Sport, The Memorial Stadium. *** 30/09/2023: As an avid rugby enthusiast and a proud member of this community, I wholeheartedly endorse the development of a new stadium for our beloved sport. A state-of-the-art stadium is not merely a structure of bricks and steel; it is the heartbeat of our passion, the arena where dreams are forged, and the place where unforgettable memories are created. This project represents more than just a physical upgrade; it symbolises our commitment to the growth of sporting opportunities in our region. It is an investment in our youth, providing them with a world-class facility to nurture their talent and inspire future generations. It promises to bring together our diverse community, uniting us under the banner of sport, fostering camaraderie, and promoting a healthy lifestyle. Moreover, a new stadium holds the potential to attract national and international events, putting Bath firmly on the map and boosting our local economy. It's an opportunity to showcase our history, hospitality, culture, and the unique spirit of our community to visitors from far and wide. In essence, this stadium is not just about rugby; it's about community, opportunity, and pride. It's about building a legacy that will endure for generations to come. I urge all stakeholders to embrace this endeavor, for it has the power to transform not only our The Recreation Ground but our collective spirit and identity as well. Not to put a dampener on this, but the Rec hasn't got nearly the number of houses near it compared to the Mem. Comparing apples and oranges here I'm afraid. Plenty for the club to learn here though, their consultation started back in 2013! www.bathrugby.com/stadium-for-bath/what-you-told-us Its not rocket science is it
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Nov 1, 2023 17:31:26 GMT
I get the feeling in a few months a lot of goodwill from Gasheads to Barton will have been eroded by some daft tweets. Time will tell I'm waiting for his next podcast appeance 🍿
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 31, 2023 14:34:32 GMT
I will join local residents and vote against any proposal to add north/south ‘add ons’ to the existing east stand Chernobyl structure - hopefully BCC will throw it out if plans are submitted based on this. A total ‘bodge up’ if this is the proposed way forward if as seems likely, the Memorial Stadium is to be our permanent home for generations to come. As you say this needs to be right - imo the east stand needs to be totally demolished - and I’m a current user. Are you going to pay for this? Just bought two toddler kits from the club shop, I reckon that will cover the majority of it!
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 30, 2023 18:26:25 GMT
I can't answer a question I don't have an answer to I'm afraid. All I can go on is what's been said in the press by each party and as I read it (and I could be wrong) the greens will support this latest application. That's different to your interpretation and that's fine. Fair point raised. All I am asking is will the Greens support this new application?. Can uou provide a link that the Greens will support it ?. If you can then excellent that us really good news. Also the local groups are now registering a lot of objections . In defence of me earlier today I never mentioned Emma or the Greens it was you and you did admit you were #hit stiring. You asked why as it gone to committee ?. Then gave a really good answer why it did ( catching me out a little lol). All I'm going on is Edwards previous statements that she will support it if the club do the extra leg work. They have so she should (and by extension the greens). It's all good, I can be a pedant when I want to!
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 30, 2023 18:09:37 GMT
I think you've mis understood what's happened here. It's going to committee, because the planning officer has recommended it go. This means it can't be 'called in' as it has already. It's likely to be approved given the planning officer recommends it, plus given the composition of the committee PLUS councilor Edwards saying she would support it given her concerns are mitigated (which I believe they have been with this new application). So we can all go back to our normal lives without wondering what the green party bogeyman is going to do to us next! It's not like we have a huge stadium redevelopment upcoming when we've just watered off all the local residents or anything silly like that 👀 That's your interpretation in order to support the Greens which you seem to have an agenda to do. What your refusing to answer is the Greens stance on this second application? The Greens stance on the bigger project of redeveloping the stadium ?. Your trying to spin a positive assumption without any knowledge of the Greens decision. How do u know Emma will support this application? Or even the Greens ?. Have they shared that with the local activitist who are still as I talk registering objections ? . And please stop saying I am misunderstanding things It's a little patronising. You seem to identify every other area as being the problem except the party you support. I don't have a problem with the Greens continuing to back locals my problem is the denial. Let's agree to disagree because we will never see eye to eye. I can't answer a question I don't have an answer to I'm afraid. All I can go on is what's been said in the press by each party and as I read it (and I could be wrong) the greens will support this latest application. That's different to your interpretation and that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 30, 2023 16:34:37 GMT
I think you've mis understood my question. I was wondering why this went straight to committee, rather than being called in like thr last one. You in particular were very angry at councillor Edwards for calling it in, but now are insisting it goes to committee. P.s I know I'm being a sh** stirring git so feel free to tell me to f**k off 👍 Firstly we don't know if the Greens will ' call it in ' because the Greens silence is open to interpretation ?. Secondly : we don't know what way the Greens will vote on the committee as they have big support in the locality ? Thirdly : history is central to people experiences . What I am suggesting is we target Labour & Tories as they been very supportive and always backed our plans both historically and I believe going forward. Its up to the Greens now to decide what they want. I think you've mis understood what's happened here. It's going to committee, because the planning officer has recommended it go. This means it can't be 'called in' as it has already. It's likely to be approved given the planning officer recommends it, plus given the composition of the committee PLUS councilor Edwards saying she would support it given her concerns are mitigated (which I believe they have been with this new application). So we can all go back to our normal lives without wondering what the green party bogeyman is going to do to us next! It's not like we have a huge stadium redevelopment upcoming when we've just watered off all the local residents or anything silly like that 👀
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 30, 2023 15:37:36 GMT
Why does it need to go to a political vote? Because committee is made up of political parties . And I'm sad to say I have NO faith in one particular party in voting to support us. Therefore: I urge people which I will to target Labour & Tories councillors to get this over the line. I do have good knowledge in local politics !. I think you've mis understood my question. I was wondering why this went straight to committee, rather than being called in like thr last one. You in particular were very angry at councillor Edwards for calling it in, but now are insisting it goes to committee. P.s I know I'm being a sh** stirring git so feel free to tell me to f**k off 👍
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 30, 2023 15:30:32 GMT
Why does it need to go to a political vote? Whilst minor planning decisions are completely delegated to officers, larger or more controversial developments need to go to committee for a decision. So.... When councillor Edwards got pilloried on here for calling it in.... Like she said at the time it was always likely to go to committee due to the number of objections/comments of support
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 30, 2023 15:25:03 GMT
Anyone know why this has gone straight to committee? Why not?. The first application went in mid February ( 9 months wait ). It needs to go to a political vote and even then it could be refused and at best not ready until early next year. Therefore the process could take nearly a year from start to finish which is too long . Why does it need to go to a political vote?
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 30, 2023 14:44:50 GMT
Anyone know why this has gone straight to committee?
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 30, 2023 14:31:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 27, 2023 10:20:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 26, 2023 15:48:39 GMT
Be kind
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 26, 2023 13:45:33 GMT
No need for that comment really is there. Emotions are running high and some are feeling disappointed/upset that he has left. Just because you wanted him gone and are now happy dosent mean others are. Some people’s dislike of Barton was more important than their attachment to Rovers. I’ve supported Rovers for over 50 years since I was 9; in that time we’ve had some great managers and some that were absolute dogsh*t, but I never let my dislike or hatred of any of them stop me going to support my team and my club, even Buckle and Garninho (who I would’ve quite happily fed to the sharks). And before all the usual suspects start banging on, I’m not claiming to be a better fan or supporter than anyone else, just saying that Rovers are my club for life, but managers are temporary and I wouldn’t stay away from them just because I happen to take a dislike to whoever’s managing the team during any given week. Have to say I've been telling myself "I'll still be here long after Barton has gone" more and more as his reign has gone on. Says a lot really
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 26, 2023 12:24:32 GMT
Jesus, that's come out of the blue somewhat. Tuesday was bad, but it wasn't a 4-1 at home to Doncaster bad!
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 23, 2023 14:26:46 GMT
I'm defo in the minority that enjoy watching good football win, lose or draw. We were winning under GC and it was bloody dire!
Of course it goes without saying if we're getting beat every week and in danger, then I'll change my tune somewhat!
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 21, 2023 10:27:33 GMT
Good luck to anyone travelling today! Seen a few videos from mates up north of roads and gardens flooded
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 21, 2023 10:12:12 GMT
Why are some people on here still criticising the club? Just write and support the application please - at least something is happening (and it’s a definite improvement). To be fair, some aren’t still criticising the club, they are saying the club have played their part in the speed of planning, it’s not all down to the stadiums neighbours/objectors. This. Going to stop replying on this thread as I'm into repeating myself territory
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 20, 2023 15:48:18 GMT
You only have to read this article: www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/hundreds-support-bristol-rovers-second-8842724 to see what we missed off the initial application. To say to the council "you fix it" because we didn't do it right isn't how things work in any other avenue of life, so its not going to be different for planning applications. Sorry if that comes across as old fashioned, or uncooperative, but in my experience if I cock up a process, I get sent back to the beginning to try again. Drivers licence, passport, tax return, visas, etc. As for what Emma has said, I've not got a clue, you'll have to ask her. She has been meeting with the club so that shows some willing to help. She could save herself the headache and do nothing. As I pointed out before the planning officer would have met with the club to agree what info was required before this application went in , the constructor would also know what was required as they have put up these stands before. Planning Officer will not verify an application ( first application ) before they have received all the correct plans and accompanying reports. So all this additional information required came about after nimbie and Greens comments./ Objections. I worked as a landscape an arb consultant for a Council and would often meet on site with the applicant before an application went in , or be consulted on plans , which i would make my observations on, on many occasions alterations would have to be made before a decision was made or the application went to committee. TG met with Edwards before the new application went in , he was told by Edwards that she expected the application to be passed. Unfortunatley because of the Gashead , sports hating fraternity and their objection to the new application which has met all the requests made by objectors after the last application , the new application may now have to go to committee. These sports haters just don't want a stadium that has been there for 100 years on their doorstep. So I've got it right (I'm always happy to be proven wrong) we needed to add the below (from the post article): The second application now includes biodiversity metric tool, a report on the biodiversity net gain, a transport statement, travel plan, a contaminated land study, a noise impact assessment, groundsure reports, a statement on foul and drainage, a report into daylight, sunlight and overshadowing of the new stand, a statement of community involvement, a broadband connectivity statement, a tree constraints and opportunities report, an arboricultural impact assessment, an air quality assessment, a design access statement, a range of models, elevations and view images from various points around the stand, floor plans, site plans, an energy and sustainability statement and an overall planning statement. Because the local residents kicked off? Without that it would have gone through? To the best of your knowledge
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 20, 2023 13:54:01 GMT
You only have to read this article: www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/hundreds-support-bristol-rovers-second-8842724 to see what we missed off the initial application. To say to the council "you fix it" because we didn't do it right isn't how things work in any other avenue of life, so its not going to be different for planning applications. Sorry if that comes across as old fashioned, or uncooperative, but in my experience if I cock up a process, I get sent back to the beginning to try again. Drivers licence, passport, tax return, visas, etc. As for what Emma has said, I've not got a clue, you'll have to ask her. She has been meeting with the club so that shows some willing to help. She could save herself the headache and do nothing. Which is what the club have done !. However : it's not just the clubs fault because the Greens have ' acknowledged the planning process is lengthy ". Its an A-Z catalogue of failures on many sides. However : the Greens didn't need to get deeply involved in this process and support every group opposed to stadium plans. It should represent the many good people on this forum who live locally and support the plans. The lobbyist traditionally supported by the Greens want there cake and eat it! They don't want a stadium in their community (fair enough) but are hiding behind process and appearing nice. That's why people on this forum are getting frustrated. Instead of people being politically correct and hiding behind a process. Come out and say ' we don't want a stadium in our community ' says 300 lobbyist. Let's wait and see if any of these community talks will reduce the objections. Personally I don't think they will and the well organised lobbyist will continue to do what they do. As for the Greens . Its up to them if they continually want to back local lobbyist . They do have choices !. On this one, BCCs backlog is with a Labour run council, with a tory govt. Neither of which are the fault of the greens. Its defo been a large part of the delay! As for the rest, I don't know who "lobbyist" is and I'm not up for getting into a discussion on it to be honest.
|
|