|
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.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 20, 2023 13:13:49 GMT
Its our application, not theirs. We apparently have consultants working for us who should be able to sort these out, its not on anyone else to fix our problems. So why did Emma Edwards say " I would of advised the club not to take down the stands" : because of the lengthy planning process ?. Your fault finding in a complicated process and blaming the club. And why have an attitude " its not anyone else to fix the problem". The council and councillors should be working in unison to support and resolve issues. Many are paid by the tax payer and to say to planners / developers " its your issue " is a bit non copertaive and old fashioned. Once again is proof of identifying obstacles in a process but giving no support to resolve. It's what lobbyist love to do !. 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.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 20, 2023 12:54:53 GMT
Unlike the conservatives who are objecting to *checks notes* their own plans: www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/24/tory-mp-anthony-browne-michael-gove-cambridge-housing-development-planningSomeone in this thread said we're in danger of stereotyping people, I feel we're at that point with those hummus eating, sandal wearing, London originating, champagne socialist, greens! We're going to get planning, and the safety certificate and we'll all forget about this once its all finished. Yes we could have gotten there sooner, but a combo of BCC backlog/our incompetence/local residents has frustrated us. I agree it is a combination of events. But let's not kid ourselves that the lobbyist could use the A-Z failures for their own advantage. The Greens acknowledge there are planning issues and delays. Then why not come up with a solution to address this ? It appears some people are using a poor system in order to cause more delays and red tape!. Its our application, not theirs. We apparently have consultants working for us who should be able to sort these out, its not on anyone else to fix our problems.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 20, 2023 11:24:24 GMT
The whole thing is a farce, lets not forget the club have admitted they should have consulted better with the locals before doing anything. What delays could possibly have been avoided if we hadn't of raised the ire of the locals and brought the Green councillor into the thing in the first place Who were are agents in the first place, because it's reported we have brought in BNP Paribas second time around to make sure it's all legit? Whoever thought we could just whack up a 3,500 seater stand just like that is an idiot, and I am sure there are idiots on BOTH sides of the equation here Do you really think having a chat with the Greens would have changed anything? This article popped up on my news feed earlier, it seems the Greens are objecting to anything being built in the UK www.theargus.co.uk/news/23866058.sian-berry-slams-patcham-royal-mail-development-plans/Unlike the conservatives who are objecting to *checks notes* their own plans: www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/24/tory-mp-anthony-browne-michael-gove-cambridge-housing-development-planningSomeone in this thread said we're in danger of stereotyping people, I feel we're at that point with those hummus eating, sandal wearing, London originating, champagne socialist, greens! We're going to get planning, and the safety certificate and we'll all forget about this once its all finished. Yes we could have gotten there sooner, but a combo of BCC backlog/our incompetence/local residents has frustrated us.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 20, 2023 8:56:38 GMT
Feel for the lad, was just starting to get into his stride.
Looking light in midfield for Saturday now. At this rate Joey will be naming himself and mangs on the bench!
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 18, 2023 8:26:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 18, 2023 8:21:48 GMT
For anyone interested, it was a banging game. Finished 3-3 and Yeovil won on pens. Keynsham have a *very* young team and performed really well. Yeovil had mostly youngsters with a couple of first teamers in there. There were a surprising amount of Yeovil fans there, I had to help one figure out how he was getting back home from Keynsham, the poor lad wasn't getting home until gone midnight (assuming all the trains ran on time)! We are a really young team at Keynsham. Average age for this game was 18. I agree really good evening of football. Yeovil had mostly there youngsters as well will a couple of first teamers as you said. They played with their first team second choice keeper from the off, and had some experienced heads in there. Our CB and LW have since joined YTFC on a dual reg ( both a couple of our eldest players). Over half the team are only 17. Great result shame to go out on Pens, ( Had to get it in, but at least my lad scored, and stuck his Pen away. That would have been an even more difficult drive home). Great football from a really young team, making their way back up the table. Come back and watch again. All our team games are under Keynsham Town FC on twitter. I think total attendance was well over 200 that night. Congratulations to your lad for putting his penalty away! The LW stood out as he was rapid, I thought the RW was excellent too. A great showing from such a young team. My mate lives in Keynsham and we both said we'd happily pop down again when Rovers aren't on!
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 11, 2023 9:44:25 GMT
For anyone interested, it was a banging game. Finished 3-3 and Yeovil won on pens.
Keynsham have a *very* young team and performed really well. Yeovil had mostly youngsters with a couple of first teamers in there.
There were a surprising amount of Yeovil fans there, I had to help one figure out how he was getting back home from Keynsham, the poor lad wasn't getting home until gone midnight (assuming all the trains ran on time)!
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 10, 2023 9:59:57 GMT
Looking at the objections in so far, almost all mention parking being a nightmare on matchdays. *IF* there was an incentive to get the bus/train/whatever instead of driving up, it would certainly help with getting the local residents onside! I tried getting the number 73 out if Bradley Stoke, it takes an hour on average, be quicker to walk. I'm usually on the 75/6 from the darkside and the same thing. In the summer I walk up!
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 9, 2023 16:59:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 9, 2023 14:57:27 GMT
Tomorrow night I'm going to watch Yeovil vs Keynsham at Keynsham, makes me laugh that its a pitch I've played competitive fixtures on!
Love to see how badly they've fallen after that tit with the sign
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 9, 2023 12:37:33 GMT
Not BCC, as I couldn't find the conditions, but this is from Hastings: www.hastings.gov.uk/planning/about-applications/whodecides/"The main reason an application will go to Planning Committee is where an application is recommended for approval. As well as when more than two letters of objection are received or a petition, as defined in Standing Orders, is received." I'm working on the *big* assumption that the rules are broadly the same across councils. Happy to be proven wrong on this. But she has stated if we amend the application and a couple other things that we have now done that she would support the application. So all that you have put is irrelevant and there is no need for her to call anything in. If she does then we all know why it's been done and what her stance really is. Looks like the planning officer can call it in themselves so no need to worry about her calling it in: x.com/bristol_pip/status/1692880544768331873?s=20
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 9, 2023 10:18:54 GMT
Also, with the comments coming in thick and fast, this looks like its going to committee.. Don't know if it has to be called in by Councillor Edwards, or if its an automatic thing? If she does, I would remind everyone to be kind. She's just doing her job. How is it doing her job? We have listened and amended our plans to which they were part of the discussion. There is no way this should be called in unless she is lying as she previously stated she would support the application if things were slightly changed. Not BCC, as I couldn't find the conditions, but this is from Hastings: www.hastings.gov.uk/planning/about-applications/whodecides/"The main reason an application will go to Planning Committee is where an application is recommended for approval. As well as when more than two letters of objection are received or a petition, as defined in Standing Orders, is received." I'm working on the *big* assumption that the rules are broadly the same across councils. Happy to be proven wrong on this.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 9, 2023 9:54:11 GMT
Also, with the comments coming in thick and fast, this looks like its going to committee..
Don't know if it has to be called in by Councillor Edwards, or if its an automatic thing? If she does, I would remind everyone to be kind. She's just doing her job.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 9, 2023 9:51:56 GMT
I mentioned this before everytime a new stadium is mentioned. Think it falls on deaf ears. The FM would have been ideal for this especially rail. Anyone know when Ashley Down station is due to open? Looking at the objections in so far, almost all mention parking being a nightmare on matchdays. *IF* there was an incentive to get the bus/train/whatever instead of driving up, it would certainly help with getting the local residents onside!
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 9, 2023 9:46:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 7, 2023 21:00:33 GMT
Never seen a player sent off for a similar challenge, it was a yellow card at most. I don't think the ref had a clue what he was doing TBH. Brown's challenge never deserved a yellow, if it did every foul would result in a yellow. Topper you whopper…. It was a bloody scissors hatchet job . Definite straight red 🙄 Hard agree with this. Both feet off the floor scissor job!
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 4, 2023 15:10:00 GMT
This would set a dangerous precedent, how bad does a VAR decision need to be to force a replay? What if you were 4-0 down and had a decision go against you, would that mean you get a replay?
Here be dragons I think
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 3, 2023 9:59:01 GMT
Tristan Cork lays out the timeline in his article here: www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/huge-support-bristol-rovers-plan-8677192South Stand timeline 2023Jan - Bristol Live report that a huge backlog of planning applications is 'badly impacting Bristol's economy' because of council cuts in the planning department. Many applications are taking months to even be assigned a planning officer, with many taking more than a year to be granted permission. Feb - Bristol Rovers first submit a planning application to Bristol City Council, but it is sent back. April - Rovers' submit application and is accepted by council planners. June 29 - Bristol City Council planners register the application to remove two temporary stands and build one new permanent one & publish designs and plans on the council's website. Early July - Comments begin to arrive at City Hall from residents, mostly in support. Mid July - Council planners send out the neighbourhood notification list on July 6, prompting almost 200 letters of objection, many from residents complaining that Rovers have already begun work to remove the stands. Late July - Work on the project is stopped after the two temporary stands are removed, leaving an empty end. July 27 - Cllr Emma Edwards formally calls in the planning application to be decided by committee. July 28 - Bristol Live and BBC report Bristol Rovers have started work without planning permission, and some local residents have objected. August 3 - Bristol Live reports around 350 people have written in to support the South Stand plan. August 12 - Rovers play first home game with no fans in the south end of the ground. August 12 - Labour attack Cllr Edwards for calling in the application. Lets try and stick to the facts and not vilify a woman for doing her job representing her constituents. They objected on mass and she called the application in. A councillor of any other stripes would have done the same. A councillor of any other stripe wouldn't. The greens have history and it's only them making these issues. When has any other party done this? Example? In fact I member the tory MP(?) being fully vocal and supportive of our move to the UWE and Sainsburys. She's not representing her constituents. A handful of local residents are against the stand, how many are supportive? Is she not representing them? Don't get me wrong I think all main parties aren't worth voting for as they all seem to be self serving, power hungry and liars but the greens are out on there own when it comes to things like this. They have form and history. A party of protest that has never had to run anything Yes the planning process approvals is slow and poor, Yes rovers could have done things better, yes other parties will try to make political point scoring out of it but that still doesn't excuse the way the Greens behave. And it is unique to the greens. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one as neither of us are going to change our minds!
|
|