|
Post by nerdgas on Oct 20, 2023 14:11:53 GMT
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. I think he means 'lobbyists' not lobbyist. Which I take to mean locals that are actively involved in encouraging objections against the stand.
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Oct 12, 2023 8:54:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Oct 10, 2023 14:16:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Oct 8, 2023 11:00:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Sept 21, 2023 21:24:05 GMT
From FB. Temp seats in the SW section and apparently more going in tomorrow which I assume might be away ones near the away terrace or extra in the SW?
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Sept 15, 2023 13:36:05 GMT
Better size image from the other day
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Sept 15, 2023 13:35:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Sept 14, 2023 11:17:20 GMT
Any new photos of the new stand? From Facebook
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Aug 17, 2023 19:26:27 GMT
How can you not say history plays a part when every piece of planning on the mem site has met with their objections? Cllr Emma has shown herself up to be as disengenious as every other GP member in this neck of the woods. My debate with her on Twitter where her evidence in the way of photographs which apparently breaks all sorts of laws and rules do not amount to any proof whatsoever. For example a photo of a crane moving a rebar steel cage stating that its "proof work is continuing without planning permission". It isnt. It's proof we have the materials and they are being moved. No proof has been given of them being sunk into the ground. Yet. So as it stands that is supposition on her part. There is no law saying materials cannot be ordered, delivered and moved. Emma also provided a photo with the Alton ROad fire exit gate open as proof that it was being left open to the public as an unsecure site. However there was a van parked almost in its entrance so it could have been one of the contractors vans and he was unloading some stuff. Suppositon on both our parts I suppose but her photo doesnt prove anything more than my claim. She says we have no project manager. We have employed BNP Paribas and Arena... So by far from being "helpful" as the is claiming the GP to be, she is being disengenious in the fact that she has no proof beyond all reasonable doubt that this project needed to be delayed by calling it in. It's just typical of their tactics and its insulting to the intelligence of the ones clever enough to see through her BS. We already have another GP member here spewing her waffle about consultations. There is little legitimacy to any of it and I'm surprised you are taken in by it, especially as a gashead. Any chance of a link to your Twitter debate? "https://twitter.com/bristol_pip/status/1692067438609715466?s=20" Don't seem to be allowed to post the actual link without speechmarks
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Jul 28, 2023 16:00:08 GMT
What Rovers development has ever been blocked? Despite trying their hardest they couldn't even block the Sainsbury's development. I can't honestly see any of their objections are worth worrying about, when the club have already obtained pp for a much larger stadium and are only increasing the ground capacity back to what it was for a number of years. None because the majority Labour group always supported it . That's not me making it up its a fact if you look at papers going back I must say backed by the Tories. However: the Greens have the biggest vote on the committee and I'm sorry to say it back's middle class : self interest groups . So it's a slightly different context now . The Greens backed all 3 groups before who opposed any developments Trash : Horfield Rose : F..O .M. S. I like your optimisim but we need to be aware of the momentum of the local campaigners and its influence on the Green vote . One of the local ward Green councillors seemed to have made a formal request to have the permission referred to the commitee if the planning officer recommends approval (it's on the planning portal) - I can only guess the club are trying to get it pushed through without needing the meeting if thats even possible.
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Jul 27, 2023 17:32:47 GMT
Some of them have referred to being told about the build today..... Most are repeating the same theme though to do with increased capacity/more traffic (someone seemed to think 2000 extra seats meant 2000 extra cars......) and light issues for those in Downend Road. Difficult to see how the increase in attendance is a strong argument given i t's just going back to where it was and it's pretty likely most complainants moved to the area knowing there was a stadium with rovers always looking at options to increase capacity. Some genius has even suggested making the stadium car park bigger - not sure how that would be possible without knocking down a few houses...... Not sure the light argument stands either for those on Downend Rd when you look at how far from the stand their back gardens actually are. On a sunny day I can't see any shadows from the stand reaching that far especially given they are south of the site. Just a thought and a genuine question. Is /was the mem licensed by the council to hold sporting events with a maximum capacity ? If so ,surely that would negate that objection ? Biggest attendance was in 2008 I believe and was just over 12k. The new stand adds around 2000 which according to the the application takes the stadium to 12.5k. Seems odd because I thought current capacity was just under 10k due to SAG restrictions. The previous proposed stadium permission given was for 18k so there is precedent for an approval for a much larger capacity stadium on the site.
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Jul 27, 2023 13:50:13 GMT
I see the planning portal has had around 50 objections added today. Seems like a co-ordinated effort now. Or BCC have just got around to uploading them? Some of them have referred to being told about the build today..... Most are repeating the same theme though to do with increased capacity/more traffic (someone seemed to think 2000 extra seats meant 2000 extra cars......) and light issues for those in Downend Road. Difficult to see how the increase in attendance is a strong argument given it's just going back to where it was and it's pretty likely most complainants moved to the area knowing there was a stadium with rovers always looking at options to increase capacity. Some genius has even suggested making the stadium car park bigger - not sure how that would be possible without knocking down a few houses...... Not sure the light argument stands either for those on Downend Rd when you look at how far from the stand their back gardens actually are. On a sunny day I can't see any shadows from the stand reaching that far especially given they are south of the site.
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Jul 27, 2023 13:20:40 GMT
I see the planning portal has had around 50 objections added today. Seems like a co-ordinated effort now.
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Aug 15, 2017 12:31:58 GMT
But their land includes their car park which sort of just hangs off the bottom of the site.
When you look at the square parcel of land that they have built on within their site and compare it to our site which is in effect completely square it's not unreasonable to conclude that the area we can build on is similar in size to the footprint of their stadium.
I doubt there's any real planning issues with rebuilding the Mem, the two issues are the owners financing it and the fans accepting there will be v. limited onsite parking, with all the nearby roads which aren't PCZ's getting clogged up if we have a big crowd. Given finance was apparently in place and there's plenty of car parking it makes the fact an agreement couldn't be reached with the UWE all the more irritating. But if the AQ's can incorporate enough facilities into the stands to give extra revenue streams (whether conference facilities or a hotel of some description) then maybe it is viable....
The last approval included the club paying for an RPZ to be created as well as extra bus provision, a stadium monitoring group and a couple of other things. Mitigating measures would be needed again to get this through planning.
Most fans don't park or even have the option to park at the Mem at the moment so I really don't understand why it's such a big deal tbh
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Aug 15, 2017 12:25:57 GMT
The car park alongside the Mem is a decent size, but it's nowhere near big enough so why not use the space th increase the footprint of the new stadium? Someone posted elsewhere that AG is slightly larger in area than the Mem. I would have thought that with the car park included the Mem site would be a good bit bigger. If the Sh1t got a 26k stadium on their land, I see no reason why we can't at least match that. Dwain Sports would have to re-locate us for a couple of years and move an awful lot of soil, but the beauty of that is is a good part of the stadium could be below ground level, and with integrity of design it would be a much neater construction than that abortion south of the river. Parking around there is a pain, but Railtrack are looking at opening Ashley Down station and surely the bus company and coach operators wouldn't be averse to making some money on match days laying on services to the ground. No, even with our car park their land is bigger than ours. Ashton gate is approx 37,500 sm2 and the Mem is 32,000.... Really not much in it though and plenty of space to be able to do something similar I am sure! But their land includes their car park which sort of just hangs off the bottom of the site. When you look at the square parcel of land that they have built on within their site and compare it to our site which is in effect completely square it's not unreasonable to conclude that the area we can build on is similar in size to the footprint of their stadium.
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Aug 15, 2017 12:02:33 GMT
We have approx 32,000 SM2 of space at the Mem, it is plenty is used correctly. For a start I would be looking at moving the pitch so the 'blackthorn stand' would now rest in the carpark and the south stand would now rest where the west stand currently lies. With regards to parking, I am not sure there is any obligation on the club to provide parking on match days is there? It is of course a good thing to do, but is it required of us? I can't help but be reminded of Coventry away last season with all this talk of parking.... Huge out of town stadium with plenty of space around it and yet still no free parking anywhere near the bloody place! We had to pay a tenner to park 2 miles up the road and be bused in... Far from ideal! Also, does anyone know what the match day parking situation down at our friends in south Bristol? They too have recently completed an inner city stadium redevelopment that as far as I can tell uses all of the land they have available to them, so what do they do for parking? For me there is absolutely no reason why a forward thinking architect could not design a very impressive 25,000 seater stadium on our existing land that would also cater for executive areas and other revenue streams that all modern day stadiums should have (gym, club shop, large bar / restaurant etc). If we are looking for an example of an excellent inner city stadium redevelopment then we would be stupid to ignore the one down the road.. I know it stings the eyes to look south of the river! But fact is they have built a very impressive stadium on land of a very similar size to ours. Of course all of the above will mean two things will absolutely have to happen... 1) Wael and the board will need to prove their loyalties to this club in terms of finances as to rebuild the mem will not be cheap. 2) We will need to move out. This will simply be unavoidable for a complete stadium rebuild as we of course require. Cheltenham was agreed and all set to go last time we were looking at redeveloping them mem, so why not again? Would only be for a season or two so in the grand scheme of things really not that big an inconvenience. Agree with all of this. I would suggest a share with (spit) Swindon would be a better idea. A larger ground and, I think, easier to get to. Sorry quoted the wrong post....
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Aug 15, 2017 11:59:44 GMT
The idea of sinking the pitch is a good one IMO. If we also implement a steeper continental-style seating elevation would create a cracking atmosphere too. we would have to move out though while this was happening... Cheltenham here we come lol Isn't there a water table under the Mem hence the drainage problems we have had? I've heard this before.
I'm intrigued how we have a high water table when we're effectively on top of a hill though....
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Jan 19, 2016 13:01:02 GMT
Nah, its a good thread with a cool title. I think I'll leave it alone. Trololol Its avery good thread with a decent title, but in the wrong section.MOVE IT. NOW SACK THE MODERATORS....
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Jan 18, 2016 15:45:26 GMT
Clueless. Fecking clueless. Our most natural finisher being loaned to a heap of donkey dollop. SACK THE BOARD......
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Oct 7, 2015 13:12:16 GMT
It was. 71 pages of nonsense where someone wanted to swap or sell a PS 2, mind blowing remind you of any other threads?! Ah, but did he actually want to sell it, or was it just a rumour? Yes definitely wanted to sell it. Wanted a couple hundred notes for it and was roundly ridiculed. Then claimed he'd already sold it. The thread quickly degenerated into p**s-taking..... This is about as close as I can get to the thread but unfortunately the thread appears to be gone. The aftermath had gashead86 threatening to 'end' people I seem to recall. web.archive.org/web/20071101071315/http://www.brfcforum.co.uk/index.php?showforum=24
|
|