|
|
Post by yattongas on Sept 29, 2023 11:38:55 GMT
Quick reminder, councillor Edwards is a Bristol City fan .
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Sept 29, 2023 12:18:07 GMT
To me the structure design is different to the plans, there’s one less pillar than planned, are they changing to go into the away terrace? The pillars match the detailed plans already submitted but not the 3D mock-ups (which were done earlier than the official plans). The 3D mockups also don't match the later locations of the supporters access points either - clearly they were an early proof of concept, not a final design... This seems to have been lost between the holiday planning and the political ideologies. Your not suggesting we submitted the paperwork incorrectly? |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Sept 29, 2023 12:40:04 GMT
The pillars match the detailed plans already submitted but not the 3D mock-ups (which were done earlier than the official plans). The 3D mockups also don't match the later locations of the supporters access points either - clearly they were an early proof of concept, not a final design... This seems to have been lost between the holiday planning and the political ideologies. Your not suggesting we submitted the paperwork incorrectly? Not at all. All of the detailed plans match the build. A basic 3D mock-up (not even a proper realistic image) shows something *slightly* different |
|
|
|
Post by oviedista on Sept 29, 2023 12:42:09 GMT
"the other is acting to run society and the country" So the Tory's have just been objectively doing the best they can to run society without any other motivation?' But the Greens are ideologically driven? Sure the Greens are ideologically in favour of say nationalising water industries but then all other parties are ideologically in favour of keeping them in private hands. They also have no reason - ideological or otherwise - to oppose the construction of a small stand at Rovers in principle. Also other parties are ideologically pro car and pro car industry. London is a city in which most people travel by public transport and is not communist it just decided to do things differently. Anyway only important point to this thread is that all parties are ideological and people's personal politics (and ideology) is massively over politicising what is actually just a logistical and procedural shambles. A lot of Rovers supporters, many on this forum, remember the extreme (and some would say unethical) steps that local Green Party activists took to derail the club's last attempt to develop a new ground (and in turn the current site). There was a lot more to it than this, but the short version was that local Green Party councillors and their Green party activists formed a limited company to hide the funding that allowed them to launch a Judicial Review that was effectively laughed out of court - all to stop a development they didn't like but one that had already passed every other planning hurdle. Whilst the Judicial Review failed, the costs and delays incurred meant the plan had to be abandoned and whilst the club survived it risked the financial future of the club all to meet the Green's ideological ideas... Radice (who was my local councillor at the time) failed to respond to my very polite emails and social media posts about what she was doing and why she was doing it, leaving me effectively unrepresented as a local resident. Hardly an acceptable way for an elected representative to behave.... ...so the long and the short of it is that whilst a week is a long time in politics, it will take a lot of Bristol Rovers supporters a *very* long time to forget, let alone forgive what the local Green Party did to our club.... I fully appreciate there is a lot of bad blood after the UWE/ Sainsburies conflict and I wasn't involved so I can't comment on the behaviour and communication of individuals. But it needs to be at least understood that the opposition was to a supermarket being built on the Mem site not to Rovers progressing as a club (though obviously that was a side effect). It made political sense for Greens to oppose that plan but it makes no sense to oppose a small stand at one end of the current ground other than in process and detail. Understanding the history between the Greens and the club as a conspiracy against Rovers or against some vague notion of 'progress' is distorting what's going on in this case and perceptions of the party in general. Also have people forgiven Sainsburies? |
|
|
|
Post by bridgwatergas on Sept 29, 2023 12:50:43 GMT
A lot of Rovers supporters, many on this forum, remember the extreme (and some would say unethical) steps that local Green Party activists took to derail the club's last attempt to develop a new ground (and in turn the current site). There was a lot more to it than this, but the short version was that local Green Party councillors and their Green party activists formed a limited company to hide the funding that allowed them to launch a Judicial Review that was effectively laughed out of court - all to stop a development they didn't like but one that had already passed every other planning hurdle. Whilst the Judicial Review failed, the costs and delays incurred meant the plan had to be abandoned and whilst the club survived it risked the financial future of the club all to meet the Green's ideological ideas... Radice (who was my local councillor at the time) failed to respond to my very polite emails and social media posts about what she was doing and why she was doing it, leaving me effectively unrepresented as a local resident. Hardly an acceptable way for an elected representative to behave.... ...so the long and the short of it is that whilst a week is a long time in politics, it will take a lot of Bristol Rovers supporters a *very* long time to forget, let alone forgive what the local Green Party did to our club.... I fully appreciate there is a lot of bad blood after the UWE/ Sainsburies conflict and I wasn't involved so I can't comment on the behaviour and communication of individuals. But it needs to be at least understood that the opposition was to a supermarket being built on the Mem site not to Rovers progressing as a club (though obviously that was a side effect). It made political sense for Greens to oppose that plan but it makes no sense to oppose a small stand at one end of the current ground other than in process and detail. Understanding the history between the Greens and the club as a conspiracy against Rovers or against some vague notion of 'progress' is distorting what's going on in this case and perceptions of the party in general. Also have people forgiven Sainsburies? Yes Sainsburys did the dirty on us but if the Greens hadn't held up everything with there judicial review rubbish then the projects would have already started and Rovers would now be sat in the UWE. Whether or not that's a good thing for the club or not is a different debate but I would forgive Sainsburys well before, if ever I would forgive the Greens. |
|
|
|
Post by oviedista on Sept 29, 2023 13:09:10 GMT
I fully appreciate there is a lot of bad blood after the UWE/ Sainsburies conflict and I wasn't involved so I can't comment on the behaviour and communication of individuals. But it needs to be at least understood that the opposition was to a supermarket being built on the Mem site not to Rovers progressing as a club (though obviously that was a side effect). It made political sense for Greens to oppose that plan but it makes no sense to oppose a small stand at one end of the current ground other than in process and detail. Understanding the history between the Greens and the club as a conspiracy against Rovers or against some vague notion of 'progress' is distorting what's going on in this case and perceptions of the party in general. Also have people forgiven Sainsburies? Yes Sainsburys did the dirty on us but if the Greens hadn't held up everything with there judicial review rubbish then the projects would have already started and Rovers would now be sat in the UWE. Whether or not that's a good thing for the club or not is a different debate but I would forgive Sainsburys well before, if ever I would forgive the Greens. Could be sat in the UWE but I'm not 100% things wouldn't have gone tits up anyway. But either way, I'm not asking anyone to forgive anyone else for not prioritising Rovers over opposition to supermarket building - as it's still possible to be unforgiving whilst having a rational, objective understanding of people's motives and actions now. |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgas on Sept 29, 2023 13:14:29 GMT
Does anyone have any pictures of this weeks progress?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirt Dogg on Sept 29, 2023 14:14:51 GMT
Quick reminder, councillor Edwards is a Bristol City fan . There’s a clear conflict of interest, anything she says on the matter should be disregarded by the council. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Sept 29, 2023 14:17:23 GMT
I fully appreciate there is a lot of bad blood after the UWE/ Sainsburies conflict and I wasn't involved so I can't comment on the behaviour and communication of individuals. But it needs to be at least understood that the opposition was to a supermarket being built on the Mem site not to Rovers progressing as a club (though obviously that was a side effect). It made political sense for Greens to oppose that plan but it makes no sense to oppose a small stand at one end of the current ground other than in process and detail. Understanding the history between the Greens and the club as a conspiracy against Rovers or against some vague notion of 'progress' is distorting what's going on in this case and perceptions of the party in general. Also have people forgiven Sainsburies? The time and the place for political opposition was (and still is) during the planning process. Ten years ago the Greens lost that political battle and so decided to take the fight to the courts - and again that's not completely unreasonable (checks and balances and all that) *but* it was the way they went about the various legal and administrative challenges that really annoyed me. Hiding names (of people involved), changing names of pressure groups (when it was the exact same people behind them) and hiding where the funding came from. All whilst claiming they were *serving* their constituents (many of whom supported the plans but were no longer being listened to, let alone represented... |
|
|
|
Post by oviedista on Sept 29, 2023 15:01:34 GMT
I fully appreciate there is a lot of bad blood after the UWE/ Sainsburies conflict and I wasn't involved so I can't comment on the behaviour and communication of individuals. But it needs to be at least understood that the opposition was to a supermarket being built on the Mem site not to Rovers progressing as a club (though obviously that was a side effect). It made political sense for Greens to oppose that plan but it makes no sense to oppose a small stand at one end of the current ground other than in process and detail. Understanding the history between the Greens and the club as a conspiracy against Rovers or against some vague notion of 'progress' is distorting what's going on in this case and perceptions of the party in general. Also have people forgiven Sainsburies? The time and the place for political opposition was (and still is) during the planning process. Ten years ago the Greens lost that political battle and so decided to take the fight to the courts - and again that's not completely unreasonable (checks and balances and all that) *but* it was the way they went about the various legal and administrative challenges that really annoyed me. Hiding names (of people involved), changing names of pressure groups (when it was the exact same people behind them) and hiding where the funding came from. All whilst claiming they were *serving* their constituents (many of whom supported the plans but were no longer being listened to, let alone represented... Fair enough - like I say I wan't involved. At the time I felt they were picking the wrong battles even if I thought it was a valid one ( I wanted the UWE above all). I think there's a big difference between these kind of criticisms (of previous strategic manoeuvring) and some of the more politically motivated and conspiratorial stuff thrown at the Greens as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 29, 2023 16:36:39 GMT
The time and the place for political opposition was (and still is) during the planning process. Ten years ago the Greens lost that political battle and so decided to take the fight to the courts - and again that's not completely unreasonable (checks and balances and all that) *but* it was the way they went about the various legal and administrative challenges that really annoyed me. Hiding names (of people involved), changing names of pressure groups (when it was the exact same people behind them) and hiding where the funding came from. All whilst claiming they were *serving* their constituents (many of whom supported the plans but were no longer being listened to, let alone represented... Fair enough - like I say I wan't involved. At the time I felt they were picking the wrong battles even if I thought it was a valid one ( I wanted the UWE above all). I think there's a big difference between these kind of criticisms (of previous strategic manoeuvring) and some of the more politically motivated and conspiratorial stuff thrown at the Greens as a whole. Perhaps it gets thrown at them as whenever Rovers try and develop the Mem it's only the Green party who raises any objections. So far Forbes doesn't seem to have achieve a lot despite her objections, as Rovers are still building the stand to the original plans. |
|
|
|
Post by wertongas on Sept 29, 2023 17:05:21 GMT
I heard back from TG , he says the planning application for the South Stand has been re submitted under the advice of the Planning Officer.
I asked him if this meant the new application does not need to go to planning, he avoided my question . If the application has everything asked for by objectors and planning I don't think it will need to go to committee . The stand is now being constructed under planning and building reg guidance and monitored by Council Officers so it will be ready for the issue of a BSR certificate when completed.
|
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Sept 29, 2023 17:10:39 GMT
I heard back from TG , he says the planning application for the South Stand has been re submitted under the advice of the Planning Officer. I asked him if this meant the new application does not need to go to planning, he avoided my question . If the application has everything asked for by objectors and planning I don't think it will need to go to committee . The stand is now being constructed under planning and building reg guidance and monitored by Council Officers so it will be ready for the issue of a BSR certificate when completed. Sounds like goods news ( hopefully) |
|
|
|
Post by wallywalters on Sept 29, 2023 17:39:09 GMT
I heard back from TG , he says the planning application for the South Stand has been re submitted under the advice of the Planning Officer. I asked him if this meant the new application does not need to go to planning, he avoided my question . If the application has everything asked for by objectors and planning I don't think it will need to go to committee . The stand is now being constructed under planning and building reg guidance and monitored by Council Officers so it will be ready for the issue of a BSR certificate when completed. Thanks for the update werton. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Sept 29, 2023 23:08:06 GMT
Not to derail this into another political conversation but there is a difference. One is acting out of ideology and the other is acting to run society and the country. the greens have never really been in charge of anything. They are a party of protest and pretty much always oppose anything that others would call development. Name one development the Greens have actually been in favour of and supported? and I agree with the original post. I know a green party member and they are ideologically opposed to the motor car. Aside from the pollution they see that resources should be shared and public transport being the only option. A communist view. Fortunately the greens will never get any real power but they will have the power to play the system and frustrate and obstruct. "the other is acting to run society and the country" So the Tory's have just been objectively doing the best they can to run society without any other motivation?' But the Greens are ideologically driven? Sure the Greens are ideologically in favour of say nationalising water industries but then all other parties are ideologically in favour of keeping them in private hands. They also have no reason - ideological or otherwise - to oppose the construction of a small stand at Rovers in principle. Also other parties are ideologically pro car and pro car industry. London is a city in which most people travel by public transport and is not communist it just decided to do things differently. Anyway only important point to this thread is that all parties are ideological and people's personal politics (and ideology) is massively over politicising what is actually just a logistical and procedural shambles. I said something very similar a few weeks back but you have said it much better. The idea the Greens are ideologically opposed to a small metal stand is ludicrous. We f@cked up the planning application and many people didn't like it. And said so, including those wicked Greens. And lots of posters on here have gone on a witch-hunt trying to blame everyone who doesn't support the club, regardless of how badly the club's management have handled things. If anyone has been in any doubt about the rights and wrongs here, the fact that the club have withdrawn and resubmitted their application should answer those doubts. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Sept 29, 2023 23:19:53 GMT
I fully appreciate there is a lot of bad blood after the UWE/ Sainsburies conflict and I wasn't involved so I can't comment on the behaviour and communication of individuals. But it needs to be at least understood that the opposition was to a supermarket being built on the Mem site not to Rovers progressing as a club (though obviously that was a side effect). It made political sense for Greens to oppose that plan but it makes no sense to oppose a small stand at one end of the current ground other than in process and detail. Understanding the history between the Greens and the club as a conspiracy against Rovers or against some vague notion of 'progress' is distorting what's going on in this case and perceptions of the party in general. Also have people forgiven Sainsburies? Yes Sainsburys did the dirty on us but if the Greens hadn't held up everything with there judicial review rubbish then the projects would have already started and Rovers would now be sat in the UWE. Whether or not that's a good thing for the club or not is a different debate but I would forgive Sainsburys well before, if ever I would forgive the Greens. You would never forgive the Greens for raising objections to a planning application, but you can forgive Sainsbury's for signing a contract and then walking away from it because they didn't like it any more? I just don't understand this forum or modern thinking any more. It's almost surreal. Oh well. I'm just going to go with the herd and blame the Green party for everything that has ever gone wrong with our club. Yay! |
|
|
|
Post by wider on Sept 29, 2023 23:25:00 GMT
Sorry aghast but although agreeing with your assessment of the political situation I disagree regarding the club management getting things wrong regarding planning.
Planning is complicated and full of pitfalls so they hired ‘professional’ help in the way they outsource a great many things. The planning application was submitted early but not accepted. Not unusual. Resubmitting is also not unusual and may speed things up.
We don’t know the inside dealing that’s almost certainly happening. Apportioning blame largely to the club management seems as bad to me as the way some are blaming the greens.
|
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Sept 30, 2023 5:58:02 GMT
Yes Sainsburys did the dirty on us but if the Greens hadn't held up everything with there judicial review rubbish then the projects would have already started and Rovers would now be sat in the UWE. Whether or not that's a good thing for the club or not is a different debate but I would forgive Sainsburys well before, if ever I would forgive the Greens. You would never forgive the Greens for raising objections to a planning application, but you can forgive Sainsbury's for signing a contract and then walking away from it because they didn't like it any more? I just don't understand this forum or modern thinking any more. It's almost surreal. Oh well. I'm just going to go with the herd and blame the Green party for everything that has ever gone wrong with our club. Yay! ...Sainsburys only had the opportunity to walk away because the Green Party/TrasHorfield (delete/merge as applicable) delayed everything being finalised for well over a year - a period when Sainsbury's strategic plans across the country changed and meant that a deal they liked in early 2013 no longer suited them in late 2014. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Sept 30, 2023 6:04:20 GMT
Sorry aghast but although agreeing with your assessment of the political situation I disagree regarding the club management getting things wrong regarding planning. Planning is complicated and full of pitfalls so they hired ‘professional’ help in the way they outsource a great many things. The planning application was submitted early but not accepted. Not unusual. Resubmitting is also not unusual and may speed things up. We don’t know the inside dealing that’s almost certainly happening. Apportioning blame largely to the club management seems as bad to me as the way some are blaming the greens. Everyone knows the planning process is not straightforward and was never going to sail through but some see it as an irresistible opportunity to put the boot in on the football club. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Sept 30, 2023 6:30:32 GMT
Wembley was delayed by years and was 3 times the original cost.
Take it easy.
|
|
