|
|
Post by olskooltoteender on Oct 1, 2023 14:24:31 GMT
Imagine voting Green. Perhaps just vague notions of being kind to the planet and having green spaces is appealing to the average voter, who doesn’t think through the practicalities. They are the kind of people who think in slogans and haven’t got the first clue how to actually achieve their aims, yet know very well what they’re against. Which seems to be everything anyone else wants to do. They literally prioritise the needs of trees, badgers and woodlice over the needs of humans. This is Bristol after all, it’s very much a microcosm of useless malcontents these days. Bang on |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 1, 2023 14:57:15 GMT
I think maybe you have answered your own question. To say that we have resubmitted to satisfy objectors, suggests that we wouldn't get granted PP if we didn't resubmit. What if these objectors are the ones making the decision around PP? Why didn't we just say "f**k that" and carry on the the PP application? There are only three options: 1) We have changed the plans in the construction, a voluntary change. 2) We have decided to be good neighbours and listen to the locals and make changes, a voluntary change. 3) We have been told that unless the application is changed, we won't get planning permission. It can only be one of those options. You are suggesting the second one? I am suggesting the second one and by satisfying their objections I would suggest we have avoided the application being called in and heard by committee and will just be a decision for the planners alone and not a load of moaning green councillors. A means to an ends. I don’t think it’s an admission that we’ve done anything wrong but having to hold our noses, make some minor token adjustments which allows the councillor to save face and hasten the inevitable planning approval. Seems like the silly little games that need to be played in this great city of ours! |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Oct 2, 2023 11:42:29 GMT
Yes, we are discussing two different issues and describing them in two different ways . ...and I stand by everything I've said about specific Green Party members (as well as their local party activists) acting unethically. When they failed to stop the development using the standard processes (planning permission) they used their elected positions and their local political network to plan and scheme away from the public eye and ignoring at least some of their local electorate. Nothing illegal as far as we know. As for the South Stand, there is a statutory time limit to process certain parts of a planning application. BCC missed it by not just a few days but by many weeks. The build is time sensitive and the council (not the club, at least at first) were the causes of the delay to a planning application that the external companies contracted by the club and most independent observers all agree should be approved. So is it unethical to start to build it whilst the local politicians and civil servants fail to meet their obligations? Again, that's decided by whether you are pro or anti the stand being built, but if you could find an independent person to judge it, and they noted the legal (and missed) timescales, the costs to the club/fans of the (council) delays and the general view that it meets all planning requirements, they *might* conclude that starting the build is a sensible step to avoid even further costs and delays... Do you know that as a fact? Surely the fact that we have withdrawn and resubmitted suggests something different? No, I am not a trained planning expert but I am a 'hobbyist' - I love reading the threads on Skyscrapercity.com and similar websites about all kinds of construction big and small, especially sports and entertainment venues.... ...and you can learn a lot over the years reading about other club's experiences with their local councils, local residents and their fans as well. For the South Stand at the Mem, firstly there is no change of use of the site - this is a key planning hurdle we don't have to jump. It's smaller than previous planning applications that were granted for the same site so a lot of the application documents reflect this because the planning officers will know (or can read) those documents. Light, drainage, access is all covered. It doesn't increase the capacity past the recent limit so no new transport plan is required. I'm sure the original planning application was perfectly acceptable and would have been passed easily. But since the Green Party/Council have delayed the build with incompetence/objections, it has allowed us to take more time to improve small areas that there simply wasn't time to address in the first application - all things not required for permission to be granted, but things that can now be added during and not after the build (and retro-fitting normally costs a lot more...) |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Oct 2, 2023 12:55:40 GMT
Yes, we are discussing two different issues and describing them in two different ways . ...and I stand by everything I've said about specific Green Party members (as well as their local party activists) acting unethically. When they failed to stop the development using the standard processes (planning permission) they used their elected positions and their local political network to plan and scheme away from the public eye and ignoring at least some of their local electorate. Nothing illegal as far as we know. As for the South Stand, there is a statutory time limit to process certain parts of a planning application. BCC missed it by not just a few days but by many weeks. The build is time sensitive and the council (not the club, at least at first) were the causes of the delay to a planning application that the external companies contracted by the club and most independent observers all agree should be approved. So is it unethical to start to build it whilst the local politicians and civil servants fail to meet their obligations? Again, that's decided by whether you are pro or anti the stand being built, but if you could find an independent person to judge it, and they noted the legal (and missed) timescales, the costs to the club/fans of the (council) delays and the general view that it meets all planning requirements, they *might* conclude that starting the build is a sensible step to avoid even further costs and delays... Do you know that as a fact? Surely the fact that we have withdrawn and resubmitted suggests something different? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 2, 2023 13:11:30 GMT
Do you know that as a fact? Surely the fact that we have withdrawn and resubmitted suggests something different? You need three things to win a battle; money, money and money. |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Oct 2, 2023 13:15:53 GMT
"War, force is always a last resort. Given that warfare is always defeat, the commander in pursuing the best possible outcome seeks to disarm the enemy without ever joining him on the battlefield" You need three things to win a battle; money, money and money. We need a third middle eastern investor?? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 2, 2023 13:25:32 GMT
You need three things to win a battle; money, money and money. We need a third middle eastern investor?? A Euromillions winner will do, I just need to buy a ticket first. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 2, 2023 18:03:59 GMT
Do you know that as a fact? Surely the fact that we have withdrawn and resubmitted suggests something different? Just trying to understand your post: Are you saying that it is better to retreat and regroup, rather than fight and lose? I would love to think that the club has a strategy finally with this. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 2, 2023 18:12:02 GMT
Do you know that as a fact? Surely the fact that we have withdrawn and resubmitted suggests something different? No, I am not a trained planning expert but I am a 'hobbyist' - I love reading the threads on Skyscrapercity.com and similar websites about all kinds of construction big and small, especially sports and entertainment venues.... ...and you can learn a lot over the years reading about other club's experiences with their local councils, local residents and their fans as well. For the South Stand at the Mem, firstly there is no change of use of the site - this is a key planning hurdle we don't have to jump. It's smaller than previous planning applications that were granted for the same site so a lot of the application documents reflect this because the planning officers will know (or can read) those documents. Light, drainage, access is all covered. It doesn't increase the capacity past the recent limit so no new transport plan is required. I'm sure the original planning application was perfectly acceptable and would have been passed easily. But since the Green Party/Council have delayed the build with incompetence/objections, it has allowed us to take more time to improve small areas that there simply wasn't time to address in the first application - all things not required to permission to be granted, but things that can now be added during and not after the build (and retro-fitting normally costs a lot more...) It's great that you find this stuff interesting and are a hobbyist. However, your post said: "external companies contracted by the club and most independent observers all agree should be approved." But what you mean is: "I've read a few websites and in my opinion planning permission should be granted"? Those are two very different things. You also say: "It's smaller than previous planning applications that were granted for the same site" You would also know that if we had put 'spades in the ground' then that previous planning permission would still be live. However, as we didn't do that I don't think that we can use the argument that you gave planning permission before, so you have to give it again. My understanding is that planning permission is no longer relevant to this application. Unless there is something in the PP process that says if it was given before then its a given now (which means that the 5 years spades in the ground thing is just irrelevant to any planning permission application?) |
|
|
|
Post by gasman on Oct 2, 2023 18:48:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Oct 2, 2023 19:39:09 GMT
Can put the logs there ready for the burner. Smart. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 2, 2023 20:01:11 GMT
No, I am not a trained planning expert but I am a 'hobbyist' - I love reading the threads on Skyscrapercity.com and similar websites about all kinds of construction big and small, especially sports and entertainment venues.... ...and you can learn a lot over the years reading about other club's experiences with their local councils, local residents and their fans as well. For the South Stand at the Mem, firstly there is no change of use of the site - this is a key planning hurdle we don't have to jump. It's smaller than previous planning applications that were granted for the same site so a lot of the application documents reflect this because the planning officers will know (or can read) those documents. Light, drainage, access is all covered. It doesn't increase the capacity past the recent limit so no new transport plan is required. I'm sure the original planning application was perfectly acceptable and would have been passed easily. But since the Green Party/Council have delayed the build with incompetence/objections, it has allowed us to take more time to improve small areas that there simply wasn't time to address in the first application - all things not required to permission to be granted, but things that can now be added during and not after the build (and retro-fitting normally costs a lot more...) It's great that you find this stuff interesting and are a hobbyist. However, your post said: "external companies contracted by the club and most independent observers all agree should be approved." But what you mean is: "I've read a few websites and in my opinion planning permission should be granted"? Those are two very different things. You also say: "It's smaller than previous planning applications that were granted for the same site" You would also know that if we had put 'spades in the ground' then that previous planning permission would still be live. However, as we didn't do that I don't think that we can use the argument that you gave planning permission before, so you have to give it again. My understanding is that planning permission is no longer relevant to this application. Unless there is something in the PP process that says if it was given before then its a given now (which means that the 5 years spades in the ground thing is just irrelevant to any planning permission application?) We used the old plans for The Quarters when seeking pp for the new development even though they had long expired. I'm no planning expert but unless planning laws re lighting etc have changed in the intervening years then I'd imagine planners would have problems finding a reason to refuse pp, when they had passed them previously for something even bigger. Anyway you keep digging and you might find something the planners can find grounds to refuse the plans. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 2, 2023 20:08:50 GMT
It's great that you find this stuff interesting and are a hobbyist. However, your post said: "external companies contracted by the club and most independent observers all agree should be approved." But what you mean is: "I've read a few websites and in my opinion planning permission should be granted"? Those are two very different things. You also say: "It's smaller than previous planning applications that were granted for the same site" You would also know that if we had put 'spades in the ground' then that previous planning permission would still be live. However, as we didn't do that I don't think that we can use the argument that you gave planning permission before, so you have to give it again. My understanding is that planning permission is no longer relevant to this application. Unless there is something in the PP process that says if it was given before then its a given now (which means that the 5 years spades in the ground thing is just irrelevant to any planning permission application?) We used the old plans for The Quarters when seeking pp for the new development even though they had long expired. I'm no planning expert but unless planning laws re lighting etc have changed in the intervening years then I'd imagine planners would have problems finding a reason to refuse pp, when they had passed them previously for something even bigger. Anyway you keep digging and you might find something the planners can find grounds to refuse the plans. Using old plans isn't really the issue here. It's the assertion that because planning permission was granted once with those plans, it would be granted again. I don't think there is such guarantee in the world of planning permission. Regulations change, focus on things like transportation changes. The councils strategic direction may well be different now from when the redevelopment was signed off. That redevelopment contained student accommodation, maybe that was the main reason it got signed off before? Who knows? However, we do know that just because something was passed before, doesn't guarantee it being passed now. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 2, 2023 20:13:41 GMT
We used the old plans for The Quarters when seeking pp for the new development even though they had long expired. I'm no planning expert but unless planning laws re lighting etc have changed in the intervening years then I'd imagine planners would have problems finding a reason to refuse pp, when they had passed them previously for something even bigger. Anyway you keep digging and you might find something the planners can find grounds to refuse the plans. Using old plans isn't really the issue here. It's the assertion that because planning permission was granted once with those plans, it would be granted again. I don't think there is such guarantee in the world of planning permission. Regulations change, focus on things like transportation changes. The councils strategic direction may well be different now from when the redevelopment was signed off. That redevelopment contained student accommodation, maybe that was the main reason it got signed off before? Who knows? However, we do know that just because something was passed before, doesn't guarantee it being passed now. Out of interest why are you so desperate for the South Stand project to fail or find something the club have done wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 2, 2023 20:21:59 GMT
Using old plans isn't really the issue here. It's the assertion that because planning permission was granted once with those plans, it would be granted again. I don't think there is such guarantee in the world of planning permission. Regulations change, focus on things like transportation changes. The councils strategic direction may well be different now from when the redevelopment was signed off. That redevelopment contained student accommodation, maybe that was the main reason it got signed off before? Who knows? However, we do know that just because something was passed before, doesn't guarantee it being passed now. Out of interest why are you so desperate for the South Stand project to fail or find something the club have done wrong? I'm not at all desperate for it to fail. I am desperate for it to succeed. I want Bristol Rovers to once again be seen as a pillar of the community, so I want us to be doing everything by the book and not trying to cut corners. I want to know why we have withdrawn the planning application and have resubmitted it. If it is truly to be good neighbours then I am really happy about that. However, my concern is that we have f**ked it up again and my guess is that it's the same person f**ked it up. I want answers. I want to understand why we have acted the way we have. There are a few alarming things happening around the club and we should all want to understand why. Otherwise we may not have a club to support. |
|
|
|
Post by Dirt Dogg on Oct 2, 2023 20:43:25 GMT
Is that the new smoking shelter for the west stand? |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 2, 2023 21:03:33 GMT
Out of interest why are you so desperate for the South Stand project to fail or find something the club have done wrong? I'm not at all desperate for it to fail. I am desperate for it to succeed. I want Bristol Rovers to once again be seen as a pillar of the community, so I want us to be doing everything by the book and not trying to cut corners. I want to know why we have withdrawn the planning application and have resubmitted it. If it is truly to be good neighbours then I am really happy about that. However, my concern is that we have f**ked it up again and my guess is that it's the same person f**ked it up. I want answers. I want to understand why we have acted the way we have. There are a few alarming things happening around the club and we should all want to understand why. Otherwise we may not have a club to support. What's alarming, that we misunderstood the Green party's agenda and failed to consult with them before submitting the plans? If they hadn't raised any objections it seems likely BCC would have approved the plans. You're starting to sound like KP with this "we may not have a club to support" nonsense when we're probably in the best financial shape we've ever been in. |
|
|
|
Post by gasheadpirate on Oct 2, 2023 21:08:11 GMT
We used the old plans for The Quarters when seeking pp for the new development even though they had long expired. I'm no planning expert but unless planning laws re lighting etc have changed in the intervening years then I'd imagine planners would have problems finding a reason to refuse pp, when they had passed them previously for something even bigger. Anyway you keep digging and you might find something the planners can find grounds to refuse the plans. Using old plans isn't really the issue here. It's the assertion that because planning permission was granted once with those plans, it would be granted again. I don't think there is such guarantee in the world of planning permission. Regulations change, focus on things like transportation changes. The councils strategic direction may well be different now from when the redevelopment was signed off. That redevelopment contained student accommodation, maybe that was the main reason it got signed off before? Who knows? However, we do know that just because something was passed before, doesn't guarantee it being passed now. Previous planning permissions may not guarantee a subsequent application being accepted, but the principle of a development has been set by the previous permission. As long as the new application is not larger than the previously passed application then it should be passed unless there are very strong reasons not to pass it. |
|
|
|
Post by willytopp84 on Oct 3, 2023 2:58:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 3, 2023 5:04:27 GMT
I'm not at all desperate for it to fail. I am desperate for it to succeed. I want Bristol Rovers to once again be seen as a pillar of the community, so I want us to be doing everything by the book and not trying to cut corners. I want to know why we have withdrawn the planning application and have resubmitted it. If it is truly to be good neighbours then I am really happy about that. However, my concern is that we have f**ked it up again and my guess is that it's the same person f**ked it up. I want answers. I want to understand why we have acted the way we have. There are a few alarming things happening around the club and we should all want to understand why. Otherwise we may not have a club to support. What's alarming, that we misunderstood the Green party's agenda and failed to consult with them before submitting the plans? If they hadn't raised any objections it seems likely BCC would have approved the plans. You're starting to sound like KP with this "we may not have a club to support" nonsense when we're probably in the best financial shape we've ever been in. On one hand, you are absolutely right. The amount of debt the club has right now is very low. On another hand you are incorrect, we are still losing £3m a year. We don't really know the wealth of the new owner. When Wael took over, some embaressed themselves jumping up and down celebrating we had a very rich owner. From a person on the street perspective, Wael is very rich. From a football club owner perspective, he he is probably average in the lower leagues in terms of wealth. We don't know the wealth of the new owner. He could be a Billionaire and we wouldn't know. He could be a fraud and we wouldn't know. He has obviously bought into a plan, we have assumed that involved the Fruit Market. That deal has been reported as being under threat. I would love to think they have already secured the rights to build on the Filton Airport site (for me that is the perfect location). However, if the property investment side doesn't come to fruition I do wonder how long the new owners will be happy to keep funding the losses. I suppose there is one asset that could be solved. Already fans are moaning about having to pay £26 for a Thatchers end ticket and £20 for an under 18s ticket. Ticket prices will not be reduced when the capacity is increased, its only going to increase season season. The under 18s was a bit sneaky to change the definition into one category of discount rather than split it several discount categories. But hey, what do I know. Football clubs never go bust and owners never withdraw their funding. |
|
