|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 4, 2023 19:41:19 GMT
So, why are we only following the planning officers advice now? (Still not pushing the point that it would have been not given on the previous application.) I don't understand why you are being so asinine. We followed the planning officers advice at the time. There have been subsequent discussions and the current course of action has been decided through this discussion and further advice and engagement with the planning officer. I'm not sure why you feel the need to start calling names. Have you got any evidence that we followed the planning officers advice? |
|
|
|
Post by The Equaliser on Oct 4, 2023 20:01:01 GMT
I don't understand why you are being so asinine. We followed the planning officers advice at the time. There have been subsequent discussions and the current course of action has been decided through this discussion and further advice and engagement with the planning officer. I'm not sure why you feel the need to start calling names. Have you got any evidence that we followed the planning officers advice? Using your usual reposte - do you have proof we didn’t? |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 4, 2023 20:05:35 GMT
I'm not sure why you feel the need to start calling names. Have you got any evidence that we followed the planning officers advice? Using your usual reposte - do you have proof we didn’t? Yes. The fact that we had to resubmit it, otherwise planning permission would not have been given. |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Oct 4, 2023 20:21:54 GMT
Using your usual reposte - do you have proof we didn’t? Yes. The fact that we had to resubmit it, otherwise planning permission would not have been given. We are going round in circles here.
Despite your earlier post, you are now pushing the idea that we would not have got planning permission and that's the reason we withdrew and are resubmitting.
I disagree, but still think it is a good idea to resubmit for the reasons stated before.
|
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Oct 4, 2023 20:26:48 GMT
The original planning application 23/01441/F - "Replacement of the current South and South West Stands with a new improved facility to increase the number of seats within the Memorial Stadium" is now officially showing as withdrawn on the BCC Planning Portal and with it the considered opinions of the good citizens of Horfield and beyond disappear into the ether. Did anyone save any PDF's or screenshots? All of the work done by the Bristol Tree Forum ...gone.
Ah well, it was full of basic errors anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 4, 2023 20:41:06 GMT
I'm not sure why you feel the need to start calling names. Have you got any evidence that we followed the planning officers advice? Using your usual reposte - do you have proof we didn’t? I'll bite... Curlywurly said: "You know we did engage with the planning officer and key consultees like the Safety Advisory Group" I know that we engaged with the Safety Advisory Group we can't really do much around the stadium without consulting them. Some see them as the bogeyman (or bogeywoman) but they are there to keep us as fans safe and we shouldn't forget that. In fact in this article, Wael even says that we are consulting the safety advisory group: www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-rovers-new-south-stand-8398066So, while he was doing this interview why didn't he also say we were consulting with the Bristol City Council Planning office and officer(s) (I don't know if there is one or several). Without any further evidence to positively support the consultation with the planning officer, this suggests it didn't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by olskooltoteender on Oct 4, 2023 20:55:47 GMT
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. Don't think we would have 'lost' either way, i.e. we would most likely have got a positive decision when the proposal went to the planning committee. However, taking on board the more sensible comments raised by those objecting, amending plans to suit and resubmitting not only shows a proactive engagement, it nullifies the objectors argument.
In Sun Tzu's terms it disarms the enemy before the engagement, so I think it is a very good approach. Also bear in mind that the resubmission followed the planning officer's advice.
And I think it negates the “calling-in” of the original submission. If that’s the case, then the Green woman would look churlish, to say the least, if she calls in this one too . . . |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Oct 4, 2023 20:58:02 GMT
Using your usual reposte - do you have proof we didn’t? I'll bite... Curlywurly said: "You know we did engage with the planning officer and key consultees like the Safety Advisory Group" I know that we engaged with the Safety Advisory Group we can't really do much around the stadium without consulting them. Some see them as the bogeyman (or bogeywoman) but they are there to keep us as fans safe and we shouldn't forget that. In fact in this article, Wael even says that we are consulting the safety advisory group: www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-rovers-new-south-stand-8398066So, while he was doing this interview why didn't he also say we were consulting with the Bristol City Council Planning office and officer(s) (I don't know if there is one or several). Without any further evidence to positively support the consultation with the planning officer, this suggests it didn't happen. You asked for evidence of consultation with BCC Planning and it is here. The following is an extract from the Design and Access Statement that was submitted with the planning application on 6th April 2023.
"There are some minor deviations from the best practice recommendations, and these were highlighted and requested to be actioned during the recent meeting between Bristol Rovers Football Club, the Safety Advisory Group and representatives from Building Control, the Planning Department and Arena Group."
Proof enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Oct 4, 2023 20:58:33 GMT
Don't think we would have 'lost' either way, i.e. we would most likely have got a positive decision when the proposal went to the planning committee. However, taking on board the more sensible comments raised by those objecting, amending plans to suit and resubmitting not only shows a proactive engagement, it nullifies the objectors argument.
In Sun Tzu's terms it disarms the enemy before the engagement, so I think it is a very good approach. Also bear in mind that the resubmission followed the planning officer's advice.
And I think it negates the “calling-in” of the original submission. If that’s the case, then the Green woman would look churlish, to say the least, if she calls in this one too . . . Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 4, 2023 21:04:06 GMT
I'll bite... Curlywurly said: "You know we did engage with the planning officer and key consultees like the Safety Advisory Group" I know that we engaged with the Safety Advisory Group we can't really do much around the stadium without consulting them. Some see them as the bogeyman (or bogeywoman) but they are there to keep us as fans safe and we shouldn't forget that. In fact in this article, Wael even says that we are consulting the safety advisory group: www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-rovers-new-south-stand-8398066So, while he was doing this interview why didn't he also say we were consulting with the Bristol City Council Planning office and officer(s) (I don't know if there is one or several). Without any further evidence to positively support the consultation with the planning officer, this suggests it didn't happen. You asked for evidence of consultation with BCC Planning and it is here. The following is an extract from the Design and Access Statement that was submitted with the planning application on 6th April 2023.
"There are some minor deviations from the best practice recommendations, and these were highlighted and requested to be actioned during the recent meeting between Bristol Rovers Football Club, the Safety Advisory Group and representatives from Building Control, the Planning Department and Arena Group."
Proof enough?
I wouldn’t waste your time. For some reason he seems desperate for Rovers to be proven to be at fault and for the plans to falter - god knows why? No doubt he’s desperately searching for something else to bleat on about right now! |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 4, 2023 21:16:05 GMT
I'll bite... Curlywurly said: "You know we did engage with the planning officer and key consultees like the Safety Advisory Group" I know that we engaged with the Safety Advisory Group we can't really do much around the stadium without consulting them. Some see them as the bogeyman (or bogeywoman) but they are there to keep us as fans safe and we shouldn't forget that. In fact in this article, Wael even says that we are consulting the safety advisory group: www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-rovers-new-south-stand-8398066So, while he was doing this interview why didn't he also say we were consulting with the Bristol City Council Planning office and officer(s) (I don't know if there is one or several). Without any further evidence to positively support the consultation with the planning officer, this suggests it didn't happen. You asked for evidence of consultation with BCC Planning and it is here. The following is an extract from the Design and Access Statement that was submitted with the planning application on 6th April 2023.
"There are some minor deviations from the best practice recommendations, and these were highlighted and requested to be actioned during the recent meeting between Bristol Rovers Football Club, the Safety Advisory Group and representatives from Building Control, the Planning Department and Arena Group."
Proof enough?
That is great. In fact that aligns exactly with what I said: "What a good idea, speaking to the planning officer. Its a shame we didn't do that back in February." You are saying that we talked to them after the submission had gone in. I was saying why didn't we consilt them back in Feb, before we put the application in. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 4, 2023 21:20:39 GMT
You asked for evidence of consultation with BCC Planning and it is here. The following is an extract from the Design and Access Statement that was submitted with the planning application on 6th April 2023.
"There are some minor deviations from the best practice recommendations, and these were highlighted and requested to be actioned during the recent meeting between Bristol Rovers Football Club, the Safety Advisory Group and representatives from Building Control, the Planning Department and Arena Group."
Proof enough?
I wouldn’t waste your time. For some reason he seems desperate for Rovers to be proven to be at fault and for the plans to falter - god knows why? No doubt he’s desperately searching for something else to bleat on about right now! I've never said anywhere that I want plans to falter. In fact, if we hadn't f**ked it up, we would be using it by now. Maybe the truth is that we have f**ked up the application. Maybe, just maybe the person responsible should face the consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Oct 4, 2023 21:24:15 GMT
I wouldn’t waste your time. For some reason he seems desperate for Rovers to be proven to be at fault and for the plans to falter - god knows why? No doubt he’s desperately searching for something else to bleat on about right now! I've never said anywhere that I want plans to falter. In fact, if we hadn't f**ked it up, we would be using it by now. Maybe the truth is that we have f**ked up the application. Maybe, just maybe the person responsible should face the consequences. How about if the person who made a mess of the application, resubmits it and its all good for second pass? It's not uncommon for PP to be amended. |
|
ebgas
Youth Team
Posts: 27
|
Post by ebgas on Oct 4, 2023 21:24:45 GMT
So where does this withdrawal put approval date? Surely likely now January.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 4, 2023 21:24:47 GMT
Don't think we would have 'lost' either way, i.e. we would most likely have got a positive decision when the proposal went to the planning committee. However, taking on board the more sensible comments raised by those objecting, amending plans to suit and resubmitting not only shows a proactive engagement, it nullifies the objectors argument.
In Sun Tzu's terms it disarms the enemy before the engagement, so I think it is a very good approach. Also bear in mind that the resubmission followed the planning officer's advice.
And I think it negates the “calling-in” of the original submission. If that’s the case, then the Green woman would look churlish, to say the least, if she calls in this one too . . .We as fans need to be very careful. One of the reasons given for calling it in is the number of comments. If Rovers fans start flooding the application again, there is a chance we would be giving her that reason again. |
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Oct 4, 2023 21:30:42 GMT
You asked for evidence of consultation with BCC Planning and it is here. The following is an extract from the Design and Access Statement that was submitted with the planning application on 6th April 2023.
"There are some minor deviations from the best practice recommendations, and these were highlighted and requested to be actioned during the recent meeting between Bristol Rovers Football Club, the Safety Advisory Group and representatives from Building Control, the Planning Department and Arena Group."
Proof enough?
I wouldn’t waste your time. For some reason he seems desperate for Rovers to be proven to be at fault and for the plans to falter - god knows why? No doubt he’s desperately searching for something else to bleat on about right now! I'm not sure what is agenda is . What I do know is he's using an awful lot of energy trying to prove the club is wrong . This seems to be going on and on daily. So I would take Eric's advice. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Trevor on Oct 4, 2023 21:36:12 GMT
Deleted
|
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Oct 4, 2023 21:40:09 GMT
I'm not sure what the argument is here. As I see it, we tried to fast track it without following the usual planning processes of consultation, surveys and impact reports.
That went badly wrong and the owners (new owners?) have decided to do it properly this time.
I don't think Wael had these problems in mind when we went ahead. He probably took advice from some well paid but misinformed and optimistic advisors/consultants about how it could be railroaded through in a matter of a few months.
I'm glad it's being done the right way now.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 4, 2023 21:41:26 GMT
I wouldn’t waste your time. For some reason he seems desperate for Rovers to be proven to be at fault and for the plans to falter - god knows why? No doubt he’s desperately searching for something else to bleat on about right now! I'm not sure what is agenda is . What I do know is he's using an awful lot of energy trying to prove the club is wrong . This seems to be going on and on daily. So I would take Eric's advice. I'm not trying to prove the club is wrong, I think the club has f**ked up the paperwork. I'm a bit bored with the club f**kin up paperwork. If they were better at paperwork, we would have a stand that could be used for the next home game and we would have smashed out transfer record. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 4, 2023 21:46:56 GMT
I'm not sure what the argument is here. As I see it, we tried to fast track it without following the usual planning processes of consultation, surveys and impact reports. That went badly wrong and the owners (new owners?) have decided to do it properly this time. I don't think Wael had these problems in mind when we went ahead. He probably took advice from some well paid but misinformed and optimistic advisors/consultants about how it could be railroaded through in a matter of a few months. I'm glad it's being done the right way now. There is no argument when we accept that this situation is completely of our own making. As I have said previously, being good neighbours and adding things like solar panels can only be a good thing. |
|
