|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Oct 9, 2023 12:30:13 GMT
I have been in personal contact with Emma Edwards explaining I am a Labour supporter and back the Memorial stadium plans. Her response months ago was the following. 1. The club get the correct planning permission. ( It's now revised its application to incorporate these concerns) 2. That the club engage with the local community ( Emma Edwards told me she meets with both G.C.C.C and had healthy talks with B R F C ). Also the clubs have been talking to the community and historically with F.O.M.S. 3.That any stand that is built with planning permission is built safely. ( The club will be obliged to meet strong health and safety criteria before a safety certificate is issued). Emma continues " If the above situation is corrected and proper planning permission sought and community engagement undertaking. I Would be more than happy to support the building of the new stand ". The club have addressed these three areas now and I see NO reason why Emma should continue to back local lobbyist !. This what TG told me after he had a meeting with Edwards a few weeks back , Edwards told him that she expected the application to be granted. Yes agree!. I have it in black and white and she's welcome to take legal action against me . The Greens can't simply support 'Lobbyist' because " they don't want a community asset ". That is prejudice and discrimination . I would not advocate any ethical political party to back protest against any social comnunuty cultural asset because "they don't want it" in the their community. And " if they don't want it" be honest and open. Don't use crafty channels and use a political party as a crutch. Everyone knows that some in the local community are well versed and articulate and are excellent at campaigns ( Trash : Horfield Rose: F.O.M.O NO to south stand ). I simply ask Emma and the Greens. When will it stop? |
|
|
|
Post by westfieldgas on Oct 9, 2023 12:30:56 GMT
Any up to date images, please?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Oct 9, 2023 12:33:44 GMT
I have been in personal contact with Emma Edwards explaining I am a Labour supporter and back the Memorial stadium plans. Her response months ago was the following. 1. The club get the correct planning permission. ( It's now revised its application to incorporate these concerns) 2. That the club engage with the local community ( Emma Edwards told me she meets with both G.C.C.C and had healthy talks with B R F C ). Also the clubs have been talking to the community and historically with F.O.M.S. 3.That any stand that is built with planning permission is built safely. ( The club will be obliged to meet strong health and safety criteria before a safety certificate is issued). Emma continues " If the above situation is corrected and proper planning permission sought and community engagement undertaking. I Would be more than happy to support the building of the new stand ". The club have addressed these three areas now and I see NO reason why Emma should continue to back local lobbyist !. This is the bit I am missing. Has she called it in? Has she said that she intends to? There's been no statement yet by Emma I agree. I'm simply asking her to consider the point she's raised and when does it stop . I'm hoping there will be cross party unity in moving this forward . I'm asking the Greens to reflect now !. |
|
|
|
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 gasify on Oct 9, 2023 12:43:56 GMT
I have been in personal contact with Emma Edwards explaining I am a Labour supporter and back the Memorial stadium plans. Her response months ago was the following. 1. The club get the correct planning permission. ( It's now revised its application to incorporate these concerns) 2. That the club engage with the local community ( Emma Edwards told me she meets with both G.C.C.C and had healthy talks with B R F C ). Also the clubs have been talking to the community and historically with F.O.M.S. 3.That any stand that is built with planning permission is built safely. ( The club will be obliged to meet strong health and safety criteria before a safety certificate is issued). Emma continues " If the above situation is corrected and proper planning permission sought and community engagement undertaking. I Would be more than happy to support the building of the new stand ". The club have addressed these three areas now and I see NO reason why Emma should continue to back local lobbyist !. Please edit this post to make it clear that these comments were from the initial planning application and not the new one. |
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Oct 9, 2023 12:58:01 GMT
I have been in personal contact with Emma Edwards explaining I am a Labour supporter and back the Memorial stadium plans. Her response months ago was the following. 1. The club get the correct planning permission. ( It's now revised its application to incorporate these concerns) 2. That the club engage with the local community ( Emma Edwards told me she meets with both G.C.C.C and had healthy talks with B R F C ). Also the clubs have been talking to the community and historically with F.O.M.S. 3.That any stand that is built with planning permission is built safely. ( The club will be obliged to meet strong health and safety criteria before a safety certificate is issued). Emma continues " If the above situation is corrected and proper planning permission sought and community engagement undertaking. I Would be more than happy to support the building of the new stand ". The club have addressed these three areas now and I see NO reason why Emma should continue to back local lobbyist !. Please edit this post to make it clear that these comments were from the initial planning application and not the new one. Clear evidence you don't want a resolution or 'unity'. Why don't you use your energy levels to move things forward ?. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 9, 2023 13:14:39 GMT
Please edit this post to make it clear that these comments were from the initial planning application and not the new one. Clear evidence you don't want a resolution or 'unity'. Why don't you use your energy levels to move things forward ?. "Clear evidence you don't want a resolution or 'unity'" I'm not sure it is. It is clear evidence that we shouldn't have a post that is misleading. I even asked nicely: "Please edit this post" Why are you using your energy to stir up a storm when there isn't one as yet. In some of my previous posts, I maintained a line that the application withdrawn would get rejected. Some chose to agree with that and some chose to disagree. My line now is that the new application is more comprehensive and incorporates learnings from liaising with the Greens and demonstration that we have listened and are implementing. I see no reason why this application would get rejected. So, I don't really understand why people are trying to stir the pot when the pot is actually empty at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Oct 9, 2023 13:27:57 GMT
Clear evidence you don't want a resolution or 'unity'. Why don't you use your energy levels to move things forward ?. "Clear evidence you don't want a resolution or 'unity'" I'm not sure it is. It is clear evidence that we shouldn't have a post that is misleading. I even asked nicely: "Please edit this post" Why are you using your energy to stir up a storm when there isn't one as yet. In some of my previous posts, I maintained a line that the application withdrawn would get rejected. Some chose to agree with that and some chose to disagree. My line now is that the new application is more comprehensive and incorporates learnings from liaising with the Greens and demonstration that we have listened and are implementing. I see no reason why this application would get rejected. So, I don't really understand why people are trying to stir the pot when the pot is actually empty at the moment. Why is it misleading ?. A Green councillor said " As long as conditions are meet : she will back plans ". Are you upset that she's been made to account for her words ". And no one else have accused me of being misleading. All I'm doing is holding Emma Edwards accountable . If this is misleading to other forum users . Then I will openly apologise on this forum. Let's see what other forum users say ?. |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgas on Oct 9, 2023 13:44:18 GMT
"Clear evidence you don't want a resolution or 'unity'" I'm not sure it is. It is clear evidence that we shouldn't have a post that is misleading. I even asked nicely: "Please edit this post" Why are you using your energy to stir up a storm when there isn't one as yet. In some of my previous posts, I maintained a line that the application withdrawn would get rejected. Some chose to agree with that and some chose to disagree. My line now is that the new application is more comprehensive and incorporates learnings from liaising with the Greens and demonstration that we have listened and are implementing. I see no reason why this application would get rejected. So, I don't really understand why people are trying to stir the pot when the pot is actually empty at the moment. Why is it misleading ?. A Green councillor said " As long as conditions are meet : she will back plans ". Are you upset that she's been made to account for her words ". And no one else have accused me of being misleading. All I'm doing is holding Emma Edwards accountable . If this is misleading to other forum users . Then I will openly apologise on this forum. Let's see what other forum users say ?. I'm with you OM65. Edwards made it her business to come out and speak about the proposal, raise concerns and call it in. Making it clear she didn't support it. She said she would support it if certain conditions were met. Rovers have co-operated, had consultation meetings and have now resubmitted plans. If councillor Edwards was true to her word she would now come out and say she supports it. She chose to get involved, so now is time to show her true colours. Was she being genuine or did she object just for the sake of objecting. It would also raise the point I made all along that liaising with the community and trying to accommodate them makes no difference, they will object whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 9, 2023 14:05:02 GMT
Why is it misleading ?. A Green councillor said " As long as conditions are meet : she will back plans ". Are you upset that she's been made to account for her words ". And no one else have accused me of being misleading. All I'm doing is holding Emma Edwards accountable . If this is misleading to other forum users . Then I will openly apologise on this forum. Let's see what other forum users say ?. I'm with you OM65. Edwards made it her business to come out and speak about the proposal, raise concerns and call it in. Making it clear she didn't support it. She said she would support it if certain conditions were met. Rovers have co-operated, had consultation meetings and have now resubmitted plans. If councillor Edwards was true to her word she would now come out and say she supports it. She chose to get involved, so now is time to show her true colours. Was she being genuine or did she object just for the sake of objecting. It would also raise the point I made all along that liaising with the community and trying to accommodate them makes no difference, they will object whatever. Spot on. |
|
|
|
Post by wallywalters on Oct 9, 2023 14:19:31 GMT
This was her last comment on the stand at the end of sept before the new plans had gone in.
It won’t go to committee if the original one is withdrawn as the new one will need to be called in is my understanding. (Even bigger tense sigh).
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgas on Oct 9, 2023 14:28:05 GMT
Basic cost of a permanent stand is usually around £1m+ per thousand seats (£1k per seat). Adding seats along the sides of a pitch tends to be the most cost effective as there is a greater demand to watch from the sides due to better view and so able to charge more money per ticket. I did some research into the cost of prefab stands some time ago and posted on here the cost which is about £50,000 per hundred seats, a total of 1.75 million then you have to add on a couple of hundred thousand for putting in bars etcetra , so that ties in with the 1.9 million quoted in the application. So if we were to add something similar on the north and east sides adding 10K seats then it will cost in the region of £5M? |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Oct 9, 2023 14:50:36 GMT
This was her last comment on the stand at the end of sept before the new plans had gone in. It won’t go to committee if the original one is withdrawn as the new one will need to be called in is my understanding. (Even bigger tense sigh).Was does the bit in bold even mean? I interpret it as annoyance that her dirty tricks and plans had been scuppered. But I really don't have a clue what it's meant to relate to! |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 9, 2023 15:01:49 GMT
"Clear evidence you don't want a resolution or 'unity'" I'm not sure it is. It is clear evidence that we shouldn't have a post that is misleading. I even asked nicely: "Please edit this post" Why are you using your energy to stir up a storm when there isn't one as yet. In some of my previous posts, I maintained a line that the application withdrawn would get rejected. Some chose to agree with that and some chose to disagree. My line now is that the new application is more comprehensive and incorporates learnings from liaising with the Greens and demonstration that we have listened and are implementing. I see no reason why this application would get rejected. So, I don't really understand why people are trying to stir the pot when the pot is actually empty at the moment. Why is it misleading ?. A Green councillor said " As long as conditions are meet : she will back plans ". Are you upset that she's been made to account for her words ". And no one else have accused me of being misleading. All I'm doing is holding Emma Edwards accountable . If this is misleading to other forum users . Then I will openly apologise on this forum. Let's see what other forum users say ?. Why won't you simply edit the post to say: "I reached out to Edwards when the first application went in and this is what she said" |
|
|
|
Post by bravosierraseven on Oct 9, 2023 15:11:34 GMT
Why is it misleading ?. A Green councillor said " As long as conditions are meet : she will back plans ". Are you upset that she's been made to account for her words ". And no one else have accused me of being misleading. All I'm doing is holding Emma Edwards accountable . If this is misleading to other forum users . Then I will openly apologise on this forum. Let's see what other forum users say ?. I'm with you OM65. Edwards made it her business to come out and speak about the proposal, raise concerns and call it in. Making it clear she didn't support it. She said she would support it if certain conditions were met. Rovers have co-operated, had consultation meetings and have now resubmitted plans. If councillor Edwards was true to her word she would now come out and say she supports it. She chose to get involved, so now is time to show her true colours. Was she being genuine or did she object just for the sake of objecting. It would also raise the point I made all along that liaising with the community and trying to accommodate them makes no difference, they will object whatever. Call me an old cynic but I think it was partly to do with the by election for a second councillor in her ward at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 9, 2023 15:19:59 GMT
Why is it misleading ?. A Green councillor said " As long as conditions are meet : she will back plans ". Are you upset that she's been made to account for her words ". And no one else have accused me of being misleading. All I'm doing is holding Emma Edwards accountable . If this is misleading to other forum users . Then I will openly apologise on this forum. Let's see what other forum users say ?. Why won't you simply edit the post to say: "I reached out to Edwards when the first application went in and this is what she said" I don't get your issue with OM55's OP, when it's pretty clear to most of us it related to the now withdrawn plans. |
|
|
|
Post by wallywalters on Oct 9, 2023 15:27:24 GMT
This was her last comment on the stand at the end of sept before the new plans had gone in. It won’t go to committee if the original one is withdrawn as the new one will need to be called in is my understanding. (Even bigger tense sigh).Was does the bit in bold even mean? I interpret it as annoyance that her dirty tricks and plans had been scuppered. But I really don't have a clue what it's meant to relate to! To give it some context. Edwards said The new application hasn’t gone in yet. The old one has been withdrawn. (Tense sigh). Member of Public said... Thank you for the update. Cutting it fine for an October planning committee... Edwards replied.... It won’t go to committee if the original one is withdrawn as the new one will need to be called in is my understanding. (Even bigger tense sigh). |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgas on Oct 9, 2023 15:37:45 GMT
Why is it misleading ?. A Green councillor said " As long as conditions are meet : she will back plans ". Are you upset that she's been made to account for her words ". And no one else have accused me of being misleading. All I'm doing is holding Emma Edwards accountable . If this is misleading to other forum users . Then I will openly apologise on this forum. Let's see what other forum users say ?. Why won't you simply edit the post to say: "I reached out to Edwards when the first application went in and this is what she said" I don't see why any poster should tell someone else what to write in their posts. All seems a bit authoritarian. You have chance to counter his opinion. You did and I'm pretty sure everyone understands what the situation is. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 9, 2023 15:39:29 GMT
Given the club still seem to be pressing on with building the stand, seemingly will BCC's approval, I'm not really sure there's any need to worry about whether the latest plans get called in or not as it still seems likely the stand will be fully finished before a final decision is made.
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgas on Oct 9, 2023 15:40:12 GMT
Was does the bit in bold even mean? I interpret it as annoyance that her dirty tricks and plans had been scuppered. But I really don't have a clue what it's meant to relate to! To give it some context. Edwards said The new application hasn’t gone in yet. The old one has been withdrawn. (Tense sigh). Member of Public said... Thank you for the update. Cutting it fine for an October planning committee... Edwards replied.... It won’t go to committee if the original one is withdrawn as the new one will need to be called in is my understanding. (Even bigger tense sigh). It's not 100% clear what she means here. She means it won't go to committee in October but it will be called in for a later date? She's not sounding too supportive there then. |
|
