|
|
Post by Beer Baron on Oct 20, 2023 17:27:18 GMT
View AttachmentAnybody see what this ted did to the new stand? Apparently he's also the landlord of the three lions pub (shudder) wouldn't go in that chav pub if you payed me. At least he's not spray painted all over the memorial gates this time. |
|
|
|
Post by kruger on Oct 20, 2023 17:48:02 GMT
View AttachmentAnybody see what this ted did to the new stand? Apparently he's also the landlord of the three lions pub (shudder) wouldn't go in that chav pub if you payed me. in fairness we would do the same |
|
|
|
Post by playtowin on Oct 20, 2023 18:06:58 GMT
Firstly. The employee who put graffiti on the stand should be discliplined/sacked and legal action taken against them.
Secondly. Have people living nearby to the stadium considered they might get several hundred complaints against any planning applications they may put forward in the future ?
|
|
|
|
Post by oliverhelmet on Oct 20, 2023 18:32:34 GMT
View AttachmentAnybody see what this ted did to the new stand? Apparently he's also the landlord of the three lions pub (shudder) wouldn't go in that chav pub if you payed me. This was done by a bloke in his 60’s 😂 Probably found out you can’t burn steel so handy having a felt tip in his pocket. |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Oct 20, 2023 18:37:37 GMT
Couldn’t of been a ted , it’s spelt correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by gingerandwhitegas on Oct 20, 2023 19:01:37 GMT
View AttachmentAnybody see what this ted did to the new stand? Apparently he's also the landlord of the three lions pub (shudder) wouldn't go in that chav pub if you payed me. What happened to him? Thats quite a height!  |
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Oct 20, 2023 20:18:25 GMT
Firstly. The employee who put graffiti on the stand should be discliplined/sacked and legal action taken against them. Secondly. Have people living nearby to the stadium considered they might get several hundred complaints against any planning applications they may put forward in the future ? Looks like it's on the scaffolding anyway. Rent free in their heads |
|
|
|
Post by wider on Oct 20, 2023 21:59:56 GMT
Why are some people on here still criticising the club? Just write and support the application please - at least something is happening (and it’s a definite improvement).
|
|
|
|
Post by bluesky on Oct 20, 2023 22:08:05 GMT
Why are some people on here still criticising the club? Just write and support the application please - at least something is happening (and it’s a definite improvement). Yes Yes I agree! |
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Oct 20, 2023 23:38:47 GMT
As I pointed out before the planning officer would have met with the club to agree what info was required before this application went in , the constructor would also know what was required as they have put up these stands before. Planning Officer will not verify an application ( first application ) before they have received all the correct plans and accompanying reports. So all this additional information required came about after nimbie and Greens comments./ Objections. I worked as a landscape an arb consultant for a Council and would often meet on site with the applicant before an application went in , or be consulted on plans , which i would make my observations on, on many occasions alterations would have to be made before a decision was made or the application went to committee. TG met with Edwards before the new application went in , he was told by Edwards that she expected the application to be passed. Unfortunatley because of the Gashead , sports hating fraternity and their objection to the new application which has met all the requests made by objectors after the last application , the new application may now have to go to committee. These sports haters just don't want a stadium that has been there for 100 years on their doorstep. So I've got it right (I'm always happy to be proven wrong) we needed to add the below (from the post article): The second application now includes biodiversity metric tool, a report on the biodiversity net gain, a transport statement, travel plan, a contaminated land study, a noise impact assessment, groundsure reports, a statement on foul and drainage, a report into daylight, sunlight and overshadowing of the new stand, a statement of community involvement, a broadband connectivity statement, a tree constraints and opportunities report, an arboricultural impact assessment, an air quality assessment, a design access statement, a range of models, elevations and view images from various points around the stand, floor plans, site plans, an energy and sustainability statement and an overall planning statement. Because the local residents kicked off? Without that it would have gone through? To the best of your knowledge All for what’s supposed to be a temporary stand. Not excessive, at all. |
|
|
|
Post by The Equaliser on Oct 21, 2023 6:20:28 GMT
Why are some people on here still criticising the club? Just write and support the application please - at least something is happening (and it’s a definite improvement). To be fair, some aren’t still criticising the club, they are saying the club have played their part in the speed of planning, it’s not all down to the stadiums neighbours/objectors. |
|
|
|
Post by wider on Oct 21, 2023 9:51:22 GMT
Why are some people on here still criticising the club? Just write and support the application please - at least something is happening (and it’s a definite improvement). To be fair, some aren’t still criticising the club, they are saying the club have played their part in the speed of planning, it’s not all down to the stadiums neighbours/objectors. That looks like criticism to me? How about simple support for a change? UTG! |
|
|
|
Post by wider on Oct 21, 2023 9:52:35 GMT
Even though it’s right it’s still criticism.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Oct 21, 2023 9:56:13 GMT
To be fair, some aren’t still criticising the club, they are saying the club have played their part in the speed of planning, it’s not all down to the stadiums neighbours/objectors. That looks like criticism to me? How about simple support for a change? UTG! Totally agree. The club have engaged resubmitted and any true Gashead would want to support this application. However : a small group insist in finding cracks and critising the club . How about being positive and supporting the application ?. |
|
|
|
Post by The Equaliser on Oct 21, 2023 10:03:24 GMT
That looks like criticism to me? How about simple support for a change? UTG! Totally agree. The club have engaged resubmitted and any true Gashead would want to support this application. However : a small group insist in finding cracks and critising the club . How about being positive and supporting the application ?. You can be positive and supportive of something you love but also acknowledge some faults along the way. Rather like parenting 👍🏾 |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 21, 2023 10:05:24 GMT
So I've got it right (I'm always happy to be proven wrong) we needed to add the below (from the post article): The second application now includes biodiversity metric tool, a report on the biodiversity net gain, a transport statement, travel plan, a contaminated land study, a noise impact assessment, groundsure reports, a statement on foul and drainage, a report into daylight, sunlight and overshadowing of the new stand, a statement of community involvement, a broadband connectivity statement, a tree constraints and opportunities report, an arboricultural impact assessment, an air quality assessment, a design access statement, a range of models, elevations and view images from various points around the stand, floor plans, site plans, an energy and sustainability statement and an overall planning statement. Because the local residents kicked off? Without that it would have gone through? To the best of your knowledge All for what’s supposed to be a temporary stand. Not excessive, at all. To be fair it looks anything but temporary and is hardly being banged up overnight like the tents have been, it seems to me the club were either badly advised by somebody or just choose to ignore the advice they received, regarding what reports were needed. |
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 21, 2023 10:12:12 GMT
Why are some people on here still criticising the club? Just write and support the application please - at least something is happening (and it’s a definite improvement). To be fair, some aren’t still criticising the club, they are saying the club have played their part in the speed of planning, it’s not all down to the stadiums neighbours/objectors. This. Going to stop replying on this thread as I'm into repeating myself territory |
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Oct 21, 2023 10:20:35 GMT
To be fair, some aren’t still criticising the club, they are saying the club have played their part in the speed of planning, it’s not all down to the stadiums neighbours/objectors. This. Going to stop replying on this thread as I'm into repeating myself territory No - one said its just down to Greens backing local groups who object. I have stated its an A- Z of failures on all sides. However : you must equally acknowledge historically the Greens have backed local groups and we still don't know if Emma / Greens will challenge the latest application?. We await ! . All I am asking for is a bit of honesty on all sides . |
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Oct 21, 2023 10:28:23 GMT
Totally agree. The club have engaged resubmitted and any true Gashead would want to support this application. However : a small group insist in finding cracks and critising the club . How about being positive and supporting the application ?. You can be positive and supportive of something you love but also acknowledge some faults along the way. Rather like parenting 👍🏾 If you look at my comments I accept the club made mistakes . However : I find the denial culture of some Greens who support local groups mind-boggling. You don't back every local group in the last 20 years and say ' The Greens have no opinion on the Memorial stadium ". I think this winds people up on the forum ! |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Oct 21, 2023 11:02:13 GMT
As I pointed out before the planning officer would have met with the club to agree what info was required before this application went in , the constructor would also know what was required as they have put up these stands before. Planning Officer will not verify an application ( first application ) before they have received all the correct plans and accompanying reports. So all this additional information required came about after nimbie and Greens comments./ Objections. I worked as a landscape an arb consultant for a Council and would often meet on site with the applicant before an application went in , or be consulted on plans , which i would make my observations on, on many occasions alterations would have to be made before a decision was made or the application went to committee. TG met with Edwards before the new application went in , he was told by Edwards that she expected the application to be passed. Unfortunatley because of the Gashead , sports hating fraternity and their objection to the new application which has met all the requests made by objectors after the last application , the new application may now have to go to committee. These sports haters just don't want a stadium that has been there for 100 years on their doorstep. So I've got it right (I'm always happy to be proven wrong) we needed to add the below (from the post article): The second application now includes biodiversity metric tool, a report on the biodiversity net gain, a transport statement, travel plan, a contaminated land study, a noise impact assessment, groundsure reports, a statement on foul and drainage, a report into daylight, sunlight and overshadowing of the new stand, a statement of community involvement, a broadband connectivity statement, a tree constraints and opportunities report, an arboricultural impact assessment, an air quality assessment, a design access statement, a range of models, elevations and view images from various points around the stand, floor plans, site plans, an energy and sustainability statement and an overall planning statement. Because the local residents kicked off? Without that it would have gone through? To the best of your knowledge I spend a lot of time on the train for work at the moment so I did have a read of nearly all of these new documents. They *all* feel very much templates filled in by the relevant consultants, rather than in-depth analysis of any issues that might need to be addressed/argued about before planning permission is given. The biodiversity stuff is pointless. The transport stuff is pointless. The contaminated land stuff is probably required but the results are obvious as the history of the site is widely known. As common-sense suggests the noise-impact stuff supports the application (but that doesn't mean someone didn't earn thousands creating the report). The sunlight stuff was important to I think 3 houses but it clearly meets all the requirements. The tree/arborial stuff was pointless (but we know it will keep some people happy). The broadband stuff was pointless. The air quality assessment was pointless. The design access statement and models/elevations were nearly all the same as the first application and the overall planning statement had the mistakes changed. TLDR? Not sure anyone learns anything new from the new documents. Was the first application naive to not include them? Possibly but Arena and the other consultants should be familiar with this process and *if* it wouldn't have passed without them then questions have to be asked about what the agreement with them is in terms of the process rather than the actual construction... |
|
