|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 21, 2023 11:06:45 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 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 result of 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... A recent objector has taken some time reviewing the reports and raised several issues they've got with the reports. It's worth a read if you are interested, it's been uploaded in the last couple of days. |
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Oct 21, 2023 11:21:54 GMT
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 . Good luck with that Mr S. I used to door knock and was a member of the Labour Party but, the older I got, the more I now believe politicians are alike |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 21, 2023 12:15:09 GMT
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 . Good luck with that Mr S. I used to door knock and was a member of the Labour Party but, the older I got, the more I now believe politicians are alike I sense that's the case for the bigger parties, not sure it's the case with the Greens whose stance seems to be to object to anything being built before then deciding why they want to object. |
|
|
|
Post by Tilly's Thighs on Oct 21, 2023 12:19:16 GMT
Reveived my letter today, inviting me to comment again. Must be snail post in Wiltshire, I've already done it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravosierraseven on Oct 21, 2023 12:36:50 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 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... I get the impression that in the initial talks with the council it must have been agreed that although the new structure was larger and more solid it is still classified as temporary so lots of the reports were not required. However, along came Emma throwing her weight around requesting that all of these reports be required and calling it in, in my opinion, because there was a by election in Bishopston and she wanted to help her colleague get the seat. a couple of days after the election she commented that she was in support of the stand. Job done. I imagine withdrawing the original plans and submitting new more comprehensive ones are a belt and braces job to get it over the line. |
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Oct 21, 2023 12:46:19 GMT
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... I get the impression that in the initial talks with the council it must have been agreed that although the new structure was larger and more solid it is still classified as temporary so lots of the reports were not required. However, along came Emma throwing her weight around requesting that all of these reports be required and calling it in, in my opinion, because there was a by election in Bishopston and she wanted to help her colleague get the seat. a couple of days after the election she commented that she was in support of the stand. Job done. I imagine withdrawing the original plans and submitting new more comprehensive ones are a belt and braces job to get it over the line. Fingers crossed we can only hope history don't repeat itself. Can it be the first time in history the Green Party allows this revised second application through without intervention?. If you ask the Greens you get no answer . What conclusion can we make from that ?. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Oct 21, 2023 12:56:43 GMT
I get the impression that in the initial talks with the council it must have been agreed that although the new structure was larger and more solid it is still classified as temporary so lots of the reports were not required. However, along came Emma throwing her weight around requesting that all of these reports be required and calling it in, in my opinion, because there was a by election in Bishopston and she wanted to help her colleague get the seat. a couple of days after the election she commented that she was in support of the stand. Job done. I imagine withdrawing the original plans and submitting new more comprehensive ones are a belt and braces job to get it over the line. Fingers crossed we can only hope history don't repeat itself. Can it be the first time in history the Green Party allows this revised second application through without intervention?. If you ask the Greens you get no answer . What conclusion can we make from that ?. They've got nothing better to do than make things difficult? |
|
|
|
Post by bravosierraseven on Oct 21, 2023 13:06:38 GMT
I get the impression that in the initial talks with the council it must have been agreed that although the new structure was larger and more solid it is still classified as temporary so lots of the reports were not required. However, along came Emma throwing her weight around requesting that all of these reports be required and calling it in, in my opinion, because there was a by election in Bishopston and she wanted to help her colleague get the seat. a couple of days after the election she commented that she was in support of the stand. Job done. I imagine withdrawing the original plans and submitting new more comprehensive ones are a belt and braces job to get it over the line. Fingers crossed we can only hope history don't repeat itself. Can it be the first time in history the Green Party allows this revised second application through without intervention?. If you ask the Greens you get no answer . What conclusion can we make from that ?. I don't think they have answers, especially when challenged. If they are so green in Bishopston who the hell owns all the cars parked in their streets. They may use other forms of transport or walk to work or work from home but they're happy to drive out and pollute other peoples air. They just make me angry I'm afraid. Anyway, after the 30th October we should find out what happens next. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 21, 2023 13:41:54 GMT
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... I get the impression that in the initial talks with the council it must have been agreed that although the new structure was larger and more solid it is still classified as temporary so lots of the reports were not required. However, along came Emma throwing her weight around requesting that all of these reports be required and calling it in, in my opinion, because there was a by election in Bishopston and she wanted to help her colleague get the seat. a couple of days after the election she commented that she was in support of the stand. Job done. I imagine withdrawing the original plans and submitting new more comprehensive ones are a belt and braces job to get it over the line. I wonder how much extra to the build they've all cost, £10K/£20K? |
|
|
|
Post by bravosierraseven on Oct 21, 2023 14:23:58 GMT
I get the impression that in the initial talks with the council it must have been agreed that although the new structure was larger and more solid it is still classified as temporary so lots of the reports were not required. However, along came Emma throwing her weight around requesting that all of these reports be required and calling it in, in my opinion, because there was a by election in Bishopston and she wanted to help her colleague get the seat. a couple of days after the election she commented that she was in support of the stand. Job done. I imagine withdrawing the original plans and submitting new more comprehensive ones are a belt and braces job to get it over the line. I wonder how much extra to the build they've all cost, £10K/£20K? I've no idea but I imagine although significant it's probably not much compared to the loss of revenue until we get it operational. |
|
|
|
Post by willytopp84 on Oct 22, 2023 20:38:57 GMT
Couple of home games in a row now so that's a chance to see if the seats are being put in yet etc..
|
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Oct 22, 2023 20:43:10 GMT
Couple of home games in a row now so that's a chance to see if the seats are being put in yet etc.. I expect the club website will have a South Stand Update article soon. 🤷♂️ |
|
|
|
Post by A Source (aka Angry Badger) on Oct 23, 2023 9:19:36 GMT
Couple of home games in a row now so that's a chance to see if the seats are being put in yet etc.. Did we put an offer in to Barcelona for the old nou camp seats. Didn't know they were pretty much rebuilding the whole stadium until watching their game on TV last night. |
|
|
|
Post by Colyton Gas on Oct 23, 2023 10:09:10 GMT
Couple of home games in a row now so that's a chance to see if the seats are being put in yet etc.. I expect the club website will have a South Stand Update article soon. 🤷♂️ Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Oct 23, 2023 11:10:37 GMT
Couple of home games in a row now so that's a chance to see if the seats are being put in yet etc.. Did we put an offer in to Barcelona for the old nou camp seats. Didn't know they were pretty much rebuilding the whole stadium until watching their game on TV last night. My guess is that given their ongoing financial problems coupled with the massive (and apparently high-interest) loan financing the stadium rebuild, they will be on ebay....  |
|
|
|
Post by A Source (aka Angry Badger) on Oct 23, 2023 11:44:31 GMT
Did we put an offer in to Barcelona for the old nou camp seats. Didn't know they were pretty much rebuilding the whole stadium until watching their game on TV last night. My guess is that given their ongoing financial problems coupled with the massive (and apparently high-interest) loan financing the stadium rebuild, they will be on ebay.... Must be interest in the old seats. Naming rights sold for £310 million. Revamp costs approx £1.5 billion 😯 |
|
|
|
Post by chewbacca on Oct 23, 2023 12:00:28 GMT
My guess is that given their ongoing financial problems coupled with the massive (and apparently high-interest) loan financing the stadium rebuild, they will be on ebay.... Must be interest in the old seats. Naming rights sold for £310 million. Revamp costs approx £1.5 billion 😯 They're currently flogging bits of the pitch for €50... Turf More? |
|
|
|
Post by gassince1957 on Oct 23, 2023 13:17:13 GMT
Must be interest in the old seats. Naming rights sold for £310 million. Revamp costs approx £1.5 billion 😯 They're currently flogging bits of the pitch for €50... Turf More?Did they borrow that pitch from Halifax? Looks awfully like the one we played on in the Conference! |
|
|
|
Post by chewbacca on Oct 23, 2023 13:20:16 GMT
They're currently flogging bits of the pitch for €50... Turf More?Did they borrow that pitch from Halifax? Looks awfully like the one we played on in the Conference! I refute that claim, that literally had no grass on... |
|
|
|
Post by Colyton Gas on Oct 23, 2023 14:08:31 GMT
Did they borrow that pitch from Halifax? Looks awfully like the one we played on in the Conference! I refute that claim, that literally had no grass on... Chris Lines first game back. |
|
