|
Post by oldmarket65 on Oct 30, 2023 18:33:15 GMT
How have I turned it into a vendetta ?. I am simply asking the question . What way will the Greens vote on the committee ? Have they spoken to the community in the last week and shared their stance ?. If asking this question is causing vendetta on this forum. Then maybe I ought to give it a break for sometime. Councillors on a planning committee are not allowed to state a position on an application before it has been debated at the actual meeting. To do so would mean being barred from the meeting and replaced by a substitute. The whole idea is that the decision is taken on the merits of the application as presented at the meeting. Oh come on Womble! The Labour group openly support this application and old Richard Eddy keeps going on about a certain party blocking planning. Of course each vote should be objective I agree. But the local party will have a say that determines the vote. Imagine voting against the ethos / aims of a party ?.
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Oct 30, 2023 18:35:07 GMT
Not signed off yet. I’ll get excited when it gets given without silly conditions.
|
|
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Oct 30, 2023 20:11:33 GMT
If it goes to committee with a recommendation for approval by officers it would be incredible if it was turned down. Those recommendations are based on policy not politics. Not to say it won’t be (see Boardwalk development…) but political voting just doesn’t fly anymore in an austere age - it cost too much for the LPA in the long run and an appeal lost and the costs against on a case this big is crippling.
I’m not counting chickens yet but the fact it’s been allowed to be built regardless of planning, the second application is going to be dealt with well ahead of time and the officer is recommending approval should see this one home.
The full Mem development? We may need a bit more tact.
|
|
|
Post by womble on Oct 30, 2023 20:27:39 GMT
Councillors on a planning committee are not allowed to state a position on an application before it has been debated at the actual meeting. To do so would mean being barred from the meeting and replaced by a substitute. The whole idea is that the decision is taken on the merits of the application as presented at the meeting. Oh come on Womble! The Labour group openly support this application and old Richard Eddy keeps going on about a certain party blocking planning. Of course each vote should be objective I agree. But the local party will have a say that determines the vote. Imagine voting against the ethos / aims of a party ?. It’s fine for a political group to have an opinion, any councillors serving on the planning committee need to keep their opinions to themselves until the meeting. ‘Whipping’ as takes places during votes in the House of Commons isn’t allowed for planning votes. The Lib Dem councillors used to be well known for voting in different directions during planning meetings. That was quite a few years ago though!
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Oct 31, 2023 12:00:22 GMT
When the locals realise there’s no point battling with the mighty Gas as they’ll just lose again , they’ll be absolutely no opposition at all for next stages. 20k Mem here we come ! I'm not sure they'll give up that easily. However if they object with the same objections at each step then it becomes a bit like the boy who cried wolf. They will come across as a bunch of moaners that are never happy If it's the same people who were fighting the Sainsbury's development and they really don't want this to be approved (especially as it will lead to more redevelopment), they'll already have a plan in place - but it won't be the same objections each time, it will be coordinated delaying tactics. If planning permission goes through there will be some kind of rare wildlife found...when that's shown to be false there will be an appeal about light for the two houses affected by shadows...when that fails there will be a claim that the solar panels are emitting some kind of energy field... ...it'll never stop, so best to show how many individuals in the wider Bristol area support this and future developments...
|
|
|
Post by Gashead73 on Oct 31, 2023 13:11:56 GMT
In regards to lighting issues with neighbours I really cannot see any issue with the upgrading/development of the East Stand or the North. I feel a tidy four or four and a half capacity behind the terracing would be fine and still would not interfere with residents back gardens on Filton Ave, the East Stand could easily become a 7'000 full length full seated stand. And eventually should the Cricket Pavillion be demolished' that could easily become a six to seven and a half thousand stand' all fully seated and again running the full length of the pitch..... I'm bored today and I'm.just guestimating ideas in me head.
Probably thinking not straight today but as I said I'm just playing around in my head
|
|
|
Post by Sir Trevor B'Sol on Oct 31, 2023 16:16:18 GMT
Devious strategy to come from anti.
Always trying something.
|
|
|
Post by roversteve on Oct 31, 2023 17:00:55 GMT
Let's keep those "support" comments coming in to help counter any last minute "objections". Get family members friends and anyone else you know write a comment of support. Obviously the closer to the stadium they live, the better it is. We have to get used to this exercise especially when the club start to build the rest of the "New Mem".
|
|
|
Post by Sir Trevor B'Sol on Nov 1, 2023 9:24:56 GMT
HERE WE GO.
*** Is this the first of two potential attempts to delay, derail and disrupt? Just like in previous Memorial Stadium planning applications the legal and regulatory route is explored. *** *** (Appears on the planing portal at the very last moment. Straight after key announcements are made.)***
BUILDING CONTROL ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT FORM.
Address of alleged breach
Memorial Stadium, Filton Avenue, Bristol BS7 0AQ
Description of what has happened in as much detail as possible:
Dear Sir,
With regard to planning application 23/03826/F, Replacement of the current South and South West Stands.
The planning portal shows that a Contaminated Land Desk Study has been carried out on behalf of Bristol Rovers Football club which appears very detailed, and the conclusions clear and to the point, but this Hydrock report does state that the findings of the report should be updated after they have receipt of the Atkins (2007) report.
I believe the Atkins report was completed after a serious of bore holes samples had been collected from various positions around the stadium, this work being carried out in preparation for the redevelopment of the whole stadium as approved in 2006 (06/03850/F).
You may be aware the stadium playing field ‘plateau’ was created in 1920/21 by removing soil and limestone from the North and Eastern sides of what was a slope at the time,to the Western and Southern slopes.
The recommendation in the Hydrock report is for further work to be undertaken following the ground investigation works carried out up to September 2013, including the Atkins report, as there is still a need to confirm the ground conditions onsite which will involve further discussions with ‘regulatory bodies and the warranty provider’.
Bearing in mind the 'made ground' is of loose material and that there are recorded aquifers in the areas of the ground I would suggest the survey/report should be completed urgently, and certainly before the stand is completed and brought into use.
Whilst other areas close to the stadium are shown in the Hydrock report, highlighting changes in geology and landscape and indicating ‘Worked Ground’ and ‘Made Ground’where necessary, and of course highlighting contaminated and industrial land, this information is not apparent for the stadium site itself, a detail which may influence construction details associated with the new stand build.
As far as I’m aware no large-scale building(s) has been constructed at the South side and South Western corner of the Stadium site where the made ground is at its deepest, and it is only during recent years that small scale ‘temporary stands’ have appeared.
To summarise, the work to investigate the ground conditions for the new stand at the Memorial stadium appears not completed according to the report, a situation which should, in my opinion, be rectified before the stand is occupied by any significant number of people.
Regards
How long has the breach been occurring?
Since May this year, though no Geological report appeared on the planning portal until the new planning application appeared in October.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Nov 1, 2023 9:34:39 GMT
So the plateau of loose material has been in place for over 100 years, presumably compacting all this time, but we should suddenly become concerned about it now...
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Nov 1, 2023 11:06:13 GMT
HERE WE GO. *** Is this the first of two potential attempts to delay, derail and disrupt? Just like in previous Memorial Stadium planning applications the legal and regulatory route is explored. *** *** (Appears on the planing portal at the very last moment. Straight after key announcements are made.)*** BUILDING CONTROL ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT FORM. Address of alleged breach Memorial Stadium, Filton Avenue, Bristol BS7 0AQ Description of what has happened in as much detail as possible: Dear Sir, With regard to planning application 23/03826/F, Replacement of the current South and South West Stands. The planning portal shows that a Contaminated Land Desk Study has been carried out on behalf of Bristol Rovers Football club which appears very detailed, and the conclusions clear and to the point, but this Hydrock report does state that the findings of the report should be updated after they have receipt of the Atkins (2007) report. I believe the Atkins report was completed after a serious of bore holes samples had been collected from various positions around the stadium, this work being carried out in preparation for the redevelopment of the whole stadium as approved in 2006 (06/03850/F). You may be aware the stadium playing field ‘plateau’ was created in 1920/21 by removing soil and limestone from the North and Eastern sides of what was a slope at the time,to the Western and Southern slopes. The recommendation in the Hydrock report is for further work to be undertaken following the ground investigation works carried out up to September 2013, including the Atkins report, as there is still a need to confirm the ground conditions onsite which will involve further discussions with ‘regulatory bodies and the warranty provider’. Bearing in mind the 'made ground' is of loose material and that there are recorded aquifers in the areas of the ground I would suggest the survey/report should be completed urgently, and certainly before the stand is completed and brought into use. Whilst other areas close to the stadium are shown in the Hydrock report, highlighting changes in geology and landscape and indicating ‘Worked Ground’ and ‘Made Ground’where necessary, and of course highlighting contaminated and industrial land, this information is not apparent for the stadium site itself, a detail which may influence construction details associated with the new stand build. As far as I’m aware no large-scale building(s) has been constructed at the South side and South Western corner of the Stadium site where the made ground is at its deepest, and it is only during recent years that small scale ‘temporary stands’ have appeared. To summarise, the work to investigate the ground conditions for the new stand at the Memorial stadium appears not completed according to the report, a situation which should, in my opinion, be rectified before the stand is occupied by any significant number of people. Regards How long has the breach been occurring? Since May this year, though no Geological report appeared on the planning portal until the new planning application appeared in October. It be interesting to know who's briefing who and were is this late information coming from ?. Anyway objections have now reached 165 as I always stated even though the club have consulted debated and taken on points raised by the objectors. It will still exceed the objections on the first application . This begs the questions : did the consultation process change the thinking of locals opposed to anything and everything we do ?. It sounds like the saga continues and the Anti against any plans we do too.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 1, 2023 11:21:12 GMT
So the plateau of loose material has been in place for over 100 years, presumably compacting all this time, but we should suddenly become concerned about it now... If it even gets brought up in the planning meeting, surely the first question will be if there has been any significant movement of the land in the last 100 years, the answer will be no and we can all move on with our lives... ...it's an interesting opening gambit though (never considered they'd start with geology), they must be saving the flaura and the fauna for later stages of their disruption...also wondering why they've not been worried about this at any point in the last 100 years...
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Nov 1, 2023 11:28:11 GMT
If they’re like this for a ‘temporary’ structure what are they going to be like for the East and North stands?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Nov 1, 2023 11:33:33 GMT
HERE WE GO. *** Is this the first of two potential attempts to delay, derail and disrupt? Just like in previous Memorial Stadium planning applications the legal and regulatory route is explored. *** *** (Appears on the planing portal at the very last moment. Straight after key announcements are made.)*** BUILDING CONTROL ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT FORM. Address of alleged breach Memorial Stadium, Filton Avenue, Bristol BS7 0AQ Description of what has happened in as much detail as possible: Dear Sir, With regard to planning application 23/03826/F, Replacement of the current South and South West Stands. The planning portal shows that a Contaminated Land Desk Study has been carried out on behalf of Bristol Rovers Football club which appears very detailed, and the conclusions clear and to the point, but this Hydrock report does state that the findings of the report should be updated after they have receipt of the Atkins (2007) report. I believe the Atkins report was completed after a serious of bore holes samples had been collected from various positions around the stadium, this work being carried out in preparation for the redevelopment of the whole stadium as approved in 2006 (06/03850/F). You may be aware the stadium playing field ‘plateau’ was created in 1920/21 by removing soil and limestone from the North and Eastern sides of what was a slope at the time,to the Western and Southern slopes. The recommendation in the Hydrock report is for further work to be undertaken following the ground investigation works carried out up to September 2013, including the Atkins report, as there is still a need to confirm the ground conditions onsite which will involve further discussions with ‘regulatory bodies and the warranty provider’. Bearing in mind the 'made ground' is of loose material and that there are recorded aquifers in the areas of the ground I would suggest the survey/report should be completed urgently, and certainly before the stand is completed and brought into use. Whilst other areas close to the stadium are shown in the Hydrock report, highlighting changes in geology and landscape and indicating ‘Worked Ground’ and ‘Made Ground’where necessary, and of course highlighting contaminated and industrial land, this information is not apparent for the stadium site itself, a detail which may influence construction details associated with the new stand build. As far as I’m aware no large-scale building(s) has been constructed at the South side and South Western corner of the Stadium site where the made ground is at its deepest, and it is only during recent years that small scale ‘temporary stands’ have appeared. To summarise, the work to investigate the ground conditions for the new stand at the Memorial stadium appears not completed according to the report, a situation which should, in my opinion, be rectified before the stand is occupied by any significant number of people. Regards How long has the breach been occurring? Since May this year, though no Geological report appeared on the planning portal until the new planning application appeared in October. Saw that. Absolutely laughable.
|
|
|
Post by olskooltoteender on Nov 1, 2023 11:35:26 GMT
This is not random residents raising reasonable objections, this is a calculated & deliberate course of conduct that amounts to harassment. Someone is coordinating this and directing these spurious objections. I would suggest that the next time the usual “useful idiots” appear on this forum that they take a long, hard look at what is happening before they attempt to defend the greens and their cohorts any further . . .
|
|
|
Post by kruger on Nov 1, 2023 11:53:51 GMT
This is not random residents raising reasonable objections, this is a calculated & deliberate course of conduct that amounts to harassment. Someone is coordinating this and directing these spurious objections. I would suggest that the next the usual “useful idiots” appear on this forum that they take a long, hard look at what is happening before they attempt to defend the greens and their cohorts any further . . . Well can someone make a comment and actually copy and paste what you just said?
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Nov 1, 2023 11:56:22 GMT
This is not random residents raising reasonable objections, this is a calculated & deliberate course of conduct that amounts to harassment. Someone is coordinating this and directing these spurious objections. I would suggest that the next the usual “useful idiots” appear on this forum that they take a long, hard look at what is happening before they attempt to defend the greens and their cohorts any further . . . Completely agree 100% with your sensible post . This information is coming from somewhere and people are disclosing information to each other in order to find gaps in this application in order to get a defferal. The late game now is to collaborate with people who have sensitive information and find one technical issue to defer it to the new year. Who is disclosing this information ? Were is it coming from?. I would like those who have given me and other some stick for backing the club to step forward and explain ?.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 1, 2023 12:04:03 GMT
This is not random residents raising reasonable objections, this is a calculated & deliberate course of conduct that amounts to harassment. Someone is coordinating this and directing these spurious objections. I would suggest that the next the usual “useful idiots” appear on this forum that they take a long, hard look at what is happening before they attempt to defend the greens and their cohorts any further . . . Completely agree 100% with your sensible post . This information is coming from somewhere and people are disclosing information to each other in order to find gaps in this application in order to get a defferal. The late game now is to collaborate with people who have sensitive information and find one technical issue to defer it to the new year. Who is disclosing this information ? Were is it coming from?. I would like those who have given me and other some stick for backing the club to step forward and explain ?. Unless I've missed something this information has been published on the planning application portal for nearly a month now. I read quite a lot of it but missed this part, I guess they have more free time than I do to try and find any weakness...
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Nov 1, 2023 12:13:18 GMT
Completely agree 100% with your sensible post . This information is coming from somewhere and people are disclosing information to each other in order to find gaps in this application in order to get a defferal. The late game now is to collaborate with people who have sensitive information and find one technical issue to defer it to the new year. Who is disclosing this information ? Were is it coming from?. I would like those who have given me and other some stick for backing the club to step forward and explain ?. Unless I've missed something this information has been published on the planning application portal for nearly a month now. I read quite a lot of it but missed this part, I guess they have more free time than I do to try and find any weakness... The point I'm making is yes information is available from many sources . However its the substance of information which could get a defferal. If you look at the latest objections they are much more descriptive and challenging than the laughable ones at the beginning. I don't believe this is coincidental. I think this is a last ditch attempt to get it defered. Additionally it's not a one person band !.
|
|
|
Post by purdownpoacher1 on Nov 1, 2023 12:36:57 GMT
If they’re like this for a ‘temporary’ structure what are they going to be like for the East and North stands? 😩🥶😳😨😡
|
|