|
Post by BrightonGas on Nov 15, 2023 16:00:01 GMT
I liked the Chairman's bit about Gasheads moving into the 21st century! 🤣
|
|
|
Post by bravosierraseven on Nov 15, 2023 16:00:58 GMT
The first speaker was someone from Alton Road and she made veiled threats of considering a JR but I think the overwhelming approval will put her off that unless she has more money than sense. You couldn't have a judicial review would have to go to appeal first. a review could only be done as a last result if the decision was made without carrying out proper procedure . Don't know what she was on about , odd. That's good news then. Frustrating to see the first bloke trying to get it adjourned because of the updated documents, also wasn't convinced by Cll Edwards trying to add things into the mix like RPZs and some clear attempts by others to delay proceedings, if not, delays in getting it up and running but glad to see that the chair and planning officer use all their persuasion and nous to get it through.
|
|
|
Post by gasmania on Nov 15, 2023 16:05:26 GMT
The majority of Councillors came across as supporting further development, but we do need to follow proper procedure next time I hope TG is taking note of that. It may take longer dealing with the objector's , as there are some who will object to everything . But from the way the Chair spoke he was 100% behind the club as were the majority of Councillors. But TG needs to get his act together. Was interesting when they showed the designs of the previously granted builds and how large they were in comparison. Nice baseline to see what has previously been determined as buildable.
|
|
|
Post by bravosierraseven on Nov 15, 2023 16:10:54 GMT
The majority of Councillors came across as supporting further development, but we do need to follow proper procedure next time I hope TG is taking note of that. It may take longer dealing with the objector's , as there are some who will object to everything . But from the way the Chair spoke he was 100% behind the club as were the majority of Councillors. But TG needs to get his act together. Was interesting when they showed the designs of the previously granted builds and how large they were in comparison. Nice baseline to see what has previously been determined as buildable. Yes, good work that. Also glad that there was one Councillor who was on the committee that gave permission for that stadium. I think if it had gone to the other committee as originally scheduled we might have had a rougher ride.
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Nov 15, 2023 16:17:13 GMT
The first speaker was someone from Alton Road and she made veiled threats of considering a JR but I think the overwhelming approval will put her off that unless she has more money than sense. You couldn't have a judicial review would have to go to appeal first. a review could only be done as a last result if the decision was made without carrying out proper procedure . Don't know what she was on about , odd. That's correct!. Firstly it will need to go to a judge to be granted a J.R. within 3 months. The person (s) need to demonstrate three criteria. Basically the process wasn't done correctly. In order words it's saying Bristol Council did it unlawfully and didn't follow correct procedures based on illegality irrationality and being unfair. Even then who will fund it ?. Solicitors like to weigh things up and fight if there is a good outcome. Grant aid will be impossible . The fact it was voted in favour by a cross party and officers recommendations was to approve . It's over now and we won fair and square. Brilliant news .
|
|
|
Post by gasmania on Nov 15, 2023 16:20:18 GMT
Are there any other administrative things or anything else that will have to happen before we can use it, other than obviously finishing building it haha. Or are we full steam ahead now and get the test events sorted?
|
|
|
Post by cheamgas on Nov 15, 2023 16:24:32 GMT
Watched the meeting online. Was left in despair about how the country is run. There are a lot of planning decisions which need urgent attention. This one, although in an ideal world a certain amount of debate on most things is good, was a decision which could of been easily made by people reading the documents and voting on line.
Continued adverse points about increased capacity were made (even though they were told it was only getting back to the recent capacity, being told that they had previously approved something with a higher capacity also and that attendances may not often reach that level) were just a waste of time. One councillor seriously wanted a condition to have the stand repainted a lighter colour.
The Chair of the Committee though was excellent and tried his best to downplay irrelevant comments. One of the worse things were a number of councillors calling for a vote for a site visit before approval was decided upon, even though the planning officer and the Chair made it perfectly clear that the reports and pictures that they had already seen were more than enough and a site visit would only delay things further. Strangely one of the councillors calling for a site visit declared that he had an interest in the planning application as he was a gashead. Unbelievable!
Personally, I think that future planning applications will be very difficult. There was a lot of criticism about the lack of interaction with the neighbours. Whilst there is no doubt that it can and should be improved it works both ways. Whilst the club can try and be more supportive of the local area (though what about all the good that the Community Trust does) the neigbourhood ought to be more supportive of the club which is a local asset and been part of the community for a long time. However many of the residents that the council wish to support do not have any interest in good relations with the football club and just wish to see it gone.
|
|
|
Post by bravosierraseven on Nov 15, 2023 16:33:08 GMT
Watched the meeting online. Was left in despair about how the country is run. There are a lot of planning decisions which need urgent attention. This one, although in an ideal world a certain amount of debate on most things is good, was a decision which could of been easily made by people reading the documents and voting on line. Continued adverse points about increased capacity were made (even though they were told it was only getting back to the recent capacity, being told that they had previously approved something with a higher capacity also and that attendances may not often reach that level) were just a waste of time. One councillor seriously wanted a condition to have the stand repainted a lighter colour. The Chair of the Committee though was excellent and tried his best to downplay irrelevant comments. One of the worse things were a number of councillors calling for a vote for a site visit before approval was decided upon, even though the planning officer and the Chair made it perfectly clear that the reports and pictures that they had already seen were more than enough and a site visit would only delay things further. Strangely one of the councillors calling for a site visit declared that he had an interest in the planning application as he was a gashead. Unbelievable! Personally, I think that future planning applications will be very difficult. There was a lot of criticism about the lack of interaction with the neighbours. Whilst there is no doubt that it can and should be improved it works both ways. Whilst the club can try and be more supportive of the local area (though what about all the good that the Community Trust does) the neigbourhood ought to be more supportive of the club which is a local asset and been part of the community for a long time. However many of the residents that the council wish to support do not have any interest in good relations with the football club and just wish to see it gone.I think as long as the club stick to it's agreed plan to meet with residents regularly and get a suitable transport plan in place then from a planning point of view we should be ok. The east stand will not overshadow anyone, we can have more solar panels on the roof and there are no trees to be removed.
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Nov 15, 2023 16:34:02 GMT
Watched the meeting online. Was left in despair about how the country is run. There are a lot of planning decisions which need urgent attention. This one, although in an ideal world a certain amount of debate on most things is good, was a decision which could of been easily made by people reading the documents and voting on line. Continued adverse points about increased capacity were made (even though they were told it was only getting back to the recent capacity, being told that they had previously approved something with a higher capacity also and that attendances may not often reach that level) were just a waste of time. One councillor seriously wanted a condition to have the stand repainted a lighter colour. The Chair of the Committee though was excellent and tried his best to downplay irrelevant comments. One of the worse things were a number of councillors calling for a vote for a site visit before approval was decided upon, even though the planning officer and the Chair made it perfectly clear that the reports and pictures that they had already seen were more than enough and a site visit would only delay things further. Strangely one of the councillors calling for a site visit declared that he had an interest in the planning application as he was a gashead. Unbelievable! Personally, I think that future planning applications will be very difficult. There was a lot of criticism about the lack of interaction with the neighbours. Whilst there is no doubt that it can and should be improved it works both ways. Whilst the club can try and be more supportive of the local area (though what about all the good that the Community Trust does) the neigbourhood ought to be more supportive of the club which is a local asset and been part of the community for a long time. However many of the residents that the council wish to support do not have any interest in good relations with the football club and just wish to see it gone. I didn't watch it live. Who were the councillors trying to get a site visit and delay it ?.
|
|
|
Post by ChiefStateGAS on Nov 15, 2023 16:45:04 GMT
Watched the meeting online. Was left in despair about how the country is run. There are a lot of planning decisions which need urgent attention. This one, although in an ideal world a certain amount of debate on most things is good, was a decision which could of been easily made by people reading the documents and voting on line. Continued adverse points about increased capacity were made (even though they were told it was only getting back to the recent capacity, being told that they had previously approved something with a higher capacity also and that attendances may not often reach that level) were just a waste of time. One councillor seriously wanted a condition to have the stand repainted a lighter colour. The Chair of the Committee though was excellent and tried his best to downplay irrelevant comments. One of the worse things were a number of councillors calling for a vote for a site visit before approval was decided upon, even though the planning officer and the Chair made it perfectly clear that the reports and pictures that they had already seen were more than enough and a site visit would only delay things further. Strangely one of the councillors calling for a site visit declared that he had an interest in the planning application as he was a gashead. Unbelievable! Personally, I think that future planning applications will be very difficult. There was a lot of criticism about the lack of interaction with the neighbours. Whilst there is no doubt that it can and should be improved it works both ways. Whilst the club can try and be more supportive of the local area (though what about all the good that the Community Trust does) the neigbourhood ought to be more supportive of the club which is a local asset and been part of the community for a long time. However many of the residents that the council wish to support do not have any interest in good relations with the football club and just wish to see it gone. I didn't watch it live. Who were the councillors trying to get a site visit and delay it ?. Paula O’Rourke green party
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Nov 15, 2023 16:48:06 GMT
Watched the meeting online. Was left in despair about how the country is run. There are a lot of planning decisions which need urgent attention. This one, although in an ideal world a certain amount of debate on most things is good, was a decision which could of been easily made by people reading the documents and voting on line. Continued adverse points about increased capacity were made (even though they were told it was only getting back to the recent capacity, being told that they had previously approved something with a higher capacity also and that attendances may not often reach that level) were just a waste of time. One councillor seriously wanted a condition to have the stand repainted a lighter colour. The Chair of the Committee though was excellent and tried his best to downplay irrelevant comments. One of the worse things were a number of councillors calling for a vote for a site visit before approval was decided upon, even though the planning officer and the Chair made it perfectly clear that the reports and pictures that they had already seen were more than enough and a site visit would only delay things further. Strangely one of the councillors calling for a site visit declared that he had an interest in the planning application as he was a gashead. Unbelievable! Personally, I think that future planning applications will be very difficult. There was a lot of criticism about the lack of interaction with the neighbours. Whilst there is no doubt that it can and should be improved it works both ways. Whilst the club can try and be more supportive of the local area (though what about all the good that the Community Trust does) the neigbourhood ought to be more supportive of the club which is a local asset and been part of the community for a long time. However many of the residents that the council wish to support do not have any interest in good relations with the football club and just wish to see it gone. On your last point, I actually think the opposite and future applications will be easier. This has been a good tester that gives the club a much better idea of the level of professionalism needed for the larger future applications that we anticipate. I agree that local engagement is a bit of a thorny issue as you can be damned if you do and damned if you don't. But if the club have any sense they need to maintain an ongoing communication mechanism, involving local councilors and inviting neighbours to address issues, listen to ideas and present proposals. From what I heard, all the councillors that approved were still critical of the club for not engaging with the locals more. If we do engage before new proposals emerge, then that criticism cannot be levelled - even if there is a vocal opposition to new proposals.
We've also learned that any further proposal to increase in capacity will need a proper travel plan that addresses problems with parking and encourages active travel, address light impacts at least as well as the study submitted, covers the biodiversity net gain requirements, includes further sustainability measures (including more PV which can pay back), improves disabled access and facilities. Thankfully, many of the documents produced this time around can be reused for the next phase(s).
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 15, 2023 16:54:08 GMT
Watched the meeting online. Was left in despair about how the country is run. There are a lot of planning decisions which need urgent attention. This one, although in an ideal world a certain amount of debate on most things is good, was a decision which could of been easily made by people reading the documents and voting on line. Continued adverse points about increased capacity were made (even though they were told it was only getting back to the recent capacity, being told that they had previously approved something with a higher capacity also and that attendances may not often reach that level) were just a waste of time. One councillor seriously wanted a condition to have the stand repainted a lighter colour. The Chair of the Committee though was excellent and tried his best to downplay irrelevant comments. One of the worse things were a number of councillors calling for a vote for a site visit before approval was decided upon, even though the planning officer and the Chair made it perfectly clear that the reports and pictures that they had already seen were more than enough and a site visit would only delay things further. Strangely one of the councillors calling for a site visit declared that he had an interest in the planning application as he was a gashead. Unbelievable! Personally, I think that future planning applications will be very difficult. There was a lot of criticism about the lack of interaction with the neighbours. Whilst there is no doubt that it can and should be improved it works both ways. Whilst the club can try and be more supportive of the local area (though what about all the good that the Community Trust does) the neigbourhood ought to be more supportive of the club which is a local asset and been part of the community for a long time. However many of the residents that the council wish to support do not have any interest in good relations with the football club and just wish to see it gone. On your last point, I actually think the opposite and future applications will be easier. This has been a good tester that gives the club a much better idea of the level of professionalism needed for the larger future applications that we anticipate. I agree that local engagement is a bit of a thorny issue as you can be damned if you do and damned if you don't. But if the club have any sense they need to maintain an ongoing communication mechanism, involving local councilors and inviting neighbours to address issues, listen to ideas and present proposals. From what I heard, all the councillors that approved were still critical of the club for not engaging with the locals more. If we do engage before new proposals emerge, then that criticism cannot be levelled - even if there is a vocal opposition to new proposals.
We've also learned that any further proposal to increase in capacity will need a proper travel plan that addresses problems with parking and encourages active travel, address light impacts at least as well as the study submitted, covers the biodiversity net gain requirements, includes further sustainability measures (including more PV which can pay back), improves disabled access and facilities. Thankfully, many of the documents produced this time around can be reused for the next phase(s).
Agreed, the South Stand has (probably inadvertently) become a test case. We need to learn and hopefully have a better go next time.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Nov 15, 2023 17:03:52 GMT
Lets get it full for Pompey on Boxing Day!!
|
|
|
Post by kruger on Nov 15, 2023 17:11:27 GMT
I also think that the South stand is probably the most awkward one to get through aswell so hopefully the rest will be alot easier
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Nov 15, 2023 17:19:08 GMT
I didn't watch it live. Who were the councillors trying to get a site visit and delay it ?. Paula O’Rourke green party Thanks for info Who was the councillors who abstained ?. Edit. Local media saying Paula o'Rourke was the person.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 15, 2023 17:46:00 GMT
The club statement said something about conditions. Any idea what they are? Presumably minor things
|
|
|
Post by plymouthgas on Nov 15, 2023 17:54:14 GMT
Watched the meeting online. Was left in despair about how the country is run. There are a lot of planning decisions which need urgent attention. This one, although in an ideal world a certain amount of debate on most things is good, was a decision which could of been easily made by people reading the documents and voting on line. Continued adverse points about increased capacity were made (even though they were told it was only getting back to the recent capacity, being told that they had previously approved something with a higher capacity also and that attendances may not often reach that level) were just a waste of time. One councillor seriously wanted a condition to have the stand repainted a lighter colour. The Chair of the Committee though was excellent and tried his best to downplay irrelevant comments. One of the worse things were a number of councillors calling for a vote for a site visit before approval was decided upon, even though the planning officer and the Chair made it perfectly clear that the reports and pictures that they had already seen were more than enough and a site visit would only delay things further. Strangely one of the councillors calling for a site visit declared that he had an interest in the planning application as he was a gashead. Unbelievable! Personally, I think that future planning applications will be very difficult. There was a lot of criticism about the lack of interaction with the neighbours. Whilst there is no doubt that it can and should be improved it works both ways. Whilst the club can try and be more supportive of the local area (though what about all the good that the Community Trust does) the neigbourhood ought to be more supportive of the club which is a local asset and been part of the community for a long time. However many of the residents that the council wish to support do not have any interest in good relations with the football club and just wish to see it gone. I actually thought it was quite clever for the councillor admitting he is Gas, but asking for a site visit. By the time it got to him it was quite clear the majority were in favour, but it shows local residents that some fans do sympathise with them, and want the club to do things in the correct manner.
|
|
|
Post by bidefordgas on Nov 15, 2023 17:54:19 GMT
The club statement said something about conditions. Any idea what they are? Presumably minor things All I could glean from watching the meetings was the travel plan and planting a few trees and engaging with residents in the future.
|
|
|
Post by bravosierraseven on Nov 15, 2023 18:01:27 GMT
The club statement said something about conditions. Any idea what they are? Presumably minor things I think it's to do with tree planting and there was a mention of finance towards safety measures around the roads etc but not sure exactly what that entails. There was also mention of consultations before any events which would attract 10,000 people, assume that's non football related but I imagine we will be able to read it somewhere soon.
|
|
|
Post by stapletongas on Nov 15, 2023 18:01:33 GMT
Disgrace the club getting stuff done...that's another epic thread closed!
|
|