biggles
Reserve Team
Posts: 379
Member is Online
|
Post by biggles on May 18, 2024 10:44:45 GMT
why is there a need for a big screen?
its bad enough watching it on the pitch !
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgas on May 18, 2024 11:52:44 GMT
why is there a need for a big screen? its bad enough watching it on the pitch ! I'm loving the glass half full optimism there 🤣🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by Gasshole on May 23, 2024 5:33:55 GMT
My letter arrived in NZ Today about this giant screen….not sure which way I’m going yet 🤣. Is there any Great tits nesting nearby.  |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on May 23, 2024 6:55:39 GMT
My letter arrived in NZ Today about this giant screen….not sure which way I’m going yet 🤣. Is there any Great tits nesting nearby.View AttachmentThe home dressing room is only about 30m north-west of the site  |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 3, 2024 19:19:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Wembley_Gas on Jun 3, 2024 20:24:37 GMT
My letter arrived in NZ Today about this giant screen….not sure which way I’m going yet 🤣. Is there any Great tits nesting nearby.View AttachmentThe home dressing room is only about 30m north-west of the site No…that’s the blue tits. The great tits are in the centre box of the west stand |
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Jun 3, 2024 20:50:31 GMT
A lot of the people commenting on these applications seem to think it’s a democratic decision and not anything to do with if it breaks with planning rules and policies.
|
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Jun 4, 2024 13:51:06 GMT
A lot of the people commenting on these applications seem to think it’s a democratic decision and not anything to do with if it breaks with planning rules and policies. The most common objection seems to be the 'impact on wildlife'. Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on Jun 4, 2024 13:55:50 GMT
why is there a need for a big screen?its bad enough watching it on the pitch ! So we can immediately see who left the opposition 6ft 3" striker unmarked in the 6 yard area |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 4, 2024 14:05:20 GMT
A lot of the people commenting on these applications seem to think it’s a democratic decision and not anything to do with if it breaks with planning rules and policies. The most common objection seems to be the 'impact on wildlife'. Am I missing something? Just show David Attenborough documentaries. 😇 |
|
|
|
Post by gasbs7 on Jun 4, 2024 15:30:51 GMT
Would be slightly more concerned with this
Taken from the Tree Forum
16th May
In fact, they show Heras fencing erected in front and to the right of the blue toilet block (shown in Drawing No: BR10304-002 A) on the south-west corner of the site. This is not part of the tree protection fencing identified in the drawing.
Figure 1 below shows part of the site boundary from the south with the blue toilet block clearly visible. It shows that trees T4 and T5 have been removed (contrary to the grant) and that a large amount builder's spoil and other waste has been left on the area set aside for the proposed soft landscaping/planting and the 30-year Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) required under condition 11 of planning application 23/03826/F.
Figure 1: Part of the site boundary from the south with the blue toilet block.
No evidence has been presented that the images submitted with this application, or any other images, were sent before 'further construction work of any kind shall take place on the site' to the Local Authority Case Officer, or that they were verified in writing by the Tree Officer. If such evidence exists, please produce it.
Nor is there any evidence that the Local Planning Authority was given 'not less than two weeks prior written notice by the developer of the commencement of works on the site' or that the Council verified in writing that the approved tree protection measures were in place when the work commenced. If such evidence exists, please produce it.
On the evidence so far presented, the applicant is in breach of condition 10. We invite the Local Planning Authority to commence enforcement proceedings.
4
|
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jun 4, 2024 16:40:28 GMT
Would be slightly more concerned with this Taken from the Tree Forum 16th May In fact, they show Heras fencing erected in front and to the right of the blue toilet block (shown in Drawing No: BR10304-002 A) on the south-west corner of the site. This is not part of the tree protection fencing identified in the drawing. Figure 1 below shows part of the site boundary from the south with the blue toilet block clearly visible. It shows that trees T4 and T5 have been removed (contrary to the grant) and that a large amount builder's spoil and other waste has been left on the area set aside for the proposed soft landscaping/planting and the 30-year Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) required under condition 11 of planning application 23/03826/F. Figure 1: Part of the site boundary from the south with the blue toilet block. No evidence has been presented that the images submitted with this application, or any other images, were sent before 'further construction work of any kind shall take place on the site' to the Local Authority Case Officer, or that they were verified in writing by the Tree Officer. If such evidence exists, please produce it. Nor is there any evidence that the Local Planning Authority was given 'not less than two weeks prior written notice by the developer of the commencement of works on the site' or that the Council verified in writing that the approved tree protection measures were in place when the work commenced. If such evidence exists, please produce it. On the evidence so far presented, the applicant is in breach of condition 10. We invite the Local Planning Authority to commence enforcement proceedings. 4 If it's true that the club have been putting up things they shouldn't and cutting down trees they shouldn't then they deserve to get the book thrown at them. If it's true, this is not the way to get PP for the forthcoming mega stand. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jun 4, 2024 16:44:55 GMT
Would be slightly more concerned with this Taken from the Tree Forum 16th May In fact, they show Heras fencing erected in front and to the right of the blue toilet block (shown in Drawing No: BR10304-002 A) on the south-west corner of the site. This is not part of the tree protection fencing identified in the drawing. Figure 1 below shows part of the site boundary from the south with the blue toilet block clearly visible. It shows that trees T4 and T5 have been removed (contrary to the grant) and that a large amount builder's spoil and other waste has been left on the area set aside for the proposed soft landscaping/planting and the 30-year Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) required under condition 11 of planning application 23/03826/F. Figure 1: Part of the site boundary from the south with the blue toilet block. No evidence has been presented that the images submitted with this application, or any other images, were sent before 'further construction work of any kind shall take place on the site' to the Local Authority Case Officer, or that they were verified in writing by the Tree Officer. If such evidence exists, please produce it. Nor is there any evidence that the Local Planning Authority was given 'not less than two weeks prior written notice by the developer of the commencement of works on the site' or that the Council verified in writing that the approved tree protection measures were in place when the work commenced. If such evidence exists, please produce it. On the evidence so far presented, the applicant is in breach of condition 10. We invite the Local Planning Authority to commence enforcement proceedings. 4 If it's true that the club have been putting up things they shouldn't and cutting down trees they shouldn't then they deserve to get the book thrown at them. If it's true, this is not the way to get PP for the forthcoming mega stand. You know who to blame... |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 4, 2024 17:12:44 GMT
If it's true that the club have been putting up things they shouldn't and cutting down trees they shouldn't then they deserve to get the book thrown at them. If it's true, this is not the way to get PP for the forthcoming mega stand. You know who to blame... Chainsaw Dave ? |
|
|
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Jun 4, 2024 17:46:37 GMT
Would be slightly more concerned with this Taken from the Tree Forum 16th May In fact, they show Heras fencing erected in front and to the right of the blue toilet block (shown in Drawing No: BR10304-002 A) on the south-west corner of the site. This is not part of the tree protection fencing identified in the drawing. Figure 1 below shows part of the site boundary from the south with the blue toilet block clearly visible. It shows that trees T4 and T5 have been removed (contrary to the grant) and that a large amount builder's spoil and other waste has been left on the area set aside for the proposed soft landscaping/planting and the 30-year Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) required under condition 11 of planning application 23/03826/F. Figure 1: Part of the site boundary from the south with the blue toilet block. No evidence has been presented that the images submitted with this application, or any other images, were sent before 'further construction work of any kind shall take place on the site' to the Local Authority Case Officer, or that they were verified in writing by the Tree Officer. If such evidence exists, please produce it. Nor is there any evidence that the Local Planning Authority was given 'not less than two weeks prior written notice by the developer of the commencement of works on the site' or that the Council verified in writing that the approved tree protection measures were in place when the work commenced. If such evidence exists, please produce it. On the evidence so far presented, the applicant is in breach of condition 10. We invite the Local Planning Authority to commence enforcement proceedings. 4 Absolutely none of that has any relevance to this application though. They can throw sh** and ask for enforcement (and clearly if Rovers are in breach they would be in trouble if the LPA had man power to send out enforcement teams but I digress…) but it doesn’t matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 4, 2024 18:31:18 GMT
If it's true that the club have been putting up things they shouldn't and cutting down trees they shouldn't then they deserve to get the book thrown at them. If it's true, this is not the way to get PP for the forthcoming mega stand. You know who to blame... The company building the stand seems the likely suspects, unless TG or Abdullatif are handy with a chainsaw? Although there's nothing to say at the moment the person raising the matter has identified the correct trees. |
|
|
|
Post by gasbs7 on Jun 5, 2024 14:13:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Trevor on Jun 5, 2024 14:26:37 GMT
Figure 1 in M... A......'s BRISTOL TREE FORUM comments was taken from the area of land under the ownership of the club. Is it the case that this lower area of land has only one legal point of entry? Is it the case that the club have given permission for the person(s) involved in producing the comments from the BTF to enter their property? Or is it conceivable that the writer(s) of the report entered the property without permission? |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 5, 2024 19:46:04 GMT
If the latter is the case that's hardly a great defence to the accusations they are making? If they are correct it seems the contractors are just riding rough shot over the planning constraints. Do you really think that's the correct approach to take when we're just about to submit plans for further ground developments?
|
|
|
|
Post by willytopp84 on Jun 6, 2024 11:16:38 GMT
A screen doesn't excite me it will make the stand look worse.
Still waiting on hints from anyone in the know about our new 25 million quid east and north stand total rebuild 😉
|
|
