|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Aug 27, 2014 0:13:09 GMT
Good point .... wishful thinking! ... but good point. Do you happen to know the date of the writ? Edit: 17th July It seems that the Writ was received on 17th July (as you say) pending action to start on 1st of August. Seems that Sainsbury's submitted their planning appeal to BCC on the very last day it could (last day of July?) "Tom Kennedy said ‘Sainsbury’s have waited until the last day of the sixth month period to appeal the decision." So I take it now that the writ is not acted upon and the next hurdle is BCC to give the planning changes the nod and then all parties are 'contracted' to get on with it!  From my reading of the "Writ" it is Rovers that have appealed the delivery hours restriction with material that they have paid for, not Sainsburys. Sainsburys will be very happy if the appeal fails as will Trash. Trash also know that it us appealing not Sainsburys and that Sainsburys have no intention of building a supermarket but still want to stop us from selling our property. This is now all about whether we can hold Sainsburys to buy at the agreed price. Chances of that are more than 60% |
|
|
|
Post by nurseratched on Aug 27, 2014 0:30:15 GMT
It seems that the Writ was received on 17th July (as you say) pending action to start on 1st of August. Seems that Sainsbury's submitted their planning appeal to BCC on the very last day it could (last day of July?) "Tom Kennedy said ‘Sainsbury’s have waited until the last day of the sixth month period to appeal the decision." So I take it now that the writ is not acted upon and the next hurdle is BCC to give the planning changes the nod and then all parties are 'contracted' to get on with it! Sainsburys will be very happy if the appeal fails as will Trash. Trash also know that it us appealing not Sainsburys and that Sainsburys have no intention of building a supermarket but still want to stop us from selling our property. This is now all about whether we can hold Sainsburys to buy at the agreed price. Chances of that are more than 60% Case search > Case search results > Case summary > www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2222880&coid=2205728 Appellant . Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd 33 Holborn LONDON EC1N 2HT Agent Mr Tristan Hutton WYG 11-12 Lower Park Row BRISTOL BS1 5BN Authority Bristol City Council Case Type Planning Appeal Site Bristol Rovers Football Club, The Memorial Stadium Filton Avenue, Horfield BRISTOL BS7 0BF Grid Ref (Easting) 3595741 Grid Ref (Northing) 1764829 To see the location of the site, click here Summary details of case Variation of condition 11 attached to planning permission 12/02090/F, which approved the redevelopment of the site to provide a foodstore with undercroft parking, 65 residential units and community/commercial floorspace, to amend the proposed foodstore , delivery hours to the service yard between 05.00 and 00.00. Planning Inspectorate Contacts The Case Officer is Michael Joyce You can call our Customer Support Line on 0303 444 5000 You can e-mail your Case Officer at teamp16@pins.gsi.gov.uk Procedure Written representations Stages and Dates Appeal accepted Statements Interested party comments Final comments Event Form & attachments Statements & attachments Interested party comments Final comments No documents Start date: 7 Aug 2014 Due date: 11 Sep 2014 Due date: 11 Sep 2014 Due date: 25 Sep 2014 Date: Not arranged Decision The case has not yet been decided. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo Admin on Aug 27, 2014 0:44:33 GMT
If BCC just agreed to an extra 2 hours a day we could build it. Sigh.
|
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 27, 2014 4:48:18 GMT
If BCC just agreed to an extra 2 hours a day we could build it. Sigh. They've never turned down an application of ours yet! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 4:48:29 GMT
Anyone hazard a guess on who leaked the information? Go on then you start? |
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Aug 27, 2014 6:47:51 GMT
Could it be that we have read to much into this and that bristol post are reporting on an old story? The dates do not add up and unlike the report, it seems that sainsbury have appealed and not brfc. Could it be that Higgs writ forced sainsbury into making an appeal and this is the unreported legal battles that the Sunday independant reported on in their piece a few weeks back?
If so then it's my understanding that the ball is now firmly with BCC who need to allow for 2 extra hours delivery a day in order for sainsbury to be satisfied.
Of course they may still not want to proceed but may find it impossible at this stage to find something in the contract that would allow them to back out without a heavy compensation claim.
This may then make more economical sense for them to purchase the land and bank it if they don't want to build a store yet.
Next few weeks we will know either way as if it's dead I expect uwe to announce something pretty soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 27, 2014 7:13:23 GMT
Could we potentially go through another JR procedure if the new times are accepted? Surely if so then there's no chance of this one being successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Aug 27, 2014 7:30:23 GMT
-
|
|
|
|
Post by brovers90 on Aug 27, 2014 7:42:22 GMT
Could it be that we have read to much into this and that bristol post are reporting on an old story? The dates do not add up and unlike the report, it seems that sainsbury have appealed and not brfc. Could it be that Higgs writ forced sainsbury into making an appeal and this is the unreported legal battles that the Sunday independant reported on in their piece a few weeks back? If so then it's my understanding that the ball is now firmly with BCC who need to allow for 2 extra hours delivery a day in order for sainsbury to be satisfied. Of course they may still not want to proceed but may find it impossible at this stage to find something in the contract that would allow them to back out without a heavy compensation claim. This may then make more economical sense for them to purchase the land and bank it if they don't want to build a store yet. Next few weeks we will know either way as if it's dead I expect uwe to announce something pretty soon. Sainsburys had to make the appeal as they put in the initial application which was rejected. Sainsburys however tried to delay making the appeal so that the deadline of 28 July would pass and they would be entitled to walk away from the contract owing us nothing. BRFC did all the work behind the appeal, paid for it and also offered to pay the £40k additional building costs to enhance the acoustics and therefore allow longer delivery hours. Sainsburys did nothing and Higgs got a consent order to force them to enter the appeal which BRFC will now fight. If BCC allow the appeal then it would appear that all conditions have been met and Sainsburys will be contractually forced to pay us £30m for the mem. If not, we are likely to get very little in the way of compensation, if anything at all. We are suing them on the basis that they have not undertaken reasonable endeavours to gain the planning permission to enable both parties to complete the contract and we are therefore suing them for the amount that it has cost us, legal fees + £200k that the price of the UWE build has gone up whilst Sainsburys have been delaying Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Aug 27, 2014 7:52:07 GMT
Could it be that we have read to much into this and that bristol post are reporting on an old story? The dates do not add up and unlike the report, it seems that sainsbury have appealed and not brfc. Could it be that Higgs writ forced sainsbury into making an appeal and this is the unreported legal battles that the Sunday independant reported on in their piece a few weeks back? If so then it's my understanding that the ball is now firmly with BCC who need to allow for 2 extra hours delivery a day in order for sainsbury to be satisfied. Of course they may still not want to proceed but may find it impossible at this stage to find something in the contract that would allow them to back out without a heavy compensation claim. This may then make more economical sense for them to purchase the land and bank it if they don't want to build a store yet. Next few weeks we will know either way as if it's dead I expect uwe to announce something pretty soon. Sainsburys had to make the appeal as they put in the initial application which was rejected. Sainsburys however tried to delay making the appeal so that the deadline of 28 July would pass and they would be entitled to walk away from the contract owing us nothing. BRFC did all the work behind the appeal, paid for it and also offered to pay the £40k additional building costs to enhance the acoustics and therefore allow longer delivery hours. Sainsburys did nothing and Higgs got a consent order to force them to enter the appeal which BRFC will now fight. If BCC allow the appeal then it would appear that all conditions have been met and Sainsburys will be contractually forced to pay us £30m for the mem. If not, we are likely to get very little in the way of compensation, if anything at all. We are suing them on the basis that they have not undertaken reasonable endeavours to gain the planning permission to enable both parties to complete the contract and we are therefore suing them for the amount that it has cost us, legal fees + £200k that the price of the UWE build has gone up whilst Sainsburys have been delaying Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Thanks for the clear response. Are you sure WE (BRFC) are the ones fighting the appeal?? If so that's good news as we will give everything and hopefully given the reports we've produced and the jobs it will create etc BCC will change their minds... I actually feel a little bit more positive if that's the case. As you say, if the appeal is upheld then Sainsburys are f**ked; they either build the store or don't but will owe us a very large amount of compo... is it possible they will HAVE to buy the land full stop regardless of whether or not they then choose to build a store on it? (i.e. it wouldn't be compo - it would be the actual purchase [and therefore the full amount]) This might not be over yet (completely I mean - even if the chances are slim)... |
|
|
|
Post by brovers90 on Aug 27, 2014 8:16:44 GMT
Sainsburys had to make the appeal as they put in the initial application which was rejected. Sainsburys however tried to delay making the appeal so that the deadline of 28 July would pass and they would be entitled to walk away from the contract owing us nothing. BRFC did all the work behind the appeal, paid for it and also offered to pay the £40k additional building costs to enhance the acoustics and therefore allow longer delivery hours. Sainsburys did nothing and Higgs got a consent order to force them to enter the appeal which BRFC will now fight. If BCC allow the appeal then it would appear that all conditions have been met and Sainsburys will be contractually forced to pay us £30m for the mem. If not, we are likely to get very little in the way of compensation, if anything at all. We are suing them on the basis that they have not undertaken reasonable endeavours to gain the planning permission to enable both parties to complete the contract and we are therefore suing them for the amount that it has cost us, legal fees + £200k that the price of the UWE build has gone up whilst Sainsburys have been delaying Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Thanks for the clear response. Are you sure WE (BRFC) are the ones fighting the appeal?? If so that's good news as we will give everything and hopefully given the reports we've produced and the jobs it will create etc BCC will change their minds... I actually feel a little bit more positive if that's the case. As you say, if the appeal is upheld then Sainsburys are f**ked; they either build the store or don't but will owe us a very large amount of compo... is it possible they will HAVE to buy the land full stop regardless of whether or not they then choose to build a store on it? (i.e. it wouldn't be compo - it would be the actual purchase [and therefore the full amount]) This might not be over yet (completely I mean - even if the chances are slim)... Para 39 "By the terms of the consent order, the defendant (Sainsburys) also gave the claimant (BRFC) it's written consent for the claimant to submit its own section 73 application" You would hope that we have a fair amount of political support behind us now and if the acoustics report says that the modifications will ensure that there is no effect on residents then there is a good chance that it will be accepted. This is BCC however and nothing is that simple. The contract is a conditional sale and purchase agreement, I.e. The conditions must be met by a certain date and the vendor may then exercise their option to sell for £30m. According to the writ, we did not meet 3 of the onerous store conditions, Sainsburys didn't care about 2 of them and this is the last one to tick before we can exercise our option. If that is the case then there is no way that we will be going for compensation, we will want the whole selling price and shouldn't take a penny less. This is now down to the lawyers and is a matter of contract law, the fact that the relationship between us and Sainsburys has obviously broken down means nothing, if the contract is tight enough and BCC accept the appeal then we should be fine. Higgs made his money in construction, he should have dealt with things like this before and will have contracted a good legal team to deal with the contract. It's now time to wait for the appeal decision and hope that Ms Leslie can do something to help us out again and force it through Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Aug 27, 2014 8:57:25 GMT
Thanks for the clear response. Are you sure WE (BRFC) are the ones fighting the appeal?? If so that's good news as we will give everything and hopefully given the reports we've produced and the jobs it will create etc BCC will change their minds... I actually feel a little bit more positive if that's the case. As you say, if the appeal is upheld then Sainsburys are f**ked; they either build the store or don't but will owe us a very large amount of compo... is it possible they will HAVE to buy the land full stop regardless of whether or not they then choose to build a store on it? (i.e. it wouldn't be compo - it would be the actual purchase [and therefore the full amount]) This might not be over yet (completely I mean - even if the chances are slim)... Para 39 "By the terms of the consent order, the defendant (Sainsburys) also gave the claimant (BRFC) it's written consent for the claimant to submit its own section 73 application" You would hope that we have a fair amount of political support behind us now and if the acoustics report says that the modifications will ensure that there is no effect on residents then there is a good chance that it will be accepted. This is BCC however and nothing is that simple. The contract is a conditional sale and purchase agreement, I.e. The conditions must be met by a certain date and the vendor may then exercise their option to sell for £30m. According to the writ, we did not meet 3 of the onerous store conditions, Sainsburys didn't care about 2 of them and this is the last one to tick before we can exercise our option. If that is the case then there is no way that we will be going for compensation, we will want the whole selling price and shouldn't take a penny less. This is now down to the lawyers and is a matter of contract law, the fact that the relationship between us and Sainsburys has obviously broken down means nothing, if the contract is tight enough and BCC accept the appeal then we should be fine. Higgs made his money in construction, he should have dealt with things like this before and will have contracted a good legal team to deal with the contract. It's now time to wait for the appeal decision and hope that Ms Leslie can do something to help us out again and force it through Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Interesting; this makes me genuinely hopeful. It all rests on BCC then; they uphold the appeal and we get the £30m; ergo the UWE Stadium is built. However, they turn it down and the UWE Stadium is dead in the water and we are likely to get no compensation whatsoever and, even if we do, it will be peanuts. So it depends on how BCC see it; for me, a couple of hours a day for all the jobs it will create might be enough alone (now that BCC know that the project is dead in the water if they don't agree to the new terms which they probably weren't aware of when they turned it down orginally). However, that coupled with the fact that we are prepared to pay circa £40k to make accoustic improvements which would solve the noise issue (which is the only reason the original request was turned down) should hopefully be enough to persuade them. You'd hope that the accoustic improvements PLUS the fact it will create loads of jobs etc should indeed give us (at least) a 60% chance of success as per the estimation from our lawyers. The fat lady isn't quite signing yet it would seem... |
|
|
|
Post by parsonstgas on Aug 27, 2014 9:18:35 GMT
Bear in mind that is I understand it the planning committee at BCC is now more green/green sympathising than was during the original process? Someone with more knowledge than me might be able to give details on the councillors on this particular committee. I believe there is a least one green on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 9:26:17 GMT
It's only that way because it has been allowed to decay on the promise of the new ground. There is a lot that just paint would sort out. The Mem is not the tip many make it to be. It's the same as your own house, leave it and it rots. Bit harsh on Bishopston's house there KP. It looks a bit tatty to me, but not really rotting yet. That's fair comment mate. I should not cast aspersions and instead keep my own house in order   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 9:29:50 GMT
Could it be that we have read to much into this and that bristol post are reporting on an old story? The dates do not add up and unlike the report, it seems that sainsbury have appealed and not brfc. Could it be that Higgs writ forced sainsbury into making an appeal and this is the unreported legal battles that the Sunday independant reported on in their piece a few weeks back? If so then it's my understanding that the ball is now firmly with BCC who need to allow for 2 extra hours delivery a day in order for sainsbury to be satisfied. Of course they may still not want to proceed but may find it impossible at this stage to find something in the contract that would allow them to back out without a heavy compensation claim. This may then make more economical sense for them to purchase the land and bank it if they don't want to build a store yet. Next few weeks we will know either way as if it's dead I expect uwe to announce something pretty soon. How, in damnation, do Sainsbury issue a writ against themselves for costs to date so far, that have been incurred by the Rovers firm being used ? It does not make any sense at all. Think about it |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 9:32:50 GMT
The Mem is a complete tip KP! An utter dump!
It is a stadium that comprises of a cricket pavilion, a rugby stand, a football terrace and a part time tennis stand!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 9:36:05 GMT
It's only that way because it has been allowed to decay on the promise of the new ground. There is a lot that just paint would sort out. The Mem is not the tip many make it to be. It's the same as your own house, leave it and it rots. KP I never knew why we didn't do down the piecemeal route and upgraded as we could, starting with that awful stand.I know that sounds like hindsight but for me coming from where we had, Eastville and Twerton we didn't need to get completely carried away after all we were in the lower divisions of the league. Agreed, delusions of grandeur and a man hell bent on leaving a legacy. Many will say that it's easy to write with hindsight but I was never onboard with the new and cavernous stadium. I would much rather we had league football with an improved Mem. That is just my opinion but I'd hate to see the new place with 5K in it. If you remember the game at Birmingham, we had probably nearer 4K there and the rest was empty really. We will survive as we have the fans to do so but we keep being let down by the people that are our supposed guardians. It's like Adam and Eve, it's a story that basically shows why we sing Irene. It's always been a dream rather than a reality. |
|
|
|
Post by dragonfly on Aug 27, 2014 9:41:54 GMT
BCC might as well allow the extra lorry hours for Sainsbury as it is common knowledge that they do not want to build a supermarket and therefore no bother to local residents.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganymede on Aug 27, 2014 9:42:34 GMT
Delivery times ... delivery times ... Does anyone know what are normal delivery times for other large Sainsbury stores e.g. the one at Filton/Fox Den Road or even nationally. In other words are Sainsbury asking for something which they do not ordinarily have at other locations?
|
|
|
|
Post by brovers90 on Aug 27, 2014 9:52:04 GMT
Delivery times ... delivery times ... Does anyone know what are normal delivery times for other large Sainsbury stores e.g. the one at Filton/Fox Den Road or even nationally. In other words are Sainsbury asking for something which they do not ordinarily have at other locations? I believe these are unusually extended, according to Carstairs and his mob, the 2 nearest to this one have 7am till 9pm Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
|
