|
|
Post by ganymede on Aug 27, 2014 12:29:18 GMT
Nail on the head. I still don't see how not having extended delivery hours would constitute 'inadequate planning permission', when LOADS of stores operate with the delivery hours they already have.
They're a nasty bunch (aren't most big businesses?), the delivery hours stuff is all a big cover up I'm sure of it. Which makes me think we may have a case. I don't think some people are getting this. It constitutes an onerous store condition not because it is in reality an onerous store condition but because BRFC and Sainsburys agreed that it would constitute an onerous store condition when they signed the sale purchase agreement when everybody was happy and smiling. Sainsburys are now hoping that the city council will not give approval so they can walk away without paying a bean. Cheers FTB (and Spiderman/Peter Parker); much appreciated. I was not aware of the devil in the detail (and have not seen details of contracts etc). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 12:29:36 GMT
Hmmm, yeah that makes sense.
It's all resting on BCC then... hope slowly fading...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 12:32:02 GMT
Not an awful lot but Sainsburys put in the initial application which is why they are appealing. We know that they will make a half assed attempt at it as they don't really want it but are contracted to undertake 'reasonable endeavours' so we are putting in our own application in case Sainsburys appeal is rejected Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Ah, I see - it's a sort of pincer movement then. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by womble on Aug 27, 2014 13:00:59 GMT
The delivery hours were added as a condition of planning consent by the planning department. The store opening hours werw included as part of the planning application and were agreed to. |
|
|
|
Post by womble on Aug 27, 2014 13:01:55 GMT
Hmmm, yeah that makes sense. It's all resting on BCC then... hope slowly fading... An appeal will be dealt with by an independent planning inspector, not BCC. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 13:21:09 GMT
Hmmm, yeah that makes sense. It's all resting on BCC then... hope slowly fading... An appeal will be dealt with by an independent planning inspector, not BCC. But if it is rejected, then we've then got our back-up planning application which will be dealt with by BCC. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 13:24:54 GMT
An appeal will be dealt with by an independent planning inspector, not BCC. But if it is rejected, then we've then got our back-up planning application which will be dealt with by BCC. ...and if I had to choose which one of the two is more likely to be accepted, I'd place my bets on our back-up. |
|
|
|
Post by womble on Aug 27, 2014 13:41:49 GMT
But if it is rejected, then we've then got our back-up planning application which will be dealt with by BCC. ...and if I had to choose which one of the two is more likely to be accepted, I'd place my bets on our back-up. Think you're probably right there. Once upon a time when we had teamed up with UWE and Sainsbury's this project looked almost a sure-fire winner. Two nationally respected organisations - what could possibly go wrong?
Bearing in mind that there is still massive demand for student housing in Bristol, I wonder if someone is quietly dusting off the original Mem redevelopment plans?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 14:04:59 GMT
This is the 30 million question I guess. Did Sainsbury put a caveat in the original PP to say they wanted these hours ? As I see it, would we have put forward a flawed PP knowing that the hours within it would need changing ?or was the original PP put forward correct ? This is the crux of it. It would seem that JS Sainsbury must have had this in the smallprint or I can't see that they would risk exposure to them being seen as a bullying corporation. As it stands, this PP in place ready gives them longer hours to operate than their competitors so I do not believe this would get a favourable response due to that as it would set a further precedent that could see them being seen to have an unfair advantage by Tesco and others in that sphere of business. I believe they are being unreasonable so as to be able to get out of this watertight contract. Hey, I am wrong often & maybe, just maybe BCC coukd grant the extra 2 hours, given the mitigation package but I somehow feel this unlikely. I just don't understand how we went about the original PP application if we were aware that it was insufficient to the purpose it was for. It stinks to high heaven and has me believing that it was something that must have either been overlooked or maybe it was thought that the hours could be redressed retrospectively. In anycase, it is clear that Mr Littman has told BRFC that they no longer want to fulfill their part of the bargain. Nothing I have read so far leads me to believe that these hours given now are unreasonable nor that BCC would grant them even more hours as it stands. What we have to cling to is that the bigger picture is seen by the decision maker in this case & that the MP's and prime minister have been seen to be behind it. As I see it right now what we are going through is a damage limitation exercise. Lord, wouldn't it be great if we could get an affirmative decision that would put the pressure onto the greedy bastards who are trying to shaft us. I knew it was never the easy option to support Rovers but I never believed it could possibly be this hard ffs. I've calmed down somewhat from yesterday but I am up for the fight now and have written to both BCC and my own S/Glos council. I hope others do the same. I know it's hard but we need to gird our lions and get stuck into another battle. I would ask you all do the same. Excellent post KP. I was also wondering what delivery hours were stated in the original submission and used for the noise and traffic assessments? Were the delivery restrictions added as a condition for planning consent? If these are the delivery hours in the original submission then Sainsbury's don't have a leg to stand on. BTW, i don't have any lions, is there anything else I can gird instead?  Cats ! Do you have any Cats ? If not I can lend you one of my 5 so that you can gird your Cats, ok ? Ya dafty bugger. Made I laff |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 14:19:17 GMT
Not an awful lot but Sainsburys put in the initial application which is why they are appealing. We know that they will make a half assed attempt at it as they don't really want it but are contracted to undertake 'reasonable endeavours' so we are putting in our own application in case Sainsburys appeal is rejected Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Ah, I see - it's a sort of pincer movement then. Thank you! Yes but with the one pincer not being as willing and able as the other I'm afraid. Good analogy |
|
|
|
Post by Mancgas has left the building on Aug 27, 2014 16:57:49 GMT
few facts which may or may not have been covered in previous 12 pages but even if they have been may be useful to have in one place. No one is saying for one minute Nick Higgs is responsible for Sainsbury's behaviours.
It's also to their credit that instead of rolling over like a dead dog we've forced Sainsbury's into doing something they didnt want to do. It's also to our credit we've launched a writ fr damages for cost of delays.
However
- Nick has said several times the contract is water tight
- the writ tells us one of the conditions required opening times which were not agreed in the planning
- Sainsbury's have been telling us since July 2013 this condition of the contract has been breached
- To use the word watertight is therefore not correct
- On Saturday Nick said there were no reasons why we shouldnt move to UWE knwn at that time.
- We'd spent since February trying to force Sainsbury's to make best endevours to adjust planning permission delivery times. Sainsbury's had told us several times since February they had no intention of doing so and wanted out. Each fan can make his own decision as to whether Nick's statement on Saturday was correct.
- I feel cheated and misled. You may not. Lifes about opinions.
- I feel that way especially as Nick Higgs referred to Sainsbury's as our partner at a BRSC EGM, at a time when we were forcing an unwilling party into action, knowing they want out and were preparing to sue them for damages. Partner - really? ANyone else at the EGM will know the force of Higgs and Watola's positive comments
- People defend the above using confidentiality.I had media training as a spokes person for a FT100 company and was told day one hour one either only say the entire truth and if you cant say the truth say nothing. Otherwise the only result is you will be bitten in the arse.
- If Mr Higgs wants to rely on confidentiality, he cant exaggerate the real position to mask the real one- he can only say I cant comment
In summary people feel like they've been misled - some people dont.
However it's fairly clear someone who knew the full situation was in the 'that is misleading camp'.
Many of us were told that person had made that feeling clear to the powers that be in our club and that they did not want it to later come out that they personally knew of potentially misleading comments and did nothing. Hence we guess thats why it ended up in the press after giving the opportunity for some sort of correction - people will not stand for it.
And finally I saw some posts pointing at current or former directors. I was given a name, I have no evidence to say whether that person was involved or the one who leaked the information, and clearly wrong of anyone to bandy names around without evidence whatever their feelings towards that individual so I ignored the name as being title tattle at best and maliciously attributed at worst.
I can confirm that the name mentioned was not a member of the current board, a previous director or an employee of the club at anytime past or present. So any witch hunt will only land at the feet of a fan concerned for the reputation of his/her much loved club
|
|
|
|
Post by Mancgas has left the building on Aug 27, 2014 17:02:00 GMT
Ah, I see - it's a sort of pincer movement then. Thank you! Yes but with the one pincer not being as willing and able as the other I'm afraid. Good analogy except they cant be half arsed and avoid having to pay us the contract value. They have to make best and reasonable endevours. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 27, 2014 17:41:27 GMT
What I can't understand is how NH could say the contract was watertight, TW that work may start in September , and even for NH to tell 20men the stadium would be built, when it seems likely the extended delivery times will be rejected, I'd say we now have a slim chance of getting any money out of Sainsbury's, as unless the Inspectorate feels sorry for us I can't see them agreeing the extended delivery times, which seem ludicrously excessive.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
|
|
|
|
Post by nurseratched on Aug 27, 2014 17:59:17 GMT
What I can't understand is how NH could say the contract was watertight, TW that work may start in September , and even for NH to tell 20men the stadium would be built, when it seems likely the extended delivery times will be rejected, I'd say we now have a slim chance of getting any money out of Sainsbury's, as unless the Inspectorate feels sorry for us I can't see them agreeing the extended delivery times, which seem ludicrously excessive. Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk I can. It seems to be the new way of doing things regarding deliveries. Sainsbury’s seem to have already indicated in the appeal that they are willing to take on board the new ‘Quiet Deliveries Good Practice’ directive set out by The Department for Transport which covers extending of delivery times. Later/earlier delivery times to stores are now seen as more beneficial in relieving traffic congestion. “Quiet Deliveries Schemes (QDSs) are used to facilitate the extension of delivery times to locations such as a shop or building site, using practices to minimise any disturbance to local residents. Quiet deliveries schemes can reduce the traffic pressure on busy routes at peak times allowing traffic to move more freely and reduce the risk of conflicts between heavy goods vehicles and vulnerable road users.” www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/306853/retailers.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by lincolnfan on Aug 27, 2014 19:52:18 GMT
I wouldn't put too much faith in the voluntary Quiet Deliveries scheme given that it has, mostly, been drawn up in unenforceable words by the third rate tripe which makes up a high percentage of the Brain Dead Civil Service - in this case those employed in the section known as the Department of Transport. I imagine also that should the Sainsbury extension be granted some of the residents in the area may themselves be tempted to go to law to get it overturned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 20:03:13 GMT
The hours that Sainsbury want sound unreasonable to me tbf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gas-Ed on Aug 27, 2014 20:11:43 GMT
The hours that Sainsbury want sound unreasonable to me tbf. I have to say I agree with you. I lived 50m or so from a Tesco when I was a student and the noise or lorries reversing and the big metal trolleys used to transport boxes etc made quite a racket, especially when you are worse for wear at 6am in the morning! Sounds to me like a get out clause. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 20:24:26 GMT
The hours that Sainsbury want sound unreasonable to me tbf. I have to say I agree with you. I lived 50m or so from a Tesco when I was a student and the noise or lorries reversing and the big metal trolleys used to transport boxes etc made quite a racket, especially when you are worse for wear at 6am in the morning! Sounds to me like a get out clause. I think the store at Briz has truck movements between 0830 and 2230 only. That is reasonable. Plus there are not as many houses around there as the Mem. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas-Ed on Aug 27, 2014 20:49:06 GMT
I have to say I agree with you. I lived 50m or so from a Tesco when I was a student and the noise or lorries reversing and the big metal trolleys used to transport boxes etc made quite a racket, especially when you are worse for wear at 6am in the morning! Sounds to me like a get out clause. I think the store at Briz has truck movements between 0830 and 2230 only. That is reasonable. Plus there are not as many houses around there as the Mem. According to the TRASH website, the plan is to build 3.6m fences around the gardens of local residents, to limit the amount of noise. I can see why they would object to that. The more I think about it, the less positive I feel about it being approved. I guess we just have to cross our fingers. |
|
|
|
Post by lincolnfan on Aug 27, 2014 21:16:00 GMT
Surely the simple logic of this is that if Sainsbury really wanted this development to go ahead they would have raced in with their hours appeal without, apparently, having to be pretty much forced to do so. In the same way that they would have "raced ahead" with their plans at Southend - the processes of which have now been going on for years. And Southend supporters don't believe Sainsbury either.
|
|
