jozer
Youth Team
Posts: 40 
|
Post by jozer on Aug 27, 2014 22:09:13 GMT
FFS! Sainsburys don't want loinger delivery hours. They want an excuse to bail out, and the BoD have known this for months. The project is long dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 27, 2014 22:41:12 GMT
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. Not sure how true that is but surely nobody can impose a 11" fence around your back garden, what about blocking out light etc, It seems somebody needs to wake up and smell the coffee if they think planners will accept that suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by empirebaypete on Aug 27, 2014 23:06:43 GMT
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. Not sure how true that is but surely nobody can impose a 11" fence around your back garden, what about blocking out light etc, It seems somebody needs to wake up and smell the coffee if they think planners will accept that suggestion. I don't know about in England. But it's the kind of thing they do here in Australia to block noise. Personally I would hate it. |
|
|
|
Post by cagastrophy on Aug 28, 2014 14:06:53 GMT
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. Not sure how true that is but surely nobody can impose a 11" fence around your back garden, what about blocking out light etc, It seems somebody needs to wake up and smell the coffee if they think planners will accept that suggestion. Not sure that an 11 inch fence would make much difference... I believe that high fences can be imposed, much like those around sections of the roads over here and in Europe if they are a noise reducing measure. I'm sure the council would prefer grass banks though. At Tesco Golden Hill they built big brick walls around loading areas to stop noise. |
|
|
|
Post by Mancgas has left the building on Aug 28, 2014 14:18:27 GMT
re earlier posts saying its just 2 hours, unfortunately on SUnday the difference is far greater than two hours
bottom line is we signed a contract which was subject to delivery hours not being restriced beyond parameters set in the contract, it is in clause 1 of the contract, not hidden in small print, and whilst Sainsbury's have been dragging feet and we are rightfully suing them for that - we cant say the clause is all their fault.
Nor could the contract be described as 'water tight' .......but frankly if people dont see that, they never will so no point entering into further posts on that
|
|
|
|
Post by womble on Aug 28, 2014 14:49:51 GMT
Not sure how true that is but surely nobody can impose a 11" fence around your back garden, what about blocking out light etc, It seems somebody needs to wake up and smell the coffee if they think planners will accept that suggestion. Not sure that an 11 inch fence would make much difference... I believe that high fences can be imposed, much like those around sections of the roads over here and in Europe if they are a noise reducing measure. I'm sure the council would prefer grass banks though. At Tesco Golden Hill they built big brick walls around loading areas to stop noise. The unloading area itself is effectively indoors as it is roofed over, one of the alterations made during the planning process to reduce inconvenience to residents from noise from deliveries.
Presumably the fences would be for the houses near the access road. As a rule of thumb, planners will not accept anything blocking light entering a ground floor window at head height, greater than 25 degrees above the horizontal. It was one of the big issues around the Mem redevelopment permission with its high stands and accommodation blocks, that just squeaked through.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 15:16:11 GMT
re earlier posts saying its just 2 hours, unfortunately on SUnday the difference is far greater than two hours bottom line is we signed a contract which was subject to delivery hours not being restriced beyond parameters set in the contract, it is in clause 1 of the contract, not hidden in small print, and whilst Sainsbury's have been dragging feet and we are rightfully suing them for that - we cant say the clause is all their fault. Nor could the contract be described as 'water tight' .......but frankly if people dont see that, they never will so no point entering into further posts on that Yeah exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Aug 28, 2014 16:21:28 GMT
re earlier posts saying its just 2 hours, unfortunately on SUnday the difference is far greater than two hours bottom line is we signed a contract which was subject to delivery hours not being restriced beyond parameters set in the contract, it is in clause 1 of the contract, not hidden in small print, and whilst Sainsbury's have been dragging feet and we are rightfully suing them for that - we cant say the clause is all their fault. Nor could the contract be described as 'water tight' .......but frankly if people dont see that, they never will so no point entering into further posts on that This sadly is an excellent post. Be honest, would you (if your house backed onto it) want a Supermarket to be built with Logistics allowed between 5am and Midnight? I wouldn't really want one in the first place, but this aspect would have definitely made me tick the "No" box. It was almost madness to have a contract drawn up with that stipulated. Excellent strategy from Sainsburys though - If planning (as is likely) is rejected = Perfect back out plan if the economic circumstances change, i.e: In this case Aldi, Lidl seriously damaging the market place with growth of 18% compared to Tesco profits dropping 17% or if the economics do say yes, well just build it with the more compact delivery times - Win/Win Scenario. If we knew this was a Contractual Obligation to the deal how many of us would have celebrated the UWE News 2 years ago, i certainly wouldn't. There was a fly in the ointment we never knew about and i for one am extremely disappointed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 17:03:09 GMT
Is that definately a requirement of the contract ? does it stipulate Sainsburys must be allowed whatever delivery hours they choose ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 17:12:31 GMT
Is that definately a requirement of the contract ? does it stipulate Sainsburys must be allowed whatever delivery hours they choose ? I doubt it, which is why they are in breach of contract. |
|
|
|
Post by Mancgas has left the building on Aug 28, 2014 17:23:00 GMT
Is that definately a requirement of the contract ? does it stipulate Sainsburys must be allowed whatever delivery hours they choose ? I doubt it, which is why they are in breach of contract. regrettably you are wrong- our own lawyers state in the writ that the contract confirms a Store Onerous condition (ie one that allows them to get out of the contract) includes any restriction of delivery hours which would not allow deliveries 7 days a week between 5am and midnight at least. As the planning limits deliveries to lesser time periods than this, especially on Sunday, they can withdraw from the contract, if using after using all of Sainsburys best endeavors 5 until midnight is not achieved. Sainsbury's tried to get out of the contract without trying all avenues to get delivery times in the planning extended - they have been forced to put in an appeal to the previous rejection of 5 till midnight now. The writ deals with our costs for their delaying the appeal only. If the appeal fails, based on what our lawyers have quoted from the writ, Sainsbury's can legitimately withdraw from the purchase. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 17:25:43 GMT
I doubt it, which is why they are in breach of contract. regrettably you are wrong- our own lawyers state in the writ that the contract confirms a Store Onerous condition (ie one that allows them to get out of the contract) includes any restriction of delivery hours which would not allow deliveries 7 days a week between 5am and midnight at least. As the planning limits deliveries to lesser time periods than this, especially on Sunday, they can withdraw from the contract, if using after using all of Sainsburys best endeavors 5 until midnight is not achieved. Sainsbury's tried to get out of the contract without trying all avenues to get delivery times in the planning extended - they have been forced to put in an appeal to the previous rejection of 5 till midnight now. The writ deals with our costs for their delaying the appeal only. If the appeal fails, based on what our lawyers have quoted from the writ, Sainsbury's can legitimately withdraw from the purchase. Ah........bollocks. Well, then we're screwed. Appreciate the clarification. |
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 28, 2014 17:45:54 GMT
I doubt it, which is why they are in breach of contract. regrettably you are wrong- our own lawyers state in the writ that the contract confirms a Store Onerous condition (ie one that allows them to get out of the contract) includes any restriction of delivery hours which would not allow deliveries 7 days a week between 5am and midnight at least. As the planning limits deliveries to lesser time periods than this, especially on Sunday, they can withdraw from the contract, if using after using all of Sainsburys best endeavors 5 until midnight is not achieved. Sainsbury's tried to get out of the contract without trying all avenues to get delivery times in the planning extended - they have been forced to put in an appeal to the previous rejection of 5 till midnight now. The writ deals with our costs for their delaying the appeal only. If the appeal fails, based on what our lawyers have quoted from the writ, Sainsbury's can legitimately withdraw from the purchase. Not saying I disbelieve you but is this information in the public domain? And if not then may I ask how you know? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 18:04:05 GMT
regrettably you are wrong- our own lawyers state in the writ that the contract confirms a Store Onerous condition (ie one that allows them to get out of the contract) includes any restriction of delivery hours which would not allow deliveries 7 days a week between 5am and midnight at least. As the planning limits deliveries to lesser time periods than this, especially on Sunday, they can withdraw from the contract, if using after using all of Sainsburys best endeavors 5 until midnight is not achieved. Sainsbury's tried to get out of the contract without trying all avenues to get delivery times in the planning extended - they have been forced to put in an appeal to the previous rejection of 5 till midnight now. The writ deals with our costs for their delaying the appeal only. If the appeal fails, based on what our lawyers have quoted from the writ, Sainsbury's can legitimately withdraw from the purchase. Not saying I disbelieve you but is this information in the public domain? And if not then may I ask how you know? Its in the public domain. The writ directly refers to clauses in the contract which confirms the point that Manc is making. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 18:22:06 GMT
Why does it always seem that the WHOLE thing hinges on one particular snag?
For the last X years there have been minor snags and each one has felt like the ultimate thing to do us in.
I am not bowled over by this writ/contract wrangle as it's just the next thing in a long line and once again everybody is getting into the weeds of it.
We will only be fed what they want to feed us.
One thing I have always been certain of is that this plan was never set in stone, so I never got as excited as many. The showing off at the teds was cringeworthy to say the least. The pictures in the Supporters bar are an insult to fans, while the silence/smugness from our BoD regarding this stadium fiasco has not resembled the behaviour of a leader whose bread and butter is in the industry of construction and it's associated hurdles.
Once again this club seems to have been caught with it's pants around it's ankles without a backup plan. Look over the river for an example of how to get sh!t done. Embarrassed, frustrated and angry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 18:28:21 GMT
Why does it always seem that the WHOLE thing hinges on one particular snag? For the last X years there have been minor snags and each one has felt like the ultimate thing to do us in. I am not bowled over by this writ/contract wrangle as it's just the next thing in a long line and once again everybody is getting into the weeds of it. We will only be fed what they want to feed us. One thing I have always been certain of is that this plan was never set in stone, so I never got as excited as many. The showing off at the teds was cringeworthy to say the least. The pictures in the Supporters bar are an insult to fans, while the silence/smugness from our BoD regarding this stadium fiasco has not resembled the behaviour of a leader whose bread and butter is in the industry of construction and it's associated hurdles. Once again this club seems to have been caught with it's pants around it's ankles without a backup plan. Look over the river for an example of how to get sh!t done. Embarrassed, frustrated and angry. Yep, I'm with you. Always refused to join the Sir Nick love in over this. Wouldn't believe in the UWE until I was sat in it. To be fair Simon, it's easier to have a back up plan when you have the cash and are effectively debt free. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 28, 2014 18:28:16 GMT
re earlier posts saying its just 2 hours, unfortunately on SUnday the difference is far greater than two hours bottom line is we signed a contract which was subject to delivery hours not being restriced beyond parameters set in the contract, it is in clause 1 of the contract, not hidden in small print, and whilst Sainsbury's have been dragging feet and we are rightfully suing them for that - we cant say the clause is all their fault. Nor could the contract be described as 'water tight' .......but frankly if people dont see that, they never will so no point entering into further posts on that This sadly is an excellent post. Be honest, would you (if your house backed onto it) want a Supermarket to be built with Logistics allowed between 5am and Midnight? I wouldn't really want one in the first place, but this aspect would have definitely made me tick the "No" box. It was almost madness to have a contract drawn up with that stipulated. Excellent strategy from Sainsburys though - If planning (as is likely) is rejected = Perfect back out plan if the economic circumstances change, i.e: In this case Aldi, Lidl seriously damaging the market place with growth of 18% compared to Tesco profits dropping 17% or if the economics do say yes, well just build it with the more compact delivery times - Win/Win Scenario. If we knew this was a Contractual Obligation to the deal how many of us would have celebrated the UWE News 2 years ago, i certainly wouldn't. There was a fly in the ointment we never knew about and i for one am extremely disappointed. I think you are giving Sainsbury's too much credit as I can't see they could see the rise of Aldi/Lidl a couple of years ago, in fact today's latest market stats announcement suggests Sainsbury's aren't really losing market share it's Tesco taking the hit. You do wonder if this was always Sainsbury's plan i.e. get to the 11th hour and then threaten to pull out using this clause, which as I can't see ever getting past the planners, then attempt to renegotiate the purchase price. Perhaps they will still try and buy the Mem at a reduced price even if the Appeal is dismissed, unless the rise of Aldi/Lidl along with changing shopping habits does now make the store no longer viable. It would be interesting to know eventually whether our lawyers brought the clause to NH's attention, if so, did he just accept it or did Sainsbury's indicate they'd never enforce it? As surely NH wouldn't gamble millions on eventually getting this past the planners? |
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Aug 28, 2014 18:34:52 GMT
Not saying I disbelieve you but is this information in the public domain? And if not then may I ask how you know? Its in the public domain. The writ directly refers to clauses in the contract which confirms the point that Manc is making. I can confirm this and have a copy of the writ. It appears in all truth Sainsburys have done nothing wrong, we can't (as yet) fulfill the original conditions (2.1 of planning application). A bit like us building UWE with consent refused for mid-week evening games. would we want a get-out clause? Of course we would. Sad, very sad. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 28, 2014 18:38:05 GMT
Why does it always seem that the WHOLE thing hinges on one particular snag? For the last X years there have been minor snags and each one has felt like the ultimate thing to do us in. I am not bowled over by this writ/contract wrangle as it's just the next thing in a long line and once again everybody is getting into the weeds of it. We will only be fed what they want to feed us. One thing I have always been certain of is that this plan was never set in stone, so I never got as excited as many. The showing off at the teds was cringeworthy to say the least. The pictures in the Supporters bar are an insult to fans, while the silence/smugness from our BoD regarding this stadium fiasco has not resembled the behaviour of a leader whose bread and butter is in the industry of construction and it's associated hurdles. Once again this club seems to have been caught with it's pants around it's ankles without a backup plan. Look over the river for an example of how to get sh!t done. Embarrassed, frustrated and angry. We still seem to have the redevelopment of the Mem as a backup plan, just a pity we don't have Pantsdown's deep pockets to now pay for it! Although having seen Bradford's rise from the bottom of Div 2 while we've been floundering I do wonder why we ever needed Sainsbury's & the UWE in the first place. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 18:46:28 GMT
I cant believe we have been so stupid
Ps
I can believe we have been so stupid
|
|
