Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 9:47:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Sept 18, 2016 10:07:32 GMT
the wheels begin to turn a little faster!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 12:12:18 GMT
Fully delegated. Good news.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 12:15:13 GMT
Fully delegated. Good news. What does that mean, please?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 12:31:48 GMT
Fully delegated. Good news. What does that mean, please? It will be decided by a planning officer rather than a committee of councillors.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,066
|
Post by Angas on Sept 18, 2016 12:34:02 GMT
I'm puzzled by this bit:- Has the development already started? Yes If Yes, please state when the development was started: 08/11/2016
|
|
crater
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by crater on Sept 18, 2016 12:38:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by chelt_gas on Sept 18, 2016 12:49:30 GMT
I'm puzzled by this bit:- Has the development already started? Yes
If Yes, please state when the development was started: 08/11/2016User error. I'd imagine that he's using some sort of American internal system since they write their dates with the month first then the day. He's probably copied and pasted it or just ballsed up that bit of the application. The main point is that we seemed to have started the enabling works of the development prior to delegated approval.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Sept 18, 2016 13:38:50 GMT
Good news and looks like a step forward. But given past experiences and being a bit cynical (realistic?)on this - looking at the "Neighbours List" are we now likely having to deal with a whole new batch of "TRASH" wannabees who can put the mockers on this ad infinitum?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 13:50:12 GMT
I'm puzzled by this bit:- Has the development already started? Yes
If Yes, please state when the development was started: 08/11/2016User error. I'd imagine that he's using some sort of American internal system since they write their dates with the month first then the day. He's probably copied and pasted it or just ballsed up that bit of the application. The main point is that we seemed to have started the enabling works of the development prior to delegated approval. I think it's user error, but ought to be '2001'. The planning statement says that permission for pitches, a clubhouse, and floodlighting was given to (I think) Bristol Combination in 1997. They started on it within 5 years (in 2001), which makes that planning consent valid ('extant'), but never completed it. It looks like they laid out some pitches, but nothing else. They've already confirmed that extant issue with the council - and, in those chats, the council seem happy with us taking it on. What they're doing here is asking to remove two minor conditions on that permission regarding usage (which would seem to be a formality, thus the delegated approval). Jolly good. Who was it who said we'd be in new training facilities by March? Give that man a badge. Then again, who's to say the people in the new houses that have been built nearby since 2001 won't object. I can't see any validity in that, though.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Sept 18, 2016 13:58:04 GMT
User error. I'd imagine that he's using some sort of American internal system since they write their dates with the month first then the day. He's probably copied and pasted it or just ballsed up that bit of the application. The main point is that we seemed to have started the enabling works of the development prior to delegated approval. I think it's user error, but ought to be '2001'. The planning statement says that permission for pitches, a clubhouse, and floodlighting was given to (I think) Bristol Combination in 1997. They started on it within 5 years (in 2001), which makes that planning consent valid ('extant'), but never completed it. It looks like they laid out some pitches, but nothing else. They've already confirmed that extant issue with the council - and, in those chats, the council seem happy with us taking it on. What they're doing here is asking to remove two minor conditions on that permission regarding usage (which would seem to be a formality, thus the delegated approval). Jolly good. Who was it who said we'd be in new training facilities by March? Give that man a badge. Then again, who's to say the people in the new houses that have been built nearby since 2001 won't object. I can't see any validity in that, though. I couldn't see any validity in where certain people could walk a dog in a recent and well publicised application. Seems to have carried some weight though! My hopes on this one are that it is, as far as I can see, not a new application but just set an amendment of existing and incompleted approved build. But, cynically, I would say nothing is done until it's done.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 14:24:58 GMT
On a slightly related note, didn't UWE want a car park by October? I guess that's not going to happen. I've no idea what to make of that, so probably best not to try (beyond noting it).
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Sept 18, 2016 15:19:35 GMT
On a slightly related note, didn't UWE want a car park by October? I guess that's not going to happen. I've no idea what to make of that, so probably best not to try (beyond noting it). I believe October is when the temporary permission for their car park 20 runs out and they wanted a replacement. I think I read, (although I may be dreaming it), that they'd re-jigged their parking arrangements, so the need for an immediate replacement may not be so pressing.
|
|
Alveston Gas
Brucie Bannister
Once a Gashead always a Gashead
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 746
|
Post by Alveston Gas on Sept 18, 2016 16:06:20 GMT
I know there are a couple of residents of Hortham Village on this forum - do they expect any objections locally??
|
|
|
Post by Westcountry Gas on Sept 18, 2016 16:46:26 GMT
If i was a local resident with that bit of spare land on my doorstep, i would be over the moon with a professional football club planning to use it as a training centre. I've got friends & family who live in other parts of the country, and they have had to put up with land nearby being sold & used for things a million times worse than a football training ground.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 17:01:47 GMT
I'm struggling to see what reasonable objections to a football training ground there could be. Its not as if it'll attract crowds of hooligans.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Sept 18, 2016 17:06:24 GMT
Have we/Dwayne Sports actually bought the land yet?
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Sept 18, 2016 17:11:24 GMT
Excellent! 'Colony Farm' will be Rovers territory.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Sept 18, 2016 17:19:37 GMT
From local experience the biggest issue with this sort of development is how late you are able to keep the floodlights on. The cricket ground had all sorts of nonsense. Assuming it will have 3G pitches and be used by the academy they will want floodlights til at least 9pm.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Sept 18, 2016 17:48:20 GMT
I'm struggling to see what reasonable objections to a football training ground there could be. Its not as if it'll attract crowds of hooligans. Thing is objections don't have to be reasonable - just objections. And enough to hold things up, even if ultimately they fail. Of course that all depends on which side of the argument you are on. Given our (and mine) previous experiences over many, many years on this subject I do not want to believe it until it happens. No matter how professional, sensible and reasonable our current directors may be they (and us) are still subject to the vagaries of this process. I wish them well and keeping everything crossed. I agree with what Stig says in this thread as I have also been involved in this sort of application locally and recognise that argument.
|
|