Smithy Gas
Craig Hinton
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Sept 23, 2016 16:32:46 GMT
I would assume its generally along the lines of just because you have planning for something, it doesn't mean you have to go ahead with it. So whilst we probably need the "building" that the clubhouse currently has planning for, we don't have to kit out said shell with a bar, TV and pickled onions. Thus we then have planning for a shell of sorts which we can then fit out internally to our needs which are more aligned with a football club academy and training base rather than a social club attached to some pitches. You have to specify floor plans of buildings, and there are building regs and the like with which that has to comply; you can't just say that there will be a building of x size, within which stuff will happen. Likewise, even if we built it with the rooms / showers / corridors / khazis / fire escapes etc. as currently specified, we couldn't then use it as an abattoir, massage parlour, or place of worship. Granted, pickled onions are a level of detail beyond, so we're home and dry on that one. But building regulations and planning are two separate entities. So in terms of whatever floor plans etc. were submitted, they don't strictly have to be adhered to as long as what is built is within the same use class as what is given planning for. So your point about abattoirs is correct. We are building a clubhouse with showers and changing rooms etc. just not putting the bar in I would imagine, all under the same use class, thus not needing to worry about changing conditions of the planning.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 16:46:04 GMT
I think there needs to be a bar, so Linesy can get his corona.
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Sept 23, 2016 16:58:06 GMT
I think there needs to be a bar, so Linesy can get his corona. but will he get his threepence back when he returns the bottle
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 17:31:38 GMT
You have to specify floor plans of buildings, and there are building regs and the like with which that has to comply; you can't just say that there will be a building of x size, within which stuff will happen. Likewise, even if we built it with the rooms / showers / corridors / khazis / fire escapes etc. as currently specified, we couldn't then use it as an abattoir, massage parlour, or place of worship. Granted, pickled onions are a level of detail beyond, so we're home and dry on that one. But building regulations and planning are two separate entities. So in terms of whatever floor plans etc. were submitted, they don't strictly have to be adhered to as long as what is built is within the same use class as what is given planning for. So your point about abattoirs is correct. We are building a clubhouse with showers and changing rooms etc. just not putting the bar in I would imagine, all under the same use class, thus not needing to worry about changing conditions of the planning. We're probably not far apart. I agree there's (probably) no use class issue, and the bar could readily equate to a players' lounge, but I'd have thought we'd want fewer changing rooms and showers, and instead a kitchen / canteen, physio 'suite', maybe a gym, offices (with a non-revolving door for the manager's office), and was something said about a classroom for the academy? Do clubs still have boot rooms? Maybe you're right and all that can be done by reallocating space. Even if not, I'd have thought it ought to be a non-contentious change to the currently approved plans and it would be better with a new build to do exactly what's wanted rather than adapt what's been approved. Dunno. Like I said, I 'wonder'. I'll shut up.
|
|
Smithy Gas
Craig Hinton
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Sept 23, 2016 17:52:35 GMT
But building regulations and planning are two separate entities. So in terms of whatever floor plans etc. were submitted, they don't strictly have to be adhered to as long as what is built is within the same use class as what is given planning for. So your point about abattoirs is correct. We are building a clubhouse with showers and changing rooms etc. just not putting the bar in I would imagine, all under the same use class, thus not needing to worry about changing conditions of the planning. We're probably not far apart. I agree there's (probably) no use class issue, and the bar could readily equate to a players' lounge, but I'd have thought we'd want fewer changing rooms and showers, and instead a kitchen / canteen, physio 'suite', maybe a gym, offices (with a non-revolving door for the manager's office), and was something said about a classroom for the academy? Do clubs still have boot rooms? Maybe you're right and all that can be done by reallocating space. Even if not, I'd have thought it ought to be a non-contentious change to the currently approved plans and it would be better with a new build to do exactly what's wanted rather than adapt what's been approved. Dunno. Like I said, I 'wonder'. I'll shut up. The trouble is the application is so archaic hardly anyone has seen what has been approved so it is difficult to discuss the merits of whether a new build or amending this application is better. What it does have going for it is it is already in the bag. Even with this fact people are trying to object - imagine if it was just a plot of old farm land and the nasty BRFC wanted to build a big training complex on it? I reckon we'll get our feet under the table, build what we got planning for, get the locals used to the fact this is the base and then add facilities purpose built to our needs when its not so much of a shock. Training base by the back door - good tactics.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,428
|
Post by harrybuckle on Sept 23, 2016 17:54:13 GMT
Is there room for parking space for an open top bus...for the promotion to the Championship come MAY 2017
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Sept 23, 2016 19:51:14 GMT
Is there room for parking space for an open top bus...for the promotion to the Championship come MAY 2017 Only if we go up as champions. Second nor play-offs warrant open top celebrations.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Sept 25, 2016 12:44:29 GMT
I think there needs to be a bar, so Linesy can get his corona. Ouch
|
|
nerdgas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 145
|
Post by nerdgas on Oct 14, 2016 9:19:11 GMT
Responses from Sport England and Env Agency in.
Oddly enough the Environment Agency seem to be suggesting floodlights are installed that worsen the light pollution current experienced - think it must be a typo....
Not sure what to make of Sport Englands response. Looks like a local youth football club are trying to secure access to the facilities......
|
|
zulugas
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 71
|
Post by zulugas on Oct 14, 2016 9:48:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 14, 2016 18:19:28 GMT
What a load of nonsense from the EA, I assume that was written by someone with a degree but it makes no sense whatsoever? They also seem to be concerned about noise pollution affecting something bit not sure what!
As far as Coalpit Heath, why don't they just approach Rovers direct?
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Oct 14, 2016 19:12:01 GMT
the tail end of the letter says it all "a smoke screen" this someone trying it on in order to delay things, and have asked SE to intervene on the "junior football "clubs behalf,,,
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Oct 14, 2016 19:41:41 GMT
Responses from Sport England and Env Agency in.
Oddly enough the Environment Agency seem to be suggesting floodlights are installed that worsen the light pollution current experienced - think it must be a typo....
Not sure what to make of Sport Englands response. Looks like a local youth football club are trying to secure access to the facilities...... I don't think it is from the Environment Agency. My view is it's a department of SGC. The document says from 'Environmental Protection', it's on a South Gloucestershire Council headed memo, and the email address points that way too. It's difficult to say, but I reckon it's just a case that the word 'not' is missing between 'does' and 'give'.
|
|
|
Post by davehuddscousin on Oct 14, 2016 21:42:48 GMT
The fact that there is only one objection, and two supporting statements is a good sign. Looking at the report t seems that South Glos Council have contacted all the neighbours to the site, and 80% of them have made no comment. Not counting chickens, but fingers crossed.....
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Oct 14, 2016 22:08:29 GMT
Responses from Sport England and Env Agency in.
Oddly enough the Environment Agency seem to be suggesting floodlights are installed that worsen the light pollution current experienced - think it must be a typo....
Not sure what to make of Sport Englands response. Looks like a local youth football club are trying to secure access to the facilities...... I wonder if that's just a standard thing - asked for but not necessarily granted. Is City's new training ground available for community use? I can't see anything via google that suggests it is.
|
|
Alveston Gas
Brucie Bannister
Once a Gashead always a Gashead
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 746
|
Post by Alveston Gas on Oct 15, 2016 7:28:18 GMT
A friend of mine lives very close & says he is happy for it to be a Training/Sports ground rather than further housing or a Commercial development. There have been two large religious buildings put up in recent years for Plymouth Brethren & Jehovas Witnesses nearby which increased road traffic and he feels there won't be any problem Rovers getting the ok, no real local concern other than traffic.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Oct 15, 2016 8:04:49 GMT
What a load of nonsense from the EA, I assume that was written by someone with a degree but it makes no sense whatsoever? They also seem to be concerned about noise pollution affecting something bit not sure what! As far as Coalpit Heath, why don't they just approach Rovers direct? Last home game, the young ones (under 9) on the pitch , did they not come from Coalpit Heath ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 10:36:17 GMT
A friend of mine lives very close & says he is happy for it to be a Training/Sports ground rather than further housing or a Commercial development. There have been two large religious buildings put up in recent years for Plymouth Brethren & Jehovas Witnesses nearby which increased road traffic and he feels there won't be any problem Rovers getting the ok, no real local concern other than traffic. I noticed of the two public letters received one was in support from a local resident. Hortham Village has over £100k sat in a bank account held by the local council which can only be used for a community building. Perhaps they could use the money to buy a lease to use the proposed club house?
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Oct 19, 2016 23:09:34 GMT
Have APC read the Planning Officers recommendations and her reasons why conditions 7 & 13 are no longer valid ? It is as her comment suggest the conditions are no longer logical and wouldn't pass current planning regs anyway, what's the matter with people, do they just want to object because they can ?
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Oct 25, 2016 15:39:48 GMT
Having trouble getting the link in here, but EP reporting objections to this. Not sure how valid they are etc and they may just be ones we knew of but why do I get a "deja-vu" on this one. Surely we must be able to do this one??
|
|