Smithy Gas
Craig Hinton
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Oct 25, 2016 16:00:38 GMT
Its just an article patching together the known objections. Nothing to worry about, classic BP clickbait.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 16:08:42 GMT
Bristol Rovers are facing opposition from both Almondsbury Parish Council and Sport England in their bid to secure a new state-of-the-art training ground. The club have identified a potential plot for the new training base at Colony Farm on Hortham Lane in Almondsbury and have agreed a deal in principle to buy the 29-acre site. They are currently awaiting decision on the removal of two conditions that would compel them to follow through on a historical planning application that was approved by South Gloucestershire Council in 2001. Chairman Steve Hamer revealed earlier this month that Bristol Rovers were hoping to complete enough work on the site in order to move Darrell Clarke and his players across from their rented space at Cribbs Causeway in time for the start of next season. But removal of the conditions that would make the plan workable for Rovers are the subject of objections from local residents ahead of South Gloucestershire Council final ruling on the matter in December. Bristol Rovers are requesting that the conditions of the previous application pertaining to prohibited use of the facilities before 6pm during school term time and use limited to the previous applicant be removed. Yet Almondsbury Parish Council have submitted an objection following a planning meeting. They say that they want the conditions to remain because any change to them would "have a huge impact on local residents" and that they wish to "preserve the quality of local residents' life". The Council have provided no details for the reasons why or how locals would be affected, but one resident has publically objected over the potential for floodlights at the site to distract drivers on the nearby M5 and M4 motorways. An inspection carried out by Environmental Protection at the end of September concluded "no objection" to removal of conditions 7 and 13, but did "recommend" that "any flood lighting" does give rise to "light pollution" or "nuisance" or "impact on residential amenity The resident also raised concerns over increased noise levels, significantly increased traffic on Hortham Lane and the potential for social activity emanating from the 'clubhouse'. He also talks of "interference" for the Police and Air Ambulance base being proposed for Almondsbury. Other residents, though, have given their backing to the plan, saying that it would "make good and efficient use of the land" and that "making a successful football team" would "inspire the young", "bring jobs" and "promote a healthy lifestyle". Sport England, meanwhile, have "recommended" that South Gloucestershire Council considers amendment to condition 13 in a bid to place a community use agreement on any new site that is constructed. That would make Bristol Rovers obliged to make the training ground available for community use at times when it is not being specifically used by any of the club's official teams. The organisation's planning manager Garry Parsons also notes that "grassroots" football club Coalpit Heath Youth are currently using the site and that they would welcome an opportunity to enter discussions with Rovers over continued access arrangements. The designs for the project are believed to include several football pitches, floodlights, modern changing room space, catering and refectory facilities and office space to allow Clarke and his backroom staff to be permanently based at the centre. Facilities at the new training centre would initially meet Category 3 Academy status with the possibility of applying for upgrade to Category 2 status in the longer-term. Rovers' first team has been a tenant at the Lawns - a 15-acre site that was previously owned by AXA – in Henbury since 2012, while the youth and academy sides are housed some 3 miles away at the Golden Hill Training Centre in Horfield. The lease on that site expires in March and the club is keen to house their first-team and all of their age-group sides under the same roof at the proposed new training facility. Read more at www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-rovers-face-opposition-over-plans-for-state-of-the-art-training-ground-in-almondsbury/story-29839244-detail/story.html#4SrViSroOZptJ99I.99
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Oct 25, 2016 16:44:20 GMT
Its just an article patching together the known objections. Nothing to worry about, classic BP clickbait. Think that may be true but given recent events it's a worry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 18:09:07 GMT
Its just an article patching together the known objections. Nothing to worry about, classic BP clickbait. Think that may be true but given recent events it's a worry. What recent events? There's nothing there that isn't a couple of weeks old. Neither is there any mention that the objections don't address the application to remove two conditions, or that there have also been supporting comments. It's just someone sitting at a desk, reading the Internet and writing it up to fill space and slant things to create dismay. It really is a low-grade rag.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Oct 25, 2016 18:29:23 GMT
Think that may be true but given recent events it's a worry. What recent events? There's nothing there that isn't a couple of weeks old. Neither is there any mention that the objections don't address the application to remove two conditions, or that there have also been supporting comments. It's just someone sitting at a desk, reading the Internet and writing it up to fill space and slant things to create dismay. It really is a low-grade rag. Not with this. Was referring to events at the Mem and objections there causing us grief. Maybe could have made it clearer.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 22:00:47 GMT
What recent events? There's nothing there that isn't a couple of weeks old. Neither is there any mention that the objections don't address the application to remove two conditions, or that there have also been supporting comments. It's just someone sitting at a desk, reading the Internet and writing it up to fill space and slant things to create dismay. It really is a low-grade rag. Not with this. Was referring to events at the Mem and objections there causing us grief. Maybe could have made it clearer. The grief caused surely pales into insignificance compared to the fact that there was never any money to build it with?
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Oct 25, 2016 22:12:18 GMT
Not with this. Was referring to events at the Mem and objections there causing us grief. Maybe could have made it clearer. The grief caused surely pales into insignificance compared to the fact that there was never any money to build it with? Don't really want to open a debate on all the arguments on what is now water under the bridge, think I am just getting very frustrated that every step forward "off the pitch" seems like a minefield. Maybe I'm just getting too long in the tooth and too many things have been " nearly" things over many, many years. Watching events "on the pitch" has recently helped. But by the same token increased frustration that the two may not be in sync.
|
|
|
Post by alloutofgas on Oct 26, 2016 1:11:36 GMT
As a Statutory Body, APC can raise objections to a planning application which will be taken into account and considered by the local planning authority, in this case South Gloucestershire Council. The Parish Council does not make the decision. The application will be judged against planning law, and the decision will be made accordingly. My feeling is everything will be fine.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgas on Dec 6, 2016 13:32:35 GMT
Anybody got any update on this please. I had it in my head that the decision would be announced on December 6th, which is today. But all seems quiet so maybe I dreamt it??
|
|
Smithy Gas
Craig Hinton
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Dec 6, 2016 13:57:08 GMT
Anybody got any update on this please. I had it in my head that the decision would be announced on December 6th, which is today. But all seems quiet so maybe I dreamt it?? Officially today is 8 weeks from validation of the application so a decision should be due.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgas on Dec 6, 2016 14:08:39 GMT
Okay, thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Dec 6, 2016 14:28:23 GMT
Could take up to 30 days if there any Major referrals but in this case not many public objections so should not take to long
|
|
|
Post by captain1883 on Dec 6, 2016 15:56:46 GMT
Bang in an appeal against non-determination tomorrow and get that ball rolling
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Dec 7, 2016 8:54:57 GMT
Article in EP suggests that the earliest time for any decision will be Jan 12th when the next planning meeting is held. But subject to them getting all the correct paperwork in front of them by that time. So possible it could be later than that I guess if all ducks not in the proverbial row.
Next possible date after that is Feb 9th
|
|
Smithy Gas
Craig Hinton
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Dec 7, 2016 10:44:14 GMT
Article in EP suggests that the earliest time for any decision will be Jan 12th when the next planning meeting is held. But subject to them getting all the correct paperwork in front of them by that time. So possible it could be later than that I guess if all ducks not in the proverbial row. Next possible date after that is Feb 9th Yet that will only be the case if the application has been referred through the circulated schedule and then gets called in to dealt with by the committee. At current it is set to be dealt with under delegated powers by the case officer in charge of the application. As you will see by the last correspondence in the case file the actual cut off date for consultation was a month ago, as is standard in the allocated 8 weeks, and not yesterday as stated in the article. So unless South Glos Council consider this to be a major application, which would be a twelve week process, a decision really should be imminent.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Dec 7, 2016 12:26:46 GMT
Article in EP suggests that the earliest time for any decision will be Jan 12th when the next planning meeting is held. But subject to them getting all the correct paperwork in front of them by that time. So possible it could be later than that I guess if all ducks not in the proverbial row. Next possible date after that is Feb 9th Yet that will only be the case if the application has been referred through the circulated schedule and then gets called in to dealt with by the committee. At current it is set to be dealt with under delegated powers by the case officer in charge of the application. As you will see by the last correspondence in the case file the actual cut off date for consultation was a month ago, as is standard in the allocated 8 weeks, and not yesterday as stated in the article. So unless South Glos Council consider this to be a major application, which would be a twelve week process, a decision really should be imminent. Well first off got to say I know diddly squat on how this all works. But the EP article doesn't seem to follow that at all. It is quite clear according to them (but maybe not right!) that the consultation period has only just finished and a case officer (the delegated power?) will submit a report with recommendations to be considered on the quoted dates. Now the EP has not been known for its forensically accurate reporting in the past....so I'm just as befuddled as previous. Guess I will just carry on laying out mince pies for Rudolph and his mate and wait and see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Dec 7, 2016 15:11:26 GMT
Yet that will only be the case if the application has been referred through the circulated schedule and then gets called in to dealt with by the committee. At current it is set to be dealt with under delegated powers by the case officer in charge of the application. As you will see by the last correspondence in the case file the actual cut off date for consultation was a month ago, as is standard in the allocated 8 weeks, and not yesterday as stated in the article. So unless South Glos Council consider this to be a major application, which would be a twelve week process, a decision really should be imminent. Well first off got to say I know diddly squat on how this all works. But the EP article doesn't seem to follow that at all. It is quite clear according to them (but maybe not right!) that the consultation period has only just finished and a case officer (the delegated power?) will submit a report with recommendations to be considered on the quoted dates. Now the EP has not been known for its forensically accurate reporting in the past....so I'm just as befuddled as previous. Guess I will just carry on laying out mince pies for Rudolph and his mate and wait and see what happens. The EP are both right and wrong.... If this is a major planning application then yes maybe they it would go to full planning, but this is just an amendment to an existing planning application so the above procedure applies
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Dec 7, 2016 15:28:44 GMT
The EP are both right and wrong.... If this is a major planning application then yes maybe they it would go to full planning, but this is just an amendment to an existing planning application so the above procedure applies HG, thanks for this but still a bit (ok - a lot!) confused. The EP stated that this could drag on (if site visit required) to March meeting. Assume that this would only happen if it was considered "major"? Which I assume you are suggesting it isn't ....if you see what I mean. So could be sorted in January I am assuming from that.?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Dec 7, 2016 15:53:35 GMT
The EP are both right and wrong.... If this is a major planning application then yes maybe they it would go to full planning, but this is just an amendment to an existing planning application so the above procedure applies HG, thanks for this but still a bit (ok - a lot!) confused. The EP stated that this could drag on (if site visit required) to March meeting. Assume that this would only happen if it was considered "major"? Which I assume you are suggesting it isn't ....if you see what I mean. So could be sorted in January I am assuming from that.? Only 36 comments have be logged on this planning application of which most are for the amendment. If one of South Glous Councilors had a concern about it, it would go to full planning committee, but so far none have been put on the planning portal. Also if a major issue has come to light ( some endangered flower is on site) then again would go to full review. But this is only a small change to a planning application granted many moons ago so should me ok... but this is Bristol Rovers and no doubt somebody will find oil below and want to put a fracking plant on it !
|
|
|
Post by gasheadpirate on Dec 7, 2016 17:34:58 GMT
As a Wiltshire Councillor, the process for call in is that it must be called in during the consultation period. I assume it would be the same for S Gloucester. So based on the fact no Cllr has called the application in, the officer will be dealing with it under delegation authority with no requirement for a Committee to consider it.
|
|