Pervert
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 13 
|
Post by Pervert on Oct 9, 2018 9:21:39 GMT
I'm not a Ted, just a pervert gas head planning consultant who came across this from last week. Figured it may stoke some interest Application here |
|
|
|
Post by pirate49 on Oct 9, 2018 9:59:46 GMT
Went to have a look last week. Absolutely no sign of any activity there since I last
drove by many months ago. The undergrowth is now 3 or 4 ft high and in all seriousness the place
has become a wildlife haven, which could be a problem for any future development.
An old South Glos notice dated 2016 still on the gate.
|
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Oct 9, 2018 10:39:28 GMT
The Uwe fell through, what more do you need to know?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2018 11:34:17 GMT
I walk my great crested newts there and have done for 30 years or more.
|
|
|
|
Post by outwoodgas on Oct 9, 2018 12:13:50 GMT
Pity. Our strikers could have practiced trying to hit that barn door.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasheadpirate on Oct 9, 2018 17:05:44 GMT
Interesting that the only application is for something that would provide a capital receipt. Is that part of their plans to recoup before they leave or would the money raised help pay for the works? Depends on which side of the fence you sit on with regards to our owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by splitter on Oct 9, 2018 18:17:14 GMT
When I saw the application for the barn conversion I assumed that it would be an enabling project to raise funds for the training ground. Looking at the way the AlQ's have worked with raising the funds for the temporary stands by sponsorship this seems to fit for me. They are not just ploughing their own money into the club, but are trying to raise funds through various business deals.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2018 18:24:51 GMT
When I saw the application for the barn conversion I assumed that it would be an enabling project to raise funds for the training ground. Looking at the way the AlQ's have worked with raising the funds for the temporary stands by sponsorship this seems to fit for me. They are not just ploughing their own money into the club, but are trying to raise funds through various business deals. Judging by the losses on the accounts, I hope there are a lot of barns in that field, we need them  |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2018 21:01:49 GMT
When I saw the application for the barn conversion I assumed that it would be an enabling project to raise funds for the training ground. Looking at the way the AlQ's have worked with raising the funds for the temporary stands by sponsorship this seems to fit for me. They are not just ploughing their own money into the club, but are trying to raise funds through various business deals. Judging by the losses on the accounts, I hope there are a lot of barns in that field, we need them 3 according to the application |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2018 21:28:01 GMT
Judging by the losses on the accounts, I hope there are a lot of barns in that field, we need them 3 according to the application Just looked at some of the supporting documents. Was the letter from Ray Poyner in support of the application or was it supposed to show that the land may be contaminated so development shouldn't go ahead without further investigation to assess? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2018 21:34:23 GMT
3 according to the application Just looked at some of the supporting documents. Was the letter from Ray Poyner in support of the application or was it supposed to show that the land may be contaminated so development shouldn't go ahead without further investigation to assess? From what I understand the application was refused because an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been carried out. If that, or something equivalent, is true then thats amateur hour. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2018 21:45:46 GMT
Just looked at some of the supporting documents. Was the letter from Ray Poyner in support of the application or was it supposed to show that the land may be contaminated so development shouldn't go ahead without further investigation to assess? From what I understand the application was refused because an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been carried out. If that, or something equivalent, is true then thats amateur hour. I can't be sure, but I think that the letter that raised the alarm about possible contamination was supposed to be a letter of support |
|
GasMacc1
Les Bradd
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,423
|
Post by GasMacc1 on Oct 10, 2018 9:14:00 GMT
From what I understand the application was refused because an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been carried out. If that, or something equivalent, is true then thats amateur hour. I can't be sure, but I think that the letter that raised the alarm about possible contamination was supposed to be a letter of support That letter dates from 12th May 2015. It relates to the original purchase and seems to be a response to a request by the South Glos Planning Officers for information about previous use of the site. There doesn't seem to be anything contentious in it. It makes no mention of contamination, other than the spraying to kill off the grass to prevent "gypsies' trespassing" (sic) to graze horses on the land. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2018 9:20:51 GMT
Interestingly we also had a bid turned down in the summer for Dynamo Dewsbury striker Barney Conversion. Apparently we were prepared to pay the going Conversion rate.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2018 9:37:43 GMT
I can't be sure, but I think that the letter that raised the alarm about possible contamination was supposed to be a letter of support That letter dates from 12th May 2015. It relates to the original purchase and seems to be a response to a request by the South Glos Planning Officers for information about previous use of the site. There doesn't seem to be anything contentious in it. This is confusing, it's listed as a supporting document and marked as having been received by South Glouces Council in Aug 2018. So, and I'm happy to be corrected, a supporting document would have been submitted by the applicant? In which case, why didn't we, if it's the case, provide reports from suitably qualified professionals to confirm that there is no contamination. We would have been aware that this was going to be flagged up, wouldn't we? I know it's not why the application was officially rejected, but it looks pretty sloppy to me. Some bloke with sheep decides that a scorched earth policy is the way to stop fly-grazing, so kills all of the grass with an unidentified chemical, whilst storing unknown chemicals in buildings with no method of control mentioned and admitting that local children had been breaking in at the same time. Of course I don't have all of the details, but with my reading of his letter, he doesn't sound particularly organised or diligent. I'm not surprised that the Council want to take a look at what was going on to see if there's residual contamination. |
|
GasMacc1
Les Bradd
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,423
|
Post by GasMacc1 on Oct 10, 2018 10:06:11 GMT
Bamber, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick! Here are some notes I've made, as I wanted to try to understand what's going on. (This is just my summary of the South Glos online documentation, freely available to the public.)
1. A “prior notification” for the conversion of agricultural buildings to 3 dwelling houses seems to have been made back in September 2015 (prior to the purchase by Dwane Sports).
2. Local agents David James and Partners marketed the site (not the football pitch area, just the parcel containing the decaying agricultural buildings)…with planning permission granted …in June 2016…with a guide price of £275k. The architect’s drawings for the 3 houses in the current Dwane Sports planning application are the same as the ones contained in the agent’s blurb from 2016.
3. Kendall Kingscott (the agents for Dwane Sports) have resubmitted the application “as we believe it is necessary…to renew…on the expiry of 3 years from the date of the previous decision notice”. As part of the package of information which Kendall Kingscott supplied, they included the letter from the former tenant farmer, Mr Poyner.
4. The South Glos planning officer’s report confirms that the application meets the following criteria for renewing the planning permission: former use was only agricultural, the size of the proposed houses is within regulated limits, there is no recent agricultural tenancy agreement, necessary building work is reasonable, the site is not one of Special Scientific Interest, nor hazardous, there are no listed buildings or monuments, there are no transport, contamination or noise impacts, access is acceptable and external appearance is suitable.
5. However, “insufficient information has been submitted to determine whether the proposal would accord with … biodiversity aims”. The council officer seems to have made a brief inspection of the site. I don’t think they are saying there would be an impact on bio-diversity; rather, in the absence of a survey to prove the benign impact of the development, they can’t be sure and for that reason have to refuse the renewal of the planning permission. The implication is that they would approve the application if such a survey were to be carried out, as long as the findings confirmed that there was no significant impact.
It’s not clear whether an ecological survey was carried out for the 2015 application, which resulted in a successful granting of the planning permission. Difficult to see how the bio-diversity might have changed in 3 years!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2018 10:33:59 GMT
Bamber, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick! Here are some notes I've made, as I wanted to try to understand what's going on. (This is just my summary of the South Glos online documentation, freely available to the public.) 1. A “prior notification” for the conversion of agricultural buildings to 3 dwelling houses seems to have been made back in September 2015 (prior to the purchase by Dwane Sports). 2. Local agents David James and Partners marketed the site (not the football pitch area, just the parcel containing the decaying agricultural buildings)…with planning permission granted …in June 2016…with a guide price of £275k. The architect’s drawings for the 3 houses in the current Dwane Sports planning application are the same as the ones contained in the agent’s blurb from 2016. 3. Kendall Kingscott (the agents for Dwane Sports) have resubmitted the application “as we believe it is necessary…to renew…on the expiry of 3 years from the date of the previous decision notice”. As part of the package of information which Kendall Kingscott supplied, they included the letter from the former tenant farmer, Mr Poyner. 4. The South Glos planning officer’s report confirms that the application meets the following criteria for renewing the planning permission: former use was only agricultural, the size of the proposed houses is within regulated limits, there is no recent agricultural tenancy agreement, necessary building work is reasonable, the site is not one of Special Scientific Interest, nor hazardous, there are no listed buildings or monuments, there are no transport, contamination or noise impacts, access is acceptable and external appearance is suitable. 5. However, “insufficient information has been submitted to determine whether the proposal would accord with … biodiversity aims”. The council officer seems to have made a brief inspection of the site. I don’t think they are saying there is would be an impact on bio-diversity; rather, in the absence of a survey to prove the benign impact of the development, they can’t be sure and for that reason have to refuse the renewal of the planning permission. The implication is that they would approve the application if such a survey were to be carried out, as long as the findings confirmed that there was no significant impact. It’s not clear whether an ecological survey was carried out for the 2015 application, which resulted in a successful granting of the planning permission. Difficult to see how the bio-diversity might have changed in 3 years! I'm trying hard to understand. I'm not talking about protecting Great Crested Newts or tree climbing goats, but the bloke with the scorched earth policy would know best about this as he would have checked to see if there were any before spraying chemicals everywhere, what I'm talking about is mentioned under environmental protection, where the following was written to Helen Braine, As said above, I know this is not why the application was rejected, I'm just surprised that we ran with it and thought that it would be OK. But hey, they've missed a possessive apostrophe from 'developers' in the final line, so we won't take anything South Glouces Council say seriously. |
|
GasMacc1
Les Bradd
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,423
|
Post by GasMacc1 on Oct 10, 2018 11:15:22 GMT
Yes, you're right. Sorry, I missed that bit. Looks like one of the officers is conscientiously pointing out a possible risk. Better check my shed, now. I've got some insecticide and weed-killer in it!  |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2018 11:29:59 GMT
Yes, you're right. Sorry, I missed that bit. Looks like one of the officers is conscientiously pointing out a possible risk. Better check my shed, now. I've got some insecticide and weed-killer in it! Take that back, nobody ever admits that someone else is right on this forum! Poor form  Never do that again. Seriously though, if I'm reading correctly, that guy was storing those chemicals there at the same time as local children were breaking in, then he plastered the field with poison and at the same time talks about the perimeter fence being insecure. You would think that whoever dealt with the application for us would have looked closely at that and tied off those loose ends. Obviously not |
|
Never do that again.