Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,069
|
Post by Angas on Jul 30, 2023 12:04:54 GMT
I guess we'd apply for a temporary dispensation.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920 
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 30, 2023 12:33:26 GMT
If the club think it will be okay, than they should say, if not, they should say.
The comms are good when its something the club want to trumpet, if not, they like to go hiding. Not much to ask that they talk to their customers, not least ones that have paid hundreds of pounds to sit in a stand that does not yet exist
|
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 30, 2023 14:51:47 GMT
I've got no inside information about whether or not planning permission will be granted but think it's fair to say that with the recent activity on the BCC planning portal there is now an organized group opposed to the project in it's current guise and that we have a fight on our hands. The question is (as it was with Sainsburys) whether it is in Rovers best interests to fight or to seek a compromise ? Swiss Have you forgotten Horfield ROSE ?We have had organised groups against Rovers planning before, and we also have a very good record with approvals from BCC. And comparison with Sainsbury is a bit far fetched. They had a track record of winning legal battles and some of the best lawyers in the land. That's why people were so animated when Higgs went up against them. A local action group will have nowhere near the money or experience nor the legal wit / grounds to stand on in my humble opinion. If Rovers had gone into this following careful consideration and after taking good advice then I'd tend to agree with you Chesh but I don't think they did. In a situation where there is a good plan in place and the chances of gaining planning permission have been carefully assessed then it would be possible to meet the challenge of determined opponents with a high degree of confidence but, again, I suspect this is not the case. On the other forum someone has made an optimistic post saying the worst case scenario is that the opening of the stand is delayed for a few games but he or she has not thought it through properly because surely the worst case scenario is that the planning application is rejected and then followed by an appeals process which could carry on for a very long time with no guarantee of success. But we are where we are and as Rovers supporters we now need to find the best solution for the club rather than adopting the "gasagainsttheworld" mentality which always involves blaming others. We've created this situation for ourselves so we've got to find a way out ourselves which is why I believe it's at least worth exploring the compromise idea I suggested. One thing which I'm sure everyone who reads both forums won't have failed to notice is that Gashead81/ITB now seems to have changed his tune and today he posted : " Just once, it would be lovely if we could do something that didn’t look like an absolute cluster of incompetence or self inflicted problems" What are we supposed to make of this ? |
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Jul 30, 2023 15:56:19 GMT
Whatever the rights/wrongs of what it is we are trying to do with this stand and assuming this has been planned for a while I am still utterly bemused as to why PP was not applied for a while ago so that all this malarkey could be got out of the way (or not as the case may be depending on the outcome of the PP) and the work could (assuming all passed OK) be started/finished during the close season.
My understanding is that PP once granted lasts for 3 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 30, 2023 16:26:56 GMT
Whatever the rights/wrongs of what it is we are trying to do with this stand and assuming this has been planned for a while I am still utterly bemused as to why PP was not applied for a while ago so that all this malarkey could be got out of the way (or not as the case may be depending on the outcome of the PP) and the work could (assuming all passed OK) be started/finished during the close season. My understanding is that PP once granted lasts for 3 years. My guess is that the idea was conceived between November 20th and December 18th 2022. |
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Jul 30, 2023 16:48:01 GMT
Whatever the rights/wrongs of what it is we are trying to do with this stand and assuming this has been planned for a while I am still utterly bemused as to why PP was not applied for a while ago so that all this malarkey could be got out of the way (or not as the case may be depending on the outcome of the PP) and the work could (assuming all passed OK) be started/finished during the close season. My understanding is that PP once granted lasts for 3 years. My guess is that the idea was conceived between November 20th and December 18th 2022. Which if true (and do not know what the background is to that statement) means there was plenty of time time to get the ball rolling with PP early this year to avoid all this malarky. Also I query why you would (seemingly) take something down without a clear path (ie PP granted) to putting a new/improved version in its place. My grey cell must be missing something...............? |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,600
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 30, 2023 17:11:45 GMT
Swiss Have you forgotten Horfield ROSE ?We have had organised groups against Rovers planning before, and we also have a very good record with approvals from BCC. And comparison with Sainsbury is a bit far fetched. They had a track record of winning legal battles and some of the best lawyers in the land. That's why people were so animated when Higgs went up against them. A local action group will have nowhere near the money or experience nor the legal wit / grounds to stand on in my humble opinion. If Rovers had gone into this following careful consideration and after taking good advice then I'd tend to agree with you Chesh but I don't think they did. In a situation where there is a good plan in place and the chances of gaining planning permission have been carefully assessed then it would be possible to meet the challenge of determined opponents with a high degree of confidence but, again, I suspect this is not the case. On the other forum someone has made an optimistic post saying the worst case scenario is that the opening of the stand is delayed for a few games but he or she has not thought it through properly because surely the worst case scenario is that the planning application is rejected and then followed by an appeals process which could carry on for a very long time with no guarantee of success. But we are where we are and as Rovers supporters we now need to find the best solution for the club rather than adopting the "gasagainsttheworld" mentality which always involves blaming others. We've created this situation for ourselves so we've got to find a way out ourselves which is why I believe it's at least worth exploring the compromise idea I suggested. One thing which I'm sure everyone who reads both forums won't have failed to notice is that Gashead81/ITB now seems to have changed his tune and today he posted : " Just once, it would be lovely if we could do something that didn’t look like an absolute cluster of incompetence or self inflicted problems" What are we supposed to make of this ? Not often I'm in agreement with ITB. But BRFC: "an absolute cluster of incompetence and self inflicted problems" could well be the new motto. Virtute et Industria? Pah. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 30, 2023 17:36:26 GMT
My guess is that the idea was conceived between November 20th and December 18th 2022. Which if true (and do not know what the background is to that statement) means there was plenty of time time to get the ball rolling with PP early this year to avoid all this malarky. Also I query why you would (seemingly) take something down without a clear path (ie PP granted) to putting a new/improved version in its place. My grey cell must be missing something...............? The dates I gave coincided with the World Cup in Qatar which Wael attended. Having the owner of the club at such a high profile event where he is introduced to leading industry figures should be advantageous to Rovers but as far as I can see it doesn’t happen that way and there is a big disconnect between Wael’s good intentions and the actual outcome for the club. The reason I think the South Stand idea may have been conceived there is because Wael and not Tom made the announcement on April 28th and the comment from Arena Solutions was not from one of their dozens of UK based executives but from Brendan Williams who’s job title is director of international projects. I may be putting two and two together and making five but you will understand the reasoning. The new South Stand idea was mentioned in the January Board minutes and it was noted that Tom Gorringe would be looking into the viability of this and reporting back. The next board meeting was scheduled for May so it was fair to assume the next update would be given then but instead the announcement was made on April 28th. At the time I posted my disagreement with the way this had been handled and predicted the problems it looks as though we are facing now. I think the reason for the disconnect between the good intentions and the actual outcome is because there is no mechanism for taking what may be a very good idea and scrutinizing it with research, analysis and debate before deciding whether to implement it and if so how. We saw it with the Garner experiment and the training ground and we are seeing it again now. |
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 2,543
|
Post by trymer on Jul 30, 2023 18:56:55 GMT
35.3 Facilities for visiting supporters 35.3.1 Each Club must make provision for at least 2,000 visiting supporters at every home match or such number as represents 10% of the Club’s certified capacity, if less than 2,000. The League may, on the prior written application of a Club, suspend this Regulation or reduce the figure either for a particular League Match or for a period of time. Each Club shall, subject to any dispensations granted by the Board, make provision for at least 200 of the visiting supporters (of which not less than 100 must be seats) to be accommodated under cover. Any Club which fails to meet the requirement of 200 visiting supporters being accommodated under cover and which does not have a dispensation granted by the Board shall have such amounts as the Board shall determine (in its absolute discretion) withheld from that Club’s central distributions from the Pool Account until such time as the Club can meet the requirement. Interesting,thanks for finding the information. So Rovers have to find away fans 100 seats and I suppose those seats and toilets etc have to be segregated from the home fans,nothings impossible but I think that would be tricky at the Mem. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 30, 2023 19:36:46 GMT
35.3 Facilities for visiting supporters 35.3.1 Each Club must make provision for at least 2,000 visiting supporters at every home match or such number as represents 10% of the Club’s certified capacity, if less than 2,000. The League may, on the prior written application of a Club, suspend this Regulation or reduce the figure either for a particular League Match or for a period of time. Each Club shall, subject to any dispensations granted by the Board, make provision for at least 200 of the visiting supporters (of which not less than 100 must be seats) to be accommodated under cover. Any Club which fails to meet the requirement of 200 visiting supporters being accommodated under cover and which does not have a dispensation granted by the Board shall have such amounts as the Board shall determine (in its absolute discretion) withheld from that Club’s central distributions from the Pool Account until such time as the Club can meet the requirement. Interesting,thanks for finding the information. So Rovers have to find away fans 100 seats and I suppose those seats and toilets etc have to be segregated from the home fans,nothings impossible but I think that would be tricky at the Mem. Assuming the groundworks have been completed for the new stand surely they can just erect another tent, or just seek authority to forego the 100 seats for a game or two, given it's during the summer there might not be two many complaints from the EFL/Barnsley etc |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 30, 2023 19:41:56 GMT
Which if true (and do not know what the background is to that statement) means there was plenty of time time to get the ball rolling with PP early this year to avoid all this malarky. Also I query why you would (seemingly) take something down without a clear path (ie PP granted) to putting a new/improved version in its place. My grey cell must be missing something...............? The dates I gave coincided with the World Cup in Qatar which Wael attended. Having the owner of the club at such a high profile event where he is introduced to leading industry figures should be advantageous to Rovers but as far as I can see it doesn’t happen that way and there is a big disconnect between Wael’s good intentions and the actual outcome for the club. The reason I think the South Stand idea may have been conceived there is because Wael and not Tom made the announcement on April 28th and the comment from Arena Solutions was not from one of their dozens of UK based executives but from Brendan Williams who’s job title is director of international projects. I may be putting two and two together and making five but you will understand the reasoning. The new South Stand idea was mentioned in the January Board minutes and it was noted that Tom Gorringe would be looking into the viability of this and reporting back. The next board meeting was scheduled for May so it was fair to assume the next update would be given then but instead the announcement was made on April 28th. At the time I posted my disagreement with the way this had been handled and predicted the problems it looks as though we are facing now. I think the reason for the disconnect between the good intentions and the actual outcome is because there is no mechanism for taking what may be a very good idea and scrutinizing it with research, analysis and debate before deciding whether to implement it and if so how. We saw it with the Garner experiment and the training ground and we are seeing it again now. Rome wasn't built in a day as they say, TG would have had to go away, get plans drawn up, do the costings, arrange the finance, talk to the planners, then formally submit the plans, if he did that in 3 or so months then that deserves praise not criticism. Clearly we should have waited until next summer but the way things have panned out at Rovers regarding their stadium plans in the past perhaps taking a chance with obtaining pp was a wise move, otherwise we might never get to see a new stand!! |
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 2,543
|
Post by trymer on Jul 30, 2023 19:50:47 GMT
Interesting,thanks for finding the information. So Rovers have to find away fans 100 seats and I suppose those seats and toilets etc have to be segregated from the home fans,nothings impossible but I think that would be tricky at the Mem. Assuming the groundworks have been completed for the new stand surely they can just erect another tent, or just seek authority to forego the 100 seats for a game or two, given it's during the summer there might not be two many complaints from the EFL/Barnsley etc I suppose Rovers can ask for dispensation as Angas said, the seats though will be essential for elderly or people with certain disabilities that mean that they cant stand for 90 minutes, we have had some torrential rain recently even though its summer. On the groundworks subject, I was told that poly tunnels are classed as temporary structures and dont need PP whereas a greenhouse with a concrete base and walls is not a temporary structure and does need PP, this was a large greenhouse. Now, if this stand at the Mem needs that much groundwork is it classed as temporary ? if it is more permanent structure with a concourse and associated drainage etc then surely PP will be more difficult to get plus H&S will need to assess various issues. |
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 2,543
|
Post by trymer on Jul 30, 2023 19:53:41 GMT
The dates I gave coincided with the World Cup in Qatar which Wael attended. Having the owner of the club at such a high profile event where he is introduced to leading industry figures should be advantageous to Rovers but as far as I can see it doesn’t happen that way and there is a big disconnect between Wael’s good intentions and the actual outcome for the club. The reason I think the South Stand idea may have been conceived there is because Wael and not Tom made the announcement on April 28th and the comment from Arena Solutions was not from one of their dozens of UK based executives but from Brendan Williams who’s job title is director of international projects. I may be putting two and two together and making five but you will understand the reasoning. The new South Stand idea was mentioned in the January Board minutes and it was noted that Tom Gorringe would be looking into the viability of this and reporting back. The next board meeting was scheduled for May so it was fair to assume the next update would be given then but instead the announcement was made on April 28th. At the time I posted my disagreement with the way this had been handled and predicted the problems it looks as though we are facing now. I think the reason for the disconnect between the good intentions and the actual outcome is because there is no mechanism for taking what may be a very good idea and scrutinizing it with research, analysis and debate before deciding whether to implement it and if so how. We saw it with the Garner experiment and the training ground and we are seeing it again now. Rome wasn't built in a day as they say, TG would have had to go away, get plans drawn up, do the costings, arrange the finance, talk to the planners, then formally submit the plans, if he did that in 3 or so months then that deserves praise not criticism. Clearly we should have waited until next summer but the way things have panned out at Rovers regarding their stadium plans in the past perhaps taking a chance with obtaining pp was a wise move, otherwise we might never get to see a new stand!! Well we will see if it was a wise move or not,lets hope that it all works out OK or there might be an empty space at that end for a while AND the issues with the seats for away supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jul 30, 2023 19:58:09 GMT
I don't think there's any doubt that this type of structure can be put up very quickly. The design and access statement says "in order to achieve the best balance between time, cost and quality . . . it was decided to adopt a hybrid approach for the design and build.This involves the use of traditional foundations and a typical steel roof structure but incorporates a modified version of the Arena modular grandstand system meaning that valuable detailed component design time is reduced considerably and installation time on site is a fraction of that associated with the common or garden steel and pre-cast concrete seating structures." The bigger question is whether planning permission will be granted and a safety certificate issued without a prolonged fight. When you see a problem coming do you hide and hope it goes away or do you put your mind to work and find a solution before it hits you ? I noticed on the Gaschat forum yesterday that Topper shared the link I posted here to the Barrow Instagram page and the Barrow Forum. Axe then replied (jokingly) to wonder if they'd nicked our tents. [ both Topper & Axe have accounts here too] And that's the thing, as you say, this structure will be quick to put up. It's not scaffolding, but not far off. More of a life-size meccano type build. Not scaffolding, more posh scaffolding! Don't get me wrong, it's a vast improvement in quality and size that the previous stand. But if what we are putting up is the same construction as Barrow, then people do need to be aware it's not exactly bricks, concrete and steel. |
|
bondigas
Joined: December 2017
Posts: 406
|
Post by bondigas on Jul 30, 2023 20:01:47 GMT
This chancer brinkmanship of build and dam the local authority planning department has turned a mole hill into Mount Etna. Sadly its another illustration of how badly the club is run.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jul 30, 2023 20:07:31 GMT
The club have known for at least a couple of weeks now that the planning decision will be made sometime between 02/08/2023 and 24/08/2023.
They've known for at least a couple of weeks that the earliest they get the green light will be only 10 days before the first home league fixture of the season.
10 days to build and get the safety certificate stamped - why the dithering on a statement from the club??
|
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jul 30, 2023 20:55:51 GMT
The club have known for at least a couple of weeks now that the planning decision will be made sometime between 02/08/2023 and 24/08/2023. They've known for at least a couple of weeks that the earliest they get the green light will be only 10 days before the first home league fixture of the season. 10 days to build and get the safety certificate stamped - why the dithering on a statement from the club?? If they get pp they'll announce a completion date and every will be rosy, if they don't get pp they'll probably be forced to re-erect the old tents and then just blame the council &/or the Greens. Not sure what they can announce now apart from they are waiting for the council to make a decision? |
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jul 30, 2023 21:11:11 GMT
The club have known for at least a couple of weeks now that the planning decision will be made sometime between 02/08/2023 and 24/08/2023. They've known for at least a couple of weeks that the earliest they get the green light will be only 10 days before the first home league fixture of the season. 10 days to build and get the safety certificate stamped - why the dithering on a statement from the club?? If they get pp they'll announce a completion date and every will be rosy, if they don't get pp they'll probably be forced to re-erect the old tents and then just blame the council &/or the Greens. Not sure what they can announce now apart from they are waiting for the council to make a decision? Do you think we can build, get the retaining walls and facilities in, and a safety certificate in 10 days? And that's the best time we'll get. And it could be over 3 weeks before we know that PP has been refused. We could be waiting without knowing whether we have to re-erect those old tents or not. We're hearing on the other forum that a statement is imminent. Whatever the statement will be, the club will know nothing more than they did 2 weeks ago. So why didn't they inform us and Barnsley supporters what the situation is before? |
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jul 30, 2023 21:29:54 GMT
As I suggested the club could announce a completion date if they get pp, when that date is only the club will know.
It seems likely the club will have to announce something this week when the Barnsley fixture is only just over a week away.
|
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 30, 2023 22:07:02 GMT
The dates I gave coincided with the World Cup in Qatar which Wael attended. Having the owner of the club at such a high profile event where he is introduced to leading industry figures should be advantageous to Rovers but as far as I can see it doesn’t happen that way and there is a big disconnect between Wael’s good intentions and the actual outcome for the club. The reason I think the South Stand idea may have been conceived there is because Wael and not Tom made the announcement on April 28th and the comment from Arena Solutions was not from one of their dozens of UK based executives but from Brendan Williams who’s job title is director of international projects. I may be putting two and two together and making five but you will understand the reasoning. The new South Stand idea was mentioned in the January Board minutes and it was noted that Tom Gorringe would be looking into the viability of this and reporting back. The next board meeting was scheduled for May so it was fair to assume the next update would be given then but instead the announcement was made on April 28th. At the time I posted my disagreement with the way this had been handled and predicted the problems it looks as though we are facing now. I think the reason for the disconnect between the good intentions and the actual outcome is because there is no mechanism for taking what may be a very good idea and scrutinizing it with research, analysis and debate before deciding whether to implement it and if so how. We saw it with the Garner experiment and the training ground and we are seeing it again now. Rome wasn't built in a day as they say, TG would have had to go away, get plans drawn up, do the costings, arrange the finance, talk to the planners, then formally submit the plans, if he did that in 3 or so months then that deserves praise not criticism. Clearly we should have waited until next summer but the way things have panned out at Rovers regarding their stadium plans in the past perhaps taking a chance with obtaining pp was a wise move, otherwise we might never get to see a new stand!! “ Clearly we should have waited until next summer” I’m glad you posted that because it shows at least two of us are thinking the same way  And on Gaschat we have Gashead1981 criticizing Colonel Gibson and his colleagues with a reference to “ prior planning & preparation prevents p*ss poor performance” What is happening ? Are you all having a Damascene conversion ? |
|
