Extended hours granted. Precedent set.

Great news for Rovers potentially. Hopefully it will go someway to helping us indirectly

On a wider note, I think it is a dangerous precedent to set and would be interesting in the arguments and objections. what is the area like?, noise levels etc

If the only onerous condition (Sainsburys words) is removed, then they have nothing else to delay on. It's an urban myth that people keep using to say a big company will drag it out in court till it gets what it wants.

Remember there is such a thing as punitive damages, which is what could come into play here. Even Sainsburys won't want to fall foul of that. There is no upper limit.

With regard to security on site, they have gone as, at the moment, the plant has completed the initial phase of its work, and is being used elsewhere. Why would they keep guards on an empty field?

So in future if anybody is struggling to get PP it looks like they just have to pull the "jobs losses" card to get PP!!

To suggest Sainsbury's will simply willingly spend £60m+ developing the Mem should BCC now, hopefully, give PP is surely being a bit short sighted?
You can see Sainsbury's offering Rovers compo now or saying to them they face a lengthy court battle for any money. If NH wants out he could well take the cash now & run.

Everything you have written there is pure conjecture and has no basis on fact whatsoever.  There has been no indication that UWE are getting impatient and want to pull out . Also if UWE isn't built Sainsburys can't build on the Mem so we aren't going to end up homeless. If you want to look on the black side and invent issues that don't exist then go find yourself a dark room and crack on but don't try and cause confusion on here.

What has happened in Norwich is excellent news!

Feeling the blue
Most things on this thread ( historical ) is conjecture. That:s why 3 years down the road there is NO progress or very little little. So in your enlightenment give us your ' positive' stance on things. Or is it the same BOD statements of ' aim' ' intend ' ' hope' and ' soon'.

Come on give us light then...

Facts are Sainsburys don't want to buy our land and seem to have inserted a clause into the contract that will allow them to walk away if the extended delivery hours are not granted. Our board and their lawyers could be accused of total incompetence for agreeing to this clause which means that the delivery hours for this store has to be longer than any others in the city or Sainsburys can walk away.

So none of that is positive or pro board and on the face of it doesn't look good for us. However as the OP says in the title to this thread. "Precedent set" . The decision in Norwich to uphold the appeal by the landowner to allow around the clock deliveries is a bit of light for us. It is a case very similar to ours where the council have taken into account that the supermarket are looking to walk away.

So if we look at the facts rather than make up crap about UWE getting impatient or what Sainsburys will do next, as we stand there is a now a greater chance that Sainsburys will be legally obligated to buy our land enabling us to build UWE.

However there is also still a big chance that the extended delivery hours will not be allowed and Sainsburys walk away without paying a penny. Higgs and Co have potentially wasted millions because of lack of due diligence at original contract stage. Let's hope they get lucky and a similar decision is made in Bristol to that in Norwich.

Why do people invent potential problems that don't exist?

There is no lack of due diligence by NH and Co over the extended hours. What were we to do? Sainsburys offer us £30 million or so at outset and put in the extended hours clause.

We say leave that out or we stay where we are, and sell for housing for about £8million. Yeah right. God help us. NH would have faced some sh*t if he had said that.

Still why let the truth get in the way of a good bit of bullsh*t. He has played a blinder on this so far, so I suggest we let him run it through to completion. We should know within a couple of months when the possibility of a one off appeal has expired.

By the way, the other two onerous conditions have been conceded and cannot be resurrected. How do I know? I asked at a recent meeting. Of course, the responder is probably lying, and we will become a feeder club for the sh*t. This has been the plan all along. Ffs.

Conspiracy? What conspiracy?

The lack of due diligence is agreeing to a store onerous condition (the delivery hours) that no other store in Bristol had planning for and therefore would need to set a precedent in order for it not to be a get out clause for Sainsburys. If they did their diligence and knew that and knew the gamble they were taking it is playing poker with very high stakes. If this poker game is lost then we would have been better not spending a penny on the project. The store onerous conditions at outset needed to be reasonable not precedent setting.

That said, as I was trying to point out to "one day the UWE" the article you posted to start this thread is good news.

FTB
I was just pointing out that Steve West has been making sounds about the proposed UWE site and have made it clear it can be used for other purposes if our plans fails . He has also made other statements related .

To say there is no relation between the saga with Sainsburys dragging on and on and UWE looking at alternative plans is unrealistic. My point is - How long will they wait ?. However: in the mass confusion of events and no-one really knowing what:s going on . It seems it is a big mess from start to finish .

I think my point about the UWE waiting game got as much credit as the other assumed points on this forum.