|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 25, 2014 9:16:44 GMT
Just got a letter from BCC saying the applicant is revising the plans, which will need further consultation.
"Omission of a high noise barrier as it is deemed unnecessary by the Applicants. ... Omission of a trellis as it is deemed unnecessary by the Applicants."
So, is this just Sainsbury's arsing about trying to make it harder for the plans to go ahead, again?
If they can do this, this could, presumably, go on forever.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 9:24:57 GMT
Proposed Sainsbury's store pulled at Newport,Shropshire.Sign of the times?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 25, 2014 9:44:17 GMT
Um. Hang on. So they beleive they dont need the noise barriers now.
Can those that like to tell us the plans will go through tell us if this good news. Do they think they meet the noise requirements without them.
Cant see that impressing the local residents
|
|
|
Post by ellington on Oct 25, 2014 10:10:32 GMT
So has the application been withdrawn then ? because surely those points were the whole point of the application coupled with the extended delivery hours, i was under the impression that an earlier application for extended delivery hours was refused, hence a new application with added noise pollution measures is now submitted, head scratch or what? Confused.com
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 25, 2014 10:19:59 GMT
So has the application been withdrawn then ? because surely those points were the whole point of the application coupled with the extended delivery hours, i was under the impression that an earlier application for extended delivery hours was refused, hence a new application with added noise pollution measures is now submitted, head scratch or what? Confused.com Dont worry. I am sure one of those ITK will be telling us this is all alright
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 25, 2014 10:20:05 GMT
The letter says that the Noise Report has been revised, but no idea if they decided this isn't needed in the light of that revision. Seems a bit odd to be reducing the mitigation, though.
|
|
|
Post by mancgas has left the building on Oct 25, 2014 10:24:16 GMT
Just got a letter from BCC saying the applicant is revising the plans, which will need further consultation. "Omission of a high noise barrier as it is deemed unnecessary by the Applicants. ... Omission of a trellis as it is deemed unnecessary by the Applicants." So, is this just Sainsbury's arsing about trying to make it harder for the plans to go ahead, again? If they can do this, this could, presumably, go on forever. this application is in the name of Bristol Rovers and not Sainsbury's As I understand it we'd offered to pay for noise deading mitigtions to try and get project on the move So assume we are now trying to limit those costs pre application - they can always get added back in if application without them fails
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 25, 2014 10:31:03 GMT
Just got a letter from BCC saying the applicant is revising the plans, which will need further consultation. "Omission of a high noise barrier as it is deemed unnecessary by the Applicants. ... Omission of a trellis as it is deemed unnecessary by the Applicants." So, is this just Sainsbury's arsing about trying to make it harder for the plans to go ahead, again? If they can do this, this could, presumably, go on forever. this application is in the name of Bristol Rovers and not Sainsbury's As I understand it we'd offered to pay for noise deading mitigtions to try and get project on the move So assume we are now trying to limit those costs pre application - they can always get added back in if application without them fails Ok. That would be a simple enough, no conspiracy, explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 25, 2014 10:53:07 GMT
Surely this is going to delay matters by at least another month or two? Why didn't the club just seek PP with the high noise barrier as surely spending money on the barrier is going to be worthwhile to get the £30m?
Perhaps it's not just Sainsbury's dragging their feet here? Regardless why's it taken so long to realise a barrier is not now needed?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 11:06:34 GMT
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 25, 2014 11:22:03 GMT
I suppose you cant say anything Henbury, but i assume you ate confident and this is nothing more than making it easier.
Seems weird to most people though wouldnt you agree reducing mitigation measures when you are desperate to get them through
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 25, 2014 11:48:30 GMT
Out of interest how can Sainsbury's delivery trucks keep the noise down w/o the barriers? Surely HGV's are as noisey as they've ever been particularly at 5am?
|
|
|
Post by ellington on Oct 25, 2014 11:56:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 25, 2014 12:26:10 GMT
Don't worry. The less information Henbury conveys, the more important he becomes.
|
|
|
Post by ellington on Oct 25, 2014 12:51:38 GMT
Being a builder myself on somewhat of a smaller scale I do have a bit of knowledge regarding planning applications etc and in regards to this just because we the applicants have asked for some adjustments to be made doesn't mean the application will necessarily take longer, the determination date will remain the 25th unless there is a wholesale change in the application in which case a new application would have to be made, an example of this is I recently completed a 2 storey rear extension and front porch of a house in Sea mills and from the outset of the first site visit the client wanted to know if they could also extend out to the side, the architect/building consultant subsequently put in the one planning application for both extensions and the porch but noted that due to parts of Sea mills being a conservation area the side extension had at best only 50% chance of succeeding but he would liase with the planners during the planning process , whilst liaising they indicated that the side extension wouldn't be granted but the rear extension and front porch would so he withdrew the part of the application in regards to the side and the rest of the app got approved by the same determination date. Two points I'm making is that in the first instance alterations can be made without affecting the planning process and its dates set out and secondly we are only a month or so away from the determination date so to be honest the club have more than likely already been given an indication of the application being successful and also an indication that some of the noise pollution measures needn't be as drastic . I'm optimistic that this application will succeed and Henburys silence is deafening and also an indication to me that he knows this to, and probably a big "I told you so" will be posted in a new thread on the 25th of November .
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 25, 2014 12:55:33 GMT
Well that will be stonking news, especially as it was rejected first time and not as many additional measures might not be needed.
Can see that pissing the local residents off even more but...
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Oct 25, 2014 12:58:06 GMT
Just got a letter from BCC saying the applicant is revising the plans, which will need further consultation. "Omission of a high noise barrier as it is deemed unnecessary by the Applicants. ... Omission of a trellis as it is deemed unnecessary by the Applicants." So, is this just Sainsbury's arsing about trying to make it harder for the plans to go ahead, again? If they can do this, this could, presumably, go on forever. this application is in the name of Bristol Rovers and not Sainsbury's As I understand it we'd offered to pay for noise deading mitigtions to try and get project on the move So assume we are now trying to limit those costs pre application - they can always get added back in if application without them fails Not sure I understand. Whatever happens Sainsburys wont be building a store so how would omitting a noise barrier from the application save us money? Surely we want this resolved asap?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 25, 2014 13:14:35 GMT
How do you know Sainsbury's definitely won't be building, are you on their BoD?
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Oct 25, 2014 13:19:02 GMT
How do you know Sainsbury's definitely won't be building, are you on their BoD? The fact that they have been trying to pull out since November 2013 is a bit of a give away.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 25, 2014 13:20:49 GMT
How do you know Sainsbury's definitely won't be building, are you on their BoD? Im sure they wont build a store, but thats not the issue. Just whether the PP can be acheived for us to get money from them
|
|