Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,165
Member is Online
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Oct 25, 2014 13:34:20 GMT
The Hidden Agenda is found within the smiley but too small for us mere mortals to read..... As PP indicated only those "in the know" can find peace and contentment in a noisy world * *David Carradine (Kung Fu)
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 25, 2014 15:50:38 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. Unless it's all a smoke screen to get delivery times agreed??
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Oct 25, 2014 19:06:00 GMT
I posted weeks ago about the onerous conditions clause being fulfilled if the noise limitation measures cost more than 40 000.
If that was the case then Rovers paying the extra costs may not make any difference because the ruling could be that the monetary value put in the contract was there to quantify the scale of work and if that scale of work was exceeded then Sainsburys were entitled to class it as an onerous condition and withdraw from the contract.
Could be barking up the wrong tree but the news about an application to reduce the level, and therefore cost, of noise mitigation work may be linked with this.
|
|
|
Post by stevethepirate on Oct 25, 2014 19:06:57 GMT
Proposed Sainsbury's store pulled at Newport,Shropshire.Sign of the times? Nah, maybe they just don't like egg chasers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 19:20:27 GMT
Proposed Sainsbury's store pulled at Newport,Shropshire.Sign of the times? Nah, maybe they just don't like egg chasers. Newport Shropshire.No rugby connection.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Oct 25, 2014 19:29:25 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. Is there any chance that you can scan/copy/paste the actual reply you have received.
The applicant in this action is BRFC and they have no idea what this refers too
|
|
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 19:44:07 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. Is there any chance that you can scan/copy/paste the actual reply you have received.
The applicant in this action is BRFC and they have no idea what this refers too
haHaHa, sorry that just made me spit out my lager. Would be interesting to see the letter if that is the case
|
|
|
Post by robblue on Oct 25, 2014 19:49:57 GMT
I work for tesco as a lgv1 driver and we deliver to stores that are noise sensitive at night and we are told to turn fridges off prior to arrival at store. tesco just up the road are not allowed to deliver between 2100 and 0800 sainsbury would have none this prior to signing the contract.they are just using this to get out of the contract it stinks.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Oct 25, 2014 20:04:03 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 No. It's much more amusing reading your comments.
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Oct 25, 2014 20:04:13 GMT
I posted weeks ago about the onerous conditions clause being fulfilled if the noise limitation measures cost more than 40 000. If that was the case then Rovers paying the extra costs may not make any difference because the ruling could be that the monetary value put in the contract was there to quantify the scale of work and if that scale of work was exceeded then Sainsburys were entitled to class it as an onerous condition and withdraw from the contract. Could be barking up the wrong tree but the news about an application to reduce the level, and therefore cost, of noise mitigation work may be linked with this. Ah, now I understand. The sooner this farce is over the better. After Higgs and TW's bluster about watertight contracts their positions will surely be untenable.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 25, 2014 20:05:49 GMT
So is the OP on a wind up or, probably more likely, is somebody masquerading as BCC to wind the OP/local residents up?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 20:19:23 GMT
Revised details for 14/04174/X - The Memorial Stadium Bristol Rovers FC
I received an email on weds but no link was added so don't know if it's kocher or not.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Oct 25, 2014 20:20:45 GMT
So is the OP on a wind up or, probably more likely, is somebody masquerading as BCC to wind the OP/local residents up? Why do people on here get there knickers in a twist and assume the worst? If isn't needed, it isn't needed. It's just a bit of trellis work.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 25, 2014 20:26:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Oct 25, 2014 20:28:54 GMT
So is the OP on a wind up or, probably more likely, is somebody masquerading as BCC to wind the OP/local residents up? Why do people on here get there knickers in a twist and assume the worst? If isn't needed, it isn't needed. It's just a bit of trellis work. Because assuming the worst is normally bang on the money where Rovers are concerned?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 25, 2014 20:35:04 GMT
So is the OP on a wind up or, probably more likely, is somebody masquerading as BCC to wind the OP/local residents up? Why do people on here get there knickers in a twist and assume the worst? If isn't needed, it isn't needed. It's just a bit of trellis work. Yeah, it looks like stuff that they've decided isn't required. But the letter asked me (as a local resident who has shown interest in the application) whether I wanted to comment on further amendments to the noise level mitigation. I just thought it was odd that a few weeks before the application that they're actually taking some of the mitigation out, and wondered what the deal was. Also wondered why BCC thought it important enough to send out letter to (presumably) everyone involved soliciting comments for this, when they have barely informed us of anything else going on.
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Oct 25, 2014 20:37:39 GMT
Why do people on here get there knickers in a twist and assume the worst? If isn't needed, it isn't needed. It's just a bit of trellis work. Yeah, it looks like stuff that they've decided isn't required. But the letter asked me (as a local resident who has shown interest in the application) whether I wanted to comment on further amendments to the noise level mitigation. I just thought it was odd that a few weeks before the application that they're actually taking some of the mitigation out, and wondered what the deal was. Also wondered why BCC thought it important enough to send out letter to (presumably) everyone involved soliciting comments for this, when they have barely informed us of anything else going on. I would guess that there is a good chance that swiss is on the money with this one, doesnt make sense otherwise. Not a positive development.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Oct 25, 2014 20:40:42 GMT
So is the OP on a wind up or, probably more likely, is somebody masquerading as BCC to wind the OP/local residents up? Why do people on here get there knickers in a twist and assume the worst? If isn't needed, it isn't needed. It's just a bit of trellis work. To be fair Nurse it's not a question of fearing the worst it's a question of being prepared for the worst. We have had bitter recent experience of not being prepared for all possible scenarios so it doesn't make much sense to carry on calling for discussion to be limited and to place blind faith in what our leaders tell us. Getting things out in the open won't make success any less sweet but it will lessen the disappointment if things don't go as we hope they will.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Oct 25, 2014 20:44:34 GMT
Why do people on here get there knickers in a twist and assume the worst? If isn't needed, it isn't needed. It's just a bit of trellis work. Yeah, it looks like stuff that they've decided isn't required. But the letter asked me (as a local resident who has shown interest in the application) whether I wanted to comment on further amendments to the noise level mitigation. I just thought it was odd that a few weeks before the application that they're actually taking some of the mitigation out, and wondered what the deal was. Also wondered why BCC thought it important enough to send out letter to (presumably) everyone involved soliciting comments for this, when they have barely informed us of anything else going on.If there is any slight changes to the proposal, BBC have to notify all those who have made a comment, as they do with any planning application that is put before then.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 20:47:37 GMT
Yeah, it looks like stuff that they've decided isn't required. But the letter asked me (as a local resident who has shown interest in the application) whether I wanted to comment on further amendments to the noise level mitigation. I just thought it was odd that a few weeks before the application that they're actually taking some of the mitigation out, and wondered what the deal was. Also wondered why BCC thought it important enough to send out letter to (presumably) everyone involved soliciting comments for this, when they have barely informed us of anything else going on. I would guess that there is a good chance that swiss is on the money with this one, doesnt make sense otherwise. Not a positive development. Bit of a shame that not only does the club itself not feel the need to keep its fan base onboard and keep us informed - good practice and all that - neither do 'our' representatives on the inside. It's not confidential - all details of the plannig application and its ins and outs are posted on the Internet, as is the writ against Sainsbury's. What we're missing is any explanation. i guess they're hoping we all sign up for this perverse view that all is well, work started last May but it's confidential and invisible, and anyone who says otherwise has a hidden agenda, is a board basher, and generally a bad person so that proves it. It's that sort of approach that makes me worry all is not in safe hands.
|
|