Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 20:52:38 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.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. ...and they already tell us far more than the club do just by complying with statutory procedure. It's not BCC's job to promote buy in and confidence in a football club and its board, and they have a complete disinterest in that. if people have lost all confidence in this, the root of that lies elsewhere
|
|
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 21:02:18 GMT
So Ratched. I am not suggesting we be worried. Seems like the ITK brigade are happy, so why should I have any doubts.
I am sure you can see how this apparent development might seem odd to the majority given how desperate we are to get it through to get the money we need.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Oct 25, 2014 21:03:32 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. 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. I understand. Being prepared for the worst would mean if there is a good outcome, then you feel much better about it than those of us who placed blind faith in our leaders. If the whole thing is rejected, then I guess that the ones with faith will feel totally gutted and the ones who prepared for the worst could say 'I told you so'. As far as 'getting thing out in the open', it already is. Anybody can read the planning file documents on the Council website. planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/1D59B0BEC09C1125432F3CB8D9983926/pdf/14_04174_X-NOISE_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT-1199393.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Oct 25, 2014 21:12:11 GMT
So Ratched. I am not suggesting we be worried. Seems like the ITK brigade are happy, so why should I have any doubts. I am sure you can see how this apparent development might seem odd to the majority given how desperate we are to get it through to get the money we need. Listen Parker, the wishing for Armageddon brigade are odd already, so I guess the desperation to read into things far too much is quite normal.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 21:15:43 GMT
So Ratched. I am not suggesting we be worried. Seems like the ITK brigade are happy, so why should I have any doubts. I am sure you can see how this apparent development might seem odd to the majority given how desperate we are to get it through to get the money we need. Listen Parker, the wishing for Armageddon brigade are odd already, so I guess the desperation is to read into things far too much is quite normal. So are we still on course to start building last May?
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Oct 25, 2014 21:19:40 GMT
Listen Parker, the wishing for Armageddon brigade are odd already, so I guess the desperation is to read into things far too much is quite normal. So are we still on course to start building last May? Or was it September? Just some people on holiday holding things up......had to laugh when Toni pulled that old chestnut out of the bag at the fans meeting over the summer. I wonder if it was minuted
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Oct 25, 2014 21:21:07 GMT
Listen Parker, the wishing for Armageddon brigade are odd already, so I guess the desperation to read into things far too much is quite normal. So are we still on course to start building last May? I'm disappointed too. Who do you want to blame for this?
|
|
|
Post by stevethepirate on Oct 25, 2014 21:43:48 GMT
Nah, maybe they just don't like egg chasers. Newport Shropshire.No rugby connection. Newport Shropshire has a rugby team and no football team. Some of the pubs there do not allow people in if they are wearing football shirts yet allow rugby ones. How do I know I work in a pub just outside of there and been to one of the pubs in question.
|
|
intheknow
Archie Stephens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 232
|
Post by intheknow on Oct 25, 2014 21:44:12 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 This is all right
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 22:04:35 GMT
Newport Shropshire.No rugby connection. Newport Shropshire has a rugby team and no football team. Some of the pubs there do not allow people in if they are wearing football shirts yet allow rugby ones. How do I know I work in a pub just outside of there and been to one of the pubs in question. Steve ,according to their web site they are currently 10th in the West Midland league? ?Live nearby at Eccleshall.They used to play somewhere behind the Shakespeare pub when I Refereed them off Audley Road.Anyway ,chuffed to-day with 7 goals and may see you up the road at Telford Sat Yep seen the Rugby posts and fair to say football is a poor second.Meant the Sainsbury's not going ahead there is perhaps not comparible to Rovers situation
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 22:31:31 GMT
So are we still on course to start building last May? I'm disappointed too. Who do you want to blame for this? For your disappointment? Being charitable, the person who told you it would start by the end of May when Sainsbury's had told him four months earlier that they wanted out, and one month earlier that they intended terminating the contract now that it was invalidated. Whether or not it had been fully invalidated is moot: they clearly weren't going to complete within a timescale that would allow work to begin in two months, as you were told. Less charitably, some blame for your disappointment might rest with you: 'fool me once....' Who do you blame?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 25, 2014 22:37:13 GMT
That takes my computer to a dead link which just says "Documents unavailable" is it just my computer or can anybody actually view the documents? The last documents on the BCC website for the planning application only listed last week suggest the club is still pressing ahead with the noise barriers? The Gas' earlier on this thread post also suggests Rovers aren't aware of any changes in the plans??
|
|
|
Post by ellington on Oct 25, 2014 23:15:38 GMT
That takes my computer to a dead link which just says "Documents unavailable" is it just my computer or can anybody actually view the documents? The last documents on the BCC website for the planning application only listed last week suggest the club is still pressing ahead with the noise barriers? The Gas' earlier on this thread post also suggests Rovers aren't aware of any changes in the plans?? No mines the same as yours
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 6:35:48 GMT
Don't worry. The less information Henbury conveys, the more important he becomes.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 26, 2014 7:09:44 GMT
So Ratched. I am not suggesting we be worried. Seems like the ITK brigade are happy, so why should I have any doubts. I am sure you can see how this apparent development might seem odd to the majority given how desperate we are to get it through to get the money we need. Listen Parker, the wishing for Armageddon brigade are odd already, so I guess the desperation to read into things far too much is quite normal. Well something is odd. The Gas claims Rovers know nothing about it,yet someone has a ltter from the council that would suggest otherwise
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 26, 2014 8:21:28 GMT
The mystery deepens even further when the BCC website links don't work?
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Oct 26, 2014 8:33:22 GMT
Don't worry. The less information Henbury conveys, the more important he becomes. Least he doesnt suffer from verbal Diarrhoea like some on here.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 26, 2014 8:34:51 GMT
That takes my computer to a dead link which just says "Documents unavailable" is it just my computer or can anybody actually view the documents? Yeah, it's the right document. I don't know why it does that. It worked earlier. I guess you have to go through the planning site from scratch. Or try cutting and pasting the link address into your browser, instead of clicking on it.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 26, 2014 9:00:44 GMT
An application to vary conditions 11 and 36 attached to planning permission ref: 12/02090/F, for the redevelopment of the Memorial Stadium to provide a foodstore and residential development, was registered in September 2014. A Noise Report and amended plans accompanied the submission, which proposed some additional noise mitigation measures to justify a slight increase in permitted delivery hours proposed. The proposed noise mitigation measures have now been amended slightly in response to advice from the Environmental Health Officer, the Applicant’s Noise Consultant, and comments from local residents. Accordingly, a revised Noise Assessment Report has been produced, which confirms the following: 1. All plans have been amended to show the raised table at the roundabout required by the S106 Agreement. It is confirmed that the raised table will be limited to a height of no more than 75mm, with a marginal gradient of 1:12. The surface will match that of the existing road, and due to speeds of vehicles entering and exiting the site, a ramp will not be required from the store access arm of the roundabout. Instead, the road will gradually reach the height of the raised table from this direction. 2. The 2.4m high noise barrier that meets the covered service access has been omitted, as it not considered necessary in addition to the 3.6m high noise barrier provided just behind, at the boundary with Trubshaw Close. 3. Confirmation is provided that a 2.4m high acoustic barrier will be provided to the rear of the No. 33 - 45 Filton Avenue properties. 4. The trellis currently shown on top of the fences either side of the access road (adjacent to 27 and 33 Filton Avenue) has been omitted, as this was additional to the height required and unnecessary in terms of noise mitigation
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 26, 2014 9:10:21 GMT
An application to vary conditions 11 and 36 attached to planning permission ref: 12/02090/F, for the redevelopment of the Memorial Stadium to provide a foodstore and residential development, was registered in September 2014. A Noise Report and amended plans accompanied the submission, which proposed some additional noise mitigation measures to justify a slight increase in permitted delivery hours proposed. The proposed noise mitigation measures have now been amended slightly in response to advice from the Environmental Health Officer, the Applicant’s Noise Consultant, and comments from local residents. Accordingly, a revised Noise Assessment Report has been produced, which confirms the following: 1. All plans have been amended to show the raised table at the roundabout required by the S106 Agreement. It is confirmed that the raised table will be limited to a height of no more than 75mm, with a marginal gradient of 1:12. The surface will match that of the existing road, and due to speeds of vehicles entering and exiting the site, a ramp will not be required from the store access arm of the roundabout. Instead, the road will gradually reach the height of the raised table from this direction. 2. The 2.4m high noise barrier that meets the covered service access has been omitted, as it not considered necessary in addition to the 3.6m high noise barrier provided just behind, at the boundary with Trubshaw Close. 3. Confirmation is provided that a 2.4m high acoustic barrier will be provided to the rear of the No. 33 - 45 Filton Avenue properties. 4. The trellis currently shown on top of the fences either side of the access road (adjacent to 27 and 33 Filton Avenue) has been omitted, as this was additional to the height required and unnecessary in terms of noise mitigation Yeah. All that seems a lot more reasonable than the letter they sent out, which was basically 'the omission of high noise barriers as that is deemed unnecessary by the applicants.'
|
|