Jump to content
IGNORED

Two Village Greens Stripped Of Their Status By Supreme Court


In the Net

Recommended Posts

The fact that the TVG legislation has been amended and TVG status has been retrospectively revoked in the light of this would mean I'd be surprised if SL doesn't keep all his options open.

 

He's rich enough to finance a part-rebuild of AG and move on eventually to a long-term solution with an AV stadium. While we're in L1 we don't really need a super-stadium and he has no need to cash-in quickish by building anything else on the land.

 

The entire - flawed - framework of how the original law was framed has been under scrutiny, as has the definition of what can and what cannot be a TVG.

 

SL would be daft to make public statements on this at present, but you'd be dafter if you didn't think he's got the very best guys looking into the implications, having learnt from the cock-up last time, where political support was secured at the expense of properly studying all the potential planning pitfalls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm telling you buddy, and believe me I should know, it's NOT as simple as you are making out! You can't just keep renewing a consent until the end of time based on the original decision.

 

Anyway this debate is not relevant for the time being as the consent doesn't run out until 2016!

Hey buddy! Why should I believe you? Because you say so? Bit condescending don't you think?  I'm not saying it's simple, what is?  I'm not saying that the PP could be renewed on a regular basis, until the end of time. I'm saying that the council would never have given permission in the first place if they allowed speculation re: a possible WC, to be a determining factor in their decision, which you seem to think they did. They had to stick to planning law or face a possible JR on how the decision was made. So if the stadium application needs renewing, which it might not, or they might have abandoned it by that time, then I believe the council would be on very dodgy ground legally to refuse it, as long as it met the up to date planning criteria.

 

Anyway, as you say, the PP lasts until 2016, so hopefully it won't need renewing.

 

How did you know NLP had approached BCC about the greenbelt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey buddy! Why should I believe you? Because you say so? Bit condescending don't you think?  I'm not saying it's simple, what is?  I'm not saying that the PP could be renewed on a regular basis, until the end of time. I'm saying that the council would never have given permission in the first place if they allowed speculation re: a possible WC, to be a determining factor in their decision, which you seem to think they did. They had to stick to planning law or face a possible JR on how the decision was made. So if the stadium application needs renewing, which it might not, or they might have abandoned it by that time, then I believe the council would be on very dodgy ground legally to refuse it, as long as it met the up to date planning criteria.

 

Anyway, as you say, the PP lasts until 2016, so hopefully it won't need renewing.

 

How did you know NLP had approached BCC about the greenbelt?

 

Rich it is in the public domain. NLP made representations, on behalf of Ashton Gate Limited, to BCC's Local Plan.

 

They sought various amendments to the plan, including the removal of the stadium site from the Green Belt.

 

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/planning_and_building_regulations/planning_policy/local_development_framework/Ashton%20Gate%20Ltd%20%283170%29.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich it is in the public domain. NLP made representations, on behalf of Ashton Gate Limited, to BCC's Local Plan.

 

They sought various amendments to the plan, including the removal of the stadium site from the Green Belt.

 

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/planning_and_building_regulations/planning_policy/local_development_framework/Ashton%20Gate%20Ltd%20%283170%29.pdf

Thanks for that, I've been out in the dark a bit lately. To be honest, I put so much effort into it before, that my enthusiasm for sitting in front of a computer has waned a little, having a decent computer is helping rekindle the fire. Seems as if their a bit pissed that the stadium site has been overlooked for some reason. Perhaps someone in the council  thinks that AV's over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey buddy! Why should I believe you? Because you say so? Bit condescending don't you think? I'm not saying it's simple, what is? I'm not saying that the PP could be renewed on a regular basis, until the end of time. I'm saying that the council would never have given permission in the first place if they allowed speculation re: a possible WC, to be a determining factor in their decision, which you seem to think they did. They had to stick to planning law or face a possible JR on how the decision was made. So if the stadium application needs renewing, which it might not, or they might have abandoned it by that time, then I believe the council would be on very dodgy ground legally to refuse it, as long as it met the up to date planning criteria.

Anyway, as you say, the PP lasts until 2016, so hopefully it won't need renewing.

How did you know NLP had approached BCC about the greenbelt?

He REALLY does know these things.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, I've been out in the dark a bit lately. To be honest, I put so much effort into it before, that my enthusiasm for sitting in front of a computer has waned a little, having a decent computer is helping rekindle the fire. Seems as if their a bit pissed that the stadium site has been overlooked for some reason. Perhaps someone in the council thinks that AV's over.

That shows me that their is still the desire to build AV. I know that since AG has been 'choosen' but think that's more to do with the rugger coming here. If they go up then they are gonna need the extra facilities. Long term AV is still the prefered option IMO. Nothing I have seen has changed my opinion on that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair play mate, given what I've heard recently, I think you're right. A stadium will not be built on AV.

Think SL is giving up the fight too easily myself.

A bit odd that. Once the link road is built, the AV site will be cut off from open countryside and trapped between the city and a highway. There is every chance that the site would be removed from the green belt at the next review.

Perhaps SL just doesn't fancy waiting several more years with no guarantee of a positive outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit odd that. Once the link road is built, the AV site will be cut off from open countryside and trapped between the city and a highway. There is every chance that the site would be removed from the green belt at the next review.

Perhaps SL just doesn't fancy waiting several more years with no guarantee of a positive outcome.

 

I think this. Tired of fighting, when he can use the land for something else for BCFC that will be much more agreeable to the local NIMBYs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the impression that SL wants to leave a legacy, so why would he want to just take a short term solution with the land to make a quick buck?!

If what he is proposing is as I have heard then he will leave a legacy on the AV site and not make a quick buck.

Also, who knows - maybe SL is a few steps ahead of the game and there is another site that could come forward in the future... (pure speculation)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what he is proposing is as I have heard then he will leave a legacy on the AV site and not make a quick buck.

Also, who knows - maybe SL is a few steps ahead of the game and there is another site that could come forward in the future... (pure speculation)

 

Oooh, please let it be a Traveller's site!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what he is proposing is as I have heard then he will leave a legacy on the AV site and not make a quick buck.

Also, who knows - maybe SL is a few steps ahead of the game and there is another site that could come forward in the future... (pure speculation)

 

I love rumours, any chance you can privately message what you've heard? I promise not to go public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love rumours, any chance you can privately message what you've heard? I promise not to go public.

 

It would take some time, but i see like this.....revamp AG, get the egg chasers in, share for a couple of years after AG is complete.....in the meantime, permission is granted to build on AV, the original stadium plan goes ahead, once built we move into AV, the rugger lot get the refurbished AG...possible or pie in the sky?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would take some time, but i see like this.....revamp AG, get the egg chasers in, share for a couple of years after AG is complete.....in the meantime, permission is granted to build on AV, the original stadium plan goes ahead, once built we move into AV, the rugger lot get the refurbished AG...possible or pie in the sky?

suspect this had been plan b since the v g lot put a hold on site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would take some time, but i see like this.....revamp AG, get the egg chasers in, share for a couple of years after AG is complete.....in the meantime, permission is granted to build on AV, the original stadium plan goes ahead, once built we move into AV, the rugger lot get the refurbished AG...possible or pie in the sky?

 

That's the perfect answer for me :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would take some time, but i see like this.....revamp AG, get the egg chasers in, share for a couple of years after AG is complete.....in the meantime, permission is granted to build on AV, the original stadium plan goes ahead, once built we move into AV, the rugger lot get the refurbished AG...possible or pie in the sky?

 

Think about it...makes no sense whatsoever, ground share is the way forward.

 

I love rumours, any chance you can privately message what you've heard? I promise not to go public.

 

No can do I'm afraid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it...makes no sense whatsoever, ground share is the way forward.

 

 

No can do I'm afraid

 

I think no sense whatsoever is a bit over the top considering both clubs have always played at different stadiums.

 

The only thing i can think of is having 2 stadiums within walking distance of each other, but Anfield and Goodison are close, as are the City Ground and Meadow Lane.

 

Personally i would rather we have a stadium to ourselves in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculous notion. What would be the point?

Well, why over the years have we not shared a new ground with The Gas? Surely that would of been the best chance for both clubs to get a new stadium?

Rovers won't be sharing their new place with anyone will they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, why over the years have we not shared a new ground with The Gas? Surely that would of been the best chance for both clubs to get a new stadium?

Rovers won't be sharing their new place with anyone will they?

 

Well they are leasing the ground from UWE aren't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they are leasing the ground from UWE aren't they?

 

I meant sharing with another professional sports club,and its supporters rather than the business side of a stadium, i.e use of the facilities on non matchdays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting comment last night when Dave l was asked if the rebuild of Ashton gate means AV is dead, and he said never say never. He referred to arsenal rebuilding two stands at Highbury and then moving to the Emirates. I think the gas announcing a new ground forced our hand and one day who knows!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...