Kid in the Riot Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nibor said: That isn't how planning or the legal system works. Precedent doesn't come into planning. The council are perfectly within their rights to arrive at a different decision even if the application was exactly the same because many other external factors could be different. The only appeal is a judicial review and for that to succeed it has to be shown that there was something wrong with the decision in a very narrow set of criteria based on the procedure applied not the actual decision. Even if you win a judicial review it doesn't mean you get the decision you want, the court could simply direct the council to make the decision again. Precedent most certainly does come into planning, particularly when we're talking about exactly the same site and type of development. That said, the proposed development would not be exactly the same as previous. For starters the previous scheme for an 18,000 capacity rebuild included a lot of student accommodation for UWE which is no longer required. A new scheme would be assessed against the latest planning policy which has changed a lot since 2005 or whenever it was they last got permission. However, it hasn't changed substantially enough for the principle of redeveloping the Mem into a decent sized stadium to not be acceptable. I'm sure they could achieve an 18,000 capacity stadium on that site again. Inconvenient question again is: where's the funding coming from and what will the revenue stream be like? Will it be good enough to make the upfront funding worthwhile. Have my severe doubts. Edited August 9, 2017 by Kid in the Riot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS3City Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 2 hours ago, myol'man said: Blimey, fancy living next to this tip! This "state of the art" secure fencing must be a minimum requirement when keeping circa 20,000 locked out every other week... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bianconeri Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 51 minutes ago, SirColinOfMansfield said: It can only be one person, our old friend Henbury Gas:- "Training ground – we have a £30,000 fence which is not fit for purpose which we still have not paid for it yet." ...under the heading, Its Not Doom and Gloom... Yet http://gaschat.co.uk/thread/10132 That thread seems to be mainly about perpetuating HG's lies about the phantom disabled spectator and how much they hate us while not caring about what we think. Just like every other thread there then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 9 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: Precedent most certainly does come into planning, particularly when we're talking about exactly the same site and type of development. In the legal world there are established rules for precedent. Roughly speaking a court is obliged to accept points of law established in decisions by higher courts or explain why the case at hand is distinguished from those. Is there actually an obligation like this in planning? Or is it just a case of "people sometimes try to be consistent". Genuine question because I've never heard of one, but you seem to know this area well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS3City Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 40 minutes ago, Southstandoriginal said: If all else fails, he could sell his watch He needs to sell three watches just to pay for the unsuitable fence...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirColinOfMansfield Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, BS3City said: He needs to sell three watches just to pay for the unsuitable fence...! Looks like a proper job to me. What are they complaining about? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bianconeri Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 The Sag who talks about building a new stand in the car park behind the one, etc.... seems to have got most of the brain cells in that forum (must have an IQ higher than a lettuce in other words). There probably isn't time in the close season to knock the old one down and re-lay the pitch but it's not a bad idea otherwise. The other flaw is having no money. As others have said, it's not a bad site to redevelop. The old 'student flat' design wasn't bad at all and could be scaled to the 15k capacity they'll only ever need. That means flattening the site and as both we and some of them have said, flattening the site just makes it easier to sell. I suspect they'll be back at Twerton next season if they don't go bust first. This time the only way they would survive would be to amalgamate and give Bath a league club, for a while anyway. The real drawback in all of this is having no money and no free assets to support financing of any development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septic Peg Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 Just a beauty including the aforementioned post... http://gaschat.co.uk/thread/10434/wael-hope?page=2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 14 minutes ago, Nibor said: In the legal world there are established rules for precedent. Roughly speaking a court is obliged to accept points of law established in decisions by higher courts or explain why the case at hand is distinguished from those. Is there actually an obligation like this in planning? Or is it just a case of "people sometimes try to be consistent". Genuine question because I've never heard of one, but you seem to know this area well. There's a difference between precedent and caselaw though I think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 1 minute ago, The Bard said: There's a difference between precedent and caselaw though I think? Not an expert but the way I understand it case law refers to the set of previous decisions that establish precedent. Basically if a decision has been given by a court which is higher in stature on a case that is similar the court has to decide it the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompo Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Nibor said: That isn't how planning or the legal system works. Precedent doesn't come into planning. The council are perfectly within their rights to arrive at a different decision even if the application was exactly the same because many other external factors could be different. The only appeal is a judicial review and for that to succeed it has to be shown that there was something wrong with the decision in a very narrow set of criteria based on the procedure applied not the actual decision. Even if you win a judicial review it doesn't mean you get the decision you want, the court could simply direct the council to make the decision again. There is a right of appeal if a planning application is refused. The appeal would be heard by a Planning Inspector, unless called in by the Secretary of State. If the Inspector dismisses the appeal a judicial review would only be considered if there is evidence that the decision is unlawful, for example, if the Inspector has failed to take in to account a material consideration. You cannot apply for a judicial review just because you do not agree with a decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC11 Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 All this talk about planning, JR's etc. They haven't got a pot to piss in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRock Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Nibor said: In the legal world there are established rules for precedent. Roughly speaking a court is obliged to accept points of law established in decisions by higher courts or explain why the case at hand is distinguished from those. Is there actually an obligation like this in planning? Or is it just a case of "people sometimes try to be consistent". Genuine question because I've never heard of one, but you seem to know this area well. 'Each case considered on own merits'. In a nutshell, Sags make new planning application for a stadium. Will be assessed based on adopted national/local policy. Applicants will submit volumes of evidence in support of application. That will contain loads of fresh current data and forecasts. If the City Council either refuse or fail to make a determination within prescribed/agreed timelines, the applicant has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. A planning inspector will be appointed and an inquiry held. If (rarely) there is a 'point of law' at issue, they can apply for judicial review. The fact that they have been granted permission previously will not have a bearing on the outcome of this application, aside from the fact that a number of the 'tests' applied to the appraisal of any new application will be similar to those applied previously. The evidence on which those 'tests' are applied will have changed significantly. National and local policy relevant to those tests will also have materially changed. You cannot automatically assume that as they've been granted permission previously they'll get it again. They will more than likely get permission for an upgrade, the key question is size. Strongly suspect that 18000 capacity may well be resisted. The other key question is cost of 'mitigation', I would hazard a guess that the cost of transport measures would be far, far greater than previous Edited August 9, 2017 by Moor2Sea 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, tompo said: There is a right of appeal if a planning application is refused. The appeal would be heard by a Planning Inspector, unless called in by the Secretary of State. If the Inspector dismisses the appeal a judicial review would only be considered if there is evidence that the decision is unlawful, for example, if the Inspector has failed to take in to account a material consideration. You cannot apply for a judicial review just because you do not agree with a decision. To have planning refused where it was previously granted is as close to automatic right to JR as you're likely to find though. All moot I'm sure, can't imagine they wouldn't get PP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 Just now, tompo said: There is a right of appeal if a planning application is refused. The appeal would be heard by a Planning Inspector, unless called in by the Secretary of State. If the Inspector dismisses the appeal a judicial review would only be considered if there is evidence that the decision is unlawful, for example, if the Inspector has failed to take in to account a material consideration. You cannot apply for a judicial review just because you do not agree with a decision. Yeah true, but the planning inspectors advise on the original decisions so unless the council go against advice you'd expect appeals to be fairly unlikely to succeed. All I'm basically saying is it's not a foregone conclusion that they'd make the same decision now that they did years ago. In a legal decision all that goes into it is law. Two cases should get the same verdict despite being years apart (unless law is changed). In planning, other factors affect it and can do so without policy change. The makeup of the council, prevailing economics, traffic, environment - all these can be assessed differently at a different time without policy necessarily having changed and result in a different decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsi2 Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 The following from gaschat is another winner. "They aren't billionaires because they found their money down the back of the sofa". I will correct this for them "they aren't billionaires and all they found was 20p down their sofa which will now be our rebuild fund". I may be talking out of turn here but I am certain that the Al Quadi family will have studied, planned and sorted out all the possibilities of how the Mem will be developed. They will also know how they will get the best financial return from the new stadium. They aren't billionaires because they found their money down the back of the sofa! Maybe they are keeping their plans close to their chest because it is all part of the big bluff to UWE. I genuinely believe that UWE thought they were dealing with gullible, rich foreigners who UWE would be able to pull the wool over their eyes and basically rip them off. Maybe now they are in a state of panic and Wael announcing alternative plans is just a ruse to make UWE think they are about to miss out on a fantastic opportunity to have A1 facilities on their campsite. With no new stadium they are left with nothing. Yes, maybe they could put houses on the land and make some money that way but that is short sighted and in the long run will not benefit the campus. Build a state of the art stadium with loads of facilities for their students to use for many years is a far better option. I may be wrong but I am not 100% sure that the UWE stadium is dead in the water....yet! The family have been damned good to us and haven't let us down yet and I don't see why they would in the future. Let's be patient and see what happens. In the mean time I am going to carry on with a far more important task and that is to support the Gas no matter where they play.COYB FTG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompo Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, 29AR said: To have planning refused where it was previously granted is as close to automatic right to JR as you're likely to find though. All moot I'm sure, can't imagine they wouldn't get PP. It is possible for planning permission to be refused when previously granted. It is unlikely that the application will be the same and planning policies may have changed since the original decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myol'man Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 14 minutes ago, Redsi2 said: The following from gaschat is another winner. "They aren't billionaires because they found their money down the back of the sofa". I will correct this for them "they aren't billionaires and all they found was 20p down their sofa which will now be our rebuild fund". I may be talking out of turn here but I am certain that the Al Quadi family will have studied, planned and sorted out all the possibilities of how the Mem will be developed. They will also know how they will get the best financial return from the new stadium. They aren't billionaires because they found their money down the back of the sofa! Maybe they are keeping their plans close to their chest because it is all part of the big bluff to UWE. I genuinely believe that UWE thought they were dealing with gullible, rich foreigners who UWE would be able to pull the wool over their eyes and basically rip them off. Maybe now they are in a state of panic and Wael announcing alternative plans is just a ruse to make UWE think they are about to miss out on a fantastic opportunity to have A1 facilities on their campsite. With no new stadium they are left with nothing. Yes, maybe they could put houses on the land and make some money that way but that is short sighted and in the long run will not benefit the campus. Build a state of the art stadium with loads of facilities for their students to use for many years is a far better option. I may be wrong but I am not 100% sure that the UWE stadium is dead in the water....yet! The family have been damned good to us and haven't let us down yet and I don't see why they would in the future. Let's be patient and see what happens. In the mean time I am going to carry on with a far more important task and that is to support the Gas no matter where they play.COYB FTG Why is he signing off with '**** the Gas' ? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 15 minutes ago, Redsi2 said: The following from gaschat is another winner. "They aren't billionaires because they found their money down the back of the sofa". I will correct this for them "they aren't billionaires and all they found was 20p down their sofa which will now be our rebuild fund". I may be talking out of turn here but I am certain that the Al Quadi family will have studied, planned and sorted out all the possibilities of how the Mem will be developed. They will also know how they will get the best financial return from the new stadium. They aren't billionaires because they found their money down the back of the sofa! Maybe they are keeping their plans close to their chest because it is all part of the big bluff to UWE. I genuinely believe that UWE thought they were dealing with gullible, rich foreigners who UWE would be able to pull the wool over their eyes and basically rip them off. Maybe now they are in a state of panic and Wael announcing alternative plans is just a ruse to make UWE think they are about to miss out on a fantastic opportunity to have A1 facilities on their campsite. With no new stadium they are left with nothing. Yes, maybe they could put houses on the land and make some money that way but that is short sighted and in the long run will not benefit the campus. Build a state of the art stadium with loads of facilities for their students to use for many years is a far better option. I may be wrong but I am not 100% sure that the UWE stadium is dead in the water....yet! The family have been damned good to us and haven't let us down yet and I don't see why they would in the future. Let's be patient and see what happens. In the mean time I am going to carry on with a far more important task and that is to support the Gas no matter where they play.COYB FTG I cannot believe some still think they are billionaires, they are thicker than flat earthers. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 15 minutes ago, Redsi2 said: The following from gaschat is another winner. "They aren't billionaires because they found their money down the back of the sofa". I will correct this for them "they aren't billionaires and all they found was 20p down their sofa which will now be our rebuild fund". I may be talking out of turn here but I am certain that the Al Quadi family will have studied, planned and sorted out all the possibilities of how the Mem will be developed. They will also know how they will get the best financial return from the new stadium. They aren't billionaires because they found their money down the back of the sofa! Maybe they are keeping their plans close to their chest because it is all part of the big bluff to UWE. I genuinely believe that UWE thought they were dealing with gullible, rich foreigners who UWE would be able to pull the wool over their eyes and basically rip them off. Maybe now they are in a state of panic and Wael announcing alternative plans is just a ruse to make UWE think they are about to miss out on a fantastic opportunity to have A1 facilities on their campsite. With no new stadium they are left with nothing. Yes, maybe they could put houses on the land and make some money that way but that is short sighted and in the long run will not benefit the campus. Build a state of the art stadium with loads of facilities for their students to use for many years is a far better option. I may be wrong but I am not 100% sure that the UWE stadium is dead in the water....yet! The family have been damned good to us and haven't let us down yet and I don't see why they would in the future. Let's be patient and see what happens. In the mean time I am going to carry on with a far more important task and that is to support the Gas no matter where they play.COYB FTG What a stroker. UWE are very savvy about development, just take a look around the campus - in particular the new Business School and the tech incubator. Very impressive stuff. The stadium would have had little benefit to students, especially when compared to other things that could be built and cheaper too - like more accommodation, swimming pool, cycling track or other sports facilities for actual use of the students. It's pretty clear what happened. Wally wanted to buy the land and build a stadium and a bunch of stuff that would make him money. UWE wanted to lease the land and build the other stuff themselves. Now the sags will have to deal with waiting another five years for Wally to find an excuse not to waste money on the rugby ground and dig up some other mug to fund their lower league shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bert tann Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 18 minutes ago, Redsi2 said: The following from gaschat is another winner. "They aren't billionaires because they found their money down the back of the sofa". I will correct this for them "they aren't billionaires and all they found was 20p down their sofa which will now be our rebuild fund". I may be talking out of turn here but I am certain that the Al Quadi family will have studied, planned and sorted out all the possibilities of how the Mem will be developed. They will also know how they will get the best financial return from the new stadium. They aren't billionaires because they found their money down the back of the sofa! Maybe they are keeping their plans close to their chest because it is all part of the big bluff to UWE. I genuinely believe that UWE thought they were dealing with gullible, rich foreigners who UWE would be able to pull the wool over their eyes and basically rip them off. Maybe now they are in a state of panic and Wael announcing alternative plans is just a ruse to make UWE think they are about to miss out on a fantastic opportunity to have A1 facilities on their campsite. With no new stadium they are left with nothing. Yes, maybe they could put houses on the land and make some money that way but that is short sighted and in the long run will not benefit the campus. Build a state of the art stadium with loads of facilities for their students to use for many years is a far better option. I may be wrong but I am not 100% sure that the UWE stadium is dead in the water....yet! The family have been damned good to us and haven't let us down yet and I don't see why they would in the future. Let's be patient and see what happens. In the mean time I am going to carry on with a far more important task and that is to support the Gas no matter where they play.COYB FTG Well, that's me done. I thought I could raise the odd chuckle on here but I can't compete with a masterpiece like that. 3 1 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted August 9, 2017 Admin Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 1 minute ago, bert tann said: Well, that's me done. I thought I could raise the odd chuckle on here but I can't compete with a masterpiece like that. You do seem to have more than your fair share of window lickers, the ESN teachers in East Bristol must be the busiest in the country...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 39 minutes ago, Redsi2 said: ! The family have been damned good to us and haven't let us down yet Yes ,you don't find new carpets and curtains down the back of a sofa, either !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bianconeri Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) Another belter. What about DS decides to sell its assets - Memorial Ground and Almondsbury Field, and leave its liability - BRFC to rot? This comedy is preventing me from getting any work done. Edited August 9, 2017 by Bianconeri 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pillred Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 4 hours ago, Monkeh said: The only restriction would be the size I think, Like with us when we built the atyeo, they wouldn't be able to chuck up a 2 tiered stand, The most they will be able to build is a 15k all seater possibly 17.5k, that's it and being generous, that's way more than they need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ska Junkie Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 1 hour ago, BCFC11 said: All this talk about planning, JR's etc. They haven't got a pot to piss in Just read a thread on their forum about opening up an old railway station to ease congestion on match days. Guess what? They want the council to pay for it! All these grand ideas are fine but they plain haven't got any money by the look of it so naff all will get done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 http://gaschat.co.uk/thread/10425/wael-interview-tonight-redevelop-plan?page=4 First post on page 4 was spot on ( it's a dump) well it is a tented toilet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pride of the west Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 The delusion of some of them still beggars belief. If Dwayne Sport made a planning application tomorrow to build 50 town houses on the mem, they still wouldn't see it as a problem and think it's all part of the master plan for UWE to give in to their demands. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B block Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, pride of the west said: The delusion of some of them still beggars belief. If Dwayne Sport made a planning application tomorrow to build 50 town houses on the mem, they still wouldn't see it as a problem and think it's all part of the master plan for UWE to give in to their demands. They could ask everyone to pay 50 quid each week for the dwayne sports exit fund and they'd have people queuing up to hand over their cash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 Aren't universities compliant with the FOI act? If so, you would imagine their Fan groups would be trying to get data from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.