EmersonsKev Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 It looks like the council have been very silly with the choices that will cost BCC payers a bit of cash should City and Sainsburys appeal the decision. Council to lose in opinion of leading planning expert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Gow Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 I have a much more positive feeling about this than i did two weeks ago, i think we will get our stadium in the end, but would have loved to see the groundworkers there now. Well Rome was'nt built in a day as they say. Anyone have anymore news about the village green thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Sainsburys will appeal and win. Then the pathetic councillors can say they tried to stop it but were over ruled. That way they keep there good relationships with Ferguson and the stadium gets built. I hope they enjoy there last couple of years as councillors because they'll never be voted in again. We have a wealthy local man trying to invest millions in south Bristol to give the city something to be proud of and take it forewards and the ***** have said no thanks despite qualified officers who spent months going through it all saying it should be approved. Its an outrage really and I hope every right minded voter remembers this at the next elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Sainsburys will appeal and win. Then the pathetic councillors can say they tried to stop it but were over ruled. That way they keep there good relationships with Ferguson and the stadium gets built. We have a wealthy local man trying to invest millions in south Bristol to give the city something to be proud of and take it forewards and the ***** have said no thanks despite qualified officers who spent months going through it all saying it should be approved. Its an outrage really and I hope every right minded voter remembers this at the next elections. Well said. It was truly pathetic and ill-judged for them to turn it down in the first place. All they have achieved is to delay the whole process by at least 9 months. Shame the emoticon with the chef flipping a pancake is no longer available. It would have been perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 He's an Orr! Well done to Mike Orr for highlighting our plight and also to the EP( didnt think id ever be saying that again) for continuing to run headlines on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Nice to see Charly Bolton missing the point. Shock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Well said. It was truly pathetic and ill-judged for them to turn it down in the first place. All they have achieved is to delay the whole process by at least 9 months. Shame the emoticon with the chef flipping a pancake is no longer available. It would have been perfect. I live in South Glos, so it won't make a difference to my tax, but IF I lived in Bristol I'd be well and truly annoyed that the councillors has cost me money based on a "save face" decision rather than a law abiding decision. First off it's expenses and now it's pointless appeal's, they should be held accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numbeast Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 People say about the investment SL is making for South Bristol, the NIMBY's turn on anyone from outside BS3 if they supporrt the plans and this annoys me. Yes Sainsbury's will cater for Ashton Bedminster and Long Ashton but the Stadium will benefit ALL of Bristol even those of a Gas persuasion if we attract huge International bands and singers and should an arena also get built alongside our new home then the music loving inhabitants of the Greater Bristol area as well as those from Gloucesteshire and Somerset will have the chance to see bands solo artists and commedians that, at present, give the area a wide berth due to the small capacity of our concert venues such as the Hippodrome and the Colston Hall. This issue isn't just a South Bristol issue but affects the whole of the city as well as several other Counties. Rant over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 I want more details on how £20m+ towards a £90m project was considered insignificant by councillors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City Chuds Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 People say about the investment SL is making for South Bristol, the NIMBY's turn on anyone from outside BS3 if they supporrt the plans and this annoys me. Yes Sainsbury's will cater for Ashton Bedminster and Long Ashton but the Stadium will benefit ALL of Bristol even those of a Gas persuasion if we attract huge International bands and singers and should an arena also get built alongside our new home then the music loving inhabitants of the Greater Bristol area as well as those from Gloucesteshire and Somerset will have the chance to see bands solo artists and commedians that, at present, give the area a wide berth due to the small capacity of our concert venues such as the Hippodrome and the Colston Hall. This issue isn't just a South Bristol issue but affects the whole of the city as well as several other Counties. Rant over The daft thing about this whole issue is ( i may be wrong but I dont think I am) that the vast majority of people do want this (maybe even some gas) as they can see what a huge benefit this would be to our city outside of it just being the BCFC ground. This is what makes it even more madening that these councilors were not speaking for the greater good or majority but more the cool minority. I personally believe the council has a problem with Lord Lansdown as that stupid woman (Janke was it) said in her newspaper comment afterwards submitting to the will of the football club and its wealthy chairman that sounds like bitterness towards our chairman to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numbeast Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 I want more details on how £20m+ towards a £90m project was considered insignificant by councillors. I think what they are saying is the club will raise money out of the sale of AG (£5m to £15m depending on who you listen to) then they look at Steve Lansdowns ranking in the Sunday Times Rich List and forget that most of his wealth is tied up in Hargreaves Lansdown so he is only worth that amount on paper until he sells up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 I think what they are saying is the club will raise money out of the sale of AG (£5m to £15m depending on who you listen to) then they look at Steve Lansdowns ranking in the Sunday Times Rich List and forget that most of his wealth is tied up in Hargreaves Lansdown so he is only worth that amount on paper until he sells up. yeah. The minutes said they had taken legal advice and thats why they decided it was insignificant. i have seen no details of this legal advice but if it says "Lansdowns rich, he can pay for it himself" then thats ridiculous. He is 1 shareholder among 3000 and the club would be paying him back for years to come - beyond his lifetime and his sons lifetime I imagine. maybe I should take 20% of my council tax and put in a letter saying I didnt consider it significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 I want more details on how £20m+ towards a £90m project was considered insignificant by councillors. Judging by what Steve said yesterday, we can still build a stadium without the sale but not the planned one. It will have to be more bog-standard and more significantly we would not be in a position to expand it to 40k capacity. So down goes the World Cup bid. In effect they are saying that Steve should pay the additional cost himself. So at one and the same time they abuse him then expect him to be their benefactor. No doubt if we got the World Cup they would try to bask in reflected glory. I have more contempt for them with each passing day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Sainsburys will appeal and win. Then the pathetic councillors can say they tried to stop it but were over ruled. That way they keep there good relationships with Ferguson and the stadium gets built. spot on, i guess that will be the outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oops Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Mr Orr said: "The fundamental point is that councillors normally disagree with planning officers on grounds of policy, but this time they have chosen to differ on matters of professional engineering and highway discipline, which is very precise and mathematical."The applicants (Sainsbury's), the council's consultants and highway officers are all agreed that this has been done properly and Sainsbury's is putting forward very substantial amounts by way of mitigation. "This makes the council's job of defending the refusal extremely difficult." Hmmm.... Call me an old cynic but do I detect the sound of palms being greased? I can't help but think that someone's going to come out of this with a nice retirement villa on the Costa Brava. "Methinks the Coucil doth protest too much" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chappers Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 It suggests that there were either some slighly iffy dealings, or the Four Stooges are utterly inept. Either way, it does not present them in a good light. Perhaps Janke might like to comment on this after her holiday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 He said the company had "bent over backwards" to do what it could to reduce this dependency and one of the ways to achieve this was by taking a "sensible approach" to providing less than the maximum car parking spaces (745 spaces instead of 918) it could have accommodated but more than the minimum cycle spaces (64) required. Seems to me that the council is extremely naive to think big shoppers will come in their droves in anything other than a car. So why on earth restrict the car park size?.. just storing up a an overflow problem sooner rather than later. You'll have cars packing the streets. How short sighted can they be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 How short sighted can they be? VERY Because of a handfull of middle aged men having a midlife crisis and cycling, the council thinks ery shold lower themselves o lycra and stop using the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.