Major New Evidence In Stadium Bid?

[Red Cloud]

on radio bris this morning they said city had uncovered major new evidence in it's new stadium bid but didn't say what it was- any ideas?

[Sargent Pepper]

Interesting.... Is today the last day to add to the petition or is it still ongoing?

[phantom]

Interesting.... Is today the last day to add to the petition or is it still ongoing?

Evidence has to be submitted by today

[Red Cloud]

did anyone else hear it or was I still asleep?

[Red]

did anyone else hear it or was I still asleep?

You were awake!

[kachina]

Anyone think they may have been holding back this evidence for a while, so they can produce it today, so the opposition don't have time to do anything about it !

[Barrs Court Red]

Without seeing the actual quote this story is based on, it's hard to say.

[SC_Red]

Anyone think they may have been holding back this evidence for a while, so they can produce it today, so the opposition don't have time to do anything about it !

yes.

[Riaz]

Anyone think they may have been holding back this evidence for a while, so they can produce it today, so the opposition don't have time to do anything about it !

now that would be clever!

[eskay]

Could it be the Environment Agency dates for when the landfill was closed?

[Avalonred]

Could it be the Environment Agency dates for when the landfill was closed?

I think that's very likely, it showed '91 if I remember correctly, which makes it less than 20 years..... blowing their VG/TG out of the water

[Sargent Pepper]

So when are we gonna be told about this?

[Guest]

Anyone think they may have been holding back this evidence for a while, so they can produce it today, so the opposition don't have time to do anything about it !

But each party get 3 weeks to look at each others evidence after today's submission date.

[chipdawg]

I think that's very likely, it showed '91 if I remember correctly, which makes it less than 20 years..... blowing their VG/TG out of the water

It actually depends on precisely which bit of the site though. The landfill seem to have existed in a series of phases and several of the wml's for these were surrendered prior to 1990. In order for the permits to be surrendered on a landfill it has to have been 'restored' to whatever use was declared when the process began and this is probably worth investigating with the council as they will have granted the license in the first place. Surely they only have to prove a tiny part of the site had this use to get their town green? I still think we'll force it through but i wouldn't be counting any chickens just yet

[Dolman Block B]

But each party get 3 weeks to look at each others evidence after today's submission date.

Didnt know that tbh.

[Blagdon red]

But each party get 3 weeks to look at each others evidence after today's submission date.

Yes, as I understand it, following submission of any new evidence from both parties today, they then each have until the end of the month to forward any comments they wish to make on each other's submissions. After that the council will set a date for deciding what to do next based on these submissions. That may be in December or may drift into next year.

As far as the petition is concerned, that is still going ... no point in stopping it until just before the council are due to make their decision.

[Sargent Pepper]

Ok then, do we know if the evidence submitted will be made public or will only come out after the three weeks are up?

[Barrs Court Red]

I could be wrong, but I think if it's proven there is actually a right of way across the site, it means that the site doesn't meet the critera needed to qualify for a town green any more, as access has always been available?

[Matty-H]

Effing process of democracy in this country is utterly mind numbing at times. You can never see a finish line because there's always countless weeks of leeway for appeal everytime anyone submits anything. Then it's appealed and then the whole process starts again ZzzZZzzzzzZzzz

[Abraham Romanovich]

I could be wrong, but I think if it's proven there is actually a right of way across the site, it means that the site doesn't meet the critera needed to qualify for a town green any more, as access has always been available?

.

I'm no expert as anyone who has read previous postings will verify but I thought right of way was sacrosanct (once in place couldn't be undone)

Just get this picture in my head, of a few members of the Ramblers Association trudging across the pitch holding up play during a match .

[Slave to the rhythm]

Just get this picture in my head, of a few members of the Ramblers Association trudging across the pitch holding up play during a match .

Otherwise known as Nicky Hunt and Damien Stewart!

[Barrs Court Red]

You can apply to have a right of way moved.

[Andy082005]

Otherwise known as Nicky Hunt and Damien Stewart!

[The Gasbuster]

Otherwise known as Nicky Hunt and Damien Stewart!

Pure Quality !!

[Abraham Romanovich]

Otherwise known as Nicky Hunt and Damien Stewart!

This is what gets my goat.

A serious and well researched thread ruined by that pesky Venus chap and his glib comedy jibes.

Anyway made me laugh

[The Red Planet]

I heard that report on RB this morning. It will be interesting to see what the club have come up with.

In that same report they mentioned that the decision will be made by the Highways and Byways committee (or whatever they are called) but I thought this had been upgraded to be considered by a full council meeting.

Anyone know the truth ?

[Ashton1]

[CodeRed]

I heard that report on RB this morning. It will be interesting to see what the club have come up with.

In that same report they mentioned that the decision will be made by the Highways and Byways committee (or whatever they are called) but I thought this had been upgraded to be considered by a full council meeting.

Anyone know the truth ?

I don't see what the club can come up with - other than statements from other residents (past or present) saying that the land was not used by others.

Then it's one groups word versus another groups word.

I read (skim read) the report and it's very comprehensive, a few hundred pages, the inspector was very thorough, she dismissed a lot of "evidence" put forward by the residents BUT came to the conclusion that - based on the law as it stands - sufficient people had used the land for recreational purposes as defined by the law.

The problem is not the Inspector - It's the law itself - it's very vague and has been clarifed and defined by various test cases in court.

Undoubtedly a (very) small number of locals have used the land at various times - and I believe it will be difficult to prove that those who made statements did not use the land as much as they claimed. The law states "Sport and Recreation" but the test cases have upheld that "Sport" can be informal ie 3 kids kicking a ball about, and "recreation" can be as simple as a few dog walkers or blackberry pickers.

The report does address the issue of the Tip and the dates used for this purpose but my interpretation of what she said was that because other parts of the site (ie not the Tip field) were continuosly in use by residents (again - as stated in their written statements) during the period it was a tip and because they residents (again - according to them) used the tip after it was grassed over" then - according to the law - it can still qualify as a green.

I think the clubs approach has been to put overwhelming pressure on the Council to overrule the report, and not to try to win by getting the Inspector to change the report as they don't believe this is likely to happen on the evidence (such as it is)

I believe they are trying - without much hope- of finding contrary "evidence" and trying to be seen to work the process but - as I observe the main focus is to put so much pressure on the council that they dare not comply with the report. Hence the petition, the high profile campaign to get prominent people in sport and business to back the stadium, The ITV Poll , World Cup, jobs etc & to create a situatiuon where the full council (ie the council elected by the people of Bristol) will not dare to refuse something that the majority of Bristolians (the people who the council were elected to serve) appear to want. .

The Rights of Way & Byways committee could in theory take the decision but they will undoubtedly defer to the whole council to decide as the implications are so far reaching.

The council will (in my personal opinion) refuse to designate the site a Village Green although they might agree to make a small part of the land a Village Green to

undermine some of the locals case in preparation for when the whole thing moves on again to the inevitable appeal.

CR

[Ark at ee]

If the City Council does not register the land as Village Green, and the locals set about mounting an appeal, do they stand to lose out in any way (financially?) if they do not succeed? It seems to me that the ability to launch applications for Village Green status is quite simple, but there should be penalties attached to it IF if has been done just to try to hold up an otherwise legitimate scheme just because they don't agree with it.

So I suppose I am asking - if they appeal and lose, shouldn't they be culpable for wasting so much time and money?

It seems wrong to be able to start things like this off with no come back at all.

[Slave to the rhythm]

If the City Council does not register the land as Village Green, and the locals set about mounting an appeal, do they stand to lose out in any way (financially?) if they do not succeed? It seems to me that the ability to launch applications for Village Green status is quite simple, but there should be penalties attached to it IF if has been done just to try to hold up an otherwise legitimate scheme just because they don't agree with it.

So I suppose I am asking - if they appeal and lose, shouldn't they be culpable for wasting so much time and money?

It seems wrong to be able to start things like this off with no come back at all.

At the risk of getting my head bitten off, I don't think that it's wrong in principle for ordinary people to be able to use the law to their advantage. The wealthy do it all the time.

We cannot have the situation where only the wealthy are able to use the laws of the land to suit their own aims.

I know everybody is p*ssed off about the 22 dog walkers potentially scuppering the new stadium, but it's an important principle that the 22 dog walkers had a law that they could turn to. One day, we may all be glad that laws such as this one exist.